by bennymacca » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:38 am
by nuggety goodness » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:40 am
bennymacca wrote:The fact that you describe normal people as THEY shows your prejudice.
Can you comment on my ownership post above? How is that not a slippery slope but this is?
by bennymacca » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:51 am
by bennymacca » Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:52 am
by nuggety goodness » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:05 am
bennymacca wrote:Also why is it only gay people that want to marry animals?
Or are you protecting catholic priests from trying to marry young boys?
Can you see how ridiculous the slippery slope arguments are?
by woodublieve12 » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:08 am
by bennymacca » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:16 am
by nuggety goodness » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:52 am
bennymacca wrote:So tell me again why two sane and consenting adults can't choose to marry in the same civil ceremony that two thirds of marriages currently consist of?
Because other people want to bang dogs?
by HH3 » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:53 am
by woodublieve12 » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:55 am
HH3 wrote:Non-religious people get married because they're only viewed as a family in the eyes of the law if they are married. So for the financial and legal security of each other, or any children, should anything happen in the future.
I'm getting married next year, and I want no mention of some fairytale "god" or "savior" at my wedding. I might as well get them to marry us in the eyes of Optimus Prime.
I went to a wedding a couple of months ago that included all that religious crap, and the groom was not happy to have to swear stuff to god either.
And to say that people will change laws on precedent to allow marriage to animals is **** retarded. What you're saying is if the government change laws to allow gay marriage, they will automatically cave to someone that wants to marry an animal. Just because they have changed a law once, doesnt mean they have to change it again if someone asks.
Your whole argument is flawed, and your religious beliefs are clouding your common sense. Take all the religious stuff out of your head for a second and think about it logically.
by bennymacca » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:55 am
nuggety goodness wrote:bennymacca wrote:So tell me again why two sane and consenting adults can't choose to marry in the same civil ceremony that two thirds of marriages currently consist of?
Because other people want to bang dogs?
Benny there is a whole thread dedicated to that topic and my views are represented in there (I think).
We have hijacked this for long enough and should probably go baco to what makes you laugh.
Im sorry if our senses of humour differ but it does make me laugh a little...
by Booney » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:56 am
by bennymacca » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:57 am
by Booney » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:57 am
nuggety goodness wrote:bennymacca wrote:So tell me again why two sane and consenting adults can't choose to marry in the same civil ceremony that two thirds of marriages currently consist of?
Because other people want to bang dogs?
Benny there is a whole thread dedicated to that topic and my views are represented in there (I think).
We have hijacked this for long enough and should probably go baco to what makes you laugh.
Im sorry if our senses of humour differ but it does make me laugh a little...
by mighty_tiger_79 » Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:59 am
by Q. » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:20 am
nuggety goodness wrote:As soon as it is changed once the precedent will be set and you will see people marrying dogs, cats and probably inanimate objects too.
by nuggety goodness » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:21 am
Q. wrote:nuggety goodness wrote:As soon as it is changed once the precedent will be set and you will see people marrying dogs, cats and probably inanimate objects too.
It doesn't set any precedent.
Allowing gay marriage won't have any legal effect on polygamy, incest or bestiality. They are separate areas of law.
by Q. » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:30 am
nuggety goodness wrote:Q. wrote:nuggety goodness wrote:As soon as it is changed once the precedent will be set and you will see people marrying dogs, cats and probably inanimate objects too.
It doesn't set any precedent.
Allowing gay marriage won't have any legal effect on polygamy, incest or bestiality. They are separate areas of law.
Its already happened as I pointed out earlier...
by nuggety goodness » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:37 am
Q. wrote:nuggety goodness wrote:Q. wrote:nuggety goodness wrote:As soon as it is changed once the precedent will be set and you will see people marrying dogs, cats and probably inanimate objects too.
It doesn't set any precedent.
Allowing gay marriage won't have any legal effect on polygamy, incest or bestiality. They are separate areas of law.
Its already happened as I pointed out earlier...
It still doesn't set precedent. In Australia, they are separate areas of law.
Also, if you want to argue the slippery slope, then it starts at allowing marriage full stop. By logic, your argument that a man and woman can get married sets precedent for any other type of marriage.
by HH3 » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:39 am
nuggety goodness wrote:
Human nature is to push the boundaries and once someone else gets it changed then 'hey I might as well push my case too' because that is the mentality.
If I'm wrong then I'll shut up but just wait and see...
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |