Well, for me, I don't want the ability to marry a man. That's not my game.
Non-sequitur that has nothing to do with what I said.
You're trying to change your argument. You presented the argument that SSM should be allowed 'for the sake of the children'. You need to demonstrate why no other union should be granted 'for the sake of the children'.
Marriage is about family and so is SSM. Nothing has changed in my argument.
Incest is not beneficial to children because it creates guaranteed genetic abnormality and dysfunction.
Polygamy is not beneficial to children because all research points to two stable parent figures being required for healthy psychology.
Marrying an animal is absurd, and if you think the slippery slope would lead to that, then you're just a fool.
Marrying a child is illegal because a child cannot enter into contract, and it's morally reprehensible.
Is there any other kind of marriage you want to bring up?
So you support banning marriage when inheritable genetic disorders are present?
I said nothing about inheritable genetic disorders. You just made that up.
It's an integrity check on your argument, not evidence of anything.
No, it's you nitpicking for the sake of wanting to be right, instead of discussing the facts of the situation. You're being contrary for contrariness' sake.
Link or it demonstrates no such thing.
I'm not doing the work for you. It's been commonly established which is why the polygamy debate is non-existent right now. Also, marriage and family structures have been always been between two people. Even in Middle Eastern cultures where multiple wives are common, there is still a primary wife that bears the children while the others are a support role only. The children born have two fixed parents.
I'm sorry to see you leave the forum. Have a good one
Stop being a jerk.
Ahh so you're retracting your argument
Explanation or it never happened.
I never did :lol:
You just think I'm anti-SSM just because I can shoot down your cookie-cutter arguments
eace
Only in your imagination did that happen. Most of your victories were the result of blatantly distorting and manipulating the things I've said because you have some weird dysfunction when it comes to wanting to pat yourself on the back for being a jerk.
Jerry said:
Yes the Bible was written by humans. Everyone knows this. I mean the original scripts are in human handwriting, even.
Right... so why do you think the Bible has anything to do with what God wants? Is it because the authors supposedly spoke to God? You know, in today's world that would be mental illness. Maybe you should get your head checked.
Jerry said:
Hey guess what? The Constitution and the Deceleration of Independence were written by humans, too...that doesn't make them any less valid.
Hey guess what, we KNOW who wrote the Constitution and the entire context in which it was written because it was a secular document outlining the founding of a nation. The Bible is composed of many dozen books (many of which are not even included in the version available), edited and translated over the ages but a myriad of unknown people. Its stories are controversial and not objective. It's not even close to being the legal document that the Constitution is.
Nice try though.
Jerry said:
Please keep in mind, however, that Pro-SSM brought the bible into this discussion. If you follow the track-backs, you'll see that religion, the church, and what the bible has to say was initiated by YourStar in post 124. It's been a part of this thread for a long time and is not simply excluded because you say so. YouStar has been caught in an integrity fault by cherry-picking scripture. Do you want to help her out or just abandon your fellow pro-SSM?
I'm not really interested in your he-said-she-said non-sense, or your accusatory or partisan overtones. I called BS on a comment you made and if you can't deal with that without trying to bait, evade, and misdirect the blame to someone else, then maybe you should sign off of this thread your heiness.