Come on bisexauls, Polygamists, and incestuous folks. Your case for state recognized marriage is just as strong as the gays’. Make your arguement.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Come on bisexauls, Polygamists, and incestuous folks. Your case for state recognized marriage is just as strong as the gays’. Make your arguement.[/quote]
Stop trying to stir up shit. Are you upset that no one agrees with you and that there is NO movement amongst polygamists and incest supporters let alone one that receives support from those who don’t engage in these activities? That must be it.
This whole slippery slope argument might hold up a lot better if there was actually a decent amount of people saying, “Why not us too?” and others agreeing with them.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Come on bisexauls, Polygamists, and incestuous folks. Your case for state recognized marriage is just as strong as the gays’. Make your arguement.
Stop trying to stir up shit. Are you upset that no one agrees with you and that there is NO movement amongst polygamists and incest supporters let alone one that receives support from those who don’t engage in these activities? That must be it.
This whole slippery slope argument might hold up a lot better if there was actually a decent amount of people saying, “Why not us too?” and others agreeing with them.[/quote]
I’m sorry if I’m more tolerant and inclusive than you.
And why does there have to be a “decent” (however much that is) amount of them? If the principle is the same, it’s the same. If the minority has to be protected, they have to be protected.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And why does there have to be a “decent” (however much that is) amount of them? If the principle is the same, it’s the same. If the minority has to be protected, they have to be protected.[/quote]
Edit. Forget it. This has been explained to you before.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And why does there have to be a “decent” (however much that is) amount of them? If the principle is the same, it’s the same. If the minority has to be protected, they have to be protected.
Edit. Forget it. This has been explained to you before.[/quote]
What has? What a decent amount consists of?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
And why does there have to be a “decent” (however much that is) amount of them? If the principle is the same, it’s the same. If the minority has to be protected, they have to be protected.
Edit. Forget it. This has been explained to you before.
What has? What a decent amount consists of?[/quote]
The vast difference between polygamous and incestuous relationships on the one hand and same-sex monogamous relationships on the other. And why very few view the failure to extend government benefits to the former as an unjustifiable denial of rights and many do for the latter.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Come on bisexauls, Polygamists, and incestuous folks. Your case for state recognized marriage is just as strong as the gays’. Make your arguement.
Don’t forget that cult in California where they want to marry inanimate objects.
“John do you take this lamp stand to be your…”[/quote]
Yeah, man. I saw a programme on TV about some chick who married the Eiffel Tower.
She was also humping a wooden bench behind the Tower’s back, fucking slut.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
The vast difference between polygamous and incestuous relationships on the one hand and same-sex monogamous relationships on the other. And why very few view the failure to extend government benefits to the former as an unjustifiable denial of rights and many do for the latter. [/quote]
What vast difference? We’re talking about relationship arrangements between consenting adults in all of these cases. The only difference is in which kind of relationships you’d favor the government discriminating against.
Live and let live.
Always seems to be gay MEN who get grief from supposedly straight men. The same straight men who’ll happily watch gay women get it on.
I suppose it gets amplified on a site like this where the guys are either muscular or trying to attain muscle. Don’t worry, though. Isn’t like you’re gonna get jumped by a bunch of fairies and raped.
Or is it?
Twilight Zone music
[quote]Badunk wrote:
Live and let live.
Always seems to be gay MEN who get grief from supposedly straight men. The same straight men who’ll happily watch gay women get it on.
I suppose it gets amplified on a site like this where the guys are either muscular or trying to attain muscle. Don’t worry, though. Isn’t like you’re gonna get jumped by a bunch of fairies and raped.
Or is it?
Twilight Zone music[/quote]
Wrong thread.
stands corrected
I have no real opinion since people in the UK tend not to marry their relatives or several people at once as much as they do in the US.
Actually, I can make a point- I saw a tv show recently where some geneticist said that the birth defects that everyone is scared of in 1st cousins having kids is negligible when compared to ‘normal’ couples. It’s something that would only become a worry if several generations of the same incidences occurred.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
First you tolerate…then you accept…then you change a 5000 year old tradition in order to accommodate.[/quote]
You mean marriage? Which has documented evidence of gay marriage? And polygamist marriage? What exactly is he changing again?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
This whole slippery slope argument might hold up a lot better if there was actually a decent amount of people saying, “Why not us too?” and others agreeing with them.
That depends on your definition of “the slippery slope” theory doesn’t it?
Some might just say that that’s pretty much what we’ve been on for the past three decades with insisting on more “tolerance” for gays.
First you tolerate…then you accept…then you change a 5000 year old tradition in order to accommodate.
Pretty slippery I’d say. [/quote]
Which 5000 year old tradition are we talking about?
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Really? I think it’s time for some proof, if you don’t mind.[/quote]
There was marriage between men, at least among the Romans, until the practice was outlawed in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans.
“No, that’s not proof, I call BS it’s a myth created by the militant gays to further their cause!!!”
Yeah, and the world is flat too. All the hubbub about gay marriage came from the same people who stopped the world from progressing. Anyone else note that all major technological advances have only happened after the world started to become more secular?
“But wait! Most inventors were Christian!”
And still would have been crucified (not literally) by the church for inventing some of the things they did had the church kept its former power.
At this point I’ll just assume what you’re going to say Mick, because it’s always the same bigoted tripe.