deacdiggler
"Well known member"
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 23,987
- Reaction score
- 12,117
so bigamy then. why do you disapprove of that.
There are obviously public health lines.
There is no public health issue in two brothers getting married.
RJ, given the argument i think you have presented the above are your four options. Either pick one of those 4 or change your argument.
There is no public health issue in two brothers getting married.
ETA: Also RJ I'm going to ask you again to please stop lying. I do not want to deny gays equality. I have stated several times that I don't think the state should grant extra rights or benefits to married couples.
You know what, I've seen the light. Since I don't think that biological siblings should be allowed to marry, I also don't think homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Thanks for the fucking wisdom, rchildress. It's not like homosexuality is a commonly recognized sexual orientation in all cultures, so it's perfectly logical to compare homosexuality to incest or beastiality, or whatever stupid, disingenuous avenue you might lead us down next. If you've got an opinion about it, just be upfront instead of trying to outsmart or outdumb everyone with a shitty PSAT logic puzzle.
I don't see how gay marriage takes us much closer to allowing other groups to marry legally.
People can debate the morality of it and whatever issues the may have with that concept, but I don't think it inherently would serve as a gateway for other "groups" to marry.
Fair enough. But RJ and the courts are not using the same reasoning.
Probably the same arguments which led the government to incentivize marriage in the first place.
Go ahead and make those arguments then.