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

WHAT? PROCREATION IS NOT A PART OF MARRIAGE.

BIGOT!
what came first procreation or marriage ..?

Irrelevant.
hardly, it the basis for this debate.

History of marriage: 13 surprising facts
live-science.png

By Tia Ghose

Published June 27, 2013
Facebook245 Twitter59 Email Print
Marriage%20wedding%20rings.jpg


Moonstruck partners pledging eternal love may be the current definition of marriage, but this starry-eyed picture has relatively modern origins.

Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.


"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

But as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that's all about love and companionship. [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage]

That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday's (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8.

From polygamy to same-sex marriage, here are 13 milestones in the history of marriage.

1. Arranged alliances

Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.

2. Family ties

Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.

3. Polygamy preferred

Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. [Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]

4. Babies optional

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.

5. Monogamy established

Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said.

"There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,'" Coontz said.

The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.

6. Monogamy lite

Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance.

"Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance basically enabling of informal promiscuity," Coontz said.

Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

9. Love matches

By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.

10. Market economics

Around the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market economy plays a big role in that transition, Coontz said.

Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an inheritance or to work on their parents' land," Coontz said. "So it's more possible for young people to say, 'heck, I'm going to marry who I want.'"

Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have stacked the deck for love matches.

11. Different spheres

Still, marriage wasn't about equality until about 50 years ago. At that time, women and men had unique rights and responsibilities within marriage. For instance, in the United States, marital rape was legal in many states until the 1970s, and women often could not open credit cards in their own names, Coontz said. Women were entitled to support from their husbands, but didn't have the right to decide on the distribution of community property. And if a wife was injured or killed, a man could sue the responsible party for depriving him of "services around the home," whereas women didn't have the same option, Coontz said.

12. Partnership of equals

By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual attraction.

13. Gay marriage gains ground

Changes in straight marriage paved the way for gay marriage. Once marriage was not legally based on complementary, gender-based roles, gay marriage seemed like a logical next step.

"One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in acceptance of same sex marriage is because heterosexuals have completely changed their notion of what marriage is between a man and a woman," Coontz said. "We now believe it is based on love, mutual sexual attraction, equality and a flexible division of labor."

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved.
I guess with the elimination of #1 in Western Culture, that was the Slippery Slope. :D
the horror !

Oh the fun of it all

Now let's deal with the here and now
 
You do get that your whole argument hinges on your own incorrect definition of marriage, right? I even showed you that "man and woman" is not, and never has been a requirement for the contract, or the definition. That addition is a purely religious one, while the institution of marriage is a secular, civil one.

How many jet pilot licenses were issue prior to the invention of jet aircraft?

Hmmmm, guess there was no need as no one would have ever
The question becomes of course, "who invented marriage". Now, since the social practice of taking a spouse existed long before formal theology, I would submit that it was always a civil, secular invention. Which means that any qualifications for "legitimacy" that any religion added to the contract is only valid for the followers of that religion. Guess what? No one is demanding that any religious organization "recognize" the marriages of these couples; only that government, an d businesses do.
Completely missing the point that your "masturbation" resulted in a pregnancy, but okay. My, you do keep changing the goalposts in order to keep your ignorance alive, don't you?

I pity you, I really do

A man can masturbate and spread that goo al over his boyfriend all freaking day and end up with a goo stained boyfriend. He can do that 24/7/365 and end up the same every day

A man can apply the same to a women and the risk of what??

PREGNANCY

but children that must get their own way discount that as not changing the dynamics of the different demographic groups.

So sad for you.

And there you go, returning to the same, stupid, "If you can't produce offspring, your marriage is less valid" argument. Why? Why do you hate sterile, and infertile people. You can insist that your argument doesn't include them all you want, but the fact is, it does. That's why it's a stupid argument.

You really should find a different argument, because every time you use this one, it just makes you sound stupid, and hateful.

Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry.

I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age.

Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?


So...you have no problem with couples unable to reproduce getting married.

Been addressed , and not too many posts back.

If you can't keep up you might want to hire some help
Yes, it has. It was pointed out that your argument failed, and you just ran away to make the same argument with other people on the thread, as if it were still a valid argument.

Your silly procreation argument still invalidates the marriages of sterile heterosexual couples, whether you intended it to, or not.
 
How many jet pilot licenses were issue prior to the invention of jet aircraft?

Hmmmm, guess there was no need as no one would have ever
The question becomes of course, "who invented marriage". Now, since the social practice of taking a spouse existed long before formal theology, I would submit that it was always a civil, secular invention. Which means that any qualifications for "legitimacy" that any religion added to the contract is only valid for the followers of that religion. Guess what? No one is demanding that any religious organization "recognize" the marriages of these couples; only that government, an d businesses do.
I pity you, I really do

A man can masturbate and spread that goo al over his boyfriend all freaking day and end up with a goo stained boyfriend. He can do that 24/7/365 and end up the same every day

A man can apply the same to a women and the risk of what??

PREGNANCY

but children that must get their own way discount that as not changing the dynamics of the different demographic groups.

So sad for you.

And there you go, returning to the same, stupid, "If you can't produce offspring, your marriage is less valid" argument. Why? Why do you hate sterile, and infertile people. You can insist that your argument doesn't include them all you want, but the fact is, it does. That's why it's a stupid argument.

You really should find a different argument, because every time you use this one, it just makes you sound stupid, and hateful.

Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry.

I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age.

Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?


So...you have no problem with couples unable to reproduce getting married.

Been addressed , and not too many posts back.

If you can't keep up you might want to hire some help
Yes, it has. It was pointed out that your argument failed, and you just ran away to make the same argument with other people on the thread, as if it were still a valid argument.

Your silly procreation argument still invalidates the marriages of sterile heterosexual couples, whether you intended it to, or not.

Bigot

What do you have against the disabled?
 
what came first procreation or marriage ..?

Irrelevant.
hardly, it the basis for this debate.

History of marriage: 13 surprising facts
live-science.png

By Tia Ghose

Published June 27, 2013
Facebook245 Twitter59 Email Print
Marriage%20wedding%20rings.jpg


Moonstruck partners pledging eternal love may be the current definition of marriage, but this starry-eyed picture has relatively modern origins.

Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.


"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

But as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that's all about love and companionship. [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage]

That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday's (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8.

From polygamy to same-sex marriage, here are 13 milestones in the history of marriage.

1. Arranged alliances

Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.

2. Family ties

Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.

3. Polygamy preferred

Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. [Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]

4. Babies optional

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.

5. Monogamy established

Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said.

"There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,'" Coontz said.

The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.

6. Monogamy lite

Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance.

"Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance basically enabling of informal promiscuity," Coontz said.

Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

9. Love matches

By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.

10. Market economics

Around the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market economy plays a big role in that transition, Coontz said.

Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an inheritance or to work on their parents' land," Coontz said. "So it's more possible for young people to say, 'heck, I'm going to marry who I want.'"

Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have stacked the deck for love matches.

11. Different spheres

Still, marriage wasn't about equality until about 50 years ago. At that time, women and men had unique rights and responsibilities within marriage. For instance, in the United States, marital rape was legal in many states until the 1970s, and women often could not open credit cards in their own names, Coontz said. Women were entitled to support from their husbands, but didn't have the right to decide on the distribution of community property. And if a wife was injured or killed, a man could sue the responsible party for depriving him of "services around the home," whereas women didn't have the same option, Coontz said.

12. Partnership of equals

By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual attraction.

13. Gay marriage gains ground

Changes in straight marriage paved the way for gay marriage. Once marriage was not legally based on complementary, gender-based roles, gay marriage seemed like a logical next step.

"One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in acceptance of same sex marriage is because heterosexuals have completely changed their notion of what marriage is between a man and a woman," Coontz said. "We now believe it is based on love, mutual sexual attraction, equality and a flexible division of labor."

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved.
I guess with the elimination of #1 in Western Culture, that was the Slippery Slope. :D
the horror !

Oh the fun of it all

Now let's deal with the here and now
we are it's you who who's having a hard time in the present.
too bad too !
 
I'm takin off from this thread for awhile

While I'm gone can you all decide whether procreation is or isn't a part of the marriage discussion?
 
Irrelevant.
hardly, it the basis for this debate.

History of marriage: 13 surprising facts
live-science.png

By Tia Ghose

Published June 27, 2013
Facebook245 Twitter59 Email Print
Marriage%20wedding%20rings.jpg


Moonstruck partners pledging eternal love may be the current definition of marriage, but this starry-eyed picture has relatively modern origins.

Though marriage has ancient roots, until recently love had little to do with it.


"What marriage had in common was that it really was not about the relationship between the man and the woman," said Stephanie Coontz, the author of "Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage," (Penguin Books, 2006). "It was a way of getting in-laws, of making alliances and expanding the family labor force."

But as family plots of land gave way to market economies and Kings ceded power to democracies, the notion of marriage transformed. Now, most Americans see marriage as a bond between equals that's all about love and companionship. [I Don't: 5 Myths About Marriage]

That changing definition has paved the way for same-sex marriage and Wednesday's (June 26) Supreme Court rulings, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and dismissed a case concerning Proposition 8.

From polygamy to same-sex marriage, here are 13 milestones in the history of marriage.

1. Arranged alliances

Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.

2. Family ties

Keeping alliances within the family was also quite common. In the Bible, the forefathers Isaac and Jacob married cousins and Abraham married his half-sister. Cousin marriages remain common throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. In fact, Rutgers anthropologist Robin Fox has estimated that the majority of all marriages throughout history were between first and second cousins.

3. Polygamy preferred

Monogamy may seem central to marriage now, but in fact, polygamy was common throughout history. From Jacob, to Kings David and Solomon, Biblical men often had anywhere from two to thousands of wives. (Of course, though polygamy may have been an ideal that high-status men aspired to, for purely mathematical reasons most men likely had at most one wife). In a few cultures, one woman married multiple men, and there have even been some rare instances of group marriages. [Life's Extremes: Monogamy vs. Polygamy]

4. Babies optional

In many early cultures, men could dissolve a marriage or take another wife if a woman was infertile. However, the early Christian church was a trailblazer in arguing that marriage was not contingent on producing offspring.

"The early Christian church held the position that if you can procreate you must not refuse to procreate. But they always took the position that they would annul a marriage if a man could not have sex with his wife, but not if they could not conceive," Coontz told LiveScience.

5. Monogamy established

Monogamy became the guiding principle for Western marriages sometime between the sixth and the ninth centuries, Coontz said.

"There was a protracted battle between the Catholic Church and the old nobility and kings who wanted to say 'I can take a second wife,'" Coontz said.

The Church eventually prevailed, with monogamy becoming central to the notion of marriage by the ninth century.

6. Monogamy lite

Still, monogamous marriage was very different from the modern conception of mutual fidelity. Though marriage was legally or sacramentally recognized between just one man and one woman, until the 19th century, men had wide latitude to engage in extramarital affairs, Coontz said. Any children resulting from those trysts, however, would be illegitimate, with no claim to the man's inheritance.

"Men's promiscuity was quite protected by the dual laws of legal monogamy but tolerance basically enabling of informal promiscuity," Coontz said.

Women caught stepping out, by contrast, faced serious risk and censure.

7. State or church?

Marriages in the West were originally contracts between the families of two partners, with the Catholic Church and the state staying out of it. In 1215, the Catholic Church decreed that partners had to publicly post banns, or notices of an impending marriage in a local parish, to cut down on the frequency of invalid marriages (the Church eliminated that requirement in the 1980s). Still, until the 1500s, the Church accepted a couple's word that they had exchanged marriage vows, with no witnesses or corroborating evidence needed.

8. Civil marriage

In the last several hundred years, the state has played a greater role in marriage. For instance, Massachusetts began requiring marriage licenses in 1639, and by the 19th-century marriage licenses were common in the United States.

9. Love matches

By about 250 years ago, the notion of love matches gained traction, Coontz said, meaning marriage was based on love and possibly sexual desire. But mutual attraction in marriage wasn't important until about a century ago. In fact, in Victorian England, many held that women didn't have strong sexual urges at all, Coontz said.

10. Market economics

Around the world, family-arranged alliances have gradually given way to love matches, and a transition from an agricultural to a market economy plays a big role in that transition, Coontz said.

Parents historically controlled access to inheritance of agricultural land. But with the spread of a market economy, "it's less important for people to have permission of their parents to wait to give them an inheritance or to work on their parents' land," Coontz said. "So it's more possible for young people to say, 'heck, I'm going to marry who I want.'"

Modern markets also allow women to play a greater economic role, which lead to their greater independence. And the expansion of democracy, with its emphasis on liberty and individual choice, may also have stacked the deck for love matches.

11. Different spheres

Still, marriage wasn't about equality until about 50 years ago. At that time, women and men had unique rights and responsibilities within marriage. For instance, in the United States, marital rape was legal in many states until the 1970s, and women often could not open credit cards in their own names, Coontz said. Women were entitled to support from their husbands, but didn't have the right to decide on the distribution of community property. And if a wife was injured or killed, a man could sue the responsible party for depriving him of "services around the home," whereas women didn't have the same option, Coontz said.

12. Partnership of equals

By about 50 years ago, the notion that men and women had identical obligations within marriage began to take root. Instead of being about unique, gender-based roles, most partners conceived of their unions in terms of flexible divisions of labor, companionship, and mutual sexual attraction.

13. Gay marriage gains ground

Changes in straight marriage paved the way for gay marriage. Once marriage was not legally based on complementary, gender-based roles, gay marriage seemed like a logical next step.

"One of the reasons for the stunningly rapid increase in acceptance of same sex marriage is because heterosexuals have completely changed their notion of what marriage is between a man and a woman," Coontz said. "We now believe it is based on love, mutual sexual attraction, equality and a flexible division of labor."

Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved.
I guess with the elimination of #1 in Western Culture, that was the Slippery Slope. :D
the horror !

Oh the fun of it all

Now let's deal with the here and now
we are it's you who who's having a hard time in the present.
too bad too !

That's why I posted links to ancient times?

Oh wait, that was you

Never mind then

Good lord
 
The question becomes of course, "who invented marriage". Now, since the social practice of taking a spouse existed long before formal theology, I would submit that it was always a civil, secular invention. Which means that any qualifications for "legitimacy" that any religion added to the contract is only valid for the followers of that religion. Guess what? No one is demanding that any religious organization "recognize" the marriages of these couples; only that government, an d businesses do.
And there you go, returning to the same, stupid, "If you can't produce offspring, your marriage is less valid" argument. Why? Why do you hate sterile, and infertile people. You can insist that your argument doesn't include them all you want, but the fact is, it does. That's why it's a stupid argument.

You really should find a different argument, because every time you use this one, it just makes you sound stupid, and hateful.

Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry.

I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age.

Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?


So...you have no problem with couples unable to reproduce getting married.

Been addressed , and not too many posts back.

If you can't keep up you might want to hire some help
Yes, it has. It was pointed out that your argument failed, and you just ran away to make the same argument with other people on the thread, as if it were still a valid argument.

Your silly procreation argument still invalidates the marriages of sterile heterosexual couples, whether you intended it to, or not.

Bigot

What do you have against the disabled?
I don't. I think everyone should be able to marry whomever they wish, because marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

The real question is why do you hate sterile people? I mean, you keep insisting that you don't, yet you keep making the same argument that invalidates their marriages. So?

Why do you hate sterile people Pop?
 
Hats off to the 'dumb shit patrol,' guys. Keeping the haters of marriage equal in their places (on their knees with their butts in the air) to remind them of their true role in life is a thankless job.
 
He met "influential" members of the community and was befriended by Walter Heady, the head of the local chapter of the John Birch Society.<101> He used the members of his "church" to organize local voting drives for Richard Nixon's election, and worked closely with the republican party.<102> He was even appointed chairman of the county grand jury.<103>
Jim Jones was a Republican - Democratic Underground
no not really...the day to day STUFF is exactly the same.....

Oh brother......

Funny you can't even admit the difference
because in the day to day stuff there is none..
do gays collect the mail differently? or cook differently ?

So, I ask again

A gay man takes birth control pills for?????

Gay men use condoms. Is this breaking news to you? Get out more.

And? Is there a point?

I hear soldiers use condoms to cover the barrels of their guns, where they protecting their guns form giving birth to pistols?

They still have to purchase them. Isn't that one of your sillier reasons gays can't marry, because they don't have to purchase birth control? They do...just not to prevent pregnancy. (Just like millions of straight couples you don't want to prevent from civil marriage, bigot)
 
You do get that your whole argument hinges on your own incorrect definition of marriage, right? I even showed you that "man and woman" is not, and never has been a requirement for the contract, or the definition. That addition is a purely religious one, while the institution of marriage is a secular, civil one.

How many jet pilot licenses were issue prior to the invention of jet aircraft?

Hmmmm, guess there was no need as no one would have ever
The question becomes of course, "who invented marriage". Now, since the social practice of taking a spouse existed long before formal theology, I would submit that it was always a civil, secular invention. Which means that any qualifications for "legitimacy" that any religion added to the contract is only valid for the followers of that religion. Guess what? No one is demanding that any religious organization "recognize" the marriages of these couples; only that government, an d businesses do.
Completely missing the point that your "masturbation" resulted in a pregnancy, but okay. My, you do keep changing the goalposts in order to keep your ignorance alive, don't you?

I pity you, I really do

A man can masturbate and spread that goo al over his boyfriend all freaking day and end up with a goo stained boyfriend. He can do that 24/7/365 and end up the same every day

A man can apply the same to a women and the risk of what??

PREGNANCY

but children that must get their own way discount that as not changing the dynamics of the different demographic groups.

So sad for you.

And there you go, returning to the same, stupid, "If you can't produce offspring, your marriage is less valid" argument. Why? Why do you hate sterile, and infertile people. You can insist that your argument doesn't include them all you want, but the fact is, it does. That's why it's a stupid argument.

You really should find a different argument, because every time you use this one, it just makes you sound stupid, and hateful.

Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry.

I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age.

Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?

You don't wish to prohibit any "non procreating" adults with the exception of gay couples. That makes you, hands down, a bigot. Wear it proudly.

Is being a bigot describing the difference between an apple and a freight train?

How exciting this must be for you!

Nope. You are a bigot for only wanting to keep civil marriage from gay couples who cannot procreate with each other.
 
And since black and whites have EXACTLY the same rights, we should call blacks, white, and vice versa..... are they different? :ahole-1:
You do get that your whole argument hinges on your own incorrect definition of marriage, right? I even showed you that "man and woman" is not, and never has been a requirement for the contract, or the definition. That addition is a purely religious one, while the institution of marriage is a secular, civil one.

How many jet pilot licenses were issue prior to the invention of jet aircraft?

Hmmmm, guess there was no need as no one would have ever
The question becomes of course, "who invented marriage". Now, since the social practice of taking a spouse existed long before formal theology, I would submit that it was always a civil, secular invention. Which means that any qualifications for "legitimacy" that any religion added to the contract is only valid for the followers of that religion. Guess what? No one is demanding that any religious organization "recognize" the marriages of these couples; only that government, an d businesses do.
That crazy sperm plus egg thing again

Gosh, only possible with a male and a female.

Lol
Completely missing the point that your "masturbation" resulted in a pregnancy, but okay. My, you do keep changing the goalposts in order to keep your ignorance alive, don't you?

I pity you, I really do

A man can masturbate and spread that goo al over his boyfriend all freaking day and end up with a goo stained boyfriend. He can do that 24/7/365 and end up the same every day

A man can apply the same to a women and the risk of what??

PREGNANCY

but children that must get their own way discount that as not changing the dynamics of the different demographic groups.

So sad for you.

And there you go, returning to the same, stupid, "If you can't produce offspring, your marriage is less valid" argument. Why? Why do you hate sterile, and infertile people. You can insist that your argument doesn't include them all you want, but the fact is, it does. That's why it's a stupid argument.

You really should find a different argument, because every time you use this one, it just makes you sound stupid, and hateful.

Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry.

I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age.

Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?


So...you have no problem with couples unable to reproduce getting married.

Only the gay ones. (Marking him as a bigot)
 
Not sure why this happened. By taking the cases they could have set precedent for the entire country, now the rulings vary by which circuit the original cases were held in.
they did set precedent. their refusal to take the cases is equal to affirming their decisions.
And you wonder why we openly scoff at your claim of being a lawyer.
Cert denied is in no way an affirmation of a decision.by the court.
:lol:
 
And since black and whites have EXACTLY the same rights, we should call blacks, white, and vice versa..... are they different? :ahole-1:
You do get that your whole argument hinges on your own incorrect definition of marriage, right? I even showed you that "man and woman" is not, and never has been a requirement for the contract, or the definition. That addition is a purely religious one, while the institution of marriage is a secular, civil one.

How many jet pilot licenses were issue prior to the invention of jet aircraft?

Hmmmm, guess there was no need as no one would have ever
The question becomes of course, "who invented marriage". Now, since the social practice of taking a spouse existed long before formal theology, I would submit that it was always a civil, secular invention. Which means that any qualifications for "legitimacy" that any religion added to the contract is only valid for the followers of that religion. Guess what? No one is demanding that any religious organization "recognize" the marriages of these couples; only that government, an d businesses do.
That crazy sperm plus egg thing again

Gosh, only possible with a male and a female.

Lol
Completely missing the point that your "masturbation" resulted in a pregnancy, but okay. My, you do keep changing the goalposts in order to keep your ignorance alive, don't you?

I pity you, I really do

A man can masturbate and spread that goo al over his boyfriend all freaking day and end up with a goo stained boyfriend. He can do that 24/7/365 and end up the same every day

A man can apply the same to a women and the risk of what??

PREGNANCY

but children that must get their own way discount that as not changing the dynamics of the different demographic groups.

So sad for you.

And there you go, returning to the same, stupid, "If you can't produce offspring, your marriage is less valid" argument. Why? Why do you hate sterile, and infertile people. You can insist that your argument doesn't include them all you want, but the fact is, it does. That's why it's a stupid argument.

You really should find a different argument, because every time you use this one, it just makes you sound stupid, and hateful.

Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry.

I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age.

Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?


So...you have no problem with couples unable to reproduce getting married.

Only the gay ones. (Marking him as a bigot)
 
Let me type real slow cuz you same sex marriage types are kinda slooooowwwwwww

If procreation was not a reason for marriage........

I'll hold up a bit here so you can catch up on your reading..........

Why is it that fathers are prohibited (I know that's a big word.....take your time) from marrying their own daughters?

Did you make it this far?

Use your phonic skills, it's ok
 
We will continue to observe the far right reactionary mutants' wannabe ends excuse any efforts, right on to propaganda and bizarre absurd hops to explain their conclusions.
 
You do get that your whole argument hinges on your own incorrect definition of marriage, right? I even showed you that "man and woman" is not, and never has been a requirement for the contract, or the definition. That addition is a purely religious one, while the institution of marriage is a secular, civil one.

How many jet pilot licenses were issue prior to the invention of jet aircraft?

Hmmmm, guess there was no need as no one would have ever
The question becomes of course, "who invented marriage". Now, since the social practice of taking a spouse existed long before formal theology, I would submit that it was always a civil, secular invention. Which means that any qualifications for "legitimacy" that any religion added to the contract is only valid for the followers of that religion. Guess what? No one is demanding that any religious organization "recognize" the marriages of these couples; only that government, an d businesses do.
Completely missing the point that your "masturbation" resulted in a pregnancy, but okay. My, you do keep changing the goalposts in order to keep your ignorance alive, don't you?

I pity you, I really do

A man can masturbate and spread that goo al over his boyfriend all freaking day and end up with a goo stained boyfriend. He can do that 24/7/365 and end up the same every day

A man can apply the same to a women and the risk of what??

PREGNANCY

but children that must get their own way discount that as not changing the dynamics of the different demographic groups.

So sad for you.

And there you go, returning to the same, stupid, "If you can't produce offspring, your marriage is less valid" argument. Why? Why do you hate sterile, and infertile people. You can insist that your argument doesn't include them all you want, but the fact is, it does. That's why it's a stupid argument.

You really should find a different argument, because every time you use this one, it just makes you sound stupid, and hateful.

Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry.

I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age.

Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?


So...you have no problem with couples unable to reproduce getting married.

Only the gay ones. (Marking him as a bigot)

Silly Wytch, gays could always marry
 
How many jet pilot licenses were issue prior to the invention of jet aircraft?

Hmmmm, guess there was no need as no one would have ever
The question becomes of course, "who invented marriage". Now, since the social practice of taking a spouse existed long before formal theology, I would submit that it was always a civil, secular invention. Which means that any qualifications for "legitimacy" that any religion added to the contract is only valid for the followers of that religion. Guess what? No one is demanding that any religious organization "recognize" the marriages of these couples; only that government, an d businesses do.
I pity you, I really do

A man can masturbate and spread that goo al over his boyfriend all freaking day and end up with a goo stained boyfriend. He can do that 24/7/365 and end up the same every day

A man can apply the same to a women and the risk of what??

PREGNANCY

but children that must get their own way discount that as not changing the dynamics of the different demographic groups.

So sad for you.

And there you go, returning to the same, stupid, "If you can't produce offspring, your marriage is less valid" argument. Why? Why do you hate sterile, and infertile people. You can insist that your argument doesn't include them all you want, but the fact is, it does. That's why it's a stupid argument.

You really should find a different argument, because every time you use this one, it just makes you sound stupid, and hateful.

Link to where I said sterile male/female couples can't marry.

I find it distasteful to discriminate based on disability or age.

Are you making the argument that gay couplings never produce children because of a disability?

You don't wish to prohibit any "non procreating" adults with the exception of gay couples. That makes you, hands down, a bigot. Wear it proudly.

Is being a bigot describing the difference between an apple and a freight train?

How exciting this must be for you!

Nope. You are a bigot for only wanting to keep civil marriage from gay couples who cannot procreate with each other.

Silly Wytch, gay couples could always marry. Lesbian + gay man
 

Forum List

Back
Top