The ability to reproduce. Which many straight people can’t do. So they do not have an important impact for society (which I reject because I believe people who can’t reproduce have important impacts on society).
It doesn’t and you haven’t produced an argument to the contrary. Gay marriage won’t keep straight people from getting married.
Clarified my followup
Then you do argue in support of state recognition of arboreal marriage?
Do you believe consenting adult homosexual siblings should be allowed to marry? What about opposite sex siblings who have undergone sterilization?
I have to be for that if gay people can marry? Interesting.
But just to be sure you get to be for straight people marrying even if they can’t reproduce but gay people not marrying because they can’t reproduce. Yet if I support two women loving each other and getting married I support anything?
I suppose at least we aren’t discussing all the straight people vanishing.
Why aren’t you? Reviewing your arguments against my own, you should be.
Why? You should be for excluding those who can’t reproduce from marriage following your arguments. You handwave it away for hypotheticals that aren’t happening in any type of scale worth discussing.
You can’t answer why you don’t support arboreal marriage? Is it this what supporting state recognition of homosexual marriage requires?
It doesn’t affect your marriage. Doesn’t need societal wide import.
Sooo…merely the State-recognized title of “married?” That’s it? Why did they even care?
This.
Why care when blacks and whites couldn’t marry? That’s it?
Financial incentive of marital tax status is a big one. As were a slew of other easily googlable things.
That’s what I was waiting for. Why not just extend that to all people? If it’s not necessary to collect it from people, why should I support taking it from anyone?
Why would anyone look into something for people who aren’t important like gays and those who can’t have kids?
I shudder to even call them members of society. Luckily God will send them all to hell.
To incentivize an arrangement that does actually and inherently provide a widespread function. Or, to provide it order because of its widespread heavy impact on society positively and/or negatively.
I know
To my knowledge, that was never suggested as a replacement for gay marriage legalization.
I don’t follow this part
They have to be gay AND can’t have kids. People who can’t have kids get a pass if they’re straight. Gays are bad.
I’m so sick and tired of people who can’t reproduce having a similar privilege and distinction to me. Those fucking commoners have no right to anything to be compared to a healthy individual who can reproduce!
As you should be. They’ve pissed off Jesus.
Anyone want to answer about arboreal marriage? Or, tackle the sibling marriage question as I framed it? Or, are you guys moving on to religion?
Isn’t incest illegal? I’m not sure why it needs a response then.
Please explain why supporting gay marriage means you must support all other types.
It’s logically inconsistent to make your point of reproduction and allow those who can’t reproduce to be married.