But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

[Damocles]

The idea that government is curtailing your freedom by not requiring you to do anything at all is fucking stupid, plain and simple.

My freedom to not buy a new refrigerator is not being at all restricted because I could get a rebate from the government if I buy a new one. And my freedom was not restricted when I decided to get married because there are governmental benefits (note: I don't recall getting a check from the government, i.e. other people's money) attendant thereto.

The idea that the goal of getting people to act like you want them to by providing incentive isn't somehow engineering by the government and thus less freedom is fundamentally flawed.

It is how we work to get our children to do as we want as well, we either punish them for bad behavior or we reward them for good behavior.

It isn't more "free" because it is a "reward" (given from other people's pockets).

1. The government forces those who are not part of the "right action" to pay for people who are acting "rightly", by giving them direct monetary incentive (tax breaks). In the past they wouldn't "recognize" marriages between certain skin colors, among other things they worked to "incentivize", sometimes making them directly illegal (thankfully the courts struck that B.S. down). It's time to tell the government that such things are no longer their purview.
2. The government's idea of what compromises "right" action in such a circumstance (a person's choice on whom to spend a lifetime with) doesn't make it "right", that it would be based on what you personally think is "right" doesn't make it any more free either.
3. Taking others money (by force of government, including imprisonment) in order to pay people who act "rightly" (deserve the benefits that you otherwise wouldn't get) is not a sign of "freedom".

Government should never be in a position of "parent" directing your action by reward incentives based on either the religious "traditions" of the majority, or even just the majority's opinion of what is "right" (i.e. Multi-partner marriages).

This is simply the government working to control the most minute aspects of your life. That they do it by rewarding those people who act "rightly" with other people's money doesn't make it a "good" or somehow more "free" when they are directly taking by force of power money from some to give that incentive to others. "If you want to be able to visit your wife in the hospital then you just had better get licensed so you can. Plus we'll give you some of Bob's money if you do!"...

Rubbish. That isn't freedom.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, the Constitution applies to ALL AMERICANS. Sorry you don't comprehend that. Churches aren't 'exempt' from following the Constitution and the law, they can't have white/colored water fountains and restrooms! They can't segregate blacks and make them sit in the balcony! They can't even disallow blacks from attending the church on the basis of their race. So, yes, the Church must still adhere to the Constitution, just as everyone else.

Actually, it doesn't work that way. I guess you'll just have to trust me on that since I have neither the time nor the inclination to school you on rudimentary constitutional law. Suffice it to say that the Boston Archdiocese is not performing same-sex marriages and is under no obligation to recognize same-sex marriages that are recognized under Massachusetts secular law.

You are just a sick pervert who is mired in your own bigotry. You can't tell me why you oppose my solution, and the only real reason you can find, is because it doesn't allow you to take a dump on religion, which is what you are after. You don't really care what gay couples have or don't have, it makes absolutely no difference to you whatsoever, this is all about YOU and your hatred for religion and religious customs. You see an opportunity to denigrate and destroy a religious tradition, and that's what you are all about here.

I'm the sick pervert? You're the one talking about waging queer dicks and such. I was just trying to keep up.

 

[Timshel]

And I doubt that homosexual couples could instill family values and religious morals into their children.

So? Safety is the issue with drunk and children drivers. Both classes are prohibited from driving due to safety concerns. Heterosexuals are not prohibited from marrying due to a lack of religious "morals" or "family values." Homosexuals who possess those attributes are.

Our "doubts" are not at issue here. 10-year-old drivers would pose no more of a risk to me personally, than the drunk drivers on the road currently, so I don't see the problem with allowing them to drive! Why should they suffer because of YOUR bigotry?

It's not bigotry, dumbfuck. Both drunks and children are prohibited from driving for the same reason. Not just children. Both significantly increase the risk to other drivers (over adult sober drivers) and we have stats to back this up. You can't even provide a scenario of how someone else's marriage threatens you in anyway.

Homosexual marriages pose no risk to you whatsoever and there is no reason to suppose the risk is higher than heterosexuals marriages.

What if we legalize Gay Marriage and also pass a law that forbids all divorce forever? Once you've been married, that's it for life! You okay with that? I didn't think so!

Nope. So? Why should I support that insanity?

 

[Timshel]

No, the Constitution applies to ALL AMERICANS. Sorry you don't comprehend that. Churches aren't 'exempt' from following the Constitution and the law, they can't have white/colored water fountains and restrooms! They can't segregate blacks and make them sit in the balcony! They can't even disallow blacks from attending the church on the basis of their race. So, yes, the Church must still adhere to the Constitution, just as everyone else.

You have no clue what you are talking about. http://www.google.com/webhp?rls=ig#...=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=a2bb30ecf4f91972

 

[Timshel]

How about we call all marriages "marriages" and religiously performed ceremonies "religious unions." Maybe, they could even put a little gold star on your marriage certificate or some such bullshit so that you can feel special.

 

[Damocles]

How about we call all marriages "marriages" and religiously performed ceremonies "religious unions." Maybe, they could even put a little gold star on your marriage certificate or some such bullshit so that you can feel special.

How 'bout we just tell government to get out of the business of marriage?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

First of all, the example you used are all dangerous drivers. So the analogy is worthless.

And all marriages are subject to disrespect for the sanctity of marriage. Allowing gays to marry doesn't do anything to curb the number of divorces or infidelities. As I read the OP, it appears that was the argument, that since so many people already degrade marriage, it's acceptable to allow further degradation. I reject the premise and the argument.

There have been plenty of arguments that gay marriage would harm their marriage. Its ridiculous, but do not claim it has not been said.

I have never heard ANYONE articulate this. There is no logical basis for such an argument. The only place I ever see it claimed, is by pro-gay-marriage people, who seem to think that is an argument against gay marriage. I have heard that it will harm the "sanctity of the institution" and I agree, it indeed would do that. It would also establish in law, a precedent for "rights" based on sexuality, which is a dangerous 'slippery slope' given our Constitution demands equal protection under the law. If you are going to allow 'marriage' between homosexuals, how can you discriminate against other sexual deviants and remain true to the Constitution?

YOur comparison with prayer and rap music is accurate but your conclusion is wrong. If I pray by rapping, it has absolutely no effect on your prayer. You do it your way and I'll do it mine. Since prayer, like marriage, is a private thing it is no one's business how you do it.

No one is proposing we re-define "prayer" to include all rap lyrics, and such a suggestion would be patently absurd. I gave that example to illustrate the absurdity of re-defining "marriage" to include a sexual behavior.

Now you and I have discussed the state getting out of the marriage business entirely, and we agreed on that at one time.

Do we not still agree? What changed?

Why do you insist that gays have civil unions, but straights have marriages whether it is religious or not? If its about the religious beliefs, then make marriages for religious ceremonies and civil unions for all secular ceremonies.

Uhm, I don't know what the fuck you are reading, but it is obviously not what I am posting! I have not insisted that gays have civil unions and straights have marriage! Read my proposal again, if that is what you got! I am saying we have ONE thing... CIVIL UNION CONTRACTS! They would apply to any two adults who wanted to get one! No exceptions, no prerequisite other than age, no sexuality involved, no religious connections... just a contract, a simple contract between consenting adults! Problems solved! We don't need to "re-define" things, we don't need to make more rules and guidelines, and we don't need to establish laws based on sexuality or disrespect religious sanctity. Everyone gets what they want, everyone is happy, except for the ANTI-RELIGIOUS SCUM WHO WANT TO DENIGRATE RELIGION!

You have continually claimed that it is about destroying religious traditions and customs. That is such horseshit.

You are entitled to your opinion.

What I want to know is why you think that your religious views are the only ones that should be followed?? What about religious beliefs that have no problem with gay marriages? You are going to deny them their religious traditions and customs (and choices) because a few of the biggest faiths don't agree?

This is NOT about MY religious views! I am a Spiritualist, and I do not subscribe to ANY religious dogma! I don't really give two shits about who has a problem with what! I offered a solution that settles all the issues, gives everyone what they claim to want, and solves all the fucking problems! Churches can do whatever the hell they want to do!

Either opposing gay marriage is about religious beliefs or its not. If it is, then make the secular licence and all the benefits be separate from the religious ceremony. And everyone who wants the benefits has to get a civil union licence.

As I said, it is stunning that we seem to agree in principle, but you want to continue arguing against me as if I don't agree at all! Read what I proposed again! I have advocated that we do away with traditional "Marriage Licenses" sponsored by the government! Do you fucking not comprehend that or something? Do I need to make it any fucking clearer to you? It's exactly what you are saying here!

 

[Timshel]

And all marriages are subject to disrespect for the sanctity of marriage. Allowing gays to marry doesn't do anything to curb the number of divorces or infidelities. As I read the OP, it appears that was the argument, that since so many people already degrade marriage, it's acceptable to allow further degradation. I reject the premise and the argument.

No, you argue that the state must protect marriage from degradation by a certain and specific class of citizens. The "sanctity of the institution" bullshit only comes up in respect to homosexuals. The hypocrisy is apparent when philanderers and people getting married a dozen times is allowed.

You then brought up an analogy which does not work. Both drunks and minors are prohibited from driving. The reasons are real and tangible. There is no separate standard applied to minors that is not applied to drunks. Both are prohibited by the law.

I have never heard ANYONE articulate this. There is no logical basis for such an argument. The only place I ever see it claimed, is by pro-gay-marriage people, who seem to think that is an argument against gay marriage. I have heard that it will harm the "sanctity of the institution" and I agree, it indeed would do that. It would also establish in law, a precedent for "rights" based on sexuality, which is a dangerous 'slippery slope' given our Constitution demands equal protection under the law. If you are going to allow 'marriage' between homosexuals, how can you discriminate against other sexual deviants and remain true to the Constitution?

LOL. The basis of their rights is not their sexuality. The fact they are citizens/human is the basis of their rights. You wish to deny them rights based on their sexuality alone, which implies that rights are based on sexuality.

Sexual "deviants" of all forms, except homosexuals, are permitted to marry now. Swingers, s/m, foot fetishist, and even the weirdos that don't like oral can marry now. The only form of sexual "deviancy" that is prohibited from marrying for the purpose of prohibiting sexual "deviancy" is homosexuality.

No one is proposing we re-define "prayer" to include all rap lyrics, and such a suggestion would be patently absurd. I gave that example to illustrate the absurdity of re-defining "marriage" to include a sexual behavior.

Another stupid analogy. Many people would call prayer in rap, prayer. If you don't want to you don't have to. But you have ABSOLUTELY no right to dictate to others how they pray and the state has no right to police the definition of prayer.

Uhm, I don't know what the fuck you are reading, but it is obviously not what I am posting! I have not insisted that gays have civil unions and straights have marriage! Read my proposal again, if that is what you got! I am saying we have ONE thing... CIVIL UNION CONTRACTS! They would apply to any two adults who wanted to get one! No exceptions, no prerequisite other than age, no sexuality involved, no religious connections... just a contract, a simple contract between consenting adults! Problems solved! We don't need to "re-define" things, we don't need to make more rules and guidelines, and we don't need to establish laws based on sexuality or disrespect religious sanctity. Everyone gets what they want, everyone is happy, except for the ANTI-RELIGIOUS SCUM WHO WANT TO DENIGRATE RELIGION!

Yeah right. You know damn well that that will not satisfy the religious reich who wish to drive homosexuals back into the closet. The right is not suggesting this as a solution. They have not offered any legislation like this. It's just what you throw out (knowing it does not have a snowball's chance in hell) to cover your bigotry.

If you want to work for that as the end result, great. But arguing that the state must continue to discriminate until such a law is passed is wrong.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No, you argue that the state must protect marriage from degradation by a certain and specific class of citizens. The "sanctity of the institution" bullshit only comes up in respect to homosexuals. The hypocrisy is apparent when philanderers and people getting married a dozen times is allowed.

A-FUCKING-GAIN... READ MY GODDAMN PROPOSAL! Where do I say anything at all about the "state must protect" any damn thing???? I argued the state has no business licensing a religious custom to begin with! From my understanding of the Constitution and the 1st Amendment, the "state" should NEVER be allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion, and that is precisely what traditional marriage is! To re-define it, is to prohibit the continued tradition of the church, and is unconstitutional, in my opinion.... but again, why not just alleviate the problems altogether? My solution remedies all the problems, gives all sides what they claim to want, and doesn't call any of this into question, so it doesn't matter! There is no issue of Constitutionality, because there is no issue!

You then brought up an analogy which does not work. Both drunks and minors are prohibited from driving. The reasons are real and tangible. There is no separate standard applied to minors that is not applied to drunks. Both are prohibited by the law.

Not the purpose of the analogy. Analogies are not presented to draw exacting parallel, rather to illustrate a point, and mine did that. Sorry you don't fucking get what I was saying. I guess it was way above your head and ability to comprehend.

LOL. The basis of their rights is not their sexuality. The fact they are citizens/human is the basis of their rights. You wish to deny them rights based on their sexuality alone, which implies that rights are based on sexuality.

I don't wish to deny ANYONE rights! Again... please show me where I have EVER advocated denial of rights to gay people or anyone else?

Sexual "deviants" of all forms, except homosexuals, are permitted to marry now. Swingers, s/m, foot fetishist, and even the weirdos that don't like oral can marry now. The only form of sexual "deviancy" that is prohibited from marrying for the purpose of prohibiting sexual "deviancy" is homosexuality.

As far as I know, there is no law in ANY state that prohibits homosexuals from marrying. I challenged Yurt to prove that earlier, and he still hasn't, neither can you. Sorry, it doesn't exist... we all have the exact same "right" to obtain the exact same document from the exact same state probate! Nowhere is homosexuality prohibited!

Another stupid analogy. Many people would call prayer in rap, prayer. If you don't want to you don't have to. But you have ABSOLUTELY no right to dictate to others how they pray and the state has no right to police the definition of prayer.

I never said I had the right to dictate how people pray, why the fuck do you keep insisting on reading shit into what I've said, that I never fucking said???????

Yeah right. You know damn well that that will not satisfy the religious reich who wish to drive homosexuals back into the closet. The right is not suggesting this as a solution. They have not offered any legislation like this. It's just what you throw out (knowing it does not have a snowball's chance in hell) to cover your bigotry.

If you want to work for that as the end result, great. But arguing that the state must continue to discriminate until such a law is passed is wrong.

I don't personally care what the RR are satisfied with or would/wouldn't accept! I am a Conservative, probably one of the most Conservative people on this board, some would argue I am an "extreme" conservative! I am even fairly social conservative on most issues, and I have presented a proposal that will give all sides exactly what they claim to want and settle this issue once and for all! ...And you want to keep the balloon in the air! You want to keep letting this be an issue, because you like being able to pound on the RR and rally liberal Atheists who want to destroy religion! You're not concerned with solving the problem, I have proven that, because you don't want to accept my solution! What else can I say? You are a closed-minded intolerant bigot who wants to push and push for something you ARE NOT going to get! In the end, you WILL get a Constitutional amendment, and it WILL put the issue to rest forever! No Civil Unions, no Gay Marriage, just an amendment to the Constitution respecting marriage between a man and woman... end of the issue! Is THAT what you want? If not, you better wake the fuck up and realize there IS a solution to the problem, I have offered it, and you are rejecting it without ANY good reason at all!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

not in this case...if it is not recognized, you can't actually be conferred with the RIGHTS of marriage given the by the fucking state

the state DEFINES marriage....we are talking about MARRIAGE that has RIGHTS SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATE CONFERRED SUCH RIGHTS. all i am saying is, you cannot deny those RIGHTS to homosexuals. and by not recognizing a state marriage, you are in fact forbidding them those rights.

period.

this got lost in the post pile dix

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
not in this case...if it is not recognized, you can't actually be conferred with the RIGHTS of marriage given the by the fucking state

the state DEFINES marriage....we are talking about MARRIAGE that has RIGHTS SOLELY BECAUSE THE STATE CONFERRED SUCH RIGHTS. all i am saying is, you cannot deny those RIGHTS to homosexuals. and by not recognizing a state marriage, you are in fact forbidding them those rights.

period.

No one is denying homosexuals a damn thing! They have the exact same right as everyone else! They can't marry same-sex, but I can't marry a GOAT! Marriage is between a MAN and WOMAN, and it doesn't matter if they are homosexual, and no homosexual is prohibited from marrying a person of the opposite sex, just as I am not! There is NO RIGHT being denied to people based on their sexuality, we all have the SAME rights, we can all do the SAME thing!

You stated that "homosexuals are prohibited from marriage" and that is FALSE! That is not the case, and you haven't proven it to be the case! No state has ANY law specifically "prohibiting" homosexuals from doing a damn thing that the rest of us aren't also prohibited from doing!

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No one is denying homosexuals a damn thing! They have the exact same right as everyone else! They can't marry same-sex, but I can't marry a GOAT! Marriage is between a MAN and WOMAN, and it doesn't matter if they are homosexual, and no homosexual is prohibited from marrying a person of the opposite sex, just as I am not! There is NO RIGHT being denied to people based on their sexuality, we all have the SAME rights, we can all do the SAME thing!

You stated that "homosexuals are prohibited from marriage" and that is FALSE! That is not the case, and you haven't proven it to be the case! No state has ANY law specifically "prohibiting" homosexuals from doing a damn thing that the rest of us aren't also prohibited from doing!

that is because relations with goats are illegal, thus it makes sense that marriage to a goat is not recognized

homosexual relations are not illegal, thus, it is illogical to have that marriage not be recognized

you are in fact denying them rights, they are prohibited from enjoying state sanctioned rights that other people who engage in likewise legal relations, enjoy. that is a fact.

 

[Timshel]

A-FUCKING-GAIN... READ MY GODDAMN PROPOSAL! Where do I say anything at all about the "state must protect" any damn thing???? I argued the state has no business licensing a religious custom to begin with! From my understanding of the Constitution and the 1st Amendment, the "state" should NEVER be allowed to prohibit the free exercise of religion, and that is precisely what traditional marriage is! To re-define it, is to prohibit the continued tradition of the church, and is unconstitutional, in my opinion.... but again, why not just alleviate the problems altogether? My solution remedies all the problems, gives all sides what they claim to want, and doesn't call any of this into question, so it doesn't matter! There is no issue of Constitutionality, because there is no issue!

Marriage is not solely a religious custom. It's just another custom that religion has attempted to hijack and claim credit.

The idea that allowing same sex couples to join into a union described as a marriage, somehow violates the religious freedom of others, is absurd. Must I follow the customs of every religion (which is impossible)? If i ignore or violate the customs of Hindu's am I violating their religious freedom?

No one religion owns the custom and neither does religion in general.

Not the purpose of the analogy. Analogies are not presented to draw exacting parallel, rather to illustrate a point, and mine did that. Sorry you don't fucking get what I was saying. I guess it was way above your head and ability to comprehend.

There is no parallel at all. Your point is worthless because the non-homosexuals who degrade marriage are not prohibited from doing so in anyway. Drunks are prohibited from driving and in fact face stiffer penalties than a minor would.

As far as I know, there is no law in ANY state that prohibits homosexuals from marrying. I challenged Yurt to prove that earlier, and he still hasn't, neither can you. Sorry, it doesn't exist... we all have the exact same "right" to obtain the exact same document from the exact same state probate! Nowhere is homosexuality prohibited!

Marriages are not allowed between two people of the same sex. Two swingers are allowed to marry. Two s/m practitioners are allowed to marry. You claimed that allowing homosexuals would lead to a slippery slope and not allow us to bar other sexual deviants from marrying. But sexual "deviancy" is only used to prohibit homosexual marriages. We allow all other sexual deviants to marry. The only condition is that the parties have the capacity to contract.

I never said I had the right to dictate how people pray, why the fuck do you keep insisting on reading shit into what I've said, that I never fucking said???????

Then what the fuck is your point? You are arguing some nonsense about redefining prayer. But many would consider a religious rap song as a form of prayer or a singing of praises. The fact that you would not define it as prayer is irrelevant. It is not the states job to regulate definitions.

Definitions change. Get over it.

I don't personally care what the RR are satisfied with or would/wouldn't accept! I am a Conservative, probably one of the most Conservative people on this board, some would argue I am an "extreme" conservative! I am even fairly social conservative on most issues, and I have presented a proposal that will give all sides exactly what they claim to want and settle this issue once and for all! ...And you want to keep the balloon in the air! You want to keep letting this be an issue, because you like being able to pound on the RR and rally liberal Atheists who want to destroy religion! You're not concerned with solving the problem, I have proven that, because you don't want to accept my solution! What else can I say? You are a closed-minded intolerant bigot who wants to push and push for something you ARE NOT going to get! In the end, you WILL get a Constitutional amendment, and it WILL put the issue to rest forever! No Civil Unions, no Gay Marriage, just an amendment to the Constitution respecting marriage between a man and woman... end of the issue! Is THAT what you want? If not, you better wake the fuck up and realize there IS a solution to the problem, I have offered it, and you are rejecting it without ANY good reason at all!

Such an amendment has about as much chance of passing as your fairy-tale solution. I would happy to remove the government from marriage. But, I am not going to hold out for that while ignoring the discrimination in the status-quo. So long as the state demands dominion over religion it should not discriminate.

 

[Timshel]

that is because relations with goats are illegal, thus it makes sense that marriage to a goat is not recognized

You can have a relationship with a goat. Most states would prohibit you from having sex with it. But sex is not necessarily a part of marriage.

You can not marry a goat because a goat has no capacity to enter into a contract. It cannot be bound by a contract because it does not have the capacity to comprehend the conditions or penalties of the contract.

Reminds me of a joke. Why do men marry women? Because sheep can't cook.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You can have a relationship with a goat. Most states would prohibit you from having sex with it. But sex is not necessarily a part of marriage.

You can not marry a goat because a goat has no capacity to enter into a contract. It cannot be bound by a contract because it does not have the capacity to comprehend the conditions or penalties of the contract.

Reminds me of a joke. Why do men marry women? Because sheep can't cook.

the context dixie is speaking of is.....illegal relationships....IOW...mother/son, multiple wives....etc....

 

[Timshel]

the context dixie is speaking of is.....illegal relationships....IOW...mother/son, multiple wives....etc....

You still have a problem. You can have multiple sex partners. That's not illegal. So why should multiple wives be prohibited? I don't believe it should, so long as it does no violate an existing marriage contract.

Further, why is it okay to redefine the traditional definitions of marriage that allowed multiple wives?

As far as mother/son marriages or the like, I really don't see the need to bar them either. Though I find that repulsive, allowing such marriages would not lead to a wave of them. So why fear that marriages between people of the same sex would?

Every argument against same sex marriage is nothing but a bullshit attempt to rationalize bigotry.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I could care less is two men, two women, or some trans-gendered, cross dressing whatever couple hooks up, get married, whatever. My concern is that you have and are having children being raised to believe that such unions are NORMAL in the perpetuation of mankind.

It's not. The forementioned is an artificial construct.

As it stands, you have a lesbian couple of which one is surgically altered to become a "man"...and then the "man" becomes "pregnant" and gives birth.

Yeah, and that kid is going to have his head on straight.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

that is because relations with goats are illegal, thus it makes sense that marriage to a goat is not recognized

homosexual relations are not illegal, thus, it is illogical to have that marriage not be recognized

you are in fact denying them rights, they are prohibited from enjoying state sanctioned rights that other people who engage in likewise legal relations, enjoy. that is a fact.

Nope, they are not denied any right that I have. Sorry! You can repeat that as much as you like, it is still as untrue as it ever was, repeating it will never make it true.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Marriages are not allowed between two people of the same sex. Two swingers are allowed to marry. Two s/m practitioners are allowed to marry. You claimed that allowing homosexuals would lead to a slippery slope and not allow us to bar other sexual deviants from marrying. But sexual "deviancy" is only used to prohibit homosexual marriages. We allow all other sexual deviants to marry. The only condition is that the parties have the capacity to contract.

Right, marriage is not allowed between two people of the same sex, and it makes no difference whether they are homosexual or not! I can't marry another man! A homosexual is not prohibited from marrying someone of the opposite sex, the same 'right' I have! No difference in what we are and are not allowed to do! Doesn't matter if we are swingers, into S&M, or like to fuck goats! Doesn't matter if we are gay, straight, bi or Martians! We all have the exact same right to marry someone of the opposite sex, because that IS WHAT MARRIAGE MEANS!

The "sexual deviant" argument is very simple. We do not establish laws based on your sexual behavior. The reason is because of our Constitutional rights to "equal protection" and the fact that if you did establish something based on a sexual behavior, you would have to also allow other sexual behaviors the SAME (i.e. EQUAL) right! There is no arguing this, it's clearly laid out in the Constitution, and it's not debatable. You can claim that the 'slippery slope' wouldn't ever happen, but it most certainly would, once you set a precedent into law based on sexual behavior. Who are YOU to deny the right of marriage to someone who wants to marry their sister? Who are you to deny the "love" between a man and his goat? Is someone marrying a goat going to effect your marriage? What gives YOU the right to determine which sexual behaviors are acceptable and which are not? It's a whole can of worms we don't need to open because we don't need to redefine marriage or change our laws based on a sexual behavior. I offered a solution, it gives you everything you claim to want, why can't you accept it? I still haven't heard ONE reason!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You still have a problem. You can have multiple sex partners. That's not illegal. So why should multiple wives be prohibited? I don't believe it should, so long as it does no violate an existing marriage contract.

Further, why is it okay to redefine the traditional definitions of marriage that allowed multiple wives?

As far as mother/son marriages or the like, I really don't see the need to bar them either. Though I find that repulsive, allowing such marriages would not lead to a wave of them. So why fear that marriages between people of the same sex would?

Every argument against same sex marriage is nothing but a bullshit attempt to rationalize bigotry.

You are the bigot here. I gave you a viable and reasonable solution that addresses EVERY problem from ALL sides! You are (for some reason) not willing to accept my proposal, instead, you wish to continue on arguing for something you're simply NOT going to ever get! It seems to me, you just want the ISSUE, not a solution. That is a BIGOT, that is a BIGOTED way of thinking! YOU are RIGHT and everyone else is WRONG, and it doesn't matter if someone comes up with a solution to solve the problem, you will stubbornly cling to your BIGOTED beliefs and continue to argue!