Prop 8?

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Please identify the alleged compelling state interest at stake and state why excluding gay couples from the right to marry is necessary to serve that alleged interest.

a) the strength of the social fabric is a state interest

You have not identified a compelling state interest. You have stated a vague euphemism. The "fabric" of modern day American society is extremely colorful and complex. It consists of many diverse threads that are woven together into a unified whole. Gay people, like black people and other minorities, are inextricably woven into every part of our society. They are educators, college professors, police officers, lawyers, doctors, bankers, plumbers, artists, entertainers, public servants, voters, council members, legislators, parents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc. The list is endless. They exist in every community and their contributions to society add to our strength.

hawkeye wrote:

thus

b) it is in the states interest to have standards and a definition of marriage.

Our states do have standards and a definition of marriage. Marriage licensing laws serve as a gatekeeping function by setting minimum qualifications for obtaining a marriage license. Gatekeeping provisions prohibit marriage of individuals within certain degrees of consanguinity, prohibit polygamous marriages, and restrict the circumstances in which a person under eighteen years of age may marry.

Marriage is defined not only as a civil contract, but also as a legal status that embodies many legal benefits and responsibilities. The Massachusetts Supreme Court stated:

"Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. . . .

"Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law. . . .

"[T]he marriage restriction impermissibly 'identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board.' In so doing, the State's action confers an official stamp of approval on the destructive stereotype that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and inferior to opposite-sex relationships and are not worthy of respect."

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003).

hawkeye wrote:

It is not in the states interest to allow any two people to claim that they are married because to do so would devalue marriage and thus destroy an institution that is vital to the health of the society.

Your statement is a conclusion unsupported by any facts. How is marriage "devalued" by two people who choose to make the commitment? Marriage licenses aren't commodities that depreciate in value as more and more of them are issued. "Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones." Goodridge. The state has a legitimate interest in encouraging gay couples to marry because stable relationships are better for our society than transient relationships. More marriages by committed individuals who will emotionally and financially support each other means more societal stability.

hawkeye wrote:

It is not in the states interest to hand out a marriage license to any two people who say that they want to go together on one. If marriage is to have any meaning then their must be some people who do not qualify, the question is not if there is a line but rather where is the line. If there are no standards then we must allow polygamy as well, are you ready for that? How about fathers marrying their daughters...is that fine with you?

Most people, at least the rational ones, do not evaluate the meaning of their own marriages on the basis of who is excluded. It's not like a membership at an exclusive country club that excludes the "riff-raff." In this country, even the rednecks may marry. See: My Big Redneck Wedding.

Again, our states do have standards that serve as a gatekeeping function. Despite your "Chicken Little" impersonation, you can relax because the sky isn't falling. Simultaneous plural marriages (polygamy) is still illegal and fathers cannot marry their daughters.

You have not shown that excluding gays from exercising the right to marry is somehow necessary to serve some identifiable compelling state interest.

1 Reply

Debra Law states =

Quote:

Simultaneous plural marriages (polygamy) is still illegal and fathers cannot marry their daughters.

They are illegal for the same reason you argue against. The State has an interest in the "social fabric".

Yet, you never answered Hawks question.

If homosexuals can marry, then why not include polygamy and incest?

2 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Let polygamy and incest have their race. It's NOT an all or nothing issue. Legalizing gay marriage does not make the other two legal.

You're using a logical fallacy called the "parade of terribles." This basically employs the notion that if we do A, then in rapid succession B,C,D,E,etc happen when in fact they do not. Further, the logical fallacy is that you can argue against A, by arguing against E (which is assumed to be something that both parties do not desire).

Your attempt (and Hawkeye's) to make the issue of gay marriage synonymous with polygamy and incestuous relationships is a folly. Both, polygamy and incest have far more hurdles to cross in terms of legal gymnastics. Polygamy creates issues of next of kin, power of attorney, inheritance, delegation of medical authority, delegation of parental authority, and tax issues created by multiple wives/husbands. Incest creates issues of forced marriage, genetic separation, and whether or not someone is of legal age to give informed consent.

Gays just want to marry the one person they love. It's actually pretty simple.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

No. It is not "simple" at all.

Your position is "equality for all".

Well......who is all? Only Homosexuals and not polygamists?

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

No. It is not "simple" at all.

Yes it is. You're just trying to make it more complicated than it is.

Woiyo9 wrote:

Your position is "equality for all".

Yes it is, and the big difference between gay marriage and the things you say about polygamy and incest is that allowing polygamy and incest actually creates inequality for those in polygamous and incestuous relationships. gay rights doesn't create inequality inwards or outwards.

Woiyo9 wrote:

Well......who is all? Only Homosexuals and not polygamists?

As stated several times, to each their own merit. If polygamists come up with solutions to the many issues I laid out or establish how it is not a issue, I'll include them.

If it's not going to effect me legally or my ability to marry the one I love, why should I care?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

You have performed well for your side. You have proven beyond any doubt that :

a) You are not interested in equality for all, only homosexuals

b) Homosexuals are not being discriminated against (except for tax filing status) and they only want to be recognized.

Not only has the voice of the voters struck your side down, you did it to yourself.

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

You really wanna play this kind of childish game woiyo? Wanna declare yourself the winner? You haven't even stepped on the field yet. After all the legal posts by DL, you've yet to even make yourself a player in this.

In that case you have proven without a doubt that:

a) You have a preference to your wants over the constitution.

b) You deny we live in a Republic.

Not only has the voice of reason, history, law, and science struck your side down, you did it to yourself.

See how easy that is Woiyo? Your declaration is meaningless. You've mischaracterized what I've said either because you don't understand it or it threatens your fragile ego. I'm fighting for equality, your opposing it. Don't like the dichotomy? Too bad, it's your shame to be worn. You're an oppressor, and just because you don't like the title doesn't make it fit any less.

There is nothing noble about what you are doing.
K
O

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

Debra Law states =
Quote:
Simultaneous plural marriages (polygamy) is still illegal and fathers cannot marry their daughters.

They are illegal for the same reason you argue against. The State has an interest in the "social fabric".

Yet, you never answered Hawks question.

If homosexuals can marry, then why not include polygamy and incest?

Your "slippery slope" argument has no merit whatsoever because every prohibition or gatekeeping provision must be evaluated on its own merits.

Polygamy is many marriages. The prohibition of polygamous marriages is a law of general applicability. In other words, the state does not make polygamy available to some while denying it to others based on arbitrary classifications. In this country, no one is allowed to be married to several persons at the same time. Accordingly, there exists no state discrimination that would be subject to judicial review under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Monogamy--one marriage at a time--is the primary vehicle through which the State regulates familial benefits and responsibilities. The State has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare and fiancial stability of your first spouse and any children of that first marriage before you may be allowed to marry again. Therefore, you must divorce your first spouse in accordance with the law before you may enter a second marriage with another person. Through a divorce action, the state court applies the law to determine matters of property division, child custody, and support.

With respect to incest, the State has a compelling interest in protecting children. Sexual abuse of a child is a crime. Fathers and mothers and other close relatives may not groom their familial children to be their sex partners. Being raised in a sexually predatory home would be harmful to children. The State must necessarily ban incestuous unions in order to protect children from becoming the helpless victims of incest.

Again, each gatekeeping provision must be reviewed on its own merits. Slippery slope arguments cannot be used to justify irrational discrimination with respect to state-issued marriage licenses.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

well put Debra.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Quote:

Your "slippery slope" argument has no merit whatsoever because every prohibition or gatekeeping provision must be evaluated on its own merits

Bull ****...we need to draw the line someplace, and it is completely reasonable to demand that we have the debate about where to draw the line before we move the line, at all. We need to have a big picture consesuse before we gut traditional marriage. That some people demand to be let in NOW is neither here nor there, they can wait till the majority is ready to change the rules, if that should ever happen

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

bullshit to what Hawkeye10? That gate keeping provisions are evaluated on their own merits? What you can't handle is no burden of mine to deal with.

You keep talking about what decisions majority makes that doesn't effect them, and now you talk about "consensus?" Consensus requires EVERYONE, and that includes the minority. You are not skilled at using terms properly.

If the majority can make all the rules, it can also engineer rules to keep it the majority? In this case I'm not talking about gays, I'm talking about race and religion. When the white Christian majority in the US was threaten to be overtaken by Chinese immigrants who were not Christians, what happened?

Chinese Immigration act of 1885. Was that right to do? Those who supported it used your same logic about the break down of society and about how the minority need to know it's place.

Your argumentum ad populum is as good as a might makes right argument. It's logical fallacy.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

We need to have a big picture consesuse before we gut traditional marriage

How could it get anymore gutted???

http://a.abc.com/media/primetime/bachelor08/images/videoplaceholders/bachelor.jpg

http://a.abc.com/media/primetime/bachelorette/images/season/4/callouts/204x83_roseCeremonyGame_01.jpg

http://www.realitytvcalendar.com/shows/joemillionaire/jm.jpg

http://www.nbc.com/Age_of_Love/

"Married by America," a weekly reality series that will search for folks hungry to get hitched -- and then set them up with arranged marriages. The American viewing public will play matchmaker, voting on which couples will get engaged.

No, we can't have an institution like this sullied by people who may actually have real feelings for each other - can we now? An institution blessed by the networks, a genuine expression of emotion that only the Neilsen Index can track and bring to our living-rooms. Rolling Eyes

2 Replies

@Mr Stillwater,

Sorry Stillwater, love is off limits in a conversation about marriage. Why, because they say so.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Quote:

"Prove to me that your heterosexuality isn't a choice."

Are you sure you stated this correctly? I stated earlier that I believe that our sexual prefrerences BOTH homosexual and heterosexual are choices. They are not choices that are so easily changed that we can wake up one morning and decide that we are one and wake up the next morning and decide that we are the other. However, the choices are made through years of positive reinforcement towards one sexual preference. So, it would likely take years of work to undo. Remember, sexual preferences are behaviors can can be changed. I believe that, if I chose to do so, I could alter my sexual orientation just like I believe that you could change yours. The key to change is the desire to do so and taking the right steps.

Quote:

"Let us outlaw your pending marriage to your fiancee and forbid you from having any kind of intimate relationship with her or any other person whom you may be attracted to under the penalty of our criminal law."

Are you kidding me with this statement? No one is forbidding anyone from having any kind of intimate relationship with their gay lover or any other person whom theymay be attracted to under the penalty of our criminal law. All I am saying is that you can't call a long term commitment a marriage. You can still get all the CIVIL RIGHTS afforded to a married couple. However, I've talked with you about this before.

Quote:

"If we make it impossible for you to pursue happiness, then our society will be better."

Again, another outlandish statement. Does happieness in life rest in the ability to call a domestic partnership/civil union a marriage? Is that the only thing that would make life happy? What if you didn't have a love interest and were single? If so, I'd suggest you get a life. There is MORE to life than this one single issue. No one gets their way in life all the time. That's just the way life is. There are many areas of society that I would change if I had it my way. So, I do what I can and have to accept when it doesn't come out my way. However, I would not define my happiness by ONE issue alone. If you do, you're setting yourself up for a lifetime of unhappiness. Additionally, you have said that you would deniy a bi-sexual person from having a male and female spouse. You have also stated that you are against insestual marriages. So, aren't you denying those people the right to their happiness? I think that you and I agree that some people's idea of happiness would not be beneficial to society. We just disagree on one of those ideas. So, don't talk about "eaulity for ALL" when you are willing to deny freedoms to some people groups yourself. That would be a contradiction.

Here is something we agree on. I LOVE this quote... "As Justice Blackmun correctly stated, "the mere knowledge that other individuals do not adhere to one's value system cannot be a legally cognizable interest, let alone an interest that can justify invading the houses, hearts, and minds of citizens who choose to live their lives differently."

So, this statement could be interpreted as saying that "the mere knowledge that my beliefs about the correct definition of marriage (my value system) do not adhere to your beliefs that the defninition of marriage should be changed (your value system) cannot be legally cognizable interest, let alone an interest that can justify invading the houses, hearts, and minds of citizens who choose to live their lives differently." I know that you meant this differently. However, I can interpret this quote differently and logically so.

I have not taken any marriage rights away from homosexual couples. They still can have all of those rights through CIVIL UNIONS. I have voted to keep marriage defined as it has always been...a union of a man and a woman. This is a definition that is consistant with the laws of nature. Just because we can choose to be either heterosexual or homosexual, doesn't mean that there isn't a right and a wrong choice. When you choose to contradict the laws of nature, expect opposition.

The flaws in your arguments stem from the facts that you arguing against nature. Men and women were created for each other. It's a law of nature. Homosexuality is a sinfull lifestyle. Every sin a person commits involves choice. If you have a choice to disobey God, you must logically conclude that you also have a choice to obey God. As I've already explained, sexual sins are hard sins to get out of our lives. So, the fact that people haven't found a way to change their sexual preferences on their own, does NOT mean they couldn't change if they took the proper steps. There are ministries of the Christian church that have seen thousands of homosexual people change their sexual orientation. Those people would testify against your belief that you have no choice in this issue. However, they were also people who actually wanted to change their lifestyle. You have exhibited no intention to change your preference. Therefore, it doesn't surprise me that you would not believe that anyone could change their preference. After all, if people can change their preference, your arguments would crumble. So, you continue to name call and speak as though you are the authority on this subject. So, anyone who dares speak against you is argued, by you, that they are wrong.

I want to close this post by asking you to proove that the "fundamental right to marry" is actually the fundamental right to call it marriage. I read Loving v. Virginia and found no such language. Lawyers are big on language and I would imagine that judges are more so. If this was the intent of Loving v. Virginia, it would be stated as so. Since it is not, it could logically be concluded that the fundamental right to marry refers to the marriage rights, which homosexual couples have through a CIVIL UNION.

1 Reply

@Mr Stillwater,

Quote:

No, we can't have an institution like this sullied by people who may actually have real feelings for each other - can we now? An institution blessed by the networks, a genuine expression of emotion that only the Neilsen Index can track and bring to our living-rooms.

Marriage to this point has not been gutted, though as an institution it is not respected as it once was. We have for two generations not supported marriage in America, and we end up at the juncture where marriage is "just a piece of paper" to a lot of folks. We end up with load of people getting married and then divorced on little more than whims.

In my opinion making a mockery of everything that marriage once was by letting homosexual "couples" be married would be more of the same, more weakening of the bedrock of American society. However, I also sense that a growing number of people think that we have already gone too far in weakening marriage, are not prepared to alter the basic definition of Marriage in the face of the homosexual political groups claim that marriage is their right.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

Your argumentum ad populum is as good as a might makes right argument. It's logical fallacy.

Even if you are right that is irrelevant. In a democracy the people make the rules, they are not imposed upon the people. People are largely irrational so it follows that democratic societies have irrational tendencies. Look at drug law....the "war against drugs" was rationally suspect from the beginning, nearly 50 years of experimenting with have proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is an expensive program that does not accomplish it goal and greatly harms large numbers of individuals, yet we keep going.

Marriage is a law that is tied up with love and sex, to expect marriage law to be rational, to think that rational evaluation will carry the day, shows that you don't understand the society in which you live.

0 Replies

@Copper Seth,

Copper Seth wrote:

However, the choices are made through years of positive reinforcement towards one sexual preference. So, it would likely take years of work to undo. Remember, sexual preferences are behaviors can can be changed. I believe that, if I chose to do so, I could alter my sexual orientation just like I believe that you could change yours. The key to change is the desire to do so and taking the right steps. . . .

Homosexuality is a sinfull [sic] lifestyle. Every sin a person commits involves choice. If you have a choice to disobey God, you must logically conclude that you also have a choice to obey God. . . .

Hello Copper Seth a/k/a Larry Craig. Thanks for revealing yourself.

It is your personal belief that "homosexuality is a sinfull [sic] lifestyle." You share that belief with others who, through years of irrational religious indoctrination, are unwilling to believe anything else.

As a citizen of the United States, you have the freedom to believe whatever you choose to believe. The Scientologists believe that eons ago, an evil galactic ruler named Xemu stacked hundreds of billions of people around volcanoes located on Earth and vaporized them with H-Bombs. They believe that the "body thetans" of these murdered space aliens are the source of our present day problems and, if they get rid of these thetans, then they will be healthy and gain the power of mind over matter. Fortunately for the rest of us, our constitutional republic prohibits the Scientologists from using the power of the State to force their beliefs on everyone else.

You may live your own life according to your beliefs and your perceptions of God's law. You may obey or disobey those alleged laws according to the dictates of your own conscience. If you catch yourself engaging in "wicked" toe-tapping in the stall of an airport restroom, you may confess your "sin" to your God or religious counselor and repent. You may engage in self-flagellation and denouce the "evil" that afflicts your mind and soul and live a life of mental torture--if that is what you choose for YOURSELF. You remind yourself of your own belief, "Remember, sexual preferences are behaviors can can be changed." You may keep reminding yourself of that bit of religious dogma, if that is what gets you through the day.

Perhaps you really do think you can change your "sexual preference" through years of self persecution and thereby condition yourself to believe that your innate sexuality is wicked. You may closet your inner "demon," deceive yourself and marry a woman in accordance with your perception of God's law, and try your hardest to avoid the call of the restroom stall where others like you occasionally meet and commit your "transgressions." That's your sad choice based upon your own discomfort with homosexuality. Your personal struggle belongs to you. You may not, however, hold everyone else in this country hostage to your religious beliefs and struggles.

You may not grab the power of the State and use it as a tool of religious persecution against people whom you believe to be "sinners." Your prejudice against gay people and your religious intolerance for homosexuality belongs to you. Citing the supreme law of our constitutional republic, Justice Blackmun stated that the Constitution cannot control such prejudices, but neither can it tolerate them. Private biases may be outside the reach of the law, but the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give them effect. No matter how uncomfortable a certain group may make you or others, mere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of another person's liberty.

3 Replies

@Debra Law,

Quote:

Monogamy--one marriage at a time--is the primary vehicle through which the State regulates familial benefits and responsibilities. The State has a compelling interest in protecting the welfare and fiancial stability of your first spouse and any children of that first marriage before you may be allowed to marry again. Therefore, you must divorce your first spouse in accordance with the law before you may enter a second marriage with another person. Through a divorce action, the state court applies the law to determine matters of property division, child custody, and support.

With respect to incest, the State has a compelling interest in protecting children. Sexual abuse of a child is a crime. Fathers and mothers and other close relatives may not groom their familial children to be their sex partners. Being raised in a sexually predatory home would be harmful to children. The State must necessarily ban incestuous unions in order to protect children from becoming the helpless victims of incest.

What if one is capable of providing, financially, for 5 wives and all children. What right do you have to deny someone of their happiness? That doesn't sound like any sort of legitimate reasoning for denying people their legal rights of marriage.

And you speak of incestuous relationship with parents and their children. What about siblings? What about cousins? 2 siblings are still legally not allowed to married, correct? Why not?

0 Replies

Copper Seth wrote:

I stated earlier that I believe that our sexual prefrerences BOTH homosexual and heterosexual are choices. They are not choices that are so easily changed that we can wake up one morning and decide that we are one and wake up the next morning and decide that we are the other. However, the choices are made through years of positive reinforcement towards one sexual preference. So, it would likely take years of work to undo. Remember, sexual preferences are behaviors can can be changed. I believe that, if I chose to do so, I could alter my sexual orientation just like I believe that you could change yours. The key to change is the desire to do so and taking the right steps.

They used to cure homosexuality with a stake and some kindling. CS, you may believe this, but this viewpoint has been utter smash by 20th century understanding of homosexuals. The notion that someone is gay by choice and therefore can be conditioned to be un-gay, is unfounded. Many gays deal with incredible self loathing because they fear the prosecution of people like you. If it was a choice, they'd be the first to try and get "fixed." But, it isn't true. History, nor science supports your claim.

Copper Seth wrote:

Does happieness in life rest in the ability to call a domestic partnership/civil union a marriage? Is that the only thing that would make life happy?

Who are you to say? I'm not sure that it would bring happiness, but I can almost guarantee that the prohibition of it creates a impassible wall in the pursuit of happiness. It's not that this one issue is what grants happiness, it's that the ban of gay marriage blocks the completion of a larger life goal picture of what happiness may be for an individual.

Copper Seth wrote:

I have not taken any marriage rights away from homosexual couples. They still can have all of those rights through CIVIL UNIONS. I have voted to keep marriage defined as it has always been...a union of a man and a woman.

1) Civil Unions don't grant the same rights as a marriage.
2) Marriage has NOT always been defined this way. Read your history. Get educated.

Copper Seth wrote:

This is a definition that is consistant with the laws of nature. Just because we can choose to be either heterosexual or homosexual, doesn't mean that there isn't a right and a wrong choice. When you choose to contradict the laws of nature, expect opposition.

The laws of nature do not include marriage CS. Humans created a ceremony, but it is not apart of natural law.

Copper Seth wrote:

The flaws in your arguments stem from the facts that you arguing against nature. Men and women were created for each other. It's a law of nature.

Your argument rest on the premise that we are "created," a poor choice. You'd need to prove that first before making this argument. Homosexuality does not violate natural law. Homosexuality exists in many species of animals. It's natural. People are born gay, and the scientific community is converging on that stance.

Copper Seth wrote:

Homosexuality is a sinfull lifestyle. Every sin a person commits involves choice. If you have a choice to disobey God, you must logically conclude that you also have a choice to obey God.

1) Sin is irrelevant to the conversation.
2) The theory of god is irrelevant to the discussion.
3) The bible is irrelevant to the discussion.
4) If you believe in the concept of sin, then Homosexuality is not a unique sin or exceptional in any way.

You are using circular logic here: Being gay is a choice and a sin, since it's a sin, it has to be a choice. You aren't using logic.

Hawkeye10 wrote:

Marriage to this point has not been gutted, though as an institution it is not respected as it once was. We have for two generations not supported marriage in America, and we end up at the juncture where marriage is "just a piece of paper" to a lot of folks. We end up with load of people getting married and then divorced on little more than whims.

In my opinion making a mockery of everything that marriage once was by letting homosexual "couples" be married would be more of the same, more weakening of the bedrock of American society. However, I also sense that a growing number of people think that we have already gone too far in weakening marriage, are not prepared to alter the basic definition of Marriage in the face of the homosexual political groups claim that marriage is their right.

Weak sauce Hawk.

Gays can't marry a person they love but straight people can get married on TV by popular vote. Then you posture here as if gays are what is threatening the "bedrock of society." I'd say if the bedrock can endure "The Bachelor," gay marriage couldn't even make a crack.

Hawkeye10 wrote:

Marriage is a law that is tied up with love and sex, to expect marriage law to be rational, to think that rational evaluation will carry the day, shows that you don't understand the society in which you live.

Yep, I'm just crazy. I expect our laws to be rational. Guilty as charged.

Copper Seth wrote:

What if one is capable of providing, financially, for 5 wives and all children. What right do you have to deny someone of their happiness? That doesn't sound like any sort of legitimate reasoning for denying people their legal rights of marriage.

And you speak of incestuous relationship with parents and their children. What about siblings? What about cousins? 2 siblings are still legally not allowed to married, correct? Why not?

As noted several times, if you'd like to argue against polygamy and incest go ahead, it's irrelevant in this discussion. They would have to argue their own merits. Gay marriage is an independent issue. DL tried to educate you and others already....

Debra LAW wrote:

(to Woiyo) Your "slippery slope" argument has no merit whatsoever because every prohibition or gatekeeping provision must be evaluated on its own merits.

Time for you to get educated.
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

As noted several times, if you'd like to argue against polygamy and incest go ahead, it's irrelevant in this discussion. They would have to argue their own merits. Gay marriage is an independent issue. DL tried to educate you and others already....

No, as you have mentioned several times you decouple poly marriage and incestuous marriage from homosexual marriage, there is no reason that other people must follow you here. If other people don't your insistence that they should thus everything that follows from them not is beyond discussion is nothing but you putting your fingers in your ears and humming so as to avoid the point that the other person is making. It is childish behaviour, and you should knock it off.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know