Replies

You’ve missed the point (again). We have civil marriage now, yes. I have said, about forty times, that I think one solution to this problem would be to stop using the word “marriage” to describe civil unions, and let religion have dominion over that word, since it is meaningful to many religious people. That way, everyone gets a civil union, and the “gay marriage debate” is over. People can still be married in the church of their choice, as well as, or instead of getting a civil union, but the government wouldn’t be involved in labeling anything a “marriage.” Churches would make their own rules about who could and couldn’t get “married” in their church.

When did I lecture anyone about Sharia law? I told someone who was yearning for it that he or she wouldn’t have a problem finding it. Please don’t make things up. It’s time-consuming for both of us. Your “reasoning” didn’t follow mine at all. You said same-sex pairings could not be called “marriage,” I said it’s already happened in places, they are already called marriages, so your statement is simply wrong. Do you understand now?

Believe it or not, people can squeeze circular logic and a a slippery slope fallacy into the same post. I’ve seen it done. They might even throw in a straw man and a red herring. The pit is bottomless.

Let me keep this a simple as possible for ya. If some group of people wanted to change laws so they could marry kangroos (who are these people, are they your friends?), then they’d have a long, hard slog ahead of them. To suggest kangaroo marriage is nipping at the heels of gay marriage is so flatly ridiculous, it is the ultimate slippery slope fallacy. In fact, that very example is used pretty often to illustrate the slippery slope fallacy (not necessarily using kangaroos, that’s your special animal). AND, people used EXACTLY the same argument against interracial marriage. That was pretty silly and offensive in retrospect, no? So is your comparison. I’m sorry you don’t get it. I’m really, truly sorry.

Did you READ your own hilarious circular argument? Please do. Just re-read it. I really don’t have the energy to look it up. It went a little something like this — same sex couples can’t get married, because they can’t get married, because they’re of the same sex. Really, it was priceless. Just enjoy it. Own it.

Civil marriage is not a static institution. It is, in fact, whatever the government says it is, for better or worse, and that varies and changes over time. I think you already understand this, and you’re just being ornery now.

You really don't understand the dynamics of this issue, do you? Aside from the rather obvious fact that substituting civil unions for marriages is just a name change, do you really think that would solve anything? The homosexual lobby wouldn't "tolerate" churches refusing to perform same-sex "marriages" anymore than they tolerate the Boy Scouts. There would be a constant war to obliterate every church, every private club, every publication that ran counter to the "gay" lobby and its demands.

I understand that you don't understand, yes. The whole point was that to allow the state to redefine a traditional institution to mean something antithetical to it, particularly without the consent of the governed, is totalitarian. And it is.

Let me keep this a simple as possible for ya.

Believe me, going over people's heads is something you'll never have to worry about.

If some group of people wanted to change laws so they could marry kangroos (who are these people, are they your friends?), then they’d have a long, hard slog ahead of them.

That's funny, because that's what they said about same-sex "marriage" not so long ago. BTW I see you attended Cultural Marxism 101, where one of the propaganda points is to accuse anyone opposed to "x" of engaging in it or having friends who do. You're more transparent than talk radio seminar callers.

To suggest kangaroo marriage is nipping at the heels of gay marriage is so flatly ridiculous, it is the ultimate slippery slope fallacy. In fact, that very example is used pretty often to illustrate the slippery slope fallacy (not necessarily using kangaroos, that’s your special animal). AND, people used EXACTLY the same argument against interracial marriage. That was pretty silly and offensive in retrospect, no? So is your comparison. I’m sorry you don’t get it. I’m really, truly sorry.

Actually, I think you're really, truly naive. I'm doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt in that regard. There really are no depths to which the left will not plunge. Once they secure one atrocity, they go for another, and then another. To think that human-animal "marriage" is beneath them is absurd. No one believes it will happen overnight, but surely it will happen, unless this downward moral spiral we're on is halted.

I think you really need to get a grip. I said same-sex couples can't marry because marriage is a bonding of people of the opposite sex. That is why marriage was created in the first place. It wasn't created so that robotic autonomous human units could self-sctualize their sexual desires without regard to gender.

If the state can define marriage to have a meaning totally antithetical to it's actual meaning, and can do this by fiat, then we simply no longer have a free society. I know you don't particularly care because I think you'd sacrifice freedom in a split second to appear fashionable and "on the cutting edge", but I would recommend that you study some real history (cutting and pasting from wikipedia doesn't count, not that the links you provided even backed up your position). I would also recommend being observant regarding the loss of our traditional freedoms in America, Canada, and many European nations, in large part to accommodate politicized homosexuality.

I may or may not respond to any additional posts in this thread. I don't think you're the type to ever let anyone else get the last word, so I'd be here forever. I'm comfortable enough in the strength of my opinions not to worry about that. So if you want the last word, take it.