Last edited by Slippery Slope; 04-09-09 at 03:58 PM.
People like this creep me out...
I guess any marriage that doesn't result in children should be disallowed or disolved. What's your time line for disolution, 1 year without producing a child? 2 years? Maybe you'd like to be generous and make it 5 years...When homosexual partners can procreate with one another, I'll be first to grant them the right to marriage.
Your *snicker* "argument" was the very first one ever debunked, how can you be so mindless as to continue to use it? You must have forgotten which crowd you're talking to, we're not the Sunday hive mind.
How about consenting adults? So simple even a xian can understand it... no offense...Where do we draw the line when it comes to marriage?
Brother & Brother?
Sister & Sister?
Brother & Sister?
Fathers and daughters?
Mothers and sons?
Mothers and daughters?
Fathers and sons?
Adults and juveniles?
Aunts and Uncles with nieces and nephews?
Grandparents and other immediate family members?
Yeah, why not? As long as they are consenting adults...If they "love" each other (the defense for gay marriage)... then why not let everyone marry anyone and anything?
Consenting adults.Where do you draw a line in the sand?
Why not?And if that line in the sand is at Gay Marriage... WHY?
That doesn't quite make sense... how can you be a bigot if you're inclusive?You're a bigot...
...so goes the argument against those who do not support gay Marriage.
That doesn't make you right.Most of us believe it is between a man and a woman.
That is our line in the sand.
Consenting adults. Because you and the government hav eno business sticking your nose in a private citizens private life.What is your line in the sand and why?
Marriage is an invitation for the government to interfere in the lives of its citizens.Consenting adults. Because you and the government hav eno business sticking your nose in a private citizens private life.