The “homosexual”? :dubious:
Shall I also mock the seriousness of “marriage equality?”
Oh no, I have to take it seriously, no matter how ridicualous the argument, meanwhile numerous points I have raised have gone without being addressed at all, and others faultily addressed.
Maybe you’d have more luck if you were starting a thread instead of trying to hijack this one.
Yeah, I doubt exclusive homosexuality too, since they have had a procreative relationship.
This is exactly backwards. It’s the anti-marriage contingent that insist that all marriages must be about procreation. It’s the SSM advocates who are arguing that not all marriages are about procreation - that people get married for a wide variety of reasons, not all associated with child rearing.
I take it you never got The Talk.
“When a daddy turkey baster becomes intimate with a woman…”
Well, you’ve made a mockery of your own terms, you might as well have a stab at mine.
Those cases are being decided under rational basis review. For example, Dandridge involved a law which classified based on family size, which is not a suspect classification. Here, the argument is that marriage is a fundamental right subject to strict scrutiny (or that SSM laws are gender discrimination subject to elevated scrutiny). And if you’ve never seen the Supreme Court require perfection it’s because you have never read a strict or elevated scrutiny decision.
Apparently they didn’t either, when they struck DOMA.
Um, “huh”?
Let me translate-“Those pretend homosexuals should marry the women who volunteer to carry their children, because there ain’t no difference sex and love.”
I haven’t posted in quite some time because you always abuse your moderator powers to chill me.
For example, while you’re not officially “moderating” by pointing this out, you will note this thread was already highjacked around post 20 or 21.
This was done without your complaint, without the OP’s complaint, and with your participation.
Yet you complain when I respond to a statement you made that is much broader.
Why didn’t you start your own thread when you wanted to talk about men and women not all being the same?
You put a permanent mark on my record for disobeying your moderation when it was explained to you I did NOT see your directive. I was busy typing another response and did not see your directive. I immediately complied. You continue to abuse your status as moderator to shut me up.
Remove the mark from my record Marley23.
Or start applying the rules to yourself and others. Why you cherry pick me in this thread for a highjacker is not rational, and can only be explained by animus.
This is the single argument against SSM that makes the least sense to me.
Not one effort to promote SSM has ever suggested that we discard traditional marriage. (Other efforts promoting the complete severing of marriage from civil law may have done so, but no effort to promote SSM has.)
The argument to extend marriage to couples of the same sex never once includes a clause to abolish marriage to couples of opposite sexes. My initial reaction to the first guy who claimed that “letting queers marry mocks my vows to my wife” was “Huh?” And he never found any way to explain his position that made sense.
The argument for SSM is to expand the definition, not discard it.
You proved nothing of the sort, as usual. The categorization doesn’t need to be perfect, but it needs to show at least some correlation between the expressed goal, and the categorization being created. Excluding homosexuals from marriage on the basis of having children is completely arbitrary. There’s nothing about gay relationships that prevents them from having children, and there’s precisely zero effort to restrict any other kind of couple, regardless of their desire or ability to have children. This demonstrates pretty clearly that the purpose of the categorization is not, in fact, related to the definition of marriage, and is instead purely about discriminating against gays, as an end unto itself.
So, let me get this straight. A heterosexual couple is unable to conceive, and so, after many years of trying, they engage the services of a fertility clinic, and the wife conceives using sperm from an anonymous donor.
You’re arguing that the relationship the state is interested in protecting there is not between the husband and wife, but between the mother and the anonymous sperm donor?
No one said anything about bisexuals until you brought it up. But since you did, the right of consenting adults to marry the partner of their choice is every bit as much of a concern to bisexuals as it is to homosexuals. I’m bisexual myself, currently dating another man, and the idea that folks like you think you have a right to say that I can’t marry him is every bit as outrageous and insulting as it would be if I weren’t attracted to women.
Shall I assume you will defend me for participating in a highjacked thread against Marley who wants me, but apparently not you, to shut up?
Knock it off.
Marley23 has expressed an opinion regarding your posts in this thread, but he has not acted in any official capacity as a Moderator. You have no “mark” on your record in regard to this thread.
Attacking Mods who are posting as posters witrh claims of “abuse of power” is a popular pastime for some, but it is not appropriate and you will stop, now.
[ /Moderating ]
Did not see your moderation.
I will comply.
I would like some clarification as to whether ALL OF US can continue with the hijack?
It is clear the thread was beyond the OP long before I got involved.
Why should I? He’s right - incest has nothing to do with the gay marriage debate, and attempts to introduce it are, by and large, deliberate attempts to smear homosexuals by associating their relationships with incest. But you’re free to attempt to defend your comparison as much as you want - no one has told you that you cannot do so. Nothing Marley has posted in this thread has been in his capacity as moderator. The only post in this thread that’s an official moderator action is tom’s instruction to stop whining about moderator actions which haven’t actually happened.
Which, I note, you’ve failed to follow.
In this instance I would agree with you, and disagree with Marley, that your specific post was not much of a hijack to this thread.
You should have already been able to figure that out based on the fact that I did not admonish you about a hijack.
Now, this quibbling over what Marley has said or what he is permitted to say or any other rules discussion IS a hijack and EVERYONE will drop it NOW.
[ /Moderating ]