Gay marriage opponents' strategy uncertain in 2015

[Mechaman]

Afleitch has already pretty much demolished the "procreation" argument here, so I'm going to go onto this little gem:

- And finally (this isn't an argument against ssm, just pointing this out), if you guys are so confident that your arguments for same sex marriage are inconquerable, then you should do it through legislatures and voters and not through courts. There'll be absolutely no risk of some future court case to reverse the one that legalizes it (say, scotus rules in favor of ssm in 2015, a republican president gets elected in 2016, ginsburg retires and is replaced by an anti-ssm justice, roberts decides to reject ssm as well, and then I'll bet you anything that a case would be at the court in a matter of 2 years or so to reverse the 2015 decision and re-prohibit ssm, setting you guys right back at close to square 1.), and there will be more satisfaction with ssm legalization in general. you should be begging the supreme court to rule against ssm for this reason alone.

Beg me French, BUT WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN!

This reminds me of all the arguments that I vaguely recall being made by a non-avatar during 2011 that the Democrats should just give up 2012 and 2016 so that the GOP could be blamed for anything that goes wrong and they can claim a veto proof supermajority in Congress!  I mean seriously bro, this makes no damn sense!  I repeat THIS MAKES NO DAMN SENSE!

I would think the fundamental objective of PRO-GAY MARRIAGE folks is to LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE, not to harken back to the moderate hero Stephen A. Douglas position on every big social issue in order to avoid being associated with the consequences!  I don't think people who are as adamant about gay marriage really care at this point how it gets done, just that it gets done.  That is what happened in Loving v. Virginia and that is what is happening now.

There are just some issues that should not be trusted to state legislatures and the rule of the majority.  This issue is one of them.

If you don't like that, tough.

[Mechaman]

Afleitch has already pretty much demolished the "procreation" argument here, so I'm going to go onto this little gem:

- And finally (this isn't an argument against ssm, just pointing this out), if you guys are so confident that your arguments for same sex marriage are inconquerable, then you should do it through legislatures and voters and not through courts. There'll be absolutely no risk of some future court case to reverse the one that legalizes it (say, scotus rules in favor of ssm in 2015, a republican president gets elected in 2016, ginsburg retires and is replaced by an anti-ssm justice, roberts decides to reject ssm as well, and then I'll bet you anything that a case would be at the court in a matter of 2 years or so to reverse the 2015 decision and re-prohibit ssm, setting you guys right back at close to square 1.), and there will be more satisfaction with ssm legalization in general. you should be begging the supreme court to rule against ssm for this reason alone.

Beg me French, BUT WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN!

This reminds me of all the arguments that I vaguely recall being made by a non-avatar during 2011 that the Democrats should just give up 2012 and 2016 so that the GOP could be blamed for anything that goes wrong and they can claim a veto proof supermajority in Congress!  I mean seriously bro, this makes no damn sense!  I repeat THIS MAKES NO DAMN SENSE!

I would think the fundamental objective of PRO-GAY MARRIAGE folks is to LEGALIZE GAY MARRIAGE, not to harken back to the moderate hero Stephen A. Douglas position on every big social issue in order to avoid being associated with the consequences!  I don't think people who are as adamant about gay marriage really care at this point how it gets done, just that it gets done.  That is what happened in Loving v. Virginia and that is what is happening now.

There are just some issues that should not be trusted to state legislatures and the rule of the majority.  This issue is one of them.

If you don't like that, tough.

So much for you being a conservative.

How dare you good sir?  How freaking dare you!

You see the real fake conservatives are moderate hero interlopers like you who took over the party in the Bush years who have done as much as possible to sideshow real conservative ideas like lower spending, less wars, less regulations, etc etc in the name of some extremist almost Bryan inspired crusade against what people do in their personal lives.  I for one will not have my conservative Republican values questioned, especially by you.

There is nothing at all conservative about using the apparatus of the state to dictate moral code to people.  Something people like you have not learned from all those wonderful instances of "progressive" intervention like Prohibition, immigration restrictions, anti-saloon legislation, and other disturbingly authoritarian Puritanical instances of social engineering.

Even Barry Goldwater stood against these hatemongers.  So-called "conservatives" now days seem all too willing to embrace them.

My conservatism is hardcore, how's yours?

[Mechaman]

What?

[Mechaman]

Given that modern technology, via sperm/egg surrogacy or whatever you call it, CAN pretty much lead to genetic offspring for gay couples, the idea that we should base arguments off of the ability to procreate is just ludicrous.

Oh sure, they might have to go through an "unnatural" process, but a duck is still a duck even if a leg is missing.

[Mechaman]

Sorry dude but this is all just ridiculous.  You are aware that the bible also justifies pedophilia a few times, right?

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites ... And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males ... And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones ... And Moses was wroth with the officers ... And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:1-18

Okay that is in war time, but surely there isn't a passage about selling your teenage daughter to another dude is there, oh wait:

if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant ... If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed ... If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. Exodus 21:7-10

I guess that means lolfric would have to vote in favor of abolishing the age of consent.