05-16-2008, 06:53 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Where do you think?
Posts: 1,201
|
Quote:
|
|
05-16-2008, 08:02 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
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.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
05-16-2008, 08:04 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
05-17-2008, 03:21 AM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
05-17-2008, 03:22 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
The same arguments legitimizing ANY marriage can be applied to polygamy and possibly other forms of sexual deviancy. So?
|
05-17-2008, 03:25 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
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?
|
05-17-2008, 03:36 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
Quote:
|
|
05-17-2008, 03:37 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
05-17-2008, 03:41 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
|
05-17-2008, 03:43 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,281
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|