[swissmr]

Tbh I just laugh at the people who are against gay marriage in England because everyone knows it will happen eventually
And it won't be long before people look back and laugh disbelievingly at the time when the whole country had to 'decide' whether gay people should be 'allowed' to get married.

[semprelibera]

I refuse to believe Hippityhop is so basic as to not understand the slippery slope fallacy, which can only mean he is trolling: 1/10

[HippityHop]

Originally Posted by Novichok

1. It's obvious that group marriage is quite different than a two-person marriage. I don't see how anyone could deny this.

2. There are pragmatic legal issues concerning group marriage. Current law can easily accommodate a two-person same-sex marriage. But if more people are added into the equation, then many laws/benefits would have to be changed.

3. The most cogent argument for same-sex marriage doesn't rely on the truth of the premise that "people should be able to marry whomever they love". It relies on the premises that same-sex marriage (and homosexuality) isn't inherently harmful and denying same-sex marriage rights is denying a group of people (gay people) equal rights. I don't believe that an equal rights argument can be made w.r.t. polygamous marriage.

I do support polygamous marriage. But there seems to be a (widely held) belief that one's support of same-sex marriage commits them to supporting polygamous marriage. That's not at all true.

There are many places in the world where there is polygamy and they seem to have no problem with setting their laws to accommodate same.

I'm for anybody getting married who wants to get married and that includes close relatives.

[HippityHop]

Originally Posted by semprelibera

I refuse to believe Hippityhop is so basic as to not understand the slippery slope fallacy, which can only mean he is trolling: 1/10

I have stated my case. The only way that you can refute my stance on allowing any and all marriages even those between close relatives (brothers and sisters as per ancient Egyptian royalty etc.) is not by anything logical but by your own dislike of it. If you have a logical reason to be against what I said, state it and stop deflecting. Otherwise STFU.

[semprelibera]

Originally Posted by HippityHop

I have stated my case. The only way that you can refute my stance on allowing any and all marriages even those between close relatives (brothers and sisters as per ancient Egyptian royalty etc.) is not by anything logical but by your own dislike of it. If you have a logical reason to be against what I said, state it and stop deflecting. Otherwise STFU.

SMH at your pleading for logic while using illogical reasoning to bait posters into off-topic arguments.
Aint nobody got time for that.

[HippityHop]

Originally Posted by semprelibera

SMH at your pleading for logic while using illogical reasoning to bait posters into off-topic arguments.
Aint nobody got time for that.

Not pleading for anything. You're the one who claimed that I was trolling when in fact I argue for as much liberty for as many people as possible as long as that liberty does not hurt anyone else. And until I see someone else's marriage hurting others I'll continue to hold my position.

But let the record show for all to see that you cannot refute one word that I stated. And your claiming that you don't have time for that (though you clearly have time to dance around my argument) doesn't change that fact.

If you can't address the argument why weigh in at all? Just shake your head and keep it moving.

I'm OK with that.

[NoppaNoppa]

Yes.

Why? My right wing brain tells that all are FREE to make their own choice

[semprelibera]

Originally Posted by HippityHop

Not pleading for anything. You're the one who claimed that I was trolling when in fact I argue for as much liberty for as many people as possible as long as that liberty does not hurt anyone else. And until I see someone else's marriage hurting others I'll continue to hold my position.

But let the record show for all to see that you cannot refute one word that I stated. And your claiming that you don't have time for that (though you clearly have time to dance around my argument) doesn't change that fact.

If you can't address the argument why weigh in at all? Just shake your head and keep it moving.

I'm OK with that.

"let the record show"... someone takes themselves too seriously
I will be happy to discuss gay marriage with you. What I will not do is indulge your lazy slippery slope trolling, talking about incest and polygamy
Peace.

[KournikovaFan91]

Personally I'd like the abolition of all civil marriage and individuals could draw up their own unique marital contract with lawyers that wouldn't be state regulated but since that will NEVER happen then yes I'm for gay marriage.

Marriage is merely a legally binding document between two people, frankly whether you're in love or not is irrelevant and whether you can both pro-create is irrelevant.

Frankly I'm amazed excluding two people of the same gender from this contract hasn't been interpreted as gender discrimination anywhere in the world because that's what it seems to be.

[HippityHop]

Originally Posted by semprelibera

"let the record show"... someone takes themselves too seriously
I will be happy to discuss gay marriage with you. What I will not do is indulge your lazy slippery slope trolling, talking about incest and polygamy
Peace.

I'm not making a slippery slope argument. You clearly don't know what a slippery slope argument is so let me explain it to you. That sort of argument says that if we allow gay marriage it will lead to polygamy etc. That is not my argument. In fact I'm not even making an argument. I am stating my position which is that anyone who wants to marry in any configurarion should be free to do so. And if that's not clear to you that also includes two or more gay people getting married. Therefore there is nothing to discuss concerning gay marriage from my point of view. I'm for it.

Now if you object to my support of other types of marriage, that's fine. But be honest and say that you believe that people should only be free to engage in what you agree with and not to engage in what you don't agree with.

Now if you can show me how someone else's marriage does harm to others I'm perfectly willing to reconsider my position.

[semprelibera]

Originally Posted by HippityHop

I'm for it.

Thanks for playing.

[jrollaneres25]

I don't. I believe in the original and whole way of God's intent between a man and a woman, although I struggle with same-gender attraction

[jrollaneres25]

I'm proud to say that I'm one of the 11 people that voted no

[Novichok]

^You're an idiot.

[doomsday]

Originally Posted by Novichok

^You're an idiot.

Or a believer


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App