I don't believe in gay marriage

[NotSoAnonymous]

Your strawmen are tiresome. If you'd like to talk about gay marriage, I'd be happy to. Polygamy isn't on the table. Feel free to argue that on your own thread. As I said before, I'd be happy to consider it- heck it's even been legal before, in this country.

[Anonymous]

Thank you PP. It's such a knee-jerk Republican debate tactic to take one issue and simply ignore it in favor of another question entirely.

Concerned American citizen: "Why did we invade Iraq?"
Idiot Conservative: "Why do you HATE FREEDOM???"

Gay marriage and polygamy are not related in any way. Neither are gay marriage and beastiality, or gay marriage and Molecular Gastronomy. Well, except that I'm sure some gay guy invented "foam."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you PP. It's such a knee-jerk Republican debate tactic to take one issue and simply ignore it in favor of another question entirely.

Concerned American citizen: "Why did we invade Iraq?"
Idiot Conservative: "Why do you HATE FREEDOM???"

Gay marriage and polygamy are not related in any way. Neither are gay marriage and beastiality, or gay marriage and Molecular Gastronomy. Well, except that I'm sure some gay guy invented "foam."

Lol

No really I did lol

Wtf is foam anyway? I would send my plate back if I saw that. And people think its creative!?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

1. Not all married couples have kids.
2. Some married couples use donor sperm or surrogates.
3. Other married couples have adopted.

Are you against those marriages, too? If not, your baby argument is invalid.

[Anonymous]

I support gay marriage (and bigamy, polygamy, cousinry) but believe that anonymous sperm and egg donations should be illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support gay marriage (and bigamy, polygamy, cousinry) but believe that anonymous sperm and egg donations should be illegal.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support gay marriage (and bigamy, polygamy, cousinry) but believe that anonymous sperm and egg donations should be illegal.

Why?

Because it's unnatural. Like being gay. And Molecular Gastronomy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gays aren't supposed to procreate, its natures way of natural selection to eliminate a defect

I kind of agree with this.

[Anonymous]

NotSoAnonymous wrote:Your strawmen are tiresome. If you'd like to talk about gay marriage, I'd be happy to. Polygamy isn't on the table. Feel free to argue that on your own thread. As I said before, I'd be happy to consider it- heck it's even been legal before, in this country.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the connection. I'll spell it out for you. Your whole basic argument for supporting gay marriage is that it's a fundamental right for a person to marry whomever he or she wants and get the benefits of a marriage (not civil union) and it shouldn't be anyone else's business. the problem with that argument, is that it can be applied to ANY union. Any individual should then have that right to have the benefits of marriage no matter who he or she marries - whether it's sister wives, a same sex partner, a relative....

And whatever arguments you have for DENYING the sister-wives the same basic marital rights you are fighting so hard for can be applied to those that oppose your right to marry.

Do you understand now? It's not a strawman - it's applying your logic appropriately.

the bottom line is that it is just as simple to change the legislative laws to say that wherever the word "marriage" or "marry" is - to change the /word/definition to include civil union. And to change the laws to recognize that when a couple has a civil union, they become spouses - so that all the rights that are given to spouses are given to a partner. But for some reason, that's not good enough (or easy enough?) for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NotSoAnonymous wrote:Your strawmen are tiresome. If you'd like to talk about gay marriage, I'd be happy to. Polygamy isn't on the table. Feel free to argue that on your own thread. As I said before, I'd be happy to consider it- heck it's even been legal before, in this country.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the connection. I'll spell it out for you. Your whole basic argument for supporting gay marriage is that it's a fundamental right for a person to marry whomever he or she wants and get the benefits of a marriage (not civil union) and it shouldn't be anyone else's business. the problem with that argument, is that it can be applied to ANY union. Any individual should then have that right to have the benefits of marriage no matter who he or she marries - whether it's sister wives, a same sex partner, a relative....

And whatever arguments you have for DENYING the sister-wives the same basic marital rights you are fighting so hard for can be applied to those that oppose your right to marry.

Do you understand now? It's not a strawman - it's applying your logic appropriately.

the bottom line is that it is just as simple to change the legislative laws to say that wherever the word "marriage" or "marry" is - to change the /word/definition to include civil union. And to change the laws to recognize that when a couple has a civil union, they become spouses - so that all the rights that are given to spouses are given to a partner. But for some reason, that's not good enough (or easy enough?) for you.

Possibly beside your point, but if you really need to fill in this particular blank, the "some reason" is that there is no reason to elevate a committed, long-term heterosexual relationship above a committed, long-term homosexual relationship.

Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one?

It just seems absurd - you need a woman and a man to have a baby so a marriage should be between a man and woman only.

Then you're not welcome in Boston or Chicago. The president was welcome there a few months ago.

[Anonymous]

what about goat marriage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:what about goat marriage

No ability to consent. Same with child marriage. Fundamentally different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

NotSoAnonymous wrote:Your strawmen are tiresome. If you'd like to talk about gay marriage, I'd be happy to. Polygamy isn't on the table. Feel free to argue that on your own thread. As I said before, I'd be happy to consider it- heck it's even been legal before, in this country.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the connection. I'll spell it out for you. Your whole basic argument for supporting gay marriage is that it's a fundamental right for a person to marry whomever he or she wants and get the benefits of a marriage (not civil union) and it shouldn't be anyone else's business. the problem with that argument, is that it can be applied to ANY union. Any individual should then have that right to have the benefits of marriage no matter who he or she marries - whether it's sister wives, a same sex partner, a relative....

And whatever arguments you have for DENYING the sister-wives the same basic marital rights you are fighting so hard for can be applied to those that oppose your right to marry.

Do you understand now? It's not a strawman - it's applying your logic appropriately.

the bottom line is that it is just as simple to change the legislative laws to say that wherever the word "marriage" or "marry" is - to change the /word/definition to include civil union. And to change the laws to recognize that when a couple has a civil union, they become spouses - so that all the rights that are given to spouses are given to a partner. But for some reason, that's not good enough (or easy enough?) for you.

Well said. The reason it's put forth as a straw man, is that advocates see it as "progressive" and PC -- whereas something that is historically linked to religion is seen as "narrow" and "backward."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I support gay marriage (and bigamy, polygamy, cousinry) but believe that anonymous sperm and egg donations should be illegal.

Why?

Because it's unnatural. Like being gay. And Molecular Gastronomy.

I will defend to the death the right to eat at minibar! To paraphrase William Wallace, they may take our lives, but they will never take our smoked truffle fooooooam!