What is the Purpose of Gay Marriage?

[Seawytch]

The simple truth is that married husband and wife couples have three basic forms of sexual contact. These are vaginal, oral, and anal. And of these three, only one has been demonstrated to produce a baby. And of the three only vaginal has been proven to be healthy and without serious complications under normal circumstances. Both anal and oral sex can bring about serious sanitary health risks to those involved.
With homosexuality, there is only two possible forms. They include anal and oral. No baby can be produced and both have serious sanitation/health risks involved.

You need to do more research if you think that's the only way to have sex (and the only way to procreate).

 

[rightwinger]

The simple truth is that married husband and wife couples have three basic forms of sexual contact. These are vaginal, oral, and anal. And of these three, only one has been demonstrated to produce a baby. And of the three only vaginal has been proven to be healthy and without serious complications under normal circumstances. Both anal and oral sex can bring about serious sanitary health risks to those involved.
With homosexuality, there is only two possible forms. They include anal and oral. No baby can be produced and both have serious sanitation/health risks involved.

LittleNipps

Don't forget the old reliable handjob

 

[Ravi]

I didn't saying gay marriage is going to lead to incest marriage. Are you dense?

Let me ask you this - if incestual relationships were given marriage status, how would that change the meaning of marriage?

Why would they be given marriage status? Talk about a red herring.

 

[Rocko]

I didn't saying gay marriage is going to lead to incest marriage. Are you dense?

Let me ask you this - if incestual relationships were given marriage status, how would that change the meaning of marriage?

Why would they be given marriage status? Talk about a red herring.

The irony is that the whole civil rights argument bought up in context to gay marriage is one big, giant redd herring.

 

[Rocko]

Let me ask you this - if incestual relationships were given marriage status, how would that change the meaning of marriage?

Since many have for years harped on the fact that "marriage is the joining of a man and a woman" then if incestual relationships between mother/son, father/daughter, brother/sister were allowed then in each case they (assuming they are consenting adults) a man and a woman.

Those people would then be fine with that right?


>>>>

I think that marrying someone outside of your family is implied, but if you like to add that to the meaning, then fine.

 

[Rocko]

Well seawytch, do you agree with this gentleman??

it is based on the rediculous hypothesis that an incestuous marriage was legal.

But if such were the case, than anyone who is pro gay marriage who doesnt view it as "marriage" in the same light is a hypocrite.

And if they wouldnt view it in the same light, then their argument as to why gay marriage should be accepted is bullshit.

They are hypocrites.

meaning of marriage is a sacred institution that exist to support the foundation of a family, which is a relationship between a man and a woman. Allowing gays to marry unequivocally changes that.

 

[LittleNipper]

I'm secure in the knowledge that my soul is safe. Not worried about what comes after, only with what goes on while I'm here.

And you base your salvation on what? This isn't a trick question. I sincerely want to know if you are in fact a saved individual.

My secret is that I don't believe in your sky pixie.

Then you have no security and you are a lost individual.

 

[Seawytch]

And you base your salvation on what? This isn't a trick question. I sincerely want to know if you are in fact a saved individual.

My secret is that I don't believe in your sky pixie.

Then you have no security and you are a lost individual.

Awfully arrogant to think only your god is the answer. I don't believe in your sky pixie...that doesn't mean I don't believe in sky pixies altogether.

Not lost at all, thanks.

 

[High_Gravity]

The simple truth is that married husband and wife couples have three basic forms of sexual contact. These are vaginal, oral, and anal. And of these three, only one has been demonstrated to produce a baby. And of the three only vaginal has been proven to be healthy and without serious complications under normal circumstances. Both anal and oral sex can bring about serious sanitary health risks to those involved.
With homosexuality, there is only two possible forms. They include anal and oral. No baby can be produced and both have serious sanitation/health risks involved.

LittleNipps

Don't forget the old reliable handjob

There is also foot jobs, titty fucking etc etc

 

[bodecea]

I didn't saying gay marriage is going to lead to incest marriage. Are you dense?

Let me ask you this - if incestual relationships were given marriage status, how would that change the meaning of marriage?

Why would they be given marriage status? Talk about a red herring.

The irony is that the whole civil rights argument bought up in context to gay marriage is one big, giant redd herring.

Gays are citizens. Marriage is a right....ergo civil rights. If another specific group of Americans....let's say, those over 65 were suddenly denied legal marriage....there'd be a cry for equal civil rights alright.

 

[bodecea]

And you base your salvation on what? This isn't a trick question. I sincerely want to know if you are in fact a saved individual.

My secret is that I don't believe in your sky pixie.

Then you have no security and you are a lost individual.

Says you...however, there are many who look at you and believe you are the one who is lost.

 

[LittleNipper]

My secret is that I don't believe in your sky pixie.

Then you have no security and you are a lost individual.

Awfully arrogant to think only your god is the answer. I don't believe in your sky pixie...that doesn't mean I don't believe in sky pixies altogether.

Not lost at all, thanks.

Well, as long as you are absolutely sure of yourself. If you ever have any doubt then perhaps we might talk on this again.

 

[LittleNipper]

My secret is that I don't believe in your sky pixie.

Then you have no security and you are a lost individual.

Says you...however, there are many who look at you and believe you are the one who is lost.

How do they know? What do they base that belief on? What if they are wrong?

 

[bodecea]

Then you have no security and you are a lost individual.

Says you...however, there are many who look at you and believe you are the one who is lost.

How do they know? What do they base that belief on? What if they are wrong?

They know the same way you do....and they base it on faith just like you do. Just a different faith. And what if they are right?

 

[LittleNipper]

Why would they be given marriage status? Talk about a red herring.

The irony is that the whole civil rights argument bought up in context to gay marriage is one big, giant redd herring.

Gays are citizens. Marriage is a right....ergo civil rights. If another specific group of Americans....let's say, those over 65 were suddenly denied legal marriage....there'd be a cry for equal civil rights alright.

Marriage is not a right anymore than driving a car is a right. If marriage was a right, anyone could marry anyone they choose. Obviously not everyone will want to marry anyone. People are more selective than that. What if a 65 year old man wants to marry a particular 19 year old girl? The 19 year old girl would most likely say no, especially if she had a 21 year old knocking at the front door... The 65 may wish to marry, but he has no right to be married unless he can get someone to marry him. That would likely be someone 50 something or older....

 

[Rocko]

Why would they be given marriage status? Talk about a red herring.

The irony is that the whole civil rights argument bought up in context to gay marriage is one big, giant redd herring.

Gays are citizens. Marriage is a right....ergo civil rights. If another specific group of Americans....let's say, those over 65 were suddenly denied legal marriage....there'd be a cry for equal civil rights alright.

The position that Gays are fighting for their civil rights to be married, protected under the 14th amendment is a redd herring.

Gays aren't looking for the same rights everyone has, they are looking to create a new right that nobody has, except in a few dumb states. You're gay right? Aren't you provided with the right to marry a consenting male adult if you choose? So what's the problem then? Oh, you want to marry a person of the same sex? Well you're not allowed and nobody is, barring a few states.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The irony is that the whole civil rights argument bought up in context to gay marriage is one big, giant redd herring.

Gays are citizens. Marriage is a right....ergo civil rights. If another specific group of Americans....let's say, those over 65 were suddenly denied legal marriage....there'd be a cry for equal civil rights alright.

The position that Gays are fighting for their civil rights to be married, protected under the 14th amendment is a redd herring.

Gays aren't looking for the same rights everyone has, they are looking to create a new right that nobody has, except in a few dumb states. You're gay right? Aren't you provided with the right to marry a consenting male adult if you choose? So what's the problem then? Oh, you want to marry a person of the same sex? Well you're not allowed and nobody is, barring a few states.

Actually with marriage equality there is not the creation of a right that nobody has. Straight people will also be allowed to Civilly Marry someone of the same gender.


That's not a "right that nobody has", they can do it also.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

The irony is that the whole civil rights argument bought up in context to gay marriage is one big, giant redd herring.

Gays are citizens. Marriage is a right....ergo civil rights. If another specific group of Americans....let's say, those over 65 were suddenly denied legal marriage....there'd be a cry for equal civil rights alright.

Marriage is not a right anymore than driving a car is a right. If marriage was a right, anyone could marry anyone they choose. Obviously not everyone will want to marry anyone. People are more selective than that. What if a 65 year old man wants to marry a particular 19 year old girl? The 19 year old girl would most likely say no, especially if she had a 21 year old knocking at the front door... The 65 may wish to marry, but he has no right to be married unless he can get someone to marry him. That would likely be someone 50 something or older....

Really? All rights are absolute? Everyone, without restriction, can have a gun?

The SCOTUS, on numerous occasions, declared marriage a fundamental right.

 

[Seawytch]

The irony is that the whole civil rights argument bought up in context to gay marriage is one big, giant redd herring.

Gays are citizens. Marriage is a right....ergo civil rights. If another specific group of Americans....let's say, those over 65 were suddenly denied legal marriage....there'd be a cry for equal civil rights alright.

The position that Gays are fighting for their civil rights to be married, protected under the 14th amendment is a redd herring.

Gays aren't looking for the same rights everyone has, they are looking to create a new right that nobody has, except in a few dumb states. You're gay right? Aren't you provided with the right to marry a consenting male adult if you choose? So what's the problem then? Oh, you want to marry a person of the same sex? Well you're not allowed and nobody is, barring a few states.

Are you aware that your argument was used in Loving? It was argued that it wasn't discrimination because blacks and whites could marry their own race.

Aren't you in fine company...

When marriage equality is realized, you'll be able to do it too so it won't be a special right.

 

[Rocko]

Gays are citizens. Marriage is a right....ergo civil rights. If another specific group of Americans....let's say, those over 65 were suddenly denied legal marriage....there'd be a cry for equal civil rights alright.

The position that Gays are fighting for their civil rights to be married, protected under the 14th amendment is a redd herring.

Gays aren't looking for the same rights everyone has, they are looking to create a new right that nobody has, except in a few dumb states. You're gay right? Aren't you provided with the right to marry a consenting male adult if you choose? So what's the problem then? Oh, you want to marry a person of the same sex? Well you're not allowed and nobody is, barring a few states.

Are you aware that your argument was used in Loving? It was argued that it wasn't discrimination because blacks and whites could marry their own race.

Aren't you in fine company...

When marriage equality is realized, you'll be able to do it too so it won't be a special right.

I didn't know gay was a race.