Question:
Why don't liberals understand that gay marriage is a slippery slope?
2012-07-12 20:35:02 UTC
It will start with gay marriage.
Then polygamy will be legal.
Then human-animal marriages will be legal.
Eventually, humans will be able to marry inanimate objects such as toaster ovens and microwaves
Twenty answers:
Liberal Ninja
2012-07-12 20:41:18 UTC
Comparing gay marriage to animal marriage and inanimate objects shows your ignorance. Gay marriage is natural, because being gay occurs in nature. For those that disagree, why are there gay animals? Marrying inanimate objects and animals is not natural. Big difference.
Behzad
2012-07-12 20:53:44 UTC
First of all polygamy is legal in many countries, and it has been legal in many countries before... monogamy is a relatively new thing. I am not supporting polygamy but you know, it is not new...

Human-animal marriage never will be legal simply because there is an owner-owned relation between them. mean you own animals therefore you can't marry them.

And to legalize inanimate object marriage (is there even such thing as inanimate object marriage?) we first have to legalize alive to dead marriage... (and there is also the ownership thing... I mean you own your toaster right?)

But gay marriage is like a relation between to humans. like a human marrying another human... so it is totally different...

So no, it has nothing to do with being liberal... and your argument is invalid...
Who aren't you?
2012-07-12 20:41:12 UTC
I don't see how human animal or human-toaster marriages will be legal... seeing as animals and toasters cannot sign a contract.



A marriage is a contract.



And we currently have no system to handle how you would define the legal status of a polygamous marriage... mainly in regards to divorce... who is married to who? Are the wives married to each other too? Or are they just married to the husband? What happens when one or multiple ones want a divorce? Does a man with 3 wives who all want divorces, does each wife get 50% of his assets? Do they each get a share of 50%, or do they all share everything together? We have no standard system for that legally, so there is no way we will have that happen anytime soon.



The government shouldn't be recognizing anything that a religion considers part of their tradition. Your marriage may be recognized by God, but without the piece of paper, it isn't recognized by the government. And you can have the piece of paper without it being recognized by your God.
?
2016-12-07 04:18:00 UTC
As a conservative. i want smaller government. that includes removing government from approving or denying marriages, it''s a non secular organization so government has no employer being in touch besides. . the way I see it any excuse to fireside the government is a solid one. to no longer point out desiring government approval to get married feels like something from the and communist or fascist propaganda I grew up with.
Treyshon
2012-07-13 08:39:28 UTC
Polygamy was the historical norm. When monogamy was the only valid type of marriage it was a radical idea. Polygamy does not follow gay marriage since it already preceded it.
2012-07-14 09:44:02 UTC
The slippery slope is the one you're on. Ignorance and hatred won't get you far in life, but they will get you attention on YA. Gay marriage is only a threat to people who are afraid of their own internal homoerotic impulses... just ask Ted Haggard and dozens of other gay haters.
80s Face
2012-07-12 21:57:42 UTC
Even straight marriage is a slippery slope that leads to all these other marriages, which is why we should genetically engineer humans to reproduce asexually. FACT.
?
2012-07-12 20:54:32 UTC
Do you know how many straight marriages fail compared to gay ones? Stragiht people like myself get so many divorces.
molly
2012-07-12 20:37:50 UTC
We create humans beings in a test tube for our convenience I think we have already started down that path.
2012-07-12 20:37:15 UTC
It's time to end the prejudice against man-squirrel marriage!

I don't see how anyone can question the emotional depths of man-rodent love.
?
2012-07-12 20:47:01 UTC
Don't know about the rest of it but polygamy, can't wait.
Jake
2012-07-12 20:38:21 UTC
The conservative thing to do would be to cheat on your wife while hiring gay prostitutes like that Republican Congressmen did while opposing gay marriage.
Cindy LGPB
2012-07-12 20:37:52 UTC
I'd rather marry a toaster than an ignorant redneck conservative homophobe.



It would probably be better sex too.
B A C O N
2012-07-12 20:37:17 UTC
This Liberal has had a crush on his refrigerator for years now!
2012-07-13 04:21:02 UTC
Liberals can't stand the facts. Gay marriage will also ruin the sanctity of marriage, and will make marriage less important.



And also, letting gays drive cars makes driving less important. And letting gays become medical doctors makes the medical field less important. Some poor kid studying to become an MD might quit if he finds out a gay person is an MD.



Gays make everything meaningless and less sacred.
?
2012-07-12 20:38:17 UTC
'slippery'
2012-07-13 13:48:24 UTC
The homosexuals and lesbians have gained considerable political and social momentum in America. They have "come out" as the term goes, left their closets, and are knocking on the doors of your homes. Through TV, radio, newspapers, and magazines, they are preaching their doctrine of tolerance, equality, justice, and love. They do not want to be perceived as abnormal or dangerous. They want acceptance and they want you to welcome them with open, loving arms, approving of what they do.



In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro-homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Churches could possibly be required to hire a quota of homosexuals, and "sensitivity" training courses would be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would force the state to pick up the tab for the defense of homosexual agendas in lawsuits while requiring the non-homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket. Is this fair? Of course not. But fairness isn't the real issue here. It is social engineering. Think about it, the homosexual community wants legal protection for having intercourse with people of the same sex. And, if that weren't enough, it wants its views taught in schools, promoted over the airwaves, and codified in literature.



The Christian church, however, has not stood idly by. When it has spoken out against this political immorality, the cry of "separation of church and state" is shouted at the so-called "religious bigots." But when the homosexual community attempts to use political power to try and control the church and get its agenda taught in schools, no such cry of bigotry is heard from the sacred halls of the media. Why? Because it isn't politically correct to side with Christians.



Should homosexuals be allowed to marry one another?



In this politically correct climate that relinquishes morality to the relativistic whims of society, stating that homosexuals should not marry is becoming unpopular. Should a woman be allowed to marry another woman? Should a man be allowed to marry another man? Should they be given legal protection and special rights to practice their homosexuality? No, they should not.



The Bible, of course, condemns homosexuality. It takes no leap of logic to discern that homosexual marriage is also condemned. But our society does not rely on the Bible for its moral truth. Instead, it relies on humanistic and relativistic morals upon which it builds its ethical structure.



Homosexuality is not natural. Just look at the male and female bodies. They are obviously designed to couple. The natural design is apparent. It is not natural to couple male with male and female with female. It would be like trying to fit two screws together or two nuts together and then say, "See, its natural for them to go together."



Homosexuals argue that homosexuality is natural since it occurs in the animal world. But this is problematic. It is true that this behavior occurs in the animal kingdom, but it is also true that we see animals eating their prey alive and even their own young. We see savagery, cruelty, and extreme brutality. Yet, we do not condone such behavior in our own society. Proponents of the natural order argument should not pick-and-choose the situations that best fit their agendas. They should be consistent and not compare us to animals. We are not animals. We are made in God's image.



Where will it end?



Political protection of a sexual practice is ridiculous. I do not believe it is proper to pass laws stating that homosexuals have 'rights' to have sex with one another and then redefine marriage to include their views. If they can do that, then where will it end? What about pedophilia or bestiality? These are also sexual practices. Should they, too, be protected by law? If homosexuality is protected legally, why not those as well?
2012-07-12 20:45:03 UTC
Because they are stupid.
2012-07-12 20:37:17 UTC
i've never met a terrilby bright lib.

ie; in norway you can not only marry gay, you can go to bestiality brothels and marry animals. such a 'civilised' culture....
2012-07-12 20:36:46 UTC
And then they'll be giving birth to cyborgs and they'll take all our jobs. FACT.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...