It will NEVER Happen

Better think again

Published on October 5, 2005 By Dr Guy In Current Events

For many people, the issue of gay marriages/civil Unions is a hot Button topic. Most of the arguements against here, at least on JU, have centered around the point of 'Opening the Flood Gates". And many have used extreme cases (in what first appears to be extreme cases) to make that point. Some of the arguements against gay marriages have included the issue of "Today Gay, tomorrow Pedophiles" Or "Tomorrow NAMBLA" or even "Tomorrow Bigamists".

But wait! Tomorrow is September 23, 2005! Yes, for you see, The Netherlands has allowed the first polygamy Civil Union under what is arguably the most liberal marriage laws in the world!

Now those arguments against gay marriage dont seem to extreme after all do they?

And I am sure the next case will be tried here in the US. My only question on the case when it hits the SCOTUS is can Ruth "Buzzi" Ginzberg convince 4 of her collegues to go along with her stance that the US must follow International law when the Constitution does not specifically address an issue.

Comments (Page 1)

foreverserenity

on Oct 05, 2005

I'm pretty open-minded but this takes the cake!

ParaTed2k

on Oct 05, 2005

Well, there were folks who defended Washington State's legalized Beastiality... so I don't say "too far" anymore.

Dr Guy

on Oct 05, 2005

I'm pretty open-minded but this takes the cake!

I guess next is the Primer - Heather has Two Mommies and a Daddy!

Dr Guy

on Oct 05, 2005

Well, there were folks who defended Washington State's legalized Beastiality... so I don't say "too far" anymore.

When reading about this, I was reminded of your arguements on Pedophelia. As I recall, while I did not argue against you on it, I was thinking "Maybe a bit extreme". I am not thinking that any longer.

Pam Johnson

on Oct 05, 2005

Being Mormon seems to be back in style.

Pam

Dr Guy

on Oct 05, 2005

Being Mormon seems to be back in style.

Pam

Yea, forget Utah! Head for Holland!

Chakgogka

on Oct 05, 2005

There may be good arguments against gay marriage, but I still maintain that "opening the floodgates" and the "slippery slope" is not one of them. The problem with the slippery slope argument is that it fails to recognise that we can always choose where to draw the line. When women's suffrage was being fought for, some opponents actually claimed that if women were given the vote, we'd have to give it to children too. Well, a few generations later woman can vote, but children still can't. We made a change and then drew a line. It happens all the time.

Moderateman

on Oct 05, 2005

wow my dreams have come true, now I can marry that pretty flamingo I been lusting after so long.

ParaTed2k

on Oct 05, 2005

Yes, there were probably those who made that argument, and "slippery slope" is one of the logical fallacies. However, no argument is a fallacy once a track record is established... which as we've seen has been happening already.

Interestingly enough though, the Polygamist territory of Utah (Deseret as it was called then) had already recognized a woman's right to vote. Along with practicing polygamy, women's suffrage was one of the prices paid for statehood.

Chakgogka

on Oct 06, 2005

I'm almost ready to advocate for gay marriage just to get them to STFU about it already.

I wonder how many 'reforms' have actually come about that way!

drmiler

on Oct 06, 2005

I'm almost ready to advocate for gay marriage just to get them to STFU about it already.

I wonder how many 'reforms' have actually come about that way!

I think we would "ALL" be surprised at "that" number.

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

We made a change and then drew a line. It happens all the time.

Yes, a line can be drawn. But as this shows, the line keeps getting redrawn and redrawn.

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

wow my dreams have come true, now I can marry that pretty flamingo I been lusting after so long.

You got enough ladies here on JU lusting after you, randy old man!

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

Along with practicing polygamy, women's suffrage was one of the prices paid for statehood.

But not in Wyoming. Curious as to how one state had to junk it but another was allowed to keep it.

Dr Guy

on Oct 12, 2005

Marry your dog for all I care, there are more important things to worry about.

I already divorced her.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!