JrFactor, I don't think anyone can make a legal argument against gay marriage and be consistent with Constitutional protections: equality under the law.
This video seems humorously persuasive: youtube. com/watch?v=WYPVISQR9fY (omit spaces). What do you think?
I heard the gay marriage = marriage w animals argument before. But why would we arbitrarily start giving animals the legal standing to enter into contracts? There was a time when it was against the law for people of different races to marry. They were called anti0miscegenation laws. When these laws were shown to be unconstitutional, the consenting adult standard still held. There is no way that an animal could be considered a consenting adult.
gladly. Heres an example. Say you have a classroom full of gays, with one strait person. You bring in candy to school, and give a piece to the strait person. Out of courtesy, you then realize that you have to give the whole class candy. In no way, in that example, are you comparing the strait person to the other gays, your just stating a fact
A. im in no way attempting to twist ur words. it only sounds like ur implying this stuff...
B. was my last comment in any way an argument? i just asked if u cood explain the quote because im trying to make sure tht i dont make any unfair statements against what u said agains gay marraige....id appreciate it greatly if u explained it to me
If you substitute 'women' for gay and 'voting' for the right to marry, then the structure of your argument becomes a defense in support of bigotry.
'if you let women vote, then voting between animals must be allowed as well'
'if you give men the candy, you have to give all the women candy as well.'
'However, i am in no way saying that "women are like animals" or "the a man is like the other women in the class'
Bigstubby1 2 years ago
not the same story
JuniorFactor 2 years ago
ouch, you want some ice for that burn?
FifaCup06 2 years ago
ok wait wait. still confused a bit. when u say between animals, do u mean animal and animal or human and animal
FifaCup06 2 years ago
JrFactor, I don't think anyone can make a legal argument against gay marriage and be consistent with Constitutional protections: equality under the law.
This video seems humorously persuasive: youtube. com/watch?v=WYPVISQR9fY (omit spaces). What do you think?
Bigstubby1 2 years ago
I heard the gay marriage = marriage w animals argument before. But why would we arbitrarily start giving animals the legal standing to enter into contracts? There was a time when it was against the law for people of different races to marry. They were called anti0miscegenation laws. When these laws were shown to be unconstitutional, the consenting adult standard still held. There is no way that an animal could be considered a consenting adult.
Bigstubby1 2 years ago
if you let gays get married, then marriage between animals must be allowed as well
if you give the strait kid the candy, you have to give all the gays candy as well.
However, i am in no way saying that "gays are like animals" or "the strait person is like the other gays in the class
JuniorFactor 2 years ago
but how does that relate to marriage between animals.........youve confused me
FifaCup06 2 years ago
gladly. Heres an example. Say you have a classroom full of gays, with one strait person. You bring in candy to school, and give a piece to the strait person. Out of courtesy, you then realize that you have to give the whole class candy. In no way, in that example, are you comparing the strait person to the other gays, your just stating a fact
JuniorFactor 2 years ago
A. im in no way attempting to twist ur words. it only sounds like ur implying this stuff...
B. was my last comment in any way an argument? i just asked if u cood explain the quote because im trying to make sure tht i dont make any unfair statements against what u said agains gay marraige....id appreciate it greatly if u explained it to me
FifaCup06 2 years ago