Rhode Island legalizes Gay Marriage

But indeed you did

Your qoute:

"And Rhode Island just enacted legislation that makes a marriage between them illegal.

enacted that makes marriage between them illegal- right there you claimed a change of situation.

But like I said before- the Rhode Island did not just enact any such legislation- they enacted legislation that makes marriage between same gender couples just the same as marriage between different gender couples.

You raised the spurious issue of the grandmother and daughter, which were not affected by any such Rhode Island legislation. But then again you are fond of arguing the absurd.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh I am quite certain that I was reading books regarding the Weimer Republic back when you were still wearing nappies.

 

??? Nope, a change in the "legislation", not a change in the "situation". Eliminating the gender restriction WOULD HAVE made a marriage between the mother and grandmother legal, sooooo they "enacted legislation that makes a marriage between them illegal." Just like I said. After all, "Rhode Island Legalizes GAY MARRIAGE", while maintaining all other restrictions.

 

nope. marriage between closely related people was already prohibitted. this legislation had no effect on them.

 

Are you suggesting that a single mother and her mother/the grandmother are prevented from getting married in RI? I'm not certain that your assertion is accurate, but if you can provide me an actual case where such a desire between such a homosexual couple (two of the same sex, mother and daughter) actually wants to be married, I promise to consider the circumstances and provide an opinion. Of course, you're just grasping at straws because you can't get past your disdain for homosexuals, as is apparent by your continued cyclical logic.

So, do you actually have a case where a mother and daughter desire to marry and have been denied the opportunity where otherwise homosexual couples can legally marry? Or are you using a non-existent hypothetical to make a straw man argument because you cannot provide any rational argument for your own position against homosexual marriage?

 

I made no assertions whatsoever as to what was already prohibited and only made reference to what is now prohibited. But of course, thats why you want to go there.

 

Lol, of course you did.

like I said, nothing changed.

 

We have the statute just enacted.

No one shall marry his or her sibling, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, stepparent, grandparents'
16 spouse, spouse's child, spouse's grandchild, sibling's child or parent's sibling.

It doesn't become effective until the end of June, so of course nobody has yet challenged the statute. For those of us who can comprehend the meaning of the words in the statute above, can clearly see that a mother and grandmother are prohibited from marriage.
Are all of you just going to continue to dance around the issue? Can't anyone state what possible justification could there be for excluding the mother and grandmother while including homosexual couples.

 

already illegal.

nothing has changed.

 

We get it. You want to marry your grandmother. Call your State Rep, get him to sponsor a bill. Good luck.

 

I made no assertions as to what was or was not "already illegal". Of course, thats why you want to argue about that with yourself. And quite clearly the statute enacted "changed" the text of the statute.

 

Talk about chasing the cougars!

 

of course you did................

already illegal.

nothing changed

 

My grandmothers are both dead and I dont want to marry them. I'll take your reply as an answer of no, you cant think of what "possible justification could there be for excluding the mother and grandmother while including homosexual couples"

 

Well, you did state outright that you believe no one has challenged the law because it hasn't gone into effect yet. Couples engaged in incestuous relationships were not allowed to marry and they still won't be allowed to. You don't have any example of a case where someone has even challenged this. If there is no demand for such marriages, surely, no one is being discriminated against.

 

Got it. You did not learn anything. That fits with being a MaO'Bama voter for sure.

 

Well, I'll take that as an admission on your part that you cant think of any such justification. Your just not honest enought to come out and admit it. And it was enacted by the legislature who only wanted to extend marriage to include "gay marriages" while maintaining all other exclusions. Special treatment for homosexuals, because they are so special.

- - - Updated - - -

Constitutional rights dont vary with the demand for those rights.

 

I'll take THAT as an admission that your red herring was invalid as you have not one case to support your assertion that there is a demand for incestuous marriage that is being denied.

If homosexuals were not seeking marriage rights, we would not be having this conversation, which you are trying to squirm out of. The reality, here, is that YOU are the one denying the rights of others, claiming that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. That is a bigoted position against homosexuals.

 

Aww, you didn't like my metaphor?

 

Ive never made any assertions as to the demand for such marriages. But of course, thats why you want to go there. Thats what you do here. And like I said, constitutional rights dont vary with their demand.

 

Are you advocating for the rights of homosexuals to marry into their incestuous relationships? If you are, feel free to support your position. Otherwise, as we both know you are not advocating of such, admit it was a red herring concocted to avoid admittance of your own bigoted position against homosexuals.

 

His crap has been debunked so many times over the last few months that I can't believe he is still permitted to post it. Repeated lying should be a banable offense.

 

As an alternative to the preferred marriage limited to heterosexual couples, I have advocated a thousand times, marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage. Thousand times that you have ignored so you can chase after your irrelevant tangents and strawmen. Its what you do here.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote the lie. Dont merely make vague references to its existance.

 

You can't have it both ways. You either prefer limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, or you don't. We all know that you "prefer" marriage be limited to heterosexuals and that everything else is a veiled attempt at gay bashing. Red herrings, such as your most recent one regarding incestuous relationships, are a poor method of debating. The only reason you resort to such is because you cannot validate your preferred position, which is discriminatory against homosexual couples.

 

You seem incapeable of comprehending the english language

 

He's all over the place, on one hand claiming that marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples because those are the only relationships that can procreate, while on the other hand claiming that allowing homosexuals to marry is discriminatory against those engaging in incestuous relationships. It's a litany of red herrings that are designed to avoid the reality that his position is unreasonably discriminatory against homosexuals.