washington-babylon: Deucednuisance: washington-babylon: Give the U.S. twenty years and Zoophiles will be clamoring for the same treatment... and getting it.Call us the day an animal can legally consent to a contract (which is what civil marriage *is*) and we can talk.Till then you can just wear the same "sloppy thinker" label as the rest of you silly lot.Heheheh. Got one!
BMFPitt: Deucednuisance: Dude, your hypothetical excludes itself with a single word: unmarried.Why?
BMFPitt: Your argument against polygamy was that the state was unequipped to handle questions of inheritance, etc, for multiple spouses.
Deucednuisance: BMFPitt: Your argument against polygamy was that the state was unequipped to handle questions of inheritance, etc, for multiple spouses.Not at all.It was that it chooses not to.(see: 2:31:51) And again, stop referring to "spouses" when using an example where the entanglements of the marriage contract don't exist.
BMFPitt: Your response seems to be to say that they are completely different, because of a ring or something.
BMFPitt: OK, so then you are completely giving up and admitting you have no rational basis for discriminating?
If you like these links, you'll love
More Fark for your buck
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Dec 15 2017 19:21:00
Runtime: 0.299 sec (298 ms)