I hate it when people make the case against gay marraige with ridiculous arguments like this. It just looks stupid.
Well if we let the progressive weenies drive us into shar’ia, it may become a valid argument.
No fooling. Stupid and desperate. If that’s the best argument he can come up with, he probably should avoid the subject.
“I hate it when people make the case against gay marraige with ridiculous arguments like this. It just looks stupid.”
Please, educate us as to the ‘proper’ way to make the argument.
Hayworth could have his wife and kids pose for silly photos with tape on their mouths for gay activist groups, like Cindy and Meghan McCain did.
To conclude the quote: Better Adam and Stave than Adam and Steed.
Precisely
Marriage, in civil terms, is a construct of the government. It is a status bestowed on the basic family unit in recognition of its' importance to society.
A state legislature can create any form of civil union that it thinks appropriate. In the end, they are answerable to the voters. A state Supreme Court (as in MA) has no business in creating new laws.
That was a ridiculous statement. People should focus on polygamy. If a man can marry another man, then why can't a man marry two men?
If marriage isn't defined as one man with one woman, it can (and will) be defined as just about anything. If homosexual marriage takes root, polygamy and other polyamorous relationships will become legal codified.
It is not stupid nor ridiculous.
This is exactly where this is headed.
When the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman is discarded, then no one can legally define what marriage is.
ANY restriction on marriage would simply be litigated out of existence, as being none of the state's business.
Hayworth has this one right. Without God's definition of marriage, marriage will cease to have any definition.
The collapse of society is the end result.
But it is the truth. Once everyone accepts gay marriage as normal the bar will be lowered to push for other abhorrent lifestyles being allowed to legally marry.
It DOES look stupid, and it is VERY DANGEROUS!!
The acceptance of one form of sexual perversion (homosexuality) most certainly lead the acceptance of another even if idea of marriage between species is stretch.
Would you prefer "You could marry your Mother (or Father)"?
I have to disagree. There was a time when the idea of two people of the same gender getting married would have been considered a "ridiculous argument" and would have "looked stupid". You appear to have accepted some of the mainstream point of view on this topic.
I think you missed his point. Establishment of intimacy is too braod and could be applied to anything, therfore it is bad law.
“I hate it when people make the case against gay marraige with ridiculous arguments like this. It just looks stupid.”
Such things have occurred in open marriage states already. It is not ridiculous because it is real.
Well, “gay marriage” is stupid(at *best*).
Not a stupid argument at all
British Woman Marries Dolphin
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180478,00.html
This is completely rational. When there is no standard for marriage, everything is made “right.”
Gay marriage also legitimizes polygamy and polyandry. Again, once the definition is no longer “between a man and a woman,” what is left is “everything.”
Your lack of argument is “stupid.”
Those who went to the zoophilia ranch in Washington state weren’t looking to get married. It’s just sex.
GoAskAlice on Columbia University’s website advises people on their sexual health questions, without moral judgments including those who ask about sex with animals.