• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

VOTE AGAINST

RChildress107 said:
Noone is carrying this to marrying goats.

I am, however, pointing out that the line of reasoning you used earlier (basically that the government can't tell two consenting adults who love each other that they can't get married) could also be used for two brothers who want to get married. I'm not sure how that demonizes perfectly honest and good gay people.

Pointing out the logical conclusion to your argument is not the same as equating homosexuality and incest. And even if it was the only way that would be demonizing honest and good gay people is if you held that practicers of incest were demonic. That sounds like a moral judgment to me. The type of moral judgement you claimed couldn't be used as an argument against gay marriage. Make up your mind RJ.
Click to expand...

Your point is not a logical continuation.

Why do your religious beliefs trump everyone else's?
 
I have no objection to two brothers marrying. I have no objection to a brother and sister marrying. I have no objection to cousins marrying. It's not for me, but neither is a lot of the shit that some straight married couples do.

As long as everybody is of legal age, of course. The only one that I would outlaw is parent and child.
 
It's not about religion and to equate siblings marrying to gay people marring is disgraceful and demeaning to pay people.

Marriage is both a civil and religious matter. Are you willing to give up all the civil and financial benefits you get for being married?

During my life millions has "moral objections" to black people drinking out of the same water fountains as whites.

People went to Baptist, evangelical and other Christian churches saying The Bible opposed integration interracial marriages. Why is your Christian object to gays marrying any different than the above?
 
So the ability to have sex for the purpose of reproduction is the requirement for marriage? How will they test that at the courthouse?

(Obviously going a little extreme there, but the alternative is "if I can tell by looking at you if you are able to have sex for the purpose of reproduction." Which seems like discrimination to me.)

And count me in for any adults able to legally consent being able to get married in the eyes of the government.
 
RChildress107 said:
From a practical point I do wonder about the consequences of removing a gender barrier to marriage. If the benefits married couples recieve from the state are so great (I'm thinking especially of the taxes) I wonder if we will begin to see heterosexual same gender marriages just to get those tax benefits. If you told me I could recieve a couple thousand dollars for filing jointly with a coworker, or a gofling buddy I'd think about it. I'm not saying this will happen or even that I expect it to, I just wonder if that could be an unintended consequence.
Click to expand...

Why would that start happening if it hasn't really been a widespread issue of opposite sex friends doing that now for the tax benefits?
 
Last edited:
What utter BS to mask your disdain for gay people!

For the sake of argument, let's say being gay is a choice. There's no question being a Christian is a choice.

Why should your choice or my choice to be Jewish be seen as superior by the government to the "choice" of being gay?

Neither you nor I could be fired simply for being our faith. In over two dozen being gay is a legitimate reason for dismissal.

Neither you nor I could be denied an apartment or mortgage for our faiths, but in nearly thirty states the "choice"of being gay is legal to deny a person or couple an apartment of mortgage.

Marriage is no different than the above.

It's 100% about civil rights, dignity and equality.
 
You continually equate brothers marrying or siblings marrying to gays marrying to justify trying to impose your religion on others.

no one is buying it and no one is fooled by it.
 
With a really good understanding of inflation and the causes of the rise in health care costs.
 
The rules you want does impose your religious beliefs on others. There's no logical reason not to allow gay people to marry.

You've already lost. As Kitchin said once these issues get started the old school, like you lose.
 
A single gay person has the same access to marriage that a single hetero person does."

Absolutely false.A single hetero person can marry the person they love. A single gay person can't.
 
One has nothing to do with the other. It's a typical canard by zealots.
 
RChildress107 said:
Not true. I love Natalie Portman but I can't marry her.

I made that point to highlight the issue of providing married couples extra benefits. If I'm a heterosexual male and I want those benefits but I haven't found someone I love I am being denied those benefits.
Click to expand...

No you can't marry her because she's married and that would be bigamy. If you she knew you existed, loved you and was single you COULD marry her.
 
That's an irrelevant question asked to avoid the real issue. It's a typical BS canard used to avoid dealing with gay marriage.
 
I'm not answering the question because it's absurd. You obviously have a canned, programmed answer.

There no sense asking it again.
 
rj, you refuse to answer because you know that your answer is logically inconsistent with your position on in this thread. No one is suggesting that brothers should be allowed to marry, but he is absolutely right that it is a logical continuance of your argument for gay marriage, which is that consenting adults who choose to marry should be permitted to do so without the religious beliefs of others interfering. You're the one that said that the only requirement should be love. He's simply illustrating that it is about more than love, and that the difference between you and someone who opposes gay marriage is not whether a line exists, but rather where it is drawn. You continue to insist in your posts that there should be no line, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is somehow equating homosexuality with incest, etc. However, since you believe that brothers should not be permitted to marry, you do believe that there is a line, contrary to your posts here.
 
and that is relevant because it proves the point that this is about imposing personal beliefs on others, regardless of where we draw the line. We have a culture that agrees that certain things are right and certain things are wrong. the incestuous couple might think that they should be allowed to marry, but we all say no to that. the bigamist might think that he should be allowed to marry 5 women, and we say no to that.
 
There are obviously public health lines. Saying incest which is illegal in every state and no one of goodwill challenges is a logical continuation of what I said is absurd.

I know those who want to deny gays equality want to use this but its absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top