Yeah - it's all circular reasoning with these guys. I've argued ad-nauseum about this for years when they were trying to legalize gay marriage.
"Marriage is about procreation and raising a family."
"Nu-huh, whaddabout people that can't have children?! Should we deny them marriage. is that FAIR?!"
"That's based out of traditional cultures and from a time when women couldn't get a job and couldn't survive on their own without a man's income and that's all changed now. it's a marriage of convenience"
"Nu-huh, without marriage you can't get in to see your husband/wife in the hospital or make life decisions for them, nor can you pass on your estate when you die!"
"Again, that's just a matter of tradition and all you need to do is change the laws or setup a contract."
"That's what marriage is, bigot, a CONTRACT."
"Technically that's a civil marriage, not a REAL marriage in the eyes of God."
"So you would just deny love to two people from the same sex!"
"Not at all, live with whom you want - it's just not a 'marriage' if you redefine marriage to be whomever wants to marry whomever then why are you deliberately limiting it to that. Why not redefine it so you can have multiple partners, like polygamy and the mormons do?"
"Now you're being stupid, marriage is between two people only!"
"Why not redefine it to allow marriage to your favorite pet then?"
"No, marriage is between two people of any sex, bigot. I'm not redefining anything, you are! Love is love and we won, bigot!"
I'm always in love with when they pull the "homosexual is NATURAL" card.
Because then I remind them that most homosexual acts in nature are stronger men beating weaker men and fucking them to show dominance. Which usually makes them, who are always smaller than my gargantuan self, realize the implications of and ends the conversation.
Or with women, the prevelance of rape in nature in general. So much so that ducks evolved special vaginas for it and dolphins doing it is a sign of their intelligence.
"Technically that's a civil marriage, not a REAL marriage in the eyes of God."
It would be so easy to say, "but we're talking about legalization. That only applies to civil marriage. Men do not get to define what real marriage is in the eyes of God anyway."
But taking that point in their favor is unthinkable because anything less than forcing complete equivalence on your is seen as a loss. To take that point, it'd have to be someone actually arguing towards similar legal treatment and just using it as a preface to defile the religious union.
"Not at all, live with whom you want - it's just not a 'marriage' if you redefine marriage to be whomever wants to marry whomever then why are you deliberately limiting it to that. Why not redefine it so you can have multiple partners, like polygamy and the mormons do?"
"Now you're being stupid, marriage is between two people only!"
I look forward to the polyarmoury weirdos sincerely arguing this position soon.
Yeah - it's all circular reasoning with these guys. I've argued ad-nauseum about this for years when they were trying to legalize gay marriage.
"Marriage is about procreation and raising a family."
"Nu-huh, whaddabout people that can't have children?! Should we deny them marriage. is that FAIR?!"
"That's based out of traditional cultures and from a time when women couldn't get a job and couldn't survive on their own without a man's income and that's all changed now. it's a marriage of convenience"
"Nu-huh, without marriage you can't get in to see your husband/wife in the hospital or make life decisions for them, nor can you pass on your estate when you die!"
"Again, that's just a matter of tradition and all you need to do is change the laws or setup a contract."
"That's what marriage is, bigot, a CONTRACT."
"Technically that's a civil marriage, not a REAL marriage in the eyes of God."
"So you would just deny love to two people from the same sex!"
"Not at all, live with whom you want - it's just not a 'marriage' if you redefine marriage to be whomever wants to marry whomever then why are you deliberately limiting it to that. Why not redefine it so you can have multiple partners, like polygamy and the mormons do?"
"Now you're being stupid, marriage is between two people only!"
"Why not redefine it to allow marriage to your favorite pet then?"
"No, marriage is between two people of any sex, bigot. I'm not redefining anything, you are! Love is love and we won, bigot!"
And, well... here we are...
I'm always in love with when they pull the "homosexual is NATURAL" card.
Because then I remind them that most homosexual acts in nature are stronger men beating weaker men and fucking them to show dominance. Which usually makes them, who are always smaller than my gargantuan self, realize the implications of and ends the conversation.
Or with women, the prevelance of rape in nature in general. So much so that ducks evolved special vaginas for it and dolphins doing it is a sign of their intelligence.
It would be so easy to say, "but we're talking about legalization. That only applies to civil marriage. Men do not get to define what real marriage is in the eyes of God anyway."
But taking that point in their favor is unthinkable because anything less than forcing complete equivalence on your is seen as a loss. To take that point, it'd have to be someone actually arguing towards similar legal treatment and just using it as a preface to defile the religious union.
I look forward to the polyarmoury weirdos sincerely arguing this position soon.