XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.atheism, talk.politics.guns
XPost: alt.survival
From: Klausschadenfreude@gmx.com
On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:28:07 -0600, deep wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:15:11 -0600, Just Wondering
> wrote:
>
>>On 9/24/2014 11:00 AM, deep wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2014 08:12:30 -0700, "Wayne"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assume that man A has the right to marry a woman, and man B has the right
to
>>>> marry a woman.
>>>>
>>>> In what weird world of logic does that mean that man A has a right to
marry
>>>> man B?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Because they are still people. And the law says we have the
>>> responsibility to treat all people equally.
>>>
>>We already do. All people have always had the right to marry. Marriage
>>by definition is between a man and a woman. There has never been a law
>>against a homosexual man or woman marrying. Just like anyone else, if a
>>homosexual man wants to marry, he has to find a woman to do it with.
>>And if a homosexual woman wants to marry, she has to find a man to do it
>>with. There of any number of examples of homosexuals marrying that way.
>> Similarly, a heterosexual man has never had a right to "marry" another
>>man, and a heterosexual woman has never had a right to "marry" another
>>woman. By definition, a man-man relationship, and a woman-woman
>>relationship, is not marriage.
>
>No it's not. You're wrong. The 14th amendment says all people have
>equal rights under the law. You have no right to decide what the
>conditions are for someone else to marry.
LOL
Of course we do.
Just because YOU got away with marrying your sister doesn't mean we
should condone it.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
