Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[ShackledNation]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

You have a faulty understanding of Constitutional Law. Laws must pass the rational basis standard, meaning there must be a rational basis for the law. Thus, laws banning same-sex marriage must have a rational basis for their existence. You have completely flipped the burden of proof from the government (defendents) to the plaintiffs. That is simply wrong.

There is no rational basis to discriminate against same-sex couples and deny them the right to marry. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

Spare me the "rational basis" crap. There are literally millions of laws on the books. Are you telling me they have all had the "rational basis" rule applied to them? Furthermore, there is a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage: they can't reproduce.

End of discussion.

If the law has been challenged in court, then yes, the rational basis test applies - or a higher standard of review. That's how it works. Is this news to you? Wow.

If the rational basis reason for excluding gays is "they can't reproduce" then infertile heterosexual couples would be excluded as well. They aren't, thus that argument holds no water.

Good lord, reproductive disabilities are no different than any other disabilities.

And that is relevant how?

 

[ShackledNation]

Don't forget, that only opposite sex couples must endure the expense and health risks of birth control.

False. Many women take birth-control to control their period. That includes lesbian couples.

False, controlling periods is not birth control. Know many women getting vasectomies to control their periods.

It is a fact that women take birth-control pills to control their period. Do you seriously not know this? Lol. Plenty of lesbian couples are on birth control. Once again you demonstrate what a fool you are.

 

[Pop23]

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

You have a faulty understanding of Constitutional Law. Laws must pass the rational basis standard, meaning there must be a rational basis for the law. Thus, laws banning same-sex marriage must have a rational basis for their existence. You have completely flipped the burden of proof from the government (defendents) to the plaintiffs. That is simply wrong.

There is no rational basis to discriminate against same-sex couples and deny them the right to marry. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

Spare me the "rational basis" crap. There are literally millions of laws on the books. Are you telling me they have all had the "rational basis" rule applied to them? Furthermore, there is a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage: they can't reproduce.

End of discussion.

If the law has been challenged in court, then yes, the rational basis test applies - or a higher standard of review. That's how it works. Is this news to you? Wow.

If the rational basis reason for excluding gays is "they can't reproduce" then infertile heterosexual couples would be excluded as well. They aren't, thus that argument holds no water.

Good lord, reproductive disabilities are no different than any other disabilities.

And that is relevant how?

Infertile heterosexuals. You know, the comment I responded to.

What exactly do you have against the disabled?

 

[Pop23]

Don't forget, that only opposite sex couples must endure the expense and health risks of birth control.

False. Many women take birth-control to control their period. That includes lesbian couples.

False, controlling periods is not birth control. Know many women getting vasectomies to control their periods.

It is a fact that women take birth-control pills to control their period. Do you seriously not know this? Lol. Plenty of lesbian couples are on birth control. Once again you demonstrate what a fool you are.

Controlling lesbian periods is birth control?

Do tell

Do you take Prozac to control your asthma?

 

[elektra]

The meaning of words change. 100 years ago, marriage meant something entirely different than what it means today. Women were treated as property, for example. If you want to live in a bubble where nothing ever changes, too bad. Such a place does not exist.

Meanwhile, there is no rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage license. Denying same-sex couples marriage licenses create demonstrable harms, but not a single demonstrable benefit.

Woman were treated like slaves?, another lie.

Strawman. I didn't say women were treated like slaves. Is lying all you can do?

meaning of words change, slaves were property, you stated women were property, run backwards all you want but now you can see the importance in the meaning of words.

Woman, as you stated, we're "property", people who were property were called Slaves.

1914, according ShakledNation were bought and sold, like property, slaves.

That's an equivocation. Not all property is treated the same. Someone can be treated like property but not be treated like a slave. Furthermore, I did not say women were property, I said they were treated like property.

You deny that women were treated like property? Really? Is your historical knowledge that shallow?

In 1914 woman were treated like property, bought and sold, beat, whipped, just like other human property, slaves.

With ideas such as this, ShakledNation really proves his thoughts are shallow.

 

[ShackledNation]

You have a faulty understanding of Constitutional Law. Laws must pass the rational basis standard, meaning there must be a rational basis for the law. Thus, laws banning same-sex marriage must have a rational basis for their existence. You have completely flipped the burden of proof from the government (defendents) to the plaintiffs. That is simply wrong.

There is no rational basis to discriminate against same-sex couples and deny them the right to marry. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

Spare me the "rational basis" crap. There are literally millions of laws on the books. Are you telling me they have all had the "rational basis" rule applied to them? Furthermore, there is a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage: they can't reproduce.

End of discussion.

If the law has been challenged in court, then yes, the rational basis test applies - or a higher standard of review. That's how it works. Is this news to you? Wow.

If the rational basis reason for excluding gays is "they can't reproduce" then infertile heterosexual couples would be excluded as well. They aren't, thus that argument holds no water.

Good lord, reproductive disabilities are no different than any other disabilities.

And that is relevant how?

Infertile heterosexuals. You know, the comment I responded to.

What exactly do you have against the disabled?

Nothing. You and britpat are the ones claiming a couple's inability to reproduce is grounds for denying them marriage. If reproduction is not a valid reason to deny infertile heterosexual couples the right to marry, it cannot be a valid reason to deny homosexual couples the right to marry.

 

[ShackledNation]

Don't forget, that only opposite sex couples must endure the expense and health risks of birth control.

False. Many women take birth-control to control their period. That includes lesbian couples.

False, controlling periods is not birth control. Know many women getting vasectomies to control their periods.

It is a fact that women take birth-control pills to control their period. Do you seriously not know this? Lol. Plenty of lesbian couples are on birth control. Once again you demonstrate what a fool you are.

Controlling lesbian periods is birth control?

Do tell

Do you take Prozac to control your asthma?

Lesbians who have issues with their period, like heterosexual women, take birth control to control their periods. Do you deny this?

 

[Pop23]

Don't forget, that only opposite sex couples must endure the expense and health risks of birth control.

False. Many women take birth-control to control their period. That includes lesbian couples.

False, controlling periods is not birth control. Know many women getting vasectomies to control their periods.

It is a fact that women take birth-control pills to control their period. Do you seriously not know this? Lol. Plenty of lesbian couples are on birth control. Once again you demonstrate what a fool you are.

Controlling lesbian periods is birth control?

Do tell

Do you take Prozac to control your asthma?

May I state unequivocally........

Good lord

 

[ShackledNation]

The meaning of words change. 100 years ago, marriage meant something entirely different than what it means today. Women were treated as property, for example. If you want to live in a bubble where nothing ever changes, too bad. Such a place does not exist.

Meanwhile, there is no rational basis to deny same-sex couples marriage license. Denying same-sex couples marriage licenses create demonstrable harms, but not a single demonstrable benefit.

Woman were treated like slaves?, another lie.

Strawman. I didn't say women were treated like slaves. Is lying all you can do?

meaning of words change, slaves were property, you stated women were property, run backwards all you want but now you can see the importance in the meaning of words.

Woman, as you stated, we're "property", people who were property were called Slaves.

1914, according ShakledNation were bought and sold, like property, slaves.

That's an equivocation. Not all property is treated the same. Someone can be treated like property but not be treated like a slave. Furthermore, I did not say women were property, I said they were treated like property.

You deny that women were treated like property? Really? Is your historical knowledge that shallow?

In 1914 woman were treated like property, bought and sold, beat, whipped, just like other human property, slaves.

With ideas such as this, ShakledNation really proves his thoughts are shallow.

Strawman argument, again. Since you didn't respond to my actual argument, I will just keep repeating it until you do.

That's an equivocation. Not all property is treated the same. Someone can be treated like property but not be treated like a slave. Furthermore, I did not say women were property, I said they were treated like property.

You deny that women were treated like property? Really? Is your historical knowledge that shallow?

 

[Pop23]

Don't forget, that only opposite sex couples must endure the expense and health risks of birth control.

False. Many women take birth-control to control their period. That includes lesbian couples.

False, controlling periods is not birth control. Know many women getting vasectomies to control their periods.

It is a fact that women take birth-control pills to control their period. Do you seriously not know this? Lol. Plenty of lesbian couples are on birth control. Once again you demonstrate what a fool you are.

Controlling lesbian periods is birth control?

Do tell

Do you take Prozac to control your asthma?

Lesbians who have issues with their period, like heterosexual women, take birth control to control their periods. Do you deny this?

Deny what? That the pill is used for other than birth control?

Are you really that dense that you can't admit the mistake and walk away with at least a little dignity?

Ok, provide the name of a single child born from sexual coupling between lesbian (no fair using male lesbians)

 

[ShackledNation]

False. Many women take birth-control to control their period. That includes lesbian couples.

False, controlling periods is not birth control. Know many women getting vasectomies to control their periods.

It is a fact that women take birth-control pills to control their period. Do you seriously not know this? Lol. Plenty of lesbian couples are on birth control. Once again you demonstrate what a fool you are.

Controlling lesbian periods is birth control?

Do tell

Do you take Prozac to control your asthma?

Lesbians who have issues with their period, like heterosexual women, take birth control to control their periods. Do you deny this?

Deny what? That the pill is used for other than birth control?

Are you really that dense that you can't admit the mistake and walk away with at least a little dignity?

Ok, provide the name of a single child born from sexual coupling between lesbian (no fair using male lesbians)

Do you deny that women take birth control pills to control their periods? Obviously that is what I was asking. Answer the question.

 

[Pop23]

Spare me the "rational basis" crap. There are literally millions of laws on the books. Are you telling me they have all had the "rational basis" rule applied to them? Furthermore, there is a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage: they can't reproduce.

End of discussion.

If the law has been challenged in court, then yes, the rational basis test applies - or a higher standard of review. That's how it works. Is this news to you? Wow.

If the rational basis reason for excluding gays is "they can't reproduce" then infertile heterosexual couples would be excluded as well. They aren't, thus that argument holds no water.

Good lord, reproductive disabilities are no different than any other disabilities.

And that is relevant how?

Infertile heterosexuals. You know, the comment I responded to.

What exactly do you have against the disabled?

Nothing. You and britpat are the ones claiming a couple's inability to reproduce is grounds for denying them marriage. If reproduction is not a valid reason to deny infertile heterosexual couples the right to marry, it cannot be a valid reason to deny homosexual couples the right to marry.

I will ask you again what you have against the disabled?

Are you claiming that same sex couples are somehow disabled? That's why they can't conceive together?

 

[ShackledNation]

The concept of marriage at this country's founding was far different than what is commonly accepted even by most Christians today.

Most Americans treated married women according to the concept of coverture, a concept inherited from English common law. Under the doctrine of coverture, a woman was legally considered the chattel of her husband, his possession. Any property she might hold before her marriage became her husband's on her wedding day, and she had no legal right to appear in court, to sign contracts or to do business. Although these formal provisions of the law were sometimes ignored—the wives of tradesmen, for example, might assist in runing the family business—married women technically had almost no legal identity.

Now the definition of marriage has changed, and we realized what a stupid tradition treating women in such a way was. And now we are finally realizing what a stupid tradition barring same-sex couples from marriage is.

 

[elektra]

Woman were treated like slaves?, another lie.

Strawman. I didn't say women were treated like slaves. Is lying all you can do?

meaning of words change, slaves were property, you stated women were property, run backwards all you want but now you can see the importance in the meaning of words.

Woman, as you stated, we're "property", people who were property were called Slaves.

1914, according ShakledNation were bought and sold, like property, slaves.

That's an equivocation. Not all property is treated the same. Someone can be treated like property but not be treated like a slave. Furthermore, I did not say women were property, I said they were treated like property.

You deny that women were treated like property? Really? Is your historical knowledge that shallow?

In 1914 woman were treated like property, bought and sold, beat, whipped, just like other human property, slaves.

With ideas such as this, ShakledNation really proves his thoughts are shallow.

Strawman argument, again. Since you didn't respond to my actual argument, I will just keep repeating it until you do.

That's an equivocation. Not all property is treated the same. Someone can be treated like property but not be treated like a slave. Furthermore, I did not say women were property, I said they were treated like property.

You deny that women were treated like property? Really? Is your historical knowledge that shallow?

Strawman argument to state you said they were treated like property, not that they were property.

 

[ShackledNation]

If the law has been challenged in court, then yes, the rational basis test applies - or a higher standard of review. That's how it works. Is this news to you? Wow.

If the rational basis reason for excluding gays is "they can't reproduce" then infertile heterosexual couples would be excluded as well. They aren't, thus that argument holds no water.

Good lord, reproductive disabilities are no different than any other disabilities.

And that is relevant how?

Infertile heterosexuals. You know, the comment I responded to.

What exactly do you have against the disabled?

Nothing. You and britpat are the ones claiming a couple's inability to reproduce is grounds for denying them marriage. If reproduction is not a valid reason to deny infertile heterosexual couples the right to marry, it cannot be a valid reason to deny homosexual couples the right to marry.

I will ask you again what you have against the disabled?

Are you claiming that same sex couples are somehow disabled? That's why they can't conceive together?

Nothing. You and britpat are the ones claiming a couple's inability to reproduce is grounds for denying them marriage. If reproduction is not a valid reason to deny infertile heterosexual couples the right to marry, it cannot be a valid reason to deny homosexual couples the right to marry.

 

[ShackledNation]

Strawman. I didn't say women were treated like slaves. Is lying all you can do?

meaning of words change, slaves were property, you stated women were property, run backwards all you want but now you can see the importance in the meaning of words.

Woman, as you stated, we're "property", people who were property were called Slaves.

1914, according ShakledNation were bought and sold, like property, slaves.

That's an equivocation. Not all property is treated the same. Someone can be treated like property but not be treated like a slave. Furthermore, I did not say women were property, I said they were treated like property.

You deny that women were treated like property? Really? Is your historical knowledge that shallow?

In 1914 woman were treated like property, bought and sold, beat, whipped, just like other human property, slaves.

With ideas such as this, ShakledNation really proves his thoughts are shallow.

Strawman argument, again. Since you didn't respond to my actual argument, I will just keep repeating it until you do.

That's an equivocation. Not all property is treated the same. Someone can be treated like property but not be treated like a slave. Furthermore, I did not say women were property, I said they were treated like property.

You deny that women were treated like property? Really? Is your historical knowledge that shallow?

Strawman argument to state you said they were treated like property, not that they were property.

You deny women were treated like property?

 

[Pop23]

False, controlling periods is not birth control. Know many women getting vasectomies to control their periods.

It is a fact that women take birth-control pills to control their period. Do you seriously not know this? Lol. Plenty of lesbian couples are on birth control. Once again you demonstrate what a fool you are.

Controlling lesbian periods is birth control?

Do tell

Do you take Prozac to control your asthma?

Lesbians who have issues with their period, like heterosexual women, take birth control to control their periods. Do you deny this?

Deny what? That the pill is used for other than birth control?

Are you really that dense that you can't admit the mistake and walk away with at least a little dignity?

Ok, provide the name of a single child born from sexual coupling between lesbian (no fair using male lesbians)

Do you deny that women take birth control pills to control their periods? Obviously that is what I was asking. Answer the question.

You really are dense.

If it's for birth control you had better be able to produce the name of a single child born by a lesbian coupling.

Do you not understand the meaning of birth control?

Let me help ya

It's used to stop a female from getting pregnant FROM INTERCOURSE.

 

[elektra]

The concept of marriage at this country's founding was far different than what is commonly accepted even by most Christians today.

Most Americans treated married women according to the concept of coverture, a concept inherited from English common law. Under the doctrine of coverture, a woman was legally considered the chattel of her husband, his possession. Any property she might hold before her marriage became her husband's on her wedding day, and she had no legal right to appear in court, to sign contracts or to do business. Although these formal provisions of the law were sometimes ignored—the wives of tradesmen, for example, might assist in runing the family business—married women technically had almost no legal identity.

Now the definition of marriage has changed, and we realized what a stupid tradition treating women in such a way was. And now we are finally realizing what a stupid tradition barring same-sex couples from marriage is.

Pure bullshit. Wiv

The concept of marriage at this country's founding was far different than what is commonly accepted even by most Christians today.

Most Americans treated married women according to the concept of coverture, a concept inherited from English common law. Under the doctrine of coverture, a woman was legally considered the chattel of her husband, his possession. Any property she might hold before her marriage became her husband's on her wedding day, and she had no legal right to appear in court, to sign contracts or to do business. Although these formal provisions of the law were sometimes ignored—the wives of tradesmen, for example, might assist in runing the family business—married women technically had almost no legal identity.

Now the definition of marriage has changed, and we realized what a stupid tradition treating women in such a way was. And now we are finally realizing what a stupid tradition barring same-sex couples from marriage is.

meaning of words change, slaves were property, you stated women were property, run backwards all you want but now you can see the importance in the meaning of words.

Woman, as you stated, we're "property", people who were property were called Slaves.

1914, according ShakledNation were bought and sold, like property, slaves.

That's an equivocation. Not all property is treated the same. Someone can be treated like property but not be treated like a slave. Furthermore, I did not say women were property, I said they were treated like property.

You deny that women were treated like property? Really? Is your historical knowledge that shallow?

In 1914 woman were treated like property, bought and sold, beat, whipped, just like other human property, slaves.

With ideas such as this, ShakledNation really proves his thoughts are shallow.

Strawman argument, again. Since you didn't respond to my actual argument, I will just keep repeating it until you do.

That's an equivocation. Not all property is treated the same. Someone can be treated like property but not be treated like a slave. Furthermore, I did not say women were property, I said they were treated like property.

You deny that women were treated like property? Really? Is your historical knowledge that shallow?

Strawman argument to state you said they were treated like property, not that they were property.

You deny women were treated like property?

Do you deny that you beat children.

 

[ShackledNation]

You really are dense.

If it's for birth control you had better be able to produce the name of a single child born by a lesbian coupling.

Do you not understand the meaning of birth control?

Let me help ya

It's used to stop a female from getting pregnant FROM INTERCOURSE.

Do you deny that women take birth control pills to control their periods? Or maybe that is too hard for you to understand. Do women take birth control pills to control their periods?

 

[ShackledNation]

Pure bullshit. Wiv

So you've got nothing. Well, I should have guessed. Since you have nothing of substance to say, this discussion is over.