One Thread for Homosexuality, Marriage, etc., etc... My Take, for the Record

[Cecilie1200]

God save us from people who want to tell us about complex psychological problems based on what THEY figure "must be".

That one sentence pretty much sums up everyone of your posts I've read in this thread.

Thank you for coming down from on high and deigning to converse with us. We are richer for it.

Oh, yeah, THAT was an accurate and relevant generalization. "Every one" of my posts had to do with explaining complex psychological problems, did they? That's really the best insult you could come up with? Seriously? Why not just go with "I'm rubber and you're glue", while you're about it?

Epic fail.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I keep forgetting that I have to keep things simple and connect the dots for you – even when I bold the comment to which I am replying. One of the arguments being waged against homosexual marriage is that the definition of marriage has remained the same and limited to the union of one man to one woman. I included the comment on polygamous marriage as an example to indicate that the definition of marriage – as allegedly defined as union of one man to one woman – has not always been static. There have been practically all sorts of definitions of marriage that allow for different types of unions – polygamy being one of them. In addition to correcting the erroneous comment that the definition of marriage has always been the same, I could also counter by saying that such is an irrelevant argument. Just because something had always been a certain way does not in and of itself mean that it should not be changed. Something having a tradition merely means that something has a tradition – nothing more and nothing less.

Next, please.

Sorry, but you haven't finished this one yet, so it's a little early to be calling for a "next" argument for you to bungle.

In terms of Western civilization, the definition HAS been one man, one woman, for what I believe has been most if not all of recorded history. Has anyone ever denied that other, primitive cultures have had polygamy? No. Do we subscribe to anything like those cultures? No. While it is irrelevant to bring up cultures we don't relate to or wish to relate to, it's completely relevant to say that OUR culture and the cultures of which it is a direct descendant have subscribed to one man, one woman.

And for the record, just because something has always been a certain way ALSO does not in and of itself mean that it needs to be changed.

Try again.

Wow. So it is your contention that we have not picked up anything of any benefit from Egypt, India, or Saudi Arabia. Such nations have not donated anything positive to society at all. Nope. You are wrong. We do get some contributions from such “primitive” cultures.

I can't decide if you're deliberately misreading what I say in order to create the debate you WANT to have, rather than the one you've got and can't handle, or you're just illiterate and mildly brain-damaged.

I didn't "contend" that we "have not picked up anything" from those cultures, halfwit. I contended that our culture is not derived from them, and it isn't. There is a difference, and now you're just going to have to man up and answer what I actually said, rather than what you WISH I said. So sorry that I can't dumb myself down enough to make this an even fight for you.

And for the record, I never suggested that just because something has been a certain way, it needs to be changed. Yet, it has been suggested by others that traditions, for the sake of tradition, should not be changed. I had countered that silly notion.

Lie.

"In addition to correcting the erroneous comment that the definition of marriage has always been the same, I could also counter by saying that such is an irrelevant argument. Just because something had always been a certain way does not in and of itself mean that it should not be changed."

That little highlighted section, coupled with the sentences before and after, implies EXACTLY what I said it did.

Finally, it is interesting that you call for proof that something would benefit our society before you would consider America trying. Wow. If such were the case, we would not have progressed far as a nation.

Really? You think our progress as a nation came from wildly making sweeping changes to our society and culture without the slightest evidentiary indication that those changes were a good idea? Just "let's try it and see if it works" sort of thing? Are you really this fucking stupid, or is this a joke?

So, in summary, according to you, we are not pick up on things from other “primitive” cultures AND we are not to try things unless there is absolute proof that there would be a societal benefit. LOL. We would be at a standstill as a nation. Thankfully we did experiment with new ideas – having America become a unique democratic republic for one things. Also, we do consider things brought forth from other cultures. Have you ever heard of America being one big melting pot. Some of the ingredients in our pot come for many diverse cultures – including cultures that you would consider to be primitive.

Look. Give it up son.

So, in summary, you don't understand plain English, you'd much rather argue with the voices in your head (and who can blame you, because you clearly have no answer for the things that real people say), you think the US has progressed by making wild-assed changes with no way of predicting what might happen, and when in doubt, you fall back on spouting cliches and buzzwords with no relevance to the topic. Oh, and you can't tell men from women even when the correct sex is smacking you upside your punkin head (how many "sons" do you know named Cecilie, Brain Trust?).

Move along. Someone important needs the oxygen you're wasting.

 

[Aztaz]

Is the Idiotic Claim that (2) Women or (2) Men can ProCreate Naturally still being Fronted?...

I Know someone was at least Insinuating that Idiocy, but I don't have the Interest to Search for it...



peace...

Are you serously going to try the same old tricks here? Don't avoid the debate by trying to turn your own thread into a flamewar.

I'll ask a third time. You said that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples in honor of it's procreation of the species. I asked how that logic works when monogomy is not the ideal procreative setup based on human reproductive physiology.

Are you going to answer?

 

[Aztaz]

God save us from people who want to tell us about complex psychological problems based on what THEY figure "must be".

That one sentence pretty much sums up everyone of your posts I've read in this thread.

Thank you for coming down from on high and deigning to converse with us. We are richer for it.

Oh, yeah, THAT was an accurate and relevant generalization. "Every one" of my posts had to do with explaining complex psychological problems, did they? That's really the best insult you could come up with? Seriously? Why not just go with "I'm rubber and you're glue", while you're about it?

Epic fail.

Actually , it's more of a generalization based on how your posts seem to be nothing more than telling others how wrong they are based on what you think. It's kind of ironic that you would attack someone else's opinion by doing the same.

If it's such a chore to have to correct the multitude that are wrong, perhaps you and all the other internet posters who are more intelligent than the rest of can band together to form a think tank and solve the world's problems.

 

[mattskramer]

I didn't "contend" that we "have not picked up anything" from those cultures, halfwit. I contended that our culture is not derived from them, and it isn't. There is a difference, and now you're just going to have to man up and answer what I actually said, rather than what you WISH I said. So sorry that I can't dumb myself down enough to make this an even fight for you.

Our culture is derived from many things, including contributions that we have accepted from other cultures. It is a great melting pot. It is as simple as that.

"In addition to correcting the erroneous comment that the definition of marriage has always been the same, I could also counter by saying that such is an irrelevant argument. Just because something had always been a certain way does not in and of itself mean that it should not be changed."

That little highlighted section, coupled with the sentences before and after, implies EXACTLY what I said it did.

You need to take a course in Boolean logic and English. I know what I said and you quoted me correctly. Again, I never suggested that just because something has been a certain way, it needs to be changed. Nor did I suggest that because it has a tradition, it should remain the same.

Really? You think our progress as a nation came from wildly making sweeping changes to our society and culture without the slightest evidentiary indication that those changes were a good idea? Just "let's try it and see if it works" sort of thing? Are you really this fucking stupid, or is this a joke?

You apparently can’t refute what I stated. Our grand experiment (America) is unique and successful at the same time. America has often tried things that have not been tried before. America has tried things that ofter no guarantee of success.

So, in summary, you don't understand plain English, you'd much rather argue with the voices in your head (and who can blame you, because you clearly have no answer for the things that real people say), you think the US has progressed by making wild-assed changes with no way of predicting what might happen, and when in doubt, you fall back on spouting cliches and buzzwords with no relevance to the topic. Oh, and you can't tell men from women even when the correct sex is smacking you upside your punkin head (how many "sons" do you know named Cecilie, Brain Trust?).

Move along. Someone important needs the oxygen you're wasting.

Nope. I understand English, and logic, to a greater degree than you do. My replies have been sound and logical. I give straight answers to any questions put to me. America has tried things that do not promise success. It outlawed the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of alcoholic beverages for a time. (Read about prohibition.) Then American basically decided that it would be better to keep such things legal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That one sentence pretty much sums up everyone of your posts I've read in this thread.

Thank you for coming down from on high and deigning to converse with us. We are richer for it.

Oh, yeah, THAT was an accurate and relevant generalization. "Every one" of my posts had to do with explaining complex psychological problems, did they? That's really the best insult you could come up with? Seriously? Why not just go with "I'm rubber and you're glue", while you're about it?

Epic fail.

Actually , it's more of a generalization based on how your posts seem to be nothing more than telling others how wrong they are based on what you think. It's kind of ironic that you would attack someone else's opinion by doing the same.

If it's such a chore to have to correct the multitude that are wrong, perhaps you and all the other internet posters who are more intelligent than the rest of can band together to form a think tank and solve the world's problems.

Still full of shit, I see. I will say that I was really amused to see YOU telling someone ELSE not to try to avoid the debate by trying to turn it into a flamewar.

So basically, NOW you're trying to claim that you saying that every post I make is me explaining complex psychology based on what I think wasn't you saying that at all. What you were REALLY saying was that I was telling people they were wrong based only on what I think. Not only is that the most dishonest backpedal I've heard this week, but it's also as untrue as what you originally said and are now trying to pretend you didn't say. Note, if you're smart enough to manipulate the mouse sufficiently, that the very post that had you jumping in with your lying, laughable insults against me included a link explaining what necrophilia really is. So it can't very well have been me saying he was wrong based only on what I think, now can it?

I never said it was a chore to correct jackasses like you. It is, however, sometimes a chore to have you exist at all and flatter yourselves that you're intelligent adults. In the future, Brain Trust, at least ATTEMPT to insult people with something that relates to their actual posts. I feel cheap when you make it this easy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I didn't "contend" that we "have not picked up anything" from those cultures, halfwit. I contended that our culture is not derived from them, and it isn't. There is a difference, and now you're just going to have to man up and answer what I actually said, rather than what you WISH I said. So sorry that I can't dumb myself down enough to make this an even fight for you.

Our culture is derived from many things, including contributions that we have accepted from other cultures. It is a great melting pot. It is as simple as that.

"In addition to correcting the erroneous comment that the definition of marriage has always been the same, I could also counter by saying that such is an irrelevant argument. Just because something had always been a certain way does not in and of itself mean that it should not be changed."

You need to take a course in Boolean logic and English. I know what I said and you quoted me correctly. Again, I never suggested that just because something has been a certain way, it needs to be changed. Nor did I suggest that because it has a tradition, it should remain the same.

Really? You think our progress as a nation came from wildly making sweeping changes to our society and culture without the slightest evidentiary indication that those changes were a good idea? Just "let's try it and see if it works" sort of thing? Are you really this fucking stupid, or is this a joke?

You apparently can’t refute what I stated. Our grand experiment (America) is unique and successful at the same time. America has often tried things that have not been tried before. America has tried things that ofter no guarantee of success.

So, in summary, you don't understand plain English, you'd much rather argue with the voices in your head (and who can blame you, because you clearly have no answer for the things that real people say), you think the US has progressed by making wild-assed changes with no way of predicting what might happen, and when in doubt, you fall back on spouting cliches and buzzwords with no relevance to the topic. Oh, and you can't tell men from women even when the correct sex is smacking you upside your punkin head (how many "sons" do you know named Cecilie, Brain Trust?).

Move along. Someone important needs the oxygen you're wasting.

Nope. I understand English, and logic, to a greater degree than you do. My replies have been sound and logical. I give straight answers to any questions put to me. America has tried things that do not promise success. It outlawed the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of alcoholic beverages for a time. (Read about prohibition.) Then American basically decided that it would be better to keep such things legal.

Yawn, yawn, and yawn. "I said it, but I didn't really say it, because I read somewhere that if I just use big words, I can get people to believe that it didn't really happen. See, I'm so smart and logical, and if I just tell you that over and over, you'll believe it. Buzzword! Buzzword! Buzzword!"

We're done, Oxygen Thief. Thanks for your surrender. FLUSH!

 

[Aztaz]

Oh, yeah, THAT was an accurate and relevant generalization. "Every one" of my posts had to do with explaining complex psychological problems, did they? That's really the best insult you could come up with? Seriously? Why not just go with "I'm rubber and you're glue", while you're about it?

Epic fail.

Actually , it's more of a generalization based on how your posts seem to be nothing more than telling others how wrong they are based on what you think. It's kind of ironic that you would attack someone else's opinion by doing the same.

If it's such a chore to have to correct the multitude that are wrong, perhaps you and all the other internet posters who are more intelligent than the rest of can band together to form a think tank and solve the world's problems.

Still full of shit, I see. I will say that I was really amused to see YOU telling someone ELSE not to try to avoid the debate by trying to turn it into a flamewar.

So basically, NOW you're trying to claim that you saying that every post I make is me explaining complex psychology based on what I think wasn't you saying that at all. What you were REALLY saying was that I was telling people they were wrong based only on what I think. Not only is that the most dishonest backpedal I've heard this week, but it's also as untrue as what you originally said and are now trying to pretend you didn't say. Note, if you're smart enough to manipulate the mouse sufficiently, that the very post that had you jumping in with your lying, laughable insults against me included a link explaining what necrophilia really is. So it can't very well have been me saying he was wrong based only on what I think, now can it?

I never said it was a chore to correct jackasses like you. It is, however, sometimes a chore to have you exist at all and flatter yourselves that you're intelligent adults. In the future, Brain Trust, at least ATTEMPT to insult people with something that relates to their actual posts. I feel cheap when you make it this easy.

Wow. you're the smartest person here. I'm honored to read your posts. Truly I am.

In the future, please be sure to correct me as well when my personal observations or thoughts are wrong. Be sure to ask god to deliver you from fools such as me as well. It will be the highlight of my life.

 

[mal]

Is the Idiotic Claim that (2) Women or (2) Men can ProCreate Naturally still being Fronted?...

I Know someone was at least Insinuating that Idiocy, but I don't have the Interest to Search for it...



peace...

Are you serously going to try the same old tricks here? Don't avoid the debate by trying to turn your own thread into a flamewar.

I'll ask a third time. You said that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples in honor of it's procreation of the species. I asked how that logic works when monogomy is not the ideal procreative setup based on human reproductive physiology.

Are you going to answer?

Right after you Explain how my Post was ANYTHING Resembling an Attempt @ a Flamewar...

You aren't going to Make Empty Accusations here and get away with it, Az...

I'll be here.



peace...

 

[Aztaz]

Is the Idiotic Claim that (2) Women or (2) Men can ProCreate Naturally still being Fronted?...

I Know someone was at least Insinuating that Idiocy, but I don't have the Interest to Search for it...



peace...

Are you serously going to try the same old tricks here? Don't avoid the debate by trying to turn your own thread into a flamewar.

I'll ask a third time. You said that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples in honor of it's procreation of the species. I asked how that logic works when monogomy is not the ideal procreative setup based on human reproductive physiology.

Are you going to answer?

Right after you Explain how my Post was ANYTHING Resembling an Attempt @ a Flamewar...

You aren't going to Make Empty Accusations here and get away with it, Az...

I'll be here.



peace...

Empty accusatins "here" and get away with it? If that's your not so subtle attempt to try to discredit me, it was pretty weak.

As to you turning it into a flame war, you have three times avoided a valid question I had, and instead latched onto a statement about same sex reproduction. Guess what? Humans don't have same sex reproduction. 99.9% of this thread can agree with that, yet you instead pull the statement that someone is arguing for it out of your ass. Why? Why avoid the same question 3 times and instead latch on to a ridiculouos argument that no one is arguing?

So let's try again. Maybe the fourth time will be the charm.

You stated that "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals in recognition of it's continuity of the species. I asked how that works, when monogomy is not the ideal reproductive pairing for humans based on our reproductive physiology.

 

[mal]

Are you serously going to try the same old tricks here? Don't avoid the debate by trying to turn your own thread into a flamewar.

I'll ask a third time. You said that marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples in honor of it's procreation of the species. I asked how that logic works when monogomy is not the ideal procreative setup based on human reproductive physiology.

Are you going to answer?

Right after you Explain how my Post was ANYTHING Resembling an Attempt @ a Flamewar...

You aren't going to Make Empty Accusations here and get away with it, Az...

I'll be here.



peace...

Empty accusatins "here" and get away with it? If that's your not so subtle attempt to try to discredit me, it was pretty weak.

As to you turning it into a flame war, you have three times avoided a valid question I had, and instead latched onto a statement about same sex reproduction. Guess what? Humans don't have same sex reproduction. 99.9% of this thread can agree with that, yet you instead pull the statement that someone is arguing for it out of your ass. Why? Why avoid the same question 3 times and instead latch on to a ridiculouos argument that no one is arguing?

So let's try again. Maybe the fourth time will be the charm.

You stated that "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals in recognition of it's continuity of the species. I asked how that works, when monogomy is not the ideal reproductive pairing for humans based on our reproductive physiology.

You Conclusion is Incorrect, and your Continued Accusations about me Flamewarring my own Thread are Tiresome...

If want Honest Discourse, go ahead and stop the Bullshit, Az...



peace...

 

[Aztaz]

Right after you Explain how my Post was ANYTHING Resembling an Attempt @ a Flamewar...

You aren't going to Make Empty Accusations here and get away with it, Az...

I'll be here.



peace...

Empty accusatins "here" and get away with it? If that's your not so subtle attempt to try to discredit me, it was pretty weak.

As to you turning it into a flame war, you have three times avoided a valid question I had, and instead latched onto a statement about same sex reproduction. Guess what? Humans don't have same sex reproduction. 99.9% of this thread can agree with that, yet you instead pull the statement that someone is arguing for it out of your ass. Why? Why avoid the same question 3 times and instead latch on to a ridiculouos argument that no one is arguing?

So let's try again. Maybe the fourth time will be the charm.

You stated that "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals in recognition of it's continuity of the species. I asked how that works, when monogomy is not the ideal reproductive pairing for humans based on our reproductive physiology.

You Conclusion is Incorrect, and your Continued Accusations about me Flamewarring my own Thread are Tiresome...

If want Honest Discourse, go ahead and stop the Bullshit, Az...



peace...

Stop the bullshit? Honest discourse? Do I need to ask the same question a 5th time? I guess it would be pointless, as you would inevitably avoid it (a fifth time) and instead latch onto anything else you could to avoid the actual debate.

But what the hell.

You stated that "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals in recognition of it's continuity of the species. I asked how that works, when monogomy is not the ideal reproductive pairing for humans based on our reproductive physiology

In case you forgot saying that, Here's the link to your post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1311511-post84.html

 

[mal]

Empty accusatins "here" and get away with it? If that's your not so subtle attempt to try to discredit me, it was pretty weak.

As to you turning it into a flame war, you have three times avoided a valid question I had, and instead latched onto a statement about same sex reproduction. Guess what? Humans don't have same sex reproduction. 99.9% of this thread can agree with that, yet you instead pull the statement that someone is arguing for it out of your ass. Why? Why avoid the same question 3 times and instead latch on to a ridiculouos argument that no one is arguing?

So let's try again. Maybe the fourth time will be the charm.

You stated that "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals in recognition of it's continuity of the species. I asked how that works, when monogomy is not the ideal reproductive pairing for humans based on our reproductive physiology.

You Conclusion is Incorrect, and your Continued Accusations about me Flamewarring my own Thread are Tiresome...

If want Honest Discourse, go ahead and stop the Bullshit, Az...



peace...

Stop the bullshit? Honest discourse? Do I need to ask the same question a 5th time? I guess it would be pointless, as you would inevitably avoid it (a fifth time) and instead latch onto anything else you could to avoid the actual debate.

But what the hell.

You stated that "marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals in recognition of it's continuity of the species. I asked how that works, when monogomy is not the ideal reproductive pairing for humans based on our reproductive physiology

In case you forgot saying that, Here's the link to your post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1311511-post84.html

You are Interpreting what I said to Fit your Counter...

That is NOT what I said...

You Linked it, but when Comparing what you Linked of what I said, to your Version of what I said, you are Starting from a False Premise, Az...

Try Quote me Directly, and then Arguing with that, as Opposed to your Version of what I Said, mmmkay!



peace...

 

[mal]

Let me get some things Clear so there isn't any Confusion about my Stand regarding some Issues in Modern Politics regarding Homosexuals and their Agenda.

1.) I am Against Criminalizing Homosexual Sex for Consenting Adults... ANY Deviant Sex for Consenting Adults, to be Clear.

2.) I am FOR Civil Unions, and AGAINST Homosexuals Redefining Marriage Exclusively for their Deviancy. Marriage is a Reflection of our Natural Design, and I Believe, as does the Blue DemocRAT State of California, at least THE PEOPLE of Cali, that Marriage should remain Legally between ONE Woman and ONE Man.

3.) I am AGAINST Children who are NOT of Consenting Age regarding Sex, being Indoctrinated by Pro-Homosexual Advocates on my Tax Payer Dime in Public Schools.

These are the Basics... There are more Expanded Discussions that can be had, but that's where I will start, and this Thread will be Reference point for the Ignorant in the Future when they make Assertions about me without Knowing.



peace...

It's much Easier to have my Position IN CONTEXT, Az...

Start from there.



peace...

 

[Aztaz]

You are Interpreting what I said to Fit your Counter...

That is NOT what I said...

You Linked it, but when Comparing what you Linked of what I said, to your Version of what I said, you are Starting from a False Premise, Az...

Try Quote me Directly, and then Arguing with that, as Opposed to your Version of what I Said, mmmkay!



peace...

"marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals in recognition of it's continuity of the species.

vs.

Marriage is for those with the Possibility of Forwarding this Species

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1311511-post84.html

Yes, mal. I am completely twisting what you said.

And now you've taken to requoting your OP in an attempt to suck more people in, as I am the only one left in here. I see where this is going and should have had the same sense as everyone else, to leave 3 pages ago.

So claim your victory, as everyone has run in fear of your superior debate skills. Turn the lights off when you leave.

 

[mal]

You are Interpreting what I said to Fit your Counter...

That is NOT what I said...

You Linked it, but when Comparing what you Linked of what I said, to your Version of what I said, you are Starting from a False Premise, Az...

Try Quote me Directly, and then Arguing with that, as Opposed to your Version of what I Said, mmmkay!



peace...

"marriage" should be reserved for heterosexuals in recognition of it's continuity of the species.

vs.

Marriage is for those with the Possibility of Forwarding this Species

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1311511-post84.html

Yes, mal. I am completely twisting what you said.

And now you've taken to requoting your OP in an attempt to suck more people in, as I am the only one left in here. I see where this is going and should have had the same sense as everyone else, to leave 3 pages ago.

So claim your victory, as everyone has run in fear of your superior debate skills. Turn the lights off when you leave.

Get him a Tissue, Tito...


Stop Crying, and Stop Attempting to take an Abbreviated Take of my OP, from the 84th Fucking Post in this Thread...

The 84th Post is NOT in Context, the OP is.

The "Possibility" is the Distinction...

It's why Deviancy and Race are NOT Analagous regarding Marriage, Az...

But you Know this, and your Chickenshit Attempt to Backpeddle out of this Thread after Failing at your Attempt to Corner me should be Beneath you.



peace...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually , it's more of a generalization based on how your posts seem to be nothing more than telling others how wrong they are based on what you think. It's kind of ironic that you would attack someone else's opinion by doing the same.

If it's such a chore to have to correct the multitude that are wrong, perhaps you and all the other internet posters who are more intelligent than the rest of can band together to form a think tank and solve the world's problems.

Still full of shit, I see. I will say that I was really amused to see YOU telling someone ELSE not to try to avoid the debate by trying to turn it into a flamewar.

So basically, NOW you're trying to claim that you saying that every post I make is me explaining complex psychology based on what I think wasn't you saying that at all. What you were REALLY saying was that I was telling people they were wrong based only on what I think. Not only is that the most dishonest backpedal I've heard this week, but it's also as untrue as what you originally said and are now trying to pretend you didn't say. Note, if you're smart enough to manipulate the mouse sufficiently, that the very post that had you jumping in with your lying, laughable insults against me included a link explaining what necrophilia really is. So it can't very well have been me saying he was wrong based only on what I think, now can it?

I never said it was a chore to correct jackasses like you. It is, however, sometimes a chore to have you exist at all and flatter yourselves that you're intelligent adults. In the future, Brain Trust, at least ATTEMPT to insult people with something that relates to their actual posts. I feel cheap when you make it this easy.

Wow. you're the smartest person here. I'm honored to read your posts. Truly I am.

In the future, please be sure to correct me as well when my personal observations or thoughts are wrong. Be sure to ask god to deliver you from fools such as me as well. It will be the highlight of my life.

Glad you recognize all that.

 

[mattskramer]

Civil Unions are for Legal, Medical stuff...

Marriage is for those with the Possibility of Forwarding this Species and Children don't Need to be Confused by Validating Adult Deviancy...



peace...

So heterosexual couples who can't make children (or choose not to have kids) are not to be allowed marriage. Also, there is no such thing as sperm banks, surrogate mothers, or adoption services for those couples (heterosexual or homosexual) who want kids.

That old argument that marriage is for procreation is an archaic fallacy. Nice typical attempt though.

 

[mal]

Civil Unions are for Legal, Medical stuff...

Marriage is for those with the Possibility of Forwarding this Species and Children don't Need to be Confused by Validating Adult Deviancy...



peace...

So heterosexual couples who can't make children (or choose not to have kids) are not to be allowed marriage. Also, there is no such thing as sperm banks, surrogate mothers, or adoption services for those couples (heterosexual or homosexual) who want kids.

That old argument that marriage is for procreation is an archaic fallacy. Nice typical attempt though.

It's a Natural Fact, and simply because Homosexuals are 100% Incapable, 100% of the Time, doesn't mean they get to Punish Heteros who may or may not be, or who may or may not Choose to...

Homosexuals and Heterosexuals are not Equal in Respect to Marriage, Naturally, or Legally regarding this REPUBLIC and it's History.



peace...

 

[xotoxi]

Civil Unions are for Legal, Medical stuff...

Marriage is for those with the Possibility of Forwarding this Species and Children don't Need to be Confused by Validating Adult Deviancy...



peace...

Civil Unions are for Legal, Medical stuff...

Marriage is for the church.

The State doesn't have a place in sanctioning, certifying, credentialling, or authorizing the act of attempting to forward this species, nor does it have the place in validating adult deviancy or validating other acts of genital manipulation or arousal.