The Dirty Little Secret: Most Gay Couples Aren't Monogamous

[bripat9643]

The only argument needed against gay marriage is the fact that queers can't reproduce. Marriage exists for the benefit of mothers and their children. Any children queers have are not the product of their "marriage."

If you want an example of "hate" just consider the $135,000 fine imposed on a baker for declining to bake a cake for a couple of queers.

That's true hate.

You can repeat the same lie over and over until you're convinced it is the truth...but it's still a lie.

6/26/2015 #lovewins #bigotslose

Where did I lie?

You're convinced that marriage is about procreation. That's simply not true no matter what you've convinced yourself.

It's so obviously true that it's difficult to comprehend anyone is stupid enough to dispute it.

What exactly is so obvious?? The only thing that is obvious is that "procreation" is a failed argument against marriage equality. ( one of many failed arguments) Here is something that I penned a while back:

Procreation: The Failed Argument Against Same Sex Marriage by REDACTED 5.15.14

Marriage is now about much more than having children. It is much more about a status, about economics and about security. If the inability to reproduce is valid reason to deny marriage, should we allow ANYONE who cannot or chooses not to have children to marry? What about heterosexual couples who are past child barring age? What about a younger couple who may not be able to have children? Perhaps marriages should be automatically void after a certain time if no children are produced. If reproduction was the driving force, the compelling government interest in promoting traditional marriage, why are such policies not in place now?

Yet another question that I can’t get an answer to is: Given the fact that gay people do in fact have children in their care, and knowing that children have more legal and financial security when they have married parents, how do you justify denying marriage to those parents on the basis of their not having “reproduced” those children in a manner consistent with your sensibilities? They will argue that children need a “mommy and a daddy, but-putting aside the question of whether or not that is even true-the fact is that there will always be children who, for whatever reason do not live in a traditional mommy-daddy family and some will have gay parent. Failing to allow gay marriage will in no way ensure that more children will have a mom and a dad. It will only serve to ensure that fewer children will have two legal parents. To deny those children the benefits of married parents is to say that those children are less worthy, or you might say, worth less than other children. To deny them that security shows that any expressed concern for children is disingenuous at best. Not one of these people who claim to care so much about children has been able to answer that.

I will also point out that many heterosexual couples have children in their care with one or both parents not being biologically related. How is that different from gay couples who have a child where only one is the biological parent? Those two parents did not procreate together any more than that gay couple did. How is it different? It is not, yet I continually hear rumblings about how gay couples do not reproduce and therefor are of no benefit to society( The many benefits-beyond procreation- will be reserved for another time) At the same time, the anti-equality people are silent when it comes to straight couples in the exact same situation. It is a non sequitur because the conclusion-that gay couples should be denied benefits because they cannot reproduce- does not follow from its premises- that gay couples are fundamentally different in the way that they acquire children and that it should matter when it comes to extending rights to those who procreate as a couple but not to others. The argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

Lastly , I keep hearing about “responsible procreation” Opponents of marriage equality have long argued that reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples is important for promoting “responsible procreation” in society. However the “responsible procreation” argument is not only flawed on its own merits, it is also used to sugarcoat prejudice against homosexuality. It is wrought with logical fallacies, and bizarre assumptions. One of it’s strangest assumptions is that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then different-sex couples will have more children out of wedlock. I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how that will actually work. “Another strange variation of the responsible procreation claim is that if a heterosexual couple cannot conceive, marriage still somehow discourages them from cheating on one another. As the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, marriage “decreases the likelihood that a fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party.” What I’m getting from this is not so much opposition to same sex marriage, but the view that it is just not necessary for gays to marry because there is no chance of having an unintended child. Alternately, I hear it said that same sex marriage will result in fewer heterosexuals having children thus endangering the perpetuation of the species. Quite frankly, I’m confused. Will gay marriage result in more or fewer children and why? I fail to see how what gay folks do can influence what others do with respect to marriage and children, and I have to doubt whether those promoting these ideas really do either.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/1...gay-prejudice/

In any case this seems to be another major source of anti-equality talking points. It seems to me that a truly rational discussion of marriage equality-one in which the focus is strictly on the compelling government at societal interest, for and against it, without all of the fluff is long over due\\

It's "failed" only to morons like you who have both fingers firmly inserted into your ears. That includes the idiot you quoted from ThinkProgress.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You can repeat the same lie over and over until you're convinced it is the truth...but it's still a lie.

6/26/2015 #lovewins #bigotslose

Where did I lie?

You're convinced that marriage is about procreation. That's simply not true no matter what you've convinced yourself.

It's so obviously true that it's difficult to comprehend anyone is stupid enough to dispute it.

What exactly is so obvious?? The only thing that is obvious is that "procreation" is a failed argument against marriage equality. ( one of many failed arguments) Here is something that I penned a while back:

Procreation: The Failed Argument Against Same Sex Marriage by REDACTED 5.15.14

Marriage is now about much more than having children. It is much more about a status, about economics and about security. If the inability to reproduce is valid reason to deny marriage, should we allow ANYONE who cannot or chooses not to have children to marry? What about heterosexual couples who are past child barring age? What about a younger couple who may not be able to have children? Perhaps marriages should be automatically void after a certain time if no children are produced. If reproduction was the driving force, the compelling government interest in promoting traditional marriage, why are such policies not in place now?

Yet another question that I can’t get an answer to is: Given the fact that gay people do in fact have children in their care, and knowing that children have more legal and financial security when they have married parents, how do you justify denying marriage to those parents on the basis of their not having “reproduced” those children in a manner consistent with your sensibilities? They will argue that children need a “mommy and a daddy, but-putting aside the question of whether or not that is even true-the fact is that there will always be children who, for whatever reason do not live in a traditional mommy-daddy family and some will have gay parent. Failing to allow gay marriage will in no way ensure that more children will have a mom and a dad. It will only serve to ensure that fewer children will have two legal parents. To deny those children the benefits of married parents is to say that those children are less worthy, or you might say, worth less than other children. To deny them that security shows that any expressed concern for children is disingenuous at best. Not one of these people who claim to care so much about children has been able to answer that.

I will also point out that many heterosexual couples have children in their care with one or both parents not being biologically related. How is that different from gay couples who have a child where only one is the biological parent? Those two parents did not procreate together any more than that gay couple did. How is it different? It is not, yet I continually hear rumblings about how gay couples do not reproduce and therefor are of no benefit to society( The many benefits-beyond procreation- will be reserved for another time) At the same time, the anti-equality people are silent when it comes to straight couples in the exact same situation. It is a non sequitur because the conclusion-that gay couples should be denied benefits because they cannot reproduce- does not follow from its premises- that gay couples are fundamentally different in the way that they acquire children and that it should matter when it comes to extending rights to those who procreate as a couple but not to others. The argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

Lastly , I keep hearing about “responsible procreation” Opponents of marriage equality have long argued that reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples is important for promoting “responsible procreation” in society. However the “responsible procreation” argument is not only flawed on its own merits, it is also used to sugarcoat prejudice against homosexuality. It is wrought with logical fallacies, and bizarre assumptions. One of it’s strangest assumptions is that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then different-sex couples will have more children out of wedlock. I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how that will actually work. “Another strange variation of the responsible procreation claim is that if a heterosexual couple cannot conceive, marriage still somehow discourages them from cheating on one another. As the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, marriage “decreases the likelihood that a fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party.” What I’m getting from this is not so much opposition to same sex marriage, but the view that it is just not necessary for gays to marry because there is no chance of having an unintended child. Alternately, I hear it said that same sex marriage will result in fewer heterosexuals having children thus endangering the perpetuation of the species. Quite frankly, I’m confused. Will gay marriage result in more or fewer children and why? I fail to see how what gay folks do can influence what others do with respect to marriage and children, and I have to doubt whether those promoting these ideas really do either.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/1...gay-prejudice/

In any case this seems to be another major source of anti-equality talking points. It seems to me that a truly rational discussion of marriage equality-one in which the focus is strictly on the compelling government at societal interest, for and against it, without all of the fluff is long over due\\

It's "failed" only to morons like you who have both fingers firmly inserted into your ears. That includes the idiot you quoted from ThinkProgress.

Holy crap! That's it? That is you entire response to my lengthy, logical and well thought out post? The fact that all that you can do is to call me a moron clearly proves that you have nothing. Really pathetic. We're done here.

 

[bripat9643]

Where did I lie?

You're convinced that marriage is about procreation. That's simply not true no matter what you've convinced yourself.

It's so obviously true that it's difficult to comprehend anyone is stupid enough to dispute it.

What exactly is so obvious?? The only thing that is obvious is that "procreation" is a failed argument against marriage equality. ( one of many failed arguments) Here is something that I penned a while back:

Procreation: The Failed Argument Against Same Sex Marriage by REDACTED 5.15.14

Marriage is now about much more than having children. It is much more about a status, about economics and about security. If the inability to reproduce is valid reason to deny marriage, should we allow ANYONE who cannot or chooses not to have children to marry? What about heterosexual couples who are past child barring age? What about a younger couple who may not be able to have children? Perhaps marriages should be automatically void after a certain time if no children are produced. If reproduction was the driving force, the compelling government interest in promoting traditional marriage, why are such policies not in place now?

Yet another question that I can’t get an answer to is: Given the fact that gay people do in fact have children in their care, and knowing that children have more legal and financial security when they have married parents, how do you justify denying marriage to those parents on the basis of their not having “reproduced” those children in a manner consistent with your sensibilities? They will argue that children need a “mommy and a daddy, but-putting aside the question of whether or not that is even true-the fact is that there will always be children who, for whatever reason do not live in a traditional mommy-daddy family and some will have gay parent. Failing to allow gay marriage will in no way ensure that more children will have a mom and a dad. It will only serve to ensure that fewer children will have two legal parents. To deny those children the benefits of married parents is to say that those children are less worthy, or you might say, worth less than other children. To deny them that security shows that any expressed concern for children is disingenuous at best. Not one of these people who claim to care so much about children has been able to answer that.

I will also point out that many heterosexual couples have children in their care with one or both parents not being biologically related. How is that different from gay couples who have a child where only one is the biological parent? Those two parents did not procreate together any more than that gay couple did. How is it different? It is not, yet I continually hear rumblings about how gay couples do not reproduce and therefor are of no benefit to society( The many benefits-beyond procreation- will be reserved for another time) At the same time, the anti-equality people are silent when it comes to straight couples in the exact same situation. It is a non sequitur because the conclusion-that gay couples should be denied benefits because they cannot reproduce- does not follow from its premises- that gay couples are fundamentally different in the way that they acquire children and that it should matter when it comes to extending rights to those who procreate as a couple but not to others. The argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

Lastly , I keep hearing about “responsible procreation” Opponents of marriage equality have long argued that reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples is important for promoting “responsible procreation” in society. However the “responsible procreation” argument is not only flawed on its own merits, it is also used to sugarcoat prejudice against homosexuality. It is wrought with logical fallacies, and bizarre assumptions. One of it’s strangest assumptions is that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then different-sex couples will have more children out of wedlock. I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how that will actually work. “Another strange variation of the responsible procreation claim is that if a heterosexual couple cannot conceive, marriage still somehow discourages them from cheating on one another. As the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, marriage “decreases the likelihood that a fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party.” What I’m getting from this is not so much opposition to same sex marriage, but the view that it is just not necessary for gays to marry because there is no chance of having an unintended child. Alternately, I hear it said that same sex marriage will result in fewer heterosexuals having children thus endangering the perpetuation of the species. Quite frankly, I’m confused. Will gay marriage result in more or fewer children and why? I fail to see how what gay folks do can influence what others do with respect to marriage and children, and I have to doubt whether those promoting these ideas really do either.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/1...gay-prejudice/

In any case this seems to be another major source of anti-equality talking points. It seems to me that a truly rational discussion of marriage equality-one in which the focus is strictly on the compelling government at societal interest, for and against it, without all of the fluff is long over due\\

It's "failed" only to morons like you who have both fingers firmly inserted into your ears. That includes the idiot you quoted from ThinkProgress.

Holy crap! That's it? That is you entire response to my lengthy, logical and well thought out post? The fact that all that you can do is to call me a moron clearly proves that you have nothing. Really pathetic. We're done here.

I don't waste my time arguing with people who claim marriage is not about procreation. The idea is too idiotic for words. The fact that we used to a thing called a "shotgun wedding" is sufficient to prove that it is about procreation. By promoting the idea that marriage isn't about procreation all you are doing is convincing teenage girls it's OK to get knocked up without being married. That's one of the very real negative consequences of so-called "gay marriage."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You're convinced that marriage is about procreation. That's simply not true no matter what you've convinced yourself.

It's so obviously true that it's difficult to comprehend anyone is stupid enough to dispute it.

What exactly is so obvious?? The only thing that is obvious is that "procreation" is a failed argument against marriage equality. ( one of many failed arguments) Here is something that I penned a while back:

Procreation: The Failed Argument Against Same Sex Marriage by REDACTED 5.15.14

Marriage is now about much more than having children. It is much more about a status, about economics and about security. If the inability to reproduce is valid reason to deny marriage, should we allow ANYONE who cannot or chooses not to have children to marry? What about heterosexual couples who are past child barring age? What about a younger couple who may not be able to have children? Perhaps marriages should be automatically void after a certain time if no children are produced. If reproduction was the driving force, the compelling government interest in promoting traditional marriage, why are such policies not in place now?

Yet another question that I can’t get an answer to is: Given the fact that gay people do in fact have children in their care, and knowing that children have more legal and financial security when they have married parents, how do you justify denying marriage to those parents on the basis of their not having “reproduced” those children in a manner consistent with your sensibilities? They will argue that children need a “mommy and a daddy, but-putting aside the question of whether or not that is even true-the fact is that there will always be children who, for whatever reason do not live in a traditional mommy-daddy family and some will have gay parent. Failing to allow gay marriage will in no way ensure that more children will have a mom and a dad. It will only serve to ensure that fewer children will have two legal parents. To deny those children the benefits of married parents is to say that those children are less worthy, or you might say, worth less than other children. To deny them that security shows that any expressed concern for children is disingenuous at best. Not one of these people who claim to care so much about children has been able to answer that.

I will also point out that many heterosexual couples have children in their care with one or both parents not being biologically related. How is that different from gay couples who have a child where only one is the biological parent? Those two parents did not procreate together any more than that gay couple did. How is it different? It is not, yet I continually hear rumblings about how gay couples do not reproduce and therefor are of no benefit to society( The many benefits-beyond procreation- will be reserved for another time) At the same time, the anti-equality people are silent when it comes to straight couples in the exact same situation. It is a non sequitur because the conclusion-that gay couples should be denied benefits because they cannot reproduce- does not follow from its premises- that gay couples are fundamentally different in the way that they acquire children and that it should matter when it comes to extending rights to those who procreate as a couple but not to others. The argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

Lastly , I keep hearing about “responsible procreation” Opponents of marriage equality have long argued that reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples is important for promoting “responsible procreation” in society. However the “responsible procreation” argument is not only flawed on its own merits, it is also used to sugarcoat prejudice against homosexuality. It is wrought with logical fallacies, and bizarre assumptions. One of it’s strangest assumptions is that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then different-sex couples will have more children out of wedlock. I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how that will actually work. “Another strange variation of the responsible procreation claim is that if a heterosexual couple cannot conceive, marriage still somehow discourages them from cheating on one another. As the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, marriage “decreases the likelihood that a fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party.” What I’m getting from this is not so much opposition to same sex marriage, but the view that it is just not necessary for gays to marry because there is no chance of having an unintended child. Alternately, I hear it said that same sex marriage will result in fewer heterosexuals having children thus endangering the perpetuation of the species. Quite frankly, I’m confused. Will gay marriage result in more or fewer children and why? I fail to see how what gay folks do can influence what others do with respect to marriage and children, and I have to doubt whether those promoting these ideas really do either.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/1...gay-prejudice/

In any case this seems to be another major source of anti-equality talking points. It seems to me that a truly rational discussion of marriage equality-one in which the focus is strictly on the compelling government at societal interest, for and against it, without all of the fluff is long over due\\

It's "failed" only to morons like you who have both fingers firmly inserted into your ears. That includes the idiot you quoted from ThinkProgress.

Holy crap! That's it? That is you entire response to my lengthy, logical and well thought out post? The fact that all that you can do is to call me a moron clearly proves that you have nothing. Really pathetic. We're done here.

I don't waste my time arguing with people who claim marriage is not about procreation. The idea is too idiotic for words. The fact that we used to a thing called a "shotgun wedding" is sufficient to prove that it is about procreation. By promoting the idea that marriage isn't about procreation all you are doing is convincing teenage girls it's OK to get knocked up without being married. That's one of the very real negative consequences of so-called "gay marriage."

A shotgun wedding was about shame and responsibility, not marriage. And children are a by-product of marriage, that's all.

 

[Debra K]

The Bible calls sodomites sinners and says they are going to Hell.

True story........

In Biblical stories, Sodom was a city. Sodomites are residents of the city. God destroyed the city because the residents were cruel to strangers, to the poor, and to the sick. Their sin was their arrogant lack of concern for their fellow man. Who are the true sodomites?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Bible calls sodomites sinners and says they are going to Hell.

True story........

In Biblical stories, Sodom was a city. Sodomites are residents of the city. God destroyed the city because the residents were cruel to strangers, to the poor, and to the sick. Their sin was their arrogant lack of concern for their fellow man. Who are the true sodomites?

I think you're a little confused

 

[bripat9643]

It's so obviously true that it's difficult to comprehend anyone is stupid enough to dispute it.

What exactly is so obvious?? The only thing that is obvious is that "procreation" is a failed argument against marriage equality. ( one of many failed arguments) Here is something that I penned a while back:

Procreation: The Failed Argument Against Same Sex Marriage by REDACTED 5.15.14

Marriage is now about much more than having children. It is much more about a status, about economics and about security. If the inability to reproduce is valid reason to deny marriage, should we allow ANYONE who cannot or chooses not to have children to marry? What about heterosexual couples who are past child barring age? What about a younger couple who may not be able to have children? Perhaps marriages should be automatically void after a certain time if no children are produced. If reproduction was the driving force, the compelling government interest in promoting traditional marriage, why are such policies not in place now?

Yet another question that I can’t get an answer to is: Given the fact that gay people do in fact have children in their care, and knowing that children have more legal and financial security when they have married parents, how do you justify denying marriage to those parents on the basis of their not having “reproduced” those children in a manner consistent with your sensibilities? They will argue that children need a “mommy and a daddy, but-putting aside the question of whether or not that is even true-the fact is that there will always be children who, for whatever reason do not live in a traditional mommy-daddy family and some will have gay parent. Failing to allow gay marriage will in no way ensure that more children will have a mom and a dad. It will only serve to ensure that fewer children will have two legal parents. To deny those children the benefits of married parents is to say that those children are less worthy, or you might say, worth less than other children. To deny them that security shows that any expressed concern for children is disingenuous at best. Not one of these people who claim to care so much about children has been able to answer that.

I will also point out that many heterosexual couples have children in their care with one or both parents not being biologically related. How is that different from gay couples who have a child where only one is the biological parent? Those two parents did not procreate together any more than that gay couple did. How is it different? It is not, yet I continually hear rumblings about how gay couples do not reproduce and therefor are of no benefit to society( The many benefits-beyond procreation- will be reserved for another time) At the same time, the anti-equality people are silent when it comes to straight couples in the exact same situation. It is a non sequitur because the conclusion-that gay couples should be denied benefits because they cannot reproduce- does not follow from its premises- that gay couples are fundamentally different in the way that they acquire children and that it should matter when it comes to extending rights to those who procreate as a couple but not to others. The argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

Lastly , I keep hearing about “responsible procreation” Opponents of marriage equality have long argued that reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples is important for promoting “responsible procreation” in society. However the “responsible procreation” argument is not only flawed on its own merits, it is also used to sugarcoat prejudice against homosexuality. It is wrought with logical fallacies, and bizarre assumptions. One of it’s strangest assumptions is that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then different-sex couples will have more children out of wedlock. I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how that will actually work. “Another strange variation of the responsible procreation claim is that if a heterosexual couple cannot conceive, marriage still somehow discourages them from cheating on one another. As the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, marriage “decreases the likelihood that a fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party.” What I’m getting from this is not so much opposition to same sex marriage, but the view that it is just not necessary for gays to marry because there is no chance of having an unintended child. Alternately, I hear it said that same sex marriage will result in fewer heterosexuals having children thus endangering the perpetuation of the species. Quite frankly, I’m confused. Will gay marriage result in more or fewer children and why? I fail to see how what gay folks do can influence what others do with respect to marriage and children, and I have to doubt whether those promoting these ideas really do either.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/1...gay-prejudice/

In any case this seems to be another major source of anti-equality talking points. It seems to me that a truly rational discussion of marriage equality-one in which the focus is strictly on the compelling government at societal interest, for and against it, without all of the fluff is long over due\\

It's "failed" only to morons like you who have both fingers firmly inserted into your ears. That includes the idiot you quoted from ThinkProgress.

Holy crap! That's it? That is you entire response to my lengthy, logical and well thought out post? The fact that all that you can do is to call me a moron clearly proves that you have nothing. Really pathetic. We're done here.

I don't waste my time arguing with people who claim marriage is not about procreation. The idea is too idiotic for words. The fact that we used to a thing called a "shotgun wedding" is sufficient to prove that it is about procreation. By promoting the idea that marriage isn't about procreation all you are doing is convincing teenage girls it's OK to get knocked up without being married. That's one of the very real negative consequences of so-called "gay marriage."

A shotgun wedding was about shame and responsibility, not marriage. And children are a by-product of marriage, that's all.

Yes, it was about responsibility: it was about being responsible for the woman you just knocked up and her child. That's exactly the point. It's why the institution exists, not so you can show your commitment to the object of your affection.

Calling children a "by product" of marriage is like calling a nuclear explosion a by product of an atom bomb.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What exactly is so obvious?? The only thing that is obvious is that "procreation" is a failed argument against marriage equality. ( one of many failed arguments) Here is something that I penned a while back:

It's "failed" only to morons like you who have both fingers firmly inserted into your ears. That includes the idiot you quoted from ThinkProgress.

Holy crap! That's it? That is you entire response to my lengthy, logical and well thought out post? The fact that all that you can do is to call me a moron clearly proves that you have nothing. Really pathetic. We're done here.

I don't waste my time arguing with people who claim marriage is not about procreation. The idea is too idiotic for words. The fact that we used to a thing called a "shotgun wedding" is sufficient to prove that it is about procreation. By promoting the idea that marriage isn't about procreation all you are doing is convincing teenage girls it's OK to get knocked up without being married. That's one of the very real negative consequences of so-called "gay marriage."

A shotgun wedding was about shame and responsibility, not marriage. And children are a by-product of marriage, that's all.

Yes, it was about responsibility: it was about being responsible for the woman you just knocked up and her child. That's exactly the point. It's why the institution exists, not so you can show your commitment to the object of your love.

Calling children a "by product" of marriage is like calling a nuclear explosion a by product of an atom bomb.

I'll make this as simple as possible for you.

1. We don't ask if you can have children before you can get a marriage license.
2. Many people don't, can't, or never will have children and their marriage is equally valid.
3. There is no three, see one and two.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You're convinced that marriage is about procreation. That's simply not true no matter what you've convinced yourself.

It's so obviously true that it's difficult to comprehend anyone is stupid enough to dispute it.

What exactly is so obvious?? The only thing that is obvious is that "procreation" is a failed argument against marriage equality. ( one of many failed arguments) Here is something that I penned a while back:

Procreation: The Failed Argument Against Same Sex Marriage by REDACTED 5.15.14

Marriage is now about much more than having children. It is much more about a status, about economics and about security. If the inability to reproduce is valid reason to deny marriage, should we allow ANYONE who cannot or chooses not to have children to marry? What about heterosexual couples who are past child barring age? What about a younger couple who may not be able to have children? Perhaps marriages should be automatically void after a certain time if no children are produced. If reproduction was the driving force, the compelling government interest in promoting traditional marriage, why are such policies not in place now?

Yet another question that I can’t get an answer to is: Given the fact that gay people do in fact have children in their care, and knowing that children have more legal and financial security when they have married parents, how do you justify denying marriage to those parents on the basis of their not having “reproduced” those children in a manner consistent with your sensibilities? They will argue that children need a “mommy and a daddy, but-putting aside the question of whether or not that is even true-the fact is that there will always be children who, for whatever reason do not live in a traditional mommy-daddy family and some will have gay parent. Failing to allow gay marriage will in no way ensure that more children will have a mom and a dad. It will only serve to ensure that fewer children will have two legal parents. To deny those children the benefits of married parents is to say that those children are less worthy, or you might say, worth less than other children. To deny them that security shows that any expressed concern for children is disingenuous at best. Not one of these people who claim to care so much about children has been able to answer that.

I will also point out that many heterosexual couples have children in their care with one or both parents not being biologically related. How is that different from gay couples who have a child where only one is the biological parent? Those two parents did not procreate together any more than that gay couple did. How is it different? It is not, yet I continually hear rumblings about how gay couples do not reproduce and therefor are of no benefit to society( The many benefits-beyond procreation- will be reserved for another time) At the same time, the anti-equality people are silent when it comes to straight couples in the exact same situation. It is a non sequitur because the conclusion-that gay couples should be denied benefits because they cannot reproduce- does not follow from its premises- that gay couples are fundamentally different in the way that they acquire children and that it should matter when it comes to extending rights to those who procreate as a couple but not to others. The argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

Lastly , I keep hearing about “responsible procreation” Opponents of marriage equality have long argued that reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples is important for promoting “responsible procreation” in society. However the “responsible procreation” argument is not only flawed on its own merits, it is also used to sugarcoat prejudice against homosexuality. It is wrought with logical fallacies, and bizarre assumptions. One of it’s strangest assumptions is that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then different-sex couples will have more children out of wedlock. I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how that will actually work. “Another strange variation of the responsible procreation claim is that if a heterosexual couple cannot conceive, marriage still somehow discourages them from cheating on one another. As the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, marriage “decreases the likelihood that a fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party.” What I’m getting from this is not so much opposition to same sex marriage, but the view that it is just not necessary for gays to marry because there is no chance of having an unintended child. Alternately, I hear it said that same sex marriage will result in fewer heterosexuals having children thus endangering the perpetuation of the species. Quite frankly, I’m confused. Will gay marriage result in more or fewer children and why? I fail to see how what gay folks do can influence what others do with respect to marriage and children, and I have to doubt whether those promoting these ideas really do either.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/1...gay-prejudice/

In any case this seems to be another major source of anti-equality talking points. It seems to me that a truly rational discussion of marriage equality-one in which the focus is strictly on the compelling government at societal interest, for and against it, without all of the fluff is long over due\\

It's "failed" only to morons like you who have both fingers firmly inserted into your ears. That includes the idiot you quoted from ThinkProgress.

Holy crap! That's it? That is you entire response to my lengthy, logical and well thought out post? The fact that all that you can do is to call me a moron clearly proves that you have nothing. Really pathetic. We're done here.

I don't waste my time arguing with people who claim marriage is not about procreation. The idea is too idiotic for words. The fact that we used to a thing called a "shotgun wedding" is sufficient to prove that it is about procreation. By promoting the idea that marriage isn't about procreation all you are doing is convincing teenage girls it's OK to get knocked up without being married. That's one of the very real negative consequences of so-called "gay marriage."

1. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage

2. Gay people do bring children into the world and care for those and other children

3. Same sex marriage is the law, despite numerous failed attempts to use that argument against marriage equality. Deal with it.

4. Gay marriage is not going to influence teenage girls to get pregnant without bothering to get married. Nor will it have any effect on the behavior of anyone else. That is the stupidest thing yet that you said.

I have wasted enough time on this horseshit.

 

[Debra K]

The Bible calls sodomites sinners and says they are going to Hell.

True story........

In Biblical stories, Sodom was a city. Sodomites are residents of the city. God destroyed the city because the residents were cruel to strangers, to the poor, and to the sick. Their sin was their arrogant lack of concern for their fellow man. Who are the true sodomites?

I think you're a little confused

Well then, enlighten me. Didn't Jesus tell his "believers" to love thy neighbor? to give alms to the poor? to tend to the sick? Where in the Bible did Jesus ask tell his "believers" to engage in hateful oppression and to justify it by using his name?

Please, lift that alleged veil of confusion that prevents me from seeing the truth about the haters among us.

 

[007]

"I don't wanna' discuss the topic at hand so I'll mock the OP"

- Many USMB Posters.

- Many LIBERAL/LEFTIST/HACK USMB Posters.

 

[007]

The queers claimed the wanted to legalize gay marriage so they could participate in a committed relationship. The truth is they only wanted the government benefits and a veneer of respectability that their relationships don't merit.

Not to mention they simply wanted to BASTARDIZE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN HOLY MATRIMONY. They HATE Christians and the Bible, so they wanted to SHIT ON THEM by FORCING them to accept their DISGUSTING, PERVERTED, SEX LIFE.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The queers claimed the wanted to legalize gay marriage so they could participate in a committed relationship. The truth is they only wanted the government benefits and a veneer of respectability that their relationships don't merit.

Not to mention they simply wanted to BASTARDIZE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN HOLY MATRIMONY. They HATE Christians and the Bible, so they wanted to SHIT ON THEM by FORCING them to accept their DISGUSTING, PERVERTED, SEX LIFE.

There are Christians nations around, we aren't one of them. So, leave...

 

[Sunni Man]

Well then, enlighten me. Didn't Jesus tell his "believers" to love thy neighbor? to give alms to the poor? to tend to the sick? Where in the Bible did Jesus ask tell his "believers" to engage in hateful oppression and to justify it by using his name?

Please, lift that alleged veil of confusion that prevents me from seeing the truth about the haters among us.

The Bible says that Jesus was a Torah (Old Testament) teaching Rabbi who taught the Law and said that the Laws were good.

The Torah law that Jesus taught said that Sodomites were an abomination God and were to be stoned to death with Hell as their destiny. ......

 

[007]

The Bible calls sodomites sinners and says they are going to Hell.

True story........

In Biblical stories, Sodom was a city. Sodomites are residents of the city. God destroyed the city because the residents were cruel to strangers, to the poor, and to the sick. Their sin was their arrogant lack of concern for their fellow man. Who are the true sodomites?

Here's a question... why do they call butt fucking, sodomy?

Answer: Because the inhabitants of Sodom were all BUTT FUCKERS.

 

[007]

The queers claimed the wanted to legalize gay marriage so they could participate in a committed relationship. The truth is they only wanted the government benefits and a veneer of respectability that their relationships don't merit.

Not to mention they simply wanted to BASTARDIZE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN HOLY MATRIMONY. They HATE Christians and the Bible, so they wanted to SHIT ON THEM by FORCING them to accept their DISGUSTING, PERVERTED, SEX LIFE.

There are Christians nations around, we aren't one of them. So, leave...

Oh how I'd love for you to say that to my face...

But sorry, anyway, pimple head, America was founded on Judaeo Christianity, and has remained so by the vast majority of Americans to this day.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Bible calls sodomites sinners and says they are going to Hell.

True story........

In Biblical stories, Sodom was a city. Sodomites are residents of the city. God destroyed the city because the residents were cruel to strangers, to the poor, and to the sick. Their sin was their arrogant lack of concern for their fellow man. Who are the true sodomites?

Here's a question... why do they call butt fucking, sodomy?

Answer: Because the inhabitants of Sodom were all BUTT FUCKERS.

Most Sodomites are not gay. Now you know...

sod•om•y
(ˈsɒd ə mi)

n.
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the same sex.
2. enforced anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
3. bestiality (def. 4).
[1250–1300; Middle English sodomie < Old French. See Sodom, -y3]
sod`o•mit′i•cal (-ˈmɪt ɪ kəl) sod`o•mit′ic, adj.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The queers claimed the wanted to legalize gay marriage so they could participate in a committed relationship. The truth is they only wanted the government benefits and a veneer of respectability that their relationships don't merit.

Not to mention they simply wanted to BASTARDIZE TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN HOLY MATRIMONY. They HATE Christians and the Bible, so they wanted to SHIT ON THEM by FORCING them to accept their DISGUSTING, PERVERTED, SEX LIFE.

Your flag is as hateful and offensive as your words. Do you have anything that is remotely intelligent to contribute or are you just here to flame troll ?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

But sorry, anyway, pimple head, America was founded on Judaeo Christianity, and has remained so by the vast majority of Americans to this day.

No, it was not. Stop believing lies. No Christian Nation, in it's founding document no less, bans itself from declaring itself a Christian Nation. Total fucking morons here.

 

[007]

The Bible calls sodomites sinners and says they are going to Hell.

True story........

In Biblical stories, Sodom was a city. Sodomites are residents of the city. God destroyed the city because the residents were cruel to strangers, to the poor, and to the sick. Their sin was their arrogant lack of concern for their fellow man. Who are the true sodomites?

Here's a question... why do they call butt fucking, sodomy?

Answer: Because the inhabitants of Sodom were all BUTT FUCKERS.

Most Sodomites are not gay. Now you know...

sod•om•y
(ˈsɒd ə mi)

n.
1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the same sex.
2. enforced anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
3. bestiality (def. 4).
[1250–1300; Middle English sodomie < Old French. See Sodom, -y3]
sod`o•mit′i•cal (-ˈmɪt ɪ kəl) sod`o•mit′ic, adj.

True... I couldn't tell you if they were "happy" or not. Probably not though, because they were HOMOS, and it's a documented fact that more fags commit suicide than anyone else. They know they're sick but refuse to get mental help, so they're sad.