Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Typical garbage spewed by anti gay marriage crowd. There is a very clear difference between two consenting adults who are homosexual and "all marriages".
And yet another heterophobe trying to turn everyone else gay. And please Oh please explain the difference between two consenting adults who would like to engage an incestuous marriage? Should they be turned down simply because you may not approve of it? Didn't think so...
Like I said before, "marriage equality" makes marriage an equal opportunity for all. It doesn't just begin and end with you. Everything is fair game---the "marriage equality" banshees have yet to admit that.
With marriage equality comes 'equality" for all...are you prepared to accept marriages from all walks of life? Legally and morally speaking I don't think it can just end with gays-- if you want state and societal recognition of gay marriage, I think you have to take in the whole package, meaning that any and all marriages are fair game for recognition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshim
And yet another heterophobe trying to turn everyone else gay. And please Oh please explain the difference between two consenting adults who would like to engage an incestuous marriage? Should they be turned down simply because you may not approve of it? Didn't think so...
Like I said before, "marriage equality" makes marriage an equal opportunity for all. It doesn't just begin and end with you. Everything is fair game---the "marriage equality" banshees have yet to admit that.
Why do slippery slopists only start slipping when "gay" is thrown in there? If you make marriage open to straight people, then isn't everything fair game? If straights can marry, then don't you have to let mothers marry their sons, farmers marry their goats, and accountants marry their calculators? Why is gay marriage some sort of intermediate step that is both necessarily required to and necessarily ensures opening the ski slope?
Why do slippery slopists only start slipping when "gay" is thrown in there? If you make marriage open to straight people, then isn't everything fair game? If straights can marry, then don't you have to let mothers marry their sons, farmers marry their goats, and accountants marry their calculators? Why is gay marriage some sort of intermediate step that is both necessarily required to and necessarily ensures opening the ski slope?
And as fair and impartial as I try to be, it's the pro-gay crowd that makes it extremely difficult to empathize with their plight when they purposely shrug off and avoid the tough questions. This is NOT scare tactic,this is a very valid and legal question that I am trying to understand here. The 'slippery slope' argument is a valid one. "Marriage equality" by the application of the pro-gay crowd means that marriage rights should be equally applied to all 'consenting adults'--not just for gays. My question is, is this marriage equality jive just speil just for gays or is it for everyone? Are they 'do as I want, not as I do' types or are they willing to open pandora's box on this one?
Thus far, not one straight answer has been made about this...All I ask is for one pro-gay participant or pro-gay advocate to say "YES...if my mother wants to screw and marry my brother...it's OK, because as two consenting adults--they should be allowed to." Although I woud disagree with the very idea, they should atleast be given credit for remaining fair and consistent on the matter.
And as fair and impartial as I try to be, it's the pro-gay crowd that makes it extremely difficult to empathize with their plight when they purposely shrug off and avoid the tough questions. This is NOT scare tactic,this is a very valid and legal question that I am trying to understand here. The 'slippery slope' argument is a valid one. "Marriage equality" by the application of the pro-gay crowd means that marriage rights should be equally applied to all 'consenting adults'. My question is, is this marriage equality jive just for gays or is it for everyone? Are they 'do as I want, not as I do' types or are they willing to open pandor'as box on this one?
Thus far, not one straight answer has made about this...All I ask is for one pro gay participant or pro gay advocate to say "YES...if my mother wants to screw and marry my brother...it's OK, because as two consenting adults--they should be allowed to." Although I woud disagree with the very idea, they should atleast be given credit for remaining fair and consistent on the matter.
Or multiple partners. Why stop at 2 consenting adults? Why not 3-100 consenting adults?
Or multiple partners. Why stop at 2 consenting adults? Why not 3-100 consenting adults?
Yup.
ploygamy is fair game as well, from a legal standpoint. If 1 husband and 20 wives say that they want to be married in accordance with "equal marriage" opportunities, how can anyone deny them the privelege based on legal precedence?
And as fair and impartial as I try to be, it's the pro-gay crowd that makes it extremely difficult to empathize with their plight when they purposely shrug off and avoid the tough questions. This is NOT scare tactic,this is a very valid and legal question that I am trying to understand here. The 'slippery slope' argument is a valid one. "Marriage equality" by the application of the pro-gay crowd means that marriage rights should be equally applied to all 'consenting adults'. My question is, is this marriage equality jive just for gays or is it for everyone? Are they 'do as I want, not as I do' types or are they willing to open pandor'as box on this one?
Thus far, not one straight answer has made about this...All I ask is for one pro gay participant or pro gay advocate to say "YES...if my mother wants to screw and marry my brother...it's OK, because as two consenting adults--they should be allowed to." Although I woud disagree with the very idea, they should atleast be given credit for remaining fair and consistent on the matter.
And my point is why do you only ask this question when "gay" comes into the equation? Why aren't you asking the same question of those who support straight marriage?
The anti-gay crowd makes it extremely difficult to empathize with their plight when they selectively ask these compartive questions in relation to gay marriage but not in relation to straight marriage. Insinuating that if we allow gay marriage (but not if we allow staright marriage) that we'd also have to allow pedophiles the right to molest and marry kids, fathers the right to marry their daughters, goat-****ers the right to marry their goats, etc, is simply a way to attack and denigrate gay people, and it exposes the bigotry and hate underlying their position.
And as fair and impartial as I try to be, it's the pro-gay crowd that makes it extremely difficult to empathize with their plight when they purposely shrug off and avoid the tough questions. This is NOT scare tactic,this is a very valid and legal question that I am trying to understand here. The 'slippery slope' argument is a valid one. "Marriage equality" by the application of the pro-gay crowd means that marriage rights should be equally applied to all 'consenting adults'--not just for gays. My question is, is this marriage equality jive just speil just for gays or is it for everyone? Are they 'do as I want, not as I do' types or are they willing to open pandora's box on this one?
Thus far, not one straight answer has been made about this...All I ask is for one pro-gay participant or pro-gay advocate to say "YES...if my mother wants to screw and marry my brother...it's OK, because as two consenting adults--they should be allowed to." Although I woud disagree with the very idea, they should atleast be given credit for remaining fair and consistent on the matter.
I'm really not sure if you're trolling or just really lack the ability to think critically, but I'll answer your ridiculous question.
A mother marrying her son has far reaching implications past just the two of them. There is a much higher chance of genetic problems with their offspring and it is one of the reasons it isn't allowed now.
Thus, if a family member wants to screw another family member it creates a serious issue towards their potential offspring.
Two gay adults, who are consenting and able to make legal choices have no problematic issues besides some people not liking them.
And like someone else said, why does the issue of family members wanting to marry only come up with gay marriage?
ploygamy is fair game as well, from a legal standpoint. If 1 husband and 20 wives say that they want to be married in accordance with "equal marriage" opportunities, how can anyone deny them the privelege based on legal precedence?
Why would gay marriage make the legal precedent but straight marriage not make the legal precedent?
And my point is why do you only ask this question when "gay" comes into the equation? Why aren't you asking the same question of those who support straight marriage?
The anti-gay crowd makes it extremely difficult to empathize with their plight when they selectively ask these compartive questions in relation to gay marriage but not in relation to straight marriage. Insinuating that if we allow gay marriage (but not if we allow staright marriage) that we'd also have to allow pedophiles the right to molest and marry kids, fathers the right to marry their daughters, goat-****ers the right to marry their goats, etc, is simply a way to attack and denigrate gay people, and it exposes the bigotry and hate underlying their position.
Um, this is about "equal marriage" rights, right? Who's attacking anyone, it's a simple legal argument, that you refuse to, or can't answer. No one said a thing about pediphiles. That's simply you're attempt to avoid answering the question.
Why would gay marriage make the legal precedent but straight marriage not make the legal precedent?
Because straight marriage is not about "2 consenting adults." It's about the most stable unit for raising children. One mother, One father. To extend marriage to include homosexuals, you have to redefine it to 'consenting adults' which opens up all these other, unconsidered possibilities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
