- Joined
- Sep 7, 2010
- Messages
- 26,526
- Reaction score
- 9,462
- Location
- Alabama
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
because gay people are fighting for their rights and "incest people" aren't.
but that was not the arguement.
because gay people are fighting for their rights and "incest people" aren't.
Well I thought we were a nation who held individual rights in high esteem regardless of being a small minority or not:shrug:
To a certain extent, incest is tolerable, (not that it's my thing-ew gross).
But I think that brothers and sisters marrying present too great of a risk for genetic disorders.
but that was not the arguement.
Isn't kitchen sinking fun?
You decide to address every other issue but SSM, then you get to deal with the fallout.
:roll: this "debate" has become a circle jerk. There's no possible way that homosexuals should be compared to child molesters.
Incest and homosexuality also don't compare because offspring cannot result from a homosexual pair. :doh Children resulting from unions between father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister, aside from being utterly revolting also present harm to society because of genetic disorders.
It would be nice if the same arguments weren't being regurgitated over and over.
By all means, please explain how gay marriage will harm society. Meanwhile, people can keep their misguided religious sentiments to themselves. Religion and government do not mix.
run forrest run. I made a specific point countering a another specific point. if you are going to say incest isn't an important issue because it only affects a small % of people, then you should also say gay marriage isn't an important issue because it also only affects a small % of people.
consistancy. if you are going to cry for equal rights...then cry for equal rights for EVERYONE, not just your select favorite minority group.
The subject is same sex marriage. PLEASE. Stick to the topic. You don't even oppose same sex marriage.
but the main arguement for SSM is EQUAL RIGHTS for gays. I'm just saying it is hypocritical to bleat for equal rights for gays and then argue against equal rights for another group.
but the main arguement for SSM is EQUAL RIGHTS for gays. I'm just saying it is hypocritical to bleat for equal rights for gays and then argue against equal rights for another group.
but the main arguement for SSM is EQUAL RIGHTS for gays. I'm just saying it is hypocritical to bleat for equal rights for gays and then argue against equal rights for another group.
Maybe you should go back and read my other arguments on this. Those arguments explained how exactly the law should consider both the possible discrimination (which is based on the limited number of people per contract and limited number of contracts) with how allowing it could harm someone else. Plus, I included in one of my posts why it could not be considered religious discrimination.
I am not going to repost every argument I make for anything into one single point. You should be considering all of my aruments when you comment, not just one at a time, otherwise you are not being honest about what I am arguing.
I'll consider what I want to consider, and gloss over what I think is irrelevant. I'll reply to that which I find interesting. If you don't like that, don't post.
:roll: this "debate" has become a circle jerk. There's no possible way that homosexuals should be compared to child molesters.
Incest and homosexuality also don't compare because offspring cannot result from a homosexual pair. :doh Children resulting from unions between father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister, aside from being utterly revolting also present harm to society because of genetic disorders.
It would be nice if the same arguments weren't being regurgitated over and over.
By all means, please explain how gay marriage will harm society. Meanwhile, people can keep their misguided religious sentiments to themselves. Religion and government do not mix.
It is only hypocritical if there are the exact same arguments for both, with no additional arguments for or against one or the other. This is not the case when comparing incest to SSM. They do not contain the exact same arguments all the way through.
That reads like you have a closed mind.
What's your beef. Honest to [expletive-deleted], why DO YOU care? Why are you just fine with an entire segment of the populace being denied the right to marry.
they can be...by the govt. why do they insist on forcing the church to recognize them?
Americans are religious people...the most religious in the Western world. Whether or not religion directly affects law or not, it does influnce it and it does influence society. Every society has a right to regulate the public behaviors of it's members. Violating the religious beleifs of sizeable portions of that society causes harm to that society wheter or not it causes harm to you or whether or not you see any legitimacy in that harm.
Saying that religious people should keep their sentiments to themselves is no different than saying homosexuals should keep their orientation to themselves.
Americans are religious people...the most religious in the Western world.
No way. I think gays should be allowed to be gay; doesn't mean I want to watch their parade. Religious people are more than free to be religious; but I don't want to be forced to live by the rules of their god. I ain't religious, one of the perks of that is that I don't have to listen to gods. They should be free to say and think as they like; but actually using government force to enforce their religious doctrine is not ok. Sorry.
who said anything about child molestors?
who said father/daughter, mother/son, brother/sister couplings had to lead to children?
a dude ****ing his sister causes no more harm to society than does some dude sucking another guy's **** in a truckstop restroom.
Read the thread. Seriously. And the last sentence-absolutely disgusting; I mean the lack of reasoning.