Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

Gays have no right to marry. Blind people have no right to drive. You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking. Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother". And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.

By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.


"logic" denied.

 

[Seawytch]

That would only be an issue if facilitating reproduction was the purpose of marriage. However, homosexuals insist that reproduction has nothing to do with marraigee. Once you admit that it does have something to do with marriage, your arguments for "gay marriage" all go out the window.

No, actually they don't since no one has ever had their license revoked for not procreating.


The procreation "argument" has been tried and has failed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are entitled to your opinions and we are entitled to laugh at you.

Adults, heteroes and homos and pedo, hurt children, yes.

The cult of cultural McCarthyism cannot prevent the recognition of how right marriage equality is legally and morally.

You are a cultural bully and no friend to children.

 

[RKMBrown]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

Gays have no right to marry. Blind people have no right to drive. You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking. Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother". And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.

Why said gays want to be husband and wife? Are you retarded?

 

[RKMBrown]

You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"

"gay marriage"

On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.

There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.

'


See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up


gay marriage

From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses. So it is contract based.

IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults. IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.

Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults? What's the moral prinicipal involved here? How about incestuous marriages? Should they be illegal?

Agreed on the plural issue. What I said is they should be made legal. They were made illegal by the majority in most if not all states. The moral principle that was used was a moral code of particular churches that do not allow plural marriages. Nothing more than opinion of a particular group.

Incestuous marriages lead to increased numbers of genetic defects in children, and abuse, so IMO yes said couplings should be illegal. Thus, society has decided the harm done to these children and society on the whole should be avoided. It's sort of like safety violations. Even if no harm is done, the act of performing unsafe acts have been made illegal, one at a time.

That would only be an issue if facilitating reproduction was the purpose of marriage. However, homosexuals insist that reproduction has nothing to do with marraigee. Once you admit that it does have something to do with marriage, your arguments for "gay marriage" all go out the window.

Where do homos insist that reproduction has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage? Are you hearing voices?

What part of incest and abuse is confusing you?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

Gays have no right to marry. Blind people have no right to drive. You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking. Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother". And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.

Why said gays want to be husband and wife? Are you retarded?

and more to the point, who even cares what they call each other?

 

[Silhouette]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

Gays have no right to marry. Blind people have no right to drive. You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking. Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother". And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.

Why said gays want to be husband and wife? Are you retarded?

and more to the point, who even cares what they call each other?

Children do. "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to children... Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

Gays have no right to marry. Blind people have no right to drive. You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking. Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother". And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.

Why said gays want to be husband and wife? Are you retarded?

and more to the point, who even cares what they call each other?

Children do. "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to children... Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.

Do you have any proof of this wild theory of yours?

No?

Come back when you do
.


No wait, I'm going to go one further. A study posted somewhere earlier in the thread that showed that a vast majority of homosexuals seeking marriage were women not men, and since we know that MOST pedophiles are men, it pretty much stands to reason that homosexual women probably are not looking to get married to adopt and sexually abuse children.

 

[Silhouette]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

Gays have no right to marry. Blind people have no right to drive. You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking. Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother". And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.

Why said gays want to be husband and wife? Are you retarded?

and more to the point, who even cares what they call each other?

Children do. "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to children... Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.

Do you have any proof of this wild theory of yours?

No?

Come back when you do
.


No wait, I'm going to go one further. A study posted somewhere earlier in the thread that showed that a vast majority of homosexuals seeking marriage were women not men, and since we know that MOST pedophiles are men, it pretty much stands to reason that homosexual women probably are not looking to get married to adopt and sexually abuse children.

As you know if any homosexual is granted the right, male homosexuals will get those rights. Besides, the people in the second picture below carrying the perverted signs where children are lined up looking on are women....oops...

Here's your proof that gays must not be allowed the legal loophole of marriage to access orphans:

 

[bripat9643]

You have nothing. By the way, are you the wife or the "husband"

"gay marriage"

On the contrary...thanks to my civil marriage and the overturning of part of DOMA, I have over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges that came with it...like a dependent ID card for my legal spouse.

There is no husband in our relationship. We refer to each other as life partners, but I believe our license says spouse.

'


See, I think you gays are going about this all wrong. You should be arguing that you have the first amendment to define marriage anyway you like... As for me, since I believe the benefits and such should be contract based not marriage based I couldn't care less what you call yourselves, to me you're two chicks shacking up


gay marriage

From the government perspective the religious marriage has no meaning. The thing that counts is the marriage license, which in fact is a contract you sign when you get married that the government witnesses. So it is contract based.

IMO the only rule should be that the people on a marriage license are consenting adults. IMO plural marriages should also be made legal.

Why should plural marraiges be illegal if all parties are consenting adults? What's the moral prinicipal involved here? How about incestuous marriages? Should they be illegal?

Agreed on the plural issue. What I said is they should be made legal. They were made illegal by the majority in most if not all states. The moral principle that was used was a moral code of particular churches that do not allow plural marriages. Nothing more than opinion of a particular group.

Incestuous marriages lead to increased numbers of genetic defects in children, and abuse, so IMO yes said couplings should be illegal. Thus, society has decided the harm done to these children and society on the whole should be avoided. It's sort of like safety violations. Even if no harm is done, the act of performing unsafe acts have been made illegal, one at a time.

That would only be an issue if facilitating reproduction was the purpose of marriage. However, homosexuals insist that reproduction has nothing to do with marraigee. Once you admit that it does have something to do with marriage, your arguments for "gay marriage" all go out the window.

Where do homos insist that reproduction has nothing to do with heterosexual marriage? Are you hearing voices?

They have told me that numerous times right here in this forum when debating them on the issue of gay marriage. Whenever you point out the fact that marriage exists to facilitate the raising of children, and therefore there is no point in giving gays the right to marry, they always come back with the claim that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction.

What part of incest and abuse is confusing you?

Hmmm, the part where, as gays claim, it has nothing to do with marriage.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

Gays have no right to marry. Blind people have no right to drive. You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking. Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother". And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.

Why said gays want to be husband and wife? Are you retarded?

and more to the point, who even cares what they call each other?

Children do. "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to children... Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.

Do you have any proof of this wild theory of yours?

No?

Come back when you do
.


No wait, I'm going to go one further. A study posted somewhere earlier in the thread that showed that a vast majority of homosexuals seeking marriage were women not men, and since we know that MOST pedophiles are men, it pretty much stands to reason that homosexual women probably are not looking to get married to adopt and sexually abuse children.

As you know if any homosexual is granted the right, male homosexuals will get those rights. Besides, the people in the second picture below carrying the perverted signs where children are lined up looking on are women....oops...

Here's your proof that gays must not be allowed the legal loophole of marriage to access orphans:

Look , if you're suggesting prospective parents should have to prove they are capable of raising kids, I'm with you. And none of those dingbats in the pictures you posted probably even want kids. I mean kids are work, wouldn't have time to attend butt flossing contests and such....

I just don't believe "gay" should automatically mean "pedophile"

 

[bripat9643]

That would only be an issue if facilitating reproduction was the purpose of marriage. However, homosexuals insist that reproduction has nothing to do with marraigee. Once you admit that it does have something to do with marriage, your arguments for "gay marriage" all go out the window.

No, actually they don't since no one has ever had their license revoked for not procreating.


The procreation "argument" has been tried and has failed.

See. One of your defenders said gays don't claim marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

Thanks for pointing out his error.

BTW, the procreation argument has never failed. You apparently have deluded yourself to believe that your retort is a credible counter argument.

 

[bripat9643]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

Gays have no right to marry. Blind people have no right to drive. You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking. Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother". And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.

By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.


"logic" denied.

That's the logic of an imbecile.

Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation. No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.

They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.

 

[jasonnfree]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

Gays have no right to marry. Blind people have no right to drive. You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking. Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother". And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.

Why said gays want to be husband and wife? Are you retarded?

and more to the point, who even cares what they call each other?

Children do. "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to children... Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.

Do you have any proof of this wild theory of yours?

No?

Come back when you do
.


No wait, I'm going to go one further. A study posted somewhere earlier in the thread that showed that a vast majority of homosexuals seeking marriage were women not men, and since we know that MOST pedophiles are men, it pretty much stands to reason that homosexual women probably are not looking to get married to adopt and sexually abuse children.

As you know if any homosexual is granted the right, male homosexuals will get those rights. Besides, the people in the second picture below carrying the perverted signs where children are lined up looking on are women....oops...

Here's your proof that gays must not be allowed the legal loophole of marriage to access orphans:

Look , if you're suggesting prospective parents should have to prove they are capable of raising kids, I'm with you. And none of those dingbats in the pictures you posted probably even want kids. I mean kids are work, wouldn't have time to attend butt flossing contests and such....

I just don't believe "gay" should automatically mean "pedophile"

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

Gays have no right to marry. Blind people have no right to drive. You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking. Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother". And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.

By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.


"logic" denied.

That's the logic of an imbecile.

Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation. No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.

They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.

If you build it, they will come. If you have a thread about queers, especially with pictures of them in parades, the conservatives will come in droves. Works like a charm.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.


"logic" denied.

That's the logic of an imbecile.

Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation. No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.

They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.

Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.

 

[Silhouette]

Gays are a piddly small percentage, given all this attention they are getting, you would think they actually merit all this attention Add to that, they are deranged sexualy, but they can buy good media coverage. The media...that is a different story.

Here's to hoping one day when you need help, no one stands up for you because you are such piddly small percentage of deranged homophobic bigots.

no shit, I thought that was kind of the point of government, keep the many from over running the rights of the few.

Gays have no right to marry. Blind people have no right to drive. You have to qualify for the institution or privilege you are seeking. Flatly, gays do not qualify as "husband/wife" "father/mother". And we disqualify them for the sake of children: the most important people involved in a marriage IMHO.

Why said gays want to be husband and wife? Are you retarded?

and more to the point, who even cares what they call each other?

Children do. "Husband/Wife" "Father/Mother" matters to children... Gays consider these American citizens at most collateral damage inferior to their "rights" to access them to take home alone via the loophole of marriage.

Do you have any proof of this wild theory of yours?

No?

Come back when you do
.


No wait, I'm going to go one further. A study posted somewhere earlier in the thread that showed that a vast majority of homosexuals seeking marriage were women not men, and since we know that MOST pedophiles are men, it pretty much stands to reason that homosexual women probably are not looking to get married to adopt and sexually abuse children.

As you know if any homosexual is granted the right, male homosexuals will get those rights. Besides, the people in the second picture below carrying the perverted signs where children are lined up looking on are women....oops...

Here's your proof that gays must not be allowed the legal loophole of marriage to access orphans:

Look , if you're suggesting prospective parents should have to prove they are capable of raising kids, I'm with you. And none of those dingbats in the pictures you posted probably even want kids. I mean kids are work, wouldn't have time to attend butt flossing contests and such....

I just don't believe "gay" should automatically mean "pedophile"

No, they don't have to prove it. That isn't what I'm talking about at all.

What I'm talking about are federal and state laws that mandate if a person has reason to suspect a person by the associations they keep, of posing harm to children, then that person is required to ACT to prevent said person from accessing children. If you fail to act this way in many states, you can be charged with a crime. There need not be any conviction of the suspected party or situation. It need only present a reasonable anticipation of harm.

I'd say we have that in spades given the lewd acts of "pride" on parade where these folks know and anticipate children will be present. We are mandated to keep children away from anyone who promotes these types of acts where children are anticipated to be.

 

[bripat9643]

By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.


"logic" denied.

That's the logic of an imbecile.

Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation. No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.

They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.

Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.

Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.

Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country. That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.


"logic" denied.

That's the logic of an imbecile.

Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation. No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.

They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.

Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.

Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.

Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country. That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.

I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.

You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?

 

[bripat9643]

By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.


"logic" denied.

That's the logic of an imbecile.

Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation. No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.

They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.

Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.

Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.

Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country. That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.

I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.

You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?

If you're thinking for yourself, why are you posting arguments I've heard 10,000 times before?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

By your "logic" childless couples should be told the are no longer married.


"logic" denied.

That's the logic of an imbecile.

Marriage is a necessary condition for successful procreation. No one ever said it was a sufficient condition.

They don't revoke your drivers license if you decline to drive.

Oh, I couldn't have gotten women pregnant before marriage? Damn and to think I wasted all that money on condoms.

Another liberal turd who failed to get the point.

Yeah, you can get women pregnant without getting married, and their offspring will probably end up populating one of the state penitentiaries of the country. That may fit with the liberal conception of "successful child rearing," but rational people have a different opinion on the subject.

I just called a conservatard in another thread about 1 minute ago.

You stupid partisans REALLY don't like people who think for themselves do you?

If you're thinking for yourself, why are you posting arguments I've heard 10,000 times before?

what arguments are those?

My argument here is basically


mind your own fucking business