Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[JakeStarkey]

of course they can...dumbass

And have for centuries.

Of course same sex coupling has not / cannot / and will never create a child

Glad I could be of service here

Carry on

making the beast with two backs slap and tickle, whatever you wish to call it not the measure of having kids

I'm sure the above has some sort of meaning.

But then again, maybe not

it means the ability to make kids is a distinction without a difference.
admit it or not the idea that a breeding couple is "better" than a non breeding one is a form of bigotry.

Or simply pointing out a marked difference.

Nah, your bigotry is obvious, and you are pouting like a nine year old mean child who now realizes he is not going to get his way.

 

[Pop23]

Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever

Which means nothing in the marriage equality discussion, ever

So then there's no reason to keep incest illegal.

Afterall, procreation has nothing to do with marriage.

Hmmmmmm, nope don't like it, but can't think of a reason not to allow it if makin babies ain't a part of it

Slippery slope fallacy. Is this the best you got?

No slippery slope from me. Tis your argument

 

[JakeStarkey]

My wife and I cannot have children: she is barren. My first wife and I had children.

Yet any who think I am any less married to this wife than the first wife are simply full of nonsense. Their arguments are not credible. Their hatred is noted by the younger generations, who will not support candidates that agree with Pop.

Baron? Reproductive disability?

Is this true of same sex couplings? They're disabled?

Now you are shifting goal posts again. Your point is meaningless.

 

[daws101]

Dumbass, homos can't have kids together.

of course they can...dumbass

And have for centuries.

Of course same sex coupling has not / cannot / and will never create a child

Glad I could be of service here

Carry on

My brother and his wife's coupling will never produce a child, ever. Gonna revoke their license?

neither can my wife and I!

Why not? Is it for the same reason same sex couplings can't and never will. Or are you in a same sex relationship which makes asking the question a moot point?

sorry to disappoint you pop but I'm not gay.
we don't have kids because not everyone needs or wants to have kids.
don't get me wrong, my wife and i love kids, as long as they are someone elses
besides leukemia and chemotherapy killed my swimmers.

 

[Pop23]

And have for centuries.

Of course same sex coupling has not / cannot / and will never create a child

Glad I could be of service here

Carry on

making the beast with two backs slap and tickle, whatever you wish to call it not the measure of having kids

I'm sure the above has some sort of meaning.

But then again, maybe not

it means the ability to make kids is a distinction without a difference.
admit it or not the idea that a breeding couple is "better" than a non breeding one is a form of bigotry.

Or simply pointing out a marked difference.

Nah, your bigotry is obvious, and you are pouting like a nine year old mean child who now realizes he is not going to get his way.

I'll bet you get a shiver up yo leg every time you get to falsly accuse others

Yippie

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fun watching Pop run in a circle in a huge bowl: can't stop, can't get out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

making the beast with two backs slap and tickle, whatever you wish to call it not the measure of having kids

I'm sure the above has some sort of meaning.

But then again, maybe not

it means the ability to make kids is a distinction without a difference.
admit it or not the idea that a breeding couple is "better" than a non breeding one is a form of bigotry.

Or simply pointing out a marked difference.

Nah, your bigotry is obvious, and you are pouting like a nine year old mean child who now realizes he is not going to get his way.

I'll bet you get a shiver up yo leg every time you get to falsly accuse others

Yippie

Now you are accusing others of what you are doing. Keep pouting, mean child.

 

[Pop23]

of course they can...dumbass

And have for centuries.

Of course same sex coupling has not / cannot / and will never create a child

Glad I could be of service here

Carry on

My brother and his wife's coupling will never produce a child, ever. Gonna revoke their license?

neither can my wife and I!

Why not? Is it for the same reason same sex couplings can't and never will. Or are you in a same sex relationship which makes asking the question a moot point?

sorry to disappoint you pop but I'm not gay.
we don't have kids because not everyone needs or wants to have kids.
don't get me wrong, my wife and i love kids, as long as they are someone elses
besides leukemia and chemotherapy killed my swimmers.

Not to make lite of your situation Dawes, best of luck with it, I know it's tough!

 

[Pop23]

I'm sure the above has some sort of meaning.

But then again, maybe not

it means the ability to make kids is a distinction without a difference.
admit it or not the idea that a breeding couple is "better" than a non breeding one is a form of bigotry.

Or simply pointing out a marked difference.

Nah, your bigotry is obvious, and you are pouting like a nine year old mean child who now realizes he is not going to get his way.

I'll bet you get a shiver up yo leg every time you get to falsly accuse others

Yippie

Now you are accusing others of what you are doing. Keep pouting, mean child.

Pops gotta go, time for Jakeys nap anywho

He's getting snippy

 

[martybegan]

It didnt have to state it, because it was never considered. The intent was always for it to be between a man and a woman.

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

So, you want proof that people were getting married during an age when even admitting to being gay was a crime?!?! I suppose that kind of does make your point - when they was originally conceived, the statutes of marriage probably were assumed to be between only men, and women, since even admitting that you were involved in a relationship with a man could land you in jail. That is the beauty of our legal system, and our Constitutions, whether they be Federal, or State - they are imminently fluid. When the sodomy laws all began to fall apart, and it was no longer considered inappropriate, let alone illegal (well...for everyone except the religious zealots) to be gay, it was only a matter of time before they started taking advantage of the marital rights afforded to loving committed couples.

The point I was trying to make concerns posters here getting all in a snit about states making laws to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, acting as if the original precedent was never there, and that these laws were passed "all of a sudden for no reason."

Oh no! There was a reason: You people were shitting yourselves that these damned faggots were acting like normal people! How DARE they!!!!

The Constitution is being treated far more fluidly then it ever was designed to be. It is being changed, not interpreted via the courts. It should be though the amendment process, not the opinions of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

Wellll...that's not entirely true. If a state makes changes to its constitution, even if it was done so in accordance with its own amendment process (which, for the record, many of these weren't), and that change is in conflict with the Federal Constitution, then guess which one takes precedent. So, the Federal Courts were still within their purview to hand down the rulings they did.

How was I shitting myself If I support changing marriage laws by state legislative action, and have said repeatedly on this board I would support a law doing that, and oppose a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman?

Again, the federal constitution is mum on marriage contracts, thus defining them falls to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

 

[daws101]

of course they can...dumbass

And have for centuries.

Of course same sex coupling has not / cannot / and will never create a child

Glad I could be of service here

Carry on

making the beast with two backs slap and tickle, whatever you wish to call it not the measure of having kids

I'm sure the above has some sort of meaning.

But then again, maybe not

it means the ability to make kids is a distinction without a difference.
admit it or not the idea that a breeding couple is "better" than a non breeding one is a form of bigotry.

Or simply pointing out a marked difference.

a markedly meaningless difference.

 

[martybegan]

Use of governmental compulsion for something as stupid as this IS hideous, unless of course you are a jackbooted twatwaddle.

Actually what is hideous is that the government should be forced to intervene in bigoted assholes refusing to allow people to exercise their right of free commerce!

So forcing someone to provide a service to you they don't want to is free commerce?????

Sounds more like slavery to me.

So being denied the right to purchase a service is free commerce?

Sounds like discrimination to me. But of course bigoted fucktards like being able to discriminate.

As long as it isn't the government doing it (and maybe certain industries, like travel, lodging, and basic needs, I haven't made my mind up about that yet) discrimination should be either accepted as a price of liberty, or fought by individuals, not the government.

Uh huh. Cuz that worked out so well for the blacks, before the Government stepped in, and said, "Enough is enough!"

Government stepped in AFTER it was the one who was enforcing said discrimination for oh, 7 or 8 decades.

It was government reigning in other government, which is entirely proper under the reconstruction amendments.

 

[RKMBrown]

You are confusing religious marriage with partnerships under contract via marriage license as regulated by government.

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

So, you want proof that people were getting married during an age when even admitting to being gay was a crime?!?! I suppose that kind of does make your point - when they was originally conceived, the statutes of marriage probably were assumed to be between only men, and women, since even admitting that you were involved in a relationship with a man could land you in jail. That is the beauty of our legal system, and our Constitutions, whether they be Federal, or State - they are imminently fluid. When the sodomy laws all began to fall apart, and it was no longer considered inappropriate, let alone illegal (well...for everyone except the religious zealots) to be gay, it was only a matter of time before they started taking advantage of the marital rights afforded to loving committed couples.

The point I was trying to make concerns posters here getting all in a snit about states making laws to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, acting as if the original precedent was never there, and that these laws were passed "all of a sudden for no reason."

Oh no! There was a reason: You people were shitting yourselves that these damned faggots were acting like normal people! How DARE they!!!!

The Constitution is being treated far more fluidly then it ever was designed to be. It is being changed, not interpreted via the courts. It should be though the amendment process, not the opinions of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

Wellll...that's not entirely true. If a state makes changes to its constitution, even if it was done so in accordance with its own amendment process (which, for the record, many of these weren't), and that change is in conflict with the Federal Constitution, then guess which one takes precedent. So, the Federal Courts were still within their purview to hand down the rulings they did.

How was I shitting myself If I support changing marriage laws by state legislative action, and have said repeatedly on this board I would support a law doing that, and oppose a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman?

Again, the federal constitution is mum on marriage contracts, thus defining them falls to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

10th and 14th.

 

[martybegan]

Show some proof of a marriage license being offered to same sex couples in the US (besides cases of fraud) prior to the current few decades.

So, you want proof that people were getting married during an age when even admitting to being gay was a crime?!?! I suppose that kind of does make your point - when they was originally conceived, the statutes of marriage probably were assumed to be between only men, and women, since even admitting that you were involved in a relationship with a man could land you in jail. That is the beauty of our legal system, and our Constitutions, whether they be Federal, or State - they are imminently fluid. When the sodomy laws all began to fall apart, and it was no longer considered inappropriate, let alone illegal (well...for everyone except the religious zealots) to be gay, it was only a matter of time before they started taking advantage of the marital rights afforded to loving committed couples.

The point I was trying to make concerns posters here getting all in a snit about states making laws to restrict marriage to opposite sex couples, acting as if the original precedent was never there, and that these laws were passed "all of a sudden for no reason."

Oh no! There was a reason: You people were shitting yourselves that these damned faggots were acting like normal people! How DARE they!!!!

The Constitution is being treated far more fluidly then it ever was designed to be. It is being changed, not interpreted via the courts. It should be though the amendment process, not the opinions of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

Wellll...that's not entirely true. If a state makes changes to its constitution, even if it was done so in accordance with its own amendment process (which, for the record, many of these weren't), and that change is in conflict with the Federal Constitution, then guess which one takes precedent. So, the Federal Courts were still within their purview to hand down the rulings they did.

How was I shitting myself If I support changing marriage laws by state legislative action, and have said repeatedly on this board I would support a law doing that, and oppose a law saying marriage is between one man and one woman?

Again, the federal constitution is mum on marriage contracts, thus defining them falls to the state legislatures via the 10th amendment.

10th and 14th.

Only if you consider gay and opposite sex marriage equal.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.

No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.

Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.

Moron...we get the tax breaks for the kids regardless of whether we are married or not.

Dumbass, homos can't have kids together.

You mean they have to adopt kids, use IVF or artificial insemination just like millions of straight couples? No shit. Does that change the FACT that gays do have children that are legally and emotionally "theirs"? No, it does not, but keep talking and looking more moronic, please.

The heteros provide children the mother and father that is necessary for ideal child raising. That makes the difference as far as contrived conception of family creation. Homos intentionally deprive a kid not only of its true parents but of the opportunity to be raised by a mom and dad. That is probably too progressive and current for you to understand as you are a rigidly conservative lefty stuck in the 1960's.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

wonderful news for individual rights

No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.

So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

Your question is more detailed than can be answered by yes or no only. But you have an angle and that's why you asked it that way.
People who should be allowed to marry are those who could possibly conceive or who would provide the ideal circumstances for raising children. That, of course, being a man and a woman.

I have a friend who is in her late 60s, a widow, who has just gotten engaged. She's not allowed to marry in your world then?

She could still adopt as the couple would provide a mom and dad. But you go ahead and keep using the anecdotal and anomalous to justify your biases. It's the lefty way.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

wonderful news for individual rights

No. It's a ruling against rights and freedom.
The gov mandating by fascist decree that all people must acknowledge and acquiesce to irrelevant kinky sex between non-procreative adults is an infringement upon rights and freedom. Not even a religious thing. Just basic logic. Something that eludes most democrats and lefties.

So, just to clarify, it is your contention that the only people who should be allowed to marry are those who can, and will, procreate? A simple yes, or no will suffice.

Your question is more detailed than can be answered by yes or no only. But you have an angle and that's why you asked it that way.
People who should be allowed to marry are those who could possibly conceive or who would provide the ideal circumstances for raising children. That, of course, being a man and a woman.

Okay. so you realize that you have just discounted every sterile - whether naturally, through accident, or surgery - and infertile heterosexual couple in the country, right? Well done, Sir. Well done. Your side tried this argument - it resulted in ridicule.

Your misapprehension is not shared. You either missed, failed to understand or willfully disregarded the part about kids needing a man and a woman as parents.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

When the government mandates tax breaks and subsidies and equal footing for adoption that is forced acquiescence. Tolerance is accepting homos for who they are and not interfering their own personal choices. That is all fine. But forcing others to grant privileges to homos in the name of their personal choices is forced acquiescence. It is fascism.

No, it's equality. Tax breaks are granted to parents, married couples, the uber wealthy and corporations leaving the country. Now, which of these groups forced acquiescence upon you? The marriage license is simply that. A marriage license. It's not a heterosexual license, nor is it a homosexual license. The rights, privileges and protections provided apply to each and every license.

Discriminating because of NO SOUND REASON WHATEVER is, indeed Fascism.

Any tax break afforded is a subsidy paid by the rest of the taxpayers. Using and objectionable tax break as rationale to defend and equally objectionable tax break doesn't defend either.
Granting tax breaks created with the intention of aiding child rearing to homo couples (and thereby forcing the subsidization of homo marriages), who by their very nature cannot procreate, is a fascist imposition.
There is no need to give homo marriage legal status. They can't procreate as can hetero couples. That is the only and most necessary distinction. There is no denying rights or any undue discrimination.

Moron...we get the tax breaks for the kids regardless of whether we are married or not.

Dumbass, homos can't have kids together.

of course they can...dumbass

No, they can't. Homos cannot procreate together. Where did you get that idea?
And why did you call me dumbass? I didn't call you any name. I called her that in response to her initiating the name calling.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Same sex couplings have never and will never reproduce a child. Ever

Which means nothing in the marriage equality discussion, ever

It means everything. The life altering circumstance brought about by child rearing are cause for the gov protections of legal marriage. Where procreation or child rearing is not an issue marriage is moot.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

of course they can...dumbass

And have for centuries.

Of course same sex coupling has not / cannot / and will never create a child

Glad I could be of service here

Carry on

My brother and his wife's coupling will never produce a child, ever. Gonna revoke their license?

neither can my wife and I!

Why not? Is it for the same reason same sex couplings can't and never will. Or are you in a same sex relationship which makes asking the question a moot point?

sorry to disappoint you pop but I'm not gay.
we don't have kids because not everyone needs or wants to have kids.
don't get me wrong, my wife and i love kids, as long as they are someone elses
besides leukemia and chemotherapy killed my swimmers.

But as long as the possibilty exists the marriage is a legit thing.