You can "encourage" Gays to "have children" all you want but...

[mal]

Exactly how does it "stigmatize and harm same-sex couples and their children."?

I'm still shaking my head in disbelief at that statement. Aren't the Mormons in Utah known for spitting out ten, twelve kids at a time?

With over 400 thousand unwanted children in this country, how is that helpful to the children of Utah, rotting away unloved in group homes?

With thousands of unadopted children just in Utah you'd think they'd welcome a loving couple with the resources to give the child a happy, healthy life regardless of their sexual orientation.

Because a Woman can never be a Father to a Son...

Nor a Man a Mother to a Daughter.

If we don't Acknowledge Obvious Standards that are Inherent in Nature's Design, then we are Declining as a Species.



peace...

 

[mal]

That's precisely why there will never be equality on this issue. No matter what the Government does, it cannot give two men the ability to reproduce with one another. Nor can it give two women the power to do the same. Government cannot overcome natural law. And Natural law will always deny same sex couples the rights they say the government can give them.

what about the right to marry? heterosexual couples marry who cannot have children....

The Possibility of ProCreation only Exists with Man and Woman Naturally.

Homosexuals don't need Marriage to settle the Issues they face.



peace...

 

[Plasmaball]

neat this issue again

 

[Yurt]

That's precisely why there will never be equality on this issue. No matter what the Government does, it cannot give two men the ability to reproduce with one another. Nor can it give two women the power to do the same. Government cannot overcome natural law. And Natural law will always deny same sex couples the rights they say the government can give them.

what about the right to marry? heterosexual couples marry who cannot have children....

The Possibility of ProCreation only Exists with Man and Woman Naturally.

Homosexuals don't need Marriage to settle the Issues they face.



peace...

neither do heterosexuals....

next

 

[mal]

what about the right to marry? heterosexual couples marry who cannot have children....

The Possibility of ProCreation only Exists with Man and Woman Naturally.

Homosexuals don't need Marriage to settle the Issues they face.



peace...

neither do heterosexuals....

next

That's really dumb.



peace...

 

[CaféAuLait]

Or did I?...

As for Stigmatizing the Children that Homosexuals Adopt or Rent a Male or Female to "have"... Well, the Homosexuals themselves are doing that to the Children when they make the Choice to Defy their Natural Design and then Demand that Society Applaud them in Law for it.



peace...

YOU IGNORANT HOMOPHOBIC DIRT SUCKING ORGANISM.

There are nearly three thousand unwanted children in Utah, most of whom are of American Indian or black ancestry, because the citizens of Utah don't want no niggrah or injun kid in their home.

These kids would be overjoyed to be in a family with two fathers or two mothers - as long as they're loved and taken care of.

I have no comment on the gay aspect of this, but your above comment is ridiculous. Are the 58,000 children waiting to be adopted in California for the same reasons? Because they don't want no "niggrah or injun kids"?

Jeff Katz: California Adoption -- Why Is It So Hard to Adopt From Foster Care?

California Kids Connection


Utah sucks for other reasons when it comes to adoption, in fact if you knew about Utah and many of the past lawsuits, it involves black men who were scammed by the state of UTAH while their children were adopted to white families. Absolutely disgusting what has happened to these men. I worked for over a year supporting Terry Achane and the mess he went through. There are many other black men who were scammed in the same manner. Utah may be considered backwards by many but I don't see them as racists as you imply above. The entire system in Utah for adoption needs to be revamped and these men need to be able to sue the state and the agencies who robbed them of their children.

 

[mal]

I wonder if that NovemberSock NTG/Howie will return?



peace...

 

[Yurt]

The Possibility of ProCreation only Exists with Man and Woman Naturally.

Homosexuals don't need Marriage to settle the Issues they face.



peace...

neither do heterosexuals....

next

That's really dumb.



peace...

well gee....if you say so

 

[Seawytch]

Yes two men can make a baby and yes two women can make a baby. They do it exactly like heterosexuals with impaired fecundity make a baby...with a little help from their friends.

What's Mal going to do when they start egg splicing?

 

[rightwinger]

Exactly how does it "stigmatize and harm same-sex couples and their children."?

I'm still shaking my head in disbelief at that statement. Aren't the Mormons in Utah known for spitting out ten, twelve kids at a time?

With over 400 thousand unwanted children in this country, how is that helpful to the children of Utah, rotting away unloved in group homes?

With thousands of unadopted children just in Utah you'd think they'd welcome a loving couple with the resources to give the child a happy, healthy life regardless of their sexual orientation.

Because a Woman can never be a Father to a Son...

Nor a Man a Mother to a Daughter.

If we don't Acknowledge Obvious Standards that are Inherent in Nature's Design, then we are Declining as a Species.



peace...

There are many, many men who can't be fathers to their sons. We do not stop them from marrying

 

[WinterBorn]

That's precisely why there will never be equality on this issue. No matter what the Government does, it cannot give two men the ability to reproduce with one another. Nor can it give two women the power to do the same. Government cannot overcome natural law. And Natural law will always deny same sex couples the rights they say the government can give them.

The benefits bestowed by the gov't are not always about having children.

And with a little help, gay couples can have children. Whether it is a surrogate mother or a sperm donor, gay couples can have children. Or they can, and often do, adopt.



The entire idea that there is opposition to gay marriage based solely on their inability to bear children unassisted is laughable.

Having children is not a requirement in straight marriages. There are straight couples who cannot conceive a child, but they still get to marry and enjoy the +/-1,400 benefits of being married.

 

[mal]

neither do heterosexuals....

next

That's really dumb.



peace...

well gee....if you say so

It is... And if you don't get the Distinction between Man/Wife and Man/Man and Woman/Woman then I can't really explain it to you... It's Self-Evident.

The issues that Homosexuals face regarding legal/medical/adoption can be resolved without Dishonestly calling their Defiance of their Natural Design Equal to what Created them and how they are Equipped and Designed.

Marriage does not require a Dishonest Redefinition to Solve those Issues.

And so you know, Marriage exists without a paper... Without State Sanction... It is what we are.

And Homosexuals can never Reflect that.



peace...

 

[mal]

That's precisely why there will never be equality on this issue. No matter what the Government does, it cannot give two men the ability to reproduce with one another. Nor can it give two women the power to do the same. Government cannot overcome natural law. And Natural law will always deny same sex couples the rights they say the government can give them.

The benefits bestowed by the gov't are not always about having children.

And with a little help, gay couples can have children. Whether it is a surrogate mother or a sperm donor, gay couples can have children. Or they can, and often do, adopt.



The entire idea that there is opposition to gay marriage based solely on their inability to bear children unassisted is laughable.

Having children is not a requirement in straight marriages. There are straight couples who cannot conceive a child, but they still get to marry and enjoy the +/-1,400 benefits of being married.

Civil Unions deal with all of those Issues without Dishonestly saying in Law that Man/Woman is Equal to Man/Man or Woman/Woman.

They are Inherently, Naturally and Biologically NOT Equal.



peace...

 

[Yurt]

That's really dumb.



peace...

well gee....if you say so

It is... And if you don't get the Distinction between Man/Wife and Man/Man and Woman/Woman then I can't really explain it to you... It's Self-Evident.

The issues that Homosexuals face regarding legal/medical/adoption can be resolved without Dishonestly calling their Defiance of their Natural Design Equal to what Created them and how they are Equipped and Designed.

Marriage does not require a Dishonest Redefinition to Solve those Issues.

And so you know, Marriage exists without a paper... Without State Sanction... It is what we are.

And Homosexuals can never Reflect that.



peace...

a marriage in the US is nothing more than a contract under the law. you're confusing religion or this so called "natural" distinction with the law. the law must be equal. since homosexual relationships are not illegal, they should not be discriminated under the law.

saying you can have marriage without a paper is not accurate. you have none of the special marital rights that people with a paper have. such cannot be allowed under the 14th amendment or loving v. virginia.

if you want to get your natural distinction law passed, go for it. better yet, why not get government out of marriage and give everyone a civil union, that way, if people want to marry, they can choose to do so.

 

[mal]

well gee....if you say so

It is... And if you don't get the Distinction between Man/Wife and Man/Man and Woman/Woman then I can't really explain it to you... It's Self-Evident.

The issues that Homosexuals face regarding legal/medical/adoption can be resolved without Dishonestly calling their Defiance of their Natural Design Equal to what Created them and how they are Equipped and Designed.

Marriage does not require a Dishonest Redefinition to Solve those Issues.

And so you know, Marriage exists without a paper... Without State Sanction... It is what we are.

And Homosexuals can never Reflect that.



peace...

a marriage in the US is nothing more than a contract under the law. you're confusing religion or this so called "natural" distinction with the law. the law must be equal. since homosexual relationships are not illegal, they should not be discriminated under the law.

saying you can have marriage without a paper is not accurate. you have none of the special marital rights that people with a paper have. such cannot be allowed under the 14th amendment or loving v. virginia.

if you want to get your natural distinction law passed, go for it. better yet, why not get government out of marriage and give everyone a civil union, that way, if people want to marry, they can choose to do so.

The Law has Recognized the Distinction when Blacks and Whites were Denied Marriage in Loving...

And Two Men nor Two Woman are "Fundamental to our very Existence and Survival".

It's not "so called"... It is what we are in Fact.

What People Choose to do outside of that is not Society's Burden.



peace...

 

[Yurt]

???

 

[Yurt]

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

now watch this mal

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of sexual orientation classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

do explain why you think the court would not rule that way?

 

[mal]

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

now watch this mal

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of sexual orientation classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. [n1] For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

do explain why you think the court would not rule that way?

Because Sexual Orientation is a Claim... Being born with Designed and Equipped to Couple with the Opposite Sex is a Fact... Why some Choose to Defy this Design is not the State's Burden.

Their Claim that they were Born differently than their Design and Demanding Society call it Equal to something it is not is the same as me Claiming I am a Black Midget Lesbian and Demanding Special Rights for it.

No Homosexual is being Denied ANY Rights.

Individually they have EVERY Right I have.

When they Choose to Defy their Design and Couple with the same Sex they are creating a Situation that is NOT Equal Man and Woman.

It doesn't get any simpler... Man/Woman is NOT Equal to Man/Man or Woman/Woman. <Fact that is not Debatable.



peace...



peace...