0 thoughts on “Graphical Overview of Same Sex Marriage Debate, v. 1.3”
I'm an atheist against gay marriage on the basis that it's retarded to re-define something to give a small group rights they already have (in this case via civil union) and that calling it bigotry is like calling a gynecologist sexist for not seeing male patients. Also, the "slippery slope" argument has been validated by the fact that Muslims are now using the legalization of gay marriage as a basis for their polygamist marriages to be honored in Canada, and Canada has been forced to legally honor them there.The entire argument is overwhelmingly one-sided, biased, and full of the typical "MY SIDE IS SMART, YOUR SIDE IS DUMB" kind of crap found in these debates. The only instance where it is even presented that an atheist might be against gay marriage, it is specifically stated as being because "I need a category of humans to look down on" like that would ever actually be anyone's reason.Whoever made that is a fucking moron.
I'm an atheist who could care less whether it's called "marriage" or a "civil union". All I know is that very few state — five or six, at last counts — offer EITHER to same-sex couples. Without that legal recognition, there are a host of rights — medical, inheritance, and so on — that same-sex couples don't get to share with their heterosexual counterparts. And after nearly 13 years of being partnered, I can vouch for the fact that that's important.As for Canada, I'm not familiar with particulars of the case, but frankly, I don't have a problem with polygamy. In relationships, the primary concern — for me, anyway — is consent: do all partners consent to the legal agreement of marriage/civil union/whatever? To me, that's why you can't really argue that gay marriage leads to interspecies marriage (which some dumbasses often do). A man can't marry a dog or a cow or an earthworm because the animal can never clearly voice its consent. On the other hand, if a polygamous relationship is consensual, that's entirely cool by me.
sturtle [dot] com 
I'm an atheist against gay marriage on the basis that it's retarded to re-define something to give a small group rights they already have (in this case via civil union) and that calling it bigotry is like calling a gynecologist sexist for not seeing male patients. Also, the "slippery slope" argument has been validated by the fact that Muslims are now using the legalization of gay marriage as a basis for their polygamist marriages to be honored in Canada, and Canada has been forced to legally honor them there.The entire argument is overwhelmingly one-sided, biased, and full of the typical "MY SIDE IS SMART, YOUR SIDE IS DUMB" kind of crap found in these debates. The only instance where it is even presented that an atheist might be against gay marriage, it is specifically stated as being because "I need a category of humans to look down on" like that would ever actually be anyone's reason.Whoever made that is a fucking moron.
LikeLike
I'm an atheist who could care less whether it's called "marriage" or a "civil union". All I know is that very few state — five or six, at last counts — offer EITHER to same-sex couples. Without that legal recognition, there are a host of rights — medical, inheritance, and so on — that same-sex couples don't get to share with their heterosexual counterparts. And after nearly 13 years of being partnered, I can vouch for the fact that that's important.As for Canada, I'm not familiar with particulars of the case, but frankly, I don't have a problem with polygamy. In relationships, the primary concern — for me, anyway — is consent: do all partners consent to the legal agreement of marriage/civil union/whatever? To me, that's why you can't really argue that gay marriage leads to interspecies marriage (which some dumbasses often do). A man can't marry a dog or a cow or an earthworm because the animal can never clearly voice its consent. On the other hand, if a polygamous relationship is consensual, that's entirely cool by me.
LikeLike