Do you do find gay marriage repulsive?

[Alcon]

I have to give major kudos to John Dibble for posting something a while ago that became my view on this subject. I can't believe I did not think of it until I saw that post.

My view is that the government should get out of defining what is marriage. Everyone who is willing to fill out a form that says they are a loving couple and somehow gets sanctified somewhere, in my view, should be able to have a legal marriage.

Of course, this could be abused, but so could (and is) the current system. I am STRONGLY in favor of gay marriage, in any case. I do not care what the definition of marriage is, nor how slippery the slope is.

It isn't going to hurt me, and it is going to make lots of other people very happy. Screw definitions.

That's my view.

[Alcon]

It's discrimination based on number.

Not allowing gay marriage keeps every individual from marrying someone of the same sex.

It's either situational or it's not.

Numbers are not people.

It's not discrimination by gender; it's discrimination by sexual orientation.

[Alcon]

The number of people in question are people.

No. A gay man can still marry someone of the opposite sex.

The number of people in question is not people. It is a figure regarding people.

Yeah, they can. And they can't marry someone they actually love.

[Alcon]

Um, sex is not a person either. Nor is sexual orientation, or whatever the hell you're trying to argue this is.

Sexual orientation is an attribute of people; no person would feel offended because their quantity was discriminated against or something.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other news, oxygen can be breathed by people.

[Alcon]

Well, in the one case, they are unable to get married because of the sex of the other person. In the other case, the group can't get married because of the number of the other people.

Yes, but it's not like being restricted to one wife means they cannot marry someone they are attracted to and love.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you really find the need to add humorously irrelevant attacks like this to the end of your post? Does it ever work to bother people? I'm sorry you are unable to marry a gender you are not attracted to. What a loss.

[Alcon]

Well, you just changed the standard. Before it was discrimination, now it's because you can't marry someone you are attracted to and love. But that is still discrimination, by number.

That is discrimination. It is saying you cannot marry someone you love because they are of the same gender. Discrimination infers that some trait of theirs causes them to be discrimated against. What is that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I attacked? When?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is your first sentence there true?

[Alcon]

Being able to marry someone you're attracted to isn't non-discriminatory. It is itself a discriminatory standard: one person.

I have no idea what this means.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is not a direct personal attack on you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People should be able to marry the person they love.

You're just being ridiculously definitional.

[Alcon]

You're saying they should be able to marry one person only. That's discriminatory.

And yet, it is an indirect personal attack on me.

Why just the person? That's discriminatory. You obviously have a set idea of what marriage is supposed to be that you want to force upon people. I don't see how that differs from conservatives.

You are continuously arguing the same point. It is not that I do not have a valid point to prove against it, but that you have repeated the same content in every single post.

It's not discriminatory. It's limiting behavior. One says you cannot get married multiple times; one says you cannot get married, even once, to someone you actually love. I have my limits, too, but you are giving a slippery slope argument. You can do better than this.

If you have nothing new to say, by the way, don't expect further responses from me.

[Alcon]

What about marriages with no intention of child production?  Should they be illegal?