6/28/2013 8:44 PM
Not in America.   One man, one vote.   One man, one voice. 

We're all equal, remember?
6/28/2013 8:58 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/28/2013 8:44:00 PM (view original):
Not in America.   One man, one vote.   One man, one voice. 

We're all equal, remember?
Your retardedness makes so much sense now. You treat all sources as equally credible.
6/28/2013 10:19 PM
How does Louis Gohmert affect you?  What's the harm?

Anyways, remember the old Chinese saying: "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step".  Moving marriage beyond one man, one woman is the first step.

Thirty years ago, SSM in America seemed inconceivable.  Now, apparently it's here to stay.  The traditional institution of marriage is now broken and thrown out onto the curb.  Why would bigamy or polygamy as a future step seem so inconceivable to you?  Modern society has ****** up marriage this far, what's the harm of ******* it up more?
6/29/2013 12:06 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/28/2013 10:19:00 PM (view original):
How does Louis Gohmert affect you?  What's the harm?

Anyways, remember the old Chinese saying: "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step".  Moving marriage beyond one man, one woman is the first step.

Thirty years ago, SSM in America seemed inconceivable.  Now, apparently it's here to stay.  The traditional institution of marriage is now broken and thrown out onto the curb.  Why would bigamy or polygamy as a future step seem so inconceivable to you?  Modern society has ****** up marriage this far, what's the harm of ******* it up more?
Are you still married? Explain how it's broken.
6/29/2013 8:24 AM

Marriage in America is no longer between one man and one woman.  That's how it is broken.

6/29/2013 9:39 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/29/2013 8:24:00 AM (view original):

Marriage in America is no longer between one man and one woman.  That's how it is broken.

It is still between one man and one woman. It just also includes gay couples too.

How is that broken?
6/29/2013 10:05 AM
If it also includes gay couples, then it's not "one man and one woman".

"The same, but different" is not "the same".
6/29/2013 11:37 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/29/2013 10:05:00 AM (view original):
If it also includes gay couples, then it's not "one man and one woman".

"The same, but different" is not "the same".
It's not exclusively one man/one woman, but marriage still includes one man/one woman. Explain how it's broken. Different isn't always bad.
6/29/2013 11:43 AM
Different isn't always good.  Sometimes different is a disaster.


6/29/2013 11:44 AM
Here's an example of a "different" way of air travel:


6/29/2013 12:12 PM
Oh great. It's pretty easy to explain why those were bad. What's bad about allowing gays to marry in addition the straight couples?
6/29/2013 3:57 PM
You're never going to convince a social conservative that allowing same-sex couples of consenting adults to marry isn't going to break marriage.  There are still places in the world where 12- and 13-year-old girls are forced into arranged marriages with 30-40+ year old men they've never met, and historically this was really quite common.  That's just fine.  But two men who are in love and committed to one another getting married really breaks down the principles of the institution.
6/29/2013 3:59 PM
And oh, by the way, everyone who favors "traditional marriage" likes to claim that marriage has "always been defined as existing between one man and one woman" and ignoring the fact that for thousands of years the most powerful men in the world could have tens, hundreds, or in some cases even thousands of wives.  For example, King David, and likely most of the other early kings of the Israelites.  God's chosen people...
6/29/2013 6:21 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/29/2013 3:57:00 PM (view original):
You're never going to convince a social conservative that allowing same-sex couples of consenting adults to marry isn't going to break marriage.  There are still places in the world where 12- and 13-year-old girls are forced into arranged marriages with 30-40+ year old men they've never met, and historically this was really quite common.  That's just fine.  But two men who are in love and committed to one another getting married really breaks down the principles of the institution.
It certainly bastardizes the traditional meaning and purpose of it.
6/29/2013 7:14 PM
Purpose! That's a new one. What's the purpose of marriage? Because I don't see a difference, so maybe this will help me better understand where you're coming from.
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.