Watch live: Biden signs gay marriage bill with drag queens, Pelosi, Cyndi Lauper, Homophobe GOP Rep Vicki Hartzler's gay nephew & others in attendance

[Hossfly]

You and your church are welcome to have any restrictions you want on who gets married.

The gov't made the right decision here.

Yep, the vetoed Gods word and took charge.

 

[WinterBorn]

No?, now I know your delusional

Talking in riddles to try and sound intelligent. Lol

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Oh I'm pretty sure all those same sex marriages will decrease that failure rate. You betcha.

Did I say it would?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It just opens the door for people to be able to marry anything. Which will make it a joke.

This is exactly what conservative talk radio was saying back in 2004 after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. Guess what? Nobody in the U.S. has married their cat or their dog.

 

[jknowgood]

This is exactly what conservative talk radio was saying back in 2004 after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. Guess what? Nobody in the U.S. has married their cat or their dog.

10 years making it legal and we have boys in girls sports.

 

[JGalt]

10 years making it legal and we have boys in girls sports.

Not to mention, transgender men waving their shit in children's faces. You give them a little, they always more.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

10 years making it legal and we have boys in girls sports.

That’s relevant how?

 

[HeyNorm]

Talking in riddles to try and sound intelligent. Lol

There is no need for riddles. The answer is clear.

 

[jknowgood]

That’s relevant how?

It was predicted that decency would go. The prediction was right.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no need for riddles. The answer is clear.

Is it? Please explain.

What is this one relevant difference?

 

[HeyNorm]

Is it? Please explain.

What is this one relevant difference?

That the demographic groups that make up opposite sex couples can have sex as well. And because they do, I have to explain that importance to those that fail to understand it’s importance

 

[WinterBorn]

That the demographic groups that make up opposite sex couples can have sex as well. And because they do, I have to explain that importance to those that fail to understand it’s importance

The original post in this line of the conversation was:
"It is the claim by whom? The only people I have seen saying anything remotely resembling that are the ones who don't want them to be able to marry.
Gay marriage is not all about sex. They are already having sex, like the overwhelming majority of straight couples."

To which you replied "With one big difference, wouldn’t you agree?".

So your comment was irrelevant. No one claims a straight couple's marriage is based solely on sex, like they do gay couples. And straight couples having sex is not a "big difference".

 

[22lcidw]

This is exactly what conservative talk radio was saying back in 2004 after Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. Guess what? Nobody in the U.S. has married their cat or their dog.

Pedophile is not slowly pushing to be smoothed in with bestiality and euthanasia on the docket. More power to you. Vengeance!

 

[HeyNorm]

The original post in this line of the conversation was:
"It is the claim by whom? The only people I have seen saying anything remotely resembling that are the ones who don't want them to be able to marry.
Gay marriage is not all about sex. They are already having sex, like the overwhelming majority of straight couples."

To which you replied "With one big difference, wouldn’t you agree?".

So your comment was irrelevant. No one claims a straight couple's marriage is based solely on sex, like they do gay couples. And straight couples having sex is not a "big difference".

The union itself, the contract itself, is predicated that the relationship could create a child.

1 Man to 1 woman, NOT TOO CLOSELY RELATED.

The whole idea is absurd when you add individuals who practice a fetish lifestyle for no real purpose.

Oh, I get you “marketed” this fetish as a separate sexuality. But many of us know better.

There is another fetish, in which folks get a chubby thinking about bumping uglies with adult siblings or uncles/aunts. I am opposed to ridding the marriage law of “not to closely related” to fit their kink as well.

Oh, and gays were never excluded from marriage, they simply did not want to find a qualifying partner. Their choice.

And I might remind you, many gays have, and likely still do marry members of the opposite sex. Prove me wrong.

 

[WinterBorn]

The union itself, the contract itself, is predicated that the relationship could create a child.

1 Man to 1 woman, NOT TOO CLOSELY RELATED.

The whole idea is absurd when you add individuals who practice a fetish lifestyle for no real purpose.

Oh, I get you “marketed” this fetish as a separate sexuality. But many of us know better.

There is another fetish, in which folks get a chubby thinking about bumping uglies with adult siblings or uncles/aunts. I am opposed to ridding the marriage law of “not to closely related” to fit their kink as well.

Oh, and gays were never excluded from marriage, they simply did not want to find a qualifying partner. Their choice.

And I might remind you, many gays have, and likely still do marry members of the opposite sex. Prove me wrong.

The claim that marriage is all about children is bogus now and always has been. People who cannot possibly have children have been allowed to marry since forever. If marriage were all about children, they would have been denied a license too.

 

[HeyNorm]

The claim that marriage is all about children is bogus now and always has been. People who cannot possibly have children have been allowed to marry since forever. If marriage were all about children, they would have been denied a license too.

It’s really not that difficult to read the qualifications. 1 man plus 1 woman. Nothing in the qualification required reproduction, however, even someone with a minimum education level can easily understand that, what often happens when you mix males and females.

More proof of this? …….. not too closely related.

Can all of these reproduce? No, but since we don’t promote discrimination, regardless of sexuality, those that have reproductive disabilities are still allowed.

Now make the argument that same sex couples, regardless of the sexuality makeup of the couple, can’t reproduce because of some reproductive disability.

Others are past the age that they are capable of reproduction. And since we do not discriminate due to age, as long as one is a male, and the other is female, it’s perfectly fine.

Now make the argument that same sex couples, regardless of the sexuality makeup of the couple can’t reproduce because they are always to old. I’ll wait.

Then there are those that, for whatever reason, simply do not want to endure a pregnancy. And since, I guess we can’t force sex or compel women to forcibly carry a pregnancy, as long as one is a male, and the other is female, it’s ok. Who’s to say they won’t at some point wish to have a child.

Now make the claim that a same sex couple, regardless of the sexuality makeup of the couple, can change their minds and procreate.

I’ll wait.

 

[WinterBorn]

It’s really not that difficult to read the qualifications. 1 man plus 1 woman. Nothing in the qualification required reproduction, however, even someone with a minimum education level can easily understand that, what often happens when you mix males and females.

More proof of this? …….. not too closely related.

Can all of these reproduce? No, but since we don’t promote discrimination, regardless of sexuality, those that have reproductive disabilities are still allowed.

Now make the argument that same sex couples, regardless of the sexuality makeup of the couple, can’t reproduce because of some reproductive disability.

Others are past the age that they are capable of reproduction. And since we do not discriminate due to age, as long as one is a male, and the other is female, it’s perfectly fine.

Now make the argument that same sex couples, regardless of the sexuality makeup of the couple can’t reproduce because they are always to old. I’ll wait.

Then there are those that, for whatever reason, simply do not want to endure a pregnancy. And since, I guess we can’t force sex or compel women to forcibly carry a pregnancy, as long as one is a male, and the other is female, it’s ok. Who’s to say they won’t at some point wish to have a child.

Now make the claim that a same sex couple, regardless of the sexuality makeup of the couple, can change their minds and procreate.

I’ll wait.

Same sex couple can procreate. They need a little help, but nothing to radical.

 

[HeyNorm]

Same sex couple can procreate. They need a little help, but nothing to radical.

and in that vain, marriage is not required. In fact, a single woman can procreate, she needs a little help, but nothing radical.

So just go the course of the single woman, right?

And yet, there remains the question as too why the contract is limited to only two…….NOT TOO CLOSELY RELATED.

 

[WinterBorn]

and in that vain, marriage is not required. In fact, a single woman can procreate, she needs a little help, but nothing radical.

So just go the course of the single woman, right?

And yet, there remains the question as too why the contract is limited to only two…….NOT TOO CLOSELY RELATED.

It is still heavily influenced by religious dogma, I think.

I have no problem with expanding marriage to include more than two people.

 

[HeyNorm]

It is still heavily influenced by religious dogma, I think.

I have no problem with expanding marriage to include more than two people.

The government need not make accommodation for a fetish unless it accommodates all.

And that’s the point of this isn’t it.

Just the other day we had a trans activist, who is on camera saying children just want to suck D, being honored by an appearance in our White House.

See what happens when we accommodate fetish?