I am not for being gay but

Same-sex marriage and gay marriage are two terms used to refer to the same thing. Cut the crap.

 

The mental midgets couldn't kick the can down the road and you still haven't even identified the equivocation

 

????? No, same sex marriage would be marriage for any two consenting adults of the same sex who desire marriage while "gay marriage" is for gay couples of the same sex. Every court case creating a right to gay marriage, only held that withholding the rights of marriage to gays is a violation of the constitution.

 

Nope, still there is no constitutional right to gay marriage under the Washington state constitution. Now there is only a statutory right to gay marriage. You wouldn't be able to comprehend the distinction.

 

So since you have never argued same-sex marriage should be illegal, you think same-sex marriage should be legal? Your distinction is idiotic, and nobody uses it except you.

 

Well, you think it's idiotic because you're only concerned with gay couples. You only see a problem with excluding gay couples from marriage. And no, I think marriage should stay as it has been for thousands of years, a husband and a wife. If marriage was made available to any two consenting adults, I wouldn't have any constitutional argument against it. As a fan of limited government, I would argue government doesn't need to be in the business of fostering the formation of stable homes with the 1000s of governmental tax breaks and entitlements.

 

I do it daily.

Nobody is fooled by it anymore.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. Every state which legalized same sex marriage has no "gay" test. Two straight men or women can marry.

 

There is no distinction. The ruling was overturned by the legalization.

 

But you have no constitutional argument against same sex marriage. It's just one of your favorite straw men to accuse others of not being for marriage of any two consenting adults

 

No, I think its idiotic because you are describing the same concept using slightly different words and pretending like a serious distinction exists. When people say gay marriage or same sex marriage, they are referring to two people of the same sex getting married. Generally, gay couples will be the ones having same-sex marriages... but if two straight guys wanna get married there would be nothing stopping them.

 

Now he's going to go on about incest, even though it was never legal for opposite sex couples before. Ready? 3...2..1...

 

I've just never seen anything like it. I would say he is a troll, but there is something oddly genuine about it all. It's really fascinating, like watching a turtle eat a head of lettuce (which I just saw that happen yesterday).

 

It's more like watching a snake eat it's own tail.

 

It was never legal for same sex couples before. What possible irrelevance do you imagine for the fact that incestuous relationships were never legal before? Other than to demonstrate that you only advocate for gay marriages

 

Genuine, constitutional equal protection law. Not one standard for gays with another for anyone else.

 

Strawman

- - - Updated - - -

Strawman

 

Nope......

 

Two consenting adults of the same sex married is a "same-sex marriage" which dixion doesn't oppose...

While a gay couple (composed of two consenting adults of the same sex) married is a "gay marriage"....which dixon opposes.


See,it's perfectly logical.

 

You made it up. Seems illogical to me.

 

yep..............

 

One standard for gays with another for everyone else is the way it is now. Don't say "gays can still marry the opposite sex" because that misses the point and has been refuted already many times. Legalizing gay marriage will allow anyone to marry someone of the same-gender. So it would be the same-standards.

 

You people refute nothing. Your personal proclamations void of a shred of substance are meaningless. And I would have said two heterosexuals of the same sex are also excluded because it has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. They arent excluded because of their sexuality, they are heterosexuals. They are excluded simply because they are both of the same sex.

 

Gay marriage would include heterosexuals who for some reason want to marry the same-sex. So they aren't excluded, period, end of story.

"Us people" refute everything, and then you change arguments. You literally just cycle through the same arguments ad nauseum, hoping our attentions spans are short enough not to notice. Sorry, but we notice, and we aren't going to start back at square one every time you fail to defend one of them.

 

The bottom line here is that dixon does not like gay people, period.