It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Pop23]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

 

[Montrovant]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

That holds true only if the single compelling argument against close family marriages is potential problems with offspring.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.

Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Do same sex couples seek artificial insemination due to one of the partners reproductive disability?

Funny, I don't think so.

See the difference simpleton?

Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Why do you want to harm their children- does your bigotry extend to wanting to harm their children also?

 

[Syriusly]

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law..

Of course you do- because of your bigotry towards homosexuals.

The 'distinction' that marriage is only between a man and a woman has nothing to do with bans on marriage between closely related men and women, nor do bans on polygamous marriages have anything to do with marriage being between a man and a woman(since marriage in much of the world includes a man and several women).

You drag your straw man out every time this comes up to argue about why gay couples should be discriminated against.

 

[Syriusly]

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

Our brave new world- where Amercans who are gay can now marry each other.

The brave new world that most Americans want- and Pop would deny them.

 

[Syriusly]

You do realize that it is already, right? Homosexuality is accepted as normal. Welcome to the 21st Century, Rip.

Sure, that's why an overwhelming number of parents hope their children grow to be homosexual.

Good lord, get a grip on your OCD.

Poor Pops...doesn't realize that the country doesn't hate gays like he does anymore.

Time to check your Depends old man...and welcome to the 21st Century. Lots of cool stuff going on.

Now show the poll showing what sexuality parents hope their children become.

You have reluctant tolerance now, that's about it. Tolerance and acceptance are far different concepts.

And you have neither.

Just bigotry towards homosexuals.

And butthurt that most of America no longer shares your bigotry.

The question was acceptance, which homosexuals desire but will never obtain.

Never from you- that is clear.

From me- no problem.

I have no problem accepting homosexuals, or African Americans or Jews or Christians or Mormons or Polish or square dancers.

You do.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.

Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Same sex coupling had never produced a single child.

Same sex couples have produced children- just like many heterosexual couples.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Is it just that you want to harm the children of gay couples?

 

[Pop23]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

That holds true only if the single compelling argument against close family marriages is potential problems with offspring.

I might agree, but then again, there is no requirement for sex in marriage, so we would be creating a prohibition based on what?

The "close family members" only make sense under that law if marriage is only between a Man and Woman.

If not, then you have an equal protection problem.

Prior to the recent ruling, all closely related relatives were prohibited because males plus females (the only pairing allowed), could create children. It made sense to prohibit ALL, now, two siblings of the same sex cannot. So?

You also understand that one of the early rulings on same sex marriage was based on a lesbian woman who, because she could not marry her partner, had to pay inheritance tax. The same claim could be made by thousands of people each year who could easily just marry a parent to get around the law.

Again, unless there is sexual contact, there is no incest.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.

Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Same sex coupling had never produced a single child.

Same sex couples have produced children- just like many heterosexual couples.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Is it just that you want to harm the children of gay couples?

What exactly are these children being denied. A piece of paper?

Single parents understand that they are not married either. Are you advocating forced marriage for the sake of the children?

You are odd

 

[Pop23]

Sure, that's why an overwhelming number of parents hope their children grow to be homosexual.

Good lord, get a grip on your OCD.

Poor Pops...doesn't realize that the country doesn't hate gays like he does anymore.

Time to check your Depends old man...and welcome to the 21st Century. Lots of cool stuff going on.

Now show the poll showing what sexuality parents hope their children become.

You have reluctant tolerance now, that's about it. Tolerance and acceptance are far different concepts.

And you have neither.

Just bigotry towards homosexuals.

And butthurt that most of America no longer shares your bigotry.

The question was acceptance, which homosexuals desire but will never obtain.

Never from you- that is clear.

From me- no problem.

I have no problem accepting homosexuals, or African Americans or Jews or Christians or Mormons or Polish or square dancers.

You do.

Nope, odd little dude, many of my best friends are former Morman, born again Christian, African American square dancers.

 

[Pop23]

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

Our brave new world- where Amercans who are gay can now marry each other.

The brave new world that most Americans want- and Pop would deny them.

Gays married long before the law changed bigot

 

[Pop23]

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law..

Of course you do- because of your bigotry towards homosexuals.

The 'distinction' that marriage is only between a man and a woman has nothing to do with bans on marriage between closely related men and women, nor do bans on polygamous marriages have anything to do with marriage being between a man and a woman(since marriage in much of the world includes a man and several women).

You drag your straw man out every time this comes up to argue about why gay couples should be discriminated against.

Yet you make no argument?

Gee, why am I not surprised?

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.

Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Same sex coupling had never produced a single child.

Same sex couples have produced children- just like many heterosexual couples.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Is it just that you want to harm the children of gay couples?

What exactly are these children being denied. A piece of paper?

Single parents understand that they are not married either. Are you advocating forced marriage for the sake of the children?

You are odd

I am just in agreement with Chief Justice Kennedy.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

You are the one who is fine with harm coming to children- if their parents happen to be gay.

 

[Syriusly]

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law..

Of course you do- because of your bigotry towards homosexuals.

The 'distinction' that marriage is only between a man and a woman has nothing to do with bans on marriage between closely related men and women, nor do bans on polygamous marriages have anything to do with marriage being between a man and a woman(since marriage in much of the world includes a man and several women).

You drag your straw man out every time this comes up to argue about why gay couples should be discriminated against.

Yet you make no argument?

Gee, why am I not surprised?

Gee, why am I not surprised that you lie about my post.

 

[Syriusly]

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

Our brave new world- where Amercans who are gay can now marry each other.

The brave new world that most Americans want- and Pop would deny them.

Gays married long before the law changed bigot

As I said-

Our brave new world- where Amercans who are gay can now marry each other.

The brave new world that most Americans want- and Pop would deny them

 

[Syriusly]

Poor Pops...doesn't realize that the country doesn't hate gays like he does anymore.

Time to check your Depends old man...and welcome to the 21st Century. Lots of cool stuff going on.

Now show the poll showing what sexuality parents hope their children become.

You have reluctant tolerance now, that's about it. Tolerance and acceptance are far different concepts.

And you have neither.

Just bigotry towards homosexuals.

And butthurt that most of America no longer shares your bigotry.

The question was acceptance, which homosexuals desire but will never obtain.

Never from you- that is clear.

From me- no problem.

I have no problem accepting homosexuals, or African Americans or Jews or Christians or Mormons or Polish or square dancers.

You do.

Nope, odd little dude, many of my best friends are former Morman, born again Christian, African American square dancers.

As I said

Never from you- that is clear.

From me- no problem.

I have no problem accepting homosexuals, or African Americans or Jews or Christians or Mormons or Polish or square dancers.

You do.

 

[Pop23]

Marriage was the governments attempt to bring order to chaos. Same sex coupling required no such order as it produced no offspring.

Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Same sex coupling had never produced a single child.

Same sex couples have produced children- just like many heterosexual couples.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Is it just that you want to harm the children of gay couples?

What exactly are these children being denied. A piece of paper?

Single parents understand that they are not married either. Are you advocating forced marriage for the sake of the children?

You are odd

I am just in agreement with Chief Justice Kennedy.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

You are the one who is fine with harm coming to children- if their parents happen to be gay.

Ever consider that it is not the marital status that creates the harm?

And look at the world their parents will leave them. Because of equal protection, some day they'll be able to marry their uncles!

 

[Pop23]

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

Our brave new world- where Amercans who are gay can now marry each other.

The brave new world that most Americans want- and Pop would deny them.

Gays married long before the law changed bigot

As I said-

Our brave new world- where Amercans who are gay can now marry each other.

The brave new world that most Americans want- and Pop would deny them

I don't think most of the world wants sibling marriage.

You want our thanks for that?

You are looney

 

[Syriusly]

I find it interesting that several in this discussion have noted that several forms of marriage that, prior to the recent change to allow same sex marriage, would be considered incestuous, should be legal. Another even stated that if these, and other forms of incest came before the courts, the courts would have to overturn the prohibitions.

I believe this to be true and, it's not because of the "Loving" decision, but because the distinction that marriage is only between a man and a woman was removed from the law.

Our brave new world, brought to you by gay activists.

That holds true only if the single compelling argument against close family marriages is potential problems with offspring.

The "close family members" only make sense under that law if marriage is only between a Man and Woman.
.

That is what you keep claiming.

Because you ignore what anyone else says.

Wisconsin marriage law allows first cousins to marry but only if they can prove that they procreate together.
But Wisconsin marriage law does not allow siblings to marry- even if they can prove that they cannot procreate together.

Your straw man won't dance by itself.

Your bigotry towards homosexuals continues.

 

[Syriusly]

Same sex coupling produce offspring in the exact same fashion as many opposite sex coupling do.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Same sex coupling had never produced a single child.

Same sex couples have produced children- just like many heterosexual couples.

Why do you want to deny the children of gay couples married parents- but not the children of heterosexual couples- who produce offspring in the same manner?

Is it just that you want to harm the children of gay couples?

What exactly are these children being denied. A piece of paper?

Single parents understand that they are not married either. Are you advocating forced marriage for the sake of the children?

You are odd

I am just in agreement with Chief Justice Kennedy.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

You are the one who is fine with harm coming to children- if their parents happen to be gay.

Ever consider that it is not the marital status that creates the harm?

And look at the world their parents will leave them. Because of equal protection, some day they'll be able to marry their uncles!

I am just in agreement with Chief Justice Kennedy.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

You are the one who is fine with harm coming to children- if their parents happen to be gay.

Just because their parents happen to be gay.