Texas vs Gay Sex Marriage. Are Behaviors The Same As Race?

[Silhouette]

*crickets*....

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature does not define marriage. Your claim is clearly regarding sex.

It's not a claim, it's an empirical fact OF NATURE.

And yes it is centered upon sex, because that is what defines Marriage.

Your problem is that you're so far gone, that you do not even understand that purpose of sex is procreation, thus should never be entered into, outside of marriage.

There's nothing complex about any of this.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

According to the Supreme Court it is. Their opinion carries actual weight. Yours? Yours could get you committed in some states.

LOL!

That was only the case back when the Supreme Court applied objective reason. Subjective reasoning rejects the objectivity that is an essential element of Justice.

Thus SCOTUS decisions resting in such do not bear any authority, or that most highly of all homo-coveted traits: LEGITIMACY.

 

[Montrovant]

Nature does not define marriage. Your claim is clearly regarding sex.

It's not a claim, it's an empirical fact OF NATURE.

And yes it is centered upon sex, because that is what defines Marriage.

Your problem is that you're so far gone, that you do not even understand that purpose of sex is procreation, thus should never be entered into, outside of marriage.

There's nothing complex about any of this.

Perhaps you need to define nature and explain how procreation is a prerequisite of marriage when it clearly is not and has not been in US law.

Lifelong mating in nature is the exception, not the rule. So what makes nature define marriage? Marriage is a human institution.

 

[Syriusly]

What children?

Children being raised by gay parents can either be raised by married gay parents or unmarried gay parents.

You want to deny the children married parents- if they are gay.

Or maybe you just want the government to take Children away from their parents if the parents are gay?

Hard to keep up with your anti-gay and anti-children agenda.

And polygamist-Americans? Incest-Americans? Your thoughts on them raising children "in marriage"?

Children being raised by gay parents can either be raised by married gay parents or unmarried gay parents.

You want to deny the children married parents- if they are gay.

Or maybe you just want the government to take Children away from their parents if the parents are gay?

Hard to keep up with your anti-gay and anti-children agenda

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Nature does not define marriage. Your claim is clearly regarding sex.

It's not a claim, it's an empirical fact OF NATURE.

And yes it is centered upon sex, because that is what defines Marriage.

Your problem is that you're so far gone, that you do not even understand that purpose of sex is procreation, thus should never be entered into, outside of marriage.

There's nothing complex about any of this.

Perhaps you need to define nature

Nature: Nature: The Universe, including the laws that govern every aspect of it.

explain how procreation is a prerequisite of marriage

Now problem...

Nature designed humanity with two distinct but complementing Genders. Each respectively designed to join with the other, wherein two bodies form one, sustainable body... the purpose of which is procreation.

Now we can go into the incapacitating burden of gestation upon the female... who is sustained through the UNION with the male, throughout the training of the child into maturation....

Does that help, in any way at all?

 

[Silhouette]

Perhaps you need to define nature and explain how procreation is a prerequisite of marriage when it clearly is not and has not been in US law.

Lifelong mating in nature is the exception, not the rule. So what makes nature define marriage? Marriage is a human institution.

Montrovant is absolutely right. Procreation isn't a prerequisite of marriage. It's an expectation. It's what states are betting on when they lose money in tax breaks for marrieds. Whether it's a natural mother and father, adoptive mother and father or adoptive or natural grandfather & grandmother, the words "father/mother" are THE definition of marriage. The reason of course is because states in anticipating and enticing this arrangement via perks, want to insure that children have both vital role models as they grow up.

Fatherless boys or motherless girls are a very bad bet as it turns out in the "product" a state is after: a well-adjusted non-burden on the state, ultimately.

More on that here: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess.. Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

more..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

 

[Syriusly]

Perhaps you need to define nature and explain how procreation is a prerequisite of marriage when it clearly is not and has not been in US law.

Lifelong mating in nature is the exception, not the rule. So what makes nature define marriage? Marriage is a human institution.

Montrovant is absolutely right. Procreation isn't a prerequisite of marriage. It's an expectation. It's what states are betting on when they lose money in tax breaks for marrieds. ]

Nope- as usual you are just lying.

Wisconsin even requires that some couples prove that they cannot have any children before Wisconsin will allow them to marry.

No expectation at all.

 

[mdk]

Perhaps you need to define nature and explain how procreation is a prerequisite of marriage when it clearly is not and has not been in US law.

Lifelong mating in nature is the exception, not the rule. So what makes nature define marriage? Marriage is a human institution.

Montrovant is absolutely right. Procreation isn't a prerequisite of marriage. It's an expectation. It's what states are betting on when they lose money in tax breaks for marrieds. Whether it's a natural mother and father, adoptive mother and father or adoptive or natural grandfather & grandmother, the words "father/mother" are THE definition of marriage. The reason of course is because states in anticipating and enticing this arrangement via perks, want to insure that children have both vital role models as they grow up.

Fatherless boys or motherless girls are a very bad bet as it turns out in the "product" a state is after: a well-adjusted non-burden on the state, ultimately.

More on that here: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess.. Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

more..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

I see we are back full circle where you pretend The Prince's Trust confirms any of your claims. The Prince's Trust doesn't study same-sex parents and doesn't say or require that a role model must be a parent. You've made all those findings up on your own to confirm your little anti-gay bias. You keep selling these lies and yet we still don't buy them. Know that while you are spreading your bullshit, gays continue to marry all across the nation and there isn't thing one you can do about it.

 

[Montrovant]

Nature does not define marriage. Your claim is clearly regarding sex.

It's not a claim, it's an empirical fact OF NATURE.

And yes it is centered upon sex, because that is what defines Marriage.

Your problem is that you're so far gone, that you do not even understand that purpose of sex is procreation, thus should never be entered into, outside of marriage.

There's nothing complex about any of this.

Perhaps you need to define nature

Nature: Nature: The Universe, including the laws that govern every aspect of it.

explain how procreation is a prerequisite of marriage

Now problem...

Nature designed humanity with two distinct but complementing Genders. Each respectively designed to join with the other, wherein two bodies form one, sustainable body... the purpose of which is procreation.

Now we can go into the incapacitating burden of gestation upon the female... who is sustained through the UNION with the male, throughout the training of the child into maturation....

Does that help, in any way at all?

That does not explain how nature defines marriage in any way. Marriage is not procreation. There is nothing in nature which prevents different forms of marriage. That is because marriage is an entirely human creation.

If you wish to argue that marriage should follow the same dynamic as procreation, fine. I'll disagree, but at least that would make more sense. As it is, what is involved in procreation need have no impact on marriage.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your problem is that you're so far gone, that you do not even understand that purpose of sex is procreation...

No, it isn't...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That does not explain how nature defines marriage in any way.

It literally does... that you can't understand that, is as adorable, as it is irrelevant.

 

[BULLDOG]

According to the Supreme Court it is. Their opinion carries actual weight. Yours? Yours could get you committed in some states.

LOL!

That was only the case back when the Supreme Court applied objective reason. Subjective reasoning rejects the objectivity that is an essential element of Justice.

Thus SCOTUS decisions resting in such do not bear any authority, or that most highly of all homo-coveted traits: LEGITIMACY.

Fortunately that is only true in your little mind.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

According to the Supreme Court it is. Their opinion carries actual weight. Yours? Yours could get you committed in some states.

LOL!

That was only the case back when the Supreme Court applied objective reason. Subjective reasoning rejects the objectivity that is an essential element of Justice.

Thus SCOTUS decisions resting in such do not bear any authority, or that most highly of all homo-coveted traits: LEGITIMACY.

Fortunately that is only true in your little mind.

OH! Well it's always good to see the old tried and true "NUH UH!" Defense trotted out.

LOL! It's a classic.

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Montrovant]

That does not explain how nature defines marriage in any way.

It literally does... that you can't understand that, is as adorable, as it is irrelevant.

You clearly have a mistaken idea of what the word literally means, just as you seem to about the word marriage. You described procreation. Marriage exists independent of procreation.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That does not explain how nature defines marriage in any way.

It literally does... that you can't understand that, is as adorable, as it is irrelevant.

You clearly have a mistaken idea of what the word literally means, just as you seem to about the word marriage. You described procreation. Marriage exists independent of procreation.

ROFLMNAO!

OH! Congratulations... in THAT you have finally found the "Human Construct" you've been groping for.

Let me ask... How's that workin' out for ya?

OH! And your concession is again, duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Silhouette]

Procreation isn't a prerequisite of marriage. It's an expectation. It's what states are betting on when they lose money in tax breaks for marrieds. Whether it's a natural mother and father, adoptive mother and father or adoptive or natural grandfather & grandmother, the words "father/mother" are THE definition of marriage. The reason of course is because states in anticipating and enticing this arrangement via perks, want to insure that children have both vital role models as they grow up.

Fatherless boys or motherless girls are a very bad bet as it turns out in the "product" a state is after: a well-adjusted non-burden on the state, ultimately.

More on that here: Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess.. Teens without parent role model are 67 per cent less likely to get a job Daily Mail Online

more..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

 

[Montrovant]

That does not explain how nature defines marriage in any way.

It literally does... that you can't understand that, is as adorable, as it is irrelevant.

You clearly have a mistaken idea of what the word literally means, just as you seem to about the word marriage. You described procreation. Marriage exists independent of procreation.

ROFLMNAO!

OH! Congratulations... in THAT you have finally found the "Human Construct" you've been groping for.

Let me ask... How's that workin' out for ya?

OH! And your concession is again, duly noted and summarily accepted.

You have duly noted a concession, have you? Interesting, as nothing has been conceded. You have not explained how your idea of 'natural law' defines marriage. You have described how 'natural law' defines procreation. As procreation is not a requirement of marriage, how are the mechanics of procreation part of the requirements of marriage?

 

[Silhouette]

I just described it even if Keys didn't quite.. The EXPECTATION of PARENTING is the state's interest in marriage. Refer to my last post.. Or have fun chasing down that strawman with keys and hope people don't notice the real issue.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I just described it even if Keys didn't quite.. The EXPECTATION of PARENTING is the state's interest in marriage. Refer to my last post.. Or have fun chasing down that strawman with keys and hope people don't notice the real issue.

The State has an interest in children. It also have an interest in marriage. Often, for the young, they coincide. The State likes that as well but marriage is not about children. They are, at best, a byproduct.