In response to:

Ronald Reagan: Same-Sex Marriage Advocate?

tncdel Wrote: May 02, 2013 12:25 PM
[the programming of this website disallowed me to post my entire post above, so I will complete it here as follows] Gay marriage is an impossibility by definition. By definition, marriage is solely between a man and a woman. And a homosexual man has the EXACT SAME RIGHT under the Constitution as does a heterosexual man, no more, no less, to marry a woman. But the fact that he does not wish to avail himself of that right, which is certainly his prerogative, doesn't create for him another right; namely: to change the heterosexual definition of marriage handed down to us by our ancestors. Someone posturing about "gay marriage" is sailing under a false flag built upon an invalid premise. And what they are really talking about is changing...
RayTheAnarchoCapitalist Wrote: May 04, 2013 8:07 AM
Children cannot enter into legal contracts, which is what marriage is, so this is a moot point. Explain why incestual unions shouldn't be legal.
David3036 Wrote: May 04, 2013 5:16 AM
That is a "slippery slope" argument that has absolutely NO basis in fact.

What is it about "consenting adults" that you don't understand? Sex with children will ALWAYS be illegal in this country.
ruffn3k Wrote: May 03, 2013 11:24 PM
So we should support incest unions and pedophilia as well, since we're throwing morals out the window, and besides, they love each other, and they can have real intercourse, have children, and provide the children with a mother and father, all things homosexuals can't do. Isnt that equality? Let me guess, No, because now homosexuals get to set the moral limit for everyone else, I have to say, this new definition of equality is nothing like the old one.
RayTheAnarchoCapitalist Wrote: May 03, 2013 8:05 PM
Do you believe that men and women should have the same legal rights? If you do then you must support same sex marriage, otherwise men lack the right to marry men which women have. Your attempted secular argument is internally inconsistent.

Also keep in mind that polygamy was practiced even in biblical times so there's no historical justification for defining marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Cindyday Wrote: May 02, 2013 5:13 PM
You are making a circular non argument. The whole issue revolves around changing the definition of marriage. What you're doing is like joining a debate about legalizing pot and saying, "we shouldn't legalize pot because pot is illegal."
A woman doesn't have the EXACT SAME RIGHT under the Constitution as does a man, no more, no less, to marry a woman.
A man doesn't have the EXACT SAME RIGHT under the Constitution as does a woman, no more, no less, to marry a man.
And you are appealing to tradition, a logical fallacy.
tncdel Wrote: May 02, 2013 12:26 PM
[continued]


Someone posturing about "gay marriage" is sailing under a false flag built upon an invalid premise.
And what they are really talking about is changing the heterosexual definition of marriage to include something else.