In other words, that means these ... uh ... ladies are ....
Posted on 03/27/2013 12:49:17 PM PDT by RochesterNYconservative
Why is government in the business of certifying the bond between *any* people?
I say Marriage is a religious institution, and the government has no business in certifying it at all.
As far as government is involved (tax breaks) it should not be. Republicans want the government to certify relationships that they approve, and Dems want to add to that list.
The libertarian position is to get government out of certifying marriages entirely. No social engineering by the government.
Marriage is religious - keep government out of defining it. Defining marriage is up to your religion.
Ask the commie-lib™ if they believe polygamy is a "right", then when they answer "no, of course not", ask them why is it okay for two consenting adults (gay or straight) to get married by not three or more.
You will then get the answer "well that is because marriage as always been between two people, per tradition".
You may then swoop in for the logical kill, "oh you mean the same tradition that dictates marriage is between two people, which is the same one that states it is solely between a man and a woman"
Game, Point, Match !
We're only half serious about this discussion, right? But I guess we're at a point where irony is impossible.
If marriage is a privilege, then any state or federal government can extend that privilege to anyone it so chooses. Why are you advocating for this privilege to be extended to sexual degenerates and therefore condone their adoption of children to be indoctrinated?
bfl
Next will be that married couples have a right to children, whether they can biologically produce them or not. This is easily fixed by the state simply awarding children to gay couples. The state can just “tax” children away from couples that have more children than they need, and allocate them more fairly to those that have none.
Don’t laugh.
And my counter to that is that I don't have to show that heterosexual unions ALWAYS produce children, I just have to show that homosexual unions NEVER produce children. Should we start parsing heterosexual marriage based on reproductive capability? Why? Because there are some heterosexuals that cannot reproduce, we should allow homosexual marriage? I don't think so. Because homosexuals cannot reproduce, we should start parsing heterosexual marriage? Again, I don't thinks so.
Their statement about 65 years olds not procreating is like their statement that 50% of marriages end in divorce. They like to toss it out there as if it had some meaning. The correct response to those kind of statements is to after them. Have them explain to you exactly what the significance of their statement is. And based on their answer, what actions are they advocating? Then ask them WHY we should do this. What is the motivation? How does this benefit society? This usually shuts them down, because while their statements may be technically true, they are hardly compelling arguments for what they are advocating.
Always remember that THEY have to convince YOU, NOT the other way around. Never let yourself be put on the defensive. Never let them maneuver you into a position where you have to try to convince them. That what the whole 'bigot' name calling thing is about; it immediately puts you in a position of having to try to convince them.
Remember, they are the one trying to play God. They are the ones trying to overturn 10,000 years of human history. They are the ones who are saying that we as a society are under some obligation to take two guys buggering each other and put that in the same category as a male and a female. (Remember, if they have a 'right' to get married, then you have an obligation to recognize it. How can they have a 'right', if that right puts an obligation on you?) If they want to redefine marriage, they better be able to put forth at least a dozen argument about why we should do this. Their argument need to be highly compelling, and they need to stand up under serious scrutiny. Saying that because we allow 65 year olds to get married, therefor we should allow two guys to get married.............Not even close.
Hate to burst your bubble...but libtards cannot comprehend logic...or reason...
Might as well talk to the wall... you will get the same result...
I’m not saying there is not a counter to their counters, ad infinitum. I am saying that they will make some argument and think theirs is right, even if it is logically deficient. With liberals, the argument doesn’t have to be objectively correct, it just has to sound good when loudly and passionately proclaimed.
Actually it’s a pretty silly strawman of a question. It’s a right, but it’s a right to a VOLUNTARY relationship by both people. That’s the difference between a right and a guarantee, you have a RIGHT to associate with whoever you chose, but you have no GUARANTEE that they too will chose, and their right of association includes the option to tell you to go away.
Does marriage equality mean the woman’s vagina is the same as the man’s anus?
I have a much simpler approach. I just tell them that I don’t believe there should ANY limits on marriage. When they say that there should, I call them a bigot and a hater.
You and I are making similar arguments. See my #39. I like your example of changing the name of a University.
In other words, that means these ... uh ... ladies are ....
Haaahaaaahaaaaa!!!!!!
bttt
That's the real issue, but no-one seems to be talking about it.
Apropos...
It’s ok with me if they make that a legal requirement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.