Originally Posted by BYU71 (Post 221997)

Maybe this is a sign of how the media and public awareness changes opinion. To call gays sexual deviants would have been very acceptable in my vocabulary a few years back. Deviant to me is a very degrading term. It not only means "deviate from norm", but to me labels the person as degenerate or less human being, like for instance, a child molester.

While I find the homo-sexual act repulsive, at least as far as men are concerned, I no longer consider them deviants.

For instance. I might see a guy pick and eat his own buger. That would be repulsive and yet I wouldn't consider the person a deviant.

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat (Post 221874)

Why can't a man legally marry two women, or two men?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 221891)

I don't understand your logical chain of thought here. Why is it that saying marriage is NOT one thing necessarily means it is everything else?

Saying marriage is not just a marriage between a man and a woman is not tantamount to saying marriage is all other relationships.

If marriage is defined as a state recognized relationship between two people (except as specifically noted by statute, such as marriage to a minor or to a close relative), that encompasses a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, and a man and a man. It also doesn't require that the state recognize a marriage to a little child or to a goat. How do you get from Point A to Point B on this one?

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat (Post 221985)

Homosexual relations can be scientifically shown to result in no offspring. How in the hell is that not bad for society?

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 221990)

Sure it does. The same arguments legitimizing gay marriage can be applied to polygamy, and possibly other forms of sexual deviancy. There's no way to avoid this.

Originally Posted by UtahDan (Post 222067)

C'mon Cali, if marriage is not one man and one women, then the numbers are totally, totally arbitrary. I go agree with your goat example because that is not a person. But can you really articulate why two men should be able to marry and not three men and 4 women?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 222151)

Because the concept of one man one woman in a marriage is just as easily viewed as one person marrying one person. The total number of participants in the marriage is identical in both scenarios. Why do you assume logically that changing the characteristics of the people involved in the marriage necessitates allowing a change in the number of participants too?

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly (Post 222154)

I'm not sold.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 222155)

Logic can be tough.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 222155)

Logic can be tough.