6/13/2013 12:31 PM
I'm sure I have.   Do you want my reason or the reason it is not currently allowed?
6/13/2013 12:38 PM
I want to know the purpose that the prohibition is serving.

Like this:
We track sex offenders because we think it will reducing the likelyhood of them offending again.

We prohibit gays from marrying in order to prevent...?
6/13/2013 12:43 PM
...government accepted aberrant sexual behavior.

...sham marriages for medical/insurance benefits.

...crushing the meaning of "marriage".

I could go on but that's a bit pointless.    Now do you want my reason or the generally accepted reasoning by the public?
6/13/2013 12:53 PM (edited)
Sodomy is legal, so the government already accepts both gay and straight anal sex.

If someone wants to marry only to scam benefits, they can just marry someone of the opposite sex. Stopping gay marriage doesn't stop sham marriages.

Gays marry now. The meaning of marriage hasn't been crushed.

Nice try but your reasoning sucks.

6/13/2013 12:52 PM
Posted by bistiza on 6/13/2013 11:39:00 AM (view original):
I'm glad to know it's boring ignoring the questions I pose to you because you don't have a good answer for them.
What questions?
6/13/2013 12:54 PM
Here's my reason:
Changing the definition of marriage opens a Pandora's box for changing it again and again until it has no meaning.   Change is not always good.  Figure out what "marriage" needs to be and have that be the definition for eternity.   If other types of unions are required to be "government-sponsored" in the future, figure out what they will be called.  For the tradition-bound, I'd leave "marriage" as one man/one woman but give the same legal rights for "civil unions". 

Here's the real reason:
The moral majority, or whatever you want to call it, frowns upon homosexuality.   I'm not sure they're the majority anymore but the religious right still has plenty of power.   Times are a changin' but that's how it is right now.   At some point in the very near future, virtually no one will care except the RR.  If the MM or the RR wants to maintain the "sanctity of marriage", they'd be wise to accept my stance on SSM/civil unions.  They will not win the battle of preventing homosexual couples.
6/13/2013 1:01 PM
So you're going with slippery slope.

Good call.
6/13/2013 1:06 PM
You can call it whatever you want to call it.   You claim to be a lawyer, right?   If so, you know that each ruling sets a precedent for future rulings.   This controversy is in the court system.  After the lawyers mangle the definition, there's no telling what "marriage" will mean.   

IMO, if the benefits are the same, there really doesn't need to be one definition for all unions.    It's like Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park.    They play baseball on all of them but they use Field, Stadium and Park to describe their facility in their names. 
6/13/2013 1:08 PM
If you ask me, by granting equal rights, you shut up the opposition for SSM and get what you want.

Otherwise, it's just an unnecessary RSF that will continue to waste resources.
6/13/2013 1:10 PM
What questions?
 
So the only "stupid, discriminatory laws" we should ever change are the ones where a group using propaganda will convince the government and society to go along with their bull **** agenda?



6/13/2013 1:10 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2013 12:27:00 PM (view original):
You have never answered. What is the purpose of preventing gay marriage?
haha
6/13/2013 1:13 PM
The purpose of preventing gay marriage is to keep the term "marriage" from becoming something it shouldn't be.

Marriage is one man and one woman.  It is NOT one man and one billy goat. It is NOT one woman and her cat. It is NOT a man and a child. It is also NOT two men or two women.

If you want to have those other things be legal in some way, call it something else. "Civil union" seems to be the term a lot of people favor, and that would be fine by me.

It's bad enough homosexuals have forever perverted the meaning of words such as "gay", but now they want to **** up the meaning of marriage too.

6/13/2013 1:14 PM
Posted by bistiza on 6/13/2013 1:10:00 PM (view original):
What questions?
 
So the only "stupid, discriminatory laws" we should ever change are the ones where a group using propaganda will convince the government and society to go along with their bull **** agenda?



You didn't include a question mark the first time. I thought it was rhetorical.

No.
6/13/2013 1:42 PM
You didn't include a question mark the first time. I thought it was rhetorical.

Yes, there was a question mark there. I essentially quoted myself exactly. It was never intended as rhetorical. I very rarely do anything rhetorical.

Never mind, the point is the only "stupid, discriminatory laws" (your words) you have advocated changing in this thread that I can recall have to do with the homosexual agenda.

Please give me some examples of "stupid, discriminatory laws" you advocate changing that have nothing to do with the homosexual agenda, because I honestly don't think you have any.
6/13/2013 1:48 PM
No, you edited your post. There was no question mark when you originally posted.

No. I try to keep things on topic.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.