Procreation and Marriage: A Poll

[Noomi]

Marriage is an act of oppression designed by men to keep womyn down. No marriage should be legal, but if it is, then gay marriage should be legal alongside hetero marriage.

Procreation should, in my opinion, be banned as well. Childryn are disgusting monsters. I can't quite understand why any strong, independent womyn would ever want to ruin hyr life and hyr body with childbirth, but it's ultimately each individual womyn's choice.

You were a disgusting monster once, you know.

 

[The Rabbi]

There have been quite a few posts in the last few weeks going on and on about how gays cannot naturally procreate. Some posters have even hung their entire anti-gay marriage argument on the procreation issue. However no one can show any state requirement of procreation-ability to obtain a marriage license.

Ok, Procreation-ability. Having children the "natural" way. Not everyone can procreate naturally for one reason or another. Those who don't want children continue on with their lives as a childless couple. Those who want children have them in other ways....invitro, surrogate, adoption.

My poll is about those people.....are they worthy of legal marriage or not. Vote. Thank you in advance.

If their argument is that gay people shouldn't marry because they cannot naturally procreate, then it is only fair that straight couples who cannot naturally procreate be banned from marrying.

You're an idiot.

/troll thread.

 

[NoNukes]

Sex is the traditional way to consummate a marriage, since gay can only engage in sodomy the marriage can't be consummated. Simple biological fact.

Sex is sex, no matter how you do it.

 

[Noomi]

You're an idiot.

/troll thread.

Not answering the question, I see.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're an idiot.

/troll thread.

Not answering the question, I see.

There was no question.
/fail

 

[Seawytch]

There have been quite a few posts in the last few weeks going on and on about how gays cannot naturally procreate. Some posters have even hung their entire anti-gay marriage argument on the procreation issue. However no one can show any state requirement of procreation-ability to obtain a marriage license.

Ok, Procreation-ability. Having children the "natural" way. Not everyone can procreate naturally for one reason or another. Those who don't want children continue on with their lives as a childless couple. Those who want children have them in other ways....invitro, surrogate, adoption.

My poll is about those people.....are they worthy of legal marriage or not. Vote. Thank you in advance.

procreation is a terrible excuse

fucking lame

I know more than enough people that did have kids that shouldn't have and I know many foster kids that would have been happier in a gay house than 20 straight ones


but lets be clear, we know this isn't about rights, it's about getting to sue churches for refusing to wed gay couples, nothing more.

And you know this because you are gay and seeking marriage equality? No?

No, actually it isn't about churches at all and no church in the United States will ever successfully be sued to force them to marry a couple against the tenants of their faith.

 

[LiberalMedia]

Marriage is an act of oppression designed by men to keep womyn down. No marriage should be legal, but if it is, then gay marriage should be legal alongside hetero marriage.

Procreation should, in my opinion, be banned as well. Childryn are disgusting monsters. I can't quite understand why any strong, independent womyn would ever want to ruin hyr life and hyr body with childbirth, but it's ultimately each individual womyn's choice.

You were a disgusting monster once, you know.

Prove it.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is an act of oppression designed by men to keep womyn down. No marriage should be legal, but if it is, then gay marriage should be legal alongside hetero marriage.

Procreation should, in my opinion, be banned as well. Childryn are disgusting monsters. I can't quite understand why any strong, independent womyn would ever want to ruin hyr life and hyr body with childbirth, but it's ultimately each individual womyn's choice.

You were a disgusting monster once, you know.

Noomi, don't engage the fake troll.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Can you provide any example of in this country

https://www.google.com/search?q=chu...5.11283j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

I checked the first few links:

1. England

2. England

3. England

4. No "Church" was sued for refusing to perform a ceremony. The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Assassination is a Non-Profit community organization that administers property in Ocean Grove Jew Jersey. They voluntarily participated in a program called the "Green Acres" program that allowed for State relief from property taxes on the condition that the property be open to the public. The pavilion in question was on the beach front boardwalk. Over the many years the OGCMA had enjoyed the tax relief from property taxes they had to periodically renew the application for the exemption and each time certified that it that it would be open to the public.. So the link fails on multiple levels:

A. The OGCMA is NOT a Church.
B. The OGCMA was not challenged on religious grounds, they were challenged based on their own commitment that the property would be open to the public something they had attested to mulitple times to receive the special tax exemption.
C. The OGCMA was NOT asked to perform the religious ceremony.
D. No priest, pastor, reverend of a Church was asked to perform a ceremony against their religious faith.
E. The action was not based on religoius faith, the action was based on the OGCMA violating the rules to which they volunarily agreed.​

State of New Jersey

5. No example of a Church in this country being sued for failure to perform a religious ceremony. TheY complain that schools might mention the fact that same-sex couple might be able to Civilly Marry - far showing a Church as been sued as a Public School is not a religious organization. They reference OGCMA (see above) - a fail.

6. ) ) the cite actual debunks the myth that Churches can be sued for failing to perform a religious ceremony for same-sex couples. Thanks.​

So in summary, you showed no case where Churches in this country were sued for refusing to perform interracial marriages, interfaith marriages, marriages for a divorced couple, or same-sex marriage. Here is a hint, this is the United States Churches (including their members of the Clergy) are private organizations and when functioning as a private organization can accept or refuse commissions to perform religious ceremonies - ALWAYS, that is protected under the 1st Amendment. Unlike England where the Church of England is an official government sanctioned State Church. As long as a Church functions as a private organization for their congregation (i.e. members), they will have no issues with being able to refuse to perform a religious ceremony or to provide their facilities for use. Such organizations (private, member based) are not subject to making their facilities public (Source. Supreme Court Case "http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZS.html".)


>>>>

 

[bodecea]

Sex is the traditional way to consummate a marriage, since gay can only engage in sodomy the marriage can't be consummated. Simple biological fact.

So...President Clinton was right...he did not have sexual relations with that woman?

 

[bodecea]

Real parent if straight (normal) - real parent if gay (abnormal).

There are normal parents and there are abnormal parents. It should be a parent's number one priority to live a normal life so as to 1) send a proper message to a child and to be a good example and 2) to avoid embarrassing the child in a world vastly made up of normal, male/female parents. Sending mixed messages will result in mixed emotions.

A real parent gives their child unconditional love.

An abnormal parent tries to impose their own bigoted beliefs on their child.

The suicide/runaway rate amongst gay children can be directly attributed to the lack of acceptance of who they are by their bigoted judgmental parents.

not when they have shit all the way up their backs...yeah my love kind of wavers

Thank the gods those days are long gone.....but when the grandchildren come.......

 

[bodecea]

Can the mods give bodey and seawytch thier own gay marriage forum please, they keep stinking up all the other forums with endless gay marriage topics.

Awwwww....pobrecito....

 

[bodecea]

...but lets be clear, we know this isn't about rights, it's about getting to sue churches for refusing to wed gay couples, nothing more.

Ignorant nonsense and demagoguery.

The issue has solely to do with rights.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local governments, not private individuals or organizations, such as religious institutions.

Private organizations will remain at liberty to practice their ignorance and hate; see, e.g., BSA v. Dale (2000).

you're either very very young, completely ignorant or a terrible liar.

they are already suing in england and you know it's only a matter of time

England has the 1st Amendment? Who knew? (apparently not you....)

 

[The Rabbi]

Ignorant nonsense and demagoguery.

The issue has solely to do with rights.

14th Amendment jurisprudence applies only to the states and local governments, not private individuals or organizations, such as religious institutions.

Private organizations will remain at liberty to practice their ignorance and hate; see, e.g., BSA v. Dale (2000).

you're either very very young, completely ignorant or a terrible liar.

they are already suing in england and you know it's only a matter of time

England has the 1st Amendment? Who knew? (apparently not you....)

We already have businesses being sued because they wont cater to the fags. Adding churches to the list is hardly far-fetched. 1A didnt protect business.

 

[Seawytch]

you're either very very young, completely ignorant or a terrible liar.

they are already suing in england and you know it's only a matter of time

England has the 1st Amendment? Who knew? (apparently not you....)

We already have businesses being sued because they wont cater to the fags. Adding churches to the list is hardly far-fetched. 1A didnt protect business.

A business is not a church and must abide by the Public Accommodation laws of the locality in which they operate. None of the localities sued were "gay marriage" states.

Since it is "only a matter of time", please list all the churches that have been successfully sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages.

 

[The Rabbi]

England has the 1st Amendment? Who knew? (apparently not you....)

We already have businesses being sued because they wont cater to the fags. Adding churches to the list is hardly far-fetched. 1A didnt protect business.

A business is not a church and must abide by the Public Accommodation laws of the locality in which they operate. None of the localities sued were "gay marriage" states.

Since it is "only a matter of time", please list all the churches that have been successfully sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages.

Its only a matter of time. A church is certainly a business in many aspects.

But the Supremes will strike down gay marriage in short order, holding that states have wide latitude to determine their own laws in the matter.

 

[Pete7469]

There have been quite a few posts in the last few weeks going on and on about how gays cannot naturally procreate. Some posters have even hung their entire anti-gay marriage argument on the procreation issue. However no one can show any state requirement of procreation-ability to obtain a marriage license.

Ok, Procreation-ability. Having children the "natural" way. Not everyone can procreate naturally for one reason or another. Those who don't want children continue on with their lives as a childless couple. Those who want children have them in other ways....invitro, surrogate, adoption.

My poll is about those people.....are they worthy of legal marriage or not. Vote. Thank you in advance.

A legal marriage?

As far as I'm concerned the concept of same sex couple being "married" is as absurd as someone wanting to "marry" an alpaca. Children are of no consequence regarding marriage IMO. Since the dawn of time it has been a union of males and females (humans to be clear). Why modern bed wetters are so dedicated to this issue is no surprise however, since perverting the norms of our society is the policy of the left.

I personally don't care though. If carpet munchers and butt pirates want to "play house" like kindergarteners, it really doesn't affect me. It's deviant and stupid, but WTF do I care? What does piss me off is that I'm supposed to embrace it. Somehow there's something wrong with me if I call it what it is... perversion. Why is it so important that such an insignificant percentage of our population gains absolute acceptance from the rest of us because they choose or are otherwise compelled to be queer? If it is so normal and natural to be a pillow biter there wouldn't be this compulsion to have the rest of society scared to even question it.

There is obviously something wrong with being queer, that's why it's called QUEER!!! If the goddamned queers were really so confident that there was nothing wrong with them, they wouldn't demand special attention. Clearly they're aware of the fact that there is something wrong with THEM, or they wouldn't be so hell bent on forcing the rest of society to embrace them, accept them or even STFU about their stupid marriage cause.

Another thing while I'm ranting about these deviants.

Why do homos define themselves by their sexuality? Why is that aspect of life so important to them? They're consumed with sex, more so than any hetero I know. Get back in the closet already you sick fuckers. We hoped the Anally Inflicted Death Sentence (AIDS) would be enough, but you assholes are like a fungus that just won't go away.

 

[Seawytch]

We already have businesses being sued because they wont cater to the fags. Adding churches to the list is hardly far-fetched. 1A didnt protect business.

A business is not a church and must abide by the Public Accommodation laws of the locality in which they operate. None of the localities sued were "gay marriage" states.

Since it is "only a matter of time", please list all the churches that have been successfully sued to perform interracial or interfaith marriages.

Its only a matter of time. A church is certainly a business in many aspects.

But the Supremes will strike down gay marriage in short order, holding that states have wide latitude to determine their own laws in the matter.

Since it is "only a matter of time", please list all the churches that have been successfully sued to perform any religious ceremony against the tenants of their faith. Oh...you ignored that because it has never happened. Since there are many, many, many more interfaith and interracial couples that want to and are getting married, there is absolutely no data to support your ridiculously hyperbolic statement.

The SCOTUS may uphold the lower court rulings (so far 19 in favor of marriage equality, 0 against) and will, at least, strike down the remainder of DOMA which treats my legal marriage license differently than yours. Once that is gone, I'd be perfectly fine with states not performing same sex marriages...but they will have to recognize them.

 

[LiberalMedia]

There have been quite a few posts in the last few weeks going on and on about how gays cannot naturally procreate. Some posters have even hung their entire anti-gay marriage argument on the procreation issue. However no one can show any state requirement of procreation-ability to obtain a marriage license.

Ok, Procreation-ability. Having children the "natural" way. Not everyone can procreate naturally for one reason or another. Those who don't want children continue on with their lives as a childless couple. Those who want children have them in other ways....invitro, surrogate, adoption.

My poll is about those people.....are they worthy of legal marriage or not. Vote. Thank you in advance.

A legal marriage?

As far as I'm concerned the concept of same sex couple being "married" is as absurd as someone wanting to "marry" an alpaca.

Stopped reading there. As far as you're concerned? Good thing that a same sex marriage doesn't concern you, then, unless you'd like to step out of the closet and join your fellow Homosexual-Americans pridefully declaring our superiority to the scum-of-the-earth heteros.

 

[The Rabbi]

There have been quite a few posts in the last few weeks going on and on about how gays cannot naturally procreate. Some posters have even hung their entire anti-gay marriage argument on the procreation issue. However no one can show any state requirement of procreation-ability to obtain a marriage license.

Ok, Procreation-ability. Having children the "natural" way. Not everyone can procreate naturally for one reason or another. Those who don't want children continue on with their lives as a childless couple. Those who want children have them in other ways....invitro, surrogate, adoption.

My poll is about those people.....are they worthy of legal marriage or not. Vote. Thank you in advance.

A legal marriage?

As far as I'm concerned the concept of same sex couple being "married" is as absurd as someone wanting to "marry" an alpaca.

Stopped reading there. As far as you're concerned? Good thing that a same sex marriage doesn't concern you, then, unless you'd like to step out of the closet and join your fellow Homosexual-Americans pridefully declaring our superiority to the scum-of-the-earth heteros.

^^Unhinged angry dyke.