Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[Czernobog]

How many have to stand up before you fight for marriage equality for EVERYONE ?

How about 1. Can you cite a source that presents a single case of someone wanting polygamy legalized? How about incest? Can you provide a source that presents even one person who is calling for this?

No? Well, come on back when you can.

I'm overwhelmed by your compassion

Compassion for whom? All of the poor people that want polygamy, and don't exist?

 

[Czernobog]

How many have to stand up before you fight for marriage equality for EVERYONE ?

This doesn't make any sense.

There is no 'equality' for something that doesn't exist, such as 'marriage' for three or more persons.

Your failed and ridiculous attempts to obfuscate the issue with red herring fallacies is tedious and inane.

Three and moresomes who love each other ought to be granted the same protection and rights as all the other homosexuals and heterosexuals. Why on earth would we forbid love like that to flourish ? damn pluraphobes . How will it hurt them ?

Okay. Simply show me some of those, and I will be more than happy to support them...

 

[Vandalshandle]

It is important to the Right that gays not be given the right to marry, because it would add lesbians and gays to other groups that they can no longer feel superior to, like African-Americans, women, atheists, citizens that don't speak English (but have the same rights as they do), etc., etc.

 

[dilloduck]

It is important to the Right that gays not be given the right to marry, because it would add lesbians and gays to other groups that they can no longer feel superior to, like African-Americans, women, atheists, citizens that don't speak English (but have the same rights as they do), etc., etc.

How silly. It's simple to find someone to feel superior too. Ask any liberal. They feel superior to every right winger that ever existed.

 

[ShackledNation]

A look at history and the whole "traditional marriage" argument falls apart.

Not to mention that government has no place in our private lives.

MYOB

/thread. No use looking through any other posts.

 

[elektra]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

 

[Czernobog]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

Only an idiot thinks that a loving, committed relationship is anything other than a loving committed relationship based solely on the gender of the people involved.

A marriage is a marriage. So, call it what it is.

 

[elektra]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

Only an idiot thinks that a loving, committed relationship is anything other than a loving committed relationship based solely on the gender of the people involved.

A marriage is a marriage. So, call it what it is.

Only a tyrant dictates that homosexuals be called the same name we call heterosexuals.

 

[Czernobog]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

Only an idiot thinks that a loving, committed relationship is anything other than a loving committed relationship based solely on the gender of the people involved.

A marriage is a marriage. So, call it what it is.

Only a tyrant dictates that homosexuals be called the same name we call heterosexuals.

Nobody is saying anything about what you call homosexuals. However, a marriage is a marriage. That isn't tyranny; it's fact.

 

[elektra]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

Only an idiot thinks that a loving, committed relationship is anything other than a loving committed relationship based solely on the gender of the people involved.

A marriage is a marriage. So, call it what it is.

Only a tyrant dictates that homosexuals be called the same name we call heterosexuals.

Nobody is saying anything about what you call homosexuals. However, a marriage is a marriage. That isn't tyranny; it's fact.

I can not use the term, "homosexual", in a discussion about homosexuals?

There you have it, homosexual activists must prevent people from speaking the truth.

 

[Czernobog]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

Only an idiot thinks that a loving, committed relationship is anything other than a loving committed relationship based solely on the gender of the people involved.

A marriage is a marriage. So, call it what it is.

Only a tyrant dictates that homosexuals be called the same name we call heterosexuals.

Nobody is saying anything about what you call homosexuals. However, a marriage is a marriage. That isn't tyranny; it's fact.

I can not use the term, "homosexual", in a discussion about homosexuals?

There you have it, homosexual activists must prevent people from speaking the truth.

What are you babbling about? Who told you you can't use the term homosexual?

 

[elektra]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

Only an idiot thinks that a loving, committed relationship is anything other than a loving committed relationship based solely on the gender of the people involved.

A marriage is a marriage. So, call it what it is.

Only a tyrant dictates that homosexuals be called the same name we call heterosexuals.

Nobody is saying anything about what you call homosexuals. However, a marriage is a marriage. That isn't tyranny; it's fact.

I can not use the term, "homosexual", in a discussion about homosexuals?

There you have it, homosexual activists must prevent people from speaking the truth.

What are you babbling about? Who told you you can't use the term homosexual?

Sorry, your last post was a bit incoherent, what was your intent in denigrating my use of the term, homosexual.

 

[Ravi]

It is important to the Right that gays not be given the right to marry, because it would add lesbians and gays to other groups that they can no longer feel superior to, like African-Americans, women, atheists, citizens that don't speak English (but have the same rights as they do), etc., etc.

How silly. It's simple to find someone to feel superior too. Ask any liberal. They feel superior to every right winger that ever existed.

It isn't a matter of "feel".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Only an idiot thinks two men or two women are the same as a man and a woman.

Call them something different, because the are different.

The marriage contract they enter into is not different, however; the law is the same regardless the gender configuration. Marriage is two consenting adult partners participating in a committed relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

dilloduck said: ↑

“How silly. It's simple to find someone to feel superior too. Ask any liberal. They feel superior to every right winger that ever existed.”


Ask any liberal and he'd tell you that you're ridiculous.

 

[TooTall]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

 

[TooTall]

dilloduck said: ↑

“How silly. It's simple to find someone to feel superior too. Ask any liberal. They feel superior to every right winger that ever existed.”


Ask any liberal and he'd tell you that you're ridiculous.

Is that a denial?

 

[JoeB131]

[

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

Yes, because the Catholic Clergy has done such a good job preventing that sort of thing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

dilloduck said: ↑

“How silly. It's simple to find someone to feel superior too. Ask any liberal. They feel superior to every right winger that ever existed.”


Ask any liberal and he'd tell you that you're ridiculous.

Is that a denial?

It's recognition of the fact that the post was ridiculous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

If our government cannot define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, it follows that there can be no law against the union of a man and several women.

Again, you ignore the fact that the laws, regulations, and policies are in place for a couple, and would need to be completely rewritten. For instance, when one is in the hospital, one's spouse has the final authority, in the case of one's incapacity, to decide what medical treatments will be allowed. Now, when there are in fact, two spouses, which one gets to make such decisions?

That is why God made lawyers.

Well, that may be true. However, I think that legalizing polygamy will not be as easy, and would certainly take longer than did same-sex marriage, because of the body of laws that would also need to be changed. Also, I can't say that I see anyone coming forward wanting polygamy, as they did with same-sex marriage. The only people even talking about it are the opponents of same-sex marriage, as a "slippery slope" argument.

However, should anyone actually come forward, and say they want to practice polygamy, as you can see, your "slippery slope" failed, because most of us who support same-sex marriage don't really give a shit about polygamy.

And, just in case you want to bring it up next, most of us are just as unconcerned about incest. We just really don't care what people do in their private lives.

What else do immoral atheists not give a shit about and still support? Child abuse comes to mind.

This fails as a straw man fallacy and is also ridiculous.