- Joined
- Oct 19, 2012
- Messages
- 12,029
- Reaction score
- 3,530
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Yeah, but when the Mythbusters gang actually tested the "bull in a china shop" meme - the bulls never knocked over the shelves, which was kinda kewl.
so now what do we compare Scalia to?
No Government has ever recognized marriage as being anything other than man + woman ever. Someone actually tried to use Nero as an example of when it was acceptable. :roll:
Why limit it to only 2 adults? What if other sexual interest groups also want a right to those benefits? Is marriage just about people receiving benefits now? If so, wouldn't it be discrimination to exclude other sexual interest groups their "civil right" to those benefits?
I'll ask again but I know it's pointless because you can't answer. You are nothing more than emotion.
What gives gay the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ? at the exclusion of ALL other sexual interest groups?
You're just dodging now because you don't really have an argument. You're all emotion.
What gives gays the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ? over any other sexual interest group? If marriage is a "civil right" then why would other sexual interest groups be excluded? Wouldn't that be discriminating against their "civil rights"?
And like a record skipping at the end, you go on and on, with the same thing. I understand your views are based on ignorance and intolerance born of religion. But one day such people will no longer walk the face of the earth, for that you may thank God, if you believe in myths.
Now reply with 'man + woman' again, because you there might be someone else out there you can baffle with that BS.
"Sexual interest group" -- you just have to love the lexicon of the rightwing noise machine. It's so lush?
the argument you present here is irrational and based on your own fantasies, not reality.
Yawn. The Bible Thumpers who play the "But, but, but marriage is between a man and a woman" tripe to mask their homophobia arn't fooling anyone. Lighten up Francis. The ship has sailed.
Yes "sexual interest group"
Where have I once mentioned the bible
Are you actually going to deny that your inane position is based on something other than religious beliefs? And who is it you think you're kidding?
Cue up the "But why couldn't I just marry my dog?"
You seem confused and you're trying to emotionally project motivations and beliefs on me that I don't have and have never stated
Why is it so hard for you to answer a simple question?
Yes "sexual interest group"
All you're doing is name calling because you are unable to refute logic
Why should only gays get the special right to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?
I understand you just want to call people names and mock, but those are not arguments
Dodge noted
Calling people names and attacking me personally is of no interest to me
You don't have the stones to admit it. You can't even admit you're a right winger.
you accuse others of being emotional, yet you seem to have some fantasy that allowing consenting adults to express their love for each other is a slippery slope to bestiality.
how is that rational?
Let's try and simplify this because apparently you're having trouble keeping up
1) Do you believe marriage is a "Civil Right"?
A) Yes
B) No
It amazes how far righties will go to hide their beliefs. I guess I can't blame you. I'd be ashamed too. The sanctity of marrige argument is such a sham.
I'm betting this is one of your heroes.
CNN Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
You'd have to pose a valid question for it to be answered. Instead of doing such, you are stuck on dogma.
Why? As a libertarian, how did you come to that conclusion? You lambast religion from the argument, probably because "culture" is quite "natural"... But, what does that have to deal with self-ownership? Procreation is a conformist movement(duo/poly), and has nothing to deal with evolution directly, and may diminish property rights in the long-run.
You're about 50 years behind the time.
Studies indicate that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation.
Studies indicate that gays have always propagated, just at a lower rate.
The theory is that sexual orientation involves lots of genes, and in some combinations they result in alpha males, which tend to be bad fathers (so there is evolutionary pressure limiting that combination), in others they result in less aggressive males, which tend to make better fathers (and hence are favored genetically), and in other combinations they result in gay males (which like alpha male combination are limited, in this case due to lower reproductive rates). That's why the components that result in homosexual orientation remain in the gene pool. They have survival value in various combinations.
Your simplistic view is passee.
Try and stay on topic please.
You're about 50 years behind the time.
Studies indicate that there is a genetic component to sexual orientation.
Studies indicate that gays have always propagated, just at a lower rate.
The theory is that sexual orientation involves lots of genes, and in some combinations they result in alpha males, which tend to be bad fathers (so there is evolutionary pressure limiting that combination), in others they result in less aggressive males, which tend to make better fathers (and hence are favored genetically), and in other combinations they result in gay males (which like alpha male combination are limited, in this case due to lower reproductive rates). That's why the components that result in homosexual orientation remain in the gene pool. They have survival value in various combinations.
Your simplistic view is passee.
Do you believe marriage is a "civil right"?
It is on topic. And frankly it doesn't matter what I think. Your pal Scalia and his buddies have a bit of a problem. Fortunately the American people are getting it right. Your views are no longer in the majority. The religioius right to which you clearly belong are failing miserably.
Where have I ever mentioned bestiality and fantasies?
Your ad hominem attacks are of no interest to me
If gays get to change the definition of marriage to fit what they want to marry, why can't anyone else? If marriage is a "civil right" then who gets denied their civil rights by not being allowed to marry what they want?
If government has decided they will recognize the union of two people, then NOT recognizing the union of a certain group of consenting adults is discrimination. Why do you discriminate against people that are not like you?
my apologies .. you didn't mention bestiality .... however, you did state:
perhaps you could enlighten me as to what you mean by "being allowed to marry what they want?"
also, I am sorry if your understanding of the word "fantasy" is more limited than mine. Just for the record, in my dictionary, it is not limited to sexual fantasies .....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?