Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

[KevinWestern]

You can't expand "Rights" to the exclusion of others... Gays will usher in Sibling Marriage... That's a Fact.

Siblings fall under EVERY Argument you make for Gay Marriage... That's a Fact.

Congrats for that, you are doing Society a GREAT Service with your Petulant Demands of Validation.



peace...

Mal - what percentage of the population do you suspect would actually want to marry their sibling? Maybe 1 out of every 10,000,000 people? Even if incestuous marriages were to theoretically become legal - who the hell cares?

No one would be interested.

 

[Pop23]

Only morons make the gigantic leap from "gay marriage" to "incest".

No one is arguing for incest, polygamy, or bestiality. That's only in your psychotic imagination; your own fear of the unknown. But it isn't going to happen because no one is arguing for it.

Giant leap?

If marriage is not about procreating, where's the leap? I think incest would take longer to go down that highway, but you can't tell me that two siblings, simply wanting to marry for the economic benefits is out of the question.

Seems you should practice what you preach and stay out of their bedroom affairs (or lack thereof)

Good for the goose and all that jive.

 

[KNB]

Marriage isn't about procreating because infertile couples can be married, so you don't have a point.

At all.

 

[Pop23]

You can't expand "Rights" to the exclusion of others... Gays will usher in Sibling Marriage... That's a Fact.

Siblings fall under EVERY Argument you make for Gay Marriage... That's a Fact.

Congrats for that, you are doing Society a GREAT Service with your Petulant Demands of Validation.



peace...

Mal - what percentage of the population do you suspect would actually want to marry their sibling? Maybe 1 out of every 10,000,000 people? Even if incestuous marriages were to theoretically become legal - who the hell cares?

No one would be interested.

I can't speak for Mal, put only a tiny portion, wishing to marry for economic reasons and security, then not allowing them this license is just as discriminatory as the gays are claiming. Surely if one claims discrimination for one set of individuals, based on marriage not being about procreation, one is hypocritical when not allowing all such groups in.

Why is it always that claim to be the most open minded, in actuality, the most closed minded.

Just abandon marriage as a Government licensed institution and let people control that aspect on their own?

Equality at its greatest level

 

[Pop23]

Marriage isn't about procreating because infertile couples can be married, so you don't have a point.

At all.

Get out of these peoples bedrooms!

You have no need to know their business.

 

[KNB]

How about you just keep your fucking religion out of public law like the US Constitution says?

 

[Pop23]

How about you just keep your fucking religion out of public law like the US Constitution says?

How bout you pointing one single post that I've brought religion into it.

Dishonest again aren't you.

You can't defend your position logically, and that's funny.

 

[KNB]

What argument is there against gay marriage that isn't based on a 2k-yo bible verse?

Gays can't procreate? Yes they can. There are surrogate parents and genetic engineering which can allow same-sex couples to procreate, so that argument isn't scientific. Gay people want to rape children? No, they don't. Some might, but some heteros want to do that, too, so that isn't a scientific argument to deny marriage to law-abiding same-sex couples. So what scientific argument is there against gay marriage?

 

[Pop23]

What argument is there against gay marriage that isn't based on a 2k-yo bible verse?

Gays can't procreate? Yes they can. There are surrogate parents and genetic engineering which can allow same-sex couples to procreate, so that argument isn't scientific. Gay people want to rape children? No, they don't. Some might, but some heteros want to do that, too, so that isn't a scientific argument to deny marriage to law-abiding same-sex couples. So what scientific argument is there against gay marriage?

A same sex couple has never created a child. If you want to argue that a gay male can procreate with a gay female, here's a clue, they ain't same sex.

Provide a single proven birth created by synthetic sperm or egg splitting. Or in your words, shut the fuck up.

Go back and check my posts in which I brought child molestation or religion into this and get back to me.

You do enjoy fantasy though.

You also seem to like thinking a lot about what people do in their private lives. That is curious since that's also an argument that gays use against heterosexuals. Can you explain this?

 

[KNB]

Fuck it, man. You refuse to learn. Gay marriage will happen for one simple reason:

THERE ISN'T A LAW AGAINST IT.

You people already lost this debate but you refuse to accept that fact. You'll be kicking and screaming to your grave and gay people will be legally married. That's the future. Get used to it. Oh, wait. You can't, and that's why you're a Conservative.

 

[Redfish]

Fuck it, man. You refuse to learn. Gay marriage will happen for one simple reason:

THERE ISN'T A LAW AGAINST IT.

You people already lost this debate but you refuse to accept that fact. You'll be kicking and screaming to your grave and gay people will be legally married. That's the future. Get used to it. Oh, wait. You can't, and that's why you're a Conservative.

If it happens, it will set a valid legal precedent for every other form of marriage. Thats the future you are asking for, the lawyers will love it, can you imagine the legal fees for a polygamous divorce?

If you dumbass lib/fags would get over having to use the word 'marriage', this whole thing would go away. A civil union gives you everything you say you want and it would not set a precedent for bigamy and polygamy because the laws could limit its use to two males or two females.

but thats not really what its about with you, is it? you want the govt to mandate societal acceptance of your aberant lifestyle by calling it a marriage. But its not, and never will be.

 

[KNB]

but thats not really what its about with you, is it? you want the govt to mandate societal acceptance of your aberant lifestyle by calling it a marriage. But its not, and never will be.

I'm not gay, and I can prove it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Only morons make the gigantic leap from "gay marriage" to "incest".

No one is arguing for incest, polygamy, or bestiality. That's only in your psychotic imagination; your own fear of the unknown. But it isn't going to happen because no one is arguing for it.

Sure they can, they are all sexual perversions.

Apparently you think nothing is wrong with being homosexual, somehow it's "normal" if so, why not try it? I don't get people who think nothing is wrong with it, yet don't give it a shot, maybe you'll like it.


But the real question is why do you condemn those other acts? What gives you the right to judge others?

 

[KNB]

Considering that homosexuality predates Christian "morality" by at least 6,000 years, it's pretty safe to say that homosexuality is more "normal" than your so-called "moral" opposition to gay marriage.

Maybe you should turn on some heterosexual porn and tell us that heterosexuals aren't "sexual perverts". Pick any country on Earth. Type in "Scandinavian porn" or "Brazilian porn" or "Canadian porn". Go full pervert and type in "Japanese porn". Heterosexuals are perverts, too, so you don't have any valid argument.

Keep a piece of paper and a pen with you as you watch and count how many of those hetero perverts are wearing wedding rings.

 

[Pop23]

Fuck it, man. You refuse to learn. Gay marriage will happen for one simple reason:

THERE ISN'T A LAW AGAINST IT.

You people already lost this debate but you refuse to accept that fact. You'll be kicking and screaming to your grave and gay people will be legally married. That's the future. Get used to it. Oh, wait. You can't, and that's why you're a Conservative.

When you redefine anything, you open the door. Just wait, someone will walk through it.

Any idea why the number two is important? Go ahead, take a swing.

 

[Pop23]

Considering that homosexuality predates Christian "morality" by at least 6,000 years, it's pretty safe to say that homosexuality is more "normal" than your so-called "moral" opposition to gay marriage.

Maybe you should turn on some heterosexual porn and tell us that heterosexuals aren't "sexual perverts". Pick any country on Earth. Type in "Scandinavian porn" or "Brazilian porn" or "Canadian porn". Go full pervert and type in "Japanese porn". Heterosexuals are perverts, too, so you don't have any valid argument.

Keep a piece of paper and a pen with you as you watch and count how many of those hetero perverts are wearing wedding rings.

You seem well versed in porn.

 

[bodecea]

Considering that homosexuality predates Christian "morality" by at least 6,000 years, it's pretty safe to say that homosexuality is more "normal" than your so-called "moral" opposition to gay marriage.

Maybe you should turn on some heterosexual porn and tell us that heterosexuals aren't "sexual perverts". Pick any country on Earth. Type in "Scandinavian porn" or "Brazilian porn" or "Canadian porn". Go full pervert and type in "Japanese porn". Heterosexuals are perverts, too, so you don't have any valid argument.

Keep a piece of paper and a pen with you as you watch and count how many of those hetero perverts are wearing wedding rings.

You seem well versed in porn.

How do you know?

 

[KNB]

No one is "redefining" anything. Your religious interpretation of marriage holds no relevance over American public law. You attempt to "redefine" marriage as a strictly heterosexual thing. It's not. It's a social contract which must adhere to the laws defined in the US Constitution (of which there are none barring same-sex marriage).

The First Amendment of the US Constitution forbids any religious dogma from becoming public law. Any attempt to skewer public law with religious dogma is unconstitutional, which is why every law attempting to ban same-sex marriage has been ruled unconstitutional. Please just accept that. Christian Conservatives cannot win as long as the First Amendment exists.

Do Christian Conservatives want to abolish the US Constitution in order to prevent gay people from being married?

 

[Pop23]

Considering that homosexuality predates Christian "morality" by at least 6,000 years, it's pretty safe to say that homosexuality is more "normal" than your so-called "moral" opposition to gay marriage.

Maybe you should turn on some heterosexual porn and tell us that heterosexuals aren't "sexual perverts". Pick any country on Earth. Type in "Scandinavian porn" or "Brazilian porn" or "Canadian porn". Go full pervert and type in "Japanese porn". Heterosexuals are perverts, too, so you don't have any valid argument.

Keep a piece of paper and a pen with you as you watch and count how many of those hetero perverts are wearing wedding rings.

You seem well versed in porn.

How do you know?

Did you read KNB's post. That seems to be solid knowledge.

 

[KNB]

Considering that homosexuality predates Christian "morality" by at least 6,000 years, it's pretty safe to say that homosexuality is more "normal" than your so-called "moral" opposition to gay marriage.

Maybe you should turn on some heterosexual porn and tell us that heterosexuals aren't "sexual perverts". Pick any country on Earth. Type in "Scandinavian porn" or "Brazilian porn" or "Canadian porn". Go full pervert and type in "Japanese porn". Heterosexuals are perverts, too, so you don't have any valid argument.

Keep a piece of paper and a pen with you as you watch and count how many of those hetero perverts are wearing wedding rings.

You seem well versed in porn.

No, I'm well-versed in human psychology which is why I know that "morality" is subjective to the individual, based on a combination of "Nature and Nurture", and cannot be legislated because not everyone has the same experiences which shape their "morality". Look at how many "pro-life" Christians are in favor of unending war and then say that those people are not "moral deviants".