Diogenes said:
If you remove the traditional gender restriction on "civil rights" grounds, how can you not remove the numerical restriction with the same logic?
Because the numerical restriction on marriage does not result from the same logic. It comes from the legal contract of marriage not allowing for multiple partners. An entirely new contract would have to be constructed. This argument is fallacious, boring, and unintelligent at its core.
Neither is an excuse for deviant behavior. If someone's sexual preference is for sheep or children, they are expected not to act on their preference. Think of it as just another handicap they must bear, just like smokers who must tolerate the intolerance of others who are annoyed by their behavior.
Here is another fallacious, boring, and unintelligent argument. Those who would engage in sexual activities with sheep or children are predatorial and lacking in distinct moral boundaries. Children nor sheep can consent to engagement in sexual activity. When are you "slippery slope" idiots going to get that through your heads? Your whole argument lacks foundation, intelligence, and even creativity. It is a mindless load of drivel spoon fed to you by religious wing nuts and you buy it hook, line, and sinker.
Further, smoking is a choice, no a handicap. I know of no study that says one is genetically predisposed to smoking. Nor do I know of one which says homosexuals can put on a patch to curb their attractions for the same sex. Intolerance of smoking is intolerance of a behavior. Intolerance of homosexuals is intolerance of a person.
So are pedophiles and sadists. It is acting on their impulses which is unacceptable.
Here again with this mindless drivel. You guys will grasp at any straw you can because your arguments are ignorant, lacking in substance, and based purely on emotional bias against something you think is "icky". Well when your likes and dislikes become grounds for legislating against a group of people, we'll be sure to send you the memo.
Again, pedophilia is a predatorial practice. The practice of pedophilia and sadism presumes a clear and present danger to the object of desire for the pedophile or the sadist. These are relationships founded upon victimization. This is why these practices are unacceptable.
No, they didn't change it. They correctly rejected your proposed change. Tough. Learn to love it.
Or take part in constructive activism and overturn these rejections...its not so hard, it happens all the time and we shall see who wins the final struggle. Evolution toward a more inclusive and pluralistic society has been a constant march for America, so it only stands to reason that your ignorant and vile philosophies will die out in time.
Marriage is between one man and one woman in our culture. Polygamy is accepted in other cultures (none of them particularly successful), but same-sex unions have never been accepted as the equal of marriage anytime, anywhere. The language may have changed to "two people" recently as a sop to the feminist crowd, but the perversion of same-sex "marriage" is a very recent absurdity.
As I said before, we shall see who wins this one in the end. Already, the rest of the world is working toward acceptance and I am sure America will follow suit eventually. The language was changed for the feminists...and so it is only a logical assumption that it can change again. And again and again as long as we see fit. The true absurdity concerning marriage is how the heterosexual population have demeaned its value (exhibited by a high divorce rate, rampant infidelity, deviation from the doctrines of the Church concerning grounds for divorce, etc) yet they think that it is their proprietary right to deny that institution to those who seem to really want it.
As to your baseless assertion that same sex unions have never seen equality to traditional marriages, you may wish to look just across our northern borders to Canada. You will be quite surprised...though I something tells me you have a problem with Canadians too.
True. If it's not due to nurture, it must be due to nature just like any other birth defect such as pedophilia, Downs syndrome, or the urge to pull wings off flies.
Pedophilia is a psychological aberrance resulting in a predatorial attraction to the young. Down's syndrome is a very obvious birth defect caused by physical abnormalities that results in a retardation of the mental faculties and abnormalities in morphology. I was not aware that there were any studies showing a predisposition to pulling the wings off flies, but if there are, please point me to an article. Your entire argument is again baseless and its crossing over into being pointless.
Think of homosexuality as being akin to tobacco addiction: barely legal, in no way respectable, and certainly unworthy of legal protection.
I prefer to think of homosexuality in a more sane and realistic way. It is a part of society, is becoming more widely accepted as a way of life for those born with the predisposition, already protected legally in the same way every other citizen is protected, and doesnt require your respect or validation.
