Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[Albaron]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

Mr. Wuffles, who is not a sentient being, cannot make an informed decision, so no. Nice try but seriously, that argument has been debunked over and over.

Has it really? Evidence?

[Dyakovo]

I'm afraid I don't have enough time to debate my deeply held personal conviction on an internet forum with some person I don't know. I'm entitled to my opiniona s you are to yours.

Then I'm afraid we don't have time to do more than label you what you are: an intolerant bigot.

[Bunyippie]

3 is the exact same moronic slippery-slope argument we hear all the damn time. You know what makes two consenting adult human beings of the same gender different than you and your pony? Hint: your pony is, in fact, a pony. It is not a consenting adult human being.

Hence his mention of incest and polygamy.

incest is between two people, one of whom consents solely due to the fact the other person holds a position of power over them (Parent, bigger/stronger sibling)
Polygamy, depends on the context
and unless your pony is a citizen of the US and has passed a competence hearing, they have no rights. But if you are pro dog fucking, be my guest and marry rover.

[Tekania]

3 is the exact same moronic slippery-slope argument we hear all the damn time. You know what makes two consenting adult human beings of the same gender different than you and your pony? Hint: your pony is, in fact, a pony. It is not a consenting adult human being.

Hence his mention of incest and polygamy.

1. Incest has some congenital impact upon offspring... I may remind you that in some localities "incest" is perfectly acceptible outside of child-bearing age...

2. Polygamy and Polyandry is a non-issue... It really is of little difference and should be allowed between consenting persons.... So to me that isn't even an argument.

[Albaron]

I'm afraid I don't have enough time to debate my deeply held personal conviction on an internet forum with some person I don't know. I'm entitled to my opiniona s you are to yours.

Then I'm afraid we don't have time to do more than label you what you are: an intolerant bigot.

Same for you. Bigot.

[Albaron]

3 is the exact same moronic slippery-slope argument we hear all the damn time. You know what makes two consenting adult human beings of the same gender different than you and your pony? Hint: your pony is, in fact, a pony. It is not a consenting adult human being.

Hence his mention of incest and polygamy.

incest is between two people, one of whom consents solely due to the fact the other person holds a position of power over them (Parent, bigger/stronger sibling)
Polygamy, depends on the context
and unless your pony is a citizen of the US and has passed a competence hearing, they have no rights. But if you are pro dog fucking, be my guest and marry rover.

Incest can be doubly consensual.

[Bunyippie]

Just because there are stupid people with bigoted opinions is no reason to deny someone basic rights. How is that a strong argument in any way shape or form?

Are you seriously agreeing that gays have not suffered economic, mental and bodily harm from anti-gay discrimination? Have you ever heard of Matthew Sheppard and if you have do you really believe that was an isolated case?

Does a minority have to suffer through years of slavery before we should consider them for equal rights?

Let's not argue emotionally. If the majority of the population disagrees, then there is no reason for it. Rights can go hang, if logic is the name of the game. When over 70% of people approve, then we can talk.

okay, all black posters, please go back to the cotton picking fields, since in the 1800s, the majority of people thought blacks were on par with apes.
Women, please leave, in the victoria era, you are only born so you can take care of men
immagrants, please return your home country, during the spainish american war,the majority thought immgrants were bad
white people (myself included) GTFO, the majority of native americans agree we stole their land

If this is how you are going to argue (yet again emotionally), I might as well leave.
Of course it might be wrong. that is not the issue. The issue is that if people say no, then no. Not people say no, but it's sounds like the right thing, so es.

you are the one fighting with flawed logic. I am just using your arguments. the majority of people in the 1860s thought blacks were subhuman animals. If you want me to cite sources on this I will gladly do so. But next time, show me FACTS not flawed logic.

[Poliwanacraca]

3 is the exact same moronic slippery-slope argument we hear all the damn time. You know what makes two consenting adult human beings of the same gender different than you and your pony? Hint: your pony is, in fact, a pony. It is not a consenting adult human being.

Hence his mention of incest and polygamy.

Ah, so you're conceding that "if we allow gay marriage, won't we have to allow bestiality?" is not, in fact, a good argument, but an offensive and moronic one? That's a start.

[Zoharland]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

Mr. Wuffles, who is not a sentient being, cannot make an informed decision, so no. Nice try but seriously, that argument has been debunked over and over.

Has it really? Evidence?

...That Mr.Wuffles isn't a sentient being? Thats common sense?

[Bunyippie]

I'm afraid I don't have enough time to debate my deeply held personal conviction on an internet forum with some person I don't know. I'm entitled to my opiniona s you are to yours.

Then I'm afraid we don't have time to do more than label you what you are: an intolerant bigot.

Same for you. Bigot.

big·ot (bgt)
n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot
dude, its you who is against giving a group of people equal rights, Mr. Bigot

[Albaron]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

Mr. Wuffles, who is not a sentient being, cannot make an informed decision, so no. Nice try but seriously, that argument has been debunked over and over.

Has it really? Evidence?

...That Mr.Wuffles isn't a sentient being? Thats common sense?

No, that it has been debunked.

[Dyakovo]

I'm afraid I don't have enough time to debate my deeply held personal conviction on an internet forum with some person I don't know. I'm entitled to my opiniona s you are to yours.

Then I'm afraid we don't have time to do more than label you what you are: an intolerant bigot.

Same for you. Bigot.

Care to explain how I am a bigot?

[Farnhamia]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

Mr. Wuffles, who is not a sentient being, cannot make an informed decision, so no. Nice try but seriously, that argument has been debunked over and over.

Has it really? Evidence?

...That Mr.Wuffles isn't a sentient being? Thats common sense?

I think he wants evidence that it's be debunked over and over. I think there were half a dozen replies similar to mine in this thread alone. Hell, every time someone tries the Mr. Wuffles Gambit it evokes a shower of "animals can't consent."

[Albaron]

Just because there are stupid people with bigoted opinions is no reason to deny someone basic rights. How is that a strong argument in any way shape or form?

Are you seriously agreeing that gays have not suffered economic, mental and bodily harm from anti-gay discrimination? Have you ever heard of Matthew Sheppard and if you have do you really believe that was an isolated case?

Does a minority have to suffer through years of slavery before we should consider them for equal rights?

Let's not argue emotionally. If the majority of the population disagrees, then there is no reason for it. Rights can go hang, if logic is the name of the game. When over 70% of people approve, then we can talk.

okay, all black posters, please go back to the cotton picking fields, since in the 1800s, the majority of people thought blacks were on par with apes.
Women, please leave, in the victoria era, you are only born so you can take care of men
immagrants, please return your home country, during the spainish american war,the majority thought immgrants were bad
white people (myself included) GTFO, the majority of native americans agree we stole their land

If this is how you are going to argue (yet again emotionally), I might as well leave.
Of course it might be wrong. that is not the issue. The issue is that if people say no, then no. Not people say no, but it's sounds like the right thing, so es.

you are the one fighting with flawed logic. I am just using your arguments. the majority of people in the 1860s thought blacks were subhuman animals. If you want me to cite sources on this I will gladly do so. But next time, show me FACTS not flawed logic.

I'm not even going to counter this. Obviously a man cannot win when he is outnumbered. I admit defeat to you, my numerous opponents. Curse you all! I shall return, with more arguments, and hopefully with more people!

[Bunyippie]

If you think this is a "strong argument," I think you badly need to be exposed to people who aren't in the "cognitively-challenged underclass," as he puts it. I mean, seriously? "Marriage has to be limited to heterosexual people because stupid people need something to aspire to"? The fuck?

Let's not even mention the leap from redefining to encompass a class of consenting persons to somehow slope into allowing the marriage to farm-animals and children.... Just the FACT that someone posits that automatically nullifies their entire argument.... Course, I'm not totally certain that the class of individuals actually realize how absurd they are...

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

Mr. Wuffles, who is not a sentient being, cannot make an informed decision, so no. Nice try but seriously, that argument has been debunked over and over.

Has it really? Evidence?

...That Mr.Wuffles isn't a sentient being? Thats common sense?

No, that it has been debunked.

prove it. Prove to me my dog is a sentient being.

[Farnhamia]

I'm afraid I don't have enough time to debate my deeply held personal conviction on an internet forum with some person I don't know. I'm entitled to my opiniona s you are to yours.

Then I'm afraid we don't have time to do more than label you what you are: an intolerant bigot.

Same for you. Bigot.

Care to explain how I am a bigot?

You're intolerant of his opinions.

While people certainly entitled to their opinions, it is possible that their opinions might just be wrong, as is the case with Albaron.

[Flameswroth]

The decline in the quality of trolling these days is so sad.

I think the sadder thing is that, despite the claim that trolls are becoming less sophisticated and discrete, people still feel the need to reply to them and argue with them, all the while claiming to know it was a troll.

You can call someone a troll all you want, but it means nothing if you continue to feed them like they wish to be fed.

[Bunyippie]

however, like the civil rights march, gay marriage will happen. No matter how much of a tantrum the religious right throws, most people think "Who the fuck honestly cares?! The economy is in the toilet and you christian zealots want to rage about two guys who want to get married?"

[Albaron]

I'm afraid I don't have enough time to debate my deeply held personal conviction on an internet forum with some person I don't know. I'm entitled to my opiniona s you are to yours.

Then I'm afraid we don't have time to do more than label you what you are: an intolerant bigot.

Same for you. Bigot.

Care to explain how I am a bigot?

Because you are automatically convinced I am wrong.
Same goes for me.
Heck, we a re all bigots!

[Farnhamia]

The decline in the quality of trolling these days is so sad.

I think the sadder thing is that, despite the claim that trolls are becoming less sophisticated and discrete, people still feel the need to reply to them and argue with them, all the while claiming to know it was a troll.

You can call someone a troll all you want, but it means nothing if you continue to feed them like they wish to be fed.

I know, I know. Trolls are like potato chips, you really can't eat just one. It's something we struggle with all the time.

[Bunyippie]

I'm afraid I don't have enough time to debate my deeply held personal conviction on an internet forum with some person I don't know. I'm entitled to my opiniona s you are to yours.

Then I'm afraid we don't have time to do more than label you what you are: an intolerant bigot.

Same for you. Bigot.

Care to explain how I am a bigot?

Because you are automatically convinced I am wrong.
Same goes for me.
Heck, we a re all bigots!

am I saying that because you are not pro gay, you should be sent to hell/are a sick and depraved individual?/ other ate speech? No, I am saying you are wrong and a bigot. I have the right to disagree.

[Farnhamia]

I'm afraid I don't have enough time to debate my deeply held personal conviction on an internet forum with some person I don't know. I'm entitled to my opiniona s you are to yours.

Then I'm afraid we don't have time to do more than label you what you are: an intolerant bigot.

Same for you. Bigot.

Care to explain how I am a bigot?

Because you are automatically convinced I am wrong.
Same goes for me.
Heck, we a re all bigots!

But you are wrong. You're on the side that say that because of my sexual orientation, I am not entitled to the same rights as a hetersexual citizen of the United States. You're on the side that restricts rights and makes me a second-class citizen of my own country.

[Zoharland]

I'm afraid I don't have enough time to debate my deeply held personal conviction on an internet forum with some person I don't know. I'm entitled to my opiniona s you are to yours.

Then I'm afraid we don't have time to do more than label you what you are: an intolerant bigot.

Same for you. Bigot.

Care to explain how I am a bigot?

Because you are automatically convinced I am wrong.
Same goes for me.
Heck, we a re all bigots!

Methinks you need to learn what bigot means...

Here's a hint: What you put up there? Not it!

[Albaron]

however, like the civil rights march, gay marriage will happen. No matter how much of a tantrum the religious right throws, most people think "Who the fuck honestly cares?! The economy is in the toilet and you christian zealots want to rage about two guys who want to get married?"

I was trying to be unreligious in my arguments, but oh well.

[The Ambrose Islands]

Think a minute: If we legalize gay-marriage, and it ebcoems acceptable, people who want to marry their dogs will use the same arguments we use now: "You let interracial marriages happen, why not gay marriages."
"You let gays marry, why not me and Mr. Wuffles"

I think you and Mr. Wuffles would make a great couple. Best of luck to you both.

Personally I think that gay marriage should be legal. It doesn't hurt anyone. If the churches don't want to do it, they don't have to. It's not like anyone's forcing them.

Just remember:
"God is gracious. He forgives all. And if he doesn't, then he's not God, so you need not worry."