Originally Posted by adysav

If you don't understand what I'm getting at you could just say so instead of getting all defensive

Noone is advocating incestuous marriage.


I'm not even american and I know that the 2nd amendment states that civilians should have the right to bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia. Noone would expect a civilian militia to have nuclear weapons.

Newtonian mechanics were designed to work under the circumstances Newton could experiment within. ie everyday objects on a macroscopic scale. I imagine you're referring to quantum mechanics, but since on a macroscopic level there is so little quantum effect as to be unmeasurable in most circumstances, Newtonian mechanics still holds for the purposes which is was designed.


I was using your statements to determine whether they are logically consistent under all situations that are possible within your definition of marriage.


Is the section in bold what you actually meant to put, or is it a typo. Either way could you clarify it? Thanks

Originally Posted by filtherton

I'll take the bait though. I retract my statement that marriage is about two people who actually care about eachother, related or not. I concede, for the purpose of exposing your complete lack of anything else to talk about in this thread(aside from the passionate argument for incest), that the requirements of marriage should be based solely on the genitalia of those involved. Now, enlighten me as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Tell me why the institution of marriage should be solely limited to one man and one woman.