Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You seem to have clipped out (why am I not surprised) the point that there are no laws that don't exclude reasons for not applying laws to all. None of these exclusions are considered the denial of ones civil rights.
Because "no laws", "that don't", "for not" creates a triple and makes no sense.
What is never excluded, and the part that you conveniently clipped out is that the person just didn't want to comply.
What are you talking about?
A person denied a Civil Marriage license because of the gender composition of the couple isn't just "don't want to comply" they are barred by law. A different sex couple that must prove they are infertile (yes there are laws to this effect) can't just choose "not to comply" and get a Civil Marriage license anyway - they are barred from getting such a license.
But it is silly
I agree with you. Stating that procreation is a standard that applied to same-sex couples and then not apply that same standard to different-sex couples is silly. Well I think it's hypocritical, but I'll agree to your word. It it's not a standard for one, then it shouldn't be a standard for the other. If is to be a standard, apply it to both.
>>>>
hmmmm, they all did before the homos started whining about their so-called "right" to be married.
hmmmm, they all did before the homos started whining about their so-called "right" to be married.
When my wife and I were married in Tennessee 3 decades ago I didn't have to show my penis to anyone and my wife didn't have to show she had ovaries.
No body part check there.
>>>>
Fertility tests aren't 100% accurate, and they didn't exist until quite recently. The marriage always were written long before anything like a fertility test was even imagined. I see little reason to change them simply because some petulant homos believe they are entitled to be treated like normal people.
hmmmm, they all did before the homos started whining about their so-called "right" to be married.
When my wife and I were married in Tennessee 3 decades ago I didn't have to show my penis to anyone and my wife didn't have to show she had ovaries.
No body part check there.
>>>>
You have to show a driver's license, which denotes your gender. Check it out.
Fertility tests aren't 100% accurate, and they didn't exist until quite recently. The marriage always were written long before anything like a fertility test was even imagined. I see little reason to change them simply because some petulant homos believe they are entitled to be treated like normal people.
So to be fertile was not a standard that was required. That is true.
However there are places that required different-sex couples to be INFERTILE before they can get married. That kind of blows the whole (to paraphrase) "the couple must be able to procreate together" as a standard for Civil Marriage.\
>>>>
hmmmm, they all did before the homos started whining about their so-called "right" to be married.
When my wife and I were married in Tennessee 3 decades ago I didn't have to show my penis to anyone and my wife didn't have to show she had ovaries.
No body part check there.
>>>>
You have to show a driver's license, which denotes your gender. Check it out.
Now your moving the goal posts.
You said a body parts. My wife's drivers license still lists "Female" even though she doesn't have the female body parts to have children.
>>>>
Fertility tests aren't 100% accurate, and they didn't exist until quite recently. The marriage always were written long before anything like a fertility test was even imagined. I see little reason to change them simply because some petulant homos believe they are entitled to be treated like normal people.
So to be fertile was not a standard that was required. That is true.
However there are places that required different-sex couples to be INFERTILE before they can get married. That kind of blows the whole (to paraphrase) "the couple must be able to procreate together" as a standard for Civil Marriage.\
>>>>
There were? I suppose you can provide an example of such?
You really like to quibble about the utterly inane, don't you?
You really like to quibble about the utterly inane, don't you?
Hey, you are the one that said they checked for body parts as the standard ("The standard is having the right body parts." by bripat9643). Not me
Here is a thought, if you don't want to quibble about inane statements, try not making them.
>>>>
You seem to have clipped out (why am I not surprised) the point that there are no laws that don't exclude reasons for not applying laws to all. None of these exclusions are considered the denial of ones civil rights.
Because "no laws", "that don't", "for not" creates a triple and makes no sense.
What is never excluded, and the part that you conveniently clipped out is that the person just didn't want to comply.
What are you talking about?
A person denied a Civil Marriage license because of the gender composition of the couple isn't just "don't want to comply" they are barred by law. A different sex couple that must prove they are infertile (yes there are laws to this effect) can't just choose "not to comply" and get a Civil Marriage license anyway - they are barred from getting such a license.
But it is silly
I agree with you. Stating that procreation is a standard that applied to same-sex couples and then not apply that same standard to different-sex couples is silly. Well I think it's hypocritical, but I'll agree to your word. It it's not a standard for one, then it shouldn't be a standard for the other. If is to be a standard, apply it to both.
>>>>
Incorrect.Your depravity is renowned, Pop23, and your inability to deal with reality is obvious with every post.
You lied when you said gays could marriage each other legally in every state.
You lie, you cry: just the way it is.
Rock Hudson - Phyllis Gates married 1955
Sally Ride - Steven Hawley married 1982
Meredith Baxter - Robert Bush married 1966; David Birney married 1974; Michael Blodgett married 1995
Homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry.
The State of Virginia tried to use the same logic in 1967 claiming that blacks weren't denied the right to Civilly Marry. Blacks could marry Blacks, Whites could marry Whites. They weren't denied the right to marry and each was treated the same.
How well did that logic work?
You know, there a thread going right now dealing with PBS. The point of criticism in that thread is that the government has no business playing favorites with the two competing political ideologies in the US and that's the same logic at the heart of the Loving decision. Throughout history there have been two competing forms of marriage, in-group marriage and out-group marriage. Government had no business choosing to favor in-group marriage at the expense of out-group marriage. They've both always been equally valid.
Your comparison fails. There is no connection between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage." Better luck next time.
And WW continues to make Pop's arguments look silly.
As I and many others also do.
Pop, your arguments do not sustain your position, and your personal opinion remains meaningless.
Incorrect.Your depravity is renowned, Pop23, and your inability to deal with reality is obvious with every post.
You lied when you said gays could marriage each other legally in every state.
You lie, you cry: just the way it is.
Rock Hudson - Phyllis Gates married 1955
Sally Ride - Steven Hawley married 1982
Meredith Baxter - Robert Bush married 1966; David Birney married 1974; Michael Blodgett married 1995
Homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry.
The State of Virginia tried to use the same logic in 1967 claiming that blacks weren't denied the right to Civilly Marry. Blacks could marry Blacks, Whites could marry Whites. They weren't denied the right to marry and each was treated the same.
How well did that logic work?
You know, there a thread going right now dealing with PBS. The point of criticism in that thread is that the government has no business playing favorites with the two competing political ideologies in the US and that's the same logic at the heart of the Loving decision. Throughout history there have been two competing forms of marriage, in-group marriage and out-group marriage. Government had no business choosing to favor in-group marriage at the expense of out-group marriage. They've both always been equally valid.
Your comparison fails. There is no connection between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage." Better luck next time.
Loving is in fact on point with the right of same sex couples to access marriage law.
You used the term "body parts," asshole, not me.
The standard is having the right body parts.
You seem to have clipped out (why am I not surprised) the point that there are no laws that don't exclude reasons for not applying laws to all. None of these exclusions are considered the denial of ones civil rights.
Because "no laws", "that don't", "for not" creates a triple and makes no sense.
What is never excluded, and the part that you conveniently clipped out is that the person just didn't want to comply.
What are you talking about?
A person denied a Civil Marriage license because of the gender composition of the couple isn't just "don't want to comply" they are barred by law. A different sex couple that must prove they are infertile (yes there are laws to this effect) can't just choose "not to comply" and get a Civil Marriage license anyway - they are barred from getting such a license.
But it is silly
I agree with you. Stating that procreation is a standard that applied to same-sex couples and then not apply that same standard to different-sex couples is silly. Well I think it's hypocritical, but I'll agree to your word. It it's not a standard for one, then it shouldn't be a standard for the other. If is to be a standard, apply it to both.
>>>>
Fertility tests aren't 100% accurate, and they didn't exist until quite recently. The marriage always were written long before anything like a fertility test was even imagined. I see little reason to change them simply because some petulant homos believe they are entitled to be treated like normal people.
You seem to have clipped out (why am I not surprised) the point that there are no laws that don't exclude reasons for not applying laws to all. None of these exclusions are considered the denial of ones civil rights.
Because "no laws", "that don't", "for not" creates a triple and makes no sense.
What is never excluded, and the part that you conveniently clipped out is that the person just didn't want to comply.
What are you talking about?
A person denied a Civil Marriage license because of the gender composition of the couple isn't just "don't want to comply" they are barred by law. A different sex couple that must prove they are infertile (yes there are laws to this effect) can't just choose "not to comply" and get a Civil Marriage license anyway - they are barred from getting such a license.
But it is silly
I agree with you. Stating that procreation is a standard that applied to same-sex couples and then not apply that same standard to different-sex couples is silly. Well I think it's hypocritical, but I'll agree to your word. It it's not a standard for one, then it shouldn't be a standard for the other. If is to be a standard, apply it to both.
>>>>
Fertility tests aren't 100% accurate, and they didn't exist until quite recently. The marriage always were written long before anything like a fertility test was even imagined. I see little reason to change them simply because some petulant homos believe they are entitled to be treated like normal people.
Understand also that fertility is only an issue with heterosexual couplings.
WW likes to avoid that little factoid
But here comes the old "some heterosexual couples can't procreate"
As pointed out to him time and time again, they can't because of physical, mental or because of age. All of these are easily classified as disabilities and those couples should be included to keep their civil rights intact. You do NOT lose rights because of disability.
Homosexuals can't make such claims.
Masturbation does not a child make
It should be legal. If all parties consent to the marriage then why should any of us care?
It will never become a trend, and there will be abuses, as with any unorthodox lifestyle but I knew this was coming as soon as gay marriage became acceptable and legal in many states and growing.
It's hard to say how trendy it will become but using the attitudes of today for guidance is simply bad analysis. Mali has widespread polygamy where 40% of all married women are in polygamous marriages.
Why do women consent? That's the key. The choice usually breaks down like this - marry a poor man and have him all to yourself or marry a rich man and share him with other wives. 40% of women seem content with marrying a wealthier man and sharing him rather than marrying a goat herder and having that man all to themselves.
That same dynamic is likely to develop here. Look at how much time and energy women spend watching and reading about rich people, celebrities, gossip and voyeur shows are the bread and butter of media companies today. Women seem to want to escape from the mundane drudgery of existence.
How women has Charlie Sheen had? How many wives? Women keep showing up in that dude's life and not always sequentially.
For those who don't care, you should, because this is society destabliizing. Having hordes of angry young men who can't afford to entice a woman means that they express their anger at society or they just give up on life. Neither is a good outcome and the blowback of social upheaval always hits the rest of us.
Incorrect.Your depravity is renowned, Pop23, and your inability to deal with reality is obvious with every post.
You lied when you said gays could marriage each other legally in every state.
You lie, you cry: just the way it is.
Rock Hudson - Phyllis Gates married 1955
Sally Ride - Steven Hawley married 1982
Meredith Baxter - Robert Bush married 1966; David Birney married 1974; Michael Blodgett married 1995
Homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry.
The State of Virginia tried to use the same logic in 1967 claiming that blacks weren't denied the right to Civilly Marry. Blacks could marry Blacks, Whites could marry Whites. They weren't denied the right to marry and each was treated the same.
How well did that logic work?
You know, there a thread going right now dealing with PBS. The point of criticism in that thread is that the government has no business playing favorites with the two competing political ideologies in the US and that's the same logic at the heart of the Loving decision. Throughout history there have been two competing forms of marriage, in-group marriage and out-group marriage. Government had no business choosing to favor in-group marriage at the expense of out-group marriage. They've both always been equally valid.
Your comparison fails. There is no connection between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage." Better luck next time.
Loving is in fact on point with the right of same sex couples to access marriage law.
