"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Amarok]

To further painfully drill my point home:

The "man and woman" thing existed because the societies propagating it didn't tolerate/understand other relationships. It's not because there's anything inherently special about having opposite genders. It's sad that this mindset still exists in some people.

(The only wiggle room remaining is the whole "breeding factory" element. But marriage doesn't give nor take away the ability to reproduce or be a family, so that's irrelevant.)

Agreed

[robvalue]

As it happens, I'm against anyone getting any sort of external benefits just because they're married, such as tax breaks. It's unearned, discriminatory (especially against people who don't have anyone who wants to marry them), and offers a bad incentive to make such a serious contract.

Whether there are benefits or not though, I just wanted to see gay people get the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. Now that it has happened, and all the slippery slope nonsense hasn't happened, nor has the destruction of society, I wish the bigots would at least be gracious losers here.

[Amarok]

As it happens, I'm against anyone getting any sort of external benefits just because they're married, such as tax breaks. It's unearned, discriminatory (especially against anyone who doesn't have anyone who wants to marry them), and offers a bad incentive to make such a serious contract.

Whether there are benefits or not though, I just wanted to see gay people get the same rights and opportunities as everyone else. Now that it has happened, and all the slippery slope nonsense hasn't happened, nor has the destruction of society, I wish the bigots would at least be gracious losers here.

They can never admit they were wrong .In the end it does not matter we have won and their kind are doomed to the dust bin of history .

[robvalue]

They still talk in terms of, "If we allow that, X will happen!"

We have allowed it. X did not happen. Change the fucking record.

[Mister Agenda]

Steve lives under the beliefs that if he repeats the same foolish lines over and over they somehow become less foolish

---

There is no right in the constitution to redefine words/concepts/institutions.

Pure opinion

The constitution expressly indicates that it is not intended to be an exhaustive list of all of our rights.

---

Seems like we should just call everyone married, and then no one is discriminated against.  I'll be a married bachelor, or someone can marry their toaster.   Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

Anyone can already have any kind of marriage they want, the issue is over the legal rights of adult human beings to have their marriage acknowledged by the government, which has consequences regarding such matters as inheritance and visitation. If want to say you're married to your toaster, fine, no skin off anyone's nose. If you think you and your toaster spouse's rights are being violated because you can't get a marriage license, go ahead and sue for the right for your marriage to be recognized by the government. I'll bring popcorn.

---

I don't believe that I have gotten to anything like that yet.  I've just been arguing for equal rights for single people.

What legal right do you lack as a single person that the government considering you married will add?

---

Why can't we just re-define things to include the toaster (or not.... it's really based on preference)?

Definitions are based on common usage. That's because language is for communicating (and lying). No one's personal preferences define language, we're all stuck with common usage.

mar·riage

1. the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman).

---

I explained to my wife what our resident Christians are trying to use as arguments here. She had trouble believing I was serious.

So she thinks it's silly when applied to single people or those who love toasters?     Is she toasterphobic?   If she says she doesn't hate toasters, don't believe her, and call her more nasty names.  Ask her if single people are second class citizens.

We're not saying you're stupid. We're saying that the things you say are stupid. But we only say that because it's true. We wish you'd stop embarrassing yourself like this, but you have a right to do it.

---

I admit, I made up the thing about toasters....

No kidding.

---

Do you find the arguments bad, or are you just a hateful bigot when it comes to toasty appliances. Doesn’t everyone deserve equal rights?

Get back to us when a toaster falls in love with you. Make sure it's over 18, or we'll get mired in other considerations.

---

This isn't so much a slippery slope argument, but more of an argument to absurdity.  

For such an argument to succeed, you would need to present a persuasive case that a same sex couple marrying is absurd in the same sense that a union between a human and a toaster would be. However, all you've succeeded is demonstrating is the absurdity of comparing a marriage between humans to a marriage between humans and appliances.

[Divinity]

Christians keep saying "Don't call us bigots" but if they really wanted people to stop calling them bigots, they'd stop acting like fucking bigots. Seems pretty simple to me.

"I don't hate gay people! I just think their relationship is similar to a man and a toaster!"

Fuck off you stupid piece of human waste.

[RoadRunner79]

The above is nothing but lies and slander. For us Christians, this is also considered wrong.

[Brian37]

The above is nothing but lies and slander.  For us Christians, this is also considered wrong.

If you advocate denying rights to LGBT and want to use the bible on top of law, try Saudi Arabia or Iran, they are really tough on "sin" much tougher than a half assed bigot like you.

If you are not willing to go that far, and I am glad you are a pussy, then maybe you need to understand you are as wrong as Islam on LGBT in using the books of antiquity to basically justify what really amounts to you finding it "yucky". Either way we don't give a fuck. LGBT do not owe you submission.

I will defend Divinity and her daughter before I would defend you.

[Amarok]

The above is nothing but lies and slander. For us Christians, 

Too bad it's not 

this is also considered wrong.

Calling out bigotry and regressive views is not bigotry

[RoadRunner79]

The above is nothing but lies and slander. For us Christians, 

Too bad it's not 

this is also considered wrong.

Calling out bigotry and regressive views is not bigotry

That would depend on how you define bigotry. If bigotry, is simply believing that some thing is wrong, then it would be bigoted to tell someone they are wrong for being bigoted.