Interesting question for those support gay marriage (biased, voted, children)

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

I can make all the same argument against gay marriage. :-)

The problem is YOU want to impose your view onto others. Live and let live right?

Really? The SAME argument? How would you do that when it's totally different.

Where on earth did you get that I wanted to impost my views on others? I said that polygamists just needed to make a good legal case. Just like proponents of same-sex marriage have. I just pointed out that polygamy is far more complex.

The "problem" is that you clearly have reading comprehension difficulties.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

Plural marriage has been the oldest form of marriage for as long as human history. When was the last gay marriage in history?

The last 'gay' marriage? About 2 seconds ago. (Is that the question you actually meant to ask?)

Those aren't problems but excuses. Each one can be easily resolved.

How? In a legal sense.

The fundamental thing is the government should have no business in what consenting adults want to do with each other.

I agree. As long as they are not infringing on the rights of others.

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

Serious, divorce has long made marriage meaningless. Serial plural marriage is rampage nowadays - you still have all the problems of polygamy in serial plural marriage.

Not really.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by hammertime33

What?

You would argue that gay marriages throughout history have often been abusive for women and girls?

And the rest really don't make sense as arguments against gay marriage.

I doubt the poster even read the post before responding to it, let alone thought about what they wrote.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

I argue gay marriage has never been a form of human history until recently.

If you care to know, the worse domestic violence occurs between gay mans. The level of brutality is beyond your wild imagination.

Your arguments have been shown to be rather flawed. But you seem to have a wild imagination.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by pch1013

No. That's like saying that if you like apples, you must also like walnuts, because both grow on trees.

Originally Posted by Robin Rossi

What a stupendously stupid analogy.

It was rather apt. Same-sex marriage and plural marriage have very little in common.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by Robin Rossi

Once society officialy sanctions the degradation of marriage by expanding it to include such an unatural and inappropriate combination as two people of the same sex, it can't help but include less-objectionable deviations such as polygamy.

Why?

And why is polygamy "less objectionable" to you?

Don't worry, I can already guess the answer. You're a male right?

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

If you gay people want to settle with union rather than marriage, I am fine with it. :-)

Sanspeur isn't gay.

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Proof?

I don't think the poster would be allowed to post a picture of the source of their statement. If you get my drift....

[TriMT7]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

Plural marriage has been the oldest form of marriage for as long as human history. When was the last gay marriage in history?

Those aren't problems but excuses. Each one can be easily resolved.

The fundamental thing is the government should have no business in what consenting adults want to do with each other.

Serious, divorce has long made marriage meaningless. Serial plural marriage is rampage nowadays - you still have all the problems of polygamy in serial plural marriage.

Resolved easily?

Please show us some EASY examples of resolution to any of the foregoing.

[NJBest]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

I argue gay marriage has never been a form of human history until recently.

Originally Posted by pch1013

Proof?

He wouldn't be able to prove that since it's obviously not true. He appears to have shallow knowledge about what he is talking about.