Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
No one ever claimed it was a requirement. That's a queer argument. If the partners are of the same sex, then the institution is pointless. Why not just abolish it?
abolish marriage? Burn down the clubhouse because "those people" were allowed to join?
There's no compelling reason to ban gay marriage.
There is a compelling reason to ban incestuous marriage.
The "house" you're referring to is the marriage contract. It is not a "clubhouse". It was and still is a privilege, evidenced by your agreement that some should be excluded because of their sexual orientation which just happens to be different from yours. It too is a minority sexual orientation and intimate choice between consenting adults: a "civil right" enjoined in all your arguments to convince the courts to let you have your way. The 14th Amendment can't choose favorites you know.
The marriage contract was conceived of over a thousand years ago to provide BOTH a mother and father to children in a steady fashion for their best interest. It was maintained this way up until 2015. Then the house was burned down by Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg. Scalia lost his mind with anguish about it. He was found dead about six months later with a pillow over his head after making it clear to the world that Obergefell was one of the biggest disasters the USSC ever made to his knowledge and career. It's my personal opinion that Obergefell destroyed that man.
Burning down marriage is a ship that already left the dock.
The compelling reason to ban gay marriage is that it does not suit the purpose it was created for: providing BOTH a mother and father to children.
What pray tell is your reason for objecting to incest-orientation marriage after the sexual orientation "homosexual" got "rights" (illegally) to marry?