It's that silly "slippery slope" argument.
ie:
-- Pot is a gateway drug
-- If we lose South Vietnam to the North, soon all of Southeast Asia
will be Communist.
One fine night they leave the pool hall/
Headin' for the dance at the Armory/
Libertine men and scarlet women and ragtime/
Shameless music that'll grab your son your daughter/
Into the arms of a jungle animal instinct- massteria!/
Friends the idle brain is the devil's playground!"
or something like that...
will
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Who exactly do you see lobbying for "any group of people" for marriage?
>
> Is it the same group of people advocating "any two people"?
>
> Do you see these as different groups, or do you lump them all mentally
> into an "other" category?
>
> My understanding is that most groups who promote/practice polygamy are
> heterosexual. No "funny stuff" going on there.
>
> Would you be for polygamy if it were heterosexual (think Mormon)? If
> it were always 1 man and multiple wives?
>
> Why do you assume the third option must follow the second option?
> Couldn't we skip right over 2 and go directly to 3?
>
> Just wondering
> Jerry Johnson
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/18/03 02:56PM >>>
> Because same-sex marriage advocates want to modify the definition of
> marriage.
>
> First defintion: one man, one woman
> Second: any two people
> Third: any group of people
>
> - Matt Small
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: BethF
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:02 PM
> Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News
>
> I just wanted to know how same sex marriage is related to
> polygamy? You haven't answered.
>
> I personally dont' understand polygamy, but I don't care. If it
> makes people happy....
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Matthew Small
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:03 AM
> Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News
>
> On this point, if two people want to have a committed, loving
> relationship, why can't three? Why not ten? Where does the number
> two come from? Tradition? Society? You're insinuating that polygamy
> is wrong.
>
> It sounds like now we're pushing past your comfortable area. I
> happen to think marriage is between a man and a woman. You (I'm
> inferring from the message) think it's between any two
> people. Somebody else might recognize it between six people. Where
> does it end?
>
> - Matt Small
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: BethF
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News
>
> Where does the logic that same-sex marriage logically leads to
> polygamy?
>
> Homosexual people also have families. They have children, and
> partners, just like you do. How does it being recognized as a legal
> contract hurt traditional marriage?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Matthew Small
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 7:35 AM
> Subject: Re: CNN Breaking News
>
> I don't think I agree with you - the basic precept of marriage
> is to create a family structure, and swinging violates that precept
> since it introduces an outsider into the structure. The family
> structure is central to ours and most societies, which is why there is
> a push for same sex marriages by homosexual couples. Why get married
> if you want to include others? Only for the licensing, as Jim
> Campbell tells me. I guess the next logical step for the court to take
> is to allow marriages of three or more people - and it will happen.
>
> - Matt Small
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Heald, Tim
> To: CF-Community
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:02 AM
> Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
>
> Realistically adultery is a religious construct. You look
> at the various
> polyamory movements and swingers and so forth and see groups
> that don't
> believe in monogamy, and they are perfectly happy with their
> choice. Now
> obviously you need to look at it kind of like contract law
> too I guess. If
> you agree to monogamy during your vows you should be somehow
> bound, but
> altering the vows to allow extra marital relations should
> certainly be
> allowed. The military has some very out dated laws
> regarding sexuality
> still. Sodomy of any kind, even when consent is given, is
> prohibited.
> That's just silly in this day and age.
>
> Tim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:58 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
>
> I was just thinking the same thing...
>
> Obviously, adultery has no consistent meaning in a legal
> sense and all
> definitions of it should be thrown out until something that
> works can be
> discovered. This should apply to religious institutions as well.
>
> Should mean Erika is released from any monogomous
> obligations she
> previously felt bound by, Gel.
>
> M
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:51 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
>
> So let me get this right...
>
> In Massachusetts, same-sex marriages are ok
>
> But in New Hampshire, if you are married and have an affair
> with someone
> of
> the same sex, it is not adultery.
>
> _____
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
