A gay man has the right to marry either a straight/gay woman any time he wants just as gay woman can marry gay/straight man anytime she wants.
And you are free to worship as you see fit, so long as you worship Allah. See how silly that sounds? Restricted freedom is not freedom.
THAT is equal protection under the law.
No, THAT is a crappy argument that you guys think passes for either wit, or foolproof. Guess what? If we're allowed to marry someone of the same sex, so would you. Still equal. Not my fault you won't be choosing to take advantage of it.
Being able to marry a “house cat” is a new thing, just as man/man or woman/woman marriage is a new thing.
Show me a cat that can give written, informed consent. Then I'll take this seriously.
That is the argument.
No, it's a strawman/slippery slope hybrid.
Additionally, if gay marriage is OK, so is plural marriages of any configuration. Legally 10 people could all be married.
First, look up how many wives some of your biblical heroes had. Second, polygamous marriages are a legal quagmire when it comes to rights to inheritance. Third, aside from legal complications...what's the problem? Provided everyone's informed and aware of the situation, and no one's being taken advantage of...who does it hurt? Aside from your delicate sensibilities?
That is equal protection under the law.
Again, it's a whole different can of worms altogether, with it's own legal blockades.
Libs providing anecdotal information about a gay couple here or there that has been together for 20 years, etc. is useless.
But reports of a gay couple you know that broke up after a month, or the "ex" gay in your church is ironclad, yes?
Study after study confirms that man/man relationships are extremely transient.
But when men commit to women, it's a whole other thing, right? Because straight men never, EVER break up.
The issue is that libs continually try to change language to suit their goals. Just like the whole “pro-choice” thing. It isn’t pro- or anti-choice it is pro- or anti-abortion.
No, it is as it says. It is for giving women the option to terminate a pregnancy they are unable to carry or care for. No one's ADVOCATING abortion, we're just keeping the option open.
If you change the language then you deceive people. Marriage has been between males and females for the entire definition of the word.
Yes, a man, and as many wives and mistresses as he could afford. And then a white man and a white woman. And likely a few shades between that I'm not remembering.
“Health care reform” is another example of that. In all reality, that monster was closer to “insurance reform” but “health care reform” plays better.
Why, oh why, oh why do these people fight so viciously for their right to pay into their insurance, only for their HMO to find some loophole, and screw them out of coverage, leaving them high and dry to pay for a costly procedure. I cannot comprehend how they justify that.
Words matter and so do their definitions.
Like proclaiming to be "Pro-Life" but openly advocating capital punishment and war, or saying you are full of "Christian Love" and then gleefully condemning people to hell? Or using "Liberal," "commie," "socialist," or "Dem" as perjorative words with no other meaning than a slur...?
