The Homosexual Dilemma

[bodecea]

I'm into adult women myself.

Yeah there does exist that grandma niche. I'm not judging you.

Why do you say I hate gays? That's very odd of you.

It's even more odd of you.

No, really. Why do you say I hate gays?

 

[Carib Gyal]

I'm into adult women myself.

Yeah there does exist that grandma niche. I'm not judging you.

Why do you say I hate gays? That's very odd of you.

It's even more odd of you.

No, really. Why do you say I hate gays?

Think for yourself. Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I hope YOU don't like girls.

I like them fine.

You?

I'm into adult women myself.

When you can afford them?

 

[bodecea]

I hope YOU don't like girls.

I like them fine.

You?

I'm into adult women myself.

When you can afford them?

I'm married to one....and yes, I can afford her.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I hope YOU don't like girls.

I like them fine.

You?

I'm into adult women myself.

When you can afford them?

I'm married to one....and yes, I can afford her.

Uh....before I go off in the wrong direction, are you a man?

 

[Iceweasel]

Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage. They are mutually exclusive.

Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.

 

[bodecea]

I hope YOU don't like girls.

I like them fine.

You?

I'm into adult women myself.

When you can afford them?

I'm married to one....and yes, I can afford her.

Uh....before I go off in the wrong direction, are you a man?

No...are you?

 

[bodecea]

Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage. They are mutually exclusive.

Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.

Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage. They are mutually exclusive.

Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.

Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.

Old fashioned thinking ^^

 

[Iceweasel]

Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage. They are mutually exclusive.

Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.

Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.

Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

5. Homosexuality pervades our media, our television, and virtually all facets of American life. Why do these people think they're so important? What if Christians or Jews acted like this?

Then why is Fox News and CNN still on air? Surely they would have been replaced with the Ben Affleck show, Richard Dawkins, a gay fashion show, gay partner swap, and the Playboy channel.

The nature of evil is to deceive, the nature of good is truth... Fox News defends good... thus it consistently prospers.

Need anything else?

Good needs to be defended by lies?

Fox News is NOT banned in Canada.

ROFLMNAO! You can NOT make this crap UP! These idiots believe ANYTHING they're told, without regard to how ridiculous it is on its face.

What ya have there is a Deceit, Fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the Ignorant.

 

[bodecea]

Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage. They are mutually exclusive.

Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.

Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.

Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.

Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide. There is your difference. Unsurmountable? No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).

 

[80zephyr]

Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.

That is entirely untrue, and it if were true, and it isn't, millions upon millions of people could not get married, and they can, as long as they are male and female, the only contract on the books that requires such a thing.

No its not untrue. It is the logical building block of society. And "marriage" happened long before societies developed.

No, it didn't. You believe lies, plain and simple. Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage

And answer the damn question, how long are you going to keep beating your head against the wall while the rest of your society waves goodbye?

Lol. I can show you links which state that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, Or that the framers intended firearm ownership to be a militia, or that there is no such thing as race. Only an idiot would believe it because some "expert" happened to write it down.

Or, are you one who believes that because its on the internet, it must be true?

Mark

The faggots, and logic, won. Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?

Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?

Mark

Why didn't the Patriots give up in 1777? Why didn't the blacks give up in 1955? Why didn't women give up in 1979 when the ERA failed?

Thanks for making my point. Why should I give up?

Mark

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Because marriage, by its very nature, is for reproduction. Now, we understand that people can marry without having children, but that it is the exception to the basis for the existence of marriage. That is doesn't happen every time doesn't change that fact.

That is entirely untrue, and it if were true, and it isn't, millions upon millions of people could not get married, and they can, as long as they are male and female, the only contract on the books that requires such a thing.

No its not untrue. It is the logical building block of society. And "marriage" happened long before societies developed.

No, it didn't. You believe lies, plain and simple. Start here: 13 Facts on the History of Marriage

And answer the damn question, how long are you going to keep beating your head against the wall while the rest of your society waves goodbye?

Lol. I can show you links which state that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation, Or that the framers intended firearm ownership to be a militia, or that there is no such thing as race. Only an idiot would believe it because some "expert" happened to write it down.

Or, are you one who believes that because its on the internet, it must be true?

Mark

The faggots, and logic, won. Exactly how long are you little homophobes going to beat this issue, forever?

Probably. Since you and yours beat it forever and worn down Americans finally gave in. So tell me, why didn't you just give up when most Americans didn't agree with you?

Mark

Why didn't the Patriots give up in 1777? Why didn't the blacks give up in 1955? Why didn't women give up in 1979 when the ERA failed?

Thanks for making my point. Why should I give up?

Mark

It's your head versus my wall. Knock yourself out, literally.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage. They are mutually exclusive.

Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.

Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.

Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.

Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide. There is your difference. Unsurmountable? No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).

Why do you want to deny the rights of 250 people who want to marry each other? It's so bigoted and hateful.

 

[80zephyr]

I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights. I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them. This is about rights and equality. Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.

You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.

So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't fucking matter in this case.

Well, since I do care about the kids, I suppose it is a valid part of my argument. So...

No, it isn't since the debate is about Marriage Equality not what's best for children.

I'll make you a deal. You can discuss marriage in the context that is important to you, and I can do it as well. Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.

Mark

 

[AVG-JOE]

If marriage can be defined by a minority, why can't it be defined by ANY minority? Why can't a man marry any number of women who are willing to marry him? Why can't a woman marry any number of men or women she wants?

Because we can limit the number of partners a Monkey can have at any one time and that's not discriminatory.

As long as the rule applies to all marriages and all Monkeys the same, limiting the political benefits of a marriage relationship to couples only is not discriminatory.

 

[80zephyr]

Equal treatment under the law didn't enshrine the right for everyone to marry whoever they want, which not only has no legal precedent in the United States, but in human history as well. If the right to marry an unrelated person of the opposite sex is applied equally, it cannot violate the 14th Amendment. And those laws are applied equally even in states that offer no protection for sexual orientation...such as mine.

And just so you know, the interracial marriage issue is one that's close to home for me. I married a white woman and enraged members of my family that want to keep Native American bloodlines pure which is almost a religion in my tribe. It's amazing how nobody ever accuses those Indians of racism even though it's deep set in my culture. Double standard perhaps?

You still don't have the right to marry "whoever you want" in the United States. What you cannot do in 35 states plus the District of Columbia is discriminate based on gender. In over 60% of the country you and I both have the right to marry the non familial consenting adult of your choice regardless of gender.

What is amazing to me is that someone in an interracial marriage would even consider denying to gay couples based on gender what was denied them based on race.

What is amazing to me is that anyone can rationalize that gender and race are the same thing when it comes to the subject of marriage.

Marriage is for reproduction, and please, don't start with the "barren" couples argument. Been there, done that.

Mark

But I will, because it's pertinent.

Marriage today is for many things and reproduction is not the only thing and insisting on that would deprive many of marriage.

Depriving marriage doesn't bother me. We do it everyday.

Mark

Based on what exactly?

Age. Number of participants. Relationship. If I want to marry someone who is already married, the law currently doesn't allow me to do so.

Mark

 

[bodecea]

Nature needs egg and sperm...but marriage does not need procreation....just like procreation doesn't need marriage. They are mutually exclusive.

Marriage doesn't even need sex to exist, there's no reason to limit it to two people. That's old fashioned thinking. If ten men want to marry each other they can use your argument.

Except when you add more than two...the property rights and child custody issues get more complicated....instead of A to B....we now have choice...A to B or C.....B to A or C, etc.

Wrong. A women can fuck many men but the paternal father has to pay. Property is divided up every day. Never heard of guys knocking each other up though.

Yes, but you would need something above and beyond a marriage license for BOTH of those scenerios.....which complicates things more than what legal marriage contracts provide. There is your difference. Unsurmountable? No....but not doable with the current marriage license while there is no need to change marriage contracts with gay marriage.....just remove the legal restrictions (as many states have now done).

Why do you want to deny the rights of 250 people who want to marry each other? It's so bigoted and hateful.

Why do you put words in my mouth....who says I want to deny them rights?

 

[bodecea]

I have news for you little faggot haters, children are not part of this discussion over rights. I don't give a fuck if it is worse for the children, we don't do what is best for the child in this country because if we did we wouldn't let so many biological but unfit parents raise them. This is about rights and equality. Take your concerns for the children and start doing something about the homes where they are being bounced off the walls and fucked like whores.

You are correct. Nobody cares about the kids. Our lenient divorce laws are proof of that.

So stop using them as part of your argument since they don't fucking matter in this case.

Well, since I do care about the kids, I suppose it is a valid part of my argument. So...

No, it isn't since the debate is about Marriage Equality not what's best for children.

I'll make you a deal. You can discuss marriage in the context that is important to you, and I can do it as well. Children are part of what a marriage is. At least a real marriage.

Mark

Ah...so, to you, childless marriages are NOT real marriages....and marriages with children are real. I guess my wife and I have a real marriage then.