^ That might be the stupidest thing I've seen all week. People need to get out of this 2000 year old, outdated definition.
His response about a thruple or quaduple (or whatever) doesn't fit into what the guy is asking. He is just circumventing the actual question with a bogus scenario.
Change the law so that "marriage" is defined as a union of two people, not a man and a woman - and not this stupid ass thruple crap.
If one person wants to enter a union of marriage with a member of the same sex, why not let them? How is that going to impact my life? I might see them in public!? GASP!
Yes, you could argue that if we let them get married, then they can file taxes jointly and not pay in as much, and that would take money out of the system. Our tax dollars are already blown on dumb shit already that this wouldn't even make a dent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goat Blower
It's the only thing in the world more important right now than global warming.
|
I could not agree with this sarcastic statement more. This is so not important that it shouldn't even be at the Supreme Court level. Let them get married, be happy or be miserable. This shouldn't even be an issue.