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

[kaz]

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?

I'm not an anarchist, I'm a libertarian. I support government defense, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. Those are functions only government can perform effectively. Everything that the market can provide, the market performs much better.

 

[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.

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.

One demographic group, and only one can and do reproduce within the couples that make up that demographic. FACT

Never has a single child been conceived from homosexual sex. Another FACT

Trying to make a group that has NEVER created a child the same as a group that has created ALL children is silly and illogical. FACT

 

[Seawytch]

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.

One demographic group, and only one can and do reproduce within the couples that make up that demographic. FACT



Never has a single child been conceived from homosexual sex. Another FACT



Trying to make a group that has NEVER created a child the same as a group that has created ALL children is silly and illogical. FACT

Restating the same Red Herring over and over does not change the fact that procreation is not a requirement for Civil Marriage in any State. Try getting it passed at the local level. Good luck.

 

[Pop23]

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.

One demographic group, and only one can and do reproduce within the couples that make up that demographic. FACT



Never has a single child been conceived from homosexual sex. Another FACT



Trying to make a group that has NEVER created a child the same as a group that has created ALL children is silly and illogical. FACT

Restating the same Red Herring over and over does not change the fact that procreation is not a requirement for Civil Marriage in any State. Try getting it passed at the local level. Good luck.

Never said it was, just that the demographic group has the needed parts required, within the coupling necessary to procreate. There is zero unique in gay coupling.

Now, why do you suppose that marriage is for two? Hmmmmm

 

[sfcalifornia]

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?

I'm not an anarchist, I'm a libertarian. I support government defense, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. Those are functions only government can perform effectively. Everything that the market can provide, the market performs much better.

Oh ok... I didn't realize marriage was a for-profit institution designed by the church to capitalize on limited resources in order gain maximum profit.

Why wouldn't Adam Smith's Invisible Hand not apply in marriage?

I mean, no one ever gets divorced or dies and no one ever fights about dividing money and no one ever fights over custody of the kids and relatives never meddle in other relatives' marriages or custody of their kids... Housewives working to keep hubby and kids fed and clothed always got looked after when hubby died through company pensions and SS and inheritance....... marriage between two people has always been harmonious and joyful throughout time.

Government out of marriage...... yeah, that'll happen.

 

[sfcalifornia]

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.

One demographic group, and only one can and do reproduce within the couples that make up that demographic. FACT

Never has a single child been conceived from homosexual sex. Another FACT

Trying to make a group that has NEVER created a child the same as a group that has created ALL children is silly and illogical. FACT

There's only one thing I can say in response to that:


So what??


What does that have to do with gays getting a marriage license?

 

[Politico]

Nothing. They should be able to experience the same shit and misery the rest of us do.

 

[mal]

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.

One demographic group, and only one can and do reproduce within the couples that make up that demographic. FACT

Never has a single child been conceived from homosexual sex. Another FACT

Trying to make a group that has NEVER created a child the same as a group that has created ALL children is silly and illogical. FACT

There's only one thing I can say in response to that:


So what??


What does that have to do with gays getting a marriage license?

Gays Deserve a Marriage License as much as two 50 something Sisters do.



peace...

 

[kaz]

LOL

Yeah sure bozo, anarchy will make everything all better.

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

I'm not an anarchist, I'm a libertarian. I support government defense, police, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. Those are functions only government can perform effectively. Everything that the market can provide, the market performs much better.

Oh ok... I didn't realize marriage was a for-profit institution designed by the church to capitalize on limited resources in order gain maximum profit.

What does that mean and what does it have to do with anything I said?

Why wouldn't Adam Smith's Invisible Hand not apply in marriage?

I mean, no one ever gets divorced or dies and no one ever fights about dividing money and no one ever fights over custody of the kids and relatives never meddle in other relatives' marriages or custody of their kids... Housewives working to keep hubby and kids fed and clothed always got looked after when hubby died through company pensions and SS and inheritance....... marriage between two people has always been harmonious and joyful throughout time.

Government out of marriage...... yeah, that'll happen.

Thank GOD we have government to fix all that for us. And they're doing a bang up job, marriage being defined and implemented by government is doing so well in this country. Sheep. Or in your native tongue, baa...

BTW, we could solve the problem for everyone by:

- Eliminate the death tax, which is just an evil tax anyway
- Flatten taxes
- Make paternity and not paper the legal basis of parenthood for the father
- Let people make their own benefit deals with their employer
- Make it easier to make living wills and other documents how we want decisions made.

Everyone should have those things, not just two people who have sex together. And not getting a government marriage should not affect the rights or responsibilities of the father.

 

[birddog]

Since Queers are always wanting "special rights," they need to again have their own drinking fountains. There should be a sign saying "Queers Only!" Other fountains should have a sign saying, "No Queers Allowed!"

That way Queers are even more Special! LOL

 

[Silhouette]

Behaviors aren't a race of people. And LGBT is an incomplete label. Where's the "P" for polygamists, for example? Or the "I" for incest? Why are some sexual kinks left out and others embraced? For instance, one would assume that at least polygamists would make the label before "T" [transexuals] would. One would think polygamists would be an easier sell by that cult to John & Jane Q. Public than a group of people so starkly mentally ill that they amputate their healthy organs with the assistance of "doctors" to role-play a gender they are not.

If we are talking about a race that would be one thing. But we are not. Properly we are talking about a very exclusive sexual deviant cult. So from now on, treat the LGBT phenomenon like a religion instead of a race. The conversation makes much more sense that way.

Besides, haven't you heard about their inquisition and all the heretics whose careers they're burning at the stake right and left?...

 

[Pop23]

Behaviors aren't a race of people. And LGBT is an incomplete label. Where's the "P" for polygamists, for example? Or the "I" for incest? Why are some sexual kinks left out and others embraced? For instance, one would assume that at least polygamists would make the label before "T" [transexuals] would. One would think polygamists would be an easier sell by that cult to John & Jane Q. Public than a group of people so starkly mentally ill that they amputate their healthy organs with the assistance of "doctors" to role-play a gender they are not.

If we are talking about a race that would be one thing. But we are not. Properly we are talking about a very exclusive sexual deviant cult. So from now on, treat the LGBT phenomenon like a religion instead of a race. The conversation makes much more sense that way.

Besides, haven't you heard about their inquisition and all the heretics whose careers they're burning at the stake right and left?...

Completely counter culture types. Illogical lifestyle - illogical thought.

 

[Paperman299]

Wow, this thread just refuses to die.

I'm out, but if you're voting to keep rights from people who were born different, guess what? The rest of us aren't even worried. Your kids, your grandkids, and at worst your great-grandkids, will think exactly as we do.

 

[Pop23]

Wow, this thread just refuses to die.

I'm out, but if you're voting to keep rights from people who were born different, guess what? The rest of us aren't even worried. Your kids, your grandkids, and at worst your great-grandkids, will think exactly as we do.

Your right about one thing. You're out.

 

[GreenBean]

Wow, this thread just refuses to die.

I'm out, but if you're voting to keep rights from people who were born different, guess what? The rest of us aren't even worried. Your kids, your grandkids, and at worst your great-grandkids, will think exactly as we do.

"When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."
Adolf Hitler

 

[mal]

Wow, this thread just refuses to die.

I'm out, but if you're voting to keep rights from people who were born different, guess what? The rest of us aren't even worried. Your kids, your grandkids, and at worst your great-grandkids, will think exactly as we do.

Gays are not being Denied Rights.



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

Wow, this thread just refuses to die.

I'm out, but if you're voting to keep rights from people who were born different, guess what? The rest of us aren't even worried. Your kids, your grandkids, and at worst your great-grandkids, will think exactly as we do.

Gays are not being Denied Rights.



peace...

Repeating a lie, Mal, does not make it more true. Something like 15 judges so far, since Windsor, disagree with your opinion. None have agreed, zero, zip, zilch.

 

[Seawytch]

Since Queers are always wanting "special rights," they need to again have their own drinking fountains. There should be a sign saying "Queers Only!" Other fountains should have a sign saying, "No Queers Allowed!"

That way Queers are even more Special! LOL

Can you name these "special rights"?

 

[Pop23]

Wow, this thread just refuses to die.

I'm out, but if you're voting to keep rights from people who were born different, guess what? The rest of us aren't even worried. Your kids, your grandkids, and at worst your great-grandkids, will think exactly as we do.

"When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."
Adolf Hitler

The obvious fail is that we as opposite sex couples can have children, grand children and on and on.

 

[mal]

Wow, this thread just refuses to die.

I'm out, but if you're voting to keep rights from people who were born different, guess what? The rest of us aren't even worried. Your kids, your grandkids, and at worst your great-grandkids, will think exactly as we do.

Gays are not being Denied Rights.



peace...

Repeating a lie, Mal, does not make it more true. Something like 15 judges so far, since Windsor, disagree with your opinion. None have agreed, zero, zip, zilch.

It's not a Lie. You can Marry. Because you Choose to Deny your Natural Design and what is "Fundamental to our very Existence and Design" is not Society's Burden.

But you and some Politically Appointed dbags are certainly making it Society's Burden.

How far do you think you can push before Society pushes back?...

Do think with the Faggoting of the NFL and Fining and Suspending players and sending them to Reeducation Camps for Tweeting "OMG" that there won't be backlash eventually to this?...

Keep pushing... I don't like what I am hearing from people in private and I never wanted to see this country go itself in my Lifetime like it appears it's going to over your Insistence that your Sexual Choices be front, center and applauded.

Time will tell...



peace...