Fox news Keith Ablow says marriage equality leads to marriage to dogs...

Status
Not open for further replies.
As fucked up as the guy is, it reminds me of one of the reasons why I choose not to vote on matters of marriage (that way I don't help or harm the legalization of gay marriage), one of those reasons being polygamy. Now, I don't like it myself, but if it is entirely consensual between partners, why not let the group be married? Personally, I just think the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, it's way too controlling and limiting that way (maybe something like civil unions for all? I don't know); that's actually the main reason why I don't vote on those issues.

But yeah, that guy's insane.
 
tkscz said:
Is what you would say if he married a 3DS. Luckily that's just a DSi.
Click to expand...

Damn, I can't tell the diff between all of those DSes. They all look the same to me.

.........

WAT? They are! I'm not being a bigot or anything!

Monocle said:
Yeah man Nintendo products all look the same. I don't trust them, never have.

Not being intolerant it's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who has 3DS......I think.
 
Replicant said:
Damn, I can't tell the diff between all of those DSes. They all look the same to me.

.........

WAT? They are! I'm not being a bigot or anything!
Click to expand...
Yeah man Nintendo products all look the same. I don't trust them, never have.

Not being intolerant it's just my opinion.
 
Deified Data said:
I for one support dogs' right to marry.

dog-weddings-sweet-or-cruel10.jpg


How could you not?
Click to expand...
She's a bitch.
 
It's an extreme example, but the point he is trying to make isn't new. If we can have more progressive attitudes towards marriage, then how many would support the marriage between siblings, or polygamy? He's relying on there not being that many, but I think in time people will be more accepting of that.
 
I see nothing wrong with limiting marriage to humans.

I get the point they're trying to make and I don't they're seriously saying it leads to people marrying dogs, just using an extreme example, but I hate this sort of slippery slope argument. Don't see what's wrong with stopping at encompassing all humans.
 
At least a dog is always loyal, always happy to see you and good for your health from all those walks.

Hmmm... Maybe this guy is onto something...
 
The beatiality comparisons are really the most transparent admission that these people consider homosexuals to be animals.

I know many people who stick with the same argument, and haven't been able to convince them otherwise. To me, the logic goes, "extending the right to marriage from some humans to all humans..." which does not seem to introduce any kind of slippery slope. I do not know how it works for them.
 
HUELEN10 said:
As fucked up as the guy is, it reminds me of one of the reasons why I choose not to vote on matters of marriage (that way I don't help or harm the legalization of gay marriage), one of those reasons being polygamy. Now, I don't like it myself, but if it is entirely consensual between partners, why not let the group be married? Personally, I just think the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, it's way too controlling and limiting that way (maybe something like civil unions for all? I don't know); that's actually the main reason why I don't vote on those issues.

But yeah, that guy's insane.
Click to expand...

polygamy and gay marriage are two completely separate issues and should never be used in the same argument. By doing so you empower anti-gay activist. Not wanting to support polygamy is a weird reason to not support gay marriage. When someone says "We can't have gay marriage because it will lead to polygamy" you should say "We should not allow idiots to talk because it will lead to my boot up your ass"
 
What the hell? I remember thinking like this when I was 15, back when I was young and stupid (now I'm older and stupid), and that's something I'm not proud of. Is this guy 15? Or is he just an homophobic asshole?
 
foxdvd said:
polygamy and gay marriage are two completely separate issues and should never be used in the same argument. By doing so you empower anti-gay activist. Not wanting to support polygamy is a weird reason to not support gay marriage. When someone says "We can't have gay marriage because it will lead to polygamy" you should say "We should not allow idiots to talk because it will lead to my boot up your ass"
Click to expand...

I really don't understand why it's two separate arguments.
My response to anyone who says that would be "sure, why not?".

No boot in anyones ass, unless it's done between two (or more!) consenting adults.
 
HUELEN10 said:
Personally, I just think the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, it's way too controlling and limiting that way (maybe something like civil unions for all? I don't know); that's actually the main reason why I don't vote on those issues.
Click to expand...
Why? Marriage is a legal construct bestowing rights. Why wouldn't the government have something to do with it?
 
AJanitor said:
Erm. No.

A dog has no agency in that situation. You cannot just force an animal to "marry" you and then do with it as you please. Same with any other animal.

"Consenting adults" is key here.
Click to expand...
Why do you need consent when you already have unconditional loyalty from your dog?
 
Siegcram said:
Because consent would be needed for something legally binding like marriage.
A human-pet relationship is possessive in nature, not social.
Click to expand...
That's an arbitrary restriction though, and like someone pointed out already, someone has gotten married to an inanimate object, a 3DS in his possession (although, I don't remember if that was legally biding by that country), and people will eventually want to marry androids for lifelong companionship as technology advances. Marriage will most definitely be redefined someday to include objects of possession, and I am not sure why dogs would be an exclusion in that situation.
 
Well, this is also the guy who said Obama invented the World Cup to pass secret policies while we were blinded by the spectacle, so...
 
The question isn't whether people can marry dogs, but whether the possibility of people marrying dogs is enough to deny the right to marry to two consenting, non-blood related adults.
 
Two Words said:
The government really should just stop with tracking marriages. Just have some sort of "are you living together with the intention for life" status and stop caring if they are married or whatever. It doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...
It's really not that simple. Being married gives you several legal benefits. Some of them working as carrots because it's in society's best interests to have people together instead of being alone, and some to protect in case something goes wrong in the marriage, for example in the case of a break up or death of the other member of the marriage. These are pretty important because otherwise you could get pretty fucked if something goes wrong.

This is also why allowing polyamorous marriages isn't quite as simple as allowing same sex marriage.

HUELEN10 said:
As fucked up as the guy is, it reminds me of one of the reasons why I choose not to vote on matters of marriage (that way I don't help or harm the legalization of gay marriage), one of those reasons being polygamy. Now, I don't like it myself, but if it is entirely consensual between partners, why not let the group be married? Personally, I just think the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, it's way too controlling and limiting that way (maybe something like civil unions for all? I don't know); that's actually the main reason why I don't vote on those issues.

But yeah, that guy's insane.
Click to expand...
Part of what I said goes to you too.
 
rpmurphy said:
That's an arbitrary restriction though, and like someone pointed out already, someone has gotten married to an inanimate object, a 3DS in his possession (although, I don't remember if that was legally biding by that country), and people will eventually want to marry androids for lifelong companionship as technology advances. Marriage will most definitely be redefined someday to include objects of possession, and I am not sure why dogs would be an exclusion in that situation.
Click to expand...

Someone, somewhere, declaring they are married to an inanimate object doesn't weaken the argument that consent is relevant to a marriage any more than me declaring I am president of the United States weakens the authority of our elections. And the possible difference between androids and dogs would be the former's potential capacity to have autonomy within the marriage, and to be able to understand and appreciate whatever legal benefits it grants. Despite your baseless declaration that it is arbitrary, the capacity to consent to and comprehend a marriage is vital to it, otherwise, the idea of marriage may as well just disappear, with only the general concepts of love and relationships remaining. Which certainly you could argue for.
 
Government has an interest in promoting marriage as it results in higher birth rates and a higher probability those children will be successful. That's why you have tax breaks for families, to incentivize them to form lasting family units. Though there are many ancillary benefits that are rooted in societal areas as mentioned above but a country with low birth rate can't grow.
 
foxdvd said:
polygamy and gay marriage are two completely separate issues and should never be used in the same argument. By doing so you empower anti-gay activist. Not wanting to support polygamy is a weird reason to not support gay marriage. When someone says "We can't have gay marriage because it will lead to polygamy" you should say "We should not allow idiots to talk because it will lead to my boot up your ass"
Click to expand...

I don't see why this should be. Besides the obvious differences, how do they differ in regards to adults consenting to be together? Are you concerned about the tax and potential custody logistics of such an arrangement?
 
I will be waiting at the bottom of the slippery slope; down on one knee with a ring ready to propose to NeoGAF. If gays can get married and dogs can get married, hopefully forum marriage is not far behind.
 
Well I know more than a few dogs who gladly do terrible things to people's legs. And now with this it's clear that the SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE IS DOOMED!
 
To be fair, I don't see him being wrong about polyamory. What reason do we have (aside from the legal nightmare it could cause with taxes/divorce) to deny people the ability to marry multiple people if they truly do love multiple consenting adults.
 
Non-humans can't give consent so his argument doesn't hold water in the slightest.

Polygamy has mostly been associated with female slavery, training young girls for submissive roles, and other abusive practices throughout history, and incest has abuse and genetic issues. If proponents of any of these practices want to argue their case to the public and in courts, I have no problem with that. They are each separate issues though with their own arguments to present and shouldn't be tied to gay marriage, or any other marriage equality issue. Gay marriage proponents have presented their arguments extremely well, and shouldn't be tied to any other groups they have not willingly associated themselves with.
 
xxracerxx said:
Why does marriage equality debates on Fox News boil down to some person marrying an animal?

Plus I thought Ann Coulter was married already.
Click to expand...

Appeals to the extreme are effective with respect to unsophisticated people.

RionaaM said:
What the hell? I remember thinking like this when I was 15, back when I was young and stupid (now I'm older and stupid), and that's something I'm not proud of. Is this guy 15? Or is he just an homophobic asshole?
Click to expand...

It depends. For people like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh I suspect they are intrinsically reasonable conservatives who realized what type of rhetoric attracts an audience more effectively. This one is probably more right wing but still understands what message is more marketable.
 
CornBurrito said:
To be fair, I don't see him being wrong about polyamory. What reason do we have (aside from the legal nightmare it could cause with taxes/divorce) to deny people the ability to marry multiple people if they truly do love multiple consenting adults.
Click to expand...
I guess the difficulty comes from separating legit polyamory from more insidious practices. Most examples of multiple spouse relationships people have here come from Mormon and other religious practices where it's a vehicle of male domination rather than about people loving each other. I know I've read some SciFi that presented the issue in an interesting way. Basically in the future rather than traditional marriage there was some kind of contract system that could involve multiple people.
 
CornBurrito said:
To be fair, I don't see him being wrong about polyamory. What reason do we have (aside from the legal nightmare it could cause with taxes/divorce) to deny people the ability to marry multiple people if they truly do love multiple consenting adults.
Click to expand...


that really is the main reason it could never happen.... Social security payments alone would be a nightmare.
 
Frankly, I have no problem with human-dog marriage if said dog isn't owned by human, isn't brainwashed/forced into a relationship, and can legitly say "I do."
 
It's almost like we can draw lines in the sand in regards to our laws.

If people who support polyamorous relationships wish to take on their cause, they're more than welcome to petition courts to provide them marriage licenses. But they're also going to be fighting a very different battle than gay couples have fought over the past few decades.
 
HUELEN10 said:
As fucked up as the guy is, it reminds me of one of the reasons why I choose not to vote on matters of marriage (that way I don't help or harm the legalization of gay marriage), one of those reasons being polygamy. Now, I don't like it myself, but if it is entirely consensual between partners, why not let the group be married? Personally, I just think the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, it's way too controlling and limiting that way (maybe something like civil unions for all? I don't know); that's actually the main reason why I don't vote on those issues.

But yeah, that guy's insane.
Click to expand...

Everyone wants the government to stay out of marriage until they divorce and have a dispute on who gets custody of kids, who gets the house, who gets the cars, who pays child support, who pays alimony, etc...

Basically the only reason the government cares about marriage is to ensure that there is a smooth process for how cutody, money, land and other valuables get transferred to the next generation or the surviving family member. This would be tricky and difficult if someone has 5 wives with kids. Who gets custody of the kids if one wife or the husband dies, who has legal rights to see and take the child to the doctor for procedures, etc.

Basically marriage between two concenting adults is easier and less likely to lead to inbreeding.
 
Well, his logic is not too far off. Take Sweden for example, when homosexuality was made legal, so was sex with animals.

What a ridiculous man
 
Easy_D said:
Well, his logic is not too far off. Take Sweden for example, when homosexuality was made legal, so was sex with animals.

What a ridiculous man
Click to expand...

I don't know if that's true, but i do know that bestiality was made illegal around the same time gay marriage was made legal. (2014 vs 2009), so maybe Sweden wasn't the best example to use :)
 
CyclopsRock said:
I think that the guy's argument, pretty clearly, is that it shouldn't bestow rights.
Click to expand...
Alright, but why? And how do you account for the vacuum created by the absence of those rights in our current legal, financial, medical and other systems? You would have to change many facets of society and its systems to remove the legal benefits of marriage for no explained benefit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dave Grohl announces daughter outside of his marriage
2 3
143
9K
Dr.Morris79 replied
[Reuters] Disney tweaks DEI programs to focus on business outcomes, memo says
News Business 
4
747
jason10mm replied
Dragon Ball will continue for decades, says producer
News  2
76
3K
NahaNago replied
Tragic News: Destiny open marriage fails
2 3 4
171
36K
Deleted member 1159 replied
Zendaya Engaged To Tom Holland
News  2
97
5K
diffusionx replied
Top Bottom