After Gay Marriage it is Namblas turn !! Got a problem with that ?

Question

I know some shepherds that want their turn, so if it does not hurt you what is the big deal ?

Answer 1

A fellow poster's assertion that gay marriage is not a slippery slope doesn't hold water. Anyone who thinks for a second that further redefinitions of marriage aren't being planned and may not happen are fooling themselves.

Let's look at his "no slippery slope" argument. Basically, it would be "too hard" to redefine marriage to include more than one person or people of different ages. But he said himself that existing legislation has already been changed to change references of "husband and wife" to simply "spouses"! The term "spouses" says nothing about gender, age, or quantity. So... using the poster's own argument, a new law would have to do nothing more than change the legal definition of "spouse". It's EASIER than the changes made recently in Canada and some states to allow gay marriage. More lies.

Already, liberal professors and psychiatrists have published "research" in favour of "intergenerational relationships". That's one of the new sanitized phrases for child molestation. The Democrats in the US (and Liberals and NDP in Canada) have blocked any attempts to raise the age of consent to even 16 years old, instead favouring legislation to LOWER across the board to 14 (some even proposing 12).

The depraved sexualization of our children can be seen everywhere. Racy Hallowe'en costumes, slutty outfits aimed at young teens and even pre-teens, Bratz dolls, highly sexualized high school shows, etc.

Such politically-motivated junk scientific "research" has also come out in favour of polygamy. And once you're weakened the definition to allow two members of the same gender, what basis do you have REALLY to limit it to just two people? The anti-traditional marriage activists seek to destroy the institution of marriage just as they seek to destroy the other fundamental institutions (such as Christinaity) that were responsible for giving birth (how apropos) to the prosperous and free society.

With the rash of teacher-student sex scandals, liberal supporters of lower age of consent laws, the indoctrination of our society with biased junk science by depraved researchers (the king of which was Kinsey himself), don't think that Nambla is salivating at the mouth... more than usual that is.

Perhaps the biggest lie we've bought is that tolerating behaviour which we've known for eons to be immoral, is somehow a loving thing to do. If you encounter someone with a mental illnes, the loving thing to do is try to HELP them, not say "how wonderful it is that you cut yourself... self-expression is so important."

Answer 2

The big deal is that SOMEONE (or something) is getting hurt and is unable to make an informed consent. Adults should be able to marry - period. A child is unable to consent to marriage in any meaningful way. NAMBLA is an association of disordered people who are under the misguided impression that children want to be abused. This has NOTHING to do with the debate on gay marriage, but EVERYTHING to do with obfuscation by religious zealots.

Answer 3

Every decent civilized person has a problem with NAMBLA, whether they are gay or straight. How about the Rene Guyon Society? The straight version of NAMBLA? Why haven't they gotten their turn in the real world? Same reason. Heterosexual marriages all over the place and yet no one decent supports Guyon's agenda. Imagine that. Over dramatic much?

Answer 4

I realize this is probably a waste of time, but I'll try anyway.

You are talking about two completely unrelated issues. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with child marriage, or sheep marriage, lawnmower marriage, or polygamous marriage. There is no slippery slope. There is no "what's next".

Every single current law in the US that defines marriage considers it a union between two adult humans. Every single law that's currently on the books. Two adult humans

If you want to change the laws to allow non-humans to marry, or to allow non-adults (children) to marry, or to allow multiple people to marry -- all of those require massive changes to the legal structure.

It's not a matter of simply changing forms. It's a matter of fundamentally rewriting all the laws regarding property ownership, the laws of contract and agency, the laws for spousal inheritance and estates, and all the tax laws involving marriage. All of that need to be completely rewritten, if you want to including anyone other than two adult humans.

But by the same token, out of all those laws that consider it a union between two adult humans, few (if any!) treat husbands and wives differently. So few if any provide different rights based on the gender of the spouse. So how is gender an issue in any of those laws? It's not.

Look at civil union laws and domestic partnerships -- in Vermont, Connecticut, California. These are barely two paragraphs, saying that all the benefits, rights and obligations of marriage apply also to those who have civil unions or domestic partnerships. And it only takes two paragraphs (as opposed to a single line) because the titles are different, and that requires some further definition.

Eliminating the gender requirements for marriage are even simpler. Simple delete "huband and wife" and replace it with "spouses". And delete the requirement for different genders. That's it. Nothing else in the laws needs to change. Two adult humans. Really simple.

Changing the laws to ignore gender doesn't change anything else. It's still two adult humans, and the rest of the laws are already gender neutral. But making it anything other than two adult humans requires a massive rewrite from the ground up.

So, there is no slippery slope. Some people just want to practice bigotry and gender-discrimination, and want laws to support that.

Answer 5

I feel that they should take a poll. Those who vote in support of NAMBLA then should be carted off and never heard from again. They exploit young boys, they should be destroyed for all they have destroyed.

Answer 6

No politician in office or running for office has endorsed or even tolerated that organization. How exactly could Nambla get any kind of legitimacy?

Answer 7

What the hell are you talking about?? I hope there is no gay marriage!!

Answer 8

weeeeee your super neato i already went to the potty