Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[ShackledNation]

No it doesn't and you're a fool to think it does.

Since you insist on debating the issue, we'll have to get down to the nitty gritty. How does a homosexual have sex with a woman if he can't get an erection?

He can get one....he just has to think of someone else when he's doing it.

I could never get an erection if some male wanted to have sex with me, so how could a homosexual get an erection when trying to have sex with a woman? The idea of having sex with a man is a big turn off. It's creepy and disgusting.

You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

By your logic, men who masturbate couldn't get erections because they are not sexually attracted to their own hand.

You do not have 100% control over what your small little penis does. If it is physically stimulated enough, it very well could become erect at the hands of another man. Furthermore, gay men in the closet often want to be straight, so it is quite easy to fake it. And unless you have no imagination, fantasizing about gay sex while with a woman is quite possible.

Oh puhleeze. I can't believe anyone is puerile enough to argue about this shit. Is there any detail of human relations, no matter how sordid and distasteful, that you aren't willing to bring up in your quest to give homos a privilege that serves no social purpose in their case?

Stable families is not a social purpose? More people able to access rights is not a social purpose? Decreasing stigma and reducing hateful discrimination is not a social purpose? There are plenty of social purposes served by granting same-sex couples the right to marriage, and there are plenty of social harms inflicted on them by not doing so.

There is not a single valid interest in denying them that right, and there is not a single harm caused to them by granting it.

 

[bendog]

Laughs aside, you're posting to people who apparently never considered how gay men and lesbian women had issue throughout human history, and an old fool who thinks that merely because one has sex, even once, with a non-same sex partner, they then become "bisexual." As if we all aren't bisexual to some degree.

 

[elektra]

Since you insist on debating the issue, we'll have to get down to the nitty gritty. How does a homosexual have sex with a woman if he can't get an erection?

He can get one....he just has to think of someone else when he's doing it.

I could never get an erection if some male wanted to have sex with me, so how could a homosexual get an erection when trying to have sex with a woman? The idea of having sex with a man is a big turn off. It's creepy and disgusting.

You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

By your logic, men who masturbate couldn't get erections because they are not sexually attracted to their own hand.

You do not have 100% control over what your small little penis does. If it is physically stimulated enough, it very well could become erect at the hands of another man. Furthermore, gay men in the closet often want to be straight, so it is quite easy to fake it. And unless you have no imagination, fantasizing about gay sex while with a woman is quite possible.

Oh puhleeze. I can't believe anyone is puerile enough to argue about this shit. Is there any detail of human relations, no matter how sordid and distasteful, that you aren't willing to bring up in your quest to give homos a privilege that serves no social purpose in their case?

Stable families is not a social purpose? More people able to access rights is not a social purpose? Decreasing stigma and reducing hateful discrimination is not a social purpose? There are plenty of social purposes served by granting same-sex couples the right to marriage, and there are plenty of social harms inflicted on them by not doing so.

There is not a single valid interest in denying them that right, and there is not a single harm caused to them by granting it.

Yes, no valid interests, coming from a Heterosexual who has no insight through personal experience.

The ignorant close minded will never see nor admit, "valid interests".

 

[Seawytch]

He can get one....he just has to think of someone else when he's doing it.

I could never get an erection if some male wanted to have sex with me, so how could a homosexual get an erection when trying to have sex with a woman? The idea of having sex with a man is a big turn off. It's creepy and disgusting.

You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

By your logic, men who masturbate couldn't get erections because they are not sexually attracted to their own hand.

You do not have 100% control over what your small little penis does. If it is physically stimulated enough, it very well could become erect at the hands of another man. Furthermore, gay men in the closet often want to be straight, so it is quite easy to fake it. And unless you have no imagination, fantasizing about gay sex while with a woman is quite possible.

Oh puhleeze. I can't believe anyone is puerile enough to argue about this shit. Is there any detail of human relations, no matter how sordid and distasteful, that you aren't willing to bring up in your quest to give homos a privilege that serves no social purpose in their case?

Stable families is not a social purpose? More people able to access rights is not a social purpose? Decreasing stigma and reducing hateful discrimination is not a social purpose? There are plenty of social purposes served by granting same-sex couples the right to marriage, and there are plenty of social harms inflicted on them by not doing so.

There is not a single valid interest in denying them that right, and there is not a single harm caused to them by granting it.

Yes, no valid interests, coming from a Heterosexual who has no insight through personal experience.

The ignorant close minded will never see nor admit, "valid interests".

Then please proceed. Tell us what you believe to the states valid interest in denying marriage equality to gays is. Just an FYI, "they're icky" or "they have sex" is not valid.

 

[ShackledNation]

He can get one....he just has to think of someone else when he's doing it.

I could never get an erection if some male wanted to have sex with me, so how could a homosexual get an erection when trying to have sex with a woman? The idea of having sex with a man is a big turn off. It's creepy and disgusting.

You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

By your logic, men who masturbate couldn't get erections because they are not sexually attracted to their own hand.

You do not have 100% control over what your small little penis does. If it is physically stimulated enough, it very well could become erect at the hands of another man. Furthermore, gay men in the closet often want to be straight, so it is quite easy to fake it. And unless you have no imagination, fantasizing about gay sex while with a woman is quite possible.

Oh puhleeze. I can't believe anyone is puerile enough to argue about this shit. Is there any detail of human relations, no matter how sordid and distasteful, that you aren't willing to bring up in your quest to give homos a privilege that serves no social purpose in their case?

Stable families is not a social purpose? More people able to access rights is not a social purpose? Decreasing stigma and reducing hateful discrimination is not a social purpose? There are plenty of social purposes served by granting same-sex couples the right to marriage, and there are plenty of social harms inflicted on them by not doing so.

There is not a single valid interest in denying them that right, and there is not a single harm caused to them by granting it.

Yes, no valid interests, coming from a Heterosexual who has no insight through personal experience.

The ignorant close minded will never see nor admit, "valid interests".

What is the valid interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marriage, then? What harm is caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

 

[elektra]

I could never get an erection if some male wanted to have sex with me, so how could a homosexual get an erection when trying to have sex with a woman? The idea of having sex with a man is a big turn off. It's creepy and disgusting.

You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

By your logic, men who masturbate couldn't get erections because they are not sexually attracted to their own hand.

You do not have 100% control over what your small little penis does. If it is physically stimulated enough, it very well could become erect at the hands of another man. Furthermore, gay men in the closet often want to be straight, so it is quite easy to fake it. And unless you have no imagination, fantasizing about gay sex while with a woman is quite possible.

Oh puhleeze. I can't believe anyone is puerile enough to argue about this shit. Is there any detail of human relations, no matter how sordid and distasteful, that you aren't willing to bring up in your quest to give homos a privilege that serves no social purpose in their case?

Stable families is not a social purpose? More people able to access rights is not a social purpose? Decreasing stigma and reducing hateful discrimination is not a social purpose? There are plenty of social purposes served by granting same-sex couples the right to marriage, and there are plenty of social harms inflicted on them by not doing so.

There is not a single valid interest in denying them that right, and there is not a single harm caused to them by granting it.

Yes, no valid interests, coming from a Heterosexual who has no insight through personal experience.

The ignorant close minded will never see nor admit, "valid interests".

What is the valid interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marriage, then? What harm is caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

Adoption of heterosexual children.

 

[WorldWatcher]

By your logic, men who masturbate couldn't get erections because they are not sexually attracted to their own hand.

You do not have 100% control over what your small little penis does. If it is physically stimulated enough, it very well could become erect at the hands of another man. Furthermore, gay men in the closet often want to be straight, so it is quite easy to fake it. And unless you have no imagination, fantasizing about gay sex while with a woman is quite possible.

Oh puhleeze. I can't believe anyone is puerile enough to argue about this shit. Is there any detail of human relations, no matter how sordid and distasteful, that you aren't willing to bring up in your quest to give homos a privilege that serves no social purpose in their case?

Stable families is not a social purpose? More people able to access rights is not a social purpose? Decreasing stigma and reducing hateful discrimination is not a social purpose? There are plenty of social purposes served by granting same-sex couples the right to marriage, and there are plenty of social harms inflicted on them by not doing so.

There is not a single valid interest in denying them that right, and there is not a single harm caused to them by granting it.

Yes, no valid interests, coming from a Heterosexual who has no insight through personal experience.

The ignorant close minded will never see nor admit, "valid interests".

What is the valid interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marriage, then? What harm is caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

Adoption of heterosexual children.

You realize that even though SSCM is currently only recognized in - IIRC - 19 states. Homosexual individuals can adopt in about all states.

Kind of blows the rataionlization of "Block SSCM to prevent adoption".

LGBT adoption in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


States that allow homosexual individuals adoption = 50
States that allow or have no prohibition for same-sex couple adoption = 38


>>>>

 

[elektra]

Oh puhleeze. I can't believe anyone is puerile enough to argue about this shit. Is there any detail of human relations, no matter how sordid and distasteful, that you aren't willing to bring up in your quest to give homos a privilege that serves no social purpose in their case?

Stable families is not a social purpose? More people able to access rights is not a social purpose? Decreasing stigma and reducing hateful discrimination is not a social purpose? There are plenty of social purposes served by granting same-sex couples the right to marriage, and there are plenty of social harms inflicted on them by not doing so.

There is not a single valid interest in denying them that right, and there is not a single harm caused to them by granting it.

Yes, no valid interests, coming from a Heterosexual who has no insight through personal experience.

The ignorant close minded will never see nor admit, "valid interests".

What is the valid interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marriage, then? What harm is caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

Adoption of heterosexual children.

You realize that even though SSCM is currently only recognized in - IIRC - 19 states. Homosexual individuals can adopt in about all states.

Kind of blows the rataionlization of "Block SSCM to prevent adoption".

LGBT adoption in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


States that allow homosexual individuals adoption = 50
States that allow or have no prohibition for same-sex couple adoption = 38


>>>>

I know, Homosexuals can have my children if me and my wife die

A sad state our Nation is in.

 

[elektra]

Children are being given to homosexuals, men and woman who have the least control of their sexual urges.

 

[bodecea]

Cite where I said lesbians take birth control pills "for birth control." I never did. That was your own pathetic strawman.

I had to take it as a surrogate. I was 36 when I had to take it the first time.

Was your partner the father?

Can we ask you about your partner now?

 

[bodecea]

Stable families is not a social purpose? More people able to access rights is not a social purpose? Decreasing stigma and reducing hateful discrimination is not a social purpose? There are plenty of social purposes served by granting same-sex couples the right to marriage, and there are plenty of social harms inflicted on them by not doing so.

There is not a single valid interest in denying them that right, and there is not a single harm caused to them by granting it.

Yes, no valid interests, coming from a Heterosexual who has no insight through personal experience.

The ignorant close minded will never see nor admit, "valid interests".

What is the valid interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marriage, then? What harm is caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

Adoption of heterosexual children.

You realize that even though SSCM is currently only recognized in - IIRC - 19 states. Homosexual individuals can adopt in about all states.

Kind of blows the rataionlization of "Block SSCM to prevent adoption".

LGBT adoption in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


States that allow homosexual individuals adoption = 50
States that allow or have no prohibition for same-sex couple adoption = 38


>>>>

I know, Homosexuals can have my children if me and my wife die

A sad state our Nation is in.

You have not made arrangements (will, etc.) for that possibility with relatives, god parents, etc.? Why not?

 

[bodecea]

Children are being given to homosexuals, men and woman who have the least control of their sexual urges.

What?

 

[elektra]

Yes, no valid interests, coming from a Heterosexual who has no insight through personal experience.

The ignorant close minded will never see nor admit, "valid interests".

What is the valid interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marriage, then? What harm is caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

Adoption of heterosexual children.

You realize that even though SSCM is currently only recognized in - IIRC - 19 states. Homosexual individuals can adopt in about all states.

Kind of blows the rataionlization of "Block SSCM to prevent adoption".

LGBT adoption in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


States that allow homosexual individuals adoption = 50
States that allow or have no prohibition for same-sex couple adoption = 38


>>>>

I know, Homosexuals can have my children if me and my wife die

A sad state our Nation is in.

You have not made arrangements (will, etc.) for that possibility with relatives, god parents, etc.? Why not?

I am not the issue.

 

[elektra]

Children are being given to homosexuals, men and woman who have the least control of their sexual urges.

What?

I can not speak any louder.

 

[ShackledNation]

By your logic, men who masturbate couldn't get erections because they are not sexually attracted to their own hand.

You do not have 100% control over what your small little penis does. If it is physically stimulated enough, it very well could become erect at the hands of another man. Furthermore, gay men in the closet often want to be straight, so it is quite easy to fake it. And unless you have no imagination, fantasizing about gay sex while with a woman is quite possible.

Oh puhleeze. I can't believe anyone is puerile enough to argue about this shit. Is there any detail of human relations, no matter how sordid and distasteful, that you aren't willing to bring up in your quest to give homos a privilege that serves no social purpose in their case?

Stable families is not a social purpose? More people able to access rights is not a social purpose? Decreasing stigma and reducing hateful discrimination is not a social purpose? There are plenty of social purposes served by granting same-sex couples the right to marriage, and there are plenty of social harms inflicted on them by not doing so.

There is not a single valid interest in denying them that right, and there is not a single harm caused to them by granting it.

Yes, no valid interests, coming from a Heterosexual who has no insight through personal experience.

The ignorant close minded will never see nor admit, "valid interests".

What is the valid interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marriage, then? What harm is caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

Adoption of heterosexual children.

Gay couples can adopt and raise children together regardless of whether or not they are married.

More on point, how is adoption of heterosexual children by homosexual married couples a harm to anyone? Who is being harmed? How? Where is your evidence to back this up?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Stable families is not a social purpose? More people able to access rights is not a social purpose? Decreasing stigma and reducing hateful discrimination is not a social purpose? There are plenty of social purposes served by granting same-sex couples the right to marriage, and there are plenty of social harms inflicted on them by not doing so.

There is not a single valid interest in denying them that right, and there is not a single harm caused to them by granting it.

Yes, no valid interests, coming from a Heterosexual who has no insight through personal experience.

The ignorant close minded will never see nor admit, "valid interests".

What is the valid interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marriage, then? What harm is caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

Adoption of heterosexual children.

You realize that even though SSCM is currently only recognized in - IIRC - 19 states. Homosexual individuals can adopt in about all states.

Kind of blows the rataionlization of "Block SSCM to prevent adoption".

LGBT adoption in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


States that allow homosexual individuals adoption = 50
States that allow or have no prohibition for same-sex couple adoption = 38


>>>>

I know, Homosexuals can have my children if me and my wife die

A sad state our Nation is in.

Why would homosexuals have your children if you and your wife died?

One of the first things my wife and I did when we had children was make legal arrangements for our children if something were to happen to both of us. Documents for legal guardianship pending adoption. A will including Executorship for existing real property and it's sale. Proceeds of the equity in the home and life insurance - after all bills were paid off - going into a trust with an annual allowance to their new parents to defray their increased costs, and the balance of the trust funding college or being made available to them at age 21. Working with a financial adviser, a 5% rate of return on the initial trust after insurance and home sale would have provided about $5,000 to $10,000 per year for maintenance and $100,000 each for college.

This was all setup while I was an enlisted man in the Navy and the income of my wife and I combined was about $60,000 per year.

It truly is a sad state of our nation if someone is a parent and doesn't plan for their child's life if something happens to them.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gay couples can adopt and raise children together regardless of whether or not they are married. Try again. What is the valid interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marry? What harm is causing by allowing them to marry?

Actually there are a number of States that prevent same-sex couples from adopting. Being non-married and cohabitation can be a bar in some states.


>>>>

 

[ShackledNation]

Gay couples can adopt and raise children together regardless of whether or not they are married. Try again. What is the valid interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marry? What harm is causing by allowing them to marry?

Actually there are a number of States that prevent same-sex couples from adopting. Being non-married and cohabitation can be a bar in some states.


>>>>

You are right, I stand corrected. I guess what I should have said is that same-sex couples can and still raise children even if one of them is not allowed to be a legal parent (for example, if a lesbian woman gives birth to her own child, nothing can stop her from raising it with her partner even though she is not an official parent).

 

[elektra]

Yes, no valid interests, coming from a Heterosexual who has no insight through personal experience.

The ignorant close minded will never see nor admit, "valid interests".

What is the valid interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marriage, then? What harm is caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

Adoption of heterosexual children.

You realize that even though SSCM is currently only recognized in - IIRC - 19 states. Homosexual individuals can adopt in about all states.

Kind of blows the rataionlization of "Block SSCM to prevent adoption".

LGBT adoption in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


States that allow homosexual individuals adoption = 50
States that allow or have no prohibition for same-sex couple adoption = 38


>>>>

I know, Homosexuals can have my children if me and my wife die

A sad state our Nation is in.

Why would homosexuals have your children if you and your wife died?

One of the first things my wife and I did when we had children was make legal arrangements for our children if something were to happen to both of us. Documents for legal guardianship pending adoption. A will including Executorship for existing real property and it's sale. Proceeds of the equity in the home and life insurance - after all bills were paid off - going into a trust with an annual allowance to their new parents to defray their increased costs, and the balance of the trust funding college or being made available to them at age 21. Working with a financial adviser, a 5% rate of return on the initial trust after insurance and home sale would have provided about $5,000 to $10,000 per year for maintenance and $100,000 each for college.

This was all setup while I was an enlisted man in the Navy and the income of my wife and I combined was about $60,000 per year.

It truly is a sad state of our nation if someone is a parent and doesn't plan for their child's life if something happens to them.


>>>>

My personal situation is not the issue.

I come from a broken family of extreme abuse. Family is out of the question.

I work in an industry which is 100% travel, does not leave much time to establish friends where I live, part time.

Finances are tough, I supported homes in two countries while paying thousands to the government for visas. Thousands because of government worker mistakes.

My industry has been getting ruled and regulated out of business by the government, my work has dropped over 50%. That leaves me zero money now, for something like life insurance.

I can go on, but how much of my specifics did you know of when you replied to me.

yes, it is a sorry state of our nation, but not because of me or parents, but because of government.

did you even realize that heterosexual children are being exposed to homosexuals, that the adoption became so widespread, without a single vote at the ballot.

should you not be more concerned with this than my personal situation and the blame you seem to lay at my feet.

 

[ShackledNation]

What is the valid interest in denying same-sex couples the right to marriage, then? What harm is caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

Adoption of heterosexual children.

You realize that even though SSCM is currently only recognized in - IIRC - 19 states. Homosexual individuals can adopt in about all states.

Kind of blows the rataionlization of "Block SSCM to prevent adoption".

LGBT adoption in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


States that allow homosexual individuals adoption = 50
States that allow or have no prohibition for same-sex couple adoption = 38


>>>>

I know, Homosexuals can have my children if me and my wife die

A sad state our Nation is in.

Why would homosexuals have your children if you and your wife died?

One of the first things my wife and I did when we had children was make legal arrangements for our children if something were to happen to both of us. Documents for legal guardianship pending adoption. A will including Executorship for existing real property and it's sale. Proceeds of the equity in the home and life insurance - after all bills were paid off - going into a trust with an annual allowance to their new parents to defray their increased costs, and the balance of the trust funding college or being made available to them at age 21. Working with a financial adviser, a 5% rate of return on the initial trust after insurance and home sale would have provided about $5,000 to $10,000 per year for maintenance and $100,000 each for college.

This was all setup while I was an enlisted man in the Navy and the income of my wife and I combined was about $60,000 per year.

It truly is a sad state of our nation if someone is a parent and doesn't plan for their child's life if something happens to them.


>>>>

My personal situation is not the issue.

I come from a broken family of extreme abuse. Family is out of the question.

I work in an industry which is 100% travel, does not leave much time to establish friends where I live, part time.

Finances are tough, I supported homes in two countries while paying thousands to the government for visas. Thousands because of government worker mistakes.

My industry has been getting ruled and regulated out of business by the government, my work has dropped over 50%. That leaves me zero money now, for something like life insurance.

I can go on, but how much of my specifics did you know of when you replied to me.

yes, it is a sorry state of our nation, but not because of me or parents, but because of government.

did you even realize that heterosexual children are being exposed to homosexuals, that the adoption became so widespread, without a single vote at the ballot.

should you not be more concerned with this than my personal situation and the blame you seem to lay at my feet.

You blame the government for issues with your family, but want to use its power to prohibit other families from even existing. The essence of hypocrisy, right there.