Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[JoeB131]

Okay, but your claim was that JESUS invalidated the Old Testament's laws, not Paul.

Paul who never met Jesus. (Although he was probably the guy who made him up.)

 

[Kondor3]

Okay, but your claim was that JESUS invalidated the Old Testament's laws, not Paul...

Fair enough, although I would have penned it as:

Pauline detachment of New Testament teachings from Mosaic Law - on behalf of Gentile converts - yielded the New-trumps-Old mindset/environment.

...Paul who never met Jesus...

So we are led to believe, historically.

...(Although he was probably the guy who made him up.)

Possibly.

Personally, I'm under the impression that Jesus of Nazareth did, indeed, exist - despite the lack of official documentation at a distance of two millennia - but, of course, his nature, and the interpretation of his reported teachings, are a constant source of dispute and debate.

 

[Boss]

From whence do you derive your presumed authority to declare what is, and is not moral, not for yourself - we all have that right - but for everyone else?

From whence are YOU presuming this authority? I bet it's the same place.

I'm not that's the point. I am insisting that my personal moral views have absolutely no authority over the actions of anyone else, and neither do yours. No one's does. That is the point of the freedom from religion - no one gets to demand that anyone else live in accordance with one's personal moral views.

Well sure you are! You are trying to force me to live with homosexuals marrying. And now you reveal that it's because you basically believe in no moral boundaries whatsoever. Doesn't really matter how perverse or sick it might be, you don't think we have the right to impose our moral views.

There is no "freedom from religion." Don't even know where to tell you to go find that... Religion is found in virtually every human society on the planet. What WE have is "freedom OF religion." That means, my viewpoints are equally valid to yours, even if I am religious.

But now... aren't the seculars always claiming human morality is some sort of primal trait that doesn't base itself in religion? That atheists and god-haters are fully capable of being moral without a God? Here we see a clear example of what sort of "morality" is acceptable, or becomes acceptable quickly, as you remove moral boundaries and confront taboos.

You see, we have the inalienable right to self govern. This means, we have the right to establish laws, which are essentially "restrictions on liberty" within the confines of free civil society. Most of those parameters are derived (at some point) through morality generally found in religious teaching. But even if they weren't, we still have the inalienable freedom of religion, so we can also establish laws which are outright religiously-based, if that's what "the people" want.

Yes, we do. However those laws must conform to the liberties enumerated in the Constitution. We do not have unlimited freedom to pass any laws we see fit.

Sorry, but the only thing "enumerated" in the Constitution are the powers enumerated to government. We are endowed inalienable rights. We have the right to self-govern, meaning we have the right to establish the boundaries of our liberties as a society.

Now, the difference in you and I is, I understand we are part of a collective society who also have a voice, and sometimes we may have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do. You seem to not grasp that concept and think that you can use government or courts to force society to accept what you want, even if they don't want it.

Really? Because you seem awfully willing to force everyone to conform to your views on what makes a marriage, and on the "morality" of homosexuality. It would seem to me that the people who understand that "have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do," are the ones who, while they themselves, are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, are in favor of letting everyony - including homosexuals - enjoy all of the rights, and liberties of everyone else.

Go ahead. Tell me again about how it should not be allowed because of its "immorality", while still pretending to believe in liberty...

You seem to be confused here... you have said you want to make it law of the land that homosexuals can marry. I have advocated for civil unions and removing government from the position of dictating what marriage means to the individual.... Which one of us is trying to impose their moral view on the other???

Liberty-shmiberty! This is NOT about LIBERTY! There is no place on this planet or in this universe, where everybody gets to just do as they goddam-well-please! Every law, rule, code of the most rudimentary human tribe, is some kind of restraint, restriction or limitation of some form of "liberty" in some way. We do not have the "liberty" to run around naked hurling our shit at each other. It's just the way it is! In a civil society, freedoms and liberties are restricted and limited. In OUR society, we have the constitutional right to establish those boundaries.

I believe in liberty more than you! You want a court or government to mandate Gay Marriage. Period! That is what you want, and nothing less will do. I am opposed to government mandating anything! I want THE PEOPLE to have that liberty on their own, without government involved. Why is government getting to tell us what the hell "marriage" is? Why can't individuals have the liberty to decide that for themselves?

Of course there's freedom from religion.

This post is an example of some of the worst manifestations of religion, and why our Constitution prohibits its codification.

Our Constitution states government can't establish a religion. Religion is codified in every law that exists.

Again, "Freedom From Religion" is a concept which doesn't exist in the Constitution, or in any other civilized society that I am aware of.

 

[toxicmedia]

From whence do you derive your presumed authority to declare what is, and is not moral, not for yourself - we all have that right - but for everyone else?

From whence are YOU presuming this authority? I bet it's the same place.

I'm not that's the point. I am insisting that my personal moral views have absolutely no authority over the actions of anyone else, and neither do yours. No one's does. That is the point of the freedom from religion - no one gets to demand that anyone else live in accordance with one's personal moral views.

Well sure you are! You are trying to force me to live with homosexuals marrying. And now you reveal that it's because you basically believe in no moral boundaries whatsoever. Doesn't really matter how perverse or sick it might be, you don't think we have the right to impose our moral views.

There is no "freedom from religion." Don't even know where to tell you to go find that... Religion is found in virtually every human society on the planet. What WE have is "freedom OF religion." That means, my viewpoints are equally valid to yours, even if I am religious.

But now... aren't the seculars always claiming human morality is some sort of primal trait that doesn't base itself in religion? That atheists and god-haters are fully capable of being moral without a God? Here we see a clear example of what sort of "morality" is acceptable, or becomes acceptable quickly, as you remove moral boundaries and confront taboos.

You see, we have the inalienable right to self govern. This means, we have the right to establish laws, which are essentially "restrictions on liberty" within the confines of free civil society. Most of those parameters are derived (at some point) through morality generally found in religious teaching. But even if they weren't, we still have the inalienable freedom of religion, so we can also establish laws which are outright religiously-based, if that's what "the people" want.

Yes, we do. However those laws must conform to the liberties enumerated in the Constitution. We do not have unlimited freedom to pass any laws we see fit.

Sorry, but the only thing "enumerated" in the Constitution are the powers enumerated to government. We are endowed inalienable rights. We have the right to self-govern, meaning we have the right to establish the boundaries of our liberties as a society.

Now, the difference in you and I is, I understand we are part of a collective society who also have a voice, and sometimes we may have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do. You seem to not grasp that concept and think that you can use government or courts to force society to accept what you want, even if they don't want it.

Really? Because you seem awfully willing to force everyone to conform to your views on what makes a marriage, and on the "morality" of homosexuality. It would seem to me that the people who understand that "have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do," are the ones who, while they themselves, are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, are in favor of letting everyony - including homosexuals - enjoy all of the rights, and liberties of everyone else.

Go ahead. Tell me again about how it should not be allowed because of its "immorality", while still pretending to believe in liberty...

You seem to be confused here... you have said you want to make it law of the land that homosexuals can marry. I have advocated for civil unions and removing government from the position of dictating what marriage means to the individual.... Which one of us is trying to impose their moral view on the other???

Liberty-shmiberty! This is NOT about LIBERTY! There is no place on this planet or in this universe, where everybody gets to just do as they goddam-well-please! Every law, rule, code of the most rudimentary human tribe, is some kind of restraint, restriction or limitation of some form of "liberty" in some way. We do not have the "liberty" to run around naked hurling our shit at each other. It's just the way it is! In a civil society, freedoms and liberties are restricted and limited. In OUR society, we have the constitutional right to establish those boundaries.

I believe in liberty more than you! You want a court or government to mandate Gay Marriage. Period! That is what you want, and nothing less will do. I am opposed to government mandating anything! I want THE PEOPLE to have that liberty on their own, without government involved. Why is government getting to tell us what the hell "marriage" is? Why can't individuals have the liberty to decide that for themselves?

Of course there's freedom from religion.

This post is an example of some of the worst manifestations of religion, and why our Constitution prohibits its codification.

Our Constitution states government can't establish a religion. Religion is codified in every law that exists.

Again, "Freedom From Religion" is a concept which doesn't exist in the Constitution, or in any other civilized society that I am aware of.

I agree with this last part.

If the 1st protects the free exercise of religion, there isn't any reason why the US senate can't have a Xmas tree or the ten commandments on a statue in the lobby...as long as the government doesn't pay for it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Seems you far righties say the government has no place in our private lives until you want them there .

 

[toxicmedia]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

 

[toxicmedia]

Seems you far righties say the government has no place in our private lives until you want them there .

Yep, the right is all about creating laws about abortion, gay marriage, and the practice of Islam.

 

[martybegan]

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.

 

[Conservative65]

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

My State's laws say marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. That means the homos that want to make it otherwise are wanting to redefine the legal definition of where rules related to marriage should exist.

 

[Conservative65]

But the reasons used to advocate for legal gay marriage can be used unchanged to advocate for legal plural marriage. That isn't a slippery slope.

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

So you would support a law allowing a brother and sister, both adults, to get married?

 

[bodecea]

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.

So...?

 

[bodecea]

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

So you would support a law allowing a brother and sister, both adults, to get married?

So you can't discuss gay marriage on ITS merits but have to go off onto incest (which is illegal)?

 

[martybegan]

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

Would you please stop re-writing history to suit your agenda. Marriage in this Country has always been between a man and a woman. There are no examples of same sex people applying for marriage licenses AS same sex couples prior to the past 20 years.

So...?

I'm refuting his point.

 

[R.D.]

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

So you would support a law allowing a brother and sister, both adults, to get married?

So you can't discuss gay marriage on ITS merits but have to go off onto incest (which is illegal)?

Scratches head...you really just posted that?

 

[Conservative65]

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

So you would support a law allowing a brother and sister, both adults, to get married?

So you can't discuss gay marriage on ITS merits but have to go off onto incest (which is illegal)?

So you can't hold to a principle of equality although that is what you claim to argue. My point, which you totally missed, is if you truly believe in equality, you'd fight for those to be legal, even if you don't agree, because that's what you demand the rest of us do with the fags.

 

[Conservative65]

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

So you would support a law allowing a brother and sister, both adults, to get married?

So you can't discuss gay marriage on ITS merits but have to go off onto incest (which is illegal)?

It has no merits. It's simply two homos demanding everyone support what they believe.

 

[Czernobog]

From whence do you derive your presumed authority to declare what is, and is not moral, not for yourself - we all have that right - but for everyone else?

From whence are YOU presuming this authority? I bet it's the same place.

I'm not that's the point. I am insisting that my personal moral views have absolutely no authority over the actions of anyone else, and neither do yours. No one's does. That is the point of the freedom from religion - no one gets to demand that anyone else live in accordance with one's personal moral views.

Well sure you are! You are trying to force me to live with homosexuals marrying. And now you reveal that it's because you basically believe in no moral boundaries whatsoever. Doesn't really matter how perverse or sick it might be, you don't think we have the right to impose our moral views.

There are two problems with your reply.

First, how does "forcing you to live with homosexuals marrying" affect your personal morals in any way? Does it force you to believe that homosexuality is moral? Does it force you to marrya someone of the same sex? How does it change your personal morals whatsoever? If the answer is "They don't", then I am not forcing any moral position on you.

Second, I absolutely believe in moral boundaries; those boundaries end at your front door.

There is no "freedom from religion." Don't even know where to tell you to go find that... Religion is found in virtually every human society on the planet. What WE have is "freedom OF religion." That means, my viewpoints are equally valid to yours, even if I am religious.

You know, I am so sick of this stupid defelction. You know perfectly well that the first amendment not only protects the right of every person to practice their personal religion without interference from the government, but also protects every person from being forced to live according to anyone else's religious moral code. That is "freedom from religion". It isn't a guarantee that you will never be exposed to religious thought; only that you will never be coerced into practicing any religion, or behaving in accordance with any religion's moral code.

You see, we have the inalienable right to self govern. This means, we have the right to establish laws, which are essentially "restrictions on liberty" within the confines of free civil society. Most of those parameters are derived (at some point) through morality generally found in religious teaching. But even if they weren't, we still have the inalienable freedom of religion, so we can also establish laws which are outright religiously-based, if that's what "the people" want.

Yes, we do. However those laws must conform to the liberties enumerated in the Constitution. We do not have unlimited freedom to pass any laws we see fit.

Sorry, but the only thing "enumerated" in the Constitution are the powers enumerated to government. We are endowed inalienable rights. We have the right to self-govern, meaning we have the right to establish the boundaries of our liberties as a society.

Really? So the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights guaranteed to the people? The 14th amendment is not a guarantee to the people? You're full of shit, and you know it. There are a number of rights guaranteed to every citizen of the United States. Your right to "self-govern", ends exactly there - self. You do not have the unlimited right to pass any law that you see fit, and expect that law to be enforced, simply by virtue of the fact that it was enacted by majority rule. I guarantee you will not find that in the Constitution.

Now, the difference in you and I is, I understand we are part of a collective society who also have a voice, and sometimes we may have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do. You seem to not grasp that concept and think that you can use government or courts to force society to accept what you want, even if they don't want it.

Really? Because you seem awfully willing to force everyone to conform to your views on what makes a marriage, and on the "morality" of homosexuality. It would seem to me that the people who understand that "have to live with something we personally don't agree with because that's what our fellow citizens want to do," are the ones who, while they themselves, are uncomfortable with the idea of homosexuality, are in favor of letting everyony - including homosexuals - enjoy all of the rights, and liberties of everyone else.

Go ahead. Tell me again about how it should not be allowed because of its "immorality", while still pretending to believe in liberty...

You seem to be confused here... you have said you want to make it law of the land that homosexuals can marry. I have advocated for civil unions and removing government from the position of dictating what marriage means to the individual.... Which one of us is trying to impose their moral view on the other???

That entirely depends. When you say that you advocate "civil unions", do you mean that you support this for homosexuals, or for everyone. So long as you support that for everyone, and you support relegating the "Marriage Certificate" to the same realm as the "Certificate of Baptism", and the "Certificate of Confirmation" - that is to say, a useless piece of paper, that has no meaning to anyone other than the Church that issued it, and has no value in civil government whatsoever - then sure, I am in full agreement with you. However, good luck getting the religious to agree with that. On the other hand, if you are suggesting that straights should get to have their "marriages" recognized by the state, while the Gays have to make due with "civil unions", then sorry. That is not equality.

Liberty-shmiberty! This is NOT about LIBERTY! There is no place on this planet or in this universe, where everybody gets to just do as they goddam-well-please! Every law, rule, code of the most rudimentary human tribe, is some kind of restraint, restriction or limitation of some form of "liberty" in some way. We do not have the "liberty" to run around naked hurling our shit at each other. It's just the way it is! In a civil society, freedoms and liberties are restricted and limited. In OUR society, we have the constitutional right to establish those boundaries.

I believe in liberty more than you! You want a court or government to mandate Gay Marriage. Period! That is what you want, and nothing less will do. I am opposed to government mandating anything! I want THE PEOPLE to have that liberty on their own, without government involved. Why is government getting to tell us what the hell "marriage" is? Why can't individuals have the liberty to decide that for themselves?

Bullshit. You obviously still have no understanding of the concepts of either "Liberty", or the "Law". The entire purpose of the Law is to protect me from you. Nothing more, nothing less. "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins." That applies not only to the limitation of my actions, but also to the limitation of your right to limit my action. If I am not doing you demonstrable harm, then any attempt from you to limit my behavior is a violation of my individual liberty.

 

[toxicmedia]

Dead wrong. You can have your own opinions but not your own definitions.

Think Jake.

The definitions have been changed to suit your agenda already

The same sex argument, so the supporters say, is about equality. They argue that consenting adults that want to marry should be able to marry. However, pose to them types of marriages they don’t agree with and they suddenly find plenty of excuses as to why equality of marriage shouldn’t exist in those cases. Hypocrites.

Because bestiality etc are not constitutional, which I know you believe, yet you get mad when folks agree with you about that.

Change can be easily limited.

Simplify marriage laws by allowing marriage between 2 adults.

What anti gay marriage folks never grasp is the concept that restricting marriage to one man and one woman, is adding to existing laws that don't mention the possibility that gay folks would enter into one. Gay marriage bans actually change the legal definition of marriage.

So you would support a law allowing a brother and sister, both adults, to get married?

Yes

 

[toxicmedia]

Wow....12 alerts for replies and comments from my earlier post......all of them mindless and hatefull.

It's enough to burn me out on forums like this, they're getting so predictable.

Now I'm probably going to get all that "well if you can't back up your argument with facts"...or "I win, I win, he quit"......ahhh!....ehhh!...enough!