If a man has the right to marry a man...

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by BYU71

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.

It's a sign of a sinful behavior going from an abnormal, deviant behavior, to an "alternative behavior" that should be "accepted" as normal as any other behavior. In other words, it's a sign of the Apocolypse.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

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

No reason at all. Logically, there is no reason why men and women of any number or proportion (numerically) should not be able to marry if marriage is not the union of one man and one women. I can think of no logical distinction whatever.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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?

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?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

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

Why is it per se bad for society that they can't have kids? Infertile people can't have kids either. Should we prohibit them from marriage?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

The same arguments legitimizing ANY marriage can be applied to polygamy and possibly other forms of sexual deviancy. So?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

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?

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?

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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?

I'm not sold.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Colly Wolly

I'm not sold.

Logic can be tough.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Logic can be tough.

Petty and childish.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Logic can be tough.

How's this for logic? Penises go in vaginas, not poopers.