Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pro gay marriage people EXPLODE at this single question I pose....
Vanity | Mar 27, 2013 | Vanity

Posted on 03/27/2013 12:49:17 PM PDT by RochesterNYconservative

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last
To: 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.


41 posted on 03/27/2013 1:34:20 PM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RochesterNYconservative
Bonus followup question:

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 !

42 posted on 03/27/2013 1:39:11 PM PDT by SecondAmendment (Restoring our Republic at 9.8357x10^8 FPS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RochesterNYconservative
Not if "gay marriage" is still actually marriage, i.e. a gay man and a gay woman.

We're only half serious about this discussion, right? But I guess we're at a point where irony is impossible.

43 posted on 03/27/2013 1:43:06 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (O Lord, hear my voice; O Holy One, let my cry come to You.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RochesterNYconservative
where to start ...

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?

44 posted on 03/27/2013 1:43:15 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RochesterNYconservative

bfl


45 posted on 03/27/2013 1:44:46 PM PDT by deweyfrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RochesterNYconservative

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.


46 posted on 03/27/2013 1:47:12 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
Their counter to that one was that we allow old people to get married long past the age of reproduction.

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.

47 posted on 03/27/2013 1:52:50 PM PDT by NurdlyPeon (New tag line in progress.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RochesterNYconservative

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...


48 posted on 03/27/2013 1:57:49 PM PDT by Popman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NurdlyPeon

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.


49 posted on 03/27/2013 1:57:52 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RochesterNYconservative

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.


50 posted on 03/27/2013 1:58:20 PM PDT by discostu (Not just another moon faced assassin of joy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RochesterNYconservative

Does marriage equality mean the woman’s vagina is the same as the man’s anus?


51 posted on 03/27/2013 1:59:03 PM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RochesterNYconservative

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.


52 posted on 03/27/2013 1:59:23 PM PDT by HerrBlucher (Praise to the Lord the Almighty the King of Creation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RochesterNYconservative
Good logic. Rush has championed this same thought frequently. "Equality of opportunity, not of outcome." Alexis de Tocqueville nailed this in 1830. Mark Levin makes a star of de Tocqueville in Ameritopia

RUSH: I'm still stuck on and amazed by the Tocqueville phrase "the perils of equality" and how the original Americans fought "the perils of equality." Back in the early 1800s, our population, our country, our culture was hell-bent on making sure there was no such thing as "equality" in terms of equality of outcome. And they actually looked at that as a peril, and they formed associations in various ways to make sure that that didn't happen.

53 posted on 03/27/2013 1:59:23 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

You and I are making similar arguments. See my #39. I like your example of changing the name of a University.


54 posted on 03/27/2013 1:59:44 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
That made me lol.

In other words, that means these ... uh ... ladies are ....

55 posted on 03/27/2013 2:01:42 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

Haaahaaaahaaaaa!!!!!!


56 posted on 03/27/2013 2:08:11 PM PDT by MagnoliaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NurdlyPeon

bttt


57 posted on 03/27/2013 2:16:58 PM PDT by petercooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Above My Pay Grade
They are trying to fundamentally redefine the meaning of marriage, not obtain, “equal rights”

That's the real issue, but no-one seems to be talking about it.

58 posted on 03/27/2013 2:17:34 PM PDT by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Servant of the Cross

Apropos...


59 posted on 03/27/2013 2:22:28 PM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RochesterNYconservative

It’s ok with me if they make that a legal requirement.


60 posted on 03/27/2013 8:11:01 PM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-62 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson