(10-06-2014 09:11 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 08:47 PM)ODUChm Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 07:26 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  So now there is now nothing legally special or unique about the relationship (male-female) that allows for the continuation of our species.

The majority of your ancestors reproduced long before marriage between man and woman was a concept.

Are you saying there is absolutely no difference between a male-female relationship and a male-male relationship? If so, that's disturbing.

Not it the sense the latter will prevent the former from doing what it was born to to

(10-06-2014 10:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 10:07 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:56 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:49 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(10-06-2014 09:19 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  There is nothing "legally special or unique" about two straight people, or two gay people getting married.

Equal justice under law isn't just a motto...

So you're saying there is no difference between a man & woman mating and a man & man mating.

I respectfully disagree.

Legally, no...

"I think it's gross" isn't a legal argument.

Gay rights supporters mock the slippery slope argument, but it's real.

There will be lawsuits regarding polygamy and brothers & sisters marrying. There won't be a lot of them; I've never known any polygamists or siblings that wanted to marry. Even so, there are some of them out there and now nothing will bar them from obtaining their "equal rights". Consenting adults ...

It's too late; we can't stuff the toothpaste back in the tube.

Telling you that's not a legal argument isn't mocking.

Incest is illegal do to genetic birth defects that come from incest.

I see no legal reason to ban polygamy...it should be legal...they are consenting adults.

**** it

Just abort the baby if one is conceived through incest. That tissue inside the womb doesn't mean **** anyway. Problem solved.

Quit discriminating