You use the argument that their actions and urges are "just natural" and that they should be able to do what they want... by this logic, you should have no problem with beastiality, necrophilia, and pedophilia, because some people are just "naturally" compelled to do those things. You can't have it both ways.
2006-09-20 16:08:27 · 10 answers · asked by Martin523 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
No one has the right to be married or loved for that matter. Consenting adults cant have kiddy porn either There are lots of restrictions on marriage that make perfect sense.
2006-09-20 16:17:33 · answer #1 · answered by timex846 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
The Following beastiality, necrophilia, and pedophilia, that where statedare not the same as being gay. Why is the argument always go back to people who wanna do animals we're not animals we're people who are attracted to people like us
2006-09-20 23:16:54 · answer #2 · answered by Phi nu 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sorry, child, but you're comparing apples and freaking bananas. An animal cannot consent to marriage, let alone an actual relationship. Same goes with an immature child, a foreign object, or even a corpse. Moral consent, that's the difference between a gay union and a sexual free-for-all. And since the sanctity of marriage is damn near shot anyway, why is two men who actually love each other worse than a 20 year old woman marrying a 50 year old man, purely for money?
2006-09-20 23:10:21 · answer #3 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Neither can you have it both ways. Two consenting adults that love each other and are making a legal commitment is a far cry from those other things you mention. And they arent involving anyone or anything else either. Welcome to the 21st century...you will have to do better than those arguments. Oh and I happen to be a happily married woman. And for those who say that gays getting married will corrupt/change/voilate marriage I would like to ask how? I cant think of a single way two adults getting married be they gay or straight would do that. Think people!
2006-09-20 23:13:03 · answer #4 · answered by dragonrider707 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Simple answer, gay marriage involves (or would only involve) two consenting adult humans who are alive. In no way does that logic endanger: children, animals or any recently deceased member of these or any other group.
2006-09-20 23:36:12 · answer #5 · answered by dracomullet 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
have to ask, do you get off on hassling minority groups?
your comparisons are so far apart that for the first time i cant even be bothered getting into your crappy argument, basically youre saying similar to "to all of you that support the death penalty shouldn't you also support murders" corkhead!
2006-09-20 23:42:40 · answer #6 · answered by Aussieblonde -bundy'd 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As far as I'm concerned, two consenting adults can do whatever they want to each other in the privacy of their bedrooms. What are you, a communist?
2006-09-20 23:26:48 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Get a clue. In the examples you have given the consent of two adults does not exist, therefore it is an invalid argument.
Try again.
2006-09-20 23:13:50 · answer #8 · answered by PARKERD 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
their actions and urges are natural , but they are not hurting
anybody by being gay. just leave them alone. do they tell us
how to live our lives??
2006-09-20 23:19:02 · answer #9 · answered by Mary S 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
yah what sitara said ...lol
2006-09-21 00:42:07 · answer #10 · answered by gry w 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋