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

[Seawytch]

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."


"The state has a natural and vital interest in maximizing the number of successful marriages that lead to stable homes and families and in minimizing those which do not. It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho/sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems."

"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

 

[mal]

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."


"The state has a natural and vital interest in maximizing the number of successful marriages that lead to stable homes and families and in minimizing those which do not. It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho/sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems."

"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites."

"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good."

Man/Woman is UNEQUAL to Man/Man and Woman/Woman.

Your continue Dishonest returns to the Ignorance regarding Race doesn't change the above FACT.

A Black Man and White Woman can Reflect Marriage. Not Racial Comination of Same Sex can, ever has, or ever will.



peace..

 

[Pop23]

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.

I see what you did.

I post about gender and you respond by deflecting to sexuality.

Again, the demographic group compromising male/ female can create children through their coupling. Neither Male/Male nor Female/Female coupling can claim the same.

To argue against that FACT is ridiculous.

 

[Pop23]

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.)

A seventy year old women gave birth to her husbands child. No seventy year old lesbian has ever given birth to her lesbian partners child.

Happens vs. never happens.

Fact

 

[bodecea]

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.

I see what you did.

I post about gender and you respond by deflecting to sexuality.

Again, the demographic group compromising male/ female can create children through their coupling. Neither Male/Male nor Female/Female coupling can claim the same.

To argue against that FACT is ridiculous.

So? What does that have to do with legal marriage?

 

[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.)

A seventy year old women gave birth to her husbands child. No seventy year old lesbian has ever given birth to her lesbian partners child.

Happens vs. never happens.

Fact

So? What does that have to do with legal marriage?

 

[Pop23]

Straight couples do not have children.

There is no reason to issue them marriage licenses either.

I see what you did.

I post about gender and you respond by deflecting to sexuality.

Again, the demographic group compromising male/ female can create children through their coupling. Neither Male/Male nor Female/Female coupling can claim the same.

To argue against that FACT is ridiculous.

So? What does that have to do with legal marriage?

Yapping again?

Are the demographic groups the same or quite different.

Sighted people are granted drivers license. The blind are denied. How unfair is that?

 

[bodecea]

I see what you did.

I post about gender and you respond by deflecting to sexuality.

Again, the demographic group compromising male/ female can create children through their coupling. Neither Male/Male nor Female/Female coupling can claim the same.

To argue against that FACT is ridiculous.

So? What does that have to do with legal marriage?

Yapping again?

Are the demographic groups the same or quite different.

Sighted people are granted drivers license. The blind are denied. How unfair is that?

So...what does the ability to naturally procreate with someone have to do with legal marriage?

 

[KNB]

Please stop this. This is not a debate. There isn't a law against homosexuality and there isn't a law against same-sex marriage. This was never a debate to begin with. Every state that has tried to pass a law prohibiting same-sex marriage, or defining 'marriage' as only between a man and a woman, has had those laws shot down by an appellate court.

But there is some good news for right-wing assholes. While the First Amendment prohibits religion from banning same-sex marriage, the First Amendment also prohibits America from passing a law requiring churches to perform same-sex marriage. So gays and lesbians can get married, but your stupid fucking religion of "inclusion" and "compassion" can deny to perform the ceremony in the church.

Both sides just need to shut up about this and end the god-damned war. Does anyone remember that? $2b each week in Afghanistan for over 10 years against an enemy that we trained to fight a prolonged guerrilla war so as to cost an invading force as much as possible? Yeah, ten years into fighting for "freedom" and no one has any idea what victory is.

Get over yourselves, America.

 

[Pop23]

Please stop this. This is not a debate. There isn't a law against homosexuality and there isn't a law against same-sex marriage. This was never a debate to begin with. Every state that has tried to pass a law prohibiting same-sex marriage, or defining 'marriage' as only between a man and a woman, has had those laws shot down by an appellate court.

But there is some good news for right-wing assholes. While the First Amendment prohibits religion from banning same-sex marriage, the First Amendment also prohibits America from passing a law requiring churches to perform same-sex marriage. So gays and lesbians can get married, but your stupid fucking religion of "inclusion" and "compassion" can deny to perform the ceremony in the church.

Both sides just need to shut up about this and end the god-damned war. Does anyone remember that? $2b each week in Afghanistan for over 10 years against an enemy that we trained to fight a prolonged guerrilla war so as to cost an invading force as much as possible? Yeah, ten years into fighting for "freedom" and no one has any idea what victory is.

Get over yourselves, America.

No, not every state has had their bans overturned. That is still ongoing, and so is the debate.

 

[Pop23]

So? What does that have to do with legal marriage?

Yapping again?

Are the demographic groups the same or quite different.

Sighted people are granted drivers license. The blind are denied. How unfair is that?

So...what does the ability to naturally procreate with someone have to do with legal marriage?

Answer my question.

 

[kaz]

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.

My question is why male/female coupling requires government at all. You really need bureaucrats in your marriage? Why?

 

[kaz]

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.

Unlike you, I'm against government discrimination. Government should not treat any of it's citizens differently than any other citizen. Government has no business in the marriage business.

 

[Seawytch]

Please stop this. This is not a debate. There isn't a law against homosexuality and there isn't a law against same-sex marriage. This was never a debate to begin with. Every state that has tried to pass a law prohibiting same-sex marriage, or defining 'marriage' as only between a man and a woman, has had those laws shot down by an appellate court.



But there is some good news for right-wing assholes. While the First Amendment prohibits religion from banning same-sex marriage, the First Amendment also prohibits America from passing a law requiring churches to perform same-sex marriage. So gays and lesbians can get married, but your stupid fucking religion of "inclusion" and "compassion" can deny to perform the ceremony in the church.



Both sides just need to shut up about this and end the god-damned war. Does anyone remember that? $2b each week in Afghanistan for over 10 years against an enemy that we trained to fight a prolonged guerrilla war so as to cost an invading force as much as possible? Yeah, ten years into fighting for "freedom" and no one has any idea what victory is.



Get over yourselves, America.

No, not every state has had their bans overturned. That is still ongoing, and so is the debate.

Everywhere they are challenged they are. Score's like 15-0 not including Windsor.

 

[deltex1]

Marriage is not the same for gays. They have their love no doubt. But they don't have their benefits and the don't have their finger in the straights eye. It's about the benefits and the finger...dats all.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is not the same for gays. They have their love no doubt. But they don't have their benefits and the don't have their finger in the straights eye. It's about the benefits and the finger...dats all.

Where we can legally marry, yes we get the benefits. Take them away and we'd still want legal marriage equality.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

I see what you did.

I post about gender and you respond by deflecting to sexuality.

Again, the demographic group compromising male/ female can create children through their coupling. Neither Male/Male nor Female/Female coupling can claim the same.

To argue against that FACT is ridiculous.

Now there's a load of crap if I every heard one.

The basis of YOUR whole argument is that marriage licenses shouldn't be issued to those who don't reproduce.

Now you're deflecting by calling it a gender thing. It's not a gender thing, it's a reproduction thing and the plain FACT of the matter is that if straight couples don't reproduce, according to the basis of your argument, then they shouldn't be issued marriage licenses either.

By the way, this is not a new concept. The Catholic Church won't issue a marriage license to a couple unable to reproduce. They have denied marriages in the recent past. Google it. Sounds draconian, no? Denying gays a marriage license based on that rule sounds draconian to me too.

 

[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.

Unlike you, I'm against government discrimination. Government should not treat any of it's citizens differently than any other citizen. Government has no business in the marriage business.

As long as spouses and their relatives keep fucking each other over, yeah, the government will always be regulating the marriage business. It is naive to think otherwise.

 

[kaz]

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.

Unlike you, I'm against government discrimination. Government should not treat any of it's citizens differently than any other citizen. Government has no business in the marriage business.

As long as spouses and their relatives keep fucking each other over, yeah, the government will always be regulating the marriage business. It is naive to think otherwise.

WTF, the government prevents people from getting fucked? What color is the sky in your world? In this one, government does the fucking...

 

[sfcalifornia]

Unlike you, I'm against government discrimination. Government should not treat any of it's citizens differently than any other citizen. Government has no business in the marriage business.

As long as spouses and their relatives keep fucking each other over, yeah, the government will always be regulating the marriage business. It is naive to think otherwise.

WTF, the government prevents people from getting fucked? What color is the sky in your world? In this one, government does the fucking...

LOL

Yeah sure bozo, anarchy will make everything all better.

Why the fuck do you think laws are made to begin with?