Gay Activist Site Sanctity Of Marriege To Prtest Two Straigh Guys Getting Married

[RoshawnMarkwees]

God I'm getting tired of queers spamming every board on the web. Look at this one. More than half the posts are about some selfish self-interest aspect of queerdom. They're 2% of the population and 50% of web posts. Hey idiots, there's a big world out there and lots of issues way more important than your degeneracy. Grow up. You don't have to go through life emotionally immature if just once in awhile you act like adults.

I know I mean how DARE they fight for equal rights and for being treated like every other adult.

And if you argument against gay marriage is "Sanctity of Marriage," then you should be opposed to shit like this because you have no argument for Sanctity when people are marrying just to get Rugby tickets.

Rugby tickets are more tangible than buttfucking.

 

[Rikurzhen]

History doesn't matter in terms of what's right and what's not right and certainly shouldn't matter in terms of our laws.

The government shouldn't be making any laws concerning marriage.

That wasn't my point. My point was there was a reason, not that history is the judge. I agree that it's time there is no longer any state recognition of marriage, make whatever contract you want with your significant other(s).

I disagree. What you're choosing is the path of least resistance, not the best path.

Society should be recognizing marriage and not recognizing homosexual "marriage." In fact, society should be creating more benefits for marriage in that 50% of all adults are now single. Society is improved when marriage is more prevalent.

1.) Marriage brings men and women together rather than having them isolated in their sex-defined worlds, men spending a lot of time with men, women with women, not compromising, not understanding each other's worlds. Marriage forces men to take account of a woman's perspective on the world, and the reverse for women.

2.) Marriage exposes children to both male and female role models and perspectives on the world. Secondly, it increases the development of their human capital. There are mountains of studies which document the improved social outcomes for children.

3.) Marriage makes people richer. One household for two people is less expensive to run that are two households, each for one person.

4.) With respect to raising children, parents invest a lot of their resources and when those children become adults, the investment made by the parents begins to earn returns but all of those returns are directed to society and none to parents. The system right now has privatized the costs of raising children and socialized the gains. We need to change the rules on one side or the other in order to create a more equitable arrangement.

5.) Homosexual "marriage" is a private affair which only benefits the husband and wife. Society gets no benefit. When children are created they are immorally deprived of their human rights to know either one and in some cases both of their parents. Homosexual "marriage" in an enabling mechanism to violate the human rights of children born into such "marriages."

6.) Society doesn't get a benefit from driving homosexual men deeper into the world of men, and the same for women.
​

When people argue that government/society should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage, I read that as people cutting off their nose to spite their face.

This issue of homosexual marriage is likely temporary in nature. As soon as geneticists discover the biological basis of homosexuality it shouldn't be long thereafter for vaccines or other other methods to prevent it's development to appear.

 

[HenryBHough]

This issue of homosexual marriage is likely temporary in nature. As soon as geneticists discover the biological basis of homosexuality it shouldn't be long thereafter for vaccines or other other methods to prevent it's development to appear.

You would deny Democrats a new generation of bloggers?

 

[Iceweasel]

I disagree. What you're choosing is the path of least resistance, not the best path.

Wrong. The path of least resistance is to go along with the program and pretend there is no fundamental difference between same sex and opposite sex unions.

Society should be recognizing marriage and not recognizing homosexual "marriage." In fact, society should be creating more benefits for marriage in that 50% of all adults are now single. Society is improved when marriage is more prevalent.

1.) Marriage brings men and women together rather than having them isolated in their sex-defined worlds, men spending a lot of time with men, women with women, not compromising, not understanding each other's worlds. Marriage forces men to take account of a woman's perspective on the world, and the reverse for women.

2.) Marriage exposes children to both male and female role models and perspectives on the world. Secondly, it increases the development of their human capital. There are mountains of studies which document the improved social outcomes for children.

3.) Marriage makes people richer. One household for two people is less expensive to run that are two households, each for one person.

4.) With respect to raising children, parents invest a lot of their resources and when those children become adults, the investment made by the parents begins to earn returns but all of those returns are directed to society and none to parents. The system right now has privatized the costs of raising children and socialized the gains. We need to change the rules on one side or the other in order to create a more equitable arrangement.

5.) Homosexual "marriage" is a private affair which only benefits the husband and wife. Society gets no benefit. When children are created they are immorally deprived of their human rights to know either one and in some cases both of their parents. Homosexual "marriage" in an enabling mechanism to violate the human rights of children born into such "marriages."

6.) Society doesn't get a benefit from driving homosexual men deeper into the world of men, and the same for women.
​

When people argue that government/society should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage, I read that as people cutting off their nose to spite their face.

This issue of homosexual marriage is likely temporary in nature. As soon as geneticists discover the biological basis of homosexuality it shouldn't be long thereafter for vaccines or other other methods to prevent it's development to appear.

You're dreaming. There is no gene that determines exactly how we end up sexually. Sexuality is hardwired but people being what they are, environments and society being what they are, can greatly influence how we end up. Some people get into all kinds of kinky stuff, things that would make normal people puke. There's no gene for that except that which governs our ability to think. Identical twins have had different preferences.

I disagree that it's the governments role to get men and women together. Government isn't God. Government should stay out of our lives as much as possible. We've had traditional marriage all along and it's taken a beating since we have become more independent in nature. People don't feel obligated as they once did to find and stay in a marriage. That's good and bad but it's nobody else's business. The kids can and do get hurt but child support exists, marriage or not.

If over half the population id single it's unfair to them to essentially subsidize married couples. You are trying to justify taking money out of their pockets by saying it's for the greater good.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I disagree. What you're choosing is the path of least resistance, not the best path.

Wrong. The path of least resistance is to go along with the program and pretend there is no fundamental difference between same sex and opposite sex unions.

Society should be recognizing marriage and not recognizing homosexual "marriage." In fact, society should be creating more benefits for marriage in that 50% of all adults are now single. Society is improved when marriage is more prevalent.

1.) Marriage brings men and women together rather than having them isolated in their sex-defined worlds, men spending a lot of time with men, women with women, not compromising, not understanding each other's worlds. Marriage forces men to take account of a woman's perspective on the world, and the reverse for women.

2.) Marriage exposes children to both male and female role models and perspectives on the world. Secondly, it increases the development of their human capital. There are mountains of studies which document the improved social outcomes for children.

3.) Marriage makes people richer. One household for two people is less expensive to run that are two households, each for one person.

4.) With respect to raising children, parents invest a lot of their resources and when those children become adults, the investment made by the parents begins to earn returns but all of those returns are directed to society and none to parents. The system right now has privatized the costs of raising children and socialized the gains. We need to change the rules on one side or the other in order to create a more equitable arrangement.

5.) Homosexual "marriage" is a private affair which only benefits the husband and wife. Society gets no benefit. When children are created they are immorally deprived of their human rights to know either one and in some cases both of their parents. Homosexual "marriage" in an enabling mechanism to violate the human rights of children born into such "marriages."

6.) Society doesn't get a benefit from driving homosexual men deeper into the world of men, and the same for women.
​

When people argue that government/society should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage, I read that as people cutting off their nose to spite their face.

This issue of homosexual marriage is likely temporary in nature. As soon as geneticists discover the biological basis of homosexuality it shouldn't be long thereafter for vaccines or other other methods to prevent it's development to appear.

You're dreaming. There is no gene that determines exactly how we end up sexually. Sexuality is hardwired but people being what they are, environments and society being what they are, can greatly influence how we end up. Some people get into all kinds of kinky stuff, things that would make normal people puke. There's no gene for that except that which governs our ability to think. Identical twins have had different preferences.

Homosexuality is not really a genetic disorder, it's most likely caused by some pathogen which is introduced during fetal development. Homosexuality arises from a developmental disorder. Something goes wrong.

I disagree that it's the governments role to get men and women together. Government isn't God. Government should stay out of our lives as much as possible. We've had traditional marriage all along and it's taken a beating since we have become more independent in nature. People don't feel obligated as they once did to find and stay in a marriage. That's good and bad but it's nobody else's business. The kids can and do get hurt but child support exists, marriage or not.

If we're all individual units here , then why bother having a society? There is a balance between what is good for society and what is good for the individual.

If over half the population id single it's unfair to them to essentially subsidize married couples. You are trying to justify taking money out of their pockets by saying it's for the greater good.

Is it for the greater good or not? Part of that question can be answered empirically. Another part of the question is philosophical. Here's part of the empirical answer - so long as we live in a society where there exists any form of income redistribution, then it behooves society to create a system which enable more people to reach a station in life where they contribute MORE to society than they CONSUME. Marriage is a vehicle which lowers welfare redistribution in the present and children raised within a married home have better outcomes in life, thus improving the odds that they'll be providing more wealth to society than they consume from government.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

How ridiculous can people get?

Two men are going to take advantage of New Zealand's liberal same-sex marriage laws tomorrow when they tie the knot, but gay rights campaigners in the Commonwealth nation have called it an "insult", as both partners in the union are straight best friends.
Rugby-mad engineer Travis McIntosh, 23, and teacher Matt McCormick, 24, have known each other nearly twenty years. They entered a "bromance" competition run by a local NZ radio station last month hoping to win an all expenses-paid trip to the UK for the 2015 Rugby World Cup.

Edge FM launched the "Love You, Man" campaign back in August as part of the build-up to the competition, in which two straight best friends would be chosen to enjoy the trip, on the condition they would go as a legally married couple.

Despite the apparently innocent enjoyment afforded by the competition, local gay rights groups are "horrified" by the move, according to the New Zealand Herald. A "queer support" coordinator from Otago University criticised the union, saying it was an "insult", and that it "trivialises what we fought for".

The co-chairman of a local group called LegaliseLove ironically echoed the words of groups who originally opposed same-sex marriage when he said the competition "attacked the legitimacy of gay marriage". Despite that, he took a more philosophical view on the long term implications, saying: "Maybe on the day that statistics around mental health for LGBTI (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex) people are better, when high schools are safe places for LGBTI youth, we can look back on all this and laugh".

Gay Rights Groups Outraged As Straight Friends Marry for Rugby Tickets

Trust me, I am already laughing.

A "queer support" coordinator from Otago University criticised the union, saying it was an "insult", and that it "trivialises what we fought for".​

Hmm.

The co-chairman of a local group called LegaliseLove ironically echoed the words of groups who originally opposed same-sex marriage when he said the competition "attacked the legitimacy of gay marriage".​

Hmm.

But he's philosophical about:

Despite that, he took a more philosophical view on the long term implications, saying: "Maybe on the day that statistics around mental health for LGBTI (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex) people are better, when high schools are safe places for LGBTI youth, we can look back on all this and laugh".​

Ah! The belated sense of humor of the petulant political class is . . . rather humorless.

 

[Inevitable]

Yeah, homosexuals can do that too.

Homosexual doesn't mean sterile.

One homosexual can impregnate another homosexual? Have you called National Enquirer to inform them of this breathtaking news?

It's not breaking news, it's simple biology.

A man can impregnate a woman, it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.

After a comment as dumb as yours you should feel embarrassed.

 

[Inevitable]

Gay marriage is a joke. Now you know why.

So...since marriages of convenience have been around for straights a very long time.....you will agree that Straight marriage is a joke too.

Marriage serves a purpose. Homosexual "marriage" doesn't.

Sure it does.
All the same things it does for heterosexuals.

What can a married heterosexual couple do that homosexuals can't?

Time for you do go back to basic sex ed class.

You haven't answered his question. What is it that a married heterosexual couple can do that a married homosexual couple can't do?

You're either stupid, or an idiot. Which?

Only a couple comprising of a male and a female can create a child without the assistance of an outside entity.

That has happened billions of time.

Never has intercourse between two individuals of the same sex EVER created a child.

Did that really HAVE to be explained?

You must be far dumber than you claim me to be.

I never said humans reproduce asexually.

Perhaps you are just illiterate.

Homosexuals can have children. My friend who is a lesbian had a child. It happened exactly how it always does.

 

[Inevitable]

You asked what a married couple could do that two homosexuals couldn't. Think crib, think diaper.

Yeah, homosexuals can do that too.

Homosexual doesn't mean sterile.

This proves that you spent your childhood trying to pound the square peg into the round hole.

What does that have to do with a legal marriage?

Everything. It proves that gay activists are too stupid to understand why and what marriage is/was.

Who gives a shit if fags get "married" but the Commander is full of shit when she says "married" homosexuals can do everything together than married heterosexuals can and that lends doubt to her claims that she ever went to college, since they teach that in required Biology.

Hey, dumber than the below average bear, what can a heterosexual couple do that a homosexual one can't?

 

[Inevitable]

You asked what a married couple could do that two homosexuals couldn't. Think crib, think diaper.

Yeah, homosexuals can do that too.

Homosexual doesn't mean sterile.

This proves that you spent your childhood trying to pound the square peg into the round hole.

So are you saying that all homosexuals are sterile?

I think the round hole is in your skull.

Here is some third grade biology for you.

Humans reproduce sexually, meaning a male and a female combine genetic material then the offspring develops in the womb.

Even if the males or females pair bond within their own sex this biology still works.

You need to patch up that hole.

 

[Inevitable]

Gay marriage is a joke. Now you know why.

So...since marriages of convenience have been around for straights a very long time.....you will agree that Straight marriage is a joke too.

Marriage serves a purpose. Homosexual "marriage" doesn't.

Sure it does.
All the same things it does for heterosexuals.

What can a married heterosexual couple do that homosexuals can't?

Time for you do go back to basic sex ed class.

You haven't answered his question. What is it that a married heterosexual couple can do that a married homosexual couple can't do?

He can't answer the question because he knows the answer. It will destroy his argument. So hefe thinks pretending to be an idiot is making him appear smarter

 

[Inevitable]

Gay marriage is a joke. Now you know why.

So...since marriages of convenience have been around for straights a very long time.....you will agree that Straight marriage is a joke too.

Marriage serves a purpose. Homosexual "marriage" doesn't.

Sure it does.
All the same things it does for heterosexuals.

What can a married heterosexual couple do that homosexuals can't?

Time for you do go back to basic sex ed class.

You said marriage, what does sex ed have to do with that?

Furthermore...

Is it your contention that homosexual equals sterile?

You asked what a married couple could do that two homosexuals couldn't. Think crib, think diaper.

Yeah, homosexuals can do that too.

Homosexual doesn't mean sterile.

You are speaking of a couple when you speak in terms of a marriage. Your answer indicates you don't understand your own question.

Just say what a heterosexual couple can do that homosexual couples can't.

Why do you need to dance around the question with riddles like a coward?

 

[Rikurzhen]

You asked what a married couple could do that two homosexuals couldn't. Think crib, think diaper.

Yeah, homosexuals can do that too.

Homosexual doesn't mean sterile.

This proves that you spent your childhood trying to pound the square peg into the round hole.

What does that have to do with a legal marriage?

Everything. It proves that gay activists are too stupid to understand why and what marriage is/was.

Who gives a shit if fags get "married" but the Commander is full of shit when she says "married" homosexuals can do everything together than married heterosexuals can and that lends doubt to her claims that she ever went to college, since they teach that in required Biology.

Hey, dumber than the below average bear, what can a heterosexual couple do that a homosexual one can't?

They can have penis-vagina intercourse. Can a homosexual couple have penis-vagina intercourse?

 

[Inevitable]

You asked what a married couple could do that two homosexuals couldn't. Think crib, think diaper.

Yeah, homosexuals can do that too.

Homosexual doesn't mean sterile.

This proves that you spent your childhood trying to pound the square peg into the round hole.

What does that have to do with a legal marriage?

Everything. It proves that gay activists are too stupid to understand why and what marriage is/was.

Who gives a shit if fags get "married" but the Commander is full of shit when she says "married" homosexuals can do everything together than married heterosexuals can and that lends doubt to her claims that she ever went to college, since they teach that in required Biology.

Hey, dumber than the below average bear, what can a heterosexual couple do that a homosexual one can't?

They can have penis-vagina intercourse. Can a homosexual couple have penis-vagina intercourse?

Yes, they can.

What is so magical about penis-vagina sex?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not breaking news, it's simple biology.

A man can impregnate a woman, it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.

After a comment as dumb as yours you should feel embarrassed.

That reply had absolutely nothing to do with your claim.

 

[Inevitable]

It's not breaking news, it's simple biology.

A man can impregnate a woman, it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.

After a comment as dumb as yours you should feel embarrassed.

That reply had absolutely nothing to do with your claim.

Yeah it did.

 

[Pop23]

It's not breaking news, it's simple biology.

A man can impregnate a woman, it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.

After a comment as dumb as yours you should feel embarrassed.

That reply had absolutely nothing to do with your claim.

Yeah it did.

Sad, they can't even admit the truth.

Go ahead, name one child conceived by two males having sex.

 

[Pop23]

Gay marriage is a joke. Now you know why.

So...since marriages of convenience have been around for straights a very long time.....you will agree that Straight marriage is a joke too.

Marriage serves a purpose. Homosexual "marriage" doesn't.

Sure it does.
All the same things it does for heterosexuals.

What can a married heterosexual couple do that homosexuals can't?

Time for you do go back to basic sex ed class.

You said marriage, what does sex ed have to do with that?

Furthermore...

Is it your contention that homosexual equals sterile?

You asked what a married couple could do that two homosexuals couldn't. Think crib, think diaper.

Yeah, homosexuals can do that too.

Homosexual doesn't mean sterile.

You are speaking of a couple when you speak in terms of a marriage. Your answer indicates you don't understand your own question.

Just say what a heterosexual couple can do that homosexual couples can't.

Why do you need to dance around the question with riddles like a coward?

Riddles?

You are warped peewee

 

[Inevitable]

It's not breaking news, it's simple biology.

A man can impregnate a woman, it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.

After a comment as dumb as yours you should feel embarrassed.

That reply had absolutely nothing to do with your claim.

Yeah it did.

Sad, they can't even admit the truth.

Go ahead, name one child conceived by two males having sex.

Why?

That was never my claim.

 

[Inevitable]

Gay marriage is a joke. Now you know why.

So...since marriages of convenience have been around for straights a very long time.....you will agree that Straight marriage is a joke too.

Marriage serves a purpose. Homosexual "marriage" doesn't.

Sure it does.
All the same things it does for heterosexuals.

What can a married heterosexual couple do that homosexuals can't?

Time for you do go back to basic sex ed class.

You said marriage, what does sex ed have to do with that?

Furthermore...

Is it your contention that homosexual equals sterile?

You asked what a married couple could do that two homosexuals couldn't. Think crib, think diaper.

Yeah, homosexuals can do that too.

Homosexual doesn't mean sterile.

You are speaking of a couple when you speak in terms of a marriage. Your answer indicates you don't understand your own question.

Just say what a heterosexual couple can do that homosexual couples can't.

Why do you need to dance around the question with riddles like a coward?

Riddles?

You are warped peewee

You are the idiot saying homosexuality equals sterility.