Tennessee Seeks tonBar Same Sex Marriage

[WinterBorn]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

Yes, you are correct that there is not "right" to be married. However, if the gov't offers benefits to citizens, they must be offered equally.

The 14th Amendment is the law of the land. The equal protection clause applies here.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I still do not understand why same sex marriage is an issue. It is consenting adults entering into the state of matrimony. It has no effect on anyone else except those who marry someone of the same gender.

They are offered equally to those who meet the criteria of potential parenting. Procreation. Hetero relationships. Homos can’t procreate as homos.
This is the same worn out, lost argument that close minded homofascists won’t give up on.

If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.

The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.

As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?

We’ve been through this too many times; the people who invented marriage, legal or otherwise, never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species.
Like the guy who invented the latex glove wouldn’t think that he’d be compelled by law to explain that it’s not a synthetic cow udder.

And the origins of marriage include multiple spouses, brothers standing in for dead brothers, women being killed because they weren't virgins.

We are discussing the legality of same sex marriage. And claiming that marriage is expressly for the purpose of procreation is nonsense.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

Yes, you are correct that there is not "right" to be married. However, if the gov't offers benefits to citizens, they must be offered equally.

The 14th Amendment is the law of the land. The equal protection clause applies here.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I still do not understand why same sex marriage is an issue. It is consenting adults entering into the state of matrimony. It has no effect on anyone else except those who marry someone of the same gender.

They are offered equally to those who meet the criteria of potential parenting. Procreation. Hetero relationships. Homos can’t procreate as homos.
This is the same worn out, lost argument that close minded homofascists won’t give up on.

If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.

The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.

As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?

We’ve been through this too many times; the people who invented marriage, legal or otherwise, never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species.
Like the guy who invented the latex glove wouldn’t think that he’d be compelled by law to explain that it’s not a synthetic cow udder.

Then why are 70 year olds allowed to marry

They probably shouldn't be. Unless they’re in a position to obtain custody of children whereby they would provide the necessary mother/father structure. Being that old should usurp that, too.
But citing an example of a legal marriage that shouldn’t be doesn’t justify another.

 

[JGalt]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

They have the same right as either you or I

And yes, the courts have declared it a right

No, actually they want exclusive rights, on the basis of a psychological dysfunction. Marriage is defined by God as a holy union between one man and one woman, and that's the way it should be.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, you are correct that there is not "right" to be married. However, if the gov't offers benefits to citizens, they must be offered equally.

The 14th Amendment is the law of the land. The equal protection clause applies here.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I still do not understand why same sex marriage is an issue. It is consenting adults entering into the state of matrimony. It has no effect on anyone else except those who marry someone of the same gender.

They are offered equally to those who meet the criteria of potential parenting. Procreation. Hetero relationships. Homos can’t procreate as homos.
This is the same worn out, lost argument that close minded homofascists won’t give up on.

If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.

The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.

As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?

We’ve been through this too many times; the people who invented marriage, legal or otherwise, never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species.
Like the guy who invented the latex glove wouldn’t think that he’d be compelled by law to explain that it’s not a synthetic cow udder.

Then why are 70 year olds allowed to marry

They probably shouldn't be. Unless they’re in a position to obtain custody of children whereby they would provide the necessary mother/father structure. Being that old should usurp that, too.
But citing an example of a legal marriage that shouldn’t be doesn’t justify another.

I have never found any legal definition of marriage that include the concept that procreation is a criteria. Not one. And this "they didn't write it down because they never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species" is just a dodge.

Same sex marriage does not effect anyone but those in the marriage. It does not destroy traditional marriage.

And yes, citing an example of legal marriages that do not include procreation does just fine at justifying another.

I remember reading that married couples enjoy something like 1,400 benefits bestowed on them by federal, state and local gov't. Most have absolutely nothing to do with procreation.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

They have the same right as either you or I

And yes, the courts have declared it a right

No, actually they want exclusive rights, on the basis of a psychological dysfunction. Marriage is defined by God as a holy union between one man and one woman, and that's the way it should be.

If you want it to be that way in your church, that is fine. But for laws for the citizens of this nation, your religious rules cannot be the sole source.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Another cut/pasted regressive parasite thread pissing and moaning because normal people don't give a shit about warped sexual deviants and perverts not being accepted as normal...

Because they're not.

Change the fucking record parasite.



.

Ok, don't accept them as normal. That does not change the SCOTUS ruling.

And whether you accept them as normal is irrelevant. I am straight, and I don't know many people who consider me "normal". Someone else getting married and enjoying the hundreds of gov't benefits bestowed on married couples has nothing to do with being normal.

Same sex couples getting married does not effect you at all.

Funny how the definition of marriage had to be changed though

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

They are offered equally to those who meet the criteria of potential parenting. Procreation. Hetero relationships. Homos can’t procreate as homos.
This is the same worn out, lost argument that close minded homofascists won’t give up on.

If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.

The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.

As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?

We’ve been through this too many times; the people who invented marriage, legal or otherwise, never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species.
Like the guy who invented the latex glove wouldn’t think that he’d be compelled by law to explain that it’s not a synthetic cow udder.

Then why are 70 year olds allowed to marry

They probably shouldn't be. Unless they’re in a position to obtain custody of children whereby they would provide the necessary mother/father structure. Being that old should usurp that, too.
But citing an example of a legal marriage that shouldn’t be doesn’t justify another.

I have never found any legal definition of marriage that include the concept that procreation is a criteria. Not one. And this "they didn't write it down because they never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species" is just a dodge.

Same sex marriage does not effect anyone but those in the marriage. It does not destroy traditional marriage.

And yes, citing an example of legal marriages that do not include procreation does just fine at justifying another.

I remember reading that married couples enjoy something like 1,400 benefits bestowed on them by federal, state and local gov't. Most have absolutely nothing to do with procreation.

I already explained the dilemma of presumption of procreation as the impetus. Too many times.

 

[WinterBorn]

Another cut/pasted regressive parasite thread pissing and moaning because normal people don't give a shit about warped sexual deviants and perverts not being accepted as normal...

Because they're not.

Change the fucking record parasite.



.

Ok, don't accept them as normal. That does not change the SCOTUS ruling.

And whether you accept them as normal is irrelevant. I am straight, and I don't know many people who consider me "normal". Someone else getting married and enjoying the hundreds of gov't benefits bestowed on married couples has nothing to do with being normal.

Same sex couples getting married does not effect you at all.

Funny how the definition of marriage had to be changed though

It was expanded to include same sex couples. Besides, it wasn't the first time it was changed. It was changed in 1967 to include interracial marriages.

 

[JGalt]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

They have the same right as either you or I

And yes, the courts have declared it a right

No, actually they want exclusive rights, on the basis of a psychological dysfunction. Marriage is defined by God as a holy union between one man and one woman, and that's the way it should be.

If you want it to be that way in your church, that is fine. But for laws for the citizens of this nation, your religious rules cannot be the sole source.

There isn't a single religion in this world that doesn't believe marriage is between men and women.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Another cut/pasted regressive parasite thread pissing and moaning because normal people don't give a shit about warped sexual deviants and perverts not being accepted as normal...

Because they're not.

Change the fucking record parasite.



.

Ok, don't accept them as normal. That does not change the SCOTUS ruling.

And whether you accept them as normal is irrelevant. I am straight, and I don't know many people who consider me "normal". Someone else getting married and enjoying the hundreds of gov't benefits bestowed on married couples has nothing to do with being normal.

Same sex couples getting married does not effect you at all.

Funny how the definition of marriage had to be changed though

It was expanded to include same sex couples. Besides, it wasn't the first time it was changed. It was changed in 1967 to include interracial marriages.

Ergo changed….no spin ...just the facts

 

[WinterBorn]

If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.

The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.

As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?

We’ve been through this too many times; the people who invented marriage, legal or otherwise, never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species.
Like the guy who invented the latex glove wouldn’t think that he’d be compelled by law to explain that it’s not a synthetic cow udder.

Then why are 70 year olds allowed to marry

They probably shouldn't be. Unless they’re in a position to obtain custody of children whereby they would provide the necessary mother/father structure. Being that old should usurp that, too.
But citing an example of a legal marriage that shouldn’t be doesn’t justify another.

I have never found any legal definition of marriage that include the concept that procreation is a criteria. Not one. And this "they didn't write it down because they never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species" is just a dodge.

Same sex marriage does not effect anyone but those in the marriage. It does not destroy traditional marriage.

And yes, citing an example of legal marriages that do not include procreation does just fine at justifying another.

I remember reading that married couples enjoy something like 1,400 benefits bestowed on them by federal, state and local gov't. Most have absolutely nothing to do with procreation.

I already explained the dilemma of presumption of procreation as the impetus. Too many times.

Your explanation of presumption has no legal standing.

And as long as heterosexual couples who cannot have children are allowed to marry, denying homosexual couples who can have children with the help of science get equal protection under the law.

Because your argument not only hinges on the entire purpose of marriage being expressly for procreation. It hinges on procreation via only natural means.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

They have the same right as either you or I

And yes, the courts have declared it a right

No, actually they want exclusive rights, on the basis of a psychological dysfunction. Marriage is defined by God as a holy union between one man and one woman, and that's the way it should be.

If you want it to be that way in your church, that is fine. But for laws for the citizens of this nation, your religious rules cannot be the sole source.

There isn't a single religion in this world that doesn't believe marriage is between men and women.

It is still irrelevant per the US Constitution. But you might check on what the Hindus think of same sex marriages. Their belief in reincarnation means they accept that two souls could come back as the same genders. And, if I am not mistaken, many neopagan and pagan religions have not issue with same sex marriage. I think here are even legends of Native American cultures that didn't have a problem with them long before white people arrived.

 

[WinterBorn]

Another cut/pasted regressive parasite thread pissing and moaning because normal people don't give a shit about warped sexual deviants and perverts not being accepted as normal...

Because they're not.

Change the fucking record parasite.



.

Ok, don't accept them as normal. That does not change the SCOTUS ruling.

And whether you accept them as normal is irrelevant. I am straight, and I don't know many people who consider me "normal". Someone else getting married and enjoying the hundreds of gov't benefits bestowed on married couples has nothing to do with being normal.

Same sex couples getting married does not effect you at all.

Funny how the definition of marriage had to be changed though

It was expanded to include same sex couples. Besides, it wasn't the first time it was changed. It was changed in 1967 to include interracial marriages.

Ergo changed….no spin ...just the facts

Eh, no spin needed. The definition of marriage has changed several times in history. It still has no effect on anyone but the couple who marries.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

Yes, you are correct that there is not "right" to be married. However, if the gov't offers benefits to citizens, they must be offered equally.

The 14th Amendment is the law of the land. The equal protection clause applies here.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I still do not understand why same sex marriage is an issue. It is consenting adults entering into the state of matrimony. It has no effect on anyone else except those who marry someone of the same gender.

They are offered equally to those who meet the criteria of potential parenting. Procreation. Hetero relationships. Homos can’t procreate as homos.
This is the same worn out, lost argument that close minded homofascists won’t give up on.

If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.

The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.

As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?

We’ve been through this too many times; the people who invented marriage, legal or otherwise, never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species.
Like the guy who invented the latex glove wouldn’t think that he’d be compelled by law to explain that it’s not a synthetic cow udder.

Same sex couples do create families like anyone else and our species, unfortunately, is in no danger of extinction

 

[rightwinger]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

They have the same right as either you or I

And yes, the courts have declared it a right

No, actually they want exclusive rights, on the basis of a psychological dysfunction. Marriage is defined by God as a holy union between one man and one woman, and that's the way it should be.

Which exclusive rights would those be?

 

[TNHarley]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

It became a right when big brother got involved

 

[TNHarley]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

Yes, you are correct that there is not "right" to be married. However, if the gov't offers benefits to citizens, they must be offered equally.

The 14th Amendment is the law of the land. The equal protection clause applies here.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I still do not understand why same sex marriage is an issue. It is consenting adults entering into the state of matrimony. It has no effect on anyone else except those who marry someone of the same gender.

They are offered equally to those who meet the criteria of potential parenting. Procreation. Hetero relationships. Homos can’t procreate as homos.
This is the same worn out, lost argument that close minded homofascists won’t give up on.

If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.

The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.

As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?

We’ve been through this too many times; the people who invented marriage, legal or otherwise, never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species.
Like the guy who invented the latex glove wouldn’t think that he’d be compelled by law to explain that it’s not a synthetic cow udder.

Same sex couples do create families like anyone else and our species, unfortunately, is in no danger of extinction

They dont create, they merge. They need outside help, unlike a heterosexual.
Its a stupid argument.
Gays should be able to adopt and get married but with ridiculous arguments like that, you look dumb.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, you are correct that there is not "right" to be married. However, if the gov't offers benefits to citizens, they must be offered equally.

The 14th Amendment is the law of the land. The equal protection clause applies here.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I still do not understand why same sex marriage is an issue. It is consenting adults entering into the state of matrimony. It has no effect on anyone else except those who marry someone of the same gender.

They are offered equally to those who meet the criteria of potential parenting. Procreation. Hetero relationships. Homos can’t procreate as homos.
This is the same worn out, lost argument that close minded homofascists won’t give up on.

If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.

The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.

As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?

We’ve been through this too many times; the people who invented marriage, legal or otherwise, never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species.
Like the guy who invented the latex glove wouldn’t think that he’d be compelled by law to explain that it’s not a synthetic cow udder.

Same sex couples do create families like anyone else and our species, unfortunately, is in no danger of extinction

They dont create, they merge. They need outside help, unlike a heterosexual.
Its a stupid argument.
Gays should be able to adopt and get married because with ridiculous arguments like that, you look dumb.

What the fuck are you blathering about. That isn't even coherent. What do you have to say about hetero couples who" need outside help" There are many you know.

 

[TNHarley]

They are offered equally to those who meet the criteria of potential parenting. Procreation. Hetero relationships. Homos can’t procreate as homos.
This is the same worn out, lost argument that close minded homofascists won’t give up on.

If procreation were a criteria of marriage, you might have a point. It isn't. You don't.
I have been married twice. No where in any license was there mention of children. Hetero couples who are sterile are allowed to marry. How many women who have had their uterus removed have gotten married? Homosexual couples have children via other means, just like many, many heterosexual couples.

The "marriage is for procreation" is what is the same worn out, lost argument. It doesn't hold water. The proof is in the fact that those who cannot possibly have children are still allowed to marry.

As I said, same sex marriage has no effect on you. Why do you care?

We’ve been through this too many times; the people who invented marriage, legal or otherwise, never thought they’d have to explain that marriage exists for the purpose of creating families and survival of the species.
Like the guy who invented the latex glove wouldn’t think that he’d be compelled by law to explain that it’s not a synthetic cow udder.

Same sex couples do create families like anyone else and our species, unfortunately, is in no danger of extinction

They dont create, they merge. They need outside help, unlike a heterosexual.
Its a stupid argument.
Gays should be able to adopt and get married because with ridiculous arguments like that, you look dumb.

What the fuck are you blathering about. That isn't even coherent. What do you have to say about hetero couples who" need outside help" There are many you know.

2 queers cant create a human, you imbecile.
They cant create a family. They can only merge one. Or seek outside help.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no "gay marriage right." You're confusing "rights" with "privileges".

You also have no "right" to an abortion, a free education, free internet, free housing, free food, or a free telephone. Go back and re-read the Constitution and get back to me when you're done.

It became a right when big brother got involved

The best thing that could happen is to remove ALL gov’t involvement in marriage.