Nosmo King
Gold Member
"Logical conclusion" is where you run off the rails. To think that the 'logical conclusion' is parent/child marriage is moronic. The marriage contract establishes a blood relationship between the parties to the contract. A parent and child already enjoy such a blood relationship and therefore cannot establish a secondary one.The title of the thread is mis-leading. You either intentionally, or accidentally imply that the Tea Party Candidate is in favor of parents marrying children, when in fact he's against that, and changing the definition of marriage.
No, it isn't. Nowhere in that title does the OP say anything about support, and in fact, the teabagger specifically implies exactly what the OP states.
Ok..... I don't know how you think that. He's saying if you can just redefine marriage to mean whatever you want, then you could redefine it as a parent marrying a child. He's not in favor of redefining marriage, which he makes clear. He's pointing out what the logical conclusion of that would be, which... he's against.
So.... Not sure where you are getting that from.
This argument is from a small mind incapable of doing much else than engender fear, suspicion and hatred, in other words, a Tea Party partisan of the first order.