NAACP Endorses Marriage Equality

BREAKING: NAACP Endorses Marriage Equality | ThinkProgress

Looks like NOM's "drive a wedge between blacks and gays" strategy is starting to fall apart.

 

No, they don't. Let me know when they support people marrying as many others as they want. Until then, I will note their bigotry. I guess some bigotry is OK though, right?

 

I thought they did this a few weeks back after the NOM debacle.

 

Equalizing marriage laws so that any two people can enter into a marriage contract does not mean you have to legalize polygamy or incestual relationships or marrying animals or inanimate objects.

 

I am not trying to be (*)(*)(*)(*)ty here, but...why not polygamy or incest if its two consenting adults? If all parties are consenting what's your problem with it? If marriage is being entirely redefined as just people loving each other...what does it matter? I'm serious. My opinion on marriage lately is based off of the people I meet that were forced into it. If it's not forced, if it is consensual... who are you and I to say no? The ancients married their relatives and look at the things they accomplished. The Mormons were polygamous for awhile and created a stable and thriving religion.

If we redefine it...let's redefine it.

 

Because that has nothing to do with marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Next.

 

Hahahahahaha. That exchange, my friends, was priceless. Well done, Zosiasmom. Tough to care about bigots calling people bigots.

 

I don't know if I do or don't have a problem with those other types of "marriages", I was just pointing out those those issues are separate debates because they mean changing more than just the gender requirements of the two people who can enter into a marriage contract.

 

Why though? I watched that Sister Wives show and it changed my entire attitude. Why can't people marry more than one person? I'm supporting gay marriage. I voted "yes" in my state. I also happen to think if we're redefining it, let's go hard or go home. Those kids in sister wives are all siblings. Why isn't that a family?

 

Then go advocate for that issue. Bringing it up in the context of the same-sex marriage equality fight is nonsensical.

 

I was arguing for it too, just to get the issue over with. But not anymore. If it is ok for gays to be bigots, than it should be ok for straights to be bigots.

 

So?

It is not a separate debate. There is a large group of people--pretty much half, who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman for reasons having to do with procreation. They're not happy anyway, so why not just "do it".

If we change marriage to mean between "consenting" adults instead of "two consenting adults" its not that difficult, in fact...it's less words.

Look, I'm not playing a "gotcha". I'm just saying if we are really, truly going to change the definition to one that tosses tradition in favor of equality for all, then let's be equal to all. I used to think Mormon polygamists were misogynists, I hated Big Love and then got hooked on that stupid Sister Wives and now...I think that families are whatever you make of them and those families need protection, too.

 

Someone brought it up on this thread. I was not speaking to you. However, the principle is the same. I'm not pulling a "gotcha". I really think polygamists and others should have this right. I met this guy who was married in a wiccan ceremony to a man and a woman. The woman was also married to a woman, but she was not married to his husband. When I was arguing in favor of gay marriage and saying the same things you are, he explained to me that he made a lifelong commitment, he pays taxes, etc. All of your arguments, he has. In fact, he also has a first amendment argument.

Instead of a piecemeal approach, let's just revise it to mean "consenting adults". How is that not at all fair?

 

I loike the homo idea of equality for them but screw every other poor love struck person longing to marry their brain dead sister that doesn't seem to oppose the idea, the hard working Iranian farm hand who would like to make his relationship with his favorite goat socially acceptable, the swamp man who isn't wrestling alligators for the bits and scratches,, etc. Perversion is perversion so why not just let all perverts have their way if we are going to allow one group to marry??

 

Who said anything about legalizing incest or marrying animals?

You are just as much of a bigot as those you claim you oppose. I find your dishonesty and bigotry absolutely disgusting.

 

Humans are different than pets and until such time as we can ask a pet if they want to marry someone this is just a mean way of saying that gays and lesbians are not in love, not fighting to be a family, and not sharing basic human needs. Calling it a perversion hurts people's feelings and it's just not appropriate or nice. Until they're luring you with candy bars and clown makeup, I don't see how you can make this argument.

 

Incest is illegal because a sister and brother having sex will likely lead to a child with genetic problems. Though now that you mention it, go ahead and legalize homosexual incest if that's what you are into, I don't care.

Polygamy is fine as long it involves all fully consenting parties, not like the Mormon cult where you had one old man marrying dozens of 12 year old girls and treating them as property.

Animals cannot consent, so no, you can't marry them, sorry Iron.

None of these have anything to do with same-sex marriage equality, however

Sexual orientation is an innate characteristic of human beings, and heterosexuals and homosexuals are entitled to the same rights. Polygamous or incestual are not sexual orientations.

 

I understand that a lot of people bring this stuff up as a "slippery slope" or to pull a gotcha, but on principle I don't think this is about sexual orientation. Or else then we have to add pedos in because that is an orientation that is NOT heterosexual or homosexual.

To the bigots, I said that pedophilia is its own orientation that is NOT homosexual.

Back to my point, if we are redefining it as a "loving commitment", as opposed to a "contractual obligation for the purpose of procreation", then we should be inclusive of all families. My aunt was asexual due to childhood sexual trauma and married a gay male because he did not want the family that hated him to get his money when he died. Were they in love? No, but they were some kind of family. Certainly they were devoted to the other.

The government should not be in the business of defining or approving of something as deeply personal as love or family.

I want you to be free to marry and spend your life with whomever brings you joy. I want that for other people, too.

 

Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation; it is a mental illness. And moreover, it involves a non-consenting party which makes pedophiliac acts rape.

And yes, this is about sexual orientation. Everyone has one. Right now only heterosexuals can get married in 42 states. Nobody is born with a "polygamous" or "incestual" sexual orientation.

 

Why is it about sexual orientation? Why are we defining it as that, why not just...consenting adults. That leaves out pedos, dogs,etc. and validates a lot of families who have gone without these protections.

 

Excellent comments. However the problem is that many liberals see polygamy as a Mormon issue. These liberals hate Mormons, especially this year with Romney running. Getting them to let go of that bigotry will be impossible.

 

Because sexual orientation and sex are innate characteristics for which people are being discriminated against.

Bringing out "pedos, dogs, etc." is so absurd I'm not even going to dignify that with further comment.

 

Why the distinction? Why two?

Please, please, say something about tradition.

 

Now you're equating polygamy with bestiality and pedophilia? And you can't see that you're every bit the bigot you cliam to be against- and more?

I find your hypocrisy absolutely DISGUSTING.

 

Nope, I didn't do that. Learn how to read, please.

I find your stupidity absolutely DISGUSTING.