Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What does the B in LGBT stand for?
Yes, that's irrefutable proof that there's a such thing as bisexual.What does the B in LGBT stand for?Attraction is not a lifestyle.
But even a lifestyle like Christianity or Judaism is not prevented from entering the lifestyle that is marriage.
It is if you ask Anne Heche. She decided that if she was attracted to all things masculine, why not simply be with a man? So she switched lifestyles. Simple as that.
Yes, that's irrefutable proof that there's a such thing as bisexual.
Except that it's an incentivized privelege meant to benefit children...of whom will suffer with "gay marriage" the lack of the complimentary gender as parent 100% of the time...just like single parent households..Looks like the court can't continue to dump the issue on the lower courts and will have to make a call
Constitutionally, there is no basis for the state to bar gay marriage
There are the civil rights of childrens' best interests that will enter into this debate...as well as why states should lose money on marriage without receiving a benefit.
No. I'm not "excluded from the [sic] privelege of marriage".
To my knowledge, my "lifestyle group" has never been forbidden to marry.
You are still wrong that heterosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice.
I said that LGBT is a lifestyle. And that's because it is. Ask Anne Heche....
Attraction is not a lifestyle.
But even a lifestyle like Christianity or Judaism is not prevented from entering the lifestyle that is marriage.
Yes, that's irrefutable proof that there's a such thing as bisexual.
Pitching for LGBT again I see..
There are such things as poly-sexuals too (polygamists). Should they be denied "marriage equality" StMike? Yes or no? And why yes if that's your answer?
Syriusly, do you support polygamy in "marriage equality"...yes or no? And if no, why not?You are delusional.
For once I agree with you.Yes, that's irrefutable proof that there's a such thing as bisexual.
Pitching for LGBT again I see..
There are such things as poly-sexuals too (polygamists). Should they be denied "marriage equality" StMike? Yes or no? And why yes if that's your answer?
You are delusional.
What does the B in LGBT stand for?
"Anything goes".. when discussing who should be incentivized with tax breaks to be parents to kids in marriage a state does not benefit that loss of revenue by "anything goes" when its objective is to produce well-rounded future citizens (children)...
Syriusly, do you support polygamy in "marriage equality"...yes or no? And if no, why not?You are delusional.
Yes, that's irrefutable proof that there's a such thing as bisexual.
Pitching for LGBT again I see..
There are such things as poly-sexuals too (polygamists). Should they be denied "marriage equality" StMike? Yes or no? And why yes if that's your answer?
Except that it's an incentivized privelege meant to benefit children...of whom will suffer with "gay marriage" the lack of the complimentary gender as parent 100% of the time...just like single parent households..Looks like the court can't continue to dump the issue on the lower courts and will have to make a call
Constitutionally, there is no basis for the state to bar gay marriage
There are the civil rights of childrens' best interests that will enter into this debate...as well as why states should lose money on marriage without receiving a benefit.
If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?
The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.Because childless couples do not interfere with the structure of male/female marriage.
You once again are refusing to argue this debate from a standpoint that children trump adults in consideration of the marriage structure. Please stay focused for purposes of this debate. Your strawmen are frankly infuriating; they are so insulting to the intelligence..Neither does gay marriage. A gay couple marrying doesn't 'interfere' with a straight couple's marital structure.
When one CONSIDERS THAT MARRIAGE FROM A STATE'S POV IS ABOUT CHILDREN FOREMOST then one sees quite clearly how gay marriage harms children. A state incentivizing gay marriage is the same as a state incentivizing single parenthood because both harmful structures guarantee the state that they will deprive the children in those homes of both complimentary genders vital to a child's formative experience, 100% of the time.
The STRUCTURE of marriage is IMPORTANT. It is VITAL to CHILDREN..
irrelevantWhat does the B in LGBT stand for?
"Anything goes".. when discussing who should be incentivized with tax breaks to be parents to kids in marriage a state does not benefit that loss of revenue by "anything goes" when its objective is to produce well-rounded future citizens (children)...
There are such things as poly-sexuals too (polygamists). Should they be denied "marriage equality" StMike? Yes or no? And why yes if that's your answer?
No, of course not.
IF between consenting adults, its their business. Not yours.
Quit your Peeping Tom crap and MYOB
There are such things as poly-sexuals too (polygamists). Should they be denied "marriage equality" StMike? Yes or no? And why yes if that's your answer?
No, of course not.
IF between consenting adults, its their business. Not yours.
Quit your Peeping Tom crap and MYOB
So then you will be submitting an Amicus Brief on "why polygamists must also get "marriage equality" at the SCOTUS hearing this year on whether or not they're going to overturn Windsor 2013 so soon?
What polygamy case is the USSC hearing this year?
What polygamy case is the USSC hearing this year?
"Marriage equality" of course!... What, didn't you think the Supreme Justices were smart enough to anticipate that all sexual lifestyles petitioning or not would receive the same "rights" once marriage is changed from a state-granted privelege that it is now to a federally-forced "right" for anyone in any conceivable combination....formative environment for children be damned?...
Can you cite the case where the legality of polygamy is being adjudicated by the courts this year? Or is this another one of those issues you've just imagined?
