Procreation and Marriage: A Poll

[Plasmaball]

Real parent if straight (normal) - real parent if gay (abnormal).

There are normal parents and there are abnormal parents. It should be a parent's number one priority to live a normal life so as to 1) send a proper message to a child and to be a good example and 2) to avoid embarrassing the child in a world vastly made up of normal, male/female parents. Sending mixed messages will result in mixed emotions.

A real parent gives their child unconditional love.

An abnormal parent tries to impose their own bigoted beliefs on their child.

The suicide/runaway rate amongst gay children can be directly attributed to the lack of acceptance of who they are by their bigoted judgmental parents.

not when they have shit all the way up their backs...yeah my love kind of wavers

 

[OKTexas]

Sex is the traditional way to consummate a marriage, since gay can only engage in sodomy the marriage can't be consummated. Simple biological fact.

In this day and age, sex shouldn't have to consummate a marriage. Marriage is marriage, period.

That opinion only comes from the screw the law, tradition and nature crowd. There are contract laws that could have been used, but no, we will FORCE this on the people who disagree with us because we can. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it normal, doesn't make it natural.

 

[OKTexas]

Sex is the traditional way to consummate a marriage, since gay can only engage in sodomy the marriage can't be consummated. Simple biological fact.

Ah...So Bill Clinton really didn't "have sex with that woman" eh?

Penetration of a vagina by a penis is not a requirement for civil marriage...just like procreation is not.

What you don't have a fucking dictionary, Clinton and his little twerp engaged in sodomy, look it up.

 

[OKTexas]

Sex is the traditional way to consummate a marriage, since gay can only engage in sodomy the marriage can't be consummated. Simple biological fact.

Sodomy is an act of sexual intercourse. Furthermore under US laws oral sex is also defined as sodomy. If you have ever engaged in oral sex that would make you a sodomite.

Sodomy

Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.

The word sodomy acquired different meanings over time. Under the Common Law, sodomy consisted of anal intercourse. Traditionally courts and statutes referred to it as a "crime against nature" or as copulation "against the order of nature." In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex.

sodomy legal definition of sodomy. sodomy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Now you need to look up "sexual intercourse" then you might learn the difference. No act of sodomy is required to engage in sexual intercourse, but you knew that didn't you?

 

[OKTexas]

Sex is the traditional way to consummate a marriage, since gay can only engage in sodomy the marriage can't be consummated. Simple biological fact.

you must have some boring sex then...

I don't advertise what goes on in my bedroom, if only the faghadist felt the same.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Sex is the traditional way to consummate a marriage, since gay can only engage in sodomy the marriage can't be consummated. Simple biological fact.

Sodomy is an act of sexual intercourse. Furthermore under US laws oral sex is also defined as sodomy. If you have ever engaged in oral sex that would make you a sodomite.

Sodomy

Anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense.

The word sodomy acquired different meanings over time. Under the Common Law, sodomy consisted of anal intercourse. Traditionally courts and statutes referred to it as a "crime against nature" or as copulation "against the order of nature." In the United States, the term eventually encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex.

sodomy legal definition of sodomy. sodomy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Now you need to look up "sexual intercourse" then you might learn the difference. No act of sodomy is required to engage in sexual intercourse, but you knew that didn't you?

Nope! The onus is on you to prove this alleged "difference" exists since you are the one making the claim and haven't provided any substantiation.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There have been quite a few posts in the last few weeks going on and on about how gays cannot naturally procreate. Some posters have even hung their entire anti-gay marriage argument on the procreation issue. However no one can show any state requirement of procreation-ability to obtain a marriage license.

Ok, Procreation-ability. Having children the "natural" way. Not everyone can procreate naturally for one reason or another. Those who don't want children continue on with their lives as a childless couple. Those who want children have them in other ways....invitro, surrogate, adoption.

My poll is about those people.....are they worthy of legal marriage or not. Vote. Thank you in advance.

what the **** is this but just another ignorant twisted attempt at trying to validate 'gay marriage'....

there is no state requirement for 'procreation ability' because marriage has always been between men and women who typically could have children together....it's nature's way....that's why 'gay marriage' is unnatural...

a mother and a father is the best scenario for raising children...

 

[OKTexas]

Sodomy is an act of sexual intercourse. Furthermore under US laws oral sex is also defined as sodomy. If you have ever engaged in oral sex that would make you a sodomite.



sodomy legal definition of sodomy. sodomy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Now you need to look up "sexual intercourse" then you might learn the difference. No act of sodomy is required to engage in sexual intercourse, but you knew that didn't you?

Nope! The onus is on you to prove this alleged "difference" exists since you are the one making the claim and haven't provided any substantiation.

What did the faghadist get them to change that definition also? Situational definitions, a trade mark of the commies, things never mean what the mean there are always shades of gray no matter what. Must be nice to live an amoral life, none of those pesky things getting in the way of doing what ever the hell you want. Who are you going to champion next, pedophiles?

 

[NLT]

Can the mods give bodey and seawytch thier own gay marriage forum please, they keep stinking up all the other forums with endless gay marriage topics.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Real parent if straight (normal) - real parent if gay (abnormal).

There are normal parents and there are abnormal parents. It should be a parent's number one priority to live a normal life so as to 1) send a proper message to a child and to be a good example and 2) to avoid embarrassing the child in a world vastly made up of normal, male/female parents. Sending mixed messages will result in mixed emotions.

I knew a girl whose dad was gay. He had two kids with his wife. Abnormal?

Didn't go very well though because he divorced her because he was gay. Good for the family huh?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Now you need to look up "sexual intercourse" then you might learn the difference. No act of sodomy is required to engage in sexual intercourse, but you knew that didn't you?

Nope! The onus is on you to prove this alleged "difference" exists since you are the one making the claim and haven't provided any substantiation.

What did the faghadist get them to change that definition also? Situational definitions, a trade mark of the commies, things never mean what the mean there are always shades of gray no matter what. Must be nice to live an amoral life, none of those pesky things getting in the way of doing what ever the hell you want. Who are you going to champion next, pedophiles?

Thank you for tacitly admitting that your allegation is null and void. The rest of your blather will be given the consideration it is due. Have a nice day.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

faghadist...commies...amoral life...champion[]pedophiles

And hence you lose the argument.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There have been quite a few posts in the last few weeks going on and on about how gays cannot naturally procreate. Some posters have even hung their entire anti-gay marriage argument on the procreation issue. However no one can show any state requirement of procreation-ability to obtain a marriage license.

Ok, Procreation-ability. Having children the "natural" way. Not everyone can procreate naturally for one reason or another. Those who don't want children continue on with their lives as a childless couple. Those who want children have them in other ways....invitro, surrogate, adoption.

My poll is about those people.....are they worthy of legal marriage or not. Vote. Thank you in advance.

procreation is a terrible excuse

fucking lame

I know more than enough people that did have kids that shouldn't have and I know many foster kids that would have been happier in a gay house than 20 straight ones


but lets be clear, we know this isn't about rights, it's about getting to sue churches for refusing to wed gay couples, nothing more.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...but lets be clear, we know this isn't about rights, it's about getting to sue churches for refusing to wed gay couples, nothing more.

Ignorant nonsense and demagoguery.

The issue has solely to do with rights.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local governments, not private individuals or organizations, such as religious institutions.

Private organizations will remain at liberty to practice their ignorance and hate; see, e.g., BSA v. Dale (2000).

 

[Two Thumbs]

...but lets be clear, we know this isn't about rights, it's about getting to sue churches for refusing to wed gay couples, nothing more.

Ignorant nonsense and demagoguery.

The issue has solely to do with rights.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local governments, not private individuals or organizations, such as religious institutions.

Private organizations will remain at liberty to practice their ignorance and hate; see, e.g., BSA v. Dale (2000).

you're either very very young, completely ignorant or a terrible liar.

they are already suing in england and you know it's only a matter of time

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

faghadist

Rhetorical:

What happened in your life to make you and others on the right who agree with you so ignorant and hateful.

Something your parents did, religious indoctrination, lack of education, socialization growing up, psychological or emotional disorder, fear of change, diversity, and expressions of individual liberty…

All of the above…

This sort of hate and contempt for one’s fellow Americans – indeed, fellow human beings – is truly bizarre and incomprehensible.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Marriage is an act of oppression designed by men to keep womyn down. No marriage should be legal, but if it is, then gay marriage should be legal alongside hetero marriage.

Procreation should, in my opinion, be banned as well. Childryn are disgusting monsters. I can't quite understand why any strong, independent womyn would ever want to ruin hyr life and hyr body with childbirth, but it's ultimately each individual womyn's choice.

 

[WorldWatcher]

There have been quite a few posts in the last few weeks going on and on about how gays cannot naturally procreate. Some posters have even hung their entire anti-gay marriage argument on the procreation issue. However no one can show any state requirement of procreation-ability to obtain a marriage license.

Ok, Procreation-ability. Having children the "natural" way. Not everyone can procreate naturally for one reason or another. Those who don't want children continue on with their lives as a childless couple. Those who want children have them in other ways....invitro, surrogate, adoption.

My poll is about those people.....are they worthy of legal marriage or not. Vote. Thank you in advance.

procreation is a terrible excuse

fucking lame

I know more than enough people that did have kids that shouldn't have and I know many foster kids that would have been happier in a gay house than 20 straight ones


but lets be clear, we know this isn't about rights, it's about getting to sue churches for refusing to wed gay couples, nothing more.

Can you provide any example of in this country:

1. Interracial couples wanting to get married so they can sue a Church that will not perform the religious ceremony?

2. Interfaith couples wanting to get married so they can sue a Church that will not perform the religious ceremony?

3. A couple where one (or both) of the couple wanted to get married so they can sue a Church that will not perform the religious ceremony for someone that divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church?

4. And since we've had SSCM in this country, an example of a same-sex couple suing a Church that will not perform the religious ceremony?​

For the life of me I can't remember a single case where a Church has been sued and lost for failure to perform a religious ceremony.

Any evidence?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

...but lets be clear, we know this isn't about rights, it's about getting to sue churches for refusing to wed gay couples, nothing more.

Ignorant nonsense and demagoguery.

The issue has solely to do with rights.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local governments, not private individuals or organizations, such as religious institutions.

Private organizations will remain at liberty to practice their ignorance and hate; see, e.g., BSA v. Dale (2000).

you're either very very young, completely ignorant or a terrible liar.

they are already suing in england and you know it's only a matter of time

In England the Church is state sponsored. Not the same here under the 1st Amendment.


>>>>

 

[Two Thumbs]

There have been quite a few posts in the last few weeks going on and on about how gays cannot naturally procreate. Some posters have even hung their entire anti-gay marriage argument on the procreation issue. However no one can show any state requirement of procreation-ability to obtain a marriage license.

Ok, Procreation-ability. Having children the "natural" way. Not everyone can procreate naturally for one reason or another. Those who don't want children continue on with their lives as a childless couple. Those who want children have them in other ways....invitro, surrogate, adoption.

My poll is about those people.....are they worthy of legal marriage or not. Vote. Thank you in advance.

procreation is a terrible excuse

fucking lame

I know more than enough people that did have kids that shouldn't have and I know many foster kids that would have been happier in a gay house than 20 straight ones


but lets be clear, we know this isn't about rights, it's about getting to sue churches for refusing to wed gay couples, nothing more.

Can you provide any example of in this country:

1. Interracial couples wanting to get married so they can sue a Church that will not perform the religious ceremony?

2. Interfaith couples wanting to get married so they can sue a Church that will not perform the religious ceremony?

3. A couple where one (or both) of the couple wanted to get married so they can sue a Church that will not perform the religious ceremony for someone that divorced for a reason not recognized by that Church?

4. And since we've had SSCM in this country, an example of a same-sex couple suing a Church that will not perform the religious ceremony?​

For the life of me I can't remember a single case where a Church has been sued and lost for failure to perform a religious ceremony.

Any evidence?


>>>>

https://www.google.com/search?q=chu...5.11283j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8