Pope excommunicates the Mafia

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't think they have a chance, anywhere.

it won't be for lack of trying.

[Ben Kenobi]

Asshats shouldn't allowed to get married because their genes should be eliminated from the gene pool. Especially Ben. I am proud to be a bigot.

This is no different from the opinion expressed in Buck vs Bell.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1926/1926_292

You're in the same camp as such fine American legal minds as Oliver Wendell Holmes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Accurate description of how things are (or used to be, sex is no longer relevant to marriage in several countries and some states already).

If sex were in fact irrelevant than it wouldn't matter to a gay man whether or not he was married to a man or a woman.

[N35t0r]

No, it wouldn't. As log as he/she married someone he/she was in love with. Which, in the case of gay men, very probably means another man.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, it wouldn't.

Yeah, it would. Sex is very relevant to marriage. If it wasn't gay people wouldn't care about it.

As log as he/she married someone he/she was in love with. Which, in the case of gay men, very probably means another man.

Then why do you constantly argue that my argument is unfair for them? If sex is wholly irrelevant, it shouldn't matter to you whether you marry a man or a woman.

[N35t0r]

You argue that marriage being restricted to a man and a woman isn't dirscriminatory towards gays because gays are also allowed to marry people of the opposite sex is like a country that only allowed people to go to orthodox church not being discriminatory because people of other religions are also free to go to orthodox churches.

[N35t0r]

Yeah, it would. Sex is very relevant to marriage. If it wasn't gay people wouldn't care about it.

*sigh*

Circular logic FTW.

Yeah, sex is currently relevant to marriage (insofar as it is being used to limit certain individuals' freedoms), whereas it shouldn't be.

Then why do you constantly argue that my argument is unfair for them?

Because your 'argument' is that they are free to do whatever they want as long as it is what you want?

If sex is wholly irrelevant, it shouldn't matter to you whether you marry a man or a woman.

Exactly. Which is a problem because you can't.

[N35t0r]

I don't know why I bother. Your arguments would be equally effective defending a law that only allowed people to marry if their first names began with the same letters.

[DinoDoc]

You argue that marriage being restricted to a man and a woman isn't discriminatory towards gays because gays are also allowed to marry people of the opposite sex is like a country that only allowed people to go to orthodox church not being discriminatory because people of other religions are also free to go to orthodox churches.

Well the rational argument here isn't that but civil unions.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yeah, sex is currently relevant to marriage (insofar as it is being used to limit certain individuals' freedoms), whereas it shouldn't be.

Again. Two sides believe that sex is relevant to marriage and that whether someone's partner is a man or a woman is a big deal. Your side is arguing that gay marriage is important because then men can marry men and women can marry women.

My side is arguing from the same preposition that sex is relevant and argues that gay marriage is contrary to the concept of two sexes".

A third argument is that 'Sex is irrelevant to marriage', and that "it shouldn't matter what sex you marry because that's not what marriage is about.

You still believe that sex is crucial to marriage, where we disagree is how these sexes ought to interact with one another in marriage. These are two different things.

[N35t0r]

Well the rational argument here isn't that but civil unions.

OK, so you can chose to go to orthodox church, or hold some other religious practise at home. But no churches. There. No more discrimination

[Ben Kenobi]

Well the rational argument here isn't that but civil unions.

Civil Unions is like arguing the holocaust was bad but Auschwitz is ok.

[DinoDoc]

OK, so you can chose to go to orthodox church, or hold some other religious practice at home. But no churches. There. No more discrimination

I'm merely taking the position that civil unions are a more rational argument against/compromise with gay marriage forces than "well they can marry people of the opposite sex if they want." Granted that's not a very high bar I set for myself though.

[C0ckney]

why compromise? **** the bigots. equal rights.

[DinoDoc]

Civil Unions is like arguing the holocaust was bad but Auschwitz is ok.

How would allowing gays the ability to enter into a civil union with all the tax implications of straight marriage lead to the deaths of 6 million Jews and other assorted minorities?