Love "wins"

[Silhouette]

No one ever claimed it was a requirement. That's a queer argument. If the partners are of the same sex, then the institution is pointless. Why not just abolish it?

abolish marriage? Burn down the clubhouse because "those people" were allowed to join?

There's no compelling reason to ban gay marriage.

There is a compelling reason to ban incestuous marriage.

The "house" you're referring to is the marriage contract. It is not a "clubhouse". It was and still is a privilege, evidenced by your agreement that some should be excluded because of their sexual orientation which just happens to be different from yours. It too is a minority sexual orientation and intimate choice between consenting adults: a "civil right" enjoined in all your arguments to convince the courts to let you have your way. The 14th Amendment can't choose favorites you know.

The marriage contract was conceived of over a thousand years ago to provide BOTH a mother and father to children in a steady fashion for their best interest. It was maintained this way up until 2015. Then the house was burned down by Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg. Scalia lost his mind with anguish about it. He was found dead about six months later with a pillow over his head after making it clear to the world that Obergefell was one of the biggest disasters the USSC ever made to his knowledge and career. It's my personal opinion that Obergefell destroyed that man.

Burning down marriage is a ship that already left the dock.

The compelling reason to ban gay marriage is that it does not suit the purpose it was created for: providing BOTH a mother and father to children.

What pray tell is your reason for objecting to incest-orientation marriage after the sexual orientation "homosexual" got "rights" (illegally) to marry?

 

[bripat9643]

You're not seeing what you don't want to see. That's why you can't see the hypocrisy of gays not jumping to defend incestuous marriages.

Incestuous marriages produce deformed babies.

Gay marriages... don't.

This isn't complicated.

Except you guy guys who think, "Let's bring up something icky to try to convince people the gay is still icky."

Again, the queers said reproduction had nothing to do with marriage, so the claim that incestuous marriages "produce deformed babies" is moot.

 

[bripat9643]

No one ever claimed it was a requirement. That's a queer argument. If the partners are of the same sex, then the institution is pointless. Why not just abolish it?

abolish marriage? Burn down the clubhouse because "those people" were allowed to join?

There's no compelling reason to ban gay marriage.

There is a compelling reason to ban incestuous marriage.

Marriage isn't a club house, moron. That's the problem with you queer marriage defenders: you don't even understand what marriage is.

 

[Pop23]

You're not seeing what you don't want to see. That's why you can't see the hypocrisy of gays not jumping to defend incestuous marriages.

Incestuous marriages produce deformed babies.

Gay marriages... don't.

This isn't complicated.

Except you guy guys who think, "Let's bring up something icky to try to convince people the gay is still icky."

Have you found that marriage law yet that requires sex to be part of the marital contract yet? Yet you assume it must be? Why? Those voices in your head again?

 

[Pop23]

No one ever claimed it was a requirement. That's a queer argument. If the partners are of the same sex, then the institution is pointless. Why not just abolish it?

abolish marriage? Burn down the clubhouse because "those people" were allowed to join?

There's no compelling reason to ban gay marriage.

There is a compelling reason to ban incestuous marriage.

What is the compelling reason then, to require that sex be a requirement within marriage? There is NO SUCH REQUIREMENT NOW, dimwit.

 

[Pop23]

You're not seeing what you don't want to see. That's why you can't see the hypocrisy of gays not jumping to defend incestuous marriages.

Incestuous marriages produce deformed babies.

Gay marriages... don't.

This isn't complicated.

Except you guy guys who think, "Let's bring up something icky to try to convince people the gay is still icky."

Again, the queers said reproduction had nothing to do with marriage, so the claim that incestuous marriages "produce deformed babies" is moot.

Does he really believe that lesbian family member sexual couplings would create deformed babies?


Joe has lost the little mind he had!

 

[P@triot]

I merely said that if you want to marry a sibling or other close family member, you only have one option, fight for it through the courts like gays and interracial couples did. Have you set up a go find me account?

Boy, if that doesn't illustrate the progressive mindset and their ignorance of the U.S. Constitution. By law, the American people are empowered to define marriage. In the mind of the progressive (who can't accept the will of the people), the courts should decide for the American people and then force it down their throats against their will.

I've warned them for decades that it will come back to bit them in the ass in a big way, but they are all just too blind and stupid to listen. Just wait until someone like Donald Trump is sitting the Oval Office and leveraging the courts (that they stacked with judges) for their radical agenda. Progressives will do what they always do - turn to violence. And I'll sit back comfortably and laugh.

 

[P@triot]

Ah...so the "slippery slope" was letting blacks marry whites....got it! Marriage was, and remains, between non familial consenting adults. That isn't changing.

Check out this "progress" Seawytch. I can only imagine how proud you must be to watch this "progress" by your progressives. They are soooo "enlightened" now that they consider a baby, toddler, or even a kindergartener an object to be destroyed by a parent should they have buyers remorse. Awesome. This would have been heinous and unthinkable when the Constitution was written in 1776. But now - thanks to progressives - we've "progressed" back to the Neanderthal era where a male could drag his mate by her hair and smash their children's skulls in with a club. Gosh I love "progress". Don't you wytch?

Some College Students Approve of ‘After-Birth Abortion’… Up to Age 5

 

[bripat9643]

You're not seeing what you don't want to see. That's why you can't see the hypocrisy of gays not jumping to defend incestuous marriages.

Incestuous marriages produce deformed babies.

Gay marriages... don't.

This isn't complicated.

Except you guy guys who think, "Let's bring up something icky to try to convince people the gay is still icky."

Again, the queers said reproduction had nothing to do with marriage, so the claim that incestuous marriages "produce deformed babies" is moot.

Does he really believe that lesbian family member sexual couplings would create deformed babies?


Joe has lost the little mind he had!

Joe is a dumbass who is incapable of committing logic.

 

[JoeB131]

Hypocrite much? ^^

NO, your discredited homophobia isn't a good reason to ban gay marriage.

Hey, guy, here's the thing. No one is going to make you gay marry...

 

[JoeB131]

The "house" you're referring to is the marriage contract. It is not a "clubhouse". It was and still is a privilege, evidenced by your agreement that some should be excluded because of their sexual orientation which just happens to be different from yours. It too is a minority sexual orientation and intimate choice between consenting adults: a "civil right" enjoined in all your arguments to convince the courts to let you have your way. The 14th Amendment can't choose favorites you know.

I can show favorites, and we do all the time. Freedom of religion does not mean that you can perform human sacrifices, even if the person agreed to be sacrificed. The fourth amendment does not mean that the cops have to wait for a warrant when they hear someone killing someone on the other side of the door. Every right has sensible, reasonable limitations, and you know it.

You can't marry - or fuck - your sister because your kids will turn out to be genetically mutated freaks. that's a reasonable limitation.

You can't marry - or fuck - another consenting adult of the same gender because Sil done thinks it's icky. that's not a reasonable limitation.

 

[bripat9643]

The "house" you're referring to is the marriage contract. It is not a "clubhouse". It was and still is a privilege, evidenced by your agreement that some should be excluded because of their sexual orientation which just happens to be different from yours. It too is a minority sexual orientation and intimate choice between consenting adults: a "civil right" enjoined in all your arguments to convince the courts to let you have your way. The 14th Amendment can't choose favorites you know.

I can show favorites, and we do all the time. Freedom of religion does not mean that you can perform human sacrifices, even if the person agreed to be sacrificed. The fourth amendment does not mean that the cops have to wait for a warrant when they hear someone killing someone on the other side of the door. Every right has sensible, reasonable limitations, and you know it.

You can't marry - or fuck - your sister because your kids will turn out to be genetically mutated freaks. that's a reasonable limitation.

You can't marry - or fuck - another consenting adult of the same gender because Sil done thinks it's icky. that's not a reasonable limitation.

It's not a reasonable limitation according to the queers who insist that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. You keep ignoring that point.

 

[Pop23]

The "house" you're referring to is the marriage contract. It is not a "clubhouse". It was and still is a privilege, evidenced by your agreement that some should be excluded because of their sexual orientation which just happens to be different from yours. It too is a minority sexual orientation and intimate choice between consenting adults: a "civil right" enjoined in all your arguments to convince the courts to let you have your way. The 14th Amendment can't choose favorites you know.

I can show favorites, and we do all the time. Freedom of religion does not mean that you can perform human sacrifices, even if the person agreed to be sacrificed. The fourth amendment does not mean that the cops have to wait for a warrant when they hear someone killing someone on the other side of the door. Every right has sensible, reasonable limitations, and you know it.

You can't marry - or fuck - your sister because your kids will turn out to be genetically mutated freaks. that's a reasonable limitation.

You can't marry - or fuck - another consenting adult of the same gender because Sil done thinks it's icky. that's not a reasonable limitation.

Again I am going to ask Joe to explain how two sisters engaging in sex can produce deformed children?

You've made that statement several times and have yet to clarify.

Get to it or get lost.

 

[JoeB131]

It's not a reasonable limitation according to the queers who insist that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. You keep ignoring that point.

When have gays produced any children with birth defects?

 

[JoeB131]

Again I am going to ask Joe to explain how two sisters engaging in sex can produce deformed children?

You've made that statement several times and have yet to clarify.

Get to it or get lost.

I didn't discuss that issue, so, no.

I mean, I guess you can make an argument that gay incest is okay, but no one is actually arguing for that.

Look, guy, tell me why the gay is bad, other than you think it's icky.

 

[Silhouette]

It's not a reasonable limitation according to the queers who insist that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. You keep ignoring that point.

When have gays produced any children with birth defects?

For that matter, when have gays ever produced the missing father or mother to children suffering that void in any of their "marriages"? I don't know. It's a toss-up. What's worse? Birth defects or missing a mother or father for your entire life?

BTW, how many deformed children come from an incestuous same-sex marriage? None. So by your standards that would be legal and OK? Or is it "icky" anyway? You know, an intimate lifestyle choice between consenting adults...? It's not your kink but it's theirs. Who are you to judge another sexual orientation?

 

[bripat9643]

It's not a reasonable limitation according to the queers who insist that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. You keep ignoring that point.

When have gays produced any children with birth defects?

They have raised plenty of maladjusted children.

However, the queers have said over and over that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction, so what do birth defects have to do with the issue?

 

[JoeB131]

For that matter, when have gays ever produced the missing father or mother to children suffering that void in any of their "marriages"? I don't know. It's a toss-up. What's worse? Birth defects or missing a mother or father for your entire life?

That's easy. A birth defect is always worse. Fact is, half of marriages end in divorce, which means you have missing parents in general. People get over it.

By that logic, we should never deploy servicemen with children overseas because the children will be sooooo traumitized by not having Dad at their sixth birthday party because he was off defending freedom.

They have raised plenty of maladjusted children.

Now, it would be nice if someone studied that to see if that were the case.

Oh, wait, someone DID study that!

The science is clear: Children raised by same-sex parents are at no disadvantage

In January, researchers from the Columbia Law School examined 76 studies published after 1985 and found that only four of them concluded that children raised by gay couples faced additional adversity as a result of having same-sex parents. To be considered, each of the studies had to meet established guidelines that accounted for credibility and relevance.

More recently, researchers from the University of Colorado Denver and the University of Oregon used the tool Web of Science to examine the ways in which scientific papers analyzed children of same-sex parents over time, and how each paper cited others to back its analysis. They found that over time, more and more papers cited other research that highlighted that there’s “no differences” in the outcomes for childrenbased solely on whether they were raised by same-sex, heterosexual, or single parents.

wait! What's that? What kind of parents you had really has no effect?

 

[JoeB131]

BTW, how many deformed children come from an incestuous same-sex marriage? None. So by your standards that would be legal and OK? Or is it "icky" anyway? You know, an intimate lifestyle choice between consenting adults...? It's not your kink but it's theirs. Who are you to judge another sexual orientation?

quite a few. Which is why i think women shouldn't have kids after age 40, but the Bible-thumping crowd encourages them to keep doing so. I think people should also undergo genetic screenings before marriage to identify risk factors like cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs syndrome.

 

[Silhouette]

BTW, how many deformed children come from an incestuous same-sex marriage? None. So by your standards that would be legal and OK? Or is it "icky" anyway? You know, an intimate lifestyle choice between consenting adults...? It's not your kink but it's theirs. Who are you to judge another sexual orientation?

quite a few. Which is why i think women shouldn't have kids after age 40, but the Bible-thumping crowd encourages them to keep doing so. I think people should also undergo genetic screenings before marriage to identify risk factors like cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs syndrome.

Which lesbian donated the sperm?

Don't forget screening for "the gay gene" too...