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

[Pop23]

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?

I'll let someone who argues religion tackle that one.

Any comment on why the number two has any relevance in a social contract?

 

[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.

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".

So you do agree, polygamy should be legal, as should be bigamy. After all they are simply moral judgements that make them illegal. Right?

 

[KNB]

No, because polygamy does not adhere to the laws of the US. Since there are laws against polygamy and not against two-person same-sex marriages, this means that two-person same-sex marriages are allowed and polygamy is not.

This should be simple enough even for a Teabagger to understand it.

 

[KNB]

Why don't you quit asking the same stupid fucking question and try to answer it on your own?

"Why is the number two so important?" A two-person same-sex couple is still TWO people, so it fits under whatever definition of marriage is currently accepted in the United States.

 

[Pop23]

No, because polygamy does not adhere to the laws of the US. Since there are laws against polygamy and not against two-person same-sex marriages, this means that two-person same-sex marriages are allowed and polygamy is not.

This should be simple enough even for a Teabagger to understand it.

You seem hung up on the number two?

Laws change, ever heard of the court system? Been lots of news about them as it pertains to this.

See, not long ago, states defined it as between a male and a female, then same sex couples took them to court

Funny, in the places that legalized SSM, a bunch of lesbian couples showed up to get married, many wearing male tuxes and bridal gowns. Hmmmmmm

 

[KNB]

And a person's dress makes any fucking difference to anything?

It's still TWO people getting married, right? So that fits under American law.

If you don't like the law, then change it. Oh, that's right. You tried and you were shot down by the courts.

 

[Pop23]

And a person's dress makes any fucking difference to anything?

It's still TWO people getting married, right? So that fits under American law.

If you don't like the law, then change it. Oh, that's right. You tried and you were shot down by the courts.

I won't be trying to change the law, that would be polygamists and bigamists.

 

[KNB]

Except no one (gay, straight, or society in general) supports that so it doesn't have any relevance to this topic. It is only relevant in your fucked up imagination because anything other than missionary hetero sex for procreation is perverted and evil, or whatever your argument is.

 

[bodecea]

You seem well versed in porn.

How do you know?

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

How do YOU know it's "solid knowledge"?

 

[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.

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

I can agree.

Collectively we've all dedicated way to many resources to this. Time to "outsource" marriage.

 

[Pop23]

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

I can agree.

Collectively we've all dedicated way to many resources to this. Time to "outsource" marriage.

Go for it.

 

[Pop23]

Except no one (gay, straight, or society in general) supports that so it doesn't have any relevance to this topic. It is only relevant in your fucked up imagination because anything other than missionary hetero sex for procreation is perverted and evil, or whatever your argument is.

Except, of course , polygamists and bigamists.

 

[Gadawg73]

Except no one (gay, straight, or society in general) supports that so it doesn't have any relevance to this topic. It is only relevant in your fucked up imagination because anything other than missionary hetero sex for procreation is perverted and evil, or whatever your argument is.

Except, of course , polygamists and bigamists.

I am sure you post 1007 times on threads on boards against polygamy and bigamy.
Who are you trying to shit with your nonsense Pop?

 

[Seawytch]

Number of countries with legalized same sex marriage that have legalized Polygamy?

Number of countries with legalized Polygamy that have legalized same sex marriages?

 

[Seawytch]

Polygamy recognized under civil law
Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chad
CAR
Comoros
Congo
Djibouti
Egypt
Ethiopia
Gabon
The Gambia
India1
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kenya
Kuwait
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Myanmar
Niger
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Singapore1
Somalia
Sri Lanka1
Sudan
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
UAE
Yemen
Zambia

Same Sex Civil Marriage
Argentina
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Denmark:
· Denmark proper
France
Iceland
Mexico:
· DF, QR
Netherlands:
· Netherlands proper1
New Zealand:
· New Zealand proper
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom:
· England and Wales
· Scotland
United States:
· CA, CT, DE, DC,
· HI, IL, IA, ME,
· MD, MA, MN, NH,
· NJ, NM, NY, RI,
· VT, WA, 8 tribes
Uruguay

 

[Pop23]

Polygamy recognized under civil law
Afghanistan
Algeria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chad
CAR
Comoros
Congo
Djibouti
Egypt
Ethiopia
Gabon
The Gambia
India1
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Kenya
Kuwait
Libya
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Myanmar
Niger
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Singapore1
Somalia
Sri Lanka1
Sudan
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Uganda
UAE
Yemen
Zambia

Same Sex Civil Marriage
Argentina
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
Denmark:
· Denmark proper
France
Iceland
Mexico:
· DF, QR
Netherlands:
· Netherlands proper1
New Zealand:
· New Zealand proper
Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom:
· England and Wales
· Scotland
United States:
· CA, CT, DE, DC,
· HI, IL, IA, ME,
· MD, MA, MN, NH,
· NJ, NM, NY, RI,
· VT, WA, 8 tribes
Uruguay

A whole lotta immigration from those top countries

Just sayin

 

[KNB]

And when they emigrate here, they must comport with our laws that forbid polygamy and do not forbid same-sex marriage. Understand? Of course you don't.

 

[Pop23]

And when they emigrate here, they must comport with our laws that forbid polygamy and do not forbid same-sex marriage. Understand? Of course you don't.

They have every right to challenge laws in the courts. Understand? Of course you do.

 

[Londoner]

Mathew Shepard was tortured to death for being gay. His killers grew up being told that gays are evil (by certain political and religious groups). His killers acted, at least partly, on the information they were given.

 

[KNB]

And when they emigrate here, they must comport with our laws that forbid polygamy and do not forbid same-sex marriage. Understand? Of course you don't.

They have every right to challenge laws in the courts. Understand? Of course you do.

You have every right to challenge laws, too. And you have. And you've lost.


Also, that quote in your signature makes you sound like a real flamer.