bodecea
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #2,101
Why? And yes....twenty years ago it didn't look possible....and 100 years ago, women didn't look like they'd get the vote...and 250 years ago, it didn't look like the U.S. would ever separate from Great Britain.That's what keys has been saying.He's already argued that there are loveless hetero marriages."the person they love" seriously?
Give me another law that changes based on what someone wants.
Here's the dealio: For every single point made in arguing for gay marriage, the exact same argument can be made for unlimited plural marriage.
Come to think of it...all those arguments apply to hetero marriage too - OMG - why have ANY marriage?
And yet...and yet. If the government doesn't have the right to deny two people equal rights, how then does it have the right to deny millions, or billions?
Reality.
We can take anything - any law - to the point of absurbity. But the chances of it happening are virtually nil. So because of that do you have no laws?
I don't have an issue with polygamy if people want it. But that's also another argument. If people want polygamy then they need to make a compelling case for it on it's own merits. The case for same sex marriage is being argued on it's own merits - not alongside polygamy.
When we allow homosexuals to marry, we are taking law to the point of absurdity. And, less than 20 years ago, everyone thought the chances of it happening were virtually nil.
It appears you "logic" has serious flaws in it.
Mark
Progress marches on.