Gay Marriage: Pro or Anti?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My response to the "oh well pretty soon people can marry donkeys/their sister" fallacy is: so what?

You would not make a good standard-bearer for the cause.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial.

King Solomon and his 700 wives disagree.

Yeah well he was just a bad apple.

Bad apple who's traditionally held to have written at least a couple books of the Bible, including the part known for its sage advice on managing one's life.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I cannot support gay marriage as marriage has been the same for time immemorial.

King Solomon and his 700 wives disagree.

Yeah well he was just a bad apple.

Bad apple who's traditionally held to have written at least a couple books of the Bible, including the part known for its sage advice on managing one's life.

That may be, but he certainly didn't pursue proper standards by marrying 700 women.

Well no, I agree with you, but it was an understanding of marriage that existed at the time (although wasn't exactly encouraged), which is all anyone's trying to demonstrate by bringing him up.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage, you're a bigot.

Fact:  If you're against gay marriage because of your religion, then you're a bigot, your religion is bigoted, and you don't know how to think for yourself.

I'm against gay marriage on religious grounds and I'm nowhere near what you would call a bigot. Even without the religious grounds I would oppose it on scientific and natural law grounds.

There's no scientific basis for opposition, and 'natural law' is a religious concept.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But why the distinction?

If anything, I think the equality in everything but name is even more insulting.  It's like, "Hey, you've proven you meet the minimum threshhold for there to be a societal interest in giving you equal rights to heterosexual couples...but we're going to make sure you'e discriminated against anyway."

It's not meant to be discriminatory.  It's giving them equal rights without redefining a religious term.

It's not currently a religious term in this context.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Gay marriage hasn't very much to do with the white race, which doesn't really exist as a coherent entity outside our heads anyway.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nathan you make no sense.

Is there anything in particular that you're having trouble with? I can break this down with you if you'd like.