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

[bodecea]

You all are sooo mean. A man that penetrates another man analy, that speaks of love...yeah. Then licks off the fecal matter. Love. That is the Homosexual agenda. We need to create a new category of rights for that. Meanwhile, the rest of us non perverts already have the bill of rights. Actually, we all have the same rights...guaranteed by the bill of rights.

Yes...yes...we know that people like you "hate" the idea of gay marriage but "love" talking about gay sex......................more than gay people do.

 

[Pop23]

What about couples who can't have kids because one or both of them have some sort of medical issue. Should their marriage be voided by the government?

We don't discriminate based on disability. Are same sex couples disabled?

Logically in your question, we would have gay government marriage if we have government marriage either way. If gay is a sickness, we have to have it for the reason you just stated, otherwise it's discrimination against the disabled. If they aren't sick, we have it because there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.

And so you then back the blind being issued drivers license.

Go it.

 

[kaz]

We don't discriminate based on disability. Are same sex couples disabled?

Logically in your question, we would have gay government marriage if we have government marriage either way. If gay is a sickness, we have to have it for the reason you just stated, otherwise it's discrimination against the disabled. If they aren't sick, we have it because there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.

And so you then back the blind being issued drivers license.

Go it.

So again, if government marriage is only for children, why should heterosexual couples who can't or aren't going to have children allowed to get it?

 

[bodecea]

We don't discriminate based on disability. Are same sex couples disabled?

Logically in your question, we would have gay government marriage if we have government marriage either way. If gay is a sickness, we have to have it for the reason you just stated, otherwise it's discrimination against the disabled. If they aren't sick, we have it because there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.

And so you then back the blind being issued drivers license.

Go it.

Of course...because there is no provable danger to having blind people drive.......idgit.

 

[mal]

Logically in your question, we would have gay government marriage if we have government marriage either way. If gay is a sickness, we have to have it for the reason you just stated, otherwise it's discrimination against the disabled. If they aren't sick, we have it because there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.

And so you then back the blind being issued drivers license.

Go it.

So again, if government marriage is only for children, why should heterosexual couples who can't or aren't going to have children allowed to get it?

Been dealt with in this thread and for the last 2 decades that you guys prop up that Dishonest Strawman...

Get a new one.



peace...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We don't discriminate based on disability. Are same sex couples disabled?

Logically in your question, we would have gay government marriage if we have government marriage either way. If gay is a sickness, we have to have it for the reason you just stated, otherwise it's discrimination against the disabled. If they aren't sick, we have it because there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.

And so you then back the blind being issued drivers license.

Go it.

No.

Back to you not understanding what a false comparison fallacy is.

 

[mal]

What about couples who can't have kids because one or both of them have some sort of medical issue. Should their marriage be voided by the government?

Nope...

The possibility NEVER Exists with Same Sex... It only Exists with Opposite Sex.

Nothing needs to be done to Marriage because Gays are Incapable of Reflecting it.



peace...

No, you said marriage is about babies, that's why you want to deny it to gays. So if a couple can't have a baby due to fertility or age, then they should not be using government resources. Or if they just don't want a baby or can't commit to having one, it's a waste of government resources, we shouldn't allow that. On the other hand, a fertile gay woman can have sperm implanted. In fact, only one of a gay lesbian pair should need to be fertile, it only takes one of them to have a baby.

The baby argument is silly.

Everyone was once a Baby... Each and every single one of those Babies was the Product of a Man and a Woman.

100% of the time.

And 100% of the time two men can't make a Baby.

What the Court called "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival" was not "two men" or "two women"... Because that Coupling is not... Ever.

This is why Man/Woman is Inherently UNEQUAL to Man/Man and Woman/Woman.

Nothing needs to be done to Marriage as it is now because Homosexuals want Society to say they are something are not.



peace...

 

[kaz]

And so you then back the blind being issued drivers license.

Go it.

So again, if government marriage is only for children, why should heterosexual couples who can't or aren't going to have children allowed to get it?

Been dealt with in this thread and for the last 2 decades that you guys prop up that Dishonest Strawman...

Get a new one.



peace...

Strawman? Let's go to the video tape.

What about couples who can't have kids because one or both of them have some sort of medical issue. Should their marriage be voided by the government?

Nope...

The possibility NEVER Exists with Same Sex... It only Exists with Opposite Sex.

LOL

BTW, when you say "you guys," I'm against government gay marriage. What I am arguing against is your assertion that we need straight government marriage because of children. I see no reason for any government marriage to exist. It's the problem you have when you assume someone's position.

 

[kaz]

Logically in your question, we would have gay government marriage if we have government marriage either way. If gay is a sickness, we have to have it for the reason you just stated, otherwise it's discrimination against the disabled. If they aren't sick, we have it because there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.

And so you then back the blind being issued drivers license.

Go it.

No.

Back to you not understanding what a false comparison fallacy is.

Actually, you don't. His analogy was fine. He is saying that gays can't have children, so they don't need a marriage license any more than a blind man needs a drivers license. From that perspective, it's a legitimate analogy. How did you not get that? Liberals believe that any argument that supports your position is logical and any argument that doesn't support your position isn't. There are serious flaws with his argument, which is why I disagreed with him. That just wasn't one of them.

 

[kaz]

Nope...

The possibility NEVER Exists with Same Sex... It only Exists with Opposite Sex.

Nothing needs to be done to Marriage because Gays are Incapable of Reflecting it.



peace...

No, you said marriage is about babies, that's why you want to deny it to gays. So if a couple can't have a baby due to fertility or age, then they should not be using government resources. Or if they just don't want a baby or can't commit to having one, it's a waste of government resources, we shouldn't allow that. On the other hand, a fertile gay woman can have sperm implanted. In fact, only one of a gay lesbian pair should need to be fertile, it only takes one of them to have a baby.

The baby argument is silly.

Everyone was once a Baby... Each and every single one of those Babies was the Product of a Man and a Woman.

100% of the time.

And 100% of the time two men can't make a Baby.

What the Court called "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival" was not "two men" or "two women"... Because that Coupling is not... Ever.

This is why Man/Woman is Inherently UNEQUAL to Man/Man and Woman/Woman.

Nothing needs to be done to Marriage as it is now because Homosexuals want Society to say they are something are not.



peace...

Does it not scare you at all that you want government to guarantee the existence and survival of the species? I don't see why citizens need government's help with that. The idea that government owning marriage is in the interest of the human race is just unfathomable to me.

 

[Pop23]

And so you then back the blind being issued drivers license.

Go it.

No.

Back to you not understanding what a false comparison fallacy is.

Actually, you don't. His analogy was fine. He is saying that gays can't have children, so they don't need a marriage license any more than a blind man needs a drivers license. From that perspective, it's a legitimate analogy. How did you not get that? Liberals believe that any argument that supports your position is logical and any argument that doesn't support your position isn't. There are serious flaws with his argument, which is why I disagreed with him. That just wasn't one of them.

Pointing out the lack of logic is the basis for the argument. If one is true, so must the other.

 

[Pop23]

No, you said marriage is about babies, that's why you want to deny it to gays. So if a couple can't have a baby due to fertility or age, then they should not be using government resources. Or if they just don't want a baby or can't commit to having one, it's a waste of government resources, we shouldn't allow that. On the other hand, a fertile gay woman can have sperm implanted. In fact, only one of a gay lesbian pair should need to be fertile, it only takes one of them to have a baby.

The baby argument is silly.

Everyone was once a Baby... Each and every single one of those Babies was the Product of a Man and a Woman.

100% of the time.

And 100% of the time two men can't make a Baby.

What the Court called "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival" was not "two men" or "two women"... Because that Coupling is not... Ever.

This is why Man/Woman is Inherently UNEQUAL to Man/Man and Woman/Woman.

Nothing needs to be done to Marriage as it is now because Homosexuals want Society to say they are something are not.



peace...

Does it not scare you at all that you want government to guarantee the existence and survival of the species? I don't see why citizens need government's help with that. The idea that government owning marriage is in the interest of the human race is just unfathomable to me.

The Government does not exist without a species that exists and survives.

Demographically speaking, the government only requires Male/Female coupling. Male/Male or Female/Females coupling adds nothing that require future governing.

Plain and simple logic.

 

[sfcalifornia]

And so you then back the blind being issued drivers license.

Go it.

No.

Back to you not understanding what a false comparison fallacy is.

Actually, you don't. His analogy was fine. He is saying that gays can't have children, so they don't need a marriage license any more than a blind man needs a drivers license. From that perspective, it's a legitimate analogy. How did you not get that? Liberals believe that any argument that supports your position is logical and any argument that doesn't support your position isn't. There are serious flaws with his argument, which is why I disagreed with him. That just wasn't one of them.

Bullshit. If gays shouldn't get married because they aren't having children then neither should straight couples and in case you haven't noticed, lots of straight couples aren't having kids these days either.

The argument that gays shouldn't be given marriage licenses based on child rearing is archaic.

There are a ton of financial and custodial reason to get married, reasons that have nothing to with children. Straight couples enjoy those benefits everyday and so should gay couples.

 

[Pop23]

No.

Back to you not understanding what a false comparison fallacy is.

Actually, you don't. His analogy was fine. He is saying that gays can't have children, so they don't need a marriage license any more than a blind man needs a drivers license. From that perspective, it's a legitimate analogy. How did you not get that? Liberals believe that any argument that supports your position is logical and any argument that doesn't support your position isn't. There are serious flaws with his argument, which is why I disagreed with him. That just wasn't one of them.

Bullshit. If gays shouldn't get married because they aren't having children then neither should straight couples and in case you haven't noticed, lots of straight couples aren't having kids these days either.

The argument that gays shouldn't be given marriage licenses based on child rearing is archaic.

There are a ton of financial and custodial reason to get married, reasons that have nothing to with children. Straight couples enjoy those benefits everyday and so should gay couples.

Only the demographic group Male/Female can have children.

Neither Male/Male nor Female/Female can. Nothing archaic or bullshit about it.

Logic is not bullshit.

 

[sfcalifornia]

No, you said marriage is about babies, that's why you want to deny it to gays. So if a couple can't have a baby due to fertility or age, then they should not be using government resources. Or if they just don't want a baby or can't commit to having one, it's a waste of government resources, we shouldn't allow that. On the other hand, a fertile gay woman can have sperm implanted. In fact, only one of a gay lesbian pair should need to be fertile, it only takes one of them to have a baby.

The baby argument is silly.

Everyone was once a Baby... Each and every single one of those Babies was the Product of a Man and a Woman.

100% of the time.

And 100% of the time two men can't make a Baby.

What the Court called "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival" was not "two men" or "two women"... Because that Coupling is not... Ever.

This is why Man/Woman is Inherently UNEQUAL to Man/Man and Woman/Woman.

Nothing needs to be done to Marriage as it is now because Homosexuals want Society to say they are something are not.



peace...

Does it not scare you at all that you want government to guarantee the existence and survival of the species? I don't see why citizens need government's help with that. The idea that government owning marriage is in the interest of the human race is just unfathomable to me.

What is unfathomable to me is your inability to realize that the cart was not put before the horse here.

Each and every benefit and law regarding marriage was put into place by government because of past problems, lawsuits, and centuries of spouses fucking each other over through their children, through their finances, through their relatives demanding custody etc.

When will you people learn that government doesn't regulate proactively? Government doesn't look down the road and make a law because something might happen.

Government sets up laws and regulates on a reactionary basis. Government regulates marriage because spouses and their relatives like to fuck each other over. Period.

And as long as spouses and their relatives continue to fuck each other over, government will continue to regulate.

Is it really that hard to understand?

 

[sfcalifornia]

Actually, you don't. His analogy was fine. He is saying that gays can't have children, so they don't need a marriage license any more than a blind man needs a drivers license. From that perspective, it's a legitimate analogy. How did you not get that? Liberals believe that any argument that supports your position is logical and any argument that doesn't support your position isn't. There are serious flaws with his argument, which is why I disagreed with him. That just wasn't one of them.

Bullshit. If gays shouldn't get married because they aren't having children then neither should straight couples and in case you haven't noticed, lots of straight couples aren't having kids these days either.

The argument that gays shouldn't be given marriage licenses based on child rearing is archaic.

There are a ton of financial and custodial reason to get married, reasons that have nothing to with children. Straight couples enjoy those benefits everyday and so should gay couples.

Only the demographic group Male/Female can have children.

Neither Male/Male nor Female/Female can. Nothing archaic or bullshit about it.

Logic is not bullshit.

Straight couples do not have children.

There is no reason to issue them marriage licenses either.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Everyone was once a Baby... Each and every single one of those Babies was the Product of a Man and a Woman.

100% of the time.

And 100% of the time two men can't make a Baby.

What the Court called "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival" was not "two men" or "two women"... Because that Coupling is not... Ever.

This is why Man/Woman is Inherently UNEQUAL to Man/Man and Woman/Woman.

Nothing needs to be done to Marriage as it is now because Homosexuals want Society to say they are something are not.



peace...

Does it not scare you at all that you want government to guarantee the existence and survival of the species? I don't see why citizens need government's help with that. The idea that government owning marriage is in the interest of the human race is just unfathomable to me.

The Government does not exist without a species that exists and survives.

Demographically speaking, the government only requires Male/Female coupling. Male/Male or Female/Females coupling adds nothing that require future governing.

Plain and simple logic.

Plain and simple ignorance and nonsense.

Marriage is first and foremost a union of two equal partners where the state also participates in that contract, the ability to procreate is not a prerequisite to indeed enter into that contract.

 

[Seawytch]

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, ... Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that ... both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional —

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: ... I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

(Laughter.)

 

[mal]

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, ... Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that ... both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional —

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: ... I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

(Laughter.)

'World's oldest mother' is dying just 18 months after giving birth at age 70 - NY Daily News

^That Woman was 70...

(Laughter.)

Again, nothing about Marriage has to Change because Gays can NEVER Reflect it.



peace...

 

[bodecea]

JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, ... Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we are not going to give marriage licenses anymore to any couple where both people are over the age of 55. Would that be constitutional?

MR. COOPER: No, Your Honor, it would not be constitutional.

KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think, you know. If you are over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the Government's interest in regulating procreation through marriage. So why is that different?

MR. COOPER: Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that ... both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional —

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KAGAN: ... I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.

(Laughter.)

Same kind of laughter heard at the Supreme Court as in the Loving v Virginia case when the Virginia attorney said there was no discrimination because both races were restricted from marrying the other.