Asjc #fundie

Asjc #fundie ireport.com

I am an atheist. I voted for prop 8. I don't believe in god, but I believe in reason. Gay marriage sets our society on a slippery slope toward polygamy, incest and anything-goes. Show me one argument that justifies gay marriage but not gay marriage.

Equal protection? Why don't three or four people deserve the same equal protection as two? People in loving relationships? Worldwide and in parts of US, there are many polygamist families that are loving and fruitful. Also if gay marriage goes, so goes our deeprooted taboo against incest. What is the legal argument for prohibiting incest between two people that will not produce anything?

82 comments

old comment by Horsefeathers

"I am an atheist. I voted for prop 8. I don't believe in god, but I believe in reason. Gay marriage sets our society on a slippery slope toward polygamy, incest and anything-goes."

Your "reason" is faulty.

"Show me one argument that justifies gay marriage but not gay marriage."

Well now, if that isn't nonsense...

"Equal protection? Why don't three or four people deserve the same equal protection as two? People in loving relationships?"

My opinion is property and tax laws and nothing more. I can see no other reason off the top of my head that more than two people couldn't be married together.

"Worldwide and in parts of US, there are many polygamist families that are loving and fruitful."

And I don't personally have any problem with it because it's none of my fucking business.

"Also if gay marriage goes, so goes our deeprooted taboo against incest."

A =/= B, jackass.

I thought you believed in reason.

"What is the legal argument for prohibiting incest between two people that will not produce anything?"

What does this have to do with gay marriage?

old comment by Wehpudicabok

Hey, Asjc. Tell me this. Why should the government prohibit something that harms no one? Where's the reasoning behind that? You may be an atheist (or you may be a liar), but you certainly don't think straight about this.

If I had lived in California I would have vehemently voted against Prop 8.

And to those who point out that polygamy is not an orientation: technically true, but I don't see how that should make it illegal. The only reasonable argument I can think of against plural marriages is that groups might choose to marry for tax reasons when they don't actually love each other. I don't know if that would be possible; depends on marriage laws, probably. But there's nothing inherently wrong with polygamy. As we often say to the anti-gay crowd, "it's icky" doesn't count as a valid argument.

old comment by myheadhurts

Polygamy: actually I have no solid opinion at this time. The frequency of marriage and divorce can lead to a polygamy type situation with multiple spouses and children all demanding financial slices. So I've yet to come across a really good argument against polygamy.

Incest: if your talking between first cousins, that is already legal in most states. If your talking about sibling marriages that do not produce children, I have no opinion on that.

Of course, incest can also refer to parent/child sexual interaction. Step/adoption parents and children can and do enter into sexual relationships (Woody Allen). As far as biological family sex that is consenting and does not result in children, I am heavily biased by my personal ichk factor and doubt that such a relationship would be a natural result of allowing homosexuals to marry.

Bottom line, what do you care how others define their consensual relationships if it does not harm you in any way? Homosexual marriages will strengthen couples and families that already exist.

old comment by Swede

Consenting adults. That is one argument. I don't understand what you mean by "that justifies gay marriage but not gay marriage".

Incest between consenting adult might produce deformed children, due to lack of gene difference. That is a sort of abuse of the off-spring, and detriment to society.
If both are sterilized, that risk is removed. I see no reason for them not marrying, other than my slight yuck feeling, and that is my problem, not theirs.

Plus, marriage law has little to do with incest laws. Marriage is a legal contract, incest is a sexual act.

Heterosexual marriage is a contract between two adults who care for each other and want to spend their lives together.
Homosexual marriage is a contract between two adults who care for each other and want to spend their lives together.
I don't see the slippery slope anywhere. To me they are one and the same.

old comment by Thinking Allowed

There are so many things wrong with this post. But I will focus on just one point.

Show me one argument that justifies gay marriage but not gay marriage.

Let's take away your license and see how well you can do without legal rights. First off, if something was to happen to your spouse and they're in the hospital, you can't make any decisions for him because you're not the spouse. You are not eligible for any tax breaks you can receive because you're not married. If your spouse dies, then there are several privileges would not be available to you. Without a will, any property your spouse had would go to their immediate family, not you. Even with a will, the family can contest it. All this is for a piece of paper that the government says that two people are married. The issue of homosexual marriage is not to change the definition of marriage, but to have the same legal rights you do as a heterosexual.

old comment by J.T.

Think this is bad? I've debated someone like this - an agnostic atheist who was against homosexuality because then we have to accept pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, and all kinds of sexual deviations. When these arguments were shot down, he kept repeating them, ignoring the concept of consent completely. He had this tendency of saying "Nature made a mistake" whenever something disagrees with him:

Him: "Homosexuality is physiologically unnatural."
Me: "No it's not, the male anus has orgasmic capacity and can fit a penis."
Him: "Then nature made a mistake."

When he, for some reason or another, mentioned that he's a vegetarian and we used this to show how his claim that deviations are bad wasn't necessarily true, he said it's okay because - get this - NATURE MADE A MISTAKE IN MAKING THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE OMNIVORES. He biggest failure was when we turned his slippery slope argument (which, by the way, he tried throughout the debate to claim was a legitimate debate strategy even without evidence that A would lead to B which would lead to C, etc.) against him and asked "well, if homosexual marriage to one man, as you claim, would lead to acceptance of polygamy, why wouldn't acceptance of heterosexual marriage lead to polygamy as well?" He said it wouldn't lead to that because heterosexual marriage is good and homosexual marriage is bad. I did not paraphrase that.

So yeah, doubt anyone wants to read all that, but.

old comment by Natasha

Atheists who are opposed to same-sex marriage are a pet peeve. (Not the ones opposed to all marriage, that's perfectly reasonable). I actually think the so-called secular arguments against same-sex marriage are even more ridiculous than the religious ones. I mean, if you've been brainwashed into thinking god doesn't like the gays then I can see how you can be opposed to same sex marriage. Sort of.

But people like this guy, who don't believe in gods but are still against gay marriage must have no reasoning capabilities. I guess they are an atheist because it just feels right, rather than concluding that there are no gods based on the evidence. Not every atheist is also a rationalist, so we end up with idiots like this spouting crap.

Oh yeah and @pretty puppy: I totally agree, incest will probably always be taboo to most people (because we have millions of years of evolution that encourages inbreeding avoidance) but that's no reason for it to be illegal.

old comment by Dr.Shrinker

So...you "believe" in reason, but you forsake all reason when making your point on this subject. Instead, you fall back on one of the religious bigot's favorite tactics; changing the subject. The debate is not about incest or polygamy, so why are you bringing it up?

Oh wait, that sounded like a rhetorical question. It isn't, it has an answer. You try and change the subject because you know you haven't got a single decent argument to support your position. All you can do is try and stimulate moral outrage in the people you are addressing.

You may not be a fundamentalist, but frankly you are even more repugnant to me than they are. At least they have fantasies about "doing God's will" to excuse their bigotry in their minds. You, on the other hand, are promoting bigotry out of sheer selfishness.

Reason, you don't have a clue what the word means!

old comment by

the proposition put forward is to extend the current laws on marriage to include two gay people (guys or girls). It does not propose ducks, wildebeasts, bears, sheep or any other animal as one of a couple, it does not propose adult/child couples nor does it propose groups of 3 or more.

Incest is against the law as a seperate issue. Bestiality I think is against the law in most states.

I dont think there are any legal polygamists in the USA. Why would letting two gays who are unrelated (or at least not brothers, sisters or 1st cousins) have the legal stabding of marriage ? No one is suggesting any church needs to officiate.

I dont care whats done elsewhere in the world. I live in the USA and thats where the proposal is to amend the laws on marriage.

old comment by

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults. Nothing in that changes with gender-neutral marriage laws.

The term Incest is mostly used about one adult and one child. Children can't give informed consent. We have laws against too close relations getting married, because they might produce offspring with birth defects. If they are both sterilized it ought not to be a problem.

"two people that will not produce anything"? So children are things now? Plus, there are other things you can produce, ya know, like producing songs together, building a house together, running a business together.

You don't have to prove your fertility before you get married, stupid. Many heterosexual couples don't have children, both voluntary and involuntary. Gay couples can produce offspring thingies too, they just need a bit ouf outside help, like infertile hetero couples.

Asjc #fundie ireport.com

82 comments

Confused?