Its just two dudes getting married. What's so gay about that?

If I were gay-married, I'd get bunk beds.

Slyguy270: Seeing how long your introductory post which said almost nothing was, I'd hate to see you waste your time arguing from an impossible position. The courts, which need to keep discussion secular, consistently reject all arguments against same-sex marriage as entirely unfounded. The secular rejection of anti-same-sex marriage arguments is not an issue of "emotions".

@JECE While I do find your concern for my time deeply touching, the very fact that you, (and most everyone else), considers my position as "impossible" serves to motivate me even more to try and educate you all. I'm really not delusional enough to think that I'll change anyone's mind, but I at least hope to demonstrate to you all that not ALL of the people against same-sex marriage are ignorant, bigoted wack-jobs. I hope by the end of this to have shown you the logic behind my views, and that even if you still disagree with me; it's more of a respectful disagreement than a "Slyguy-you're-a-miserable-faggot-who-deserves-to-die" kind of disagreement. Reasonable enough?

My big concern with same sex marriage is that the couples will reproduce and create more gay people. Eventually straight people will be a minority.

I'm for gay marriage and have some friends who had to go out of state to get married. But, why are so many people mocking slyguy rather than seeing what he can possibly come up with to make a secular argument against gay marriage? I cannot conceive of slyguy being able to change my position, but I'm still interested to hear where he is coming from so I can better understand him and other people who hold the opposing position.

The better you can understand your opponents thoughts, the better chance for better change.

Or are you all so insecure with your position that you're worried he'll convince you to join "the dark side"?

Alderian: While I am somewhat curious to see what Slyguy270 comes up with, I honestly think he should skim some of the court cases first. It's not like we're dealing with an unexplored frontier of logical reasoning.

Slyguy270: Uh-huh. While we're at it, why don't you consder that no everyone who disagrees with you will assume you're are an ignorant-bigoted-wack-job-miserable-faggot-who-deserves-to-die.

Right on JECE. I for one think Slyguy is an ignorant-bigoted-wack-job-miserable-faggot-who-deserves-to-live.

Oscar , get back in your garbage can. We can smell you through the the screen.

"no everyone" --> 'not everyone'

As a side note to ssorenn... Oscar the Grouch is by far the least gay inhabitant of Sesame Street.

But why are you trying to change him. Relatives should be free from your tyranny.

@Slyguy: just bring up your arguments already! Here we don't wait for approval :)

Why do people have to be so involved and opinionated about what other people do? Whether or not I agree with gay marriage has nothing to do with me, so let them marry and live life their way.

Sorry, been in the car all day. (A full twelve passenger van that is.) All my posts have been on my phone so far and I'm about to run out of data and battery. Also getting hard to write with blaring music, and all the combined voices in the van singing along to Katy Perry literally as I type this. :P

That should make things easier for us pro-gay marriage guys.

"Try to leave the jokes to the professionals. You can easily identify us by the "comedy cube" badge next to our names."

See my earlier comment for an example of a well presented comedic post.

@Slyguy: Considering how long that a "introductory post" was, you could have made several arguments by now. Oh, and please don't use the slipper slope and appeal to emotion fallacies. Arguments made using those aren't arguments at all.

Take your time Slyguy. I wouldn't want you to interrupt your twelve gay passenger van orgy for this.

"I hope by the end of this to have shown you the logic behind my views"

I've seen Great Debates get compiled faster.

"See my earlier comment for an example of a well presented comedic post."

You mean the one where you promoted PE to a mod? Yeah, that was hysterical.

That decision was probably the funniest call jmo's ever made

Hey everyone, I've reconciled quantum theory and the theory of relativity into one theory of everything. The theory can explain what happened before the big bang and what lies beyond the boundaries of the visible universe. It also solves the mysteries of dark matter and dark energy and it is not at all related to my religious beliefs. I will expand on it later and I'm sure you will be convinced that it is a reasonable theory. Right now however, I'm on my phone and also I'm driving twelve monkeys around in a van.

oscar please see abgemacht's post re: comedy cube badges

While I/we wait for Slyguy's argument, which I'm as impatient to see as anyone, I'll throw a bone of contention into the thread (apologies for mixing metaphors): If you really support equality and free choice of partnership, I have trouble seeing how you can be satisfied with expanding eligibility for legally-recognized marriage to only same-sex couples. Maybe this is because the first response is always "how DARE you suggest a slippery slope? That's logically fallacious." Fair enough, but I've never heard anyone explain the principled reasoning behind allowing same-sex marriage but excluding other forms of consenting-adult unions. Maybe I just haven't been following the right conversations?

I'm not interested in arguments about practicality or impracticality of how hard it would be to administer other forms of marriage -- which might or might not be substantial -- I'm more interested in the principle behind it. If you support same-sex marriage, why wouldn't you also desire to see other forms of marriage gain legal recognition (more than two people, siblings, and other such things that would be illegal under most current law in the Western world)? Or do you look kindly on those other forms as well and hope to see them gain recognized legal status in future, once society at large has come around to accepting them?

^And I should specify that I mean legal recognition for relationships BETWEEN/AMONG CONSENTING ADULTS. I fully understand the general argument against legal recognition for relationships between minors or between adults and minors.

i do see the point for marrying more than one person, and yes, i believe that this should be allowed as well, yet i don't see the necessity of marriage between siblings. i mean, isn't the sibling-being already the closest form of relation? but i guess if there's a reasonable amount of people demanding that i think we might start discussing that. i doubt that this will happen in the near future though.

Yes, there is no logically consistent argument for allowing same-sex contracting that can also restrict polygamous contracting or incestuous contracting, or any other contract between consenting adults.

The argument for the necessity of allowing marriage between siblings is that some siblings would like that and there is no reason not to allow it. That, in a free society, should be sufficient justification for allowing it.