Rose's Law: A moron without a real argument screams, "But what about the children!?"<quoted text>
For thousands of years Marriage has always been between a Man and a Woman for the purpose of uniting in marriage and for the purpose of family and children. It is the foundation of our society. It is what it is.
People marry of all kinds of reasons, children are just one of them.
And legalizing gay marriage won't stop men and women from getting married and having children.
Marriage is still here.Suddenly an unelected activist liberal Judge rewrites thousands of years of history and law and you want to argue that is not destroying Marriage?
Damn, look who is talking.Homosexuals are not normal people who should get married as if they were normal people.
Another "plague of locust" argument.That confuses people into thinking that it is an accepted way of life and should be celebrated as such. It is not acceptable and it is not normal, it is an abomination and a perversion of the natural order.
This is a political game that gays are playing to gain acceptance nothing more nothing less. You will see tremendously bad social changes from the destruction of Marriage and it will not be pretty.
How does a "plague of locust" argument differ from a slippery slope argument.
1. Quality. The type of consequences the arguer says will happen. A slippery slope's consequences are of the same type. "If you allow gay marriage, the next thing you know people will be getting married to their toasters.". A plague of locust argument says the the consequences of a different type.. "You will see tremendously bad social changes from the destruction of Marriage and it will not be pretty."
2. Quantity, the plague of locust consequences are dire, and often vague.
"tremendously bad social changes".