It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

Yet, when asked by parents, would you prefer that your child be straight or gay, it's likely the overwhelming majority would say straight.

You are a long way from gay being accepted as normal.

Most times that answer is because of bigots & their discrimination that they wouldn't want their children to experience. Of course there are the douches that would 'disown' their kids if they are gay, & couldn't 'prefer' anything else anyways.

No, it's because straight is normal and productive, both near time and far into the future. Male/female couplings are likely to create offspring. Same sex couplings never do.

Normal people want to provide for the survival of the species, abnormal don't give a flying fuck if the species continues.

That is why most would want a straight child......

?

Do you actually think many people, heterosexual or homosexual, consider the continuance of the species when they get in relationships or have sex or are preparing to have children?

Yes, but only heterosexuals actually have to consider it. We actually have skin in the game.

LOL- some may welcome the fact that isn't a consideration... ie sterile heteros.

Some have reproductive disabilities that your response would appear cruel to.

 

[Boss]

I'm not anti gay. I love gay people. They are some of the sweetest people I know. I'm in a creative field and have worked with gay people my entire professional life. They are funny, intelligent, very creative and colorful. That's not to say they all are, I don't want to stereotype gays, there are some belligerent assholes like you.

Sorry bigot, but nobody that "loves gay people" throws the faggot word around like you do.

Pshh.. I know gay people who use the word faggot. Is it like the "N" word with blacks, only gays can use it? That would be typical of the double standards you hypocrites promote.

Like I said before, you need to grow some thicker skin if you're going to be a weirdo.

I'm sure some do... but it's still different when *you* say it. You aren't being facetious when you do it.

I'm glad you know so much about my motivations.... I always wonder why I say the shit I do. I've often lost sleep at night wondering why I am motivated to say things. If only I had known you were out there to explain it all to me! So you feel free to jump in anytime you see me saying something to interject the reason and motivation for why I am saying it, and then I will be a complete person.

 

[Pop23]

No, it's because straight is normal and productive, both near time and far into the future. Male/female couplings are likely to create offspring. Same sex couplings never do.

Normal people want to provide for the survival of the species, abnormal don't give a flying fuck if the species continues.

That is why most would want a straight child......

?

Do you actually think many people, heterosexual or homosexual, consider the continuance of the species when they get in relationships or have sex or are preparing to have children?

Yes, but only heterosexuals actually have to consider it. We actually have skin in the game.

How incredibly stupid and ignorant.

No human has to consider the 'continuance' of the species- and frankly most babies born are not conceived in order to further the species but because a man and a woman have sex which accidentally results in children.

Anyone who is fertile- male or female- can pass on his or her genes- with or without marriage.

And unlike you homosexuals, we indeed are concerned about the continuation of our species.

LOL- Boss- unlike you people with teeny tiny dicks, the rest of us heterosexuals, have children because we want to enjoy having children.

My wife and I never thought "Hey we should have children for the continuation of our species!"- but I guess those of you with teeny tiny little dicks need that kind of motivation to extract enough sperm from your teeny tiny little nutsacks to manage to impregnate a woman.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Pop23]

And unlike you homosexuals, we indeed are concerned about the continuation of our species.

LOL- not to worry:

Worldometers - real time world statistics

Thank us later

 

[Syriusly]

?

Do you actually think many people, heterosexual or homosexual, consider the continuance of the species when they get in relationships or have sex or are preparing to have children?

Yes, but only heterosexuals actually have to consider it. We actually have skin in the game.

How incredibly stupid and ignorant.

No human has to consider the 'continuance' of the species- and frankly most babies born are not conceived in order to further the species but because a man and a woman have sex which accidentally results in children.

Anyone who is fertile- male or female- can pass on his or her genes- with or without marriage.

And unlike you homosexuals, we indeed are concerned about the continuation of our species.

LOL- Boss- unlike you people with teeny tiny dicks, the rest of us heterosexuals, have children because we want to enjoy having children.

My wife and I never thought "Hey we should have children for the continuation of our species!"- but I guess those of you with teeny tiny little dicks need that kind of motivation to extract enough sperm from your teeny tiny little nutsacks to manage to impregnate a woman.

Not to mention the fact that gays have always existed and still the species perpetuates.

?

Do you actually think many people, heterosexual or homosexual, consider the continuance of the species when they get in relationships or have sex or are preparing to have children?

Yes, but only heterosexuals actually have to consider it. We actually have skin in the game.

How incredibly stupid and ignorant.

No human has to consider the 'continuance' of the species- and frankly most babies born are not conceived in order to further the species but because a man and a woman have sex which accidentally results in children.

Anyone who is fertile- male or female- can pass on his or her genes- with or without marriage.

And unlike you homosexuals, we indeed are concerned about the continuation of our species.

LOL- Boss- unlike you people with teeny tiny dicks, the rest of us heterosexuals, have children because we want to enjoy having children.

My wife and I never thought "Hey we should have children for the continuation of our species!"- but I guess those of you with teeny tiny little dicks need that kind of motivation to extract enough sperm from your teeny tiny little nutsacks to manage to impregnate a woman.

Who are you talking to?

?

Do you actually think many people, heterosexual or homosexual, consider the continuance of the species when they get in relationships or have sex or are preparing to have children?

Yes, but only heterosexuals actually have to consider it. We actually have skin in the game.

How incredibly stupid and ignorant.

No human has to consider the 'continuance' of the species- and frankly most babies born are not conceived in order to further the species but because a man and a woman have sex which accidentally results in children.

Anyone who is fertile- male or female- can pass on his or her genes- with or without marriage.

And unlike you homosexuals, we indeed are concerned about the continuation of our species.

LOL- Boss- unlike you people with teeny tiny dicks, the rest of us heterosexuals, have children because we want to enjoy having children.

My wife and I never thought "Hey we should have children for the continuation of our species!"- but I guess those of you with teeny tiny little dicks need that kind of motivation to extract enough sperm from your teeny tiny little nutsacks to manage to impregnate a woman.

Who are you talking to?

You- the tiny dick reference should have made it clear.

But I understand your confusion since I also refered to your micro-penis buddy Boss.

unlike you people with teeny tiny dicks, the rest of us heterosexuals, have children because we want to enjoy having children.

My wife and I never thought "Hey we should have children for the continuation of our species!"- but I guess those of you with teeny tiny little dicks need that kind of motivation to extract enough sperm from your teeny tiny little nutsacks to manage to impregnate a woman.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm not anti gay. I love gay people. They are some of the sweetest people I know. I'm in a creative field and have worked with gay people my entire professional life. They are funny, intelligent, very creative and colorful. That's not to say they all are, I don't want to stereotype gays, there are some belligerent assholes like you.

Sorry bigot, but nobody that "loves gay people" throws the faggot word around like you do.

Pshh.. I know gay people who use the word faggot. Is it like the "N" word with blacks, only gays can use it? That would be typical of the double standards you hypocrites promote.

Like I said before, you need to grow some thicker skin if you're going to be a weirdo.

I'm sure some do... but it's still different when *you* say it. You aren't being facetious when you do it.

I'm glad you know so much about my motivations.... I always wonder why I say the shit I do. I've often lost sleep at night wondering why I am motivated to say things. If only I had known you were out there to explain it all to me! So you feel free to jump in anytime you see me saying something to interject the reason and motivation for why I am saying it, and then I will be a complete person.

Hilarious coming from the thin skinned poster who tells us all the time the motivations of homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

If you can show where the bill would have changed civil marriages into civil unions, please do.

The text of the bill is available but you have this trouble understanding context so it won't do you much good to read it. You are interpreting Alabama's obligation under the Constitution and federal laws as "state recognition" and that's not the same meaning I am talking about.

Translation: Boss is not going to post the actual text here because
a) it would set a dangerous precedent if Boss posted facts and
b) it would show that his claims are as stupid as the rest of his claims.

 

[Skylar]

If you can show where the bill would have changed civil marriages into civil unions, please do.

The text of the bill is available but you have this trouble understanding context so it won't do you much good to read it. You are interpreting Alabama's obligation under the Constitution and federal laws as "state recognition" and that's not the same meaning I am talking about.

Translation: Boss is not going to post the actual text here because
a) it would set a dangerous precedent if Boss posted facts and
b) it would show that his claims are as stupid as the rest of his claims.

'
Oh, I already did cite the Alabama SB377. And it explicitly contradicted him. So Boss put me on ignore.

There are just some people that are so committed to the idea of their own infallibility that they'll ignore any evidence, even their own sources, to continue to polish whatever turd they cling to.

And Boss is their king.

 

[Skylar]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

Save that the two parties have to be legally authorized to marry in the State of Alabama. And unlike any other contract, their contract of marriage is a record of marriage held with the Department of Health of Alabama.

Says who? Says SB377 of course.

(2) A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

So any other contract in Alabama requires that the participants be legally authorized to marry each other?

I think you may be mistaking Alabama contract law for whatever pseudo-legal nonsense you just made up. They aren't the same thing. And it gets worse:

"The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
Department of Public Health and made a part of its record"

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

"Any" contract doesn't constitute a legal record of marriage.

Remember, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And you're quite literally ignoring the very law you claim to be citing. SB377 doesn't change just because its inconvenient to your argument.

 

[Montrovant]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

From SB377 :
"
Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only
25
requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties
26
who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter
27
into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
Page 1
1
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
2
following minimum information:
3
(1) The names of the parties.
4
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
5
authorized to be married.
6
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and
7
based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
8
(4) The signatures of the parties.
9
The marriage contract shall be witnessed by two
10
adult witnesses.
11
(c) A marriage contract meeting the requirements of
12
this section shall be valid upon recording.
13
(d) A civil or religious ceremony may be required to
14
be married.
15
(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the
16
judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
17
record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be
18
transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
19
Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.
20
(f) This section shall not affect any other legal
21
aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
22
to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or
23
common law marriage."

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

I eagerly await your explanation of why the bill talks over and over about people getting marriages in Alabama rather than civil unions. An explanation of how having the two parties be 'legally authorized to marry' is not the state authorizing marriages would also be appreciated.

 

[Skylar]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

From SB377 :
"
Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only
25
requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties
26
who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter
27
into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
Page 1
1
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
2
following minimum information:
3
(1) The names of the parties.
4
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
5
authorized to be married.
6
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and
7
based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
8
(4) The signatures of the parties.
9
The marriage contract shall be witnessed by two
10
adult witnesses.
11
(c) A marriage contract meeting the requirements of
12
this section shall be valid upon recording.
13
(d) A civil or religious ceremony may be required to
14
be married.
15
(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the
16
judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
17
record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be
18
transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
19
Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.
20
(f) This section shall not affect any other legal
21
aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
22
to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or
23
common law marriage."

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

I eagerly await your explanation of why the bill talks over and over about people getting marriages in Alabama rather than civil unions. An explanation of how having the two parties be 'legally authorized to marry' is not the state authorizing marriages would also be appreciated.

Ah, I see your confusion. You're citing the ACTUAL bill. Boss is citing the one he's made up in his head. Apples and Oranges.

 

[Boss]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

From SB377 :
"
Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only
25
requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties
26
who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter
27
into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
Page 1
1
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
2
following minimum information:
3
(1) The names of the parties.
4
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
5
authorized to be married.
6
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and
7
based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
8
(4) The signatures of the parties.
9
The marriage contract shall be witnessed by two
10
adult witnesses.
11
(c) A marriage contract meeting the requirements of
12
this section shall be valid upon recording.
13
(d) A civil or religious ceremony may be required to
14
be married.
15
(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the
16
judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
17
record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be
18
transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
19
Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.
20
(f) This section shall not affect any other legal
21
aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
22
to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or
23
common law marriage."

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

I eagerly await your explanation of why the bill talks over and over about people getting marriages in Alabama rather than civil unions. An explanation of how having the two parties be 'legally authorized to marry' is not the state authorizing marriages would also be appreciated.

I don't need to explain why they are obeying the laws already on the books. You need to explain why you think they could have another option. The bill has to abide by the law. I'm sorry if that disappoints you that it does. With marriage, there are dozens and dozens of assorted aspects tied to many different laws. They have to make it clear that what they are doing is still going to be in accordance with those aspects and their respective legal rights. They don't have another option.

You act as though, because this law doesn't idiotically and defiantly stomp a foot down in the schoolhouse door and refuse to obey the SCOTUS ruling, that it is meaningless and superficial. I know that is what you WISH were happening here, but what is ACTUALLY happening is, the State of Alabama is removing itself from responsibility when it comes to your perverted versions of marriage. They will not participate in sanctioning it any longer.

Do they still have to give you your constitutional rights? Of course they do, what choice do they have?

 

[Skylar]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

From SB377 :
"
Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only
25
requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties
26
who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter
27
into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
Page 1
1
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
2
following minimum information:
3
(1) The names of the parties.
4
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
5
authorized to be married.
6
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and
7
based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
8
(4) The signatures of the parties.
9
The marriage contract shall be witnessed by two
10
adult witnesses.
11
(c) A marriage contract meeting the requirements of
12
this section shall be valid upon recording.
13
(d) A civil or religious ceremony may be required to
14
be married.
15
(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the
16
judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
17
record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be
18
transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
19
Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.
20
(f) This section shall not affect any other legal
21
aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
22
to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or
23
common law marriage."

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

I eagerly await your explanation of why the bill talks over and over about people getting marriages in Alabama rather than civil unions. An explanation of how having the two parties be 'legally authorized to marry' is not the state authorizing marriages would also be appreciated.

I don't need to explain why they are obeying the laws already on the books. You need to explain why you think they could have another option. The bill has to abide by the law. I'm sorry if that disappoints you that it does. With marriage, there are dozens and dozens of assorted aspects tied to many different laws. They have to make it clear that what they are doing is still going to be in accordance with those aspects and their respective legal rights. They don't have another option.

You act as though, because this law doesn't idiotically and defiantly stomp a foot down in the schoolhouse door and refuse to obey the SCOTUS ruling, that it is meaningless and superficial. I know that is what you WISH were happening here, but what is ACTUALLY happening is, the State of Alabama is removing itself from responsibility when it comes to your perverted versions of marriage. They will not participate in sanctioning it any longer.

Do they still have to give you your constitutional rights? Of course they do, what choice do they have?

Translation: Boss can't cite any part of the bill that backs any part of his hapless bullshit. Even when the entire bill is offered to him verbatim.

I told you Montro.....the actual bill won't matter. He hasn't read it, has no idea what it says, and cares less. Boss' only source is Boss.

And his source sucks.

 

[Montrovant]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

From SB377 :
"
Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only
25
requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties
26
who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter
27
into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
Page 1
1
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
2
following minimum information:
3
(1) The names of the parties.
4
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
5
authorized to be married.
6
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and
7
based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
8
(4) The signatures of the parties.
9
The marriage contract shall be witnessed by two
10
adult witnesses.
11
(c) A marriage contract meeting the requirements of
12
this section shall be valid upon recording.
13
(d) A civil or religious ceremony may be required to
14
be married.
15
(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the
16
judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
17
record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be
18
transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
19
Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.
20
(f) This section shall not affect any other legal
21
aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
22
to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or
23
common law marriage."

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

I eagerly await your explanation of why the bill talks over and over about people getting marriages in Alabama rather than civil unions. An explanation of how having the two parties be 'legally authorized to marry' is not the state authorizing marriages would also be appreciated.

I don't need to explain why they are obeying the laws already on the books. You need to explain why you think they could have another option. The bill has to abide by the law. I'm sorry if that disappoints you that it does. With marriage, there are dozens and dozens of assorted aspects tied to many different laws. They have to make it clear that what they are doing is still going to be in accordance with those aspects and their respective legal rights. They don't have another option.

You act as though, because this law doesn't idiotically and defiantly stomp a foot down in the schoolhouse door and refuse to obey the SCOTUS ruling, that it is meaningless and superficial. I know that is what you WISH were happening here, but what is ACTUALLY happening is, the State of Alabama is removing itself from responsibility when it comes to your perverted versions of marriage. They will not participate in sanctioning it any longer.

Do they still have to give you your constitutional rights? Of course they do, what choice do they have?

What does any of that have to do with your claims that people would get civil unions rather than marriages under the bill?

What I am 'acting like' is that this bill was designed to prevent Kim Davis-type situations, with state employees refusing to issue marriage licenses, by taking away the licensing. The state of Alabama would have just as much responsibility in civil marriage before and after the bill, both those from other states and those from Alabama, including marriages obtained after passage of the bill.

Every time you are asked to cite a law or court ruling to give evidence of claims about that law or court ruling, you come back with something like this. "I don't need to explain". You don't need to, but by not doing so you certainly don't give you claims any more credibility.

 

[Skylar]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

From SB377 :
"
Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only
25
requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties
26
who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter
27
into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
Page 1
1
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
2
following minimum information:
3
(1) The names of the parties.
4
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
5
authorized to be married.
6
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and
7
based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
8
(4) The signatures of the parties.
9
The marriage contract shall be witnessed by two
10
adult witnesses.
11
(c) A marriage contract meeting the requirements of
12
this section shall be valid upon recording.
13
(d) A civil or religious ceremony may be required to
14
be married.
15
(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the
16
judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal
17
record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be
18
transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the
19
Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.
20
(f) This section shall not affect any other legal
21
aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
22
to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or
23
common law marriage."

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

I eagerly await your explanation of why the bill talks over and over about people getting marriages in Alabama rather than civil unions. An explanation of how having the two parties be 'legally authorized to marry' is not the state authorizing marriages would also be appreciated.

I don't need to explain why they are obeying the laws already on the books. You need to explain why you think they could have another option. The bill has to abide by the law. I'm sorry if that disappoints you that it does. With marriage, there are dozens and dozens of assorted aspects tied to many different laws. They have to make it clear that what they are doing is still going to be in accordance with those aspects and their respective legal rights. They don't have another option.

You act as though, because this law doesn't idiotically and defiantly stomp a foot down in the schoolhouse door and refuse to obey the SCOTUS ruling, that it is meaningless and superficial. I know that is what you WISH were happening here, but what is ACTUALLY happening is, the State of Alabama is removing itself from responsibility when it comes to your perverted versions of marriage. They will not participate in sanctioning it any longer.

Do they still have to give you your constitutional rights? Of course they do, what choice do they have?

What does any of that have to do with your claims that people would get civil unions rather than marriages under the bill?

Nothing. Not a fucking thing. There's not one bit of Boss' gibberish that is backed by any part of the actual bill. Its only the imaginary version that Boss has made up says what he believes.

Which is why Boss ignores ANY citation of SB377. And can't cite a single passage that backs his claims.

Yet clings to his sad, baseless nonsense all the same. You can't use evidence to convince people who have no use for evidence. Boss' only source....is himself.

 

[Faun]

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

Hey, you're the one saying this isn't about gender after saying it was about gender.

You be sure to let me know who wins the argument you're having with yourself.

Another Paradox

When both genders claim discrimination which gender is being discriminated against?

Both. Both genders claimed they were prevented from marrying the person they love because of their gender.

1. No, a sexuality claimed the discrimination. I'm part of that Male gender, a remarkable majority of us claimed no such discrimination

2. You realize, you bolster my contention that same sex siblings have legitimate claim to being discriminated against

Ignorant. Sexuality is not a requirement of same-sex marriage.

 

[Faun]

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

Hey, you're the one saying this isn't about gender after saying it was about gender.

You be sure to let me know who wins the argument you're having with yourself.

Another Paradox

When both genders claim discrimination which gender is being discriminated against?

When both races claim discrimination which race is being discriminated against?

Exactly dummy, that's why these fall under the strict scrutiny test. Race and sexuality are two vastly different things.

There ya go, fighting with yourself again.

Earlier, you pointed out it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. Now you're making it about gay marriage again.

Lemme know which one of you wins the fight.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

Hey, you're the one saying this isn't about gender after saying it was about gender.

You be sure to let me know who wins the argument you're having with yourself.

Another Paradox

When both genders claim discrimination which gender is being discriminated against?

When both races claim discrimination which race is being discriminated against?

Exactly dummy, that's why these fall under the strict scrutiny test. Race and sexuality are two vastly different things.

There ya go, fighting with yourself again.

Earlier, you pointed out it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage. Now you're making it about gay marriage again.

Lemme know which one of you wins the fight.

I did, your just punch drunk from the beating you've taken.

 

[Faun]

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here.

How do you know. You can tell sexuality via a forum post?

Amazing

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here

Please quote the post that said that I proposed to end marriage. I contend it will die under its own weight.

Marriage as a legal entity, that does not include a sexual relationship, love or nearly anything else that the government can't simply revoke, is a law destined to fail.

Hmmm since not a single hetero married person here agrees with your 'reasonable viewpoint'- and frankly no one agree's with your 'modest proposal'- that you think there is much if any support for your concept of ending legal marriage, just so you can get your revenge on homosexuals- is just as idiotic as everything else you post here

You've stalked all the participants and can tell who are married or not?

Hell, then you must have the winning lottery numbers!

Ladies and gentlemen, THE AMAZING SYRIOUSLY -GAY MENTALIST

You just can't stop fantasizing about straight men having gay sex, can you?

 

[Pop23]

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

Hey, you're the one saying this isn't about gender after saying it was about gender.

You be sure to let me know who wins the argument you're having with yourself.

Another Paradox

When both genders claim discrimination which gender is being discriminated against?

Both. Both genders claimed they were prevented from marrying the person they love because of their gender.

1. No, a sexuality claimed the discrimination. I'm part of that Male gender, a remarkable majority of us claimed no such discrimination

2. You realize, you bolster my contention that same sex siblings have legitimate claim to being discriminated against

Ignorant. Sexuality is not a requirement of same-sex marriage.

Agreed, never said it was.