"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[bodecea]

Because only the coupling between male/ female is required to move the species forward. Because that burden lies only on that coupling. Gay coupling does not produce offspring that the gay itself requires for care as they age, or taxes required for their social security.

How ignorant.

Many guys are parents. You don't need to have physical sex to be a father or mother to a child. Ask the thousands of children out there who were tossed into the gutters of life by their heterosexual parents only to be adopted by a loving gay couple.

Ask the thousands of children born in vitro to Lesbian parents.

Please kindly show a single child born from the sexual coupling of a male with a male or a female with another female.

You can try to make a medical procedure a marriage if you wish, but the truth is, no lesbian has ever given birth to a child that shares the DNA of her and her same sex partner.

You are not ignorant, you are silly.

How is this relevant to the topic of legal marriage?

 

[Ava]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it was Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous. And Hillary hasn't publicly "evolved" yet. She was against gay marriage last time she spoke of it in 2008. Should we expect another miraculous overnight change of heart? The left will believe it despite being an obvious ploy to polish up her image for her presidential run. One thing I've learned about the low-info Dem voters, as long as the promise sounds pretty and more handouts and amnesty are promised, they will vote for the person willing to steal on their behalf. We are at that point where nearly half are voting themselves into a life of living on tax payer money. Dangling tax money in front of people is so tempting that they will forget all the lies and the horrible mess this country is in.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

Great post, Clementine. I don't care whether gays marry or are in civil unions. But I DO care about a person losing a job because of how they feel, or felt, in 2008 when Barry and Hillary each came out on the side of traditional marriage, being between a man and a woman, too. Because of this political correctness, gone awry, I am switching from Mozilla Firefox as my main browser, to Google Chrome, in protest.

 

[Seawytch]

How ignorant.

Many guys are parents. You don't need to have physical sex to be a father or mother to a child. Ask the thousands of children out there who were tossed into the gutters of life by their heterosexual parents only to be adopted by a loving gay couple.

Ask the thousands of children born in vitro to Lesbian parents.

Please kindly show a single child born from the sexual coupling of a male with a male or a female with another female.

You can try to make a medical procedure a marriage if you wish, but the truth is, no lesbian has ever given birth to a child that shares the DNA of her and her same sex partner.

You are not ignorant, you are silly.

How is this relevant to the topic of legal marriage?

In Pop's odd little world there is a procreater and a non procreater license...but even gays that procreate don't get his procreater license because they didn't do it "naturally". (oh, and sterile straights get his procreator license because they have the "right" plumbing and miracles could happen)

 

[Pop23]

How ignorant.

Many guys are parents. You don't need to have physical sex to be a father or mother to a child. Ask the thousands of children out there who were tossed into the gutters of life by their heterosexual parents only to be adopted by a loving gay couple.

Ask the thousands of children born in vitro to Lesbian parents.

Please kindly show a single child born from the sexual coupling of a male with a male or a female with another female.

You can try to make a medical procedure a marriage if you wish, but the truth is, no lesbian has ever given birth to a child that shares the DNA of her and her same sex partner.

You are not ignorant, you are silly.

How is this relevant to the topic of legal marriage?

Should the state sanction a person to fly a jet airplane simply because he has a license to drive a car? Both are modes of transportation and even though the dynamics are completely different, only one license should be issued or somehow one is discriminated against.

This is the argument that same sex couples should be granted the same type of license a heterosexual couple has. Just because the dynamics are vastly different, both must be treated the same.

 

[Pop23]

Please kindly show a single child born from the sexual coupling of a male with a male or a female with another female.

You can try to make a medical procedure a marriage if you wish, but the truth is, no lesbian has ever given birth to a child that shares the DNA of her and her same sex partner.

You are not ignorant, you are silly.

How is this relevant to the topic of legal marriage?

In Pop's odd little world there is a procreater and a non procreater license...but even gays that procreate don't get his procreater license because they didn't do it "naturally". (oh, and sterile straights get his procreator license because they have the "right" plumbing and miracles could happen)

Not at all. That's just silly.

In one, the only ones unable to have offspring are the elderly or the disabled

In the other, neither age or disability applies. Not even fertility matters because the union of the two will never result in an offspring that shares the couples DNA.

 

[Seawytch]

How is this relevant to the topic of legal marriage?

In Pop's odd little world there is a procreater and a non procreater license...but even gays that procreate don't get his procreater license because they didn't do it "naturally". (oh, and sterile straights get his procreator license because they have the "right" plumbing and miracles could happen)

Not at all. That's just silly.

In one, the only ones unable to have offspring are the elderly or the disabled

In the other, neither age or disability applies. Not even fertility matters because the union of the two will never result in an offspring that shares the couples DNA.

None of what you are talking about has ANYTHING to do with civil marriage. There is no fertility test for civil marriage. Procreation is not a requirement in ANY state, county, locality or little freaking town. In fact, procreation is actually forbidden for some civil marriages.

 

[Pop23]

In Pop's odd little world there is a procreater and a non procreater license...but even gays that procreate don't get his procreater license because they didn't do it "naturally". (oh, and sterile straights get his procreator license because they have the "right" plumbing and miracles could happen)

Not at all. That's just silly.

In one, the only ones unable to have offspring are the elderly or the disabled

In the other, neither age or disability applies. Not even fertility matters because the union of the two will never result in an offspring that shares the couples DNA.

None of what you are talking about has ANYTHING to do with civil marriage. There is no fertility test for civil marriage. Procreation is not a requirement in ANY state, county, locality or little freaking town. In fact, procreation is actually forbidden for some civil marriages.

No fertility test would ever be required for same sex. Fertility is not an issue.

Fertility is only a issue for hetro couples. Many Hetero couples will spend thousands and thousands of dollars, which by the way, is NEVER a burden to same sex couples, to not procreate.

Even when Hetero couples takes steps, to NOT procreate, they bare the burden when the birth control fails. Never an issue with same sex couples.

The more you try to make the groups equal, the more you show the difference.

 

[Seawytch]

Not at all. That's just silly.

In one, the only ones unable to have offspring are the elderly or the disabled

In the other, neither age or disability applies. Not even fertility matters because the union of the two will never result in an offspring that shares the couples DNA.

None of what you are talking about has ANYTHING to do with civil marriage. There is no fertility test for civil marriage. Procreation is not a requirement in ANY state, county, locality or little freaking town. In fact, procreation is actually forbidden for some civil marriages.

No fertility test would ever be required for same sex. Fertility is not an issue.

Fertility is only a issue for same sex couples. Many Hetero couples will spend thousands and thousands of dollars, which by the way, is NEVER a burden to same sex couples, to not procreate.

Even when Hetero couples takes steps, to NOT procreate, they bare the burden when the birth control fails. Never an issue with same sex couples.

The more you try to make the groups equal, the more you show the difference.

I'm sorry, but that did not make a lick of sense. No matter how convoluted you make your argument, it doesn't pass any kind of legal muster.

Where is procreation a requirement for civil marriage? NO WHERE.

 

[Pop23]

None of what you are talking about has ANYTHING to do with civil marriage. There is no fertility test for civil marriage. Procreation is not a requirement in ANY state, county, locality or little freaking town. In fact, procreation is actually forbidden for some civil marriages.

No fertility test would ever be required for same sex. Fertility is not an issue.

Fertility is only a issue for same sex couples. Many Hetero couples will spend thousands and thousands of dollars, which by the way, is NEVER a burden to same sex couples, to not procreate.

Even when Hetero couples takes steps, to NOT procreate, they bare the burden when the birth control fails. Never an issue with same sex couples.

The more you try to make the groups equal, the more you show the difference.

I'm sorry, but that did not make a lick of sense. No matter how convoluted you make your argument, it doesn't pass any kind of legal muster.

Where is procreation a requirement for civil marriage? NO WHERE.

Historically, marriage is between a male and a female.

I guess I could link to "the birds and the bee's", but I doubt it would do much good.

 

[KevinWestern]

You ask a question then go on a rant against what you assume is the answer. Typical libtard. For me it is not a religious objection. It is an objection to fags demanding what is not applicable to them...and rejecting other means to gain equal access to what they claim they are entitled to. They don't want the other means....they have to have it their way. They are a pain in my ass.

But Deltex, as a straight man who lives in America too, I just don't understand why someone would oppose two consenting, same-sex adults having the ability to be recognized as "married" by the state.

Note I would never, ever support a gay person trying to force a private church to marry them, but when it comes to matters of the state - I just don't understand why you would care. Lol, you know? Gay people exist and they seem to want to marry. If it has no effect on me, why say no?

This is the part I never really got about the opposition side.

 

[Seawytch]

No fertility test would ever be required for same sex. Fertility is not an issue.

Fertility is only a issue for same sex couples. Many Hetero couples will spend thousands and thousands of dollars, which by the way, is NEVER a burden to same sex couples, to not procreate.

Even when Hetero couples takes steps, to NOT procreate, they bare the burden when the birth control fails. Never an issue with same sex couples.

The more you try to make the groups equal, the more you show the difference.

I'm sorry, but that did not make a lick of sense. No matter how convoluted you make your argument, it doesn't pass any kind of legal muster.

Where is procreation a requirement for civil marriage? NO WHERE.

Historically, marriage is between a male and a female.

I guess I could link to "the birds and the bee's", but I doubt it would do much good.

Historically marriage was between one man and many women. Historically marriage was only between whites and whites and blacks and blacks. Historically women were considered property in the marriage.

Procreation has never been a requirement for civil marriage...good thing since my brother and his wife are incapable of having children.

 

[Pop23]

I'm sorry, but that did not make a lick of sense. No matter how convoluted you make your argument, it doesn't pass any kind of legal muster.

Where is procreation a requirement for civil marriage? NO WHERE.

Historically, marriage is between a male and a female.

I guess I could link to "the birds and the bee's", but I doubt it would do much good.

Historically marriage was between one man and many women. Historically marriage was only between whites and whites and blacks and blacks. Historically women were considered property in the marriage.

Procreation has never been a requirement for civil marriage...good thing since my brother and his wife are incapable of having children.

A marriage between a man and many women does not change the dynamic. You still have an automobile license vs. a jet pilots license. The polygamist group will share the same burden as the hetro couple, regardless of color. So polygamy will create offspring sharing DNA of the couples within the group.

This burden is NEVER an issue with same sex couples regardless of color, gender or national origin. EVER. It seems that the argument is that nature created the inequality, which is true.

The dynamics of marriage between a black and a white is the same as a white and a white. The same is not true between same sex and hetro.

Your argument about a couple with a disability of the reproductive systems (one or both) is the same as a same sex couple implies that the same sex couple is disabled? Is that really your argument?

 

[CaféAuLait]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it was Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous. And Hillary hasn't publicly "evolved" yet. She was against gay marriage last time she spoke of it in 2008. Should we expect another miraculous overnight change of heart? The left will believe it despite being an obvious ploy to polish up her image for her presidential run. One thing I've learned about the low-info Dem voters, as long as the promise sounds pretty and more handouts and amnesty are promised, they will vote for the person willing to steal on their behalf. We are at that point where nearly half are voting themselves into a life of living on tax payer money. Dangling tax money in front of people is so tempting that they will forget all the lies and the horrible mess this country is in.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

It's all pure hypocrisy! Many of those calling for his resignation voted for Obama the same year he made the donation in 2008, Obama, who said he did not believe in gay marriage.

And then, of course there is this, the VERY company calling for the boycott, OkCupid? OkCupid's CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once! How about that!

OkCupid's CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once, Too

OkCupid's CEO Donated to an Anti-Gay Campaign Once, Too | Mother Jones

Kinda funny how that works. Nothing but pure hypocrisy, it would be laughable if not so freaking sad.



So where are the calls for his resignation?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Funny how some get fired and publicly ridiculed, yet others simply get instantly forgiven and supported. All depends on which side of the political fence you're standing on.

While I have no issues with gays tying the knot, I am forever amazed at the hypocrisy on the left when it comes to whose feet they hold to the fire. The CEO donated money to let his opinion be heard. Fair enough, as that is how it works here in America. Debate openly and let the people vote and decide. However, the Clintons were against gay marriage and legislation was passed that made their opinion law without another vote by the people.

“If it is unconscionable to support a company whose CEO once donated to the cause against marriage equality, why is it not unconscionable to support a candidate who opposed marriage equality as recently as 2008, and who was an integral part of an administration that embraced the Defense Of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton?”

“How do you weigh the relative impact of a president strongly backing DOMA – even running ads touting his support for it in the South – and an executive who spent $1000 for an anti-marriage equality Proposition?”

Who said this?

"Marriage has a historic, religious and moral context that goes back to the beginning of time. And I think a marriage has always been between a man and a woman.”

Why, it was Hillary Clinton, of course. I wish the liberals here would react to that statement on it's own merit, but they will look at the author of the quote and go easy on her. And Obama didn't "evolve" on the issue until Biden opened his mouth and said that Obama supported it. Once that was out and the entire gay community was paying attention, Obama had little choice but to claim he evolved, apparently overnight. I found that evolution of his completely disingenuous. And Hillary hasn't publicly "evolved" yet. She was against gay marriage last time she spoke of it in 2008. Should we expect another miraculous overnight change of heart? The left will believe it despite being an obvious ploy to polish up her image for her presidential run. One thing I've learned about the low-info Dem voters, as long as the promise sounds pretty and more handouts and amnesty are promised, they will vote for the person willing to steal on their behalf. We are at that point where nearly half are voting themselves into a life of living on tax payer money. Dangling tax money in front of people is so tempting that they will forget all the lies and the horrible mess this country is in.


What Do Hillary Clinton & Booted Mozilla CEO Have in Common When it Comes to Traditional Marriage?

Gee.... I wonder how the perverted limp wrists can ever come to terms with this? Let's see....the. CEO of Mozilla lost his job for writing a thousand dollar check in 2008 (the same year Barry stated that he disagreed with gay marriage) yet Barry is still in power.

Hillary (the murderer) Clinton - as well as her trash husband, stated the same thing. Hmmmm....Wonder what the Fag Mafia is doing about that??

 

[mal]

The Cross at the end of the Dishonest Meme is the best...

Why do Homosexuals go to places that don't want them?...

If a Church said what I did and Believed in was an Abomination and Sin I would not attend that Church or Respect their Gospel.

The only Reason the Gays are there is to Change the Faith.

They don't want to be Christians... They want Christians to not be Christians.

What a Sad place we've come to in this Society.



peace...

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Jesus's only commandment was to love one another, and to teach people to love one another (unconditionally). That is the single most important teaching and thus comes first before all else.

A man who is gay who teaches all to love unconditionally, and is effective at teaching this is a much more valuable "Christian" - ie follower of Christ - than a straight man who cannot teach this principle.

So, I say judge the quality of Christian on their propensity to teach and share love, not who they are attracted to in a sexual way. I think the gay issue blinds a lot of Christians, and manifests in a way that perverts the true teachings of Christ.


.

Jesus did not Condone Sin... You know this... Go forth and Sin no more... Adultery and Homosexuality are Sins... Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus change that Fact.



peace...

 

[KevinWestern]

Jesus did not Condone Sin... You know this... Go forth and Sin no more... Adultery and Homosexuality are Sins... Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus change that Fact.
.

My point was, if a gay minister was more effective at teaching people to love one another that should - in my view - hold more precedence over the fact "he is gay".

 

[GISMYS]

Jesus did not Condone Sin... You know this... Go forth and Sin no more... Adultery and Homosexuality are Sins... Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus change that Fact.
.

My point was, if a gay minister was more effective at teaching people to love one another that should - in my view - hold more precedence over the fact "he is gay".

A"minister" living as a homosexual will not be in heaven.

 

[KevinWestern]

Jesus did not Condone Sin... You know this... Go forth and Sin no more... Adultery and Homosexuality are Sins... Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus change that Fact.
.

My point was, if a gay minister was more effective at teaching people to love one another that should - in my view - hold more precedence over the fact "he is gay".

A"minister" living as a homosexual will not be in heaven.

You're not in any stretch of the imagination at liberty to make that decision.

 

[GISMYS]

My point was, if a gay minister was more effective at teaching people to love one another that should - in my view - hold more precedence over the fact "he is gay".

A"minister" living as a homosexual will not be in heaven.

You're not in any stretch of the imagination at liberty to make that decision.

Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, 10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God. 1 corinthians 6:9

 

[mal]

Jesus did not Condone Sin... You know this... Go forth and Sin no more... Adultery and Homosexuality are Sins... Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus change that Fact.
.

My point was, if a gay minister was more effective at teaching people to love one another that should - in my view - hold more precedence over the fact "he is gay".

That's your Opinion and it does not square with the Gospel.

The Homosexuality is a Sin and Abomination EVERYWHERE it is mentioned in the Bible... It is spoken more Harshly against in Jewish Moral Law than Beastiality is.

Willfully Sinning is not what "Christians" are called to do.

Christ was Clear about this.



peace...