Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Montrovant]

Considering the vast majority of men probably enjoy a blowjob, you get to feel superior to almost everyone, huh?

Enjoying an act as foreplay is far different then the act that creates children.

When a child is born orally, let's talk

At what point did I say or imply or even hint that a blowjob creates children? Does oral sex somehow prevent a couple from having other sorts of sex?

Interesting isn't it, I guess it does. Intercourse for same sex couples

What does that even mean?

Would you argue that most men don't enjoy a blowjob?

As foreplay, sure. But for us it isnt the main event, for you it is.

Is there a point to this or do I need to read you the birds and the bees?

The point was that JimBowie seemed to be saying that blowjobs are bad and because of that opinion he felt superior to those who received them. Since I believe most men enjoy blowjobs, it allows him an excuse to feel superior to every man. Nothing to do with procreation, nothing to indicate blowjobs replace intercourse, nothing about same sex vs opposite sex couples.

What was the point to you responding to this little side conversation if you don't see a point to it?

 

[Montrovant]

At what point did I say or imply or even hint that a blowjob creates children? Does oral sex somehow prevent a couple from having other sorts of sex?

Interesting isn't it, I guess it does. Intercourse for same sex couples

What does that even mean?

Would you argue that most men don't enjoy a blowjob?

As foreplay, sure. But for us it isnt the main event, for you it is.

Is there a point to this or do I need to read you the birds and the bees?

Who is this 'us' you speak of?

Certainly not the millions of heterosexual men who enjoy blowjobs are far more than just foreplay.

Pretty certain almost most men in America- straight or gay- enjoy a climax from a blow job more than a blowjob as 'foreplay'

Semantics, most hetro couples can use it as foreplay or a lead in to a far more productive event.

That is a fact only applicable to hetros.

That depends on how you are defining productive.

 

[Boss]

You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.

And you don't either but it damn sure sounds like you believe you do... you're making the exact same arguments against incestophile marriage that was made against homosexual marriage. What you want is a double standard. You want to be able to decide what society has to accept as moral based on your views without regard to any other view.

Nothing was being denied to homosexuals! Why do you people continue to tell this lie? No law anywhere in the country was restricting gays from marrying any person of the opposite sex who is of legal age where both parties meet the criteria set for marriage. There were NO heterosexuals being allowed to have same-sex marriages to the exclusion of gay people.

 

[Pop23]

Interesting isn't it, I guess it does. Intercourse for same sex couples

What does that even mean?

Would you argue that most men don't enjoy a blowjob?

As foreplay, sure. But for us it isnt the main event, for you it is.

Is there a point to this or do I need to read you the birds and the bees?

Who is this 'us' you speak of?

Certainly not the millions of heterosexual men who enjoy blowjobs are far more than just foreplay.

Pretty certain almost most men in America- straight or gay- enjoy a climax from a blow job more than a blowjob as 'foreplay'

Semantics, most hetro couples can use it as foreplay or a lead in to a far more productive event.

That is a fact only applicable to hetros.

That depends on how you are defining productive.

Semantics.

And you knew that.

The most productive a hetro, opposite sex couple can be by sexual encounter is a brand new person.

The most productive a homosexual, same sex coupling can be, is a wet spot that requires a dry cleaner.

True Story.

 

[Syriusly]

Judge in Wisconsin:

For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

For example, polygamy and incest raise [moral] concerns about abuse [moral judgement], exploitation [moral judgement] and threats to the social safety net [moral judgement].

Where is your hymnal, Syriusly? And do you wear a funny hat like the Pope?

What is a law not based on morality?

Gay Marriage.... Abortion... how many you want?

Gay Marriage.....based on equal protection. That equal protection is a necessary protection is a moral judgement. Abortion.....based on a right to privacy. That citizens deserve a right to privacy is a moral judgement.

Wrong and wronger.

Same-sex marriage was equally not allowed for everyone... no equal protection claim until you redefined marriage to include immoral homosexual relationships. Rights to have homo marriage trumps rights to morally deny it.

Abortion is taking of human life, an immoral act. Right to kill your baby trumps moral right to prohibit it.

But thanks for demonstrating how infanticide and sexual perversion can be dressed up as "morality" and be codified into law by the secular liberal left. Oh... you just destroyed your entire argument against polygamy, incestophile, hebephile and zoophile marriage. Nice job!

Judge in Wisconsin:

For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

For example, polygamy and incest raise [moral] concerns about abuse [moral judgement], exploitation [moral judgement] and threats to the social safety net [moral judgement].

Where is your hymnal, Syriusly? And do you wear a funny hat like the Pope?

What is a law not based on morality?

Gay Marriage.... Abortion... how many you want?

Gay Marriage.....based on equal protection. That equal protection is a necessary protection is a moral judgement. Abortion.....based on a right to privacy. That citizens deserve a right to privacy is a moral judgement.

The same equal protection due same sex siblings?

How is it possible that anyone can argue that something is a civil right........


Except for that dude over there!

Yet- that is exactly what you do.

For example- I argue that a same gender couple should be treated exactly the same regarding legal marriage as my wife and I were treated.

You argue that a same gender couple should not be treated exactly the same regarding legal marriage.

You know- you want to exclude those dudes of there.

 

[Syriusly]

You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.

And you don't either but it damn sure sounds like you believe you do... you're making the exact same arguments against incestophile marriage that was made against homosexual marriage..

Boss- when have I made an argument 'against incestophile marriage'?

I have pointed out that States- and one judge in particular has presented what they consider to be compelling arguments against 'incestophile' marriage.

And no- those arguments were not the same arguments made against homosexual marriage. Are you lying again- or just ignorant again? Who knows.

Once again from the Wisconsin case:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

Abuse, exploitation and 'threats to the social safety net' were not arguments made by the State of Wisconsin against gay marriage.

You and Pops can pretend whatever you want to pretend- but in reality- States have made separate and distinctly different reasons in defense of bans of incestuous and polygamous marriage.

And meanwhile- couples in love- gay and straight- are getting legally married- here and in Alabama- and that is wonderful.

 

[Syriusly]

What does that even mean?

Would you argue that most men don't enjoy a blowjob?

As foreplay, sure. But for us it isnt the main event, for you it is.

Is there a point to this or do I need to read you the birds and the bees?

Who is this 'us' you speak of?

Certainly not the millions of heterosexual men who enjoy blowjobs are far more than just foreplay.

Pretty certain almost most men in America- straight or gay- enjoy a climax from a blow job more than a blowjob as 'foreplay'

Semantics, most hetro couples can use it as foreplay or a lead in to a far more productive event.

That is a fact only applicable to hetros.

That depends on how you are defining productive.

Semantics.

And you knew that.

The most productive a hetro, opposite sex couple can be by sexual encounter is a brand new person.

The most productive a homosexual, same sex coupling can be, is a wet spot that requires a dry cleaner.

True Story.

Wow- thanks for telling us how heterosexuals can have children when they have a penis inserted into a vagina.

So if those heterosexuals who have children by accident, when they don't actually want them, instead enjoyed a good blow job- they wouldn't be birthing so many unwanted children.

Children born to homosexuals are always intended- never accidents.

 

[Montrovant]

What does that even mean?

Would you argue that most men don't enjoy a blowjob?

As foreplay, sure. But for us it isnt the main event, for you it is.

Is there a point to this or do I need to read you the birds and the bees?

Who is this 'us' you speak of?

Certainly not the millions of heterosexual men who enjoy blowjobs are far more than just foreplay.

Pretty certain almost most men in America- straight or gay- enjoy a climax from a blow job more than a blowjob as 'foreplay'

Semantics, most hetro couples can use it as foreplay or a lead in to a far more productive event.

That is a fact only applicable to hetros.

That depends on how you are defining productive.

Semantics.

And you knew that.

The most productive a hetro, opposite sex couple can be by sexual encounter is a brand new person.

The most productive a homosexual, same sex coupling can be, is a wet spot that requires a dry cleaner.

True Story.

And?

 

[Syriusly]

You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.

Nothing was being denied to homosexuals! Why do you people continue to tell this lie? No law anywhere in the country was restricting gays from marrying any person of the opposite sex who is of legal age where both parties meet the criteria set for marriage. There were NO heterosexuals being allowed to have same-sex marriages to the exclusion of gay people.

Because we had multiple courts agree with me- not you.

Your argument was the same argument used by the State of Virginia:

Let me remind you of how once again you sound just like the racists of Virginia in the Loving case:

The second contention, an alternative contention is, that if the Fourteenth Amendment be deemed to apply to state antimiscegenation statutes, then this statute serves a legitimate, legislative objective of preventing the sociological and psychological evils which attend interracial marriages, and is a—an expression, a rational expression of a policy which Virginia has a right to adopt

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems than are those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage or incestuous marriage


Mr. McIlwaine: That is correct, but it is clear that the Framers understood that in their intention, a law which equally forbade the members of one race to marry members of another race with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both race equally

Now- all we have to do is a slight change of language- and we have your argument.

a law which equally forbade the members of one gender to marry members of the same gender with same penal sanction on both did treat the individuals of both genders equally

 

[Syriusly]

You seem to be equating homosexuality with male on male anal sex, something I see many people opposed to homosexuality do. Unless, of course, you have a different meaning for unsanitary. Plenty of heterosexuals engage in 'unsanitary' sex as well.
I'm also curious about just how many civilizations ban homosexuality. I think 'almost every' is a strong mischaracterization of the facts.

Anything that is not basic penis-to-vagina sex is sodomy. Seriously, some woman giving a dude oral sex is heterosexual but it is still nasty.

Delightfully nasty.

Show me a man who does not enjoy receiving a blow job, and I will show you a man who just doesn't can't enjoy pleasure- and likely doesn't want anyone else to have fun either.

Is your mind constantly in the gutter? Do you really think the framers of the line "not too closely related" had hummers in mind when they wrote that?

Are you offended by the idea of getting a blow job also? Or just any kind of personal enjoyment?

No, but I bet anyone you pay to give you one is not only offended, but wonders how small that thing actually is!

No- unlike yourself, I don't have to pay for my sex.

My wife and I have been happy with each over for 20 years- no need for either of us to pay anyone for sex.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me guess, this was all 'out of context' as well?

homosexuality should be condemned from every pulpit in the nation as it is a disgusting, unsanitary, corrupting and evil set of behaviors which is why almost every civilization bans the shit outright. That ours is embracing the fagotry is just one more piece of evidence that our nation is sick and ailing.

You seem to be equating homosexuality with male on male anal sex, something I see many people opposed to homosexuality do. Unless, of course, you have a different meaning for unsanitary. Plenty of heterosexuals engage in 'unsanitary' sex as well.
I'm also curious about just how many civilizations ban homosexuality. I think 'almost every' is a strong mischaracterization of the facts.

Anything that is not basic penis-to-vagina sex is sodomy. Seriously, some woman giving a dude oral sex is heterosexual but it is still nasty.

Delightfully nasty.

Show me a man who does not enjoy receiving a blow job, and I will show you a man who just doesn't can't enjoy pleasure- and likely doesn't want anyone else to have fun either.

I don't like or desire BJs or HJs.

Dude you have no idea of what you are missing, none and it would be wasted on a retard like you anyway. Pointing that out makes me feel this warm little fuzzy feeling inside to know that I am superior to you.

What am I missing?

I have been married for over 20 years to a delightfully sex woman- and we enjoy having sex together.

I just don't have the hang ups about sex and pleasure that you do.

Frankly you have deviant sexual desires- since the majority of heterosexual men do enjoy blowjobs.

 

[Pop23]

As foreplay, sure. But for us it isnt the main event, for you it is.

Is there a point to this or do I need to read you the birds and the bees?

Who is this 'us' you speak of?

Certainly not the millions of heterosexual men who enjoy blowjobs are far more than just foreplay.

Pretty certain almost most men in America- straight or gay- enjoy a climax from a blow job more than a blowjob as 'foreplay'

Semantics, most hetro couples can use it as foreplay or a lead in to a far more productive event.

That is a fact only applicable to hetros.

That depends on how you are defining productive.

Semantics.

And you knew that.

The most productive a hetro, opposite sex couple can be by sexual encounter is a brand new person.

The most productive a homosexual, same sex coupling can be, is a wet spot that requires a dry cleaner.

True Story.

Wow- thanks for telling us how heterosexuals can have children when they have a penis inserted into a vagina.

So if those heterosexuals who have children by accident, when they don't actually want them, instead enjoyed a good blow job- they wouldn't be birthing so many unwanted children.

Children born to homosexuals are always intended- never accidents.

I find this incredibly interesting

The argument raged for years that hetro sex was no different than homosexual sex, and now you get it!

 

[Syriusly]

Judge in Wisconsin:

For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

For example, polygamy and incest raise [moral] concerns about abuse [moral judgement], exploitation [moral judgement] and threats to the social safety net [moral judgement].

Where is your hymnal, Syriusly? And do you wear a funny hat like the Pope?

Nothing about morality there at all. Unless you consider criminal abuse by one person to another to be a 'moral' issue- rather than a criminal issue. Do you think rape is also just a 'moral'?

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion.

 

[Pop23]

As foreplay, sure. But for us it isnt the main event, for you it is.

Is there a point to this or do I need to read you the birds and the bees?

Who is this 'us' you speak of?

Certainly not the millions of heterosexual men who enjoy blowjobs are far more than just foreplay.

Pretty certain almost most men in America- straight or gay- enjoy a climax from a blow job more than a blowjob as 'foreplay'

Semantics, most hetro couples can use it as foreplay or a lead in to a far more productive event.

That is a fact only applicable to hetros.

That depends on how you are defining productive.

Semantics.

And you knew that.

The most productive a hetro, opposite sex couple can be by sexual encounter is a brand new person.

The most productive a homosexual, same sex coupling can be, is a wet spot that requires a dry cleaner.

True Story.

And?

Is there a question you would actually like to ask?

 

[Boss]

You have no 'right' to 'morally' deny rights to others- no matter how much you think you should be legally require other Americans to obey your morality.

And you don't either but it damn sure sounds like you believe you do... you're making the exact same arguments against incestophile marriage that was made against homosexual marriage..

Boss- when have I made an argument 'against incestophile marriage'?

I have pointed out that States- and one judge in particular has presented what they consider to be compelling arguments against 'incestophile' marriage.

And no- those arguments were not the same arguments made against homosexual marriage. Are you lying again- or just ignorant again? Who knows.

Once again from the Wisconsin case:

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

Abuse, exploitation and 'threats to the social safety net' were not arguments made by the State of Wisconsin against gay marriage.

You and Pops can pretend whatever you want to pretend- but in reality- States have made separate and distinctly different reasons in defense of bans of incestuous and polygamous marriage.

And meanwhile- couples in love- gay and straight- are getting legally married- here and in Alabama- and that is wonderful.

Okay, but...

...polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

Is not ANY different than the argument made against striking down sodomy laws making homosexuality legal. These are ALL moral-based judgments. For some reason, you believe (and this judge) that we can apply morality to certain things but not other things.

For years, those opposed to legalizing homosexuality have argued that this raises concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to society. Not to mention the assorted health risks involved with anal sex. ALL of those arguments were struck down, found not to constitute a "compelling state interest" but now all of a sudden, those are somehow valid and legitimate arguments to deny something that is essentially the same thing.

And meanwhile- couples in love- gay and straight- are getting legally married- here and in Alabama- and that is wonderful.

If any rational person needs proof of what this is all about, they need look no further than this kind of a retort. It is clearly obvious that you are thrilled with the thought of doing something that you think bothers me personally. You get some sick satisfaction of trying to rub my nose in it. I'm already on record saying that I don't give a shit what you call marriage, I want every American to have the right to define marriage for themselves without government mandating it. You want to do things to piss off the right and then rub their noses in it. That's what this is about for you.... you hide behind this "moral righteousness" that is as phony as you are when it comes to gay couples.

 

[Pop23]

Judge in Wisconsin:

For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

For example, polygamy and incest raise [moral] concerns about abuse [moral judgement], exploitation [moral judgement] and threats to the social safety net [moral judgement].

Where is your hymnal, Syriusly? And do you wear a funny hat like the Pope?

Nothing about morality there at all. Unless you consider criminal abuse by one person to another to be a 'moral' issue- rather than a criminal issue. Do you think rape is also just a 'moral'?

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion.

They would be obvious if Crabby could provide a statute that requires sex in marriage.

You and Crabby obviously think there is, so provide the link or admit you and Crabby are stoopid.

 

[Pop23]

Anything that is not basic penis-to-vagina sex is sodomy. Seriously, some woman giving a dude oral sex is heterosexual but it is still nasty.

Delightfully nasty.

Show me a man who does not enjoy receiving a blow job, and I will show you a man who just doesn't can't enjoy pleasure- and likely doesn't want anyone else to have fun either.

Is your mind constantly in the gutter? Do you really think the framers of the line "not too closely related" had hummers in mind when they wrote that?

Are you offended by the idea of getting a blow job also? Or just any kind of personal enjoyment?

No, but I bet anyone you pay to give you one is not only offended, but wonders how small that thing actually is!

No- unlike yourself, I don't have to pay for my sex.

My wife and I have been happy with each over for 20 years- no need for either of us to pay anyone for sex.

Good god you need to buy, rent or lease a sense of humor Sally

 

[Syriusly]

Who is this 'us' you speak of?

Certainly not the millions of heterosexual men who enjoy blowjobs are far more than just foreplay.

Pretty certain almost most men in America- straight or gay- enjoy a climax from a blow job more than a blowjob as 'foreplay'

Semantics, most hetro couples can use it as foreplay or a lead in to a far more productive event.

That is a fact only applicable to hetros.

That depends on how you are defining productive.

Semantics.

And you knew that.

The most productive a hetro, opposite sex couple can be by sexual encounter is a brand new person.

The most productive a homosexual, same sex coupling can be, is a wet spot that requires a dry cleaner.

True Story.

Wow- thanks for telling us how heterosexuals can have children when they have a penis inserted into a vagina.

So if those heterosexuals who have children by accident, when they don't actually want them, instead enjoyed a good blow job- they wouldn't be birthing so many unwanted children.

Children born to homosexuals are always intended- never accidents.

I find this incredibly interesting

The argument raged for years that hetro sex was no different than homosexual sex, and now you get it!

Who made that argument?

Based upon general groupings and ignoring hands and toys
Hetero couple:
Penis to vagina
Penis to mouth
Penis to ass
Vagina to mouth

Gay male couple
Penis to mouth
Penis to ass

Gay female couple
Vagina to mouth

All variations bring pleasure- most humans engage in some or all of these acts for pleasure- Hetero couples can also produce children directly through- sometimes accidentally- sometimes on purpose.

Hope that helps you understand the sex.



Gay femae couple

 

[Syriusly]

Judge in Wisconsin:

For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

For example, polygamy and incest raise [moral] concerns about abuse [moral judgement], exploitation [moral judgement] and threats to the social safety net [moral judgement].

Where is your hymnal, Syriusly? And do you wear a funny hat like the Pope?

Nothing about morality there at all. Unless you consider criminal abuse by one person to another to be a 'moral' issue- rather than a criminal issue. Do you think rape is also just a 'moral'?

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion.

They would be obvious if Crabby could provide a statute that requires sex in marriage.

You and Crabby obviously think there is, so provide the link or admit you and Crabby are stoopid.

Judge Crabb doesn't mention sex- again that is you with your sex on the brains.

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion

 

[Boss]

Judge in Wisconsin:

For example, polygamy and incest raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net

For example, polygamy and incest raise [moral] concerns about abuse [moral judgement], exploitation [moral judgement] and threats to the social safety net [moral judgement].

Where is your hymnal, Syriusly? And do you wear a funny hat like the Pope?

Nothing about morality there at all. Unless you consider criminal abuse by one person to another to be a 'moral' issue- rather than a criminal issue. Do you think rape is also just a 'moral'?

Remember- it isn't me making this argument- this was Judge Crabb- telling everyone that States do have a compelling argument against 'incestuous' and polygamous marriage.

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge


On the other hand- you have yourself- citing yourself- citing your opinion.

Yes, Judge Crabb interjected her moral opinion on society and you are fine with that. You don't mind judicial moral fascism as long as it's a liberal dishing it out. And that's the problem I have with you... you're a two-faced hypocritical piece of shit. You have the unmitigated nerve to sit here and present the exact same moral arguments made years ago against legalization of sodomy and not bat an eye.

Why? Because the truth is, the liberal secular left fancy themselves as little fascist dictators who can tell everyone else how to act and behave but don't have to do anything they don't want to do.