Posts
...what's wrong with defining marriage as being between one man and one woman?
Marriage equality already exists! Everyone in my beloved United States has the right to be married to one person of the opposite gender. How is that NOT marriage equality? What are the latest arguments of the glbt community? Why do some the citizens of my country have to fight for their constitutional right to vote on this issue? Does anybody stop to think how insane it is for Americans to be prevented from voting? Story here.
If one were to subscribe to your interpretation of marriage equality, then the same would have to also apply to interracial marriage: Blacks have can marry who they want, so as long as they're black. Whites can marry who they want, so as long as they're white.
ReplyDeleteIf one were to view your concern in that vein, then it would seem like your arguing for a ban of interracial marriages.
So your argument is without merit; all your doing is placing a deficit on the issue of marriage. And your being discriminatory about it.
Your comparison to interracial marriage is incorrect. Same sex "marriage" is more accurately compared to childproofed sex between siblings; like a man having a vascetomy so he can marry his consenting, adult sister because they've fallen in love with each other.
ReplyDeleteIf a man marries his sister, then it's a heterosexual marriage, not same sex. So on that note, an adult male can marry his sister because that would be an opposite sex couple.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, Incest is illegal in the United States. Unfortunately, all you did, again, is or was substitute a rhetorical for an argument, with the former simply being another inflammatory comment.
But sibling marriage is illegal because of birth defects, so a sterile man would have the same, because-we-love-each-other-and-we're-consenting-adults argument as the homosexuals have. Also, you're the one using rhetoric because you've failed to understand the reason that I was careful to state that the man was sterile.
ReplyDeleteAnd all you did was bait and switch.
ReplyDeleteAre you now arguing for incest or against same sex marriage? Please clarify.
I'm disagreeing with both and comparing CHILDPROOFED incest to homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteIn that case, my response would be, why not, as you term, "child proofed siblings"? After all, they would fit into your definition of marriage, not ours, won't it?
ReplyDeleteThe only problem is you are someone who says marriage exists to support reproduction, so...oops?
If you're implying that two men can't reproduce, the answer to that is...yes we can. Gays are capable of reproduction. Some lesbians become pregnant thru artificial insemination. Then there is surrogate mothers, a concept enjoyed by both opposite and same sex couples.
Returning again to your incest claim, we both agreed incest is illegal, so unless you're trying blame gays for incest, then I'm going to classify this as another attempt by you to insert another inflammatory comment.
What else you got?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that a same-sex couple can't make a child without a third party, while a heterosexual couple (normally) can, therefore, homosexuality isn't on the same level as heterosexuality. Also, my OTHER point was that a marriage between sterile siblings is just as wrong as a same-sex marriage; both are equally wrong.
ReplyDelete"Natural reproduction" is not a prerequisite of marriage.
ReplyDeleteGiven that you insist on the incest argument, I'm going to defer to someone else, who may perhaps provide some insight on the constitutionality of "child proof siblings" marrying.
I never said that natural reproduction was a prerequisite of marriage. My point is that gay couples want what straight couples have, yet cannot do what straight couples do, without involving a third person. A same-sex marriage that produces children is a wierd form of biological polygamy.
ReplyDeleteI keep saying CHILDPROOFED incest and you keep saying "incest." The "CHILDPROOFED" part is important to my point. You insist on misunderstanting and misquoting me.
I didn't seem to have any problems responding to your arguments, despite your bait and switch. When I do likewise, you complain of being placed in a deficit.
ReplyDeleteLOL.
What "bait and switch"? You seem to have a patternless thought process.
ReplyDeleteNG, your last post was deleted because of your use of the "f" word. Didn't I say "please refrain from obscene language"? But I'm not at all surprised that you can't respect obvious boundries.
ReplyDelete