http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/09/24/decline_of_marriage_pew_shows_there_aren_t_enough_marriageable_men.html
There you go.
Funny that after 50 years of feminism women are still looking for a man to provide. :D
Obviously you missed the fact that gay people are "born that way" and therefore know from an early age they are gay.
So clearly the answer would be zero.
Besides if there was "no special societal stigma" to gay sex why not bang your high school buddies. If you really think about it a hole...
I am stuck on it because I believe that one of the fundamental reasons that same-sex marriage advocates support same-sex marriage is because they don't understand what marriage is.
So pointing out an obvious failure of understanding pretty clearly advances that point.
Actual case law...
How is the government not more involved in your relationship if you are married?
Try leaving your wife vs. gf and then tell me which relationship the government is more involved in :D
No I am stuck on it because you insisted on claiming a falsehood to support same-sex marriage.
Basically if you don't understand the very basics of what marriage is, namely about having society/government involved in your life, perhaps you shouldn't be arguing about marriage?
Seems to me like 1 party consent is superior to 0 party consent.
So toaster marriage actually makes more sense than Canadian marriage laws D:
And US common law marriage laws require consent:
or
One I clearly answered. If Canadian law allows marriage without consent then clearly there is nothing stopping American law from doing the same. Except for bigoted liberals that is.
As for the other what obligation of marriage do you think a marriage cannot perform.
Why should there be any problem with a t-shirt in a school just because it has a gun on it in the first place?
Would it be acceptable if the shirt included a trigger warning? :P
Canada is a 1st World Western country. If consent is not required for marriage there then it stands to reason that consent is not a fundamental part of marriage and can be easily changed if we decide to.
The fact that you refuse to just show you are a butt-hurt bigot.
Well at least you...
Was it southern democrats or republicans that owned slaves?
Its called a win-win scenario. Either you are forced to admit that slave-owning southern democrats were liberals. Or you are forced to admit that the chart is BS. I win either way.
I think whats dishonest is lets go back to...
Marriage is inherently about demanding that the government be more involved in your life.
If you really want less government you should be advocating for the abolition of straight marriage.
So are you conceding that people advocating for same-sex marriage are really advocating for more government invovlment in people's lives?
Sure I can:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/12/homosexuality_and_racism_why_gay_marriage_and_interracial_marriage_are_different.html
Again...
You do realize that Canada declares people to married without their consent right?
And really contracts don't require consent. Society has just decided that contracts between people should have consent, because forcing another person into a contract is pretty clearly harming another person.
Why does consent matter when it comes to marrying a toaster?
Your argument is really no different than saying if gay man grows a uterus he can grow marry a man.
Who is harmed by allowing someone to marry a toaster?
And in fact there are plenty of historical examples of marriage without the...
Well it seems like they are purposefully excluding object-sexuals...
Who is harmed by allowing someone to marry his toaster?
You worried that if toaster marriage was legal you would feel an uncontrollable urge to stick you weewee in your toaster?:cool:
It hasn't been refuted at all.
Liberals repeatedly make the comparison between sexual orientation and race.
Were only some forms of interracial marriage legalized?
Of course not. That would be insane.
So why marriage equality only for one sexual orientation?:confused:
Well to borrow from a favorite liberal analogy.
Supporting same-sex marriage but opposing toaster marriage
Is like a black person supporting a black-white interracial marriage, but opposing an Asian-white interracial marriage D:
If it is a violation of human rights for marriage to...
Not really. My argument is that marriage isn't about individual liberty. In fact its pretty hard to see how legally and socially binding yourself to another person could be about individual liberty, its pretty much the exact opposite.
Well its pretty damn hypocritical to claim that...
The problem is that liberals explicitly argued that marriage is whatever anyone says it when arguing for same-sex marriage. "How dare anyone try to force their idea of marriage on me" :mad:
So if you believe that how is it possible for a marriage to be a SHAM marriage? :confused:
Also how...
Which certainly explains why they sue everyone who won't celebrate their relationships.
Marriage isn't about individual liberty. Marriage is inherently about having special societal recognition for your relationship. Which is about as far from individual liberty as you can get.
Also a...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.