What are your attitudes about Homosexuals?

[LockeJaw]

Okay, Seawytch. What is it you want in my sig if you win?

Sorry, but you don't choose it until the bet is won. The bet is signature lines or avatars worn for a month...with the additional stipulation that you must post regularly...you can't worm out and hide by not posting for a month like some folks.

I wore the NY Giants as my avatar. You can't get any more humiliating or embarrassing than that, so don't worry

I'm not worried. And it's a bet then.

 

[Pop23]

I know many non religious people who oppose same sex marriage. Your brush strokes are way too wide.

Ironic!

Utterly irrelevant to the legal marriage contract. Onus remains on you to prove relevancy. Epic failure to date on your part is duly noted. Forecast for your continued failure to prove relevancy is 100%.

Bullshit fucktard. It's totally relevant, marriage is set up to promote reponsible Reproduction...your homosexual pets cannot reproduce. Most people find out they're infertile AFTER marriage. We already know your pets are.

So you lose, once again. Love is not enough to qualify for full marriage benefits.

NEXT...

I hope you don't realize that with every post, you help the gay civil rights movement. Reasonable people reading the board will look at your post and say "I think gays are icky, but I'm not THAT guy, he's a bigot".

My brother and his wife knew they would not be having children when they got married...they were still allowed to marry. My grandfather is 96 and has a 86 year old girlfriend. They wouldn't be denied civil marriage...again rendering your "argument" both moot and silly. Add to that the following regarding 1st cousins marrying legally:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.
Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.
Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce​

So this time it's not just people on USMB making an ass out of you, it's the laws of the states laughing at your "it's about children" argument. Heck, it was already laughed at by the SCOTUS.

No matter if you want to or not, same sex couples cannot procreate. Has nothing to do with 1. Want 2. Disability 3. Age. It is, was and always will be impossible.

Are you saying it is your age making you unable to procreate with your partner? A disability? Or a want?

Of course not, your ability was, is and always would be impossible.

The more you try to make the two demographic groups the same, you show just how different they are.

I don't have to use same sex subgroups to show this. Again showing that the two groups do not function anywhere near the same.

 

[Silhouette]

We will see who is laughing soon enough...well Im always laughing at the idea that homosexual couplings are equal to real marriages...but we will see who is laughing when SCOTUS rules next year(I believe).

Would you like to make a wager on how the SCOTUS will rule on marriage equality? Signature lines or avatars?

You're a little late on that one Seawytch. The Ruling came out last Summer. You may have heard of it? Windsor v the United States? United States v. Windsor

Read pages 14-22 of the Opinion. Pay careful attention to how the Court describes was and is the right and proper way for gay marriage to be allowed. Pay attention to the amount of time the Court dedicates to the broad consensus vs its passing mention of Loving v Virginia, that it apparently left open as to whether or not it applies to gay behaviors as well as race.

Pay really close attention to how the Court says the way it likes gay marriage to be handled as "the Framers of the Constitution intended". That's your key-phrase right there. When the Supreme Court says "the way the Framers of the Constitution intended" and "since the founding of the country", that's their way of telling the general public, "this idea we are talking about, the way we want gay marriage to be debated and decided upon, is a Constitutional-finding, as well as so backdated to the founding of the country"..

Last time I checked and especially where you are concerned Seawytch, Prop 8 in California was passed after the country was founded. Go ahead, read it. Then make your foolish wagers.

 

[Seawytch]

Ironic!



Utterly irrelevant to the legal marriage contract. Onus remains on you to prove relevancy. Epic failure to date on your part is duly noted. Forecast for your continued failure to prove relevancy is 100%.

Bullshit fucktard. It's totally relevant, marriage is set up to promote reponsible Reproduction...your homosexual pets cannot reproduce. Most people find out they're infertile AFTER marriage. We already know your pets are.



So you lose, once again. Love is not enough to qualify for full marriage benefits.



NEXT...

I hope you don't realize that with every post, you help the gay civil rights movement. Reasonable people reading the board will look at your post and say "I think gays are icky, but I'm not THAT guy, he's a bigot".



My brother and his wife knew they would not be having children when they got married...they were still allowed to marry. My grandfather is 96 and has a 86 year old girlfriend. They wouldn't be denied civil marriage...again rendering your "argument" both moot and silly. Add to that the following regarding 1st cousins marrying legally:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce​

So this time it's not just people on USMB making an ass out of you, it's the laws of the states laughing at your "it's about children" argument. Heck, it was already laughed at by the SCOTUS.

No matter if you want to or not, same sex couples cannot procreate. Has nothing to do with 1. Want 2. Disability 3. Age. It is, was and always will be impossible.



Are you saying it is your age making you unable to procreate with your partner? A disability? Or a want?



Of course not, your ability was, is and always would be impossible.



The more you try to make the two demographic groups the same, you show just how different they are.



I don't have to use same sex subgroups to show this. Again showing that the two groups do not function anywhere near the same.

Nobody is trying to make any demographic "the same", but they will be treated equally under the law.

The "demographics" for infertile couples isn't the same for fertile couples...but the "demographics" for gays and infertile couples is the same...you wish to deny marriage equality to only one of those "demographics"....based solely on animus towards that "demographic".

 

[Seawytch]

Okay, Seawytch. What is it you want in my sig if you win?

Sorry, but you don't choose it until the bet is won. The bet is signature lines or avatars worn for a month...with the additional stipulation that you must post regularly...you can't worm out and hide by not posting for a month like some folks.



I wore the NY Giants as my avatar. You can't get any more humiliating or embarrassing than that, so don't worry

I'm not worried. And it's a bet then.

Done {cyber handshake)

 

[hipeter924]

the whole problem with that is that there is no law telling gays they cannot get married the same way everyone else does, to the opposite sex.

If marriage wasn't so important in having the same Federal/State tax benefits and rights as heterosexual couples, then it wouldn't be a problem. If the government got out of the marriage business, then there wouldn't be the issues, but someone thought giving 'marriage' special status in law was a good idea, even if it was at the expense (or to the detriment) of other taxpayers.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I know many non religious people who oppose same sex marriage. Your brush strokes are way too wide.

Ironic!

Procreation is only possible when males and females couple. It is NEVER possible with same sex.

The two groups are no where similar.

Can you make that claim with any other protected group?

Utterly irrelevant to the legal marriage contract. Onus remains on you to prove relevancy. Epic failure to date on your part is duly noted. Forecast for your continued failure to prove relevancy is 100%.

You appear to have a problem with reality.

Get this straight, someone who thinks sleeping with a member of the same sex is the height of irrelevancy. I value your opinion every bit as much as I value a hoarders opinion on housecleaning.

Same sex couplings have no continuing worth past the deaths of the participants.

Ironic!

As I predicted you have completely and utterly failed to prove the legal relevancy of your obsession with same sex intercourse.

Feel free to continue to rant but until you can provide any substantiation that is relevant your posts will be treated as the meaningless homophobic drivel that they are. Have a nice day.

 

[LockeJaw]

the whole problem with that is that there is no law telling gays they cannot get married the same way everyone else does, to the opposite sex.

If marriage wasn't so important in having the same Federal/State tax benefits and rights as heterosexual couples, then it wouldn't be a problem. If the government got out of the marriage business, then there wouldn't be the issues, but someone thought giving 'marriage' special status in law was a good idea, even if it was at the expense (or to the detriment) of other taxpayers.

Hipster, marriage has special status because it promotes a two parent, mother & for children. What's the point of giving homosexuals, people who CANNOT have children directly from their union, the same benefits...just because of "love"? Noone is stopping them from loving each other, they just don't qualify for the same benefits...they're different.

 

[Seawytch]

the whole problem with that is that there is no law telling gays they cannot get married the same way everyone else does, to the opposite sex.

If marriage wasn't so important in having the same Federal/State tax benefits and rights as heterosexual couples, then it wouldn't be a problem. If the government got out of the marriage business, then there wouldn't be the issues, but someone thought giving 'marriage' special status in law was a good idea, even if it was at the expense (or to the detriment) of other taxpayers.

Hipster, marriage has special status because it promotes a two parent, mother & for children. What's the point of giving homosexuals, people who CANNOT have children directly from their union, the same benefits...just because of "love"? Noone is stopping them from loving each other, they just don't qualify for the same benefits...they're different.

No different from the millions of infertile or childless by choice couples...none of whom are prevented from civilly marrying.

Some people who wish to civilly marry are prevented from having children or they can't marry...also rendering your "argument" (for lack of a better term) entirely moot.

 

[LockeJaw]

It's pretty much the same in any society that is living under a state, hipster.

 

[Pop23]

If marriage wasn't so important in having the same Federal/State tax benefits and rights as heterosexual couples, then it wouldn't be a problem. If the government got out of the marriage business, then there wouldn't be the issues, but someone thought giving 'marriage' special status in law was a good idea, even if it was at the expense (or to the detriment) of other taxpayers.

Hipster, marriage has special status because it promotes a two parent, mother & for children. What's the point of giving homosexuals, people who CANNOT have children directly from their union, the same benefits...just because of "love"? Noone is stopping them from loving each other, they just don't qualify for the same benefits...they're different.

No different from the millions of infertile or childless by choice couples...none of whom are prevented from civilly marrying.

Some people who wish to civilly marry are prevented from having children or they can't marry...also rendering your "argument" (for lack of a better term) entirely moot.

Do you believe in reproductive rights, reproductive privacy? Support Roe v Wade?

 

[Seawytch]

Hipster, marriage has special status because it promotes a two parent, mother & for children. What's the point of giving homosexuals, people who CANNOT have children directly from their union, the same benefits...just because of "love"? Noone is stopping them from loving each other, they just don't qualify for the same benefits...they're different.

No different from the millions of infertile or childless by choice couples...none of whom are prevented from civilly marrying.

Some people who wish to civilly marry are prevented from having children or they can't marry...also rendering your "argument" (for lack of a better term) entirely moot.

Do you believe in reproductive rights, reproductive privacy? Support Roe v Wade?

Do you have a point? Shit, what am I saying...it's Pops, he will have no point, just some ridiculously off base analogy that either has nothing to do with the topic or is a ludicrous strawman.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No different from the millions of infertile or childless by choice couples...none of whom are prevented from civilly marrying.

Some people who wish to civilly marry are prevented from having children or they can't marry...also rendering your "argument" (for lack of a better term) entirely moot.

Do you believe in reproductive rights, reproductive privacy? Support Roe v Wade?

Do you have a point? Shit, what am I saying...it's Pops, he will have no point, just some ridiculously off base analogy that either has nothing to do with the topic or is a ludicrous strawman.

Pops does have a point...on the end of his nose...that he likes sticking between the sheets of homosexuals.

Too bad Pops doesn't appreciate how perverted he really is to be so obsessed with the sex lives of other people.

 

[Pop23]

Do you believe in reproductive rights, reproductive privacy? Support Roe v Wade?

Do you have a point? Shit, what am I saying...it's Pops, he will have no point, just some ridiculously off base analogy that either has nothing to do with the topic or is a ludicrous strawman.

Pops does have a point...on the end of his nose...that he likes sticking between the sheets of homosexuals.

Too bad Pops doesn't appreciate how perverted he really is to be so obsessed with the sex lives of other people.

Afraid to answer the questions?

Thought so.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Do you have a point? Shit, what am I saying...it's Pops, he will have no point, just some ridiculously off base analogy that either has nothing to do with the topic or is a ludicrous strawman.

Pops does have a point...on the end of his nose...that he likes sticking between the sheets of homosexuals.

Too bad Pops doesn't appreciate how perverted he really is to be so obsessed with the sex lives of other people.

Afraid to answer the questions?

Thought so.

Your questions have been dealt with repeatedly. Asking them again isn't going to change the answers. There is no reproduction qualification for state marriage contracts.

Feel free to waste your own time with your obsession.

 

[Pop23]

Pops does have a point...on the end of his nose...that he likes sticking between the sheets of homosexuals.

Too bad Pops doesn't appreciate how perverted he really is to be so obsessed with the sex lives of other people.

Afraid to answer the questions?

Thought so.

Your questions have been dealt with repeatedly. Asking them again isn't going to change the answers. There is no reproduction qualification for state marriage contracts.

Feel free to waste your own time with your obsession.

As I thought, you are afraid of the answer?

Do gays support a woman's right to reproductive privacy?

Interesting, ain't it?

 

[Seawytch]

Do you have a point? Shit, what am I saying...it's Pops, he will have no point, just some ridiculously off base analogy that either has nothing to do with the topic or is a ludicrous strawman.

Pops does have a point...on the end of his nose...that he likes sticking between the sheets of homosexuals.



Too bad Pops doesn't appreciate how perverted he really is to be so obsessed with the sex lives of other people.

Afraid to answer the questions?



Thought so.

You don't think...you concoct ludicrous analogies.

So what is the silliness this time, Pops? Yes, I support a woman's right to make reproductive choices regarding HER body. How in earth are you going to twist that into justifying being a bigot this time?

 

[LockeJaw]

There is no good reason why the law should consider homosexual couples the same as traditional couples...Not one.

 

[Pop23]

Pops does have a point...on the end of his nose...that he likes sticking between the sheets of homosexuals.



Too bad Pops doesn't appreciate how perverted he really is to be so obsessed with the sex lives of other people.

Afraid to answer the questions?



Thought so.

You don't think...you concoct ludicrous analogies.

So what is the silliness this time, Pops? Yes, I support a woman's right to make reproductive choices regarding HER body. How in earth are you going to twist that into justifying being a bigot this time?

You love to wait until the questions go far enough back that they know longer appear in the quotes. That way you don't have to answer them as asked.

No, you don't get to frame my argument.

Do you support a women's right to reproductive privacy?

Do you support Roe v Wade?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Afraid to answer the questions?



Thought so.

You don't think...you concoct ludicrous analogies.

So what is the silliness this time, Pops? Yes, I support a woman's right to make reproductive choices regarding HER body. How in earth are you going to twist that into justifying being a bigot this time?

You love to wait until the questions go far enough back that they know longer appear in the quotes. That way you don't have to answer them as asked.

No, you don't get to frame my argument.

Do you support a women's right to reproductive privacy?

Do you support Roe v Wade?

RvW and the right to privacy have nothing to do with marriage. The only possible correlation to RvW is that the same people who oppose RvW also oppose gay marriage.