Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[rightwinger]

It's because they didn't have fertility tests when the marriage laws were originally written, numbskull. Even if they did, they probably wouldn't have thought it worth the trouble to make an exception.

Your anal obsession with infertility only makes you look ridiculous.

I think you're the one obsessed with fertility since you seem to believe that's the only reason for marriage when you know it isn't. You also know that no one is prevented from civilly marrying if they are unable or unwilling to procreate so why keep bringing it up as though it matters?

They are running out of arguments so they are clinging to this fertility nonsense. It's being laughed out of almost every courtroom I might add.

The issue is REPRODUCTION, not fertility. The numbskulls on your side of the dispute are the ones trying to make fertility an issue.

Reproduction isn't a requirement to get married. Your side wishes it to be but only for gay couples seeking to get married. They never apply those same standards to straight couples. Why is that?

Gays are icky. Guess how well that argument goes in court?

Been working for 200 years

 

[Pop23]

I think you're the one obsessed with fertility since you seem to believe that's the only reason for marriage when you know it isn't. You also know that no one is prevented from civilly marrying if they are unable or unwilling to procreate so why keep bringing it up as though it matters?

They are running out of arguments so they are clinging to this fertility nonsense. It's being laughed out of almost every courtroom I might add.

Fertility is only an issue between opposite sex couples.

Of course not

Gay couples can discuss fertility also. They can also discuss whether they want to raise children....just like heterosexual couples

But that's not what you said.

"Same as" as implies they discuss all possibilities, which of course they might, but it would be ridiculous

Seriously....you have a sick mind

To you

Honest = sick

Ok, I see

 

[Seawytch]

Reproduction isn't a requirement to get married. Your side wishes it to be but only for gay couples seeking to get married. They never apply those same standards to straight couples. Why is that?

If the fact that same sex couple can't reproduce due to a disability?

Could you clarify your question a bit? I want give you an answer but I am not sure what you're asking me.

Sorry, that should have started with "is" not "if"

Thanks
Of course not. It's because they are biological unable to reproduce as a couple. Being able to produce offspring isn't a requirement to get hitched. It seems you only want that requirement for gays but not straights seeking marriage. You want to have it both ways and you can't. Sorry.

We will see whether I can or can't. That will be decided by SCOTUS.

The point is, the two demographic groups are as different as night and day. Adults should be able to agree to that point.

No Pop, they are not that different. There is no difference in married gays with children and married straights with children. There is also no difference between married gays without children and married straight couples without children.

All couples, gay or straight, get married for all the same reasons but you only want to deny gays. You're losing.

The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction— that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.

~ Judge Richard Posner

Hero Federal Appeals Judge Burns Down the Case Against Gay Marriage

 

[Pop23]

It's because they didn't have fertility tests when the marriage laws were originally written, numbskull. Even if they did, they probably wouldn't have thought it worth the trouble to make an exception.

Your anal obsession with infertility only makes you look ridiculous.

I think you're the one obsessed with fertility since you seem to believe that's the only reason for marriage when you know it isn't. You also know that no one is prevented from civilly marrying if they are unable or unwilling to procreate so why keep bringing it up as though it matters?

They are running out of arguments so they are clinging to this fertility nonsense. It's being laughed out of almost every courtroom I might add.

The issue is REPRODUCTION, not fertility. The numbskulls on your side of the dispute are the ones trying to make fertility an issue.

Reproduction isn't a requirement to get married. Your side wishes it to be but only for gay couples seeking to get married. They never apply those same standards to straight couples. Why is that?

Gays are icky. Guess how well that argument goes in court?

Polygamists are icky?

 

[mdk]

Funny how gay activists are "debating with each other" in order to bury the page with the damning photos. It's OK, I've copied and saved the post. I'm waiting for a new page.

Funny how you'll never answer any question presented you.

Could you clarify your question a bit? I want give you an answer but I am not sure what you're asking me.

Sorry, that should have started with "is" not "if"

Thanks
Of course not. It's because they are biological unable to reproduce as a couple. Being able to produce offspring isn't a requirement to get hitched. It seems you only want that requirement for gays but not straights seeking marriage. You want to have it both ways and you can't. Sorry.

We will see whether I can or can't. That will be decided by SCOTUS.

The point is, the two demographic groups are as different as night and day. Adults should be able to agree to that point.

The SC will decide this issue in the next year or so. Then we can all start focusing on more pressing matters.

And yes, the two demographics are in fact different. I don't see that difference as a negative though. Just different.

I don't think I implied either was negative.

That would be like saying commercial airliners are great and bicycles are bad.

I never said you did. I said I don't see the differences as a negative. Please don't think I was implying that you did.

 

[Seawytch]

I think you're the one obsessed with fertility since you seem to believe that's the only reason for marriage when you know it isn't. You also know that no one is prevented from civilly marrying if they are unable or unwilling to procreate so why keep bringing it up as though it matters?

They are running out of arguments so they are clinging to this fertility nonsense. It's being laughed out of almost every courtroom I might add.

The issue is REPRODUCTION, not fertility. The numbskulls on your side of the dispute are the ones trying to make fertility an issue.

Reproduction isn't a requirement to get married. Your side wishes it to be but only for gay couples seeking to get married. They never apply those same standards to straight couples. Why is that?

Gays are icky. Guess how well that argument goes in court?

Been working for 200 years

So did anti miscongenation and segregation...until they didn't.

 

[Pop23]

If the fact that same sex couple can't reproduce due to a disability?

Could you clarify your question a bit? I want give you an answer but I am not sure what you're asking me.

Sorry, that should have started with "is" not "if"

Thanks
Of course not. It's because they are biological unable to reproduce as a couple. Being able to produce offspring isn't a requirement to get hitched. It seems you only want that requirement for gays but not straights seeking marriage. You want to have it both ways and you can't. Sorry.

We will see whether I can or can't. That will be decided by SCOTUS.

The point is, the two demographic groups are as different as night and day. Adults should be able to agree to that point.

No Pop, they are not that different. There is no difference in married gays with children and married straights with children. There is also no difference between married gays without children and married straight couples without children.

All couples, gay or straight, get married for all the same reasons but you only want to deny gays. You're losing.

The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction— that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.

~ Judge Richard Posner

Hero Federal Appeals Judge Burns Down the Case Against Gay Marriage

Posner on the SCOTUS?

 

[mdk]

I think you're the one obsessed with fertility since you seem to believe that's the only reason for marriage when you know it isn't. You also know that no one is prevented from civilly marrying if they are unable or unwilling to procreate so why keep bringing it up as though it matters?

They are running out of arguments so they are clinging to this fertility nonsense. It's being laughed out of almost every courtroom I might add.

The issue is REPRODUCTION, not fertility. The numbskulls on your side of the dispute are the ones trying to make fertility an issue.

Reproduction isn't a requirement to get married. Your side wishes it to be but only for gay couples seeking to get married. They never apply those same standards to straight couples. Why is that?

Gays are icky. Guess how well that argument goes in court?

Polygamists are icky?

Nope. Not my cup tea but they should also be allowed to marry so long as all the parties legally consent.

 

[Seawytch]

I think you're the one obsessed with fertility since you seem to believe that's the only reason for marriage when you know it isn't. You also know that no one is prevented from civilly marrying if they are unable or unwilling to procreate so why keep bringing it up as though it matters?

They are running out of arguments so they are clinging to this fertility nonsense. It's being laughed out of almost every courtroom I might add.

The issue is REPRODUCTION, not fertility. The numbskulls on your side of the dispute are the ones trying to make fertility an issue.

Reproduction isn't a requirement to get married. Your side wishes it to be but only for gay couples seeking to get married. They never apply those same standards to straight couples. Why is that?

Gays are icky. Guess how well that argument goes in court?

Polygamists are icky?

Depends on the context. Consenting adults, no...those polygamist colonies where the basically rape little girls, yes. There is also an economic disadvantage to polygamy that does not exist with monogamy...the whole "poor guys have to do without" thing.

I'm not opposed to polygamy the way you are opposed to gays marrying. I wish them luck but their "fight" has nothing to do with marriage equality for gays. It's a distraction.

 

[rightwinger]

They are running out of arguments so they are clinging to this fertility nonsense. It's being laughed out of almost every courtroom I might add.

The issue is REPRODUCTION, not fertility. The numbskulls on your side of the dispute are the ones trying to make fertility an issue.

Reproduction isn't a requirement to get married. Your side wishes it to be but only for gay couples seeking to get married. They never apply those same standards to straight couples. Why is that?

Gays are icky. Guess how well that argument goes in court?

Been working for 200 years

So did anti miscongenation and segregation...until they didn't.

Supreme Court should decide next year on the validity of Pops arguments against gay marriage

 

[Seawytch]

Could you clarify your question a bit? I want give you an answer but I am not sure what you're asking me.

Sorry, that should have started with "is" not "if"

Thanks
Of course not. It's because they are biological unable to reproduce as a couple. Being able to produce offspring isn't a requirement to get hitched. It seems you only want that requirement for gays but not straights seeking marriage. You want to have it both ways and you can't. Sorry.

We will see whether I can or can't. That will be decided by SCOTUS.

The point is, the two demographic groups are as different as night and day. Adults should be able to agree to that point.

No Pop, they are not that different. There is no difference in married gays with children and married straights with children. There is also no difference between married gays without children and married straight couples without children.

All couples, gay or straight, get married for all the same reasons but you only want to deny gays. You're losing.

The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction— that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.

~ Judge Richard Posner

Hero Federal Appeals Judge Burns Down the Case Against Gay Marriage

Posner on the SCOTUS?

Kennedy is...

"DOMA humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives."

 

[mdk]

The issue is REPRODUCTION, not fertility. The numbskulls on your side of the dispute are the ones trying to make fertility an issue.

Reproduction isn't a requirement to get married. Your side wishes it to be but only for gay couples seeking to get married. They never apply those same standards to straight couples. Why is that?

Gays are icky. Guess how well that argument goes in court?

Been working for 200 years

So did anti miscongenation and segregation...until they didn't.

Supreme Court should decide next year on the validity of Pops arguments against gay marriage

I have a feeling it's going to be a 6-3 decision with Roberts joining the majority. Time will tell...

 

[Silhouette]

No Pop, they are not that different. There is no difference in married gays with children and married straights with children. There is also no difference between married gays without children and married straight couples without children....

There is a complete difference of cultural tolerance of "proud" sex acts in front of kids.

Seawytch, this isn't a discussion about what gays do behind closed doors. Marriage is a society's business precisely because it is the one institution that stands to affect all children the most of any of our institutions...natural born to couples and orphans. It is particularly the orphans case we are focusing on here. A society can be judged on how it treats its women and orphans.
Perhaps pictures can explain what I cannot get through to some people here...
Here's a group of kids who were not just brought to a gay pride parade, they participated in it! Heteros don't hold lewd parades promoting deviant sexuality as a matter of "pride" inviting kids to join in the parade and witness things like this done in sober display:

Here's what went on:

CA Teachers Take Elementary Students to “Gay Pride” Parade
...Hartline says last year the not-for-profit San Diego Pride organization was under investigation for employing numerous pedophiles as volunteers and staff during its yearly parade and festival. He believes these pro-homosexual events are generally pornographic and that they are frequented by militant sodomites.
This is evidenced, the Christian activist says, “by the numerous triple-X porn companies that have vendors [at the San Diego Pride events], the distribution of condoms and sexual lubricants, and also just the really perverted sex classes that go on to teach people about S&M sex.”
For example, Hartline recalls, the San Diego Pride organizers had a tent exhibit this year called ‘the Leather Room.’ In this tent, he says, “they actually were demonstrating piercings and other really grotesque types of sado-masochism.”
Hartline says he feels the teachers with the San Diego Cooperative Charter School exhibited “gross disregard for the safety of children” when they brought students to the city’s 2006 “gay pride” parade. The charter school is a K-8 institution in the San Diego Unified School District, and he believes the teachers had no business bringing young children into such a depraved and pornographic environment. CA Teachers Take Elementary Students to 8220 Gay Pride 8221 Parade Family Policy Network

In addition to the leather S&M booth and tons of other sexually explicit displays on the sidelines, here are examples of what those kids were almost certainly exposed to, or worse, "as a matter of LGBT pride"...

Clearly this gay marriage debate isn't about what two dudes do in their bedroom behind closed doors... This is a debate about what is good for society's children. We are all their caretakers and watchers. All manners of horrors and abuse can and do occur to our nation's most vulnerable. When we are given a metric ton of red flags about a given subculture with respect to what they're "proud" of doing in front of kids on main street in a parade, we are all mandated to act in anticipation of what certainly will be waiting for them behind closed doors...
Let gays do whatever they want on their own time. Just don't let it involve children....ever...in any capacity.....

 

[RKMBrown]

No it wouldn't.

Yes it would.

You have to have a certain types of licenses to drive certain types of vehicles in particular locations. However, you do not have to have certain types of licenses to drive other types of vehicles or in other locations. Thus, your question is ... naive at best. You can't ask a broad question like that and it not have yes and no answers.

Why would you need a different kind of license for different forms of transportation?

Hmmmmmmm

Same reason a license to practice law isn't permission to perform surgical procedures.

 

[Pop23]

No it wouldn't.

Yes it would.

You have to have a certain types of licenses to drive certain types of vehicles in particular locations. However, you do not have to have certain types of licenses to drive other types of vehicles or in other locations. Thus, your question is ... naive at best. You can't ask a broad question like that and it not have yes and no answers.

Why would you need a different kind of license for different forms of transportation?

Hmmmmmmm

Same reason a license to practice law isn't permission to perform surgical procedures.

Hmmmmmm

Sounds like discrimination to me.

 

[RKMBrown]

No it wouldn't.

Yes it would.

You have to have a certain types of licenses to drive certain types of vehicles in particular locations. However, you do not have to have certain types of licenses to drive other types of vehicles or in other locations. Thus, your question is ... naive at best. You can't ask a broad question like that and it not have yes and no answers.

Why would you need a different kind of license for different forms of transportation?

Hmmmmmmm

Same reason a license to practice law isn't permission to perform surgical procedures.

Hmmmmmm

Sounds like discrimination to me.

Some forms of discrimination are better than others. IOW liberty is not the liberty to drive a mac truck through a busy city street without having some formal training. Causing undue risk of harm is not liberty.

 

[jillian]

except marriage doesn't exist for procreation.

That's the only reason marriage exists.

Really? Then show us the state laws...any state law...on marriage that requires procreation.

The absence of such laws doesn't disprove my contention. Are their any state laws that require you to use your driver's license to drive?

That would depend on what you are driving and where you are driving it. You can drive a bike in your back yard without a license in all 57 states.

Apparently you didn't read my post very carefully. Does a driver's license require you to drive?

which has nothing to do with the reasons for marriage. one does not a) need to be married to procreate; nor b) procreate to be married.

your lack of logic and fact-based thinking is laughable.

 

[bripat9643]

That's the only reason marriage exists.

Really? Then show us the state laws...any state law...on marriage that requires procreation.

The absence of such laws doesn't disprove my contention. Are their any state laws that require you to use your driver's license to drive?

That would depend on what you are driving and where you are driving it. You can drive a bike in your back yard without a license in all 57 states.

Apparently you didn't read my post very carefully. Does a driver's license require you to drive?

which has nothing to do with the reasons for marriage. one does not a) need to be married to procreate; nor b) procreate to be married.

your lack of logic and fact-based thinking is laughable.

You also don't need a license to drive. Any 15 year old kid can get into his parents care and drive it down the freeway. You also don't need to drive to have a license. You can put it in the drawer and leave it there until you want to vote.

Your "logic" doesn't shoot down my position.

You stupid liberal turds keep using the same pathetic arguments over and over and over. They are just as faulty now as they were 10 years ago.

 

[bripat9643]

They are running out of arguments so they are clinging to this fertility nonsense. It's being laughed out of almost every courtroom I might add.

The issue is REPRODUCTION, not fertility. The numbskulls on your side of the dispute are the ones trying to make fertility an issue.

Reproduction isn't a requirement to get married. Your side wishes it to be but only for gay couples seeking to get married. They never apply those same standards to straight couples. Why is that?

Gays are icky. Guess how well that argument goes in court?

Polygamists are icky?

Depends on the context. Consenting adults, no...those polygamist colonies where the basically rape little girls, yes. There is also an economic disadvantage to polygamy that does not exist with monogamy...the whole "poor guys have to do without" thing.

I'm not opposed to polygamy the way you are opposed to gays marrying. I wish them luck but their "fight" has nothing to do with marriage equality for gays. It's a distraction.

It has everything to do with the joke called "gay marriage." Every argument used to support gay marriage can also be used to support polygamy. Of course, legalizing polygamy would turn the institution of marriage into a real joke, and then gays will lose everything they have gained.

 

[bripat9643]

If the fact that same sex couple can't reproduce due to a disability?

Could you clarify your question a bit? I want give you an answer but I am not sure what you're asking me.

Sorry, that should have started with "is" not "if"

Thanks
Of course not. It's because they are biological unable to reproduce as a couple. Being able to produce offspring isn't a requirement to get hitched. It seems you only want that requirement for gays but not straights seeking marriage. You want to have it both ways and you can't. Sorry.

We will see whether I can or can't. That will be decided by SCOTUS.

The point is, the two demographic groups are as different as night and day. Adults should be able to agree to that point.

No Pop, they are not that different. There is no difference in married gays with children and married straights with children. There is also no difference between married gays without children and married straight couples without children.

All couples, gay or straight, get married for all the same reasons but you only want to deny gays. You're losing.

The challenged laws discriminate against a minority defined by an immutable characteristic, and the only rationale that the states put forth with any conviction— that same-sex couples and their children don't need marriage because same-sex couples can't produce children, intended or unintended—is so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.

~ Judge Richard Posner

Hero Federal Appeals Judge Burns Down the Case Against Gay Marriage

Posner is a hack and a moron.