“I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal,” he said in the interview, published on the Web site Wednesday. “Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again.” (CNN)
_____________________________________________________________
I would like to commend Governor Huckabee on being a politician who can actually think LOGICALLY and INTELLIGENTLY on issues – at least sometimes considering my next post…
Recently Huckabee has gotten a lot of crap from the press and gay activists especially for this comment that supposedly equates homosexuality to bestiality. This is not true at all, and only by severe misrepresentation and stupidity can you come to such a conclusion.
What Huckabee is actually saying is that due to the slippery slope, if we allow homosexuals to have a traditional marriage under the same idea as a marriage between a man and woman, whose to say 50 years from now someone won’t make the exact same arguments to the court about polygamy, sex with minors, and YES bestiality??? One uses the EXACT same arguments for gay marriage as one would use to legalize those 3 things. Perhaps they aren’t as acceptable today, but neither way gay marriage 50 years earlier from today!
Huckabee understands that by granting this request for gay marriage, we are once again putting dust on the thin line that defines American ethics. Once again allowing us to trample the line without even realizing it…
Mark my words, if gay marriage becomes law, it will only be a short time before somebody realizes that by using the same arguments it is unconstitutional for the government to say its illegal for a 40 year old to have sex with a 16 year old. Why do they get to put limits on love? And why can’t a psychologist make love to a patient? Its not manipulation baby! Its love! And why can’t I marry more then one person? I’ve got enough love to pass around! And finally, if a dog IS mans best friend, then shouldn’t we be encouraged to marry our best friends???
You decide. But always remember that your decisions may have consequences that go beyond your wildest dreams…
So let me ask a question of those of you whose intelligence may vastly outweigh my own… Without the bible and traditional “laws” (which basically all come from the bible), why would it be wrong to practice polygamy, sex with minors, and even bestiality? Besides the obvious “it doesn’t feel right”…? If we want a COMPLETE separation of church and state (which by the way thats not what the founding fathers intended), then I think those things as well as obviously gay marriage ought to be accepted! Why wait 50 more years to do what we can logically do now?
Posted by: Politics In Moderation | January 22, 2008
Does Gay Marriage=Bestiality? Ask Huckabee
Posted in 2008 Presidential Elections, Mike Huckabee, The Issues
Marriage = Legal Rights/Benefits
Marriage (should) = Mutual Consent
To have mutual consent you must be able to communicate this consent and be considered old enough to be informed.
Until we can communicate with animals as well as (most) other humans, it would be hard to gain consensous that there is informed, mutual consent and therefore the same arguments can’t be used that hold for gay marraige. Most of the Legal Benefits offered by marraige can’t be applied to other animals, therefore.
Laws are not consistent and they are adapted – this is how society advances. Is it fair to deny the legal rights of marriage based on the sexes of the union? The legal benefits given by marriage aren’t related to the sexes involved.
By: Rogue on January 23, 2008
at 12:24 am
Marriage has little to do with benefits except to say that when you get married you do get benefits, but that cannot be an argument in regards to marriage except if one tries to argue that the gov. cannot afford to give out benefits to anything past a traditional male/female wedding.
You say marriage “should” = mutual consent + ability to communicate consent + old enough to understand consent, but years ago marriage “should” = man + woman. So that doesn’t say too much…
This is why the same argument CAN be used to legalize polygamy and sex with minors. The same argument can be used for bestiality, but I do agree with you that it is quite a step to take (unlike polygamy + minors) in the realm of communication and thus it would either never happen or happen a very long time from now.
Either way, the point is that as laws are “adapted” they generally become looser as society “advances” (although I would say they only technologically advance, not so much ethically), thus giving society the ability to take the slippery slope to its logical endings.
I put it to you this way, without the bible and traditional “laws” (which basically all come from the bible), why would it be wrong to practice polygamy, sex with minors, and even bestiality? Besides the obvious “it doesn’t feel right”…? If we want a COMPLETE separation of church and state (which by the way thats not what the founding fathers intended), then I think those things as well as obviously gay marriage ought to be accepted! Why wait 50 more years to do what we can logically do now?
By: Politics In Moderation on January 23, 2008
at 1:34 am
Marraige benefits are a major aspect of the law – it certainly offers major aspects that automatically provide access to a hospital visit of a injured partner; bequeathing property rights & pocessions to a partner and not a relative. Therefore, the legal benefits of marraige has a lot to do with the argument.
The ‘Should’ in brackets was to represent the fact that a marraige can take place without mutual consent. Mutual consent is implied from the parties statements to make a contract in law created by a marraige.
Polygamy: Has a different argument – one individual’s state affects many partners compared to monogamy which affects one other partner (both cases could involve children but do not necessarily so are equal in that manner).
Minors: The different argument is age – marital age is not a difference in the arguments for gay or straight marraige.
I agree, society doesn’t necessarily “advance” but adapts, since consensous shifts over time between different ethical scales, whereas technology tends to “advance”. There have been many slippery slopes that have been followed that are now considered barbaric, for example: Witch hunting; Child labour were accepted for a time by societies and religions that now have adapted away from these beliefs. The slippery slopes tend to vacillatate over time rather than reaching a logical end and never changing again.
Some additional logical arguments required for the extension of discussing marraige in respect of polygamy, sex with minors and beastiality are given above. With even just one separate issue for each (as I’ve given) proves that the same arguments cannot be applied to gay marraige and so gay marraige cannot lead to the other forms of relationship with just the same arguments.
By: Rogue on January 23, 2008
at 3:02 am
First of all, let me say I truly understand (and actually agree) with the argument that government sanctioned gay marriage would undermine traditional heterosexual marriage. However, Huckabee (and the original poster) take the argument too far.
In short, to answer your question, the key issue is consent. A child or animal is not capable of entering into a contract.
Rogue gave a good response wihich the original poster chose to not try and understand. I will try to clarify.
First, the argument IS about GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED MARRIAGE, not religious marriage. This includes a variety of benefits, including tax benefits, divorce settlements, default inheritance rights, hospital visitation, etc. It is important to distinguish between religious marriage and a government marriage. You can call the government marriage a “civil union”
There is NO ban on religious or non-government sanctioned gay marriage. For that matter, there is no ban on a non-government sanctioned marriage with a goat. If I choose to have a ceremony with my friends marrying myself, a woman, another woman, and a dog, the government will not break down my door and stop the ceremony. They will simply not allow me to claim them as dependents!
The question is, why does the government recoginize marriage at all? The reason is the same as it is in religion. Religious institutions and government institutions both feel that promoting marriage adds to the stability of society. Religions and governments both exist to create an orderly society.
In both religion an governments, marriage is defined as a contract (or covenant) between two (or more in some religions) people. This is where the issue of consent comes in. A child or an animal cannot enter into a contract as they are not mentally capable of grasping the implications of doing so.
The argument by gay people is essentially that the government is discriminating against homosexuals by providing benefits to heterosexuals that are not available to them. They feel that a civil union should be defined as a government sanctioned union between two consenting adults.
I would tend to agree that it is possible that this argument could conceivably be extended to polygamy. I would also tend to agree that the institution of marriage would suffer if “gay marriage” (a civil union between two members of the same sex) is adopted. All of these points are debatable and should not be dismissed by either side without reasoned consideration.
However this argument cannot be applied to marriage with children, nor can it be applied to bestiality.
What is the solution? One is for homosexuals to accept an equivalent “civll union”. They are not satisfied with this as a matter of principle. Religious folks don’t want the word “marriage” attached as it has religious connotations. Maybe the government should stop calling heterosexual civil unions “marriage” (seriously).
Another option is for government to get out of the marriage business. Stop recognizing any civil unions.
Hope this is helpful
By: SMarkit on January 23, 2008
at 3:38 am
Also, the same argument applies to sex, obviously. Neither a child nor an animal can consent to sex.
By: SMarkit on January 23, 2008
at 3:43 am
Rogue, you posted the same time I did. I don’t necessarily agree with your argument about polygamy, as I think the slippery slope can lead to polygamy, which presumably involves consenting adults.
I can also understand why some would say that the result would “devalue” traditional marriage. I don’t necessarily agree with this interpretation but cannot dismiss it out of hand.
By: SMarkit on January 23, 2008
at 3:48 am
Sorry for the mutiple posts but the site won’t allow edits!
I guess what I’ve missed here (I’m just thinking this through now) is the underlying issue of sex.
Another intentional “mistake” Huckabee made is comparing “gay marriage” with bestiality and pedophila. This is comparing apples and oranges as the first is a legal contract wheras the other two are just about sex.
The correct anology is between bestiality, pedophilia, and SODOMY. Basically, he is saying that SODOMY is unnatural, and that gay marriage is an implicit endorsement of sodomy.
Indeed, the example I gave about the government breaking down doors would not be true if sex was involved. The government can, and has, arrested people in the act of engaging in pedophilia, bestiality, and sodomy!
This also feeds into my argument about polygamy. It is not against the law for a man to have sex with two women. So why is polygamy illegal?
I guess this is why the issue is so complex, there really are multiple levels. Or at least two levels.
By: SMarkit on January 23, 2008
at 4:12 am
To Rogue:
I apologize. First of all, your point on marriage benefits was well taken. I agree that I should give them more credit then I had originally. Second, I have been talking more in generalities and you have been talking more specifically – which is why I think we’ve been having difficulty coming to a consensus.
In the end, my argument rests with the question posed at the end of my original post: Why is sex with minors, polygamy, or even bestiality “wrong” or unlawful?
I agree bestiality is quite a jump considering their inability to enter into a contract, speak, etc. But why can’t a man enter into a marriage with multiple people if all are in agreement? Why can’t a minor have sex and get married legally at any age? Is it not their choice and their body to do with what they will? Is there truly a year where suddenly they are old and mature enough to make these decisions whereas they weren’t just months ago?
In the end, the question is how can the gov. discriminate in regards to love and marriage? It understandably starts with gay marriage where the definition of marriage extends a little farther then usual – thus allowing those of the same gender to marry. Then it extends a little farther, using the same “general” argument. And it continues… What is to stop that continuation?
Once again, bestiality goes a little far, its an extreme for sure. And according to what SMarkit said, I agree that in the traditional and specific sense one cannot lead to the other. I do believe that a slippery slope is to be had, but you have convinced me that without significant changes, bestiality goes too far…
By: Politics In Moderation on February 12, 2008
at 9:35 am
To SMarkit:
A lot of what I said to Rogue also involves what you have said.
In addition however, I disagree that sex/marriage to minors isn’t to be had on this slippery slope. You say a “child” is not “mentally capable” of making decisions on sex and/or marriage. However, that is only because we say they aren’t. Obviously you’re right in regards to 2 year olds, but once you’re 14-16 many kids believe they know plenty about love and are already sexually active. Do they not consent to sex and even marriage? The only reason they don’t “legally consent” is simply because the gov. says they are not yet allowed to make such consent… but why?
So please explain why kids at that age ought not to be allowed to have sex and/or get married if it is their desire to do so?
By: Politics In Moderation on February 12, 2008
at 9:48 am
My what a “Brave New World” we are turning into………………………………………………Scary…………..
By: Morailty on March 30, 2008
at 1:33 pm
I am 13 years old. Who decided that I’m not old enough to marry, or even love the woman I wish to marry? She’s 29. So what? In 10 years I’ll be 23 and she’ll be 39. There are plenty of marriages who share this age gap. I give my consent and we share the most beautiful sex together. But we must keep it hidden because the laws don’t allow me to make my own decisions about love. As if I’m a lesser person because the definition of “marriage” is not broad enough to include EVERYONE!!
I agree about bestiality, though. My cat Fussy can’t talk and so she can’t tell me what she likes and what she doesn’t like. So that is wrong. And I decided that.
By: Jon on September 22, 2008
at 11:22 pm
The beastiality, incest, etc. arguments are without merit. Thoroughly identical arguments were presented in opposition to interracial marriage in the 60s. They are slippery slope arguments, and they are entirely metaphoric and irrelevant. You can invent such arguments to ‘prove’ a limitless number of premises.
By: Kattman on October 23, 2008
at 8:36 am
you people do not make any sense, expecially u kattman but i really don’t know what you are talking about because i am only 9
By: kristi on October 27, 2008
at 12:28 am