[pyx]

Since you support redefining marriage. Why limit the number to two ? Why not three or five or for that matter seventy-five ? Why limit marriage to two people ?

Aren't you being "close minded" with such limitations ?

And while you're at it...
Why limit marriage to two unrelated people ? In the universe you're advocating, why shouldn't two sisters be allowed to marry or two brothers ? Or triplets ? Why not an uncle and three of his nephews ?

And if you can rationalize such changes 'all in the name of diversity and inclusiveness', why limit marriage to people ? Why not include inanimate objects ? I mean, someone might really 'love' a curly maple writer's desk they made from scratch. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry it ?

[Deep_6]

Re:
"..Since you support redefining marriage. Why limit the number to two ?...."

Since you make it apparent that you can't seem to find the time to read all
the posts concerning this topic with any effort to clearly understand the
position some of us take on this topic, please at least read post #78  and
please discontinue repeating the idiotic rhetoric of others.

Thanks.

 

[jwalsh07]

Deep 6 doesn't have an answer so he or she resorts to pulling the cover over his or her head and screaming ignorance.

The reason Deep 6 doesn't have an answer is because their is no answer. If marriage is a right designed to accrue happiness to adults as the SJC claims, then there is no rational basis for denying adults any type of "marriage" they wish to enter into and all the screaming from Deep 6 isn't going to change a damn thing.

When Roe was passed, the Deep 6's of the world assured us that it was only 1st term abortion where children were simply "blobs" that could be killed. OF course now we kill babies on the way out with university professors arguing to extend the time to 6 months post birth.

You won't get a rational answer from an irrational ideologue.