Love "wins"

[Pop23]

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.

So this is your argument:

Family members should be excluded from Marrying each other because the children produced could be defective.

When I ask how that could be when the partners are not opposite sex?

What Joe? It's OK for same sex family member exclusion for what reason exactly? The potential they may create defective children? Yet that's impossible What is the States compelling interest in denying them their rights under the 14th amendment?

Are you not arguing that there is no rational legal basis for this denial? Yet you argue that the exclusion should remain?

If there is no rational legal basis, and no compelling State interest in denial of same sex family marriage, but there is one for opposite sex marriage, you are arguing that there should be separate standards of the two groups BASED ON THE ABILITY TO PROCREATE.

So it was unjust to discriminate based on procreation (same sex marriage), but it's appropriate TO discriminate based on procreation (opposite sex marriage)? How can that not be an argument in support of Civil Unions and against Same Sex Marriage?

Your view is absolutely laughable.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Your so-called "studies" have all been exposed as fatally flawed.

 

[JoeB131]

Which lesbian donated the sperm?

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

You do realize that donated sperm is screened, right?

Sil, you really need to see a therapist about your homophobia.

 

[JoeB131]

Are you not arguing that there is no rational legal basis for this denial? Yet you argue that the exclusion should remain?

There's a rational scientific basis.... That's kind of all I need.

Now if you are really intent on seeing some Lesbian Twincest, you are perfectly free to change the law to allow it.

Good luck with that.

 

[Pop23]

Are you not arguing that there is no rational legal basis for this denial? Yet you argue that the exclusion should remain?

There's a rational scientific basis.... That's kind of all I need.

Now if you are really intent on seeing some Lesbian Twincest, you are perfectly free to change the law to allow it.

Good luck with that.

And the rational scientific basis is?

you may run again

 

[Silhouette]

So this is your argument:...Family members should be excluded from Marrying each other because the children produced could be defective...When I ask how that could be when the partners are not opposite sex?...What Joe? It's OK for same sex family member exclusion for what reason exactly? The potential they may create defective children? Yet that's impossible What is the States compelling interest in denying them their rights under the 14th amendment?...Are you not arguing that there is no rational legal basis for this denial? Yet you argue that the exclusion should remain?...If there is no rational legal basis, and no compelling State interest in denial of same sex family marriage, but there is one for opposite sex marriage, you are arguing that there should be separate standards of the two groups BASED ON THE ABILITY TO PROCREATE....So it was unjust to discriminate based on procreation (same sex marriage), but it's appropriate TO discriminate based on procreation (opposite sex marriage)? How can that not be an argument in support of Civil Unions and against Same Sex Marriage?

Go Go Go!

"Don't try to understand 'em. Just throw 'em, rope 'em, brand 'em..."

There's a rational scientific basis.... That's kind of all I need. ..Now if you are really intent on seeing some Lesbian Twincest, you are perfectly free to change the law to allow it.

Good luck with that.

Why? It's already been changed. Obergefell 2015 said that no one can be denied marriage based on sexual orientation or intimate lifestyle choices between consenting adults.

...Rollin' rollin' rollin'...keep them dawgies rollin'.....RAW-HIDE...

 

[JoeB131]

And the rational scientific basis is?

you may run again

I just posted a link to them, stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

Why? It's already been changed. Obergefell 2015 said that no one can be denied marriage based on sexual orientation or intimate lifestyle choices between consenting adults.

But they didn't change the incest laws... but you are perfectly free to advocate for that.

 

[Silhouette]

Why? It's already been changed. Obergefell 2015 said that no one can be denied marriage based on sexual orientation or intimate lifestyle choices between consenting adults.

But they didn't change the incest laws... but you are perfectly free to advocate for that.

Wait, I thought you said marriage is not about sex? Why can't a mother and son marry if they assure the world they won't have sex? Are they not consenting adults both finding blood relatives attractive? Have they not made an intimate choice that states must respect?

 

[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.

If it's OK to "play favorites," then what's the objection to leaving marriage to consenting adults who are capable of reproducing?

 

[bripat9643]

Why? It's already been changed. Obergefell 2015 said that no one can be denied marriage based on sexual orientation or intimate lifestyle choices between consenting adults.

But they didn't change the incest laws... but you are perfectly free to advocate for that.

In other words, the queers got what they wanted, so fuck everyone else.

 

[JoeB131]

Wait, I thought you said marriage is not about sex? Why can't a mother and son marry if they assure the world they won't have sex? Are they not consenting adults both finding blood relatives attractive? Have they not made an intimate choice that states must respect?

I said nothing of the sort, but okay, if you want to see moms marrying their sons, i think you should go on the steps of the capital and mutter, "but, but, but the gays" before they throw the net over you.

 

[JoeB131]

In other words, the queers got what they wanted, so fuck everyone else.

The gays had a legitimate request. The Inbred Hillbillies don't...

 

[Silhouette]

In other words, the queers got what they wanted, so fuck everyone else.

The gays had a legitimate request. The Inbred Hillbillies don't...

Your statement literally translated: "My using another man's asshole as an artificial vagina and so doing, increasing the spread of HIV across our country is "normal, healthy and fine" (don't question it or else!) and other kinks are "just whacked man".

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, the queers got what they wanted, so fuck everyone else.

The gays had a legitimate request. The Inbred Hillbillies don't...

What makes the queers' request anymore "legitimate" than the request of inbred hillbillies? I mean, I aside from the fact that they are big donors to the Democrat party.

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, the queers got what they wanted, so fuck everyone else.

The gays had a legitimate request. The Inbred Hillbillies don't...

Your statement literally translated: "My using another man's asshole as an artificial vagina and so doing, increasing the spread of HIV across our country is "normal, healthy and fine" (don't question it or else!) and other kinks are "just whacked man".

I love this theory that men having anal sex with each other is "legitimate."

 

[JoeB131]

What makes the queers' request anymore "legitimate" than the request of inbred hillbillies? I mean, I aside from the fact that they are big donors to the Democrat party.

They aren't producing deformed, inbred kids...

 

[JoeB131]

I love this theory that men having anal sex with each other is "legitimate."

well, gee, guess what, guy. 37% of straights have engaged in anal sex, too.

So why the obsession with something only 50% of gays do?

 

[Silhouette]

What makes the queers' request anymore "legitimate" than the request of inbred hillbillies? I mean, I aside from the fact that they are big donors to the Democrat party.

They aren't producing deformed, inbred kids...

No, just most of the country's HIV epidemic; which is spreading to kids faster than any other age demographic...

 

[Kondor3]

...This is why the Leftist Agenda must be stopped,..

Indeed.

It's a pity, however, that it will have to wait for at least one more four-year term, before remediation can get underway.