Comments on: Clinton Would Extend Same-Sex Benefits

Democrat Says She'd Also Eliminate Husband's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy

[rational_1]

I can''t believe this stupid CBSNews messageboard just edited out the word "g ays" in my previous post. Am I missing something? Is there a new PC word to use instead of g ays?

[jon2012-2009]

"Well, isn''''''''t that you issue. Bigotry. As rational l states, you proved the point nothing more to be expected of you either.

Posted by mudrose at 04:33 PM : Apr 04, 2008"

You didn''''t answer the question, how does two men getting married infringe on their 14th amendment rights? and therefore become unconstitutional?


Posted by taddles at 04:45 PM : Apr 04, 200

I think mudrose already flatlined a while back so don''t wait around for him to respond with a sensible answer. He is not really into rational arguments as much as into trading insults and name-calling.

[rational_1]

Technically marriage is a single contract between two people as defined by the The U.S. Supreme Court in 1878.
Posted by taddles at 04:44 PM : Apr 04, 2008

Again, why? Basically our argument started with you arguing *** should be able to marry and me disagreeing. And now we end up with you quoting legal briefs and legislative documents that support your statements, and yet these are some of the same laws that you want changed so *** can marry. So, you highlight a Supreme Court ruling that tells me why I can''t marry 5 people concurrently but condemn any legal statement that prevents two men from marrying one another. Why is that?

[taddles-2009]

"If same gender marriage is legally permitted, it will establish a legal precedent that permits brother to marry sister as long as they agree to adopt.

Posted by TracyMorg_an at 04:33 PM : Apr 04, 2008"


First off, what has adoption to do with anything, and second how does two men getting married justify changing the laws on incest? that''s like saying that if two men are allowed to get married people will be allowed to shoot each other.

[taddles-2009]

"Well, isn''''t that you issue. Bigotry. As rational l states, you proved the point nothing more to be expected of you either.

Posted by mudrose at 04:33 PM : Apr 04, 2008"


You didn''t answer the question, how does two men getting married infringe on their 14th amendment rights? and therefore become unconstitutional?

[taddles-2009]

"But why can''''t I enter into a contractual agreement with 5 people and for all of us to be married, especially if we are all of legal age?

Posted by rational_1 at 04:39 PM : Apr 04, 2008"


Technically marriage is a single contract between two people as defined by the The U.S. Supreme Court in 1878.

[rational_1]

"You know as well as everyone else does that there are stipulations and legitimate arguments against specific marriage forms, namely incest, and polygamy."
Posted by taddles at 04:37 PM : Apr 04, 2008

Actually I don''t see any reason why polygamy should be outlawed if marriage is just a state contract between or among people of legal age. Seriously, I don''t see any problems with it from a state perspective.

[taddles-2009]

"The word "bigot" has come to be mis-applied to anyone who disagrees with anyone with relativist logic.

Posted by TracyMorg_an at 04:35 PM : Apr 04, 2008"


The term bigot gets used when you make stupid racial, or $exually offensive comments. Kind funny you being offended by being called a bigot.

[rational_1]

Because you can not marry anyone you can not enter into a legally binding contract with....when was the last time you signed over a mortgage to Bessie? That''''''''s the same justification for you not being able to marry a child.
Posted by taddles

But why can''t I enter into a contractual agreement with 5 people and for all of us to be married, especially if we are all of legal age? Your Bessie argument I agree with (you went for the easy one to attack) but there are a lot of (sometimes sick) examples of people of age wanting to get married but society simply not allowing it? How do you determine which of these people or groups of people should be allowed to marry and which should not?

[taddles-2009]

"The reason there is a strong aversion to incest is to avoid the genetic problems of inbreeding.

Posted by rational_1 at 04:25 PM : Apr 04, 2008"


You know as well as everyone else does that there are stipulations and legitimate arguments against specific marriage forms, namely incest, and polygamy. There are also contractual requirements, namely that one be able to enter into a contract, that remove children and farm animals and your desk from entering into a marriage. The argument that if Bob and Bill can get married therefore I can marry my cow Bessie is simply fallacious by virtue of Bessie being incapable of entering into any form of contract.

The argument that marriage is for procreation is also no longer legitimate any more that the argument that inter-racial or inter-faith couples can not marry.