Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Homosexuals have kids every day. What makes you think homosexuals can't have kids? Are you a moron? Here's how it works.. Gay guy walks up to woman, says let's make a baby. She agrees they engage in coitus. Nine months later baby comes out. See how that works?That's s lie. Homosexuals can not produce. What they can do is use the genetic material of someone of the opposite sex to create a baby but the homosexual couple themselves did not reproduce.
Wow, you should read the OP post. The thread isn't about test tubes and adoption
The thread is about the fallacy that the tax system rewards people for not having children...
...the truth is exactly the opposite.
No it's not, you idiot. First, you are in the wrong thread. Second, read my OP post. The thread is about the opposite, that the tax code rewards people for having children. What is wrong with you? What grade did you drop out of school?
The tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry.
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.
This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.
gay couples can have the bennies, gay couples can make a legally binding commitment contract to each other, but a gay union is not a marriage, it is a gay union.
What you are trying to do by insisting on using the word "marriage" is to force societal acceptance of your sexual orientation as normal---------------but its not and never will be.
equal treatment under the law has nothing to do with the words used to describe your union.
It's a deliberate distraction.
yes, the left is using the gay crap to take the attention away from obozo and his failures both dometically and internationally.
creating an obsession over the sexual deviancy of 2% of the population seems to be working for them so don't expect it to stop.
This thread was started to make people aware of what the left is doing with this divisive issue.
Its amazing that it took 264 pages to reach that logical conclusion.
The one demanding special treatment is youWow, you should read the OP post. The thread isn't about test tubes and adoption
The thread is about the fallacy that the tax system rewards people for not having children...
...the truth is exactly the opposite.
No it's not, you idiot. First, you are in the wrong thread. Second, read my OP post. The thread is about the opposite, that the tax code rewards people for having children. What is wrong with you? What grade did you drop out of school?
The tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry.
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.
This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.
gay couples can have the bennies, gay couples can make a legally binding commitment contract to each other, but a gay union is not a marriage, it is a gay union.
What you are trying to do by insisting on using the word "marriage" is to force societal acceptance of your sexual orientation as normal---------------but its not and never will be.
equal treatment under the law has nothing to do with the words used to describe your union.
Marriage is what is on the license. Want it changed, change it for everyone. That wouldn't satisfy Chickenfish though. He needs to feel special and set apart from "those people".
The one demanding special treatment is youNo it's not, you idiot. First, you are in the wrong thread. Second, read my OP post. The thread is about the opposite, that the tax code rewards people for having children. What is wrong with you? What grade did you drop out of school?
The tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry.
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.
This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.
gay couples can have the bennies, gay couples can make a legally binding commitment contract to each other, but a gay union is not a marriage, it is a gay union.
What you are trying to do by insisting on using the word "marriage" is to force societal acceptance of your sexual orientation as normal---------------but its not and never will be.
equal treatment under the law has nothing to do with the words used to describe your union.
Marriage is what is on the license. Want it changed, change it for everyone. That wouldn't satisfy Chickenfish though. He needs to feel special and set apart from "those people".
Name this "special treatment".
The one demanding special treatment is youThe tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry.
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.
This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.
gay couples can have the bennies, gay couples can make a legally binding commitment contract to each other, but a gay union is not a marriage, it is a gay union.
What you are trying to do by insisting on using the word "marriage" is to force societal acceptance of your sexual orientation as normal---------------but its not and never will be.
equal treatment under the law has nothing to do with the words used to describe your union.
Marriage is what is on the license. Want it changed, change it for everyone. That wouldn't satisfy Chickenfish though. He needs to feel special and set apart from "those people".
Name this "special treatment".
You know- they think being treated equally is 'special treatment'.
Some of them are still upset at the special treatment women get by being allowed to vote.
The one demanding special treatment is youThe tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry.
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.
This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.
gay couples can have the bennies, gay couples can make a legally binding commitment contract to each other, but a gay union is not a marriage, it is a gay union.
What you are trying to do by insisting on using the word "marriage" is to force societal acceptance of your sexual orientation as normal---------------but its not and never will be.
equal treatment under the law has nothing to do with the words used to describe your union.
Marriage is what is on the license. Want it changed, change it for everyone. That wouldn't satisfy Chickenfish though. He needs to feel special and set apart from "those people".
Name this "special treatment".
You know- they think being treated equally is 'special treatment'.
Some of them are still upset at the special treatment women get by being allowed to vote.
It's a deliberate distraction.
yes, the left is using the gay crap to take the attention away from obozo and his failures both dometically and internationally.
creating an obsession over the sexual deviancy of 2% of the population seems to be working for them so don't expect it to stop.
This thread was started to make people aware of what the left is doing with this divisive issue.
Its amazing that it took 264 pages to reach that logical conclusion.
264 pages of you arguing about gay marriage, after you told us all you were not going to argue about gay marriage anymore.
That is some obsession on your part.
The one demanding special treatment is yougay couples can have the bennies, gay couples can make a legally binding commitment contract to each other, but a gay union is not a marriage, it is a gay union.
What you are trying to do by insisting on using the word "marriage" is to force societal acceptance of your sexual orientation as normal---------------but its not and never will be.
equal treatment under the law has nothing to do with the words used to describe your union.
Marriage is what is on the license. Want it changed, change it for everyone. That wouldn't satisfy Chickenfish though. He needs to feel special and set apart from "those people".
Name this "special treatment".
You know- they think being treated equally is 'special treatment'.
Some of them are still upset at the special treatment women get by being allowed to vote.
OK, one more time
If gays can enter into a civil union that gives them the exact same rights and benefits as a man/woman marriage get, where is the unequal treatment?
The only difference is the word used to describe it.
THAT is my point, your crusade is NOT about equal treatment, its about the word "marriage"
You think that a gay union must be called a marriage because you think the use of the word makes it somehow normal human behavior. Its not, but most people are willing to acknowledge your right to commit to someone of the same sex and have the exact same rights as a man and woman in a marriage.
Until you admit what this is really about, it will never be settled.
The one demanding special treatment is yougay couples can have the bennies, gay couples can make a legally binding commitment contract to each other, but a gay union is not a marriage, it is a gay union.
What you are trying to do by insisting on using the word "marriage" is to force societal acceptance of your sexual orientation as normal---------------but its not and never will be.
equal treatment under the law has nothing to do with the words used to describe your union.
Marriage is what is on the license. Want it changed, change it for everyone. That wouldn't satisfy Chickenfish though. He needs to feel special and set apart from "those people".
Name this "special treatment".
You know- they think being treated equally is 'special treatment'.
Some of them are still upset at the special treatment women get by being allowed to vote.
OK, one more time
If gays can enter into a civil union that gives them the exact same rights and benefits as a man/woman marriage get, where is the unequal treatment?.
It's a deliberate distraction.
yes, the left is using the gay crap to take the attention away from obozo and his failures both dometically and internationally.
creating an obsession over the sexual deviancy of 2% of the population seems to be working for them so don't expect it to stop.
This thread was started to make people aware of what the left is doing with this divisive issue.
Its amazing that it took 264 pages to reach that logical conclusion.
264 pages of you arguing about gay marriage, after you told us all you were not going to argue about gay marriage anymore.
That is some obsession on your part.
I started this thread to try to help people understand why this is such a divisive issue in our country and why it gets a disproportionate amount of media attention.
The answers have come out so the mods are free to close it if they choose.
OK, one more time
If gays can enter into a civil union that gives them the exact same rights and benefits as a man/woman marriage get, where is the unequal treatment?
The one demanding special treatment is youMarriage is what is on the license. Want it changed, change it for everyone. That wouldn't satisfy Chickenfish though. He needs to feel special and set apart from "those people".
Name this "special treatment".
You know- they think being treated equally is 'special treatment'.
Some of them are still upset at the special treatment women get by being allowed to vote.
OK, one more time
If gays can enter into a civil union that gives them the exact same rights and benefits as a man/woman marriage get, where is the unequal treatment?.
There is a word for that kind of arrangement- and that is marriage.
That is equal.
OK, one more time
If gays can enter into a civil union that gives them the exact same rights and benefits as a man/woman marriage get, where is the unequal treatment?
Ahhh...
One more time.
Many of the States that banned SSCM's a decade ago also banned Civil Unions. For example from Virginia:
"Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
It wasn't the gays that voted against Civil Unions, it was those opposed to ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples that did that.
Only now that SSCM has been winning in the courts, winning in the legislatures, and winning at the ballot box is suddenly Civil Unions supposed to be an acceptable alternative. An alternative that wasn't acceptable 10 years ago when the anti-gay crowed was in power.
There is a saying, something about reaping what you sow.
>>>>
It's a deliberate distraction.
yes, the left is using the gay crap to take the attention away from obozo and his failures both dometically and internationally.
creating an obsession over the sexual deviancy of 2% of the population seems to be working for them so don't expect it to stop.
This thread was started to make people aware of what the left is doing with this divisive issue.
Its amazing that it took 264 pages to reach that logical conclusion.
264 pages of you arguing about gay marriage, after you told us all you were not going to argue about gay marriage anymore.
That is some obsession on your part.
I started this thread to try to help people understand why this is such a divisive issue in our country and why it gets a disproportionate amount of media attention.
The answers have come out so the mods are free to close it if they choose.
In other words- Redfish hopes the moderators will close down the thread to stop him from arguing about gay marriage, since he cannot stop himself.
Almost a month after he said he was done arguing about gay marriage- he is still here- hoping the moderators will stop what he cannot stop himself from doing.
You want a exemption from law just because you are homosexual.....Thats special treatment.The one demanding special treatment is youNo it's not, you idiot. First, you are in the wrong thread. Second, read my OP post. The thread is about the opposite, that the tax code rewards people for having children. What is wrong with you? What grade did you drop out of school?
The tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry.
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.
This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.
gay couples can have the bennies, gay couples can make a legally binding commitment contract to each other, but a gay union is not a marriage, it is a gay union.
What you are trying to do by insisting on using the word "marriage" is to force societal acceptance of your sexual orientation as normal---------------but its not and never will be.
equal treatment under the law has nothing to do with the words used to describe your union.
Marriage is what is on the license. Want it changed, change it for everyone. That wouldn't satisfy Chickenfish though. He needs to feel special and set apart from "those people".
Name this "special treatment".
That is the true crux of the argument....They dont want the people to decide. They dont even want each states legislation to decide for their own state. What they want is to force their lifestyle and agenda on the whole country as a stepping stone to dismantle freedom of religion. The homosexuals are so desperate to be seen as normal they sold their freedoms to the progressive party to be used as tools.OK, one more time
If gays can enter into a civil union that gives them the exact same rights and benefits as a man/woman marriage get, where is the unequal treatment?
Ahhh...
One more time.
Many of the States that banned SSCM's a decade ago also banned Civil Unions. For example from Virginia:
"Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
It wasn't the gays that voted against Civil Unions, it was those opposed to ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples that did that.
Only now that SSCM has been winning in the courts, winning in the legislatures, and winning at the ballot box is suddenly Civil Unions supposed to be an acceptable alternative. An alternative that wasn't acceptable 10 years ago when the anti-gay crowed was in power.
There is a saying, something about reaping what you sow.
>>>>
you may be right, but lets let the people decide at the ballot box.
It's a deliberate distraction.
yes, the left is using the gay crap to take the attention away from obozo and his failures both dometically and internationally.
creating an obsession over the sexual deviancy of 2% of the population seems to be working for them so don't expect it to stop.
This thread was started to make people aware of what the left is doing with this divisive issue.
Its amazing that it took 264 pages to reach that logical conclusion.
264 pages of you arguing about gay marriage, after you told us all you were not going to argue about gay marriage anymore.
That is some obsession on your part.
I started this thread to try to help people understand why this is such a divisive issue in our country and why it gets a disproportionate amount of media attention.
The answers have come out so the mods are free to close it if they choose.
In other words- Redfish hopes the moderators will close down the thread to stop him from arguing about gay marriage, since he cannot stop himself.
Almost a month after he said he was done arguing about gay marriage- he is still here- hoping the moderators will stop what he cannot stop himself from doing.
NO, I am merely trying to get some of you to understand what this is really about and why it is such a divisive issue in the USA today.
You can hurl insults if it makes you feel good. I really don't care.
That is the true crux of the argument....They dont want the people to decide. They dont even want each states legislation to decide for their own state. What they want is to force their lifestyle and agenda on the whole country as a stepping stone to dismantle freedom of religion. The homosexuals are so desperate to be seen as normal they sold their freedoms to the progressive party to be used as tools.OK, one more time
If gays can enter into a civil union that gives them the exact same rights and benefits as a man/woman marriage get, where is the unequal treatment?
Ahhh...
One more time.
Many of the States that banned SSCM's a decade ago also banned Civil Unions. For example from Virginia:
"Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
It wasn't the gays that voted against Civil Unions, it was those opposed to ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples that did that.
Only now that SSCM has been winning in the courts, winning in the legislatures, and winning at the ballot box is suddenly Civil Unions supposed to be an acceptable alternative. An alternative that wasn't acceptable 10 years ago when the anti-gay crowed was in power.
There is a saying, something about reaping what you sow.
>>>>
you may be right, but lets let the people decide at the ballot box.
Do you want the states to decide if YOU can exercise your rights to life, liberty, speech, religion, gun ownership, and other types of property? If so... then lets throw out the 14th amendment and have at it.That is the true crux of the argument....They dont want the people to decide. They dont even want each states legislation to decide for their own state. What they want is to force their lifestyle and agenda on the whole country as a stepping stone to dismantle freedom of religion. The homosexuals are so desperate to be seen as normal they sold their freedoms to the progressive party to be used as tools.OK, one more time
If gays can enter into a civil union that gives them the exact same rights and benefits as a man/woman marriage get, where is the unequal treatment?
Ahhh...
One more time.
Many of the States that banned SSCM's a decade ago also banned Civil Unions. For example from Virginia:
"Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
It wasn't the gays that voted against Civil Unions, it was those opposed to ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples that did that.
Only now that SSCM has been winning in the courts, winning in the legislatures, and winning at the ballot box is suddenly Civil Unions supposed to be an acceptable alternative. An alternative that wasn't acceptable 10 years ago when the anti-gay crowed was in power.
There is a saying, something about reaping what you sow.
>>>>
you may be right, but lets let the people decide at the ballot box.
You want a exemption from law just because you are homosexual.....Thats special treatment.The one demanding special treatment is youThe tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry.
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.
This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.
gay couples can have the bennies, gay couples can make a legally binding commitment contract to each other, but a gay union is not a marriage, it is a gay union.
What you are trying to do by insisting on using the word "marriage" is to force societal acceptance of your sexual orientation as normal---------------but its not and never will be.
equal treatment under the law has nothing to do with the words used to describe your union.
Marriage is what is on the license. Want it changed, change it for everyone. That wouldn't satisfy Chickenfish though. He needs to feel special and set apart from "those people".
Name this "special treatment".
