953
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 390:
Line 390: + +
→Section on [[%22Same-sex_marriage%22#Line-drawing_and_the_.22slippery_slope.22_argument|Line-Drawing & Gay Rights]]
::::::Dr. Dobson says,
::::::Dr. Dobson says,
::::::''Opponents of traditional marriage suggest legislative action to redefine marriage as something other than between a man and a woman simply masks the real homosexual agenda, the intent to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) '''without limiting the number of partners or their gender.'''''[http://www.conservapedia.com/%22Same-sex_marriage%22#Issues]
::::::''Opponents of traditional marriage suggest legislative action to redefine marriage as something other than between a man and a woman simply masks the real homosexual agenda, the intent to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) '''without limiting the number of partners or their gender.'''''[http://www.conservapedia.com/%22Same-sex_marriage%22#Issues]
(undent)So it's the slippery slope argument. What's the evidence that the "real homosexual agenda" is to destroy marriage? Do you (or Dobson, or whoever) genuinely believe that the purpose of seeking to legalize same sex marriages is to allow bigamy? Sometimes a cigar is just that. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:37, 16 May 2007 (EDT)