Bill to legalize same-sex civil unions defeated in Colorado

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Either a bad attempt at slippery slope or a really poorly conceived notion. Polygamy was outlawed in the past by christians, in spite of it being a christian element in marriage. It does not deny anyone rights based on who they are, it just narrows what marriage means. Do people marry dogs now that we allow black people to marry? Are we allowing people to marry couches now that we allow black people to marry white people? Same failed logic was made already, and you'd think people would actually be able to admit that it's failed logic.
Technically, heterosexual couples have actually done more damage to marriage than anyone else could anyway, so if you want to go with who puts the institute at risk most, it's squarely on the shoulders of straight people. You have shown no way that it will effect you at all, in any way. Sorry, that is a cop-out answer because it is simply not going to effect you at all.

SMOKIN JOE CAMEL OBAMA wrote:

<quoted text>
there are few few born gays, WHY do you think Lib communist media spends so much money and man power promoting Gayism.
The commie writers in Hollyweird KNOW that the more gays are depicted in the Movies and TV, the more kids think it is normal!!!

Judged:

1

1

1

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
The Hindu religion allows marriage to animals and if we redefine marriage to one size fits all how does one prevent a newlywed from being a Labrador Retriever? Especially since government can write no laws preventing the free exercise of religion? LOL

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
First, in the US we have laws preventing those who cannot consent from even participating with sexual activity of those who can. Are you assuming that the majority of people would want to ever change that law? If so then it could be changed without gay marriage being allowed.
Second, slippery slope fallacy still.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
The Hindu religion allows marriage to animals and if we redefine marriage to one size fits all how does one prevent a newlywed from being a Labrador Retriever? Especially since government can write no laws preventing the free exercise of religion? LOL

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>So when one comes out gay, statistically speaking there is a high chance of that, what will you do?

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
they aren't. Statistically speaking there isn't much of a chance.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
The slippery slope is a very 'real' outcome that deserves to be a part of this discussion....

Judged:

1

1

1

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
The slippery slope is a very 'real' outcome that deserves to be a part of this discussion....

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
they aren't. Statistically speaking there isn't much of a chance.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>"They aren't" is all the proof you have? Can't you at least copy-pasta some hatemonger group like NOM so there is something to actually reply to? You fail just because of that simple fact.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
First, in the US we have laws preventing those who cannot consent from even participating with sexual activity of those who can. Are you assuming that the majority of people would want to ever change that law? If so then it could be changed without gay marriage being allowed.
Second, slippery slope fallacy still.

Lilith_SatansWhore wrote:

<quoted text>How's that dead mother of yours bigot!!!!!

McGruff wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't need to post anything. I don't care of a gay like you agrees with me or not.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
So you are saying we have laws against marrying animals. In my state we also have laws again same sex marriage.
Marrying an animal seems a distinct possibility if you wish to redefine marriage. At least Richard Posner thinks so and some people have called him "the world’s most distinguished legal scholar" . He had this to say concerning Evan Gerstmann's book stating same sex marriage is a fundamental right.
"It is a strange implication of Gerstmann's approach that if a man wanted to marry his sterile sister, his eighty-year-old grandmother, three other women, two men, and his chihuahua, a court would have to turn somersaults to come up with a "compelling state interest" that would forbid these matches.
Gerstmann (writing to legalize same sex marriage) also argues that if a man were allowed to have two wives, there could be no objection to his being allowed to have a thousand wives. Maybe not, but that is just an example of where the logic of his approach leads.(The Massachusetts court in the Goodridge case wisely did not try to explain, but instead merely asserted, that its decision would not disturb the state's prohibition of polygamy.) And I have not even tasked him with explaining what the state's compelling interest is in forbidding a man to marry his beloved dachshund."
Richard A. Posner , judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
At least I had a real mother and I wasn't cloned from the resident farmyard sow like you were. That is why you break out in a guilt rash when you eat bacon. It is like self inflicted family cannibalism.
Your other rashes are just your normal run-of-the-mill sexually transmitted diseases associated with to many decades of trash whoring in your local crack houses.

Lilith_SatansWhore wrote:

<quoted text>i hear that biatch of a mother of yours sucks c#cks in hell... my friend told me

Lilith_SatansWhore wrote:

<quoted text>oh sorry no current STD's other then my genital herpes...

downhill246 wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't have many friends, just loser clients. At 65 years old I wonder if they like old age creeping up on them.

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, the "redefinition" fallacy. Amendments redefine it, amendments needed to stop the laws that are passing, amendments that the anti-gay folks are pushing for.. You are redefining marriage. The law banning gay marriage is banning two consenting parties from participating, animals can not give consent, so you are comparing apples to oranges.