Same sex marriage

[IronWing]

Which of course is exactly the opposite of what marriage is about. Marriage isn't about saying that married couples must bear children. Its about saying that unmarried couples shouldn't be bearing children.

You just don't want women to have children.
You just don't want women.

 

[soulcougher73]

I kind of agree about the fed overruling state laws, but honestly I don't give a fuck whether gays get to be married or not. Why the hell do straight people fight so hard against it though? I always like to say that if I see it on a ballot while I'm already voting for something else, sure I'll vote for same sex marriage. I won't make a special trip "just" for that, but get it on there with something I actually care about and you have my vote. If you expect more than that out of someone who has zero dogs in this race then to hell with you.

Some people like to fight for social justice when they see discrimination.

 

[Vaux]

This is false. there is no excuse for not knowing this is false.

Which part is false? Care to explain?

 

[dank69]

But there is no rational basis for a law requiring a toaster to consent to marriage.

What person is harmed by allowing people to forcibly marry toasters? :hmm:

Marriage is a contract. If you can get your toaster to agree to the terms of the contract, I'm all for it.

 

[Tombstone1881]

Race is not the same. False analogy.

Being born black is a totally natural. As is Chinese or whatever. Nothing wrong with it. They are a product of their environment.

Being gay... well, that isn't. No living thing is purposely born to be not attracted to the opposite sex or to not be able to procreate.

False analogy? How so?
Do you really CHOOSE your sexual identity?
Did you really have to choose between being attracted to women instead of men?
Was it a difficult choice? How many years did it take you to decide?
Did you have to flip flop between the two to make your decision?

I'd assume you'd have to say no, and your attractions were NATURAL to you.
Why can't you give gay men and women the benefit of the doubt and believe that THEIR attractions are NATURAL to THEM???!!!

 

[Vaux]

What about the hundreds of examples of gay relationships between animals? Guess that's not natural either...

What about the thousands of people born with 3 arms and 2 heads? Is that natural too?

No it's not. And neither is homosexuality.

 

[Rakehellion]

What about the thousands of people born with 3 arms and 2 heads? Is that natural too?

No it's not. And neither is homosexuality.

How is that unnatural? Did Obama cause conjoined twins?

 

[dank69]

Which part is false? Care to explain?

See post 97

 

[dank69]

What about the thousands of people born with 3 arms and 2 heads? Is that natural too?

No it's not. And neither is homosexuality.

Yes, all of those things are natural.

 

[z1ggy]

This thread has delivered ! GJ ATOT

 

[Vaux]

Marriage is a contract. If you can get your toaster to agree to the terms of the contract, I'm all for it.

Marriage is also defined as between a man and a woman by law. So since you're all about changing the laws, then I guess that means your argument is bunk. Try again.

 

[nehalem256]

Marriage is a contract. If you can get your toaster to agree to the terms of the contract, I'm all for it.

Why does it need to agree?

Quoting you:

That's because you are morally bankrupt. Whether or not something hurts someone else is the only line that makes logical sense with regard to lawmaking.

Typically someone cannot be forced into a contract against their consent because that would constitute harm to a person.

So what person is harmed by forcing a contract on a toaster without its consent?:hmm:

 

[SlitheryDee]

But there is no rational basis for a law requiring a toaster to consent to marriage.

What person is harmed by allowing people to forcibly marry toasters? :hmm:

Slippery slope. Force toasters to marry and eventually we'll be forcing people. Some slick lawyer makes a case that women are "dumb as toasters", brings out several dozen "expert witnesses" to attest to that fact, and suddenly you can marry anyone whether they want you to or not. No, the consent part has to stay I think.

 

[Rakehellion]

If everyone was flying, it would not lead to the death of humans.

This is not true. If everyone in the world flew a plane instead of walking, humanity would quickly become extinct.

 

[nehalem256]

You just don't want women to have children.
You just don't want women.

Worried that if toaster marriage was legal you would feel an uncontrollable urge to stick your dick in your toaster? :hmm:

 

[Vaux]

Yes, all of those things are natural.

Ok, fine. So it's natural to be born with a defect. But you can't sit here and tell me that is the way the body is supposed to be, which was the point I was attempting to make.

 

[dank69]

Marriage is also defined as between a man and a woman by law. So since you're all about changing the laws, then I guess that means your argument is bunk. Try again.

Where is it written that wanting to change a law nullifies any and all arguments?

 

[mnewsham]

What about the thousands of people born with 3 arms and 2 heads? Is that natural too?

No it's not. And neither is homosexuality.

It is perfectly natural for someone to be born with an extra limb or head. Is it normal? No. But perfectly natural. Also gay relationships in animals are equally natural they occur in nature without any artificial interference. Its perfectly natural.

 

[nehalem256]

Slippery slope. Force toasters to marry and eventually we'll be forcing people. Some slick lawyer makes a case that women are "dumb as toasters", brings out several dozen "expert witnesses" to attest to that fact, and suddenly you can marry anyone whether they want you to or not. No, the consent part has to stay I think.

If you are worried about slippery slope seems best not to modify marriage to allow same-sex marriage then doesn't it?:sneaky:

 

[nehalem256]

Where is it written that wanting to change a law nullifies any and all arguments?

Well it certainly nullifies arguments that are based on the idea that the law cannot change.

 

[Retro Rob]

Listen you dumb shit.

Why do you have to resort to this?

You bigots don't get to claim that the reason SSM is not okay is because it isn't natural and then pretend that the only reason we think it is okay is because it is, in fact, natural. It is natural AND it doesn't hurt anyone unlike all those other things you listed. Also, go fuck yourself with a statue of Jesus.

Doesn't matter if it doesn't "hurt anyone" because nature is nature, period.

You don't get to cherry pick nature. Nature doesn't stop because it "hurts people" -- it does what it does.

Deal with it.

 

[dank69]

Ok, fine. So it's natural to be born with a defect. But you can't sit here and tell me that is the way the body is supposed to be, which was the point I was attempting to make.

What the body is "supposed to be" is purely subjective. Should we make it illegal to have babies that are missing limbs?

 

[soulcougher73]

Which of course is exactly the opposite of what marriage is about. Marriage isn't about saying that married couples must bear children. Its about saying that unmarried couples shouldn't be bearing children.

Those poor cave men back in the day procreating the human race without knowing what marriage is. Scum bags. Lock em up.

 

[dank69]

Well it certainly nullifies arguments that are based on the idea that the law cannot change.

Yes, it certainly does.

 

[IronWing]

Rule 34 applies to toasters.