Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Subsidize"? I thought it was just letting people keep more of what they earned?
Not all, some they give you money even when you pay nothing in. If only it was just keeping what you earned.
So if a same sex couple makes enough money that they barely get any return at all, would you be okay with those same sex couples?
You want to be an unnatural freak, go for it, but you shouldn't expect government to enable or subsidize you. Very simple concept.
Where does it say in the constitution that freaks don't enjoy the same rights and privileges as the rest of the people?
Oh, yeah, it doesn't, in fact the 14th amendment says they have the SAME RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES as everyone else before DUE PROCESS.
Let's see you get these people up in front of a court and declared incompetent to rule their own lives then......
frigid weirdo is making The Rabbi look silly, but that is not difficult.
Sil is running around in circles.
The far right reactionary weirdos hear the pitter pat of time's little feet getting ready to stomp their hopes and dreams.
The outcast of Milkwood returns.frigid weirdo is making The Rabbi look silly, but that is not difficult.
Sil is running around in circles.
The far right reactionary weirdos hear the pitter pat of time's little feet getting ready to stomp their hopes and dreams.
So you're certain Utah will be denied the "unquestioned authority" for its consensus to set standards for the privelege of marriage? And in related news, how long do you think the strategists of the LGBT cult can keep the cap on the full disclosure on Harvey Milk's behavior?
Not all, some they give you money even when you pay nothing in. If only it was just keeping what you earned.
So if a same sex couple makes enough money that they barely get any return at all, would you be okay with those same sex couples?
They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.
So if a same sex couple makes enough money that they barely get any return at all, would you be okay with those same sex couples?
They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.
Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.
Funny how most marriages are consummated beforehand? That was common practice for hundreds of years. Made the Victorians nuts actually. It was considered common sense. If you didn't like each other in bed then what chance did you have long-term? Pretty good advice actually.They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.
Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.
In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.
Funny how most marriages are consummated beforehand? That was common practice for hundreds of years. Made the Victorians nuts actually. It was considered common sense. If you didn't like each other in bed then what chance did you have long-term? Pretty good advice actually.Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.
In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.
And nothing. Just noting human nature, and the utter lack of change.Funny how most marriages are consummated beforehand? That was common practice for hundreds of years. Made the Victorians nuts actually. It was considered common sense. If you didn't like each other in bed then what chance did you have long-term? Pretty good advice actually.In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.
And?
They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.
Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.
In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.
Show me the law that says people have to consummate their marriage for it to be legal. I'll give you a head start, there is none. So your point is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage.
In most jurisdictions a marriage that is not consummated can be nullified, no divorce required, just like it never happened, because the contract has yet to be completed. So there is no law needed, Dumb Ass.
How can they get an annulment if you claim they were never legally married in the first place?
For your argument of marriage annulment to hold any sway what-so-ever, you would first have to agree that they were in fact legally married.
They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.
You ignorant fuck, a gay guy has the same rights you do, period end of fucking story. I don't normally neg an asshole unless they do it to me first but keep going and you might be an exception to the rule.
They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.
Gay people can't have sex? So what the hell are they getting all naked for then?
They can do anything they want but it is physically impossible for them to be married because they can not consummate their union. There is no argument to that FACT. You can pretend, deflect, spin or what ever, but you can't change that fact.
Gay people can't have sex? So what the hell are they getting all naked for then?
Sex is the biological function of reproduction. It is why our brains are hardwired to mount and thrust. Doing this with the same gender means there's something mentally wrong with you; if you insist on calling it "sex". What it is properly is assisted masturbation.
In any event, it has nothing to do with procreation, which is part of the argument for Utah's vested interest in creating incentives via the privelege of marriage to encourage people who are having sex [instead of assisted masturbation that will never result in children] to marry. Utah's argument is that they want the acme of coupling to be those people who have the potential to produce children and who present the simplest family unit for maximum care to those children. Just two people, and those two people being man and wife, insures a deep biological instinct to protect that child. And they promote a limited number of offspring inasmuch as one woman can only bear so many children. If you consider that with each new birth in a nuclear family unit, the attention and care each individual child gets is stretched thinner, polygamy decreases that to a transparent thread. Not to mention that a single man in this day and age cannot by himself provide for all those mouths, healthcare and education if we are talking polygamy.
Utah is stating marriage is about the child's welfare and the state's welfare over time and population, balanced. Utah finds by consensus that the best arrangement for this is one man and one woman.
These couples don't always have to produce children. But barren hetero couples do not present a legal problem of the slippery slope. Whereas LGBT situations do. And that slope slides away from a good steady population maintenance and the welfare of children. If gays want to pitch that they as a social group [for ample scientific evidence exists from the most prestigious institutions that aberrent non-child producing sexual orientations are learned] make good parents too, I would bring up the Harvey Milk problem. When 60 + groups of "LGBT" [what is that anyway?...really?] petition for a US postage stamp of Harvey Milk with rainbow "USA" on it, he has become iconic to that behavioral group. The trouble is that his biography states he was into raping teen boys on drugs. Since in spite of that knowledge, LGBT groups do not denounce him and instead defend him, society is forced to examine LGBTs value system under and through the Harvey Milk filter.
So Utah properly should weigh, if push comes to shove, whether or not this new religion belongs around children at all; let alone marrying and gaining a perk of access to adoptable orphans..the most vulnerable citizens of all with no voice at the voting booth and no parents to protect them except the state and the laws it makes and enforces....
Bear in mind that marriage IS a privelege because currently as Utah law is written, gays, polygamists, minors and incestuous couplings are ALL banned from marriage there. Gays are in no way shape or form singled out for discrimination. Though the Harvey Milk situation begs that they should be, and for good cause. Utah discriminates against quite a few people who want to marry there. So either marriage is a free for all the children more and more will suffer though, or there are standards Utah gets to pick to insure the best welfare of each child raised there.
Males and females haven't evolved to be different. Nor has the function of reproduction, the reason intercourse became necessary.
Males and females haven't evolved to be different. Nor has the function of reproduction, the reason intercourse became necessary.
But how necessary is it for every couple to reproduce in the present age? Bear in mind there are 7 billion people and we're struggling to hold down population growth in the world?
Males and females haven't evolved to be different. Nor has the function of reproduction, the reason intercourse became necessary.
But how necessary is it for every couple to reproduce in the present age? Bear in mind there are 7 billion people and we're struggling to hold down population growth in the world?
The key question with regards to Utah isn't about adults. It's about children. Pay close attention because you keep losing that key concept:
There is no denying the strong bonds of the natural biological child of two parents. A woman has the birth and pregnancy to foster this bond. A man sees his own eyes, chin, nose or hair on his infant and warmly regards him as "a chip off the old block". These two people, should they be in love, are the best two people in the world to raise that child. They see themselves in their child and part of that child; as one. That's why vows implore participants in marriage to stick by each other through thick and thin, to not forsake each other for another. It isn't for their benefit. It is for their children's benefit that this is so. Marriage is about children. It is society's insurance that children [future adult members] receive the best possible upbringing as a rule.
A society has a deeply vested interest in preserving this situation. Gays don't fit the bill. It is physically impossible. Wherease at least with barren hetero couples their pledge to each other doesn't conflict legally with the acme marital situation. The rule: one man and one woman. Gays have not qualified.....especially with their defended reverence for a man who raped, habitually, teen orphaned boys on drugs.
Marriage is an incentive with perks. It's a reward for certain behaviors. Those behaviors are to be a man and a woman, coming together in love, in a bonded pair to reproduce and produce children who rely on their relationship to grow into fully fledged, well rounded and productive citizens. No marriage is perfect but the icon is preserved to encourage people to strive for that perfection, that gold ring, so that in so striving a child's chances of health and wellbeing are enhanced. Bestowing "marriage" upon two people of the same gender who regard sex as assisted masturbation and who revere and defend a child sex predator are not qualifying for Utah's standards for its children.
