Do you do find gay marriage repulsive?

[A18]

Yes, anything and everything gay is repulsive.

[A18]

It's hard to rest a case that has not yet been started.

[A18]

No, I don't find it repulsive.  Yes, I think it should be legal.  Two people in love should never be kept from expressing that emotion.

Marriage isn't an expression of love, but whatever. Should a brother and sister be able to get married?

[A18]

Why the hell should it be limited to two people?

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Slippery-slope arguments are silly.

I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of polygamy, but it seems a little unpractical and self-defeating to allow infinite amounts of civil unions.

Who said anything about a slippery slope? What's slippery about it?

I happen to be much less repulsed by polygamy than homosexual marriage.

[A18]

Why the hell should we not legalize polygamy if we're going to legalize gay marriage?

[A18]

There is absolutely no justification for gay marriage that does not justify polygamy.

In fact, polygamy is a much more moderate change. I wouldn't care as much if we legalized that.

[A18]

If you're going to argue that not allowing gay marriage is discriminatory, and therefore is an evil that must be eradicated, then the same is true of polygamy.

Now, you can think gay marriage is fine but not polygamy, and that's fine, but then you can't use the discrimination argument.

[A18]

It's not about a slippery slope. It's about consistency.

I wasn't accusing you of being a hypocrite. You are, from what I can tell, completely consistent in your ideology.

[A18]

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.

[A18]

The number of people in question are people.

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

[A18]

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

If I don't love someone of the opposite sex, I can't get married either then.

[A18]

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.

In other news, you are incapable of understanding basic concepts. I'm not gay, so it obviously isn't exclusive to gay people.

[A18]

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.

You attacked. I defended.

The fact that you don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean you're being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. That's your 'fault' for not wanting to.

[A18]

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

Some offtopic note about oxygen. Very informative, though.

There are plenty of straight people that also don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex. The true 'discrimination' here isn't sexual orientation, but not wanting to marry someone of the opposite sex, which is pretty hard to lump together with generic discrimination.

[A18]

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.

[A18]

Which is the relevant point, and the one you keep trying to shift the argument away from. There's a difference between whether or not something is dicriminatory and whether or not you can marry someone you're attracted to. Having the option of the latter does not make the former a given.

Make up your mind. Do you want to talk about whether disallowing gay marriage is DISCRIMINATION or whether or not disallowing gay marriage keeps people from marrying someone they're attracted to.

The second I agree with, so quit pretending I'm arguing against it.

The first I would also agree with, except that it is equally true to say that disallowing polygamy is discrimination. You can't just throw out one factor in this relationship, number, saying that is not discrimination, but worry about sex. That is not a neutral policy.

One says you cannot get married multiple times. One says you cannot get married to someone of the same sex. Both are limiting behavior.

You are not being non-discriminatory. We are both limiting behavior. You don't care about the sexes in the marriage, but care about the number.

That is discriminatory.

I have yet to get a response, so it's hard to imagine getting a further response.

[A18]

No/Don't Care it is a States Rights Issue

Do you think it's within the rights of one state to refuse to recognize a marriage granted in another? That opens a huge can of worms.

This has always been the case.

[A18]

I'd say that marriage recognition has such a huge impact on interstate trade (for example, consider the gay couple married and living in NJ, but one works in Philadelphia, and the other works in Wilmington, and they want to get marriage benefits in all three states) that Congress is within its rights to regulate that recognition under the Commerse Clause.

LOL

[A18]

Rehnquist, to his credit, voted against the majority in Raich. It was Scalia and Kennedy who 'abandoned ship,' so to speak.

[A18]

All of the court's liberals (Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer) and two conservatives (Kennedy, Scalia).