Two consenting adults in love should have the same right to the civic recognition of their union, whether the couple are two men or a man and a woman. The incest/polygamy/man-dog/NAMBLA marriage scenarios that anti-gay marriage advocates push around only reveal more of the inherent biogotry and fear that stokes the entire backlash. Many of these slipery slope arguments depend entirely on equating normal, natural loving relationships to relationaships that are indeed actually harmful, such as the gentic dangers of incest. Of course society has a responsibility to place limits and restrictions on marriage but those limits and restrictions cannot discriminate against based on the intrinsic qualities of a human being. If someone falls in love with a minor, the restriction on their union isn’t discriminatory in the same way that a ban on gay marriage is because age is not intrinsic to who a person is: We all get older. If someone only wants to marry 14 year-olds, well, that isn’t a lifetime commitment, which ideally marriage is and should be, so the state has no reason to recognize it as marriage. You see changing the definition of marriage from a lifetime union to a temporary union, would indeed, be changing the definition of marriage. Simply allowing two men to marry doesn’t change the fundamental that marriage is a lifelong loving committment. As to the polygamy issue, limiting the number of people who can enter into a legally recognized union is different from limiting the KINDS of people who can enter that relationship based solely on who they are intrinsically as human beings. It should be noted, that the same slippery slope arguments were mobilized against campaigns to overturn laws banning interracial marriage. Would anti-gay marriage supporters like to extend their slippery slope arguments in the opposite direction to suggest that legalizing interracial marriage has only led to gay marriage, and so should never have been allowed? Indeed, the same arguments might have been made against extending the vote to women and people of color: “Before you know it felons will be allowed to vote or pigs or non-citizens!”

Look, since the whole gay marriage issue came to the fore a few years ago, I’ve had the honor of attending six weddings, all hetero. The legalization of gay marriage will not, in the slightest, impact the desire and committment of heterosexuals to get married and have kids. But I’ve sat with gay couples at several of those weddings who had to look on knowing that they can’t experience the same joy simply because they are gay. It’s heartbreaking. I would suggest that rather than spending all your time comparing gay relationships to bestiality or incest, you try to get to know a few gay people yourselves. Then tell me you think gay marriage is evil.

Anti – gay marriage argument here

http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/UST_fall2004.pdf

Same – sex marriage poll

http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.2005opinionupdate.pdf

I realize that the use of the adjectives “reasonable” and “rational” is a convenient escape hatch that allows you to describe any argument any argument as ‘irrational’ and ‘unreasonable’.

But I direct you to to [a .pdf document] this argument.

http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.2005opinionupdate.pdf

Yup. So is the ADL link I posted.

As for the rest of your nonsense about mailing lists, I really can’t comment on what is a pretty asinine conclusion on your part. Are you really trying to suggest people on a David Duke mailing list disagree with his views?

Their are a bunch of restrictions on who can and cannot get married and to who they can get married to, all of which have withstood constitutional scrutiny. I think any judge or court that rules marriage is a protected constitutional right is going to open up Pandora’s box.

Wrong? Are you denying that Duke was elected to the Louisiana State Legislature as a Democrat?

As for the “mailing list”, Flanagan offers up no context. They did not buy access to a mailing list with the names and addresses of a bunch of KKK members as he implies. (Remember, it was JayT that said the Klan was dying and Jade responds with nonsense about buying Duke’s mailing list to make it appear as though they’re trying to keep the Klan alive and well). Of course, with Jade giving us the details, he rips his own asinine accusation to shreds as these lists were rented TEN and EIGHT years ago. Yeah Jade, they’ve done a bang up job since then! 14 losers in sheets showing up at the rally. The Klan is alive baby! Also, Flanagan is being dishonest when he says ‘The Family Research Council’ rented the list. Perkins was working on the Senate campaign of Woody Jenkins at the time, so it is dishonest (but that’s Jade’s MO) to say they purchased it when Perkins didn’t join the FRC until 2003.

Besides, the mailing lists in question were lists of close to EIGHTY THOUSAND conservative voters. Was it stupid? Of course. Connecting yourself in any way to a slug like Duke is just dumb. Of course, one would think that if the mailing list were made up of Klan members, they’d be able to send a few more than 14 members across the border into Texas to denounce gay marriage.

I should also note that the Klan s position on gay marriage is identical to the GOPs.

We’re playing this game, are we? If you insist…

I should also note that Al Qaida’s position on Iraq is identical to Oliver’s.

When you stand with Cindy Sheehan, you stand with David Duke.

‘Nuff said?

J.

But they’re not doing so for the same reasons. The reasons they support things pretty much always is repulsive to the left. (I suppose if they took a favorable position on chocolate pudding, we could agree on principle).

That’s not the necessarily the case with the Republican party vs. the KKK position.

And yes, Cindy did specifically say she wants nothing to do with those StormFront and KKK jackholes that came out to “support” her. JayTea, you’re a big freaking liar or else you don’t know how to use Google.

When you stand against gay marriage, you’re standing with the Klan

When you stand against the Iraq War, you’re standing with the Klan.

When you stand against Israeli bulldozers, you’re standing with the Klan.

I could go on and on. Why don’t we cut out this crap?

What other rights would you like the Klan to decide for us?

So people should oppose EVERY political position supported by them, right?

You’re basic position on gay marriage is that while you support the right of gays to marry you would rather it was made legal through legislation rather so-called judicial fiat. The last time I checked basic human rights were not something one group doled out to another. My right to marry, just like my right to free speech, should not be dependent on whether or not the majority deems me worthy of having them. That is, I believe, fundamentally opposed to the principles on which this nation was foundation. There are certain inalienable rights that should not be subject to the whims of the electorate and one of them is the right to happiness, or at least, the ability to pursue it. It is simply ludicrous to suggest that gays have to convince a majority of the electorate that they are human beings entitled to the full rights of human beings before they can marry. You may think the Klan is pulling a dumbass stunt by latching on to the gay marriage issue but your own line of thinking gives the Klan a valid say in whether or not two people in love can join together in marriage. What other rights would you like the Klan to decide for us? What if the Klan waged a successful campaign to get pro-segregation legislation passed in some backwards ass state? Would you support that? Of course you’d have to waffle around about how well, you support civil rights but the people did vote so blah, blah … Gimme a break.

Support our troops& bring them home!

Uh oh.

Bzzzt. Jay C. Wrong Again:

Running as a Republican, Duke won a Louisiana State Legislature seat in January 1989, despite scrutiny and opposition from national Republican leaders. While in office, he continued to sell neo-Nazi literature.

More from the factually-challenged Jay C:

The story about the  GOP paying for David Duke s mailing list another in a long list of Jade  Tommy Flanagan Gold s half-truths or flat out lies. I m not going to bother with the details,

No, Jay C won’t bother with the facts.

In 1995, Mike Foster–running as the GOP candidate for Governor of LA–paid Duke $150,000 for his mailing list. In 1997, Foster–the incumbent Gov of LA–paid again for Duke’s mailing list.

In 1996, Tony Perkins–head honcho of the pro-GOP Family Research Council–paid Duke $82,500 for the mailing list.

Why do you think that is Jay?