When it's something that doesn't impact anyone who doesn't chose to do it in any way, I don't think asking the law to NOT prohibit it is asking too much.
Seems that a majority of America disagrees. Work to change that by plurality vote and you'll be King of the Gay People. A hero for life. Until then, the law correctly remains inflexible.
Of course it does. What Constitution did YOU study?! Just because we think we hold the truth doesn't mean that we actually do.
Which, according to the definition of the word as currently understood is quite impossible. It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a 1 pound coconut.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry Date: 14th century 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross
You agree that straight couples who have children obtain the most support in subsidies. That such support comes from more than one source does not change that fact. End of analysis. And I already answered the question about non-reproducing straight couples. Most eventually do have children, and therefore present society with a POTENTIAL benefit that gay couples do not. That's enough. That's all society needs. That some within that group never have children is really beside the point. Your argument ignores that some support of gay couples can be given without equating them with straight marriages. I am not necessarily averse to such an approach. But in case you haven't checked, the gay movement wants more than that.
Objection. Assuming facts not in evidence. Several posta above HAVE identified a harm and an impact. Your assertion means nothing as it depends on something that is not the case.
Were you trying to rebut his point or prove it? Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Not a big fan of democracy, huh? Well, I am not too happy with it sometimes, either, but what's the alternative? Say that only homosexuals can vote? "fucking morons" = people who disagree with devil
No, they haven't. Opponents of equal marriage consistently refuse to answer the direct question of how two people of the same sex getting married affects their marriage in any way. Please, answer it. No one in this thread has yet.
A specious question. Why is that the issue? Why can't it just be that people prefer to keep a traditional version of "marriage" as they know it? It's not the job of people in favor of a maintaining a long-held tradition to justify why they don't want to change it. It will change in the natural course. No need to hasten that along by shifting the burden.
Nothing's changing, though. Back to your analogy of yesterday, if you own a Cutlass and your neighbour replaces his Pacer with a Cutlass, does that fundamentally change the capability, features and appropriateness for task of your Cutlass? Was your Cutlass only good because you had one and he didn't?
But it is changing. If we believe the polls, if the the next generation presses the issue and votes for it, gay marriage is inevitable, and everyone will soon be happy and gay. I think that's what most people in this thread are saying. The current voting generation is still hesitant, and regardless of their reason, they ought not have to justify it. That's not good enough for the gay marriage movement. So, to hasten it along, the debate has been couched in terms of how the law "excludes same-sex marriage." That's flawed. Marriage is what it is. It excludes all sorts of marriages - marriage to a minor, polygamous marriages, terminable marriages, marriages between family members. It's only couched in terms of excluding same-sex couples because those are the impatient people of the moment. 50 years from now, the polygamy movement may be screaming about how they've been "excluded from marriage." I'd say the same thing to them - gather up your votes and change the law.
It really is a stupid question. I was treating you like an adult and trying to explain why in gentle terms.
I thought the analogy he made had something to do with swapping car parts.. How about - if your neighbor has a Pacer and you have Cutlass, would it make sense to for him to call his car a Cutlass? Assuming you're respectful of him and his car, would you, the proud owner of a Cutlass, still be ok with that? It does have a similar purpose and some of the same features, after all, doesn't it?
You actually make the point of this with your question. I couldn't care less if he called it a BMW. How does that change my car?
