Stop Calling It Marriage Equality

[BULLDOG]

Same-sex marriage is marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.

The government defines the "marriage license" but what matrimony or marriage is to an individual person is not at all changed by the definition of the marriage license. The Catholic Church may say marriage is the union of a man and woman. If same-sex couples are given marriage licenses, that does not change.

You avoided my question. I presented a solution that satisfies all parties and resolves this issue forever, and I asked you why it wasn't acceptable. You ignored me and launched into another bullheaded tirade about redefining marriage to include your sexual deviancy of choice.

Here is the ugly truth... You couldn't care less about gay couples. This is NOT about rights for gay couples. This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do. This is about taking a big steamy dump on religious sanctity and tradition. This is about rubbing the religious right's nose in something and making them accept it against their will. You're not the least bit interested in a solution unless it is YOUR solution of cramming this down society's throat against their will. You had literally rather HAVE this issue to bash and trash people with, than to work toward a reasonable solution and resolve the issue forever. This should be obvious to all by your ignoring what I proposed.

If you are truly looking for a solution that would please everybody, then why don't we continue to use the term marriage as the union of two people who love each other and share all the rights and responsibilities to their partners as every other married couple. If the bible thumpers want to come up with another word to describe what ever arrangement or ceremony their church condones, they are free to do that. There....marriage equality with bible thumpers having their own separate designation. Problem solved.

 

[Jacky Lawson]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[Ellipsis]

It's not a slippery slope.

On what basis do you discriminate against two related men marrying? I thought you supported same-sex marriage, I must have misunderstood your posts.

 

[Seawytch]

So easy you failed to address them

No, none, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by same sex coupling.

That my dear loony friend is an absolute truth.

Turkey basters and Dixie cups are not allowed to marry.

No, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by infertile heterosexual coupling, including elderly couples. That my dear loony friend is absolute truth. Yet you wouldn't deny grandma from getting married, would you?

Didn't think so. You're just a sad, bigoted hypocrite.

The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact.

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.

The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often

Use your brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.

It's a bigoted double standard.

 

[Boss]

Boss said:

“This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do.”


Incorrect.

It's about the ignorance and hate exhibited by you and many others on the right, and your efforts to codify that ignorance and hate in violation of the Constitution.

You're at liberty to hate gay Americans with impunity, you're at liberty to keep them out of your churches and private organizations, and you're at liberty to believe whatever you wish.

You are not at liberty, however, to seek to disadvantage gay Americans for no other reason than your animus toward a class of persons by denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

No, it's not incorrect, it's spot on. My solution shows no indication of hate or disrespect toward anyone, to the contrary, it resolves the issue to the mutual satisfaction of all.... All but the REAL haters and bigots, which includes you, sir.

I am at liberty to do whatever it takes to see to it that YOU don't get your way. I will do everything in my power to do so.

 

[Boss]

Same-sex marriage is marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.

The government defines the "marriage license" but what matrimony or marriage is to an individual person is not at all changed by the definition of the marriage license. The Catholic Church may say marriage is the union of a man and woman. If same-sex couples are given marriage licenses, that does not change.

You avoided my question. I presented a solution that satisfies all parties and resolves this issue forever, and I asked you why it wasn't acceptable. You ignored me and launched into another bullheaded tirade about redefining marriage to include your sexual deviancy of choice.

Here is the ugly truth... You couldn't care less about gay couples. This is NOT about rights for gay couples. This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do. This is about taking a big steamy dump on religious sanctity and tradition. This is about rubbing the religious right's nose in something and making them accept it against their will. You're not the least bit interested in a solution unless it is YOUR solution of cramming this down society's throat against their will. You had literally rather HAVE this issue to bash and trash people with, than to work toward a reasonable solution and resolve the issue forever. This should be obvious to all by your ignoring what I proposed.

If you are truly looking for a solution that would please everybody, then why don't we continue to use the term marriage as the union of two people who love each other and share all the rights and responsibilities to their partners as every other married couple. If the bible thumpers want to come up with another word to describe what ever arrangement or ceremony their church condones, they are free to do that. There....marriage equality with bible thumpers having their own separate designation. Problem solved.

You're giving me YOUR solution that would please YOU... not everybody. Then you are being totally disrespectful of the religious, calling them names and insinuating they should have to accept your solution. That's not a solution that pleases everybody, nor does it solve the problem.

It does, however, prove the point that this isn't about a solution at all, it's about your hatred and bigotry toward the religious and their customs. That's why you are doing this, and it's as clear as day to anyone who bothers to read your vitriolic rants.

 

[Boss]

Polygamy is indeed a slippery slope fallacy.

No it's really not. There are already places in the country where polygamists are challenging the law and demanding their "rights" to 'marry' as many people as they please. If you talk to these pro-gay-marriage bigots long enough, they almost always admit they would have no problem with polygamy whatsoever. Give it 20 years and they will have no problem with child marriage or animal marriage because they have no sense of morality and no respect for those who do.

 

[Pop23]

No, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by infertile heterosexual coupling, including elderly couples. That my dear loony friend is absolute truth. Yet you wouldn't deny grandma from getting married, would you?

Didn't think so. You're just a sad, bigoted hypocrite.

The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact.

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.

The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often

Use your brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.

It's a bigoted double standard.

Until a same sex coupling creates a child, there can be no double standard. The standard is, they can't now, in the past, nor in the future.

Your delusions are irritating.

 

[Pop23]

Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often

Use your brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.

Infertile couples have had children you dumblefuck

No double standard at all

And you remain delusional

Infertile couples have never had children. Methinks you don't understand what infertile means

Because infertile can become fertile through medical procedures is something impossible with same sex couples.

Your jealousy is delicious.

False. Not all infertile couples can become fertile. Furthermore, an elderly woman will never be fertile again as she has stopped producing eggs. Yet they can still get married. You have a bigoted double standard to stand on, nothing more.

The only way you have an argument is to compare yourself to the disabled or the elderly.

Too damn funny. You do realize that your delusions make that seem an appropriate argument. Right ?

 

[Seawytch]

The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact.

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.

The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often

Use your brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.

It's a bigoted double standard.

Until a same sex coupling creates a child, there can be no double standard. The standard is, they can't now, in the past, nor in the future.

Your delusions are irritating.

Until procreation is a requirement for civil marriage, you're a pathetic bigot.

 

[ShackledNation]

Same-sex marriage is marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.

The government defines the "marriage license" but what matrimony or marriage is to an individual person is not at all changed by the definition of the marriage license. The Catholic Church may say marriage is the union of a man and woman. If same-sex couples are given marriage licenses, that does not change.

You avoided my question. I presented a solution that satisfies all parties and resolves this issue forever, and I asked you why it wasn't acceptable. You ignored me and launched into another bullheaded tirade about redefining marriage to include your sexual deviancy of choice.

Here is the ugly truth... You couldn't care less about gay couples. This is NOT about rights for gay couples. This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do. This is about taking a big steamy dump on religious sanctity and tradition. This is about rubbing the religious right's nose in something and making them accept it against their will. You're not the least bit interested in a solution unless it is YOUR solution of cramming this down society's throat against their will. You had literally rather HAVE this issue to bash and trash people with, than to work toward a reasonable solution and resolve the issue forever. This should be obvious to all by your ignoring what I proposed.

Nope. I answered your question, you just didn't like the answer.

As a gay man myself I couldn't care more. Your post is a flaming load of horse crap. Allowing gay couples to marry has no effect on you or anyone else who hates gays whatsoever. The only people trying to cram anything down society's throat are people like you. You want everyone to fit into your own view of marriage and what it is.

You don't want to give people the freedom to be who they actually are and marry who they actually want to love. Sorry, but nobody wants a busy-body nanny like you to use government to force your morals on anyone.

 

[ShackledNation]

No, nada, zilch, zero children have ever been produced by infertile heterosexual coupling, including elderly couples. That my dear loony friend is absolute truth. Yet you wouldn't deny grandma from getting married, would you?

Didn't think so. You're just a sad, bigoted hypocrite.

The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact.

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.

The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often

Use your brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.

It's a bigoted double standard.

Yup. Pathetic and bigoted.

 

[ShackledNation]

Use your brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.

Infertile couples have had children you dumblefuck

No double standard at all

And you remain delusional

Infertile couples have never had children. Methinks you don't understand what infertile means

Because infertile can become fertile through medical procedures is something impossible with same sex couples.

Your jealousy is delicious.

False. Not all infertile couples can become fertile. Furthermore, an elderly woman will never be fertile again as she has stopped producing eggs. Yet they can still get married. You have a bigoted double standard to stand on, nothing more.

The only way you have an argument is to compare yourself to the disabled or the elderly.

Too damn funny. You do realize that your delusions make that seem an appropriate argument. Right ?

The only way you have an argument is to be a blatant hypocrite and apply a different standard to gay couples for no reason other than that they are gay. But that isn't news to anyone who has read your hateful, bigoted, ignorant posts on this forum.

 

[ShackledNation]

Same-sex marriage is marriage. Sorry. You don't own a monopoly on the meaning of the word marriage, nor does your religion or anyone else. Your solution is completely semantic and rather meaningless, nor is it likely to happen. Same-sex couples will still be getting married and calling it marriage.

The government defines the "marriage license" but what matrimony or marriage is to an individual person is not at all changed by the definition of the marriage license. The Catholic Church may say marriage is the union of a man and woman. If same-sex couples are given marriage licenses, that does not change.

You avoided my question. I presented a solution that satisfies all parties and resolves this issue forever, and I asked you why it wasn't acceptable. You ignored me and launched into another bullheaded tirade about redefining marriage to include your sexual deviancy of choice.

Here is the ugly truth... You couldn't care less about gay couples. This is NOT about rights for gay couples. This is about a politically divisive issue that you can beat people over the head with because they don't believe as you do. This is about taking a big steamy dump on religious sanctity and tradition. This is about rubbing the religious right's nose in something and making them accept it against their will. You're not the least bit interested in a solution unless it is YOUR solution of cramming this down society's throat against their will. You had literally rather HAVE this issue to bash and trash people with, than to work toward a reasonable solution and resolve the issue forever. This should be obvious to all by your ignoring what I proposed.

If you are truly looking for a solution that would please everybody, then why don't we continue to use the term marriage as the union of two people who love each other and share all the rights and responsibilities to their partners as every other married couple. If the bible thumpers want to come up with another word to describe what ever arrangement or ceremony their church condones, they are free to do that. There....marriage equality with bible thumpers having their own separate designation. Problem solved.

You're giving me YOUR solution that would please YOU... not everybody. Then you are being totally disrespectful of the religious, calling them names and insinuating they should have to accept your solution. That's not a solution that pleases everybody, nor does it solve the problem.

It does, however, prove the point that this isn't about a solution at all, it's about your hatred and bigotry toward the religious and their customs. That's why you are doing this, and it's as clear as day to anyone who bothers to read your vitriolic rants.

You think your solution pleases everybody? Wow. Where did this omniscience of yours come from? Did God come to you in a dream?

Religious people are only a problem when they use the force of government to deny others fundamental human rights and equal protection of the laws. You and your irk have totally brought this upon yourselves.

 

[ShackledNation]

The demographic group same sex couples have never produced a child within the couplings of those couples. Doesn't matter the age or disability, this is 100% true

The demographic group, opposite sex couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born. This is an indisputable fact.

Yet, for some odd reason we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

Oh, granny and grandpa have already contributed to the population.

The demographic group of elderly and infertile heterosexual couples has never produced a child. This is 100% true.

Young and fertile couples are responsible for 100% of the children being born.

Yet, for some odd reason, we must treat these two demographic groups the same?

You're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Try using your brain correctly.

None, as is the percentage of same sex coupling that EVER to have created a child, is far less then most Opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Never vs Often

Use your brain. None, as in the percentage of infertile coupling that EVER has created a child, is far less than most opposite sex couplings that can or have created a child.

Again, you have a pathetic double standard.

It's a bigoted double standard.

Until a same sex coupling creates a child, there can be no double standard. The standard is, they can't now, in the past, nor in the future.

Your delusions are irritating.

Except elderly and other forms of infertile heterosexual coupling cannot create a child, ever, yet they can still get married. AKA a double standard. I'm glad my logic irritates you.

 

[BULLDOG]

Infertile couples have had children you dumblefuck

No double standard at all

And you remain delusional

Infertile couples have never had children. Methinks you don't understand what infertile means

Because infertile can become fertile through medical procedures is something impossible with same sex couples.

Your jealousy is delicious.

False. Not all infertile couples can become fertile. Furthermore, an elderly woman will never be fertile again as she has stopped producing eggs. Yet they can still get married. You have a bigoted double standard to stand on, nothing more.

The only way you have an argument is to compare yourself to the disabled or the elderly.

Too damn funny. You do realize that your delusions make that seem an appropriate argument. Right ?

The only way you have an argument is to be a blatant hypocrite and apply a different standard to gay couples for no reason other than that they are gay. But that isn't news to anyone who has read your hateful, bigoted, ignorant posts on this forum.

I understand your desire to educate and inform, but you gotta accept that isn't going to happen here. Unless someone on fox, or a preacher tells them to believe something, no amount of logic will get through. I come here to laugh at the ridiculous things said, or perhaps poke some of them with a stick, but that is all this board will ever be good for.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's not marriage equality. It's marriage extinction.

 

[ShackledNation]

Infertile couples have never had children. Methinks you don't understand what infertile means

Because infertile can become fertile through medical procedures is something impossible with same sex couples.

Your jealousy is delicious.

False. Not all infertile couples can become fertile. Furthermore, an elderly woman will never be fertile again as she has stopped producing eggs. Yet they can still get married. You have a bigoted double standard to stand on, nothing more.

The only way you have an argument is to compare yourself to the disabled or the elderly.

Too damn funny. You do realize that your delusions make that seem an appropriate argument. Right ?

The only way you have an argument is to be a blatant hypocrite and apply a different standard to gay couples for no reason other than that they are gay. But that isn't news to anyone who has read your hateful, bigoted, ignorant posts on this forum.

I understand your desire to educate and inform, but you gotta accept that isn't going to happen here. Unless someone on fox, or a preacher tells them to believe something, no amount of logic will get through. I come here to laugh at the ridiculous things said, or perhaps poke some of them with a stick, but that is all this board will ever be good for.

Oh I know I will never get through to him. I just enjoy repeatedly pointing out how irrational he is.

 

[ShackledNation]

It's not marriage equality. It's marriage extinction.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's not marriage equality. It's marriage extinction.

So you think that if a gay couple get married that will somehow hurt or do away with your marriage? Must be a bad marriage if that's all it takes to destroy it.