David Vitter Apolgizes For Serious Sin

What I dislike about this whole mess is the greatest sleeze-ball in the country, Larry Flynn, getting up before the cameras and trying to sound like some moral force. He made it clear the reason he "outed" Vitter was vengence. Vitter made a bad mistake, but he never deliberately or maliciously hurt anyone. Flynn, on the other hand, reminds me of Jabba the Hutt without the principles.

 

Jabba is also thinner and less slimey.

 

I don't mind if a man marries a dog, but I have a hard time believing that a dog would give consent.

What if we draw the line at this: Two adult humans, who can give consent verbally and/or by signature, may marry each other.

I'll bet if all gay people could get married and used to the idea of monogamy there would be a dramatic decrease in the spread of STDs. Let that one marinate.

 

Gay dudes don't have to be married to be monogomous.

 

That is a ridiculous argument that I've heard rehashed over and over, but if you think about it it makes no sense. How about we just assume that we are talking about two consenting adults of the human race, and not make silly "what-if" scenarios that do nothing to advance your argument.

You could apply your logic to everything. For example, if I was advocating making the drinking age 18, you would say " Why not let 3 year olds buy beer? Where do we stop?"

As far as giving marriage benefits to long term roommates, if they are opposing sex they fall under Commonlaw Marriages in most states.

Comparing gay couple to bestiality loving and incestuous ones is an incredibly insulting and bigoted way of looking at things, and exposes the true agenda of people against gay marriage: they just don't like gay people. You are entitled to your opinion, but the government should not be allowed to take that into consideration when determining civil rights.

Straw man:To argue against a straw man is to interpret someone's position in an unfairly weak way, and so argue against a position that nobody holds, or is likely to hold.

 

I know several gay and lesbian couples that have been monogamous for 20+ years. Gay men are still men, so of course they can be horndogs, but in a committed relationship it is no difference from straight people as far as trust and monogamy is concerned.

 

i wonder how your friends managed to stay together, what without the government stamp of approval and all. exactly why should anyone give a damn about this one way or another?

arent civil unions pretty much the same as marriage? are we really so stupid that we are concerned about which word the govenment uses to describe the relationship?

well they better get on board and like who you tell them to like. are you aware that you are a good person because you like gays?

 

My argument is not a straw man. If the government is to redefine what a marraige is it will create a slippery slope. All of the issues gays raise that they say would be resolved if they were allowed to marry could be fixed through other legislation.

 

maybe, but the slippery slope slides to funland. when people want to marry their dogs, i will have something fun to read about it the newspaper. i dont see the downside.

maybe we should just get the government out of the business altogether.

if you want to form a mini-corporation with somebody, anybody, and share revenues and give each other legal rights, fine. that should be a different issue than all the rest of junk that comes with marriage. marriage happens in a church for a reason, because it is largely a symbolic ritual, a religious ceremony that the government should not be concerned with.

 

Maybe that's all true, but one of the basic things government should do is promote the general wellfare. Gay marraige is contrary to the general good.