Terminalcoffee discussion
Helping You To Know The News
>
The weirdest argument ever against marriage equality
date
newest »
newest »
BunWat wrote: "this is a towering pinnacle of nitwittery ..."Absolute nitwittery. At what point do people like this stop and think, hey I'm not even making sense to myself? Because they passed that point for me ages and ages ago with argument number one.
You could have coined a catchy phrase like, "please sir, I want some more."
It really is just the same kind of argument that made them have to say that rape...as long as it was hetero was not a mortal sin while some other things that are a lot less serious to most people where considered as such. The addition of a bribe to the usual argument that two men or two women cannot naturally conceive progeny together just makes a tired argument slightly more noticeable if more absurd.
My name is 905 and I've just become alive...
::presses red button in Phil's laBORatory and twirls out of room::
Argh! Why do I always put in a self destruct button??!
And place that silly do not press sign by it?
::promises self to scheme better:: ::forgets::
In the attic of my college's library I once found a tiny machine that had only one button: TAKE OVER. I never had the nerve to press it.
I would have been greatly tempted to take that tiny machine.
BunWat wrote: "I also ADORE that the barristers of nitwittery claim that;the institution of marriage arose in large measure in response to the unique social difficulty that opposite-sex couples, but not same-se..."
That's exactly correct and why priests are not allowed to marry. Their wife and kids could not inherit property because it all belonged to the church. That never kept priests from having kids. They did but they didn't have rights to anything. How convenient for the church to make up that rule.
This looks like a good place to put this...Sen. Rob Portman, for many years a staunch supporter of DOMA, now backs gay marriage because his son came out.
Just when you thought the "slippery slope" argument had run its yammering course, Cal Thomas resurrects it, with fears of polygamy and some mention of underage marriage.What advocates for same-sex marriage should be asked is whether they consider any other human relationship worthy of similar constitutional protection and based on what standard? The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to marry. States, not the federal government, issue marriage licenses. Current laws restrict "underage" marriage, as well as polygamy. If same-sex marriage is approved, what's to stop polygamists from demanding legal protection and cultural acceptance?
Mod
Mod
Nothing's to stop them, but it's not like it matters. They can demand it all they want, it ain't going to gain public or legal sanction. So the whole notion that we shouldn't do something because if we do, other people will demand other things is beside the point.
Although truthfully I am worried that horses and cows will now demand to be married. And if that happens, holy hell. Think of the genetic horse-cow combinations that will result, and the expenses associated with purchasing wedding gifts. Really we should shut down marriage altogether, for anyone, because weddings gifts are too fucking costly.
Mod
Sen. Rob Portman, for many years a staunch supporter of DOMA, now backs gay marriage because his son came out."
Once again, showing that Repubs only give a shit if an issue affects them personally.
Mod
So if his gay son lived in a state that refused to make gay marriage legal, oh well. Sucks to be him, if he wanted to get married.
Interestingly, apparently the CPAC panel in support of marriage equality was full, while the panel against it only had a couple of attendees.
"Marriage should be limited to unions of a man and a woman because they alone can "produce unplanned and unintended offspring," opponents of gay marriage have told the Supreme Court.
By contrast, when same-sex couples decide to have children, "substantial advance planning is required," said Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for House Republicans."