"Marriage is about who you love! You can't discriminate against someone just because they love someone of the same gender!"

If I love my sister and want to marry her, will you support my cause?

"Ew, gross!"

...So, I guess not?

"Uh, there are reasons we don't allow incest! You want 6-fingered retard babies???"

So marriage is based not just on love, but also on the genetic quality of all potential offspring?

"well, it's not based on genetics...it's against the LAW to marry your sister..."

So do you support a ban on marriage for people with diseases/defects they are likely to pass on to children? Dwarves, for example?

"Of course not!! Only a Nazi would!"

So what is marriage based on?

"LOVE!!"

I love my sister - can I marry her?

"EW, SICK!"

...

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#26754887)

What will you do when your son (or daughter) comes home with a black eye for picking on the wrong queer?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#26754978)

I will tell him/her to toughen up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#26754998)

Also, fags don't get intermediate scrutiny.

The compelling reason is to stop the degeneracy that is faggotry. Moral and physical

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#26754950)

Poly's have been discriminated against. Why can't they marry who they love even if 100 people? Aren't all faggots now getting tax breaks as well?

LJL@ you having no fucking basis besides the random libturd media shit on Jeff's and whatnot.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#26754981)

Anyways, you didn't answer any of my questions and your bullshit anecdotes are just that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#26755017)

But obviously this is a moot argument.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#35503084)

only big faggots want to waste any energy banning gay marriage

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#36074948)

- reptile

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#26755435)

I think the state should just issue some near-identical title for marriage called civic unions or something and let the churches with definitions of marriage rooted in religious doctrine do what the will when it comes to marrying people whom they choose.

That said I think it is NBD for gays to form a civic union and I think churches should be allowed to not perform gay marriages

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#26755623)

my thing about the whole gay marriage issue (watching it evolve over like 10 years or so) is this: I just don't care either way, and because I'm not emotionally invested in it I can see that the religious people outside of the nujobs (or most of them at least) wouldn't care if gays could get all the legal/social benefits of marriage - they just don't want to use the term because it's a sacrament and one would be deviating from religious grounds if you married gays in many major religions.

That said, I think that gay couples deserve the tangible benefits that being married confers(tax, legal/social, insurance etc etc etc).

You seriously have to be a fucking nutter to want to legislate what people do in their own homes as long as it does not hurt anyone or break laws etc, they should have just used a different term to pass legislation to protect the gays in a practical realm and let the religious dudes do what they do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#26755669)

why, when marriage pre-dates churches and is even practiced among some animals

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#36076199)

hth

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2732641&forum_id=2#28743703)