# Legal Gay Marriage in the United States- yes or no?



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Simple question- simple unscientific poll- do you think that same gender couples in the United States should be able to legally marry?


----------



## G.T. (Nov 29, 2017)

For as long as straight couples are able to, yupp.


----------



## mdk (Nov 29, 2017)

Fuck No!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

G.T. said:


> For as long as straight couples are able to, yupp.


Was that ever in question??


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 29, 2017)

They already can and have been able to for a few years now


----------



## mdk (Nov 29, 2017)

Let me get this out of the way now: polygamy, incest, beastailty.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> They already can and have been able to for a few years now


You do know that there are those who would like to reverse that, right?


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 29, 2017)

Whats your point, and what exactly is a legal marriage.

But no, no one, not even gays should have to go through the Government to partner up. The government needs to get out of the Marriage business.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Simple question- simple unscientific poll- do you think that same gender couples in the United States should be able to legally marry?


I think it is a done deal


----------



## G.T. (Nov 29, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > For as long as straight couples are able to, yupp.
> ...


I think itll probably happen that the state, within the scope of 50yrs or so, realizes that theyve no actual reasoning to be involved in marriage.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Pop23 said:


> Whats your point, and what exactly is a legal marriage.
> 
> But no, no one, not even gays should have to go through the Government to partner up. The government needs to get out of the Marriage business.



I would have put  'I think there should be no legal marriage' if that was the question I was asking. 

Marriage is legal in the United States- with licenses issued by the state- as such- the question is whether same gender couples should be treated as legal equals when it comes to marriage as opposite gender couples.

And yes- legally at the moment this question is moot. But there are people who don't agree with the current legal situation- and those who do- and that is the point of this 'poll'


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 29, 2017)

mdk said:


> Fuck No!


homophobe!!!


----------



## Pop23 (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> > Whats your point, and what exactly is a legal marriage.
> ...


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

Pop23 said:


> Whats your point, and what exactly is a legal marriage.
> 
> But no, no one, not even gays should have to go through the Government to partner up. The government needs to get out of the Marriage business.




Not that again!!


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Nov 29, 2017)

This issue is the least of our worries.


----------



## mdk (Nov 29, 2017)

TNHarley said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck No!
> ...



If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood _shall be_upon them.

Leviticus 20:13


----------



## TomParks (Nov 29, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > They already can and have been able to for a few years now
> ...



I hope they do....Gays need therapy not marriage


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 29, 2017)

mdk said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


Silouette jr!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

G.T. said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Well , how and why do you think that will come about. ? Will there be popular support for it , even if government wants out.? While government has not always been involved in marriage, it is quite entangled with it now , with all of the state and federal benefits that are bestowed on married people . It seems like it would be a hell of a fight trying to "fix " something that isn't broken.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

TomParks said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...


----------



## G.T. (Nov 29, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


Its kind of broken, I mean theres less and less folks marrying and kids are being raised in all kinds of ways ~ so for it to be a tax benefit is kinda goofy and outdated.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Can the far left drones here show anyone that was arrest for being in an illegal gay "marriage"?

Also you drones realize that the marriage license was born out of racism right?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Simple question- simple unscientific poll- do you think that same gender couples in the United States should be able to legally marry?


Just as Dred Scott learned, it’s the law of the land.


----------



## Rambunctious (Nov 29, 2017)

I absolutely could not care less...if gays want to marry knock yourself out but when you lose half of your shit from a divorce after don't come whining to me.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Simple question- simple unscientific poll- do you think that same gender couples in the United States should be able to legally marry?
> ...



Yeah because treating gay couples equally before the law is the exact same thing as not treating a black man equally before the law. Thank you Roy Moore for your opinion.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> I absolutely could not care less...if gays want to marry knock yourself out but when you lose half of your shit from a divorce after don't come whining to me.



Well California law allows the women to get half, as the law is written. So has California changed heir laws to accommodate gay "marriage"?

Will California law still continue to discriminate against gay "marriage"?


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



See just another outlet for the far left to run their debunked narratives and attack anyone that is not part of the far left religion!


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 29, 2017)

Why shouldn't ghey folks be allowed to ruin their life with a long term relationship that is contractual?


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 29, 2017)

Billy_Kinetta said:


> This issue is the least of our worries.


Those damn rickets come back again?


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 29, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Can the far left drones here show anyone that was arrest for being in an illegal gay "marriage"?
> 
> Also you drones realize that the marriage license was born out of racism right?


Be that as it may, you still need a license to be legally married...


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Nov 29, 2017)

The issue has been put to rest.  Gays can marry.   This right has been enjoyed by gays in the past and there has always been an upheaval where the culture collapsed and had to start over without gay marriage.

So there's that.


----------



## Rambunctious (Nov 29, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Well California law allows the women to get half, as the law is written. So has California changed heir laws to accommodate gay "marriage"?
> 
> Will California law still continue to discriminate against gay "marriage"?


Marriage is marriage I'm not differentiating between the two. Gay or otherwise. Do what you want...I think it's a mistake but it's your life.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

G.T. said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Marriage rates might be down a little, but so is divorce

NVSS - National Marriage and Divorce Rate Trends

Millions of people still get married every year, so you can't really say that it is broken, or show that large numbers of people would support abolishing it.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Well California law allows the women to get half, as the law is written. So has California changed heir laws to accommodate gay "marriage"?
> ...



Not according to law..


----------



## Rambunctious (Nov 29, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Not according to law..


I'm just giving my opinion I do not know what the laws are in each state. "Gay Marriage is legal in CA that is all I know. 
If I were gay and living with my partner why in the world would I want to marry? With the breakup rates among gays as high as it is...no thanks.


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 29, 2017)

You left out a much better option.






Considering their emotional and mental stability in the first place, the suicide rate among fruits is quite high. Let them play house together legally and suicide along with domestic homicide among them will sky rocket, throw in AIDs and no ability to reproduce and before long the only ones complaining about "gay rights" won't even really give a shit because they aren't gay and all the queers have pretty much died off.

Then the moonbats will have to find another victim group to exploit.

I don't give a shit how other people want to live. I don't want anyone else to be able to use the law to make me do shit I don't want to do.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Nov 29, 2017)

There are some people to whom marriage makes no sense.  Gays are one and elderly folks is another.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> and there has always been an upheaval where the culture collapsed and had to start over without gay marriage.
> 
> So there's that.



There have always been bigots lying about gays.

So there's that.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> Considering their emotional and mental stability in the first place, the suicide rate among fruits is quite high. Let them play house together legally and suicide along with domestic homicide among them will sky rocket, throw in AIDs and no ability to reproduce and before long the only ones complaining about "gay rights" won't even really give a shit because they aren't gay and all the queers have pretty much died off.



If gays are going to 'die off' because they don't reproduce.....

Where do you think all of today's gay Americans came from?


----------



## Rambunctious (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> There have always been bigots lying about gays.
> 
> So there's that


News Flash There are bigots every where even among gays...
So there's that...


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 29, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> The issue has been put to rest.  Gays can marry.   This right has been enjoyed by gays in the past and there has always been an upheaval where the culture collapsed and had to start over without gay marriage.
> 
> So there's that.


Wanna give the 411 on where this has occurred?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Not according to law..
> ...



Well each of us have to decide whether we want to marry or not. 

The couple that sued to end DOMA had been together 40 years, and married when they could legally. They chose marriage as lots of couples do- straight or gay.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Not according to law..
> ...



Common law in California is 7 years!

I still have yet to see any example of anyone being jailed for being in an illegal gay marriage.


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 29, 2017)

Tipsycatlover said:


> There are some people to whom marriage makes no sense.  Gays are one and elderly folks is another.


With equality being what it is here there is no reason to take on a wife and have to pay for her existence...She can earn her keep...


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 29, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


That's because it didn't happen...


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Darn those Clintons!


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...



Really? You think so?

Yet we were told it was illegal..

You would think at least one would have been arrested during this illegal era!


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 29, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Can the far left drones here show anyone that was arrest for being in an illegal gay "marriage"?
> ...


However, churches have been marrying folks long before the establishment of the US, and when the US passes to the dust bin of history, unincorporated churches will still marry folks that know the difference between what is "legal" and what is "lawful."






We shall see how many of them marry gay folks, or indeed, how many gay folk even wish to get married at that point.


----------



## Rambunctious (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Well each of us have to decide whether we want to marry or not.
> 
> The couple that sued to end DOMA had been together 40 years, and married when they could legally. They chose marriage as lots of couples do- straight or gay.


I had an uncle that lived with his partner for 50 years until death. Their painful anguish over not being able to marry was sad to watch. I didn't really understand it, they lived as if they were married, they even had legal documents written up for hospital and other rights as if the were man and wife. Yet it consumed them, caused them to eventually hate their nation, church and fellow Americans. I'm convinced It led to their isolation at the end of their life. What a waste, why couldn't they just be happy?...


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 29, 2017)

MisterBeale said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Yes if people have religion and want a church wedding, my pastor came to my Grandmother's house and married my first wife and myself the other two times it was justice of the peace that did it..Yet no wedding ceremony can take the place of a long term successful loving relationship among humans..God said to love one another, not hate one another...


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

MisterBeale said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Well the marriage license in the US started to keep blacks from marrying whites, you would think with this racist past the far left would want to do away with it!


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 29, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Well each of us have to decide whether we want to marry or not.
> ...


Institutionalized guilt is even supported by the ghey community...and the church....


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


You don’t draw lines of morality?

Incest, polygamy, pedophillia all OK with you?

I just know history better so I know where the line should be.


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Marriage in history has always been about a system of support for oppressed women in society...Oppressed by a male dominated society that gave few if any rights to women...


----------



## Darkwind (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Simple question- simple unscientific poll- do you think that same gender couples in the United States should be able to legally marry?


The government has no business in anyone's bedroom.  I've always maintained that government should not even be in the marriage business.  However, if it is going to be, then it has to treat everyone equally.  A stance that cannot be said of the left.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

MisterBeale said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


What is the difference between legal and lawful as it applies to same sex couples? The constitution doesn't define anyone as "real" men or women. Are you saying gay people aren't real?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


I bet you are okay with men in their 30s preying on teens at the mall, amirite?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Georgia's amendment passed in 2004 to prevent gay marriage or legal recognition of domestic partnerships
_(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]_


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Still pushing that lie?


----------



## Rambunctious (Nov 29, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> Institutionalized guilt is even supported by the ghey community...and the church....


A chip on the shoulder can turn into a log as you age...


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



See this is about running a debunked far left narrative!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

Moonglow said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Sucks to be you.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Rambunctious said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Institutionalized guilt is even supported by the ghey community...and the church....
> ...



Even a forest!


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


I will take that as a yes.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Yes they will have to give up their dope money!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Hilarious you establish a sexual moral code in this thread


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Yes you are pushing a debunked far left religious narrative!


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



So who all the people that were arrest for being in an illegal gay marriage..

Post just one person who was arrested!

See you pushing an old far left religious agenda that has always been moot!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

No leader in history - Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Mao, Stalin, Churchill, Washington, Lincoln, MLK, etc etc etc ever hinted that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. 

Suddenly we have a generation that thinks it’s smarter than everyone in human history that ever lived.


----------



## Montrovant (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> No leader in history - Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Mao, Stalin, Churchill, Washington, Lincoln, MLK, etc etc etc ever hinted that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
> 
> Suddenly we have a generation that thinks it’s smarter than everyone in human history that ever lived.



So anything new is automatically wrong?  All change is bad, people in the past clearly have known everything there is to know, and been morally right in all ways?  That's certainly the implication of your post.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Debunked? How so?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> The constitution doesn't define anyone as "real" men or women. Are you saying gay people aren't real?



  There's no reason it should—no reason there ought to be any need to do so.  Since long before the Constitution was written, since long before the United States was founded, since long before Europeans even knew about this continent; people knew the difference between men and women, knew the biological function of the two separate sexes, and understood the purpose of marriage within the context of that biological function.

  That our modern society has lately become infested with mental- and moral-defectives, who either deny, or perhaps sincerely do not understand these important distinctions, is not an issue that the authors of the Constitution could have anticipated, nor is the Constitution an instrument by which this issue could reasonably be addressed.  These are psychiatric issues, and moral issues, not political issues.

  It is a dire mistake for society to demand or expect or even tolerate that our legal system should be corrupted in order to treat madness as equal to sanity, perversion as equal to decency, or evil as equal to good.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



It has been debunked many times on this board, it may not have been posted in the sewers of USMB for you to read!

Silly far left drone!


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Call me crazy but I think preying on teens is wrong.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


And I think 2 men being able to adopt little boys and girls is wrong.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> No leader in history - Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Mao, Stalin, Churchill, Washington, Lincoln, MLK, etc etc etc ever hinted that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
> 
> Suddenly we have a generation that thinks it’s smarter than everyone in human history that ever lived.


Jesus never said gays couldn't marry. Interesting, but wrong, that you compare him with Stalin. Shows you have a lot in common with Stalin.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Even leftist snopes calls it a lie. 

Was Roy Moore Banned from a Shopping Mall for Harassing Teen Girls?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > The constitution doesn't define anyone as "real" men or women. Are you saying gay people aren't real?
> ...


Gay men are still men. Gay women are still women.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


So you have no proof. What a surprise.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > No leader in history - Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Mao, Stalin, Churchill, Washington, Lincoln, MLK, etc etc etc ever hinted that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
> ...


Your reading comprehension skills are 3rd grade level.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Not really, some do not identify with their gender, but that is because you are not well educated on this subject, you just run debunked far left narratives.


----------



## Kosh (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Plenty of creditable proof on the internet, but it would require you to leave the confines of the far left religious hack sites!

But the far left mentality is to post kn own bunk and expect others to prove you wrong!

Even two year olds do not do this anymore!


----------



## usmbguest5318 (Nov 29, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > For as long as straight couples are able to, yupp.
> ...


This forum is overrun with members who, when asked a simple and straightforward question, insist on bringing up something else.  Sometimes they're subtle about it; other times they are not.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

Our scientific superiors say people can change sex on a whim and fire people for not going along with the gender of the moment.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Gay men are still men. Gay women are still women.



  And biology still dictates that men are created to mate with women.  Not men with men, not women with women.  Homosexuality is a biological defect, not a normal, proper condition.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Fair enough though I don't agree with you. You are reacting emotionally based on what you've been fed. I'd say the vast majority of gay couples aren't interested in preying on children while the vast majority of grown men that prey on children are interested in preying on children.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


I have history and every leader in history on my side.


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


I'm saying that marriage exists as a lawful institution to create children.  Therefor it doesn't exist for gay people.  The nation state need not extend "legal" protection, but if it wants to, I don't really care.

That is all.  It is that simple. 

This has been understood by all people, in all cultures, throughout the planet, for millennia.  It is common sense.  People get married to start families and form communities.  That is the purpose of marriage.  To bond different families together.

The families of gay couples will not have grandchildren to unite them, and thus, there is no lawful reason to be bonded.  I'm talking about "natural law," nothing to do with the nation state.

This is not to say that homosexual folks don't have a proper role in society as teachers, writers, artists, politicians, military leaders, sports stars, entertainers, etc.   Some of my mentors, idols and most intelligent men and women in the history of the planet have been gay, but they never made any pretenses about "starting families."  Ever.  All of them had much grander aspirations. 

Heteros all have that nasty biological drive.  LGBT's are freed from such a burdens as reproduction and child rearing, it enables them to give civilization their talents and gifts to the community at large.  To hold them back with trivialities of families and all that other nonsense?  That's a crime against our civilization and just silliness.  Why would intelligent ones even care about such things?

Perhaps a more fair system would be marriage tax breaks and LGBT tax breaks?


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


And you using Jesus as a tool shows a lack of humility


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Jesus is one of a million leaders in history I can list who never even hinted homos should marry.


----------



## mdk (Nov 29, 2017)

All these tears over gay marriage are simply delicious.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gay men are still men. Gay women are still women.
> ...


Defect isn't the right word. Many straight people make poor and even horrible parents. I wonder if you'd call them defective. Biologically, all mammals have instances of same sex couples. Biologically speaking, they could exist to pick up the parenting slack.

Why is this so important to you though? I never have understood this fear of gay people.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 29, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Biologically all mammals have instances of eating their young too.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

MisterBeale said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...


Thanks for the clarification. I would argue, though, that gay people also have a biological need to reproduce. I doubt that who someone is attracted to changes that, though it may make things more difficult.

Maybe eliminating tax breaks would end marriage as we know it.


----------



## mdk (Nov 29, 2017)

Still funny.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


He never said they shouldn't. He also never said we should eat ice cream.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> No leader in history - Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Mao, Stalin, Churchill, Washington, Lincoln, MLK, etc etc etc ever hinted that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.



Wow- so you think we should be looking to Mao or Stalin for approval of gays marrying?

I happen to respect the Dali Lama

Dalai Lama supports gay marriage

The Dalai Lama, in an interview, said that gay marriage was up to each government and was ultimately "individual business".

"If two people – a couple – really feel that way is more practical, more sort of satisfaction, both sides fully agree, then OK," he told an online talk show by veteran radio and television host Larry King.

The Dalai Lama said though that people should still follow their own religions' rules on sexuality.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...


Do they?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



And here again is the far right religious agenda to discriminate against homosexuals- Georgia's amendment
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Jesus is one of a million leaders in history who never said one thing against homosexuals and never once said that they shouldn't marry. 

Not that it stops people from abusing his name to persecute homosexuals.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

MisterBeale said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...



Does it?

My 80 year old uncle recently married his 70 year old bride. The State was happy to authorize that marriage license. 

Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- but only if they can prove to the state that they cannot create children.

Two examples that disprove your claim that marriage exists as a lawful institution to create children.


----------



## GWV5903 (Nov 29, 2017)

Civil Unions will protect their partners... 

Marriage is between a man and a woman... 

Pretty simple, but somehow we manage to complicate it...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 29, 2017)

Kosh said:


> Really? You think so?
> 
> Yet we were told it was illegal..
> 
> You would think at least one would have been arrested during this illegal era!




You seem to not recognize the difference between illegal and criminal.  The two are not the same.



>>>>


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Episcopal Church approves gay marriage

The Episcopal Church's Bishop of Edinburgh, The Right Reverend Dr John Armes, said: "I am very pleased for the couples who can now have their relationships recognised by the church and blessed by God.

"I'm also pleased for what this means about our church and the way we have been able to do this. But obviously any change like this creates pain and hurt in some as well, so as a bishop of the church I feel for them."


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

GWV5903 said:


> Civil Unions will protect their partners...
> 
> Marriage is between a man and a woman...
> 
> Pretty simple, but somehow we manage to complicate it...



And by complicate it- you managed to try to outlaw both civil unions and marriage for gays. 

Georgia
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]


----------



## Moonglow (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


It's the same old tired arguments they threw out there to speak against interracial marriages..


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Even leftist snopes calls it a lie.
> 
> Was Roy Moore Banned from a Shopping Mall for Harassing Teen Girls?




That is a false assessment of your linked snopes article.

It points out that the mall doesn't have records that go back that far and that the Mall Manager quoted by Breitbart wasn't even the Mall Manager in the 1970's.



>>>>


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Australia's Prime Minister:
_The Prime Minister previously said he would personally be voting in favour of same-sex marriage, but has not publicly campaigned prior to the surprise speech on Sunday.

"Throughout my public life I've sought to ensure same-sex couples are not discriminated against and their entitlements, be it in respect of medical benefits, taxation, superannuation or employment, are no different to those afforded to heterosexual couples. Why then shouldn't those same rights now be extended to marriage?"

*Prime Minister of Luxembourg Marries His Beau*

Luxembourg's out prime minister, Xavier Bettel, married his longtime partner, Gauthier Destinay, Friday, making them the world's only openly gay "first couple,"

The Irish Republic’s first gay prime minister has predicted it is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage is legalised in Northern Ireland.
_


----------



## Pete7469 (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> If gays are going to 'die off' because they don't reproduce.....
> 
> Where do you think all of today's gay Americans came from?



Don't care, they'll go back in the closet when people start ignoring them again.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 29, 2017)

MisterBeale said:


> I'm saying that marriage exists as a lawful institution to create children.  Therefor it doesn't exist for gay people.  The nation state need not extend "legal" protection, but if it wants to, I don't really care.
> 
> That is all.  It is that simple.




You realize their are laws on the books that require that a couple to be allowed to marry must prove that they can't have children together right?


>>>>


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



*Dick Cheney*

In 2004, former Vice President Dick Cheney publicly voiced his supportive stance for gay marriage equality at various points on the 2004 re-election campaign trail. Cheney also mentioned that his daughter, Liz, is a lesbian.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Pete7469 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > If gays are going to 'die off' because they don't reproduce.....
> ...



Please do ignore them. Treat them equally before the law and ignore their sexual preference.


----------



## Votto (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Simple question- simple unscientific poll- do you think that same gender couples in the United States should be able to legally marry?



No, the state has no business in marriage whatsoever.

Are we to snub our noses at polygamists?  How about those who want to marry their dog?

The whole proposition of perverted bureaucrats giving me a thumbs up or down regarding my sexual preferences is beyond absurd.  They have no moral compass themselves.


----------



## Mac1958 (Nov 29, 2017)

All I know for sure is, the married guys across the street keep their house and yard absolutely fucking *immaculate,* which means the* rest* of us need to fucking keep up and keep* our *fucking yards immaculate, which we all admit sure as shit has kept property values nice.

Plus they know a LOT about single malt scotch, and they're snappy dressers to boot.  And they're very open to sharing a tall ladder they have for when my trees get too fucking high and I have to fucking prune them.

My fucking trees grow like fucking weeds, I swear.  It's like they're planted in magic fucking soil.

Don't get me fucking STARTED about my fucking TREES.

Um...

What was the question?
.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 29, 2017)

Votto said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Simple question- simple unscientific poll- do you think that same gender couples in the United States should be able to legally marry?
> ...



So you want to end legal marriage entirely- that is fine- but not the question. 

If you want to marry 3 men- or whether you want to marry your dog- not the question.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

GWV5903 said:


> Civil Unions will protect their partners...
> 
> Marriage is between a man and a woman...
> 
> Pretty simple, but somehow we manage to complicate it...


Bovine Excrement!!!!  Do not try to pretend that you want to protect gay people.

As an ally and supporter of gay and Lesbian people, I feel their pain when they are told that they should have been satisfied with civil  unions as a compromise and that they are being “divisive” for having pushed for and won the right to marry.



*Civil Unions are a Sham and a Failure  - by Progressive Patriot 5. 7. 16*

Long after Obergefell, I’m still hearing that gay people should have been satisfied with civil unions or domestic partnerships instead of pushing the issue of marriage. *This is the familiar separate but equal argument reminiscent of the Jim Crow era.* To begin with, the simple fact is that even if they are equal on paper, in reality they are not equal if for no other reason, because they are called by different names. “Marriage” is universally understood to mean a certain thing…   a bond and a commitment between two people.  “*Civil Unions” carry no such instantly understood meaning. Now, I know that there are those who will say that marriage is understood to mean a man and a woman, but those people are living in a bygone era.* Similarly, there are those who contend that marriage is a religious institution, but they too are living in a world that no longer exists, if it ever did. While there were times and places in history where it was-and for some still is -for the most part it is anything but religious. Therefore, neither heterosexuals nor the religious own “marriage”

*I firmly believe that those who claim that they believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians but are against marriage in favor of civil unions are using that story line so as not to appear to be anti -equality while not really believing in equality at all.* This may be conscious process that is deliberately deceptive, or a rationalization to make themselves feel good about how magnanimous they imagine themselves to be, but the motive, and the outcome is the same.



*Words are powerful. Consider the word “Citizen” In this country anyone who is born a citizen -as well as those who are naturalized – are simply” citizens” They all have the same rights and responsibilities.* But let’s say that we decided that naturalized citizen could not and should not be called “citizens” but rather they must be distinguished from those who were born into citizenship by calling them something like Permanent Legal Domestic Residents. Still the same rights and responsibilities but are they equal in reality? How many times will they have to explain what that means? For instance, will hospital staff understand when there is an issue with visitation or making a medical decision regarding a spouse?   

Consider this:

*Marriage is more perfect union: In gay marriage debate, separate but equal won't cut it*

Civil unions are in no way a legitimate substitute for gay marriage.

They fail on principle, because - as America should have learned from racial segregation - separate is never equal.



And they fail in practice, because couples who enter into this second-class marriage alternative in New Jersey and elsewhere are constantly denied the rights and benefits that married couples take for granted.



Which brings up a third way in which they fail - verbally. Imagine getting down on one knee and saying, "Will you civilly unite with me?"



All kidding aside, semantics matters when it comes to labeling our most important and intimate relationships. Denying gay and lesbian couples the right - and the joy and the responsibility and the ordinariness - to use the M-word is a profound slap in the face.

"When you say, 'I'm married,' everyone knows who you are in relation to the primary person you're building your life with," says Freedom to Marry director Evan Wolfson. " 'Civil union' doesn't offer that clarity, that immediately understood respect." http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marriage-perfect-union-gay-marriage-debate-separate-equal-won-cut-article-1.364017


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

Kosh said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


Yes I've heard that horseshit before. You far right reactionaries are living in the past. You may or may not have heard of the Loving V. Virginia ruling

The constitution of the United States enshrined slavery. Should we do away with the union even though we subsequently abolished slavery and ultimately  enacted legislation on civil rights? How fucking stupid!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

MisterBeale said:


> I'm saying that marriage exists as a lawful institution to create children. Therefor it doesn't exist for gay people. The nation state need not extend "legal" protection, but if it wants to, I don't really care.
> 
> That is all. It is that simple.
> 
> ...



Where are you getting this crap from. Aside from you nonsensical theory about  the purpose of marriage, gay couples do in fact have kids and grand kids by a variety of means , just like others. Is it possible that you do not know that??


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

MisterBeale said:


> This is not to say that homosexual folks don't have a proper role in society as teachers, writers, artists, politicians, military leaders, sports stars, entertainers, etc. Some of my mentors, idols and most intelligent men and women in the history of the planet have been gay, but they never made any pretenses about "starting families." Ever. All of them had much grander aspirations.


More idiocy


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

MisterBeale said:


> Heteros all have that nasty biological drive. LGBT's are freed from such a burdens as reproduction and child rearing, it enables them to give civilization their talents and gifts to the community at large. To hold them back with trivialities of families and all that other nonsense? That's a crime against our civilization and just silliness. Why would intelligent ones even care about such things?


Holy shit, you have some bizarre ideas about gay people!


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 29, 2017)

MisterBeale said:


> Perhaps a more fair system would be marriage tax breaks and LGBT tax breaks?


Marriage does not give automatic tax breaks. It allows couples to file a joint return which may or may not result in lower taxes. Having children-gay or straight -provides a  dependent deduction.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Episcopal Church approves gay marriage
> 
> The Episcopal Church's Bishop of Edinburgh, The Right Reverend Dr John Armes, said: "I am very pleased for the couples who can now have their relationships recognised by the church and blessed by God.
> 
> "I'm also pleased for what this means about our church and the way we have been able to do this. But obviously any change like this creates pain and hurt in some as well, so as a bishop of the church I feel for them."



  All that this tells us is that the corrupt Episcopal church has openly and willfully rebelled against the God that it fraudulently claims to serve and worship.


----------



## GWV5903 (Nov 29, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Civil Unions will protect their partners...
> ...



I was pretty clear, I know we could argue over it, but its pretty simple, if you accept it great, if you don’t great...


----------



## GreenBean (Nov 29, 2017)

I hate faggots they are the scum of the Earth - with that said - they have the same rights as any free American and the right to marry the partner of their choice - who cares ?


----------



## GWV5903 (Nov 30, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> Bovine Excrement!!!! Do not try to pretend that you want to protect gay people.



Never did, I don't want to hurt them either. I have gay friends, it's their choice. A civil resolution is all that is needed... 



TheProgressivePatriot said:


> *As an ally and supporter of gay and Lesbian people*, I feel their pain when they are told that they should have been satisfied with civil unions as a compromise and that they are being “divisive” for having pushed for and won the right to marry.



So you're not gay? Could have fooled me...


----------



## Chuz Life (Nov 30, 2017)

As far as I know, it never was* illegal* for gays to "marry" one another. Was it?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> As far as I know, it never was* illegal* for gays to "marry" one another. Was it?




Yes, it was illegal (as in against the law) for same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriages.   For decades prior to legal Civil Marriage religious institutions were performing same-sex Religious Marriages.

Don't confuse "illegal" with "criminal", they are not the same thing.



>>>>


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


You are confusing "lawful" and "legal."


----------



## Likkmee (Nov 30, 2017)

What's it cost ?


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 30, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Episcopal Church approves gay marriage
> ...


Nothing says that the Episcopal church has in any way "rebelled" against the Supreme Being. Stupid fight. Nonexistent. The whole thing about sexual orientation is the result of some sick folks who dare to claim that they have some affinity with Jesus yet cannot quote him or live by his words.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> As far as I know, it never was* illegal* for gays to "marry" one another. Was it?


You still have not gotten any help for this poor woman?


----------



## MisterBeale (Nov 30, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > I'm saying that marriage exists as a lawful institution to create children. Therefor it doesn't exist for gay people. The nation state need not extend "legal" protection, but if it wants to, I don't really care.
> ...


Marriage - Wikipedia

History of Marriage: 13 Surprising Facts

How marriage has changed over centuries


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 30, 2017)

There's no such thing as "gay" marriage.

There is only one marriage law available to eligible couples, same or opposite sex.


----------



## Chuz Life (Nov 30, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know, it never was* illegal* for gays to "marry" one another. Was it?
> ...




Quote the law that says it was illegal.


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...






Silly boy!!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Quote the law that says it was illegal.



Constitution of Virginia - Article I. Bill of Rights
Virginia Constitution:

*Article I. Bill of Rights*
*Section 15-A. Marriage*
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.



This made it illegal for same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage (or even a Civil Union) in the State or for the State to recognize such a status from another state.

That does not mean that it existed in the criminal code, it was illegal under civil law.


>>>>


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 30, 2017)

MisterBeale said:


> TheProgressivePatriot said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...


Thank you for proving that marriage has been evolving for centuries and has never been a stagnant institution. Same sex marriage is a natural progression and not without precedent.

What you have not done is show that parents of gay people will not have grand children. That my friend is ludicrous.


----------



## Chuz Life (Nov 30, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Quote the law that says it was illegal.
> ...




The act of getting "married" and having that marriage "legally recognized" are two different things.  The law you cited does not forbid two gays from "getting married." It simply says the State refused to "recognize " it. 

That is two different things.


----------



## Taz (Nov 30, 2017)

mdk said:


> Let me get this out of the way now: polygamy, incest, beastailty.


All Christian inventions. Nothing to do with gays.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> The act of getting "married" and having that marriage "legally recognized" are two different things.  The law you cited does not forbid two gays from "getting married." It simply says the State refused to "recognize " it.
> 
> That is two different things.




I've talked about Civil Marriage and I've attempted to be careful to distinguish it from Religious Marriage (see the very post you quoted).

Yes, such laws as the one I quoted made it illegal for same-sex couples to enter into Civil Marriage.  Illegal, but not criminal.


You are correct.  Religious Marriage was not illegal.  But that isn't what was being discussed, Civil Marriage was and yes that law made it illegal.


>>>>


----------



## TheProgressivePatriot (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...









   No Zombie troll bots welcome


----------



## Chuz Life (Nov 30, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > The act of getting "married" and having that marriage "legally recognized" are two different things.  The law you cited does not forbid two gays from "getting married." It simply says the State refused to "recognize " it.
> ...



What penalties would a gay couple face for getting married despite that law?


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



People of the same sex may get married now and attain all the rights and privileges of entering into a civil lawful marriage. Just what is the problem?
Still got that crazy lady up there, I see. She needs meds. You must know who she is. Get help for her.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

GWV5903 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...



Oh you were pretty clear- I was just pointing out that your claim that civil unions would protect partners was false- and that the same people who were against equal treatment in marriage for gay couples- also opposed civil unions- for the same reason.


----------



## jillian (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Simple question- simple unscientific poll- do you think that same gender couples in the United States should be able to legally marry?



It already exists. And people already legally marry,

So what on earth are you talking about, hon?


----------



## jillian (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



they seem to hate that whole equal protection clause of  the constitution.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



The laws passed to prevent gay couples from legally marrying-  prevented gay couples from legally marrying- so that would be impossible.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> What penalties would a gay couple face for getting married despite that law?




There seems to be a disconnect, same-sex couples couldn't get a Civil Marriage under that law, nor could they get a Civil Union.



>>>>


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Simple question- simple unscientific poll- do you think that same gender couples in the United States should be able to legally marry?
> ...


Fits right in with certain people have no rights that the straight man is bound to respect........


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Are you unable to tell the difference?


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> No leader in history - Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Mao, Stalin, Churchill, Washington, Lincoln, MLK, etc etc etc ever hinted that homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
> 
> Suddenly we have a generation that thinks it’s smarter than everyone in human history that ever lived.


How many of them hinted that homosexuals should be prevented from marrying?


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


It is a scary thing to read posts here every once in a while that show that the poster is unclear on the MAJOR differences between interactions between consenting adults.........and preying on those who cannot consent such as children and animals.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gay men are still men. Gay women are still women.
> ...


So marriage is ONLY about mating sexually in a set way?


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

Ravi said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


And sad to say that so many of them are the hetero male family members and friends of those 1 in 4 girls sexually abused before they reach the age of majority.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Is this the same history that is full of slavery and women and children as chattel?


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

MisterBeale said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > MisterBeale said:
> ...


"Marriage exists as a lawful institution to create children".....so having children is a requirement of marriage?   Do we dissolve the marriages of those who do not have children?   Do we require those who have children to get married?


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


He never even hinted that slavery should go away either.
He never even hinted that people of different religions should marry either.
He DID hint that those who divorced should never marry again.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...


Well, we certainly have many examples of hetero humans killing or sexually abusing their young.   Primarily heterosexual FATHERS.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

bodecea said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I happen to be reading a book on sex that is discussing sex in Medieval Europe- and how the Catholic Church in quite some detail laid out exactly what set way was 'legally' acceptable under canon.

Sex between a man and a wife- but only:

In the missionary position- no other position
No oral sex
No anal sex
No mutual masturbation

No sex on Sundays
No sex on Saints days
No sex in the daylight
No sex while seeing your wife nude
No sex while pregnant
No use of birth control- including no 'spilling of the seed'
And of course sex between two men was forbidden- as was masturbation and rape and bestiality- pretty much all lumped together.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Episcopal Church approves gay marriage
> ...


So...you are the expert to tell the Episcopal Church how they should run their religion.....


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

bodecea said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Not per Capita......


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

TheProgressivePatriot said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> > TheProgressivePatriot said:
> ...


My parents would have been very surprised to hear that our daughter was not their grandchild.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


Do you know the difference between illegal and criminal?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 30, 2017)

bodecea said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > All that this tells us is that the corrupt Episcopal church has openly and willfully rebelled against the God that it fraudulently claims to serve and worship.
> ...



  They can run their fraudulent _“religion”_ any way that they choose.

  But the God that they falsely profess to serve and worship has, through his prophets, made very clear certain moral standards.  To flout these standards is an act of open rebellion against that God, and put them in opposition to Him.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...


I went to an Episcopal Service once, even had their big bishop visiting.  

Not a Bible in the place. People greet you with some Stephard Wife phrase they’ve been programmed to give. God was not in that place at all. I felt like I was in Satan’s house.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Per capital the the majority of sexual predation is by family males- fathers, brothers, step fathers, grandfather- against girls- or males who are known to the family

Facts and Statistics

82% of all juvenile victims are female. 5



An estimated 60% of perpetrators of sexual abuse are known to the child but are not family members, e.g., family friends, babysitters, child care providers, neighbors.
About 30% of perpetrators of child sexual abuse are family members.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...



Hell all of you can run your fraudulent religions any way you want. 

Your religions told people for centuries that sex was a dirty horrible thing unless and only for- procreation.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Poor little snowflake. Sounds like you visited Trump Towers.

My sister and brother in law belong to a wonderful Episcopal Church- hell they would even welcome an asshole like you there. 

And they could even help a sinner like you  find the Bibles in every pew.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...


You validate my statement with you calling the Episcopal Church wonderful.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Per capita homosexuals commit more pedo crimes.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Per capita men commit more pedo crimes.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Yes. And per capita homo men commit more than hetro men.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



It is a wonderful church. Where they actually talk about Jesus

Yes- you would hate it.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Per capita men commit more than women. 

Most of those men identify themselves as heterosexuals. 

Want to keep kids safe?

Keep kids away from men.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


A church without a Bible in it is not a church.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Per capita, homos commit more sexual crimes than hetros. 

Deal with it.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 30, 2017)

jillian said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > GWV5903 said:
> ...


The people who write these things against the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution appear to just want some legal pass for the their hatred of others. They hate LGBTs. They hate heterosexuals unless the female is a slave and the penis is worshiped. It's all pretty disgusting.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Lysistrata said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Topic is not the Dem Party.


----------



## jillian (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



actually, it is.... since you hate equal protection and think straight white Christian males are the only ones entitled to any rights.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Per capita, men commit more crimes than women.

Per capita, straight men commit more rape than gay men.

Per capita, homophobic bigots have tiny dicks.

Deal with it.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



If you can't find the Bible in the church- its not the churches fault. 

Either its god telling you you are not worthy- or the more likely answer it is a mental defect that prevents you from seeing anything you don't believe in.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 30, 2017)

*Should same gender couples be able to legally marry in the United States*

*Of course.  Close the thread, please.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 30, 2017)

Srysly just kicked Weatheman's ass through the goal posts.


----------



## Chuz Life (Nov 30, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > What penalties would a gay couple face for getting married despite that law?
> ...



Was it that? Or was it that they couldn't get recognition?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Was it that? Or was it that they couldn't get recognition?




A different-sex couple can go to a religious organization and get a Religious Marriage without civil recognition so that wasn't an issue.  It was illegal for them to enter into a Civil Marriage, recognition of Religious Marriages were never an issue as a function of law.  It was the Civil Law that was the issue.


>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 30, 2017)

Any pastor can refuse to marry a same sex couple in a religious ceremony.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


If there is no Bible in any pew or in the hands of anyone in attendance it most certainly is the fault of that church leadership. 

Episcopal church is anti God. Their illiteracy of the Bible and teachings of anti Biblical views validates it.  You’re better off arguing water is not wet.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Any pastor can refuse to marry a same sex couple in a religious ceremony.


That case will soon be going to SCOTUS.


----------



## Chuz Life (Nov 30, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Was it that? Or was it that they couldn't get recognition?
> ...



Does the government have the right to decide what the conditions are for what it will and will not "recognize" as a marriage? Yes or no?

Does the government the right to draw that line of distinction or not?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Srysly just kicked Weatheman's ass through the goal posts.


Thank you for the Doublespeak lesson.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


A church with a bible but no Jesus is not a Christian church. The bible as put together by Constantine's minions means nothing.


----------



## Lysistrata (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


You still got that crazy woman. Please help her.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Lysistrata said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


That and $5 gets you a cup of Starbucks.


----------



## Peach (Nov 30, 2017)

If you object, do not attend the weddings, send no gifts, forget anniversaries(.)


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Peach said:


> If you object, do not attend the weddings, send no gifts, forget anniversaries(.)


And the kids they adopt you can treat in their adult lives.


----------



## Peach (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > If you object, do not attend the weddings, send no gifts, forget anniversaries(.)
> ...



Why would children need treatment with two loving parents?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Peach said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...


Only a moron thinks there is no difference between a father and mother. 

Greatest experiment on children in human history is underway.


----------



## Peach (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



And if one parent splits, dies, or is uninterested? Are the children doomed?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Peach said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...


Just look at inner city black youth if you want to know what single parent does.


----------



## Peach (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



I know decent people raised by one, and two women, and also raised by men alone. Most are hetero and love their parent(s).


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Any pastor can refuse to marry a same sex couple in a religious ceremony.
> ...


And the pastor's religious right (as long as he is not running a wedding chapel for profit) will remain defended by SCOTUS.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Does the government have the right to decide what the conditions are for what it will and will not "recognize" as a marriage? Yes or no?
> 
> Does the government the right to draw that line of distinction or not?



[Correction]  Short answer is Yes, however I understand you trying to lay limits on the question, but your attempt to add absolute limits are artificial and not a function of the law (nor of common sense).

For example:

#1  If the conditions are implemented in a Constitutional manner, applied equally - Yes.  For example, States set age limits that are applied to all applicants.  As another example many states required blood tests as part of obtaining a Marriage License (IIRC Mississippi was the last to repeal it 6 or 7 years ago).  They are/were Constitutional because the laws were generally applicable and not written to exclude certain persons or segments of the population.

#2  If the conditions are implemented in an Unconstitutional manner, applied in a discriminatory manner - No.  For example, States limited Civil Marriage based on race composition of the couple, those were held to be unconstitutional.  States also limited Civil Marriage based on the biological sex of the couple, those were also held to be unconstitutional.  As a third example, the Federal government attempted to pick and choose which legally recognized Civil Marriages it would recognize for Federal purposes, that discriminatory action by a section of government was also found to be unconstitutional.

*****************************************************************************

In the cases of #2, it was a branch of the government the found action unconstitutional and so nullified the actions of other branches of government we those actions were tested against the Constitution.

So unconstitutional actions by one branch of government were ended by another branch of government - so in reality it was still the government that determined the boundaries that could be used.

Remember, "government" does not equal just Legislative Branch.  Executive and Judicial are also branches of government.



>>>>


----------



## Chuz Life (Nov 30, 2017)

Lysistrata said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I like her just the (triggered) way she is.


----------



## Chuz Life (Nov 30, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Does the government have the right to decide what the conditions are for what it will and will not "recognize" as a marriage? Yes or no?
> ...



On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothers or two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Was it that? Or was it that they couldn't get recognition?
> ...



Yep- just like a man could be marry his lawn mower in a religious ceremony- but it wouldn't make it a legal marriage.


----------



## Peach (Nov 30, 2017)

JakeStarkey said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



That is crucial, no religious beliefs can be infringed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz is fun to watch he goes full triggered.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 30, 2017)

Lysistrata said:


> The people who write these things against the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution appear to just want some legal pass for the their hatred of others. They hate LGBTs. They hate heterosexuals unless the female is a slave and the penis is worshiped. It's all pretty disgusting.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 30, 2017)

Peach, the pastor can believe whatever he wants.

SCOTUS may find that he can't use "belief" as a cover for profit.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...


The million dollar question they refuse to confront. They want to say some groups of adults can’t marry simply because they have self generated a line of morality.  Even incest is on the table. Takes 8 generations of incest before genetic problems begin to occur.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



If you can't find a Bible in an Episcopal Church- then I suggest that you get your eyes checked, or more likely your brain.

Here is one of the most beautiful churches in San Francisco- feel free to drop by for Bible Study classes. 

Classes for Adults - Grace Cathedral

If you are unable to find the bibles in the pew- they have assistance for the vision impaired.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothetsnor two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?




It's not a question of what "I" would argue, we are discussing the law and not personal opinion.

Currently there is no challenge on laws based on how close a family relationship exists, such laws remain valid and don't have basis (except for archaic language that may not have been updated yet in view of same-sex Civil Marriage) for nullification because they can be applied equally irregardless of race, gender, or age (once a person has reached a legal age of consent in a given State).



>>>>


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Per capita, men commit more crimes than women.
> 
> Per capita, straight men commit more rape than gay men.
> 
> ...



  And yet, _per capita,_ it's only filthy faggots who are concerned enough with other mens' dicks to make such an absurd assumption about them.

  Deal with it.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Which Bible do you pretend to read? 

I bet it is the exact same Bible the Episcopalians actually read.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Any pastor can refuse to marry a same sex couple in a religious ceremony.
> ...



there is no such case going to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Per capita, men commit more crimes than women.
> ...



Per capita the reason why homophobic bigots are so obsessed with sex is because of their tiny dicks


----------



## Chuz Life (Nov 30, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > On what basis would you deny the recognition of a marriage between two gay brothetsnor two gay sisters or a gay mother and daughter couple or father son gay couple?
> ...



Mother fucking (pun intended) coward assed cop out.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Its the straw man that people who don't approve of gay marriage love.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



The same reason I would deny recognition of a marriage between a mother and sister or a sister and brother, etc, etc.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Lysistrata said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



That covers virtually all of your posts here at USMB


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



I look at my fantastic niece to see what a single parent does. 

Of course it would be better if heterosexual parents stopped abandoning their kids.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> If you can't find the Bible in the church- its not the churches fault.
> 
> Either its god telling you you are not worthy- or the more likely answer it is a mental defect that prevents you from seeing anything you don't believe in.



  That's an almost-verbatim accounts of something that my own church has sometimes taught that Satan tries to tell us.  It is Satan that wants us to avoid church, avoid any form of spiritual activity or benefit, because we are _“unworthy”_.  All of us sin, and all of us need whatever help we can get to overcome sin.  To tell us that because of our sin, we are unworthy to go to church, is like telling us that because we are hungry, we are unworthy to eat.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Only a moron thinks that a child raised by a single parent or by two gay parents will need treatment. 

And only a true moron would think that means that anyone is saying that there is no difference between a father and a mother.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...




Sorry you can't have a reasonable discussion about the law without injecting emotion.



>>>>>


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't find the Bible in the church- its not the churches fault.
> ...



In your case- I believe you believe that Satan is talking to you.


----------



## Peach (Nov 30, 2017)

My father was out to sea a lot, serving this nation, when I was very young. I was as close to him as I was my mother.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 30, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Only a moron thinks there is no difference between a father and mother.
> 
> Greatest experiment on children in human history is underway.



  And the results (which ought not be at all surprising) are beginning to come in…

Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting


----------



## Chuz Life (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



That ignorant comment shows how little you know about identifying fallacies. All I did was ask a question which you are free to answer with any line of reason you want to use. 

There is no straw man being constructed unless you build one yourself in your answer. 

So, I ask again..  . On what basis would you deny two brothers or two sisters their right to marry one another?


----------



## Chuz Life (Nov 30, 2017)

WorldWatcher said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




Sure you can.

Just focus.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



The Government can and does.

In the United States marriage laws are set by states. But Americans also have a right to marriage. States cannot arbitrarily take away that right. 

Which is why States have restricted marriage variously at times- preventing mixed race marriages, stopping plural marriages, stopping incestuous marriages, setting age restrictions- and family connections restrictions.

Such restrictions have to comply with the Constitution- and when the state restricts marriage- with no compelling argument- the Supreme Court has overturned those laws- 4 times now.


Loving v. Virginia- mixed race marriage bans
Bans on parents marrying when they owed child support
Bans on prisoners marrying
Obergefell- bans on same gender marriage.
Age restrictions, restrictions against plural marriage, and restrictions on marriage between close relatives still are completely legal. 

Could anyone challenge these? Of course they could- and IF the state cannot provide a compelling reason why they ban 8 year old's from marrying- the state might lose. 

But shouldn't they lose if the state can't come up with a compelling reason? (hint children cannot provide consent is a compelling reason)_


----------



## MaryL (Nov 30, 2017)

Nope.   The only thing that matters is popular consensus. And that is  swayed by wherever the wind blows. Not necessity. Facts can be adjusted to fit.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



On the basis of the law. 

The real question is not on what basis would I deny two siblings- gender is irrelevant- from marrying- the question is what basis would the state ban it.

States universally ban marriage between siblings. You can challenge that ban in order to marry your brother. If the State can't provide a compelling reason why you shouldn't marry your brother- then why should it be illegal?

So I ask you- do you think that the state should have laws that there is no compelling interest to have? 

Or should the state be required to demonstrate that there is a need for a law?


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

MaryL said:


> Nope.   The only thing that matters is popular consensus. And that is  swayed by wherever the wind blows. Not necessity. Facts can be adjusted to fit.



That is Trump's world.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Bob Blaylock said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



  You're the one who is even bringing it up.  Now who is it that is obsessed?

  I think it is quite clear that you are vividly demonstrating the principle of psychological projection.  There is certainly no way that you would have any knowledge of the size of condition of my genitalia, nor what sexual issues, if any, I might have.  You have only your own inadequacies to describe, as you try to attribute them to me.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Of course it would be better if heterosexual parents stopped abandoning their kids.



  Of course, yours is the side that is directly responsible for attacking and perverting and undermining the concepts of marriage and family, to the point that it has become socially acceptable for parents to abandon their children.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Blaylock said:
> ...



You just keep bringing up sex-  you can't even tell the difference between consensual sex or rape of children. Which is really sad. 

_Why not? Sex perverts are sex perverts. Whether you're into f•••ing children, animals, people of the same sex, unwilling partners, or whatever, it's all the same evil._


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it would be better if heterosexual parents stopped abandoning their kids.
> ...



Sorry chump- your side was busy abandoning their kids for the last 200 years- now you want to blame it on the gays.


----------



## MaryL (Nov 30, 2017)

I voted NO, we don't NEED gay marriage anymore than a fish NEEDS a bicycle. But the left, and gays, they NEED it to legitimize their mindset. We don't need to legitimize THAT, either.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 30, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Sorry chump- your side was busy abandoning their kids for the last 200 years- now you want to blame it on the gays.



  That is a lie, and you know damn well that it is a lie.

  Yours is the side that, for generations, has been attacking marriage and family, and promoting increasingly sick and immoral forms of sexual perversion and irresponsibility.  Yours is the side that is wholly responsible for this mess that it has created, and mine is the side that has been fighting to mitigate it.  You do not get to blame us for the results of your willful evil.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry chump- your side was busy abandoning their kids for the last 200 years- now you want to blame it on the gays.
> ...



Unlike you- my side has been the side of American families, and marriage- and person freedom. 

Your side has been the side of repression, oppression and dysfunctional families and fathers abandoning their families.


----------



## Syriusly (Nov 30, 2017)

MaryL said:


> I voted NO, we don't NEED gay marriage anymore than a fish NEEDS a bicycle. But the left, and gays, they NEED it to legitimize their mindset. We don't need to legitimize THAT, either.



Mary you are of course entitled to your opinion. 

Whatever you need to legitimize your mindset of oppression and repression.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 1, 2017)

Peach said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...


Just because you may know some you THINK are good people means nothing. A lot of good parents went to work every day as guards in Nazi concentration camps too.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Dec 1, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...


Taking the position that single parenting has no detrimental outcome on children simply validates you know nothing and make up crap to support your wish to have sex with men and maybe marry one one day.


----------



## GWV5903 (Dec 1, 2017)

Syriusly said:


> I was just pointing out that your claim that civil unions would protect partners was false



No it's not, but you would have to be objective to understand...  



Syriusly said:


> and that the same people who were against equal treatment in marriage for gay couples also opposed civil unions- for the same reason.



Cry me a river, you don't want to solve the issue, you want to cry about it, grow up and deal with it...


----------



## jillian (Dec 1, 2017)

GWV5903 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > I was just pointing out that your claim that civil unions would protect partners was false
> ...



it violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.

you don't get to marginalize people because you're a bigot.


----------



## GWV5903 (Dec 1, 2017)

jillian said:


> it violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.



No it doesn't violate the 14th amendment, again you look to magnify an issue that has a very simple resolution...



jillian said:


> you don't get to marginalize people because you're a bigot.



No one is being marginalized and you need to understand the definition of a bigot before you attempt to label someone with it, you're the one with bigotry tendency's, learn how to solve issues without your hatred being your motivation...


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Dec 1, 2017)

jillian said:


> it violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.
> 
> you don't get to marginalize people because you're a bigot.



  The Constitution does not say anything that implies any support for sick, immoral sexual perversions.  It's funny how you left *wrong*-wing filth are so fond of making up _“Constitutional rights”_ that are nowhere mentioned or even implied or suggested in the Constitution, while openly opposing rights that the Constitution explicitly affirms.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 1, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Yep- Weatherboy- as usual- now he equates single parents to guards in nazi concentration camps. 

Class act as always.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 1, 2017)

Bob Blaylock said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > it violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.
> ...



Good thing then that marriage- straight or gay- doesn't have anything to do with sexual perversions- but if the participants consent and want to mutually enjoy 'sick, immoral sexual perversions' in the privacy of their homes- yes- you do have that Constitutional right- even though you would prefer Big Brother telling Americans what kind of sex is permissable.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 1, 2017)

GWV5903 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > it violates the equal protection clause of the constitution.
> ...



The Supreme Court agreed with about 20 other courts that such laws did indeed violate the 14th Amendment. And the Supreme Court was of course correct.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 1, 2017)

GWV5903 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > I was just pointing out that your claim that civil unions would protect partners was false
> ...



Objective- as in ignoring the facts- as you are?

I posted Georgia's Constitutional Amendment which banned gay marriages- and specifically targeted civil unions- and forbid recognition of them also.

The fact is that the people who objected to marriage equality for gay Americans- and passed laws to prevent them from marrying each other- also took legal steps to ensure that civil unions would not be recognized.


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 1, 2017)

GWV5903 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Cry me a river, you don't want to solve the issue, you want to cry about it, grow up and deal with it...
> ...


----------



## Syriusly (Dec 1, 2017)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Taking the position that single parenting is detrimental to all children is both ignorant- and an insult to every single mom and dad who has done a great job of raising their kid- just because you are bigoted towards gay parents.


----------

