Michael Reagan son of Ronald Reagan on gay marriage

[Rabid Ram]

We've all heard the arguments for and against gay marriage. Now Michael Regan throws his two cents into the the ring.

Legalizing same-sex marriages, he writes, 'inevitably will lead to teaching our public school kids that gay marriage is a perfectly fine alternative and no different than traditional marriage.'

'There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality,' he continues. 'Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.'




This guy has issues i mean really same sex marriage a slippery slope to bestiality and murder what an idiot.

I am not gay but i have no issue with gay marriage. Or for that matter if kids learn being gay is ok.

I have a 4 year old son and a gay brother who babysits him. If my son decided that he was more interested in a guy then a girl he would have my 110 percent support. I love my son for just that he is my son.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Re: Michael Reagan son of Ronald Reagan on gay marriage

Him and Ron are polar opposites. Thanksgiving Dinner must be fun.

 

[Rabid Ram]

Re: Michael Reagan son of Ronald Reagan on gay marriage

Agreed ron fought for the rights of gay teachers

 

[Psycho_X]

Re: Michael Reagan son of Ronald Reagan on gay marriage

'There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality,' he continues. 'Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.'

Well he probably does have a point here from a legal stand point. Well except the murder thing... that makes no sense. And bestiality is stretching it to the extreme. But polygamy... if you throw out the "traditional" definition of marriage and say people have the right to love and marry who they want. What legal right do we have to say someone can't marry multiple people? What's legal right do we have to say you can't marry your cousin, your sister, your mother? And you know there'll be people out there wanting to use legal loopholes just to avoid taxes and get other benefits that it might cause.

And no I'm not saying any of this is comparable to gay marriage. But from strictly a legal perspective once you take away a restriction to a law and open it up to more interpretations that judges from every walk of life will have to rule on.... who's to say what legally will be right or wrong.

I'm not defending Reagan, he's a little over the top obviously. But just saying he does have a point about it being a slippery slope when you start changing laws based on morality.

 

[-X-]

Re: Michael Reagan son of Ronald Reagan on gay marriage

'There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality,' he continues. 'Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.'

Well he probably does have a point here from a legal stand point. Well except the murder thing... that makes no sense. And bestiality is stretching it to the extreme. But polygamy... if you throw out the "traditional" definition of marriage and say people have the right to love and marry who they want. What legal right do we have to say someone can't marry multiple people? What's legal right do we have to say you can't marry your cousin, your sister, your mother? And you know there'll be people out there wanting to use legal loopholes just to avoid taxes and get other benefits that it might cause.

And no I'm not saying any of this is comparable to gay marriage. But from strictly a legal perspective once you take away a restriction to a law and open it up to more interpretations that judges from every walk of life will have to rule on.... who's to say what legally will be right or wrong.

I'm not defending Reagan, he's a little over the top obviously. But just saying he does have a point about it being a slippery slope when you start changing laws based on morality.

That's about how I see it too. I mean, once you toss out the 'legal' definition of morality, then you're going to be forced to redefine it at some point. Same sex marriage is okay? Sure. How about Polygamy? Nah. Well, then that's where you draw the line? If not, then what's next? Can I marry my goldfish? No. Okay, then THAT'S where you draw the line? If not, then you could very well find yourself involved in a Supreme Court case involving a *right* to marry a corpse.

Seriously. Think about it. If you don't adhere to established boundaries, but instead decide to stretch them, then how far do you allow them to stretch before re-establishing a new boundary?

 

[Rabid Ram]

Re: Michael Reagan son of Ronald Reagan on gay marriage

I can see the point yall are trying to make BUT lets look back it used to be illegal for. Blacks and whites to marry they amended that law and we are not fighting over said issues.

As far as people getting married to get tax breaks and such last i checked regular traditional marriages already do this crap.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Re: Michael Reagan son of Ronald Reagan on gay marriage

'There is also a very slippery slope leading to other alternative relationships and the unconstitutionality of any law based on morality,' he continues. 'Think about polygamy, bestiality, and perhaps even murder.'

Well he probably does have a point here from a legal stand point. Well except the murder thing... that makes no sense. And bestiality is stretching it to the extreme. But polygamy... if you throw out the "traditional" definition of marriage and say people have the right to love and marry who they want. What legal right do we have to say someone can't marry multiple people? What's legal right do we have to say you can't marry your cousin, your sister, your mother? And you know there'll be people out there wanting to use legal loopholes just to avoid taxes and get other benefits that it might cause.

And no I'm not saying any of this is comparable to gay marriage. But from strictly a legal perspective once you take away a restriction to a law and open it up to more interpretations that judges from every walk of life will have to rule on.... who's to say what legally will be right or wrong.

I'm not defending Reagan, he's a little over the top obviously. But just saying he does have a point about it being a slippery slope when you start changing laws based on morality.

That's about how I see it too. I mean, once you toss out the 'legal' definition of morality, then you're going to be forced to redefine it at some point. Same sex marriage is okay? Sure. How about Polygamy? Nah. Well, then that's where you draw the line? If not, then what's next? Can I marry my goldfish? No. Okay, then THAT'S where you draw the line? If not, then you could very well find yourself involved in a Supreme Court case involving a *right* to marry a corpse.

Seriously. Think about it. If you don't adhere to established boundaries, but instead decide to stretch them, then how far do you allow them to stretch before re-establishing a new boundary?

Doesn't seem very hard to me. Can the person legally enter into a contract? Yes? Then okay. No? Then no. Animals, children, objects... They are unable to legally enter a contract, so you can't marry them. Two men or two women who are both adults are able to enter into legal contracts, so therefore they should be allowed to get married.

Incest is different because of the medical issues that comes from inbreeding.

Polygamy? I guess that could be sticky... Personally I don't really give a shit, if 6 people want to share each other and live in the same house, then whatever. It seems stupid to me, but it's not as if making it illegal is going to stop people from sharing each other. The idea that gay marriage is what will 'topple' the institution of marriage is silly to me. If you go back to the 60's, people said that if you allowed interracial marriage, people would suddenly want to marry their animals as well, that didn't happen.

The only thing I could see being an argument about is Polygamy, but there's already an argument for that now (Libertarians are in favor of legalizing it for example)... The rest is just hogwash, gay marriage isn't going to change anything there.

 

[Stranger]

The Gov't should not be in the marriage business.... that would solve a lot of problems.