GOP steers clear of gay marriage issue

[nehalem256]

The courts basically said "boys and girls are different". It is odd they would have to remind people of something so obvious.

You forget that one of liberals main interest group is based on pretending that is not true.

 

[feralkid]

That is because people who want brother-sister marriages or polygamy do not vote Democrat.

So they all vote for Republicans?

I did not know that, Donnie.

 

[nehalem256]

So they all vote for Republicans?

I did not know that, Donnie.

Lets think of who engages in incest and polygamy

Incest - White West Virginia hill billies... the people who rather elect an incarcerated felon than Obama

Polygamy - Extremist religious elements... again not the constituency of Democrats.

 

[actuarial]

Are Jamie or Peyton already married, are they siblings or first cousins, are they of legal age?

You forgot all the other items which you say are not discriminatory so you can latch onto one and say only that one item is discriminatory.

I didn't ignore them. Marriage laws do discriminate based on age, family relation and marital status (hell, two of those I even specifically mentioned in a prior post). I believe only age needs to satisfy the same scrutiny level as gender in determining if it is legal discrimination, but I think we can all agree that there is good reason for that discrimination.

In any case, the arguments for discriminating on those basis are all more reasonable than the reasons for the gender discrimination.

 

[actuarial]

The religious institution existed first. It has a meaning. If you want to randomly change what words when why not start calling oak trees pine trees...they are both trees, after all.

Here is an example I think everyone can understand, and it uses trees:

Hetero union = oak tree
Homo union = pine tree

A oak and a pine are both trees, but they are not the same thing so they have different names.

Hetero and homo unions are both unions, but they are not the same thing so they have different names.

Hetero union is called marriage. But since that word is already taken, we cannot use it for something different, even if similiar. A new name is needed OR we remove the naming altogether and simply just have unions.

You keep referring to this flexible 'religious institution' as if it is some defined thing. If you are going to argue that it shouldn't be called a marriage because the religious institution had the word first and didn't recognize it, you should be making the same argument for any and all rules that don't fit into what the 'religious institution' considers a marriage.

So, to be clear, what rules are and aren't allowed with respect to marriage according to the 'religious institution'? What time period and religion are you referring to, and what sources do you have that those are the definitive rules of marriage that cannot be broken?

I'll again reference back to myself: my marriage is not recognized by any religion. Does that mean I should not be using the word 'marriage', since that word refers to the religious institution?

 

[jackstar7]

Binary thinking is the enemy.

 

[soulcougher73]

You keep referring to this flexible 'religious institution' as if it is some defined thing. If you are going to argue that it shouldn't be called a marriage because the religious institution had the word first and didn't recognize it, you should be making the same argument for any and all rules that don't fit into what the 'religious institution' considers a marriage.

So, to be clear, what rules are and aren't allowed with respect to marriage according to the 'religious institution'? What time period and religion are you referring to, and what sources do you have that those are the definitive rules of marriage that cannot be broken?

I'll again reference back to myself: my marriage is not recognized by any religion. Does that mean I should not be using the word 'marriage', since that word refers to the religious institution?

Look at this nut job using logic and requesting facts and stuff...sheesh