The Queer's Dream Team...

Southern Man said:
"...that the Court would then have to allow a person to marry a child, or his sister, or his dog.."
Click to expand...

You are quoting out of context and you know it. This was nothing more than a lie on your part.

To put it into context shows you to be lying. The article did not say that. It said that opponents claim that.

The paragraph reads:

"In San Francisco, Olson and Boies will be arguing that marriage—and, by extension, the right to marry the person you choose—is a fundamental right. The first part isn’t so difficult. Marriage is one of the rights—along with, for instance, the right to vote, to travel from state to state, and to bear children—that the Court has repeatedly elaborated on and endorsed, though they are not stipulated in the Constitution. In 1974, for example, the Court declared that “the freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process clause,” and in 1987 it affirmed the rights of prison inmates to the emotional support, “spiritual significance,” public commitment, and expectation of consummation that come with marriage. Whether these decisions necessarily entail the right to marry a person of the same sex is another matter. 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. And one could argue that legitimate interests allow the state to ban incestuous and polygamous marriages, for example. (Then again, opponents of same-sex marriage argue that legitimate moral interests justify banning gay unions.)"


YOu claimed "The fact is that the OP link mentioned other types of perverted marriage, not at all what you asserted" and then selectively posted a line out of context as proof. When the article actually stated that it "...and needn’t mean, as opponents of same-sex marriage sometimes claim[/U], that the Court would then have to allow a person to marry a child, or his sister, or his dog".

If you are going to lie and try to slip shit by, at least do a better job of it.

Because this time you got burned doing it.
 
Last edited:
Not at all, as the article brought up the issue. The fact that the liberal New Yorker dismisses it has no bearing.

You want it off limits to this discussion because it hurts your cause. :)
 
Southern Man said:
Not at all, as the article brought up the issue. The fact that the liberal New Yorker dismisses it has no bearing.

You want it off limits to this discussion because it hurts your cause. :)
Click to expand...

It was mentioned as something that opponents claim, and then was dismissed as irrelevant with the sentence "...and since marriage is a contractual relationship both parties must be in a legal and mental position to agree to it."
 
There is nothing in the linked article to support your claim "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:
That's exactly what I have stated earlier.
Click to expand...

That is not exactly what you stated earlier. Let me refresh your memory.

The conversation went like this:

Southernman: “With that logic then we should legalize all perverted variations as well, like a man and his horse.”

WinterBorn: “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.”

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

WinterBorn: “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.”

Southernman: “This thread is about queers going to court to usurp the will of the people, so all perversions of marriage are included.”

WinterBorn: “Straw man”

Southernman: “Not at all. Read the article.”





Your comment about a man and his horse was most certainly a straw man.
 
Southern Man said:
Again, I don't give a flying fuck what queers do in the privacy of their homes.
Click to expand...

And they don't give a damn what you imagine their getting married will do to the institution of marriage.

It will not effect anyone's marriage. And to try and deprive them of the right to marry based on the reasons you have stated is just poorly disguised bigotry.

But I imagine you will use the same tired "you must be queer for thinking that way" to avoid the subject.
 
WinterBorn said:
That is not exactly what you stated earlier. Let me refresh your memory.

The conversation went like this:

Southernman: “With that logic then we should legalize all perverted variations as well, like a man and his horse.”

WinterBorn: “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.”

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

WinterBorn: “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.”

Southernman: “This thread is about queers going to court to usurp the will of the people, so all perversions of marriage are included.”

WinterBorn: “Straw man”

Southernman: “Not at all. Read the article.”





Your comment about a man and his horse was most certainly a straw man.
Click to expand...

If two men can consent to marry each other, than a horse can consent, and so can a five-month-old, and so can a mailbox. And that's just not right. Having sex with a consenting mailbox... that's abnormal. Queer, like queers doing it. We can't allow that. Now don't get me wrong, consenting dildoes and fleshlights are different...
 
Southern Man said:
Yet you imagine that everything will be hunky-dory if the government condones queer marriage. :palm:
Click to expand...

I don't imagine anything of the kind. I gave it careful thought and can see no adverse effect on society or marriage if we stop discriminating against gays where marriage is concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top