Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Some adults are concerned with the wellbeing of children who aren't themselves. The trait is called "altruism". In fact many adults spend their entire lives looking after the wellbeing of children when others refuse to."Gay marriage". The the next step for queers is to "adopt" a little boy, to get their hands on a little boy. That's what this insanity is really all about.
You're probably too old to be adopted, is that what your bitterness is all about?
I recently got a reply from a gay activist here that "children have no rights" in the debate on gay marriage. I've heard this retort before. Their logic is "if gay marriage doesn't hurt other adults, why does anyone care if it happens?".
The problem is that marriage affects children more than any other person. And this poster's reply smacks stunningly similar to others I've seen coming from the LGBT cult that "children don't matter". That's what you call a "red flag" moment.
If its equal, what would be the point? You seem invested in mainatining a degree of separation here. And 'separate but equal' doesn't have a great tract record. Recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians to marry is far simpler and protects all the freedoms and rights that everyone else enjoys.
If its equal, what would be the point? You seem invested in mainatining a degree of separation here. And 'separate but equal' doesn't have a great tract record. Recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians to marry is far simpler and protects all the freedoms and rights that everyone else enjoys.
You caught that did you? Fishy thinks his marriage makes him special and if gays have marriage too, he won't be special anymore.
When they say it's about "Special Rights", they aren't kidding...some people like having special rights all to themselves.
If its equal, what would be the point? You seem invested in mainatining a degree of separation here. And 'separate but equal' doesn't have a great tract record. Recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians to marry is far simpler and protects all the freedoms and rights that everyone else enjoys.
You caught that did you? Fishy thinks his marriage makes him special and if gays have marriage too, he won't be special anymore.
When they say it's about "Special Rights", they aren't kidding...some people like having special rights all to themselves.
The question remains: What constitutional rights of other Americans will be impacted should same gender marriage be held a constitutional right?
I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.
Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.
they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.
Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.
race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".
the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.
They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination
Of course marriage in and of itself is an inalienable right of nature, not merely a civil right. Notwithstanding, as a right exercised under the aegis of the government's official recognition, it is a civil right subject to regulation, for a number of reasons, all of which go back to nature: the genetic concerns of marriage between siblings or first cousins, for example, the concerns of parental authority relative to the age of consent and so on. . . .
On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please? That's why the notion that the recognition of homosexual marriage would necessarily lead to the state officially recognizing polygamy is absurd. In terms of the state's official recognition, bigamy is illegal. The government will only officially recognize one marriage at a time, and one who entangles the state in the official recognition of a second marriage while one is still married to another is guilty of a crime.
But what homosexuals want is not legitimate as the very nature of their union is not legitimate from the jump.
Homosexuals are not merely demanding equal treatment. They are demanding that the sexual practices of their relationship be officially recognized by the state and, consequently, be imposed on others in violation of the latter's inalienable rights of free-association and private property. It doesn't matter what any entity of government stupidly and, by the way, tyrannically declares. Nature defines marriage, not the state. Reality is impervious to the degeneracy of political expedience. The only legitimate state of marriage is heterosexual, and ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty.
Many millions in America will neither recognize nor participate in this farce regardless of what a renegade government declares in defiance of nature and in defiance of the inalienable rights accorded by nature. They will not bow down to the collectivistic tyranny of sexual relativism.
You pseudo-intellectuals on this forum can cry foul all you want, but reality is not a relativistic enterprise. We hold these truths to be self-evident stands, and the only legitimate resolutions are for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and/or observe the fact that the people can and will refuse the advances of homofascists who stupidity imagine they are entitled to impose their sexuality or the pagan rituals thereof in either the public or the private arenas of human interaction, particularly in the state schools and in commerce.
But, of course, Lefty is not going to have any of it. His intention is to dominate.
Fine.
Let the civil disobedience begin. Frankly, I have no tolerance for all this pussy-footing around, the hypocrisy of it all, the lies, the pretensions of tolerance and justice and, least of all, for the cowardly talk of politicians and judges who will not defend the principles of limited republican government.
Same sex couples have been entering into de facto marriages for centuries. The idea that a marital relationship between two people of the same sex is some sort of concoction without historical or biological basis is absurd.
I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.
Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.
they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.
Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.
race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".
the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.
They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination
Of course marriage in and of itself is an inalienable right of nature, not merely a civil right. Notwithstanding, as a right exercised under the aegis of the government's official recognition, it is a civil right subject to regulation, for a number of reasons, all of which go back to nature: the genetic concerns of marriage between siblings or first cousins, for example, the concerns of parental authority relative to the age of consent and so on. . . .
On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please? That's why the notion that the recognition of homosexual marriage would necessarily lead to the state officially recognizing polygamy is absurd. In terms of the state's official recognition, bigamy is illegal. The government will only officially recognize one marriage at a time, and one who entangles the state in the official recognition of a second marriage while one is still married to another is guilty of a crime.
But what homosexuals want is not legitimate as the very nature of their union is not legitimate from the jump.
Homosexuals are not merely demanding equal treatment. They are demanding that the sexual practices of their relationship be officially recognized by the state and, consequently, be imposed on others in violation of the latter's inalienable rights of free-association and private property. It doesn't matter what any entity of government stupidly and, by the way, tyrannically declares. Nature defines marriage, not the state. Reality is impervious to the degeneracy of political expedience. The only legitimate state of marriage is heterosexual, and ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty.
Many millions in America will neither recognize nor participate in this farce regardless of what a renegade government declares in defiance of nature and in defiance of the inalienable rights accorded by nature. They will not bow down to the collectivistic tyranny of sexual relativism.
You pseudo-intellectuals on this forum can cry foul all you want, but reality is not a relativistic enterprise. We hold these truths to be self-evident stands, and the only legitimate resolutions are for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and/or observe the fact that the people can and will refuse the advances of homofascists who stupidity imagine they are entitled to impose their sexuality or the pagan rituals thereof in either the public or the private arenas of human interaction, particularly in the state schools and in commerce.
But, of course, Lefty is not going to have any of it. His intention is to dominate.
Fine.
Let the civil disobedience begin. Frankly, I have no tolerance for all this pussy-footing around, the hypocrisy of it all, the lies, the pretensions of tolerance and justice and, least of all, for the cowardly talk of politicians and judges who will not defend the principles of limited republican government.
Same sex couples have been entering into de facto marriages for centuries. The idea that a marital relationship between two people of the same sex is some sort of concoction without historical or biological basis is absurd.
That was the point I made here, you nitwit, sans the alleged biological basis: "On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please?"
Notwithstanding, there is no physiological or biological basis for homosexuality. Homosexuality is depraved, deviant, pathological. Just because humans can do something, it's necessarily healthy or moral?! Behold: normative relativism. And what is the essence of any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government? Answer: Tyranny.
I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.
Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.
they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.
Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.
race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".
the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.
They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination
Of course marriage in and of itself is an inalienable right of nature, not merely a civil right. Notwithstanding, as a right exercised under the aegis of the government's official recognition, it is a civil right subject to regulation, for a number of reasons, all of which go back to nature: the genetic concerns of marriage between siblings or first cousins, for example, the concerns of parental authority relative to the age of consent and so on. . . .
On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please? That's why the notion that the recognition of homosexual marriage would necessarily lead to the state officially recognizing polygamy is absurd. In terms of the state's official recognition, bigamy is illegal. The government will only officially recognize one marriage at a time, and one who entangles the state in the official recognition of a second marriage while one is still married to another is guilty of a crime.
But what homosexuals want is not legitimate as the very nature of their union is not legitimate from the jump.
Homosexuals are not merely demanding equal treatment. They are demanding that the sexual practices of their relationship be officially recognized by the state and, consequently, be imposed on others in violation of the latter's inalienable rights of free-association and private property. It doesn't matter what any entity of government stupidly and, by the way, tyrannically declares. Nature defines marriage, not the state. Reality is impervious to the degeneracy of political expedience. The only legitimate state of marriage is heterosexual, and ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty.
Many millions in America will neither recognize nor participate in this farce regardless of what a renegade government declares in defiance of nature and in defiance of the inalienable rights accorded by nature. They will not bow down to the collectivistic tyranny of sexual relativism.
You pseudo-intellectuals on this forum can cry foul all you want, but reality is not a relativistic enterprise. We hold these truths to be self-evident stands, and the only legitimate resolutions are for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and/or observe the fact that the people can and will refuse the advances of homofascists who stupidity imagine they are entitled to impose their sexuality or the pagan rituals thereof in either the public or the private arenas of human interaction, particularly in the state schools and in commerce.
But, of course, Lefty is not going to have any of it. His intention is to dominate.
Fine.
Let the civil disobedience begin. Frankly, I have no tolerance for all this pussy-footing around, the hypocrisy of it all, the lies, the pretensions of tolerance and justice and, least of all, for the cowardly talk of politicians and judges who will not defend the principles of limited republican government.
Same sex couples have been entering into de facto marriages for centuries. The idea that a marital relationship between two people of the same sex is some sort of concoction without historical or biological basis is absurd.
That was the point I made here, you nitwit, sans the alleged biological basis: "On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please?"
Notwithstanding, there is no physiological or biological basis for homosexuality. Homosexuality is depraved, deviant, pathological. Just because humans can do something, it's necessarily healthy or moral?! Behold: normative relativism. And what is the essence of any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government? Answer: Tyranny.
Enlightened people know why that's true. Nose-picking hayseeds and sociopaths don't.
Gay marriage is TYRANNY
Thank you Capt Hyperbole
I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.
Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.
they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.
Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.
race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".
the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.
They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination
Of course marriage in and of itself is an inalienable right of nature, not merely a civil right. Notwithstanding, as a right exercised under the aegis of the government's official recognition, it is a civil right subject to regulation, for a number of reasons, all of which go back to nature: the genetic concerns of marriage between siblings or first cousins, for example, the concerns of parental authority relative to the age of consent and so on. . . .
On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please? That's why the notion that the recognition of homosexual marriage would necessarily lead to the state officially recognizing polygamy is absurd. In terms of the state's official recognition, bigamy is illegal. The government will only officially recognize one marriage at a time, and one who entangles the state in the official recognition of a second marriage while one is still married to another is guilty of a crime.
But what homosexuals want is not legitimate as the very nature of their union is not legitimate from the jump.
Homosexuals are not merely demanding equal treatment. They are demanding that the sexual practices of their relationship be officially recognized by the state and, consequently, be imposed on others in violation of the latter's inalienable rights of free-association and private property. It doesn't matter what any entity of government stupidly and, by the way, tyrannically declares. Nature defines marriage, not the state. Reality is impervious to the degeneracy of political expedience. The only legitimate state of marriage is heterosexual, and ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty.
Many millions in America will neither recognize nor participate in this farce regardless of what a renegade government declares in defiance of nature and in defiance of the inalienable rights accorded by nature. They will not bow down to the collectivistic tyranny of sexual relativism.
You pseudo-intellectuals on this forum can cry foul all you want, but reality is not a relativistic enterprise. We hold these truths to be self-evident stands, and the only legitimate resolutions are for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and/or observe the fact that the people can and will refuse the advances of homofascists who stupidity imagine they are entitled to impose their sexuality or the pagan rituals thereof in either the public or the private arenas of human interaction, particularly in the state schools and in commerce.
But, of course, Lefty is not going to have any of it. His intention is to dominate.
Fine.
Let the civil disobedience begin. Frankly, I have no tolerance for all this pussy-footing around, the hypocrisy of it all, the lies, the pretensions of tolerance and justice and, least of all, for the cowardly talk of politicians and judges who will not defend the principles of limited republican government.
Same sex couples have been entering into de facto marriages for centuries. The idea that a marital relationship between two people of the same sex is some sort of concoction without historical or biological basis is absurd.
That was the point I made here, you nitwit, sans the alleged biological basis: "On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please?"
Notwithstanding, there is no physiological or biological basis for homosexuality. Homosexuality is depraved, deviant, pathological. Just because humans can do something, it's necessarily healthy or moral?! Behold: normative relativism. And what is the essence of any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government? Answer: Tyranny.
Enlightened people know why that's true. Nose-picking hayseeds and sociopaths don't.
Gay marriage is TYRANNY
Thank you Capt Hyperbole
No. I said that any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government (i.e., institutionalized by the government) is tyranny, sociopath, and you're welcome for the heads up, nose-picking hayseed.
I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.
Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.
they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.
Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.
race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".
the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.
They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination
Of course marriage in and of itself is an inalienable right of nature, not merely a civil right. Notwithstanding, as a right exercised under the aegis of the government's official recognition, it is a civil right subject to regulation, for a number of reasons, all of which go back to nature: the genetic concerns of marriage between siblings or first cousins, for example, the concerns of parental authority relative to the age of consent and so on. . . .
On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please? That's why the notion that the recognition of homosexual marriage would necessarily lead to the state officially recognizing polygamy is absurd. In terms of the state's official recognition, bigamy is illegal. The government will only officially recognize one marriage at a time, and one who entangles the state in the official recognition of a second marriage while one is still married to another is guilty of a crime.
But what homosexuals want is not legitimate as the very nature of their union is not legitimate from the jump.
Homosexuals are not merely demanding equal treatment. They are demanding that the sexual practices of their relationship be officially recognized by the state and, consequently, be imposed on others in violation of the latter's inalienable rights of free-association and private property. It doesn't matter what any entity of government stupidly and, by the way, tyrannically declares. Nature defines marriage, not the state. Reality is impervious to the degeneracy of political expedience. The only legitimate state of marriage is heterosexual, and ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty.
Many millions in America will neither recognize nor participate in this farce regardless of what a renegade government declares in defiance of nature and in defiance of the inalienable rights accorded by nature. They will not bow down to the collectivistic tyranny of sexual relativism.
You pseudo-intellectuals on this forum can cry foul all you want, but reality is not a relativistic enterprise. We hold these truths to be self-evident stands, and the only legitimate resolutions are for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and/or observe the fact that the people can and will refuse the advances of homofascists who stupidity imagine they are entitled to impose their sexuality or the pagan rituals thereof in either the public or the private arenas of human interaction, particularly in the state schools and in commerce.
But, of course, Lefty is not going to have any of it. His intention is to dominate.
Fine.
Let the civil disobedience begin. Frankly, I have no tolerance for all this pussy-footing around, the hypocrisy of it all, the lies, the pretensions of tolerance and justice and, least of all, for the cowardly talk of politicians and judges who will not defend the principles of limited republican government.
Same sex couples have been entering into de facto marriages for centuries. The idea that a marital relationship between two people of the same sex is some sort of concoction without historical or biological basis is absurd.
That was the point I made here, you nitwit, sans the alleged biological basis: "On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please?"
Notwithstanding, there is no physiological or biological basis for homosexuality. Homosexuality is depraved, deviant, pathological. Just because humans can do something, it's necessarily healthy or moral?! Behold: normative relativism. And what is the essence of any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government? Answer: Tyranny.
Enlightened people know why that's true. Nose-picking hayseeds and sociopaths don't.
Gay marriage is TYRANNY
Thank you Capt Hyperbole
No. I said that any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government (i.e., institutionalized by the government) is tyranny, sociopath, and you're welcome for the heads up, nose-picking hayseed.
Actually, the government dictating which relationships they support is tyranny
I'm confused about this gay "civil rights" thing.
Its not that complicated. Gays want the same rights as everyone else.
they already have the same rights. Marriage is not a right.
Loving v. Virginia says otherwise.
race and sexual orientation are NOT the same thing. Equality can be achieved for gay couples without the word "marriage".
the gay agenda is not about equality, its about forced societal acceptance of their lifestyle even though a large majority find it immoral and wrong.
They are not the same thing......but discrimination is still discrimination
Of course marriage in and of itself is an inalienable right of nature, not merely a civil right. Notwithstanding, as a right exercised under the aegis of the government's official recognition, it is a civil right subject to regulation, for a number of reasons, all of which go back to nature: the genetic concerns of marriage between siblings or first cousins, for example, the concerns of parental authority relative to the age of consent and so on. . . .
On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please? That's why the notion that the recognition of homosexual marriage would necessarily lead to the state officially recognizing polygamy is absurd. In terms of the state's official recognition, bigamy is illegal. The government will only officially recognize one marriage at a time, and one who entangles the state in the official recognition of a second marriage while one is still married to another is guilty of a crime.
But what homosexuals want is not legitimate as the very nature of their union is not legitimate from the jump.
Homosexuals are not merely demanding equal treatment. They are demanding that the sexual practices of their relationship be officially recognized by the state and, consequently, be imposed on others in violation of the latter's inalienable rights of free-association and private property. It doesn't matter what any entity of government stupidly and, by the way, tyrannically declares. Nature defines marriage, not the state. Reality is impervious to the degeneracy of political expedience. The only legitimate state of marriage is heterosexual, and ideological discrimination is the essence of liberty.
Many millions in America will neither recognize nor participate in this farce regardless of what a renegade government declares in defiance of nature and in defiance of the inalienable rights accorded by nature. They will not bow down to the collectivistic tyranny of sexual relativism.
You pseudo-intellectuals on this forum can cry foul all you want, but reality is not a relativistic enterprise. We hold these truths to be self-evident stands, and the only legitimate resolutions are for the government to get out of the marriage business altogether and/or observe the fact that the people can and will refuse the advances of homofascists who stupidity imagine they are entitled to impose their sexuality or the pagan rituals thereof in either the public or the private arenas of human interaction, particularly in the state schools and in commerce.
But, of course, Lefty is not going to have any of it. His intention is to dominate.
Fine.
Let the civil disobedience begin. Frankly, I have no tolerance for all this pussy-footing around, the hypocrisy of it all, the lies, the pretensions of tolerance and justice and, least of all, for the cowardly talk of politicians and judges who will not defend the principles of limited republican government.
Same sex couples have been entering into de facto marriages for centuries. The idea that a marital relationship between two people of the same sex is some sort of concoction without historical or biological basis is absurd.
That was the point I made here, you nitwit, sans the alleged biological basis: "On the other hand, how can the state stop persons of consenting age from cohabitating however they please or stop them from calling their relationship whatever they please?"
Notwithstanding, there is no physiological or biological basis for homosexuality. Homosexuality is depraved, deviant, pathological. Just because humans can do something, it's necessarily healthy or moral?! Behold: normative relativism. And what is the essence of any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government? Answer: Tyranny.
Enlightened people know why that's true. Nose-picking hayseeds and sociopaths don't.
Gay marriage is TYRANNY
Thank you Capt Hyperbole
No. I said that any aspect of normative relativism as officially recognized by the government (i.e., institutionalized by the government) is tyranny, sociopath, and you're welcome for the heads up, nose-picking hayseed.
Actually, the government dictating which relationships they support is tyranny
So, incest, bigamy, polygamy, beastiality, and kiddie porn should not be classified as illegal relationships by the government? A society without rules is not a society or a civilization.
just a couple of points in summary.
1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.
just a couple of points in summary.
1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.
The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.
just a couple of points in summary.
1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.
Hey, don't insult 3 year olds.they love judges when they want them to come out in their favor
how about that HOBBY LOBBY ?
losers
hey another hypocritical post by the forums 3 year old
just a couple of points in summary.
1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.
The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.
But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.
Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?
just a couple of points in summary.
1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.
The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.
But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.
Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?
Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.
just a couple of points in summary.
1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.
The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.
But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.
Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?
Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.
So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?
just a couple of points in summary.
1. gay couples can be afforded complete equality without calling their union a marriage. The vast majority of people want gays to have full equality under the law.
2. the gay aganda is not about equality, its abour forced societal acceptance of homosexuality as normal and equal in every way to heterosexuality (biological sexuality).
3. if gay marriage is legalized then there will be absolutely no legal defense against bigamy, polygamy, and all other forms of human groupings as marriages. gay marriage would set a legal precedent that could not be refuted.
4. interracial marriage and gay marriage are not analagous.
The essential difference between bigamy and polygamy is that the former entails the potentiality of involving another in an extended marital/familiar matrix without the other's knowledge or consent. That won't fly.
But willful polygamists can use the same line of logic supporters of same sex marriage use. One can also use the same reasoning for same sex incestuous marriages, as the prime reason for making incestuous marriages illegal, that of genetically deformed offspring, is rendered moot in a same sex marriage.
Bigamy involves fraud as an underlying crime, underage relationships have the sexual component as an existing crime. Incest does, with the exception I noted above. Bestiality based arguments are silly now, but if those PETA idiots get their way, who knows?
Even it that were true, that is not same sex marriage couple's problem. You cannot rightfully deny one person's right on a certain matter simply because some other person, in what is a less appealing circumstance, might claim those same rights.
So possible allowance by courts of legally allowing incestuous, polygamous same sex marriage is the price we have to pay for gay marriages to be forced on us by the courts?
