The Queer's Dream Team...

Southern Man said:
Allowing queers to marry denigrates the institution and that's what you want.
Click to expand...

It has no effect on the institution at all, except to welcome more couples into it.

And nothing can effect my marriage except me and my wife. Nothing you do, or anyone else does will have one iota of effect on my marriage.
 
A scientific poll doesn't have to count everyone, just a representative sample. So it counted co-habitation queers and compared them to co-habitation normal folk. Why don't you like science?
 
With that logic then we should legalize all perverted variations as well, like a man and his horse.

Straw Man on the remainder; it's the institution that is being damaged, not yours.
 
Southern Man said:
A scientific poll doesn't have to count everyone, just a representative sample. So it counted co-habitation queers and compared them to co-habitation normal folk. Why don't you like science?
Click to expand...

I like science fine. But since there are advantages for straights that are not available for gays, the census is not valid scientific evidence. And since there is still a considerable bias against gays that does not exist for straight couples, the census data is even more invalid for the purposes of determining the number of gays in the US.
 
Southern Man said:
With that logic then we should legalize all perverted variations as well, like a man and his horse.

Straw Man on the remainder; it's the institution that is being damaged, not yours.
Click to expand...

First of all, no one has made any suggestion about anything that does not involve two consenting adults, so your "man and his horse" is the strawman argument.

The institution is made up of those people who are married. Allowing gays to marry will not change any straight couples marriage any more than it would change mine. So yours is the strawman argument, not mine.
 
WinterBorn said:
I like science fine. But since there are advantages for straights that are not available for gays, the census is not valid scientific evidence. And since there is still a considerable bias against gays that does not exist for straight couples, the census data is even more invalid for the purposes of determining the number of gays in the US.
Click to expand...
Advantages? Bias? What is your scientific evidence to support these assertions?
 
WinterBorn said:
First of all, no one has made any suggestion about anything that does not involve two consenting adults, so your "man and his horse" is the strawman argument.

The institution is made up of those people who are married. Allowing gays to marry will not change any straight couples marriage any more than it would change mine. So yours is the strawman argument, not mine.
Click to expand...

Actually, folks have suggested all sorts of perversions for marriage, not just queers. First queers, then horses. This is called "progress".

Again, my argument is about the institution of marriage, not your marriage or your neighbors.
 
Southern Man said:
Advantages? Bias? What is your scientific evidence to support these assertions?
Click to expand...

The biases have been documented in numerous court cases. The advantages, at the very least, would be documented by the same court cases.
 
Southern Man said:
Actually, folks have suggested all sorts of perversions for marriage, not just queers. First queers, then horses. This is called "progress".

Again, my argument is about the institution of marriage, not your marriage or your neighbors.
Click to expand...

Straw man - Is this thread about every suggestion for every perversion? Or is it about a specific group of people? Again, the limitation of it being 2 consenting adults holds true.

The institution of marriage is made up of all the people who are married and have been married. Its is not some arbitrary ideal that you have and want to maintain. The institution of marriage is my marriage and my neighbor's marriage, and your marriage and our parent's marriages.

And none of those marriages would be effected one iota by allowing gays to marry.

Tell me one thing that would change in any straight couple's marriage if we allow gays to marry.
 
WinterBorn said:
Straw man - Is this thread about every suggestion for every perversion? Or is it about a specific group of people? Again, the limitation of it being 2 consenting adults holds true.

The institution of marriage is made up of all the people who are married and have been married. Its is not some arbitrary ideal that you have and want to maintain. The institution of marriage is my marriage and my neighbor's marriage, and your marriage and our parent's marriages.

And none of those marriages would be effected one iota by allowing gays to marry.

Tell me one thing that would change in any straight couple's marriage if we allow gays to marry.
Click to expand...

This thread is about queers going to court to usurp the will of the people, so all perversions of marriage are included.
 
Southern Man said:
Not at all. Read the article.
Click to expand...

I read the article. And the only part I saw about "all perversions of marriage are included" would be the following:

"Certainly, it could be construed that way, and needn’t mean, as opponents of same-sex marriage sometimes claim, that the Court would then have to allow a person to marry a child, or his sister, or his dog. Constitutional rights are not absolute—free speech does not extend to obscenity, for instance—and since marriage is a contractual relationship both parties must be in a legal and mental position to agree to it."
 
That's just where the liberal New Yorker draws the line, now. The fact is that the OP link mentioned other types of perverted marriage, not at all what you asserted.
 
Southern Man said:
That's just where the liberal New Yorker draws the line, now. The fact is that the OP link mentioned other types of perverted marriage, not at all what you asserted.
Click to expand...

Then post quotes that prove what I asserted is not what was said.

You are trying to make up boogeymen.

In fact, the entire premise of the article focuses solely on gay marriage. The only places any other sort of marriage is spoken of with any depth is when comparing gay marriage to straight marriage and comparing the struggle for gay marriage to the struggle for interacial marriages.

The "man and his horse" marriage is not part of what they are doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top