Is LGBT Functioning as a Cult Under the Guise of "A Civil Rights Movement"?

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Nope. But your logic is.

You, being illogical does not make your stand logical

The concept of including same sex units, units that can't create population into a demographic comprised of units that can, is the height of goofiness.

so older people shouldn't marry?

infertile couples shoujldn't marry?

procreation is not the basis for the right to marry.

see: Loving v Virginia

Forcing others to acquiesce to irrelevant behavior is not a right. It's a privilege. Homo behavior is irrelevant to the public. Legal homo marriage would force acquiescence.
Procreation is the only logical reason for such a privilege to be considered a right because the ensuing behavior is not irrelevant. It can result in creation of life, the opposite tantamount of murder. We have strong laws per murder, as we should. You take someone's life you should be held accountable. You make someone's life you should be held accountable. It takes mom and dad for that to happen.
People who are older or otherwise not able to procreate but are opposite gender should be allowed the privilege of legal marriage because they should be allowed to adopt as they provide the very necessary element of both genders as role models. Not one of either or two of either. One of each. That is in keeping with unique empirical data of the past forty years. Where alternatives to mother/father families prevail, crime and social deterioration do, too.

 

[Pop23]

You, being illogical does not make your stand logical

The concept of including same sex units, units that can't create population into a demographic comprised of units that can, is the height of goofiness.

so older people shouldn't marry?

infertile couples shoujldn't marry?

procreation is not the basis for the right to marry.

see: Loving v Virginia

Forcing others to acquiesce to irrelevant behavior is not a right. It's a privilege. Homo behavior is irrelevant to the public. Legal homo marriage would force acquiescence.
Procreation is the only logical reason for such a privilege to be considered a right because the ensuing behavior is not irrelevant. It can result in creation of life, the opposite tantamount of murder. We have strong laws per murder, as we should. You take someone's life you should be held accountable. You make someone's life you should be held accountable. It takes mom and dad for that to happen.
People who are older or otherwise not able to procreate but are opposite gender should be allowed the privilege of legal marriage because they should be allowed to adopt as they provide the very necessary element of both genders as role models. Not one of either or two of either. One of each. That is in keeping with unique empirical data of the past forty years. Where alternatives to mother/father families prevail, crime and social deterioration do, too.

It is curious, and I've asked before with little to no response, why the number of participants within the contract is limited to two, if same sex is included.

Face it, the only plausible reason for it being limited to two is because a single unit is created that includes one of each gender.

For same sex, the number is irrelevant. 2 or 200,000 in the unit doesn't change the fact that the unit can't reproduce within itself.

A single individual can reproduce just as efficiently as 2 same sex within its unit.

"Loving" reinforced the number 2, plus the federal government invaded the Utah territory to insure that marriage would be a single male to a single female.

Two. One Male to one Female.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

so older people shouldn't marry?

infertile couples shoujldn't marry?

procreation is not the basis for the right to marry.

see: Loving v Virginia

Forcing others to acquiesce to irrelevant behavior is not a right. It's a privilege. Homo behavior is irrelevant to the public. Legal homo marriage would force acquiescence.
Procreation is the only logical reason for such a privilege to be considered a right because the ensuing behavior is not irrelevant. It can result in creation of life, the opposite tantamount of murder. We have strong laws per murder, as we should. You take someone's life you should be held accountable. You make someone's life you should be held accountable. It takes mom and dad for that to happen.
People who are older or otherwise not able to procreate but are opposite gender should be allowed the privilege of legal marriage because they should be allowed to adopt as they provide the very necessary element of both genders as role models. Not one of either or two of either. One of each. That is in keeping with unique empirical data of the past forty years. Where alternatives to mother/father families prevail, crime and social deterioration do, too.

It is curious, and I've asked before with little to no response, why the number of participants within the contract is limited to two, if same sex is included.

Face it, the only plausible reason for it being limited to two is because a single unit is created that includes one of each gender.

For same sex, the number is irrelevant. 2 or 200,000 in the unit doesn't change the fact that the unit can't reproduce within itself.

A single individual can reproduce just as efficiently as 2 same sex within its unit.

"Loving" reinforced the number 2, plus the federal government invaded the Utah territory to insure that marriage would be a single male to a single female.

Two. One Male to one Female.

But that actually requires logic in the discussion. Don't count on that where the homofascist agenda is concerned.

 

[Asclepias]

You, being illogical does not make your stand logical

The concept of including same sex units, units that can't create population into a demographic comprised of units that can, is the height of goofiness.

so older people shouldn't marry?

infertile couples shoujldn't marry?

procreation is not the basis for the right to marry.

see: Loving v Virginia

Forcing others to acquiesce to irrelevant behavior is not a right. It's a privilege. Homo behavior is irrelevant to the public. Legal homo marriage would force acquiescence.
Procreation is the only logical reason for such a privilege to be considered a right because the ensuing behavior is not irrelevant. It can result in creation of life, the opposite tantamount of murder. We have strong laws per murder, as we should. You take someone's life you should be held accountable. You make someone's life you should be held accountable. It takes mom and dad for that to happen.
People who are older or otherwise not able to procreate but are opposite gender should be allowed the privilege of legal marriage because they should be allowed to adopt as they provide the very necessary element of both genders as role models. Not one of either or two of either. One of each. That is in keeping with unique empirical data of the past forty years. Where alternatives to mother/father families prevail, crime and social deterioration do, too.

I think you are in error. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Privilege
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

 

[Pop23]

so older people shouldn't marry?

infertile couples shoujldn't marry?

procreation is not the basis for the right to marry.

see: Loving v Virginia

Forcing others to acquiesce to irrelevant behavior is not a right. It's a privilege. Homo behavior is irrelevant to the public. Legal homo marriage would force acquiescence.
Procreation is the only logical reason for such a privilege to be considered a right because the ensuing behavior is not irrelevant. It can result in creation of life, the opposite tantamount of murder. We have strong laws per murder, as we should. You take someone's life you should be held accountable. You make someone's life you should be held accountable. It takes mom and dad for that to happen.
People who are older or otherwise not able to procreate but are opposite gender should be allowed the privilege of legal marriage because they should be allowed to adopt as they provide the very necessary element of both genders as role models. Not one of either or two of either. One of each. That is in keeping with unique empirical data of the past forty years. Where alternatives to mother/father families prevail, crime and social deterioration do, too.

I think you are in error. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Privilege
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

No one is ever required a license to exercise a right.

Your argument is that, because I have an automobile license, the state must allow me to fly a jet. The two are completely different, but it would be discriminatory to deny me.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

so older people shouldn't marry?

infertile couples shoujldn't marry?

procreation is not the basis for the right to marry.

see: Loving v Virginia

Forcing others to acquiesce to irrelevant behavior is not a right. It's a privilege. Homo behavior is irrelevant to the public. Legal homo marriage would force acquiescence.
Procreation is the only logical reason for such a privilege to be considered a right because the ensuing behavior is not irrelevant. It can result in creation of life, the opposite tantamount of murder. We have strong laws per murder, as we should. You take someone's life you should be held accountable. You make someone's life you should be held accountable. It takes mom and dad for that to happen.
People who are older or otherwise not able to procreate but are opposite gender should be allowed the privilege of legal marriage because they should be allowed to adopt as they provide the very necessary element of both genders as role models. Not one of either or two of either. One of each. That is in keeping with unique empirical data of the past forty years. Where alternatives to mother/father families prevail, crime and social deterioration do, too.

I think you are in error. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Privilege
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

Weeds to try to justify nothing.
How about you point out the irrelevancy. Again, logic has no place in the homofascist agenda.

 

[Asclepias]

Forcing others to acquiesce to irrelevant behavior is not a right. It's a privilege. Homo behavior is irrelevant to the public. Legal homo marriage would force acquiescence.
Procreation is the only logical reason for such a privilege to be considered a right because the ensuing behavior is not irrelevant. It can result in creation of life, the opposite tantamount of murder. We have strong laws per murder, as we should. You take someone's life you should be held accountable. You make someone's life you should be held accountable. It takes mom and dad for that to happen.
People who are older or otherwise not able to procreate but are opposite gender should be allowed the privilege of legal marriage because they should be allowed to adopt as they provide the very necessary element of both genders as role models. Not one of either or two of either. One of each. That is in keeping with unique empirical data of the past forty years. Where alternatives to mother/father families prevail, crime and social deterioration do, too.

I think you are in error. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Privilege
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

No one is ever required a license to exercise a right.

You argument is that, because I have an automobile license, the state must allow me to fly a jet. The two are completely different, but it would be discriminatory to deny me.

Who said anyone required a license to exercise a right? They do have license to exercise a right.

No Pop thats your argument not mine. You cant quote me anywhere as saying that can you?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I think you are in error. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Privilege
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

No one is ever required a license to exercise a right.

You argument is that, because I have an automobile license, the state must allow me to fly a jet. The two are completely different, but it would be discriminatory to deny me.

Who said anyone required a license to exercise a right? They do have license to exercise a right.

No Pop thats your argument not mine. You cant quote me anywhere as saying that can you?

If it involves others or coercion it is a privilege.

 

[Asclepias]

Forcing others to acquiesce to irrelevant behavior is not a right. It's a privilege. Homo behavior is irrelevant to the public. Legal homo marriage would force acquiescence.
Procreation is the only logical reason for such a privilege to be considered a right because the ensuing behavior is not irrelevant. It can result in creation of life, the opposite tantamount of murder. We have strong laws per murder, as we should. You take someone's life you should be held accountable. You make someone's life you should be held accountable. It takes mom and dad for that to happen.
People who are older or otherwise not able to procreate but are opposite gender should be allowed the privilege of legal marriage because they should be allowed to adopt as they provide the very necessary element of both genders as role models. Not one of either or two of either. One of each. That is in keeping with unique empirical data of the past forty years. Where alternatives to mother/father families prevail, crime and social deterioration do, too.

I think you are in error. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Privilege
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

Weeds to try to justify nothing.
How about you point out the irrelevancy. Again, logic has no place in the homofascist agenda.

How about you point out where you know what you are talking about? How does your false statement make your irrelevant argument relevant?

 

[Asclepias]

No one is ever required a license to exercise a right.

You argument is that, because I have an automobile license, the state must allow me to fly a jet. The two are completely different, but it would be discriminatory to deny me.

Who said anyone required a license to exercise a right? They do have license to exercise a right.

No Pop thats your argument not mine. You cant quote me anywhere as saying that can you?

If it involves others or coercion it is a privilege.

Which is a right.

 

[Pop23]

I think you are in error. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Privilege
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

No one is ever required a license to exercise a right.

You argument is that, because I have an automobile license, the state must allow me to fly a jet. The two are completely different, but it would be discriminatory to deny me.

Who said anyone required a license to exercise a right? They do have license to exercise a right.

No Pop thats your argument not mine. You cant quote me anywhere as saying that can you?

You must get a state issued Marriage License to be legally married.

Do you need a state issued speech license to speak?

It is indeed your argument, you just can't back it up.

 

[dr.d]

Marriage is about couples first then children. PoP23, this is over. Sotomayor has six already and is trying to recruit the one remaining positivist on SCOTUS.

Not true...marriage is about formalizing a life partnership and forming the core of a new family.....All humans need to have families...and u DO believe gays r humans...Right?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Asclepias]

No one is ever required a license to exercise a right.

You argument is that, because I have an automobile license, the state must allow me to fly a jet. The two are completely different, but it would be discriminatory to deny me.

Who said anyone required a license to exercise a right? They do have license to exercise a right.

No Pop thats your argument not mine. You cant quote me anywhere as saying that can you?

You must get a state issued Marriage License to be legally married.

Do you need a state issued speech license to speak?

It is indeed your argument, you just can't back it up.

I thought you just said no one is ever required to get a license to exercise a right? Are you reading your own posts?

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Name the same sex couple that one of the participants died from a childbirth that was the result of a sex act between the participants of the partners within that unit.

Name a single citizen that is the result of same sex coupling.

Same or vastly different?

Blacks were discriminated against because of a superficial trait

Again, vastly different

Why are any of your questions relevant to the point?

There is nothing superficial about being Black. I am a Black person. They are gay people. We both know this. Its the exact same thing.

Race changes none of the dynamics of a marriage. I've demonstrated how same sex does. One is a discrimination based on a superficial trait, the other is anything but superficial when one considers the burden on the male/ female dynamic compared to the lack of any burden on same sex.

Comparing race to this is simply silly.

What?

Are you saying that if gays are allowed to marry, half of hetero marriages will end in divorce?

Or that if a hetero couple does not plan to reproduce, they should not be allowed to marry?

Or that the Constitution says that some of us are more equal than others?

Your argument is nonsense.

MYOB

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage is about couples first then children. PoP23, this is over. Sotomayor has six already and is trying to recruit the one remaining positivist on SCOTUS.

Not true...marriage is about formalizing a life partnership and forming the core of a new family.....All humans need to have families...and u DO believe gays r humans...Right?

Thank you for agreeing with me. Couples first, then children.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage is about couples first then children. PoP23, this is over. Sotomayor has six already and is trying to recruit the one remaining positivist on SCOTUS.

Thank you for changing to my position.

Only one group can produce children within the unit, before or after the license is granted.

You accepted mine, Pop23 as did dr. d. Couples first then children. Children can come in various ways, not just the old in and out.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage is about couples first then children. PoP23, this is over. Sotomayor has six already and is trying to recruit the one remaining positivist on SCOTUS.

Thank you for changing to my position.

Only one group can produce children within the unit, before or after the license is granted.

You accepted mine, Pop23 as did dr. d. Couples first then children. Children can come in various ways, not just the old in and out.

Nope, your wrong again. Only one of the demographic groups can have children by the old in and out.

Only the male/female demographic. Making that group very, very different than the others.

Balls back in your court.

 

[Pop23]

Who said anyone required a license to exercise a right? They do have license to exercise a right.

No Pop thats your argument not mine. You cant quote me anywhere as saying that can you?

You must get a state issued Marriage License to be legally married.

Do you need a state issued speech license to speak?

It is indeed your argument, you just can't back it up.

I thought you just said no one is ever required to get a license to exercise a right? Are you reading your own posts?

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals.

I again ask, do you or do you not need a license to be married? Name another right in which you require state licensing.

Do yourself a favor before responding, cause your getting boring, look up the definition of license.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I think you are in error. The rest of your post is irrelevant.

Privilege
noun
1.
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

Weeds to try to justify nothing.
How about you point out the irrelevancy. Again, logic has no place in the homofascist agenda.

How about you point out where you know what you are talking about? How does your false statement make your irrelevant argument relevant?

My argument was pointed. Your rebuttal about its alleged irrelevance was not. You need to be specific.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Who said anyone required a license to exercise a right? They do have license to exercise a right.

No Pop thats your argument not mine. You cant quote me anywhere as saying that can you?

If it involves others or coercion it is a privilege.

Which is a right.

Which is a granted or licensed right. Not a natural right. That's the distinction between a privilege and a right.
You have the right to do to yourself what you want (except seat belt and helmet laws, which are way wrong) but you don't have a right to do something to another person. That is where privileges come into play.
Forcing others to acquiesce to a behavior that is relevant only to yourself is coercion. Not a right.