Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

The only real other relationship this covers would be relatives. In case you want to go there, children aren't covered because they can't enter into contract. As for relatives, perhaps they should be an exception, perhaps not. There isn't a reason for homosexuals to be an exception though.

Why for one and not the other? Why do we not allow close relatives to marry?

because we are talking about gay marriage not relatives marrying.

Lady B,

Did you read the article? Of course you didn't; liberals don't care about actual statistics and how gay marriage can really facilitate the moral deprivation of our society. All you care about is your own personal politics without regard for how that stance affects society as a whole.

You're just like that radical homosexual judge who simply chose to ignore the facts against his own personal bias.


Homosexual marriage, just like no-fault divorces, are just tools used by the left to allow the federal govn greater control over it's population. When it turns out homosexuals get divorced at a rate 100 times greater than heterosexual marriage do you think it would be overturned?


Anyone who says this is about bigotry or equality is just parrotting liberal talking points solely for the effect they hope it has. No different than the black mass murderers girlfriend swearing that her sh*t stain of a boyfriend was being discriminated against. Shout bigot and racist long and loud enough and you don't have to actually think about the entirety of the issue at hand.

Equality is the issue at hand, you simple fuck.

If your sisters look anything like you, I don't think you'd marry them anyway.

Kael,

No we're not you stupid sh*t. If we were we'd also be talking about affording single citizens with the same rights and privileges that married couples receive and we'd also be talking about polygamy and incest if you truly cared about complete equality. So no we're not talking about equality you imbecilic child.

You said that we should have an exception in the case of relatives, but not in the case of homosexuals. I'm just curious what criteria you were using. That's not unreasonable to ask, is it?




My argument does address relatives. Always has. Because the same reason we exclude relatives is relevant to why we exclude gay couples.



Neither do I. Although, I don't view it as "exceptions". I look at the qualifications as an inclusion. Who *should* qualify for this benefit, not who *shouldn't* receive it. I just think it's a silly way to approach government funding to start with everyone getting everything and then telling people they don't get any. Seems more rational to start with what you're trying to accomplish, then target the funds/benefits to the group which meets that goal.

But that's just how I view things. YMMV of course!

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 2:28pm by gbaji

Really? That's your defense?

No I didn't, I said that there might be an exception here, and there might not be, and that would be a separate issue.

Right that might be a good method if marriage "benefits" were actually trying to accomplish anything. They aren't so it's pretty stupid.

Your argument has centered around gay couples not being able to have kids by accident. A related couple can easily have a kid by accident so it seems like a different reason to me.

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 4:34pm by Xsarus

Gbaji,




They will not address this issue because they find it distasteful. They don't want to be forced to admit that they do support exclusion based on personal moral based lifestyle choices.

Sure, for all five pairs of siblings that probably would like to marry. Why not?