The Homosexual Dilemma

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Good point, Obamacare will not stand the test of constitutionality.

It already has.

Nope, the state mandate is about to be ruled unconstitutional. Then the whole house of cards will fall.

Interesting that you think so.

The arrogant shall fall and the meek will inherit the earth.

Yes...so the suggestion is that we should be meek in the face of Islamic Terrorism so that we can inherit the Earth...............no, wait.

If the M in MIRV stands for "meek" then yes!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

no its not, that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate. You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage? If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage, but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point

So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.

Here you go: The Perils of Polygamy

You really are attached to your slippery slope!

What next? "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?

What right do you have to deny polygamists and pedophiles equal rights? All they want is the same thing you have and their love is just as valid. Get used to hearing these arguments because they're going to be much more frequent. They should be familiar since they're your arguments for queer marriage.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

no its not, that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate. You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage? If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage, but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point

So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.

Here you go: The Perils of Polygamy

You really are attached to your slippery slope!

What next? "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?

Why can't you marry a dog? Specifically?

Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults (at least it is today) How can a dog consent? How can a dog understand and sign a contract?

At least it is today. Thank you, dear, for your candor about your "progressive" agenda.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So there's an audio clip of them laughing out loud? Let's hear it!

Wow. The audio is in that link. You really do need your hand held every step of the way.

That's quite a lengthy audio. Do you know about where the Justices "laughed out loud"?

Not my problem You want to know...take the time.

Yes it is your problem because your claim is outlandish, and most likely a lie. Justices do not "laugh out loud" while attorneys general are presenting oral arguments. That would dispense with any pretense of objectivity. Such a gross breach of decorum would certainly have made the papers and no audio link would be required.

In other words, you're lying and you've been found out.

Stop lying, Fish breath!

Do you enjoy being proven wrong? This was just recently....

When Justice Elena Kagan asked whether states could ban couples over the age of 55 because they wouldn't be able to have kids, Cooper argued that "it is very rare that…both parties to the couple are infertile." The chamber erupted in laughter. "No really, because…if both the woman and the man are over 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan said, and the chamber filled with laughter again. Justice Stephen Breyer was more blunt: "I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can't have children."
​

At Supreme Court, Marriage Equality Foes' Best Argument Is That They're Losing

Now you're being desperate and in the process proving my point and cementing your reputation as a liar. When there is laughter, it's noteworthy and is recorded in print. No such record exists of the justices laughing while the Virginia attorney general was presenting oral arguments like you claimed. So you told a lie. Now you even admit it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

So....if we have equal civil rights in this country regardless of race......we DON'T have the same civil rights in this country based on gender? IS that what you are saying?

Gender

There are only two correct answers - Male and Female -

Undecided -
Both of the Above
None of the Above
are not options on this multiple choice quiz.

If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.

If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.

There is no rational basis for either.

a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage. They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.

why is the word "marriage" so critical to the gay agenda? A civil union gives you all of the rights you claim to want.

But thats not what this is about is it? the gay agenda is about forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as a normal human condition. Thats your real agenda, admit it and then we can move forward.

But you won't admit it, because you know that homosexuality is not a normal human condition

That is your opinion.

Then so is yours.

Backed by law and our legal marriage license.

Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.

When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.

The law does not have the power to turn wrong into right although it has repeatedly tried throughout the history of civilization. Faux legitimacy is not the same as intrinsic validity. Your delusions are reinforced by politicians, but they are still delusions.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

its already happening dingleberry. The ACLU is gearing up for multiple marriage (polysexual). They will use exactly the same legal arguments currently being made for gay marriage, and they will have a valid precedent that the SC will have a very hard time denying.

That's interesting. Your source?

google it. I am here to guide you, not to teach you.

Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?

I stand corrected:

ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union

Interesting read. But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.

It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.

Yeah- once again- a bigot who can't tell the difference between raping a child and consensual sex between adults.

Do they send you to special schools to learn this crap?

Your vehement condemnations won't stop the advance of the perverts seeking legal recognition for their right to rape children. What I find amusing is how you people opened those doors and then imagined you would be the last to go through them. Hilariously naive.

 

[Lilah]

a union of two men or two women is NOT a marriage.

Yes, it is. Sorry about that!

They should be able to legally commit to each other and have that union recognized, but it is NOT a marriage.

Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.

If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right. But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.

As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.

That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.

Now focus: Government cash and prizes. They want the same. "Equal protection of the laws."

Get that through your head. It isn't about a word, idiot. It is about tangible things. Real world shit that actually matters. Legal stuff.

a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD, DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.

They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.

What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
participation.

A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement. A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money. Some people will not settle for a regular person. They want a rich one. Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married. Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
What does marriage mean to the likes of you?

Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen. I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her. Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.

We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.

The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times. But I would not sign them.

Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her. We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.

Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey. We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick. We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .

So, I know something about the subject... Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.

With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.

But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.

Because neither of us meet the respective standards...


Would I like to be the starting back. you bet. But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED: it hurts... A LOT. And I'm not willing to pay that price.

And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married. To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to. They don't want to pay that price.

The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... . What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise. And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.

Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it. Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .

So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.

It's impossible to take you seriously; someone who gauges society's evolution by his own inadequacies. And by that I mean your inability to play professional football, which you've stated is your desire.
"And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married. To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to. They don't want to pay that price." I haven't a clue what you are suggesting here.
When love found you, were you free to pursue your future with the woman of your dreams or were you stigmatized? You state it was love at first sight; therefore, you didn't stop to think about it as her beauty overwhelmed you. Do you actually believe your story is unique. I have a friend who has fallen in love at first sight seven times now.
Your analogy comparing a lawsuit against the NFL because they won't let an old man without talent play for them and gay rights is beyond stupid. As stated above, your inadequacies have absolutely nothing to do with gay rights.
The unity of marriage is over 43000 years old, and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
Why should anyone have to live their life through your eyes?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What's 4300 thousand? Thanks for confirming that homosexual pervasiveness lends to the collapse and destruction of civilization. Rome fell due to internal weakness. This is kinda the point.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yes, it is. Sorry about that!

Your stupid little semantics game is transparent.

If you folks down at Westboro Baptist don't want to call a gay marriage a marriage, that's your right. But you don't get to force them not to call their marriage a marriage.

As for having their union recognized, that won't be true until they receive the exact same state and federal government cash and prizes we heteros get for being married.

That's all they want. You can stomp your feet and blow a lot of retard smoke about the word "marriage", but until you get it through your thick skull that that is all they want then you will continue to sound like a retard.

Now focus: Government cash and prizes. They want the same. "Equal protection of the laws."

Get that through your head. It isn't about a word, idiot. It is about tangible things. Real world shit that actually matters. Legal stuff.

a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD, DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.

They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.

What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
participation.

A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement. A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money. Some people will not settle for a regular person. They want a rich one. Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married. Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
What does marriage mean to the likes of you?

Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen. I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her. Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.

We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.

The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times. But I would not sign them.

Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her. We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.

Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey. We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick. We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .

So, I know something about the subject... Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.

With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.

But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.

Because neither of us meet the respective standards...


Would I like to be the starting back. you bet. But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED: it hurts... A LOT. And I'm not willing to pay that price.

And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married. To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to. They don't want to pay that price.

The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... . What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise. And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.

Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it. Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .

So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.

It's impossible to take you seriously; someone who gauges society's evolution by his own inadequacies. And by that I mean your inability to play professional football, which you've stated is your desire.
"And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married. To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to. They don't want to pay that price." I haven't a clue what you are suggesting here.
When love found you, were you free to pursue your future with the woman of your dreams or were you stigmatized? You state it was love at first sight; therefore, you didn't stop to think about it as her beauty overwhelmed you. Do you actually believe your story is unique. I have a friend who has fallen in love at first sight seven times now.
Your analogy comparing a lawsuit against the NFL because they won't let an old man without talent play for them and gay rights is beyond stupid. As stated above, your inadequacies have absolutely nothing to do with gay rights.
The unity of marriage is over 4300 thousand years old, and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
Why should anyone have to live their lives through your eyes?

Marriage is designed by nature, through the intrinsic design of the human species.

Normalizing sexual abnormality is NOT evolutionary sweety... it is DEVOLUTIONARY.

The US is not the first nation to try such... these times are not the first time such was trotted out. It has happened throughout human history.

And with every single instance, such was among the last colossal mistakes that those cultures made...

Now... please, take a moment and THINK...

Since we know that such has been tried before... and we know that NONE of those culture's that did so, 'lived to tell about it's profound success; meaning that in not a SINGLE ONE of those would-be 'experiments', did ANY ONE of the survivors of those defunct cultures, rebuild their cultures with the adherence to the normalization of sexual abnormality, doesn't it follow that such may not have produced the benefits that you seem to feel will come as a result of it?

There's a reason that homosexuals have run to the closet for MOST of human civilization... and yes... Homosexuals are the one's that locked themselves in the closet.

So ask yourself, WHY did they do so?

Was it because the acceptance of their lifestyle brought success, happiness and prosperity to their respective culture's?

Or was it because of something less enviable came as a result of it?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

...and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.

Huh... Ok. Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign? Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity? Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality?

Or not...? And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with "inspired reasoning" , or something else?

Take your time... .

 

[Lilah]

What's 4300 thousand? Thanks for confirming that homosexual pervasiveness lends to the collapse and destruction of civilization. Rome fell due to internal weakness. This is kinda the point.

it's goofy to say the least. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[Syriusly]

That's interesting. Your source?

google it. I am here to guide you, not to teach you.

Doesn't exist outside your head then, eh?

I stand corrected:

ACLU of Utah to Join Polygamists in Bigamy Fight American Civil Liberties Union

Interesting read. But as the article says, there are a few legal hurdles that do not exist with gay marriage........so no, it is not exactly the same.

It will prevail nonetheless. We've gone from reading the Constitution for what it says to finding hidden meanings and rights. Pedophiles, polygamists, queers, and all other sexual deviants understand that the holes in the dike (no pun intended) mean that the whole thing is about to collapse.

Yeah- once again- a bigot who can't tell the difference between raping a child and consensual sex between adults.

Do they send you to special schools to learn this crap?

Your vehement condemnations won't stop the advance of the perverts seeking legal recognition for their right to rape children. What I find amusing is how you people opened those doors and then imagined you would be the last to go through them. Hilariously naive.

My comments have nothing to do with any 'perverts' seeking legal right to rape children.

I was posting about the Conservative bigots like yourself who cannot tell the difference between child rape and consensual sex between adults. To you- they are the same things- and I really wonder what kind of school you went to that left you unable to understand what rape is.

 

[Lilah]

...and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.

Huh... Ok. Care to educate me on the result of Nero's reign? Did it provide Rome with great success, happiness and prosperity? Was Rome strengthened by Nero's adherence to sexual abnormality?

Or not...? And by that I mean, the old saw: Nero fiddled as Rome burned", do ya suppose that came as a result of Nero being one associated with "inspired reasoning" , or something else?

Take your time... .

Does the fact that you are married make you an intellectual? Take your time to think about it.

 

[Syriusly]

a gay civil union would give them exactly the same govt cash and prizes as a man/woman marriage.

IT IS ALL ABOUT THE WORD, DEAL WITH THAT REALITY.

They Sexually abnormal NEED it to be MARRIAGE... because they recognize the inherent legitimacy of Marriage.

What they're not sufficiently heeled, intellectually speaking, is that the standard which provides for the inherent legitimacy of Marriage, precludes their
participation.

A lot of people consider the marriage certificate to be a property-sharing agreement. A lot of women, and men, get a house, a new car, and an allowance of thousands of dollars a month, all for the simple reason that they hooked up with someone who has money. Some people will not settle for a regular person. They want a rich one. Beauty, a depreciating asset, is the only thing some people bring to the table and when it has outlived its usefulness, the promises made fall by the wayside. In such cases was the marriage legitimate?
Consider a gay couple who have been together for 30+ years, monogamously of course, who desire the same protections that marriage offers to straight people, such as if one partner dies, the other partner is not entitled to bereavement leave from work, to file wrongful death claims, to draw the Social Security of the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets, or personal items if they are not married. Unmarried couples are denied the automatic right to joint parenting, joint adoption, joint foster care, and visitation for non-biological parents. In addition, the children of unmarried couples are denied the guarantee of child support and an automatic legal relationship to both parents, and are sometimes sent a wrongheaded but real negative message about their own status and family.
What does marriage mean to the likes of you?

Friend... 35 years ago, I married the most beautiful woman I had ever seen. I literally fell in love with her, the moment I saw her. Which is made all the more odd, given that at the time, I was holding the hand of my girl friend, who I'd been 'steady' with for a well over a year.

We married 5 years later... and spent the next two years in bliss.

The four subsequent years were hell on earth... we separated and I was presented with divorce papers several times. But I would not sign them.

Now in that time, there's been times when she's hated my guts and I've hated that I was forced to breath the same air as her. We've been cruel to one another, said things that we fully meant at the time, on the surface... but neither of us could let the other go.

Our marriage is built around that... we're a man and a woman, doing the best we can on this journey. We've been flush with cash and broke as a stick. We've lived all over these United States and raised three children; homeschooling them for most of their respective schooling. And had more experiences, good and bad, than I could ever recount here... .

So, I know something about the subject... Count me as an expert of understanding the marriage thing.

With that said, I don't reject anyone happiness or the pursuit of such for themselves.

But just as I will not be starting as a running back for Miami next week, homosexuals will not be married.

Because neither of us meet the respective standards...


Would I like to be the starting back. you bet. But I don't really want to try... because doing what I would have to do to EVEN BE CONSIDERED: it hurts... A LOT. And I'm not willing to pay that price.

And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married. To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to. They don't want to pay that price.

The difference between us, is that I am not so pathetic that I will sue to force the NFL to let me suit up... . What's more, is that I understand that if I did... and IF I prevailed... that others would follow me and it would be no time at all before the NFL was no longer a legitimate enterprise. And everything that I sought to gain from 'being' a professional linebacker, would evaporate.

Marriage is what it is, and the legitimacy intrinsic to such, comes from the standards that define it. Strip Marriage of those standards and marriage ceases to be... .

So... I don't know if that helps you see how I see it, but that's probably as close as I'm going to be able to get.

It's impossible to take you seriously; someone who gauges society's evolution by his own inadequacies. And by that I mean your inability to play professional football, which you've stated is your desire.
"And the same for the homosexual that wants to be married. To be such, they'd have to marry someone that they're not sexually attracted to. They don't want to pay that price." I haven't a clue what you are suggesting here.
When love found you, were you free to pursue your future with the woman of your dreams or were you stigmatized? You state it was love at first sight; therefore, you didn't stop to think about it as her beauty overwhelmed you. Do you actually believe your story is unique. I have a friend who has fallen in love at first sight seven times now.
Your analogy comparing a lawsuit against the NFL because they won't let an old man without talent play for them and gay rights is beyond stupid. As stated above, your inadequacies have absolutely nothing to do with gay rights.
The unity of marriage is over 4300 thousand years old, and for your information, Nero, twice married men as did others.
Why should anyone have to live their lives through your eyes?

Marriage is designed by nature,?

Marriage has nothing to do with nature.

'Nature' doesn't care whether people marry or not.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Syriusly]

Gender

There are only two correct answers - Male and Female -

Undecided -
Both of the Above
None of the Above
are not options on this multiple choice quiz.

If you tell a white person they can only marry another white person, you are discriminating based on race.

If you tell a female person they can only marry a male person, you are discriminating based on gender.

There is no rational basis for either.

That is your opinion.

Then so is yours.

Backed by law and our legal marriage license.

Listen, Trout, the law doesn't have the power to make you married. It can only reinforce your delusions with the illusion of legitimacy that it cannot now or ever possibly possess.

When it comes to legal, civil marriage the law most certainly does have the power to make us married...and it did. Gays ARE legally marrying despite your opinion about their legal marriages.

The law does not have the power to turn wrong into right although it has repeatedly tried throughout the history of civilization. Faux legitimacy is not the same as intrinsic validity. Your delusions are reinforced by politicians, but they are still delusions.

So said the men opposing letting women vote.

And lots of other bigots who just opposed any change because they didn't like the people that the change would help.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL.....bigots upset that homosexuals aren't still hiding in the closet to escape persecution, arrest and assault.

 

[Vigilante]

LOL.....bigots upset that homosexuals aren't still hiding in the closet to escape persecution, arrest and assault.

Is that how you read it, with your propaganda in mind? I read it as it should be a personal choice about ones sexuality, and should be observed as such!

 

[Syriusly]

So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?

A serious drug addict.

We are not talking about your drug issues- the question I asked was very straightforward:

So you really believe that if you wanted to be attracted to men, instead of women, you could chose to do so?

Yes or No?

 

[Syriusly]

no its not, that is THE PRIMARY question in this debate. You want gay marriage but you want to prohibit polysexual marriage--------on what legal basis do you want to prohibit multiple marriage? If you answer truthfully you will repeat the exact reasons many give for opposing gay marriage, but you won't answer truthfully so its a moot point

So you need a rational basis for banning polygamy.

Here you go: The Perils of Polygamy

You really are attached to your slippery slope!

What next? "Then tell me why you can't marry a dog"?

Why can't you marry a dog? Specifically?

Another Conservative unable to understand the concept of 'consent'