Young Conservative DESTROYS gay rights fascists

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I'm amused that he thinks gays will lose despite it being the homophobes who keep losing at every turn

Agreed. People see what they want to see.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, we CAN. Being gay does not render you infertile.

No, the two of YOU can never create a child that share a common DNA. You either are deep in fantasy, or seriously OCD. You included "we" as though you are married to your sperm donor.

So, why no comment on the reasoning that the law only allows two to marry?

Which is not a requirement for marriage, civil or religious.

But it does show how different the two groups really are

 

[Pop23]

Yes, we CAN. Being gay does not render you infertile.

No, the two of YOU can never create a child that share a common DNA.

Irrelevant, as opposite-sex couples who are infertile are allowed to access marriage law.

And if that infertile opposite-sex couple should adopt, that child would be considered the same as their own offspring.

Rather than continuing to exhibit your ignorance and appear ridiculous, consider instead simply posting that you hate gay Americans and wish to disadvantage them in some manner, such as denying them access to marriage law they’re otherwise eligible to participate in.

Your emotional response is entertaining, but we have been down this road before. I have two adopted nieces. Neither share my brothers DNA

You seem to have a hatred for people who don't buy into you're fairy tales.

If I walk up to a store keeper and give him a dollar for an apple and he hands me an orange, it does not make the orange taste like an apple.

 

[Pop23]

Has it occurred to you that marriage as a contract, establishes a new entity in the eyes of the law? Marriage, as contract law, is a simple and convenient way to establish that next of kin relationship.

Multi-party contracts are more like a corporation. But, until this Supreme Court, corporations cannot avail themselves of the same legal protections and benefits as those entering a marriage contract.

You sound like a traditionalist. Many contracts allow for more than 2 participants. Any comment on why marriage was set up for just two? Makes sense for heterosexuals, but if the intent was to allow same sex to marry it makes no sense to limit the number. And why would the United States send troops into the Utah territory to insure that marriage was between a single male and a single female? Guess back then the federal government knew the intent, huh?

Marriage is a unique contract in that it establishes a next of kin relationship. Multi-party contracts cannot do this.

Part of that is to track bloodlines so that people don't marry being too closely related.

Agreed?

 

[bodecea]

That will not happen.



I have been in these discussions more times than I care to recount.



In the end, it nearly invariably boils down to the bennies.



You would not be looking to little pieces of paper issued by faceless, paper shuffling bureaucrats if you did not get some sort of thing, to which you believe yourself entitled.



But if little pieces of paper are what it takes to complete your life, the prisoner is you.

That little piece if paper is the difference between being treated as equal and being treated like 2nd class citizens. If it is of so little importance, why are folks fighting SO hard against us getting it?

Are you only contemptuous of gays marrying or all married people?

I know many heterosexual couples with children and not married. None of them have that piece of paper and none feel like second class citizens. Curious huh?

Watch what happens if one of them dies or they split up....custody and inheritance and ownership issues will be fun fun fun.

However, that being said...they have a choice to not marry if they don't wish to...tomorrow they could go down to the courthouse and get that license....

 

[Seawytch]

You sound like a traditionalist. Many contracts allow for more than 2 participants. Any comment on why marriage was set up for just two? Makes sense for heterosexuals, but if the intent was to allow same sex to marry it makes no sense to limit the number. And why would the United States send troops into the Utah territory to insure that marriage was between a single male and a single female? Guess back then the federal government knew the intent, huh?

Marriage is a unique contract in that it establishes a next of kin relationship. Multi-party contracts cannot do this.

Part of that is to track bloodlines so that people don't marry being too closely related.

Agreed?

Registries occured, partly, to "track bloodlines", but that is not the origin of civil marriage. The "gubmit" started getting involved over...wait for it...property.

 

[Seawytch]

No, the two of YOU can never create a child that share a common DNA.

Irrelevant, as opposite-sex couples who are infertile are allowed to access marriage law.

And if that infertile opposite-sex couple should adopt, that child would be considered the same as their own offspring.

Rather than continuing to exhibit your ignorance and appear ridiculous, consider instead simply posting that you hate gay Americans and wish to disadvantage them in some manner, such as denying them access to marriage law they’re otherwise eligible to participate in.

Your emotional response is entertaining, but we have been down this road before. I have two adopted nieces. Neither share my brothers DNA

You seem to have a hatred for people who don't buy into you're fairy tales.

If I walk up to a store keeper and give him a dollar for an apple and he hands me an orange, it does not make the orange taste like an apple.

If that is true then how can you argue that gays are inferior to straights because our children don't share both our DNA?

 

[Pop23]

Irrelevant, as opposite-sex couples who are infertile are allowed to access marriage law.

And if that infertile opposite-sex couple should adopt, that child would be considered the same as their own offspring.

Rather than continuing to exhibit your ignorance and appear ridiculous, consider instead simply posting that you hate gay Americans and wish to disadvantage them in some manner, such as denying them access to marriage law they’re otherwise eligible to participate in.

Your emotional response is entertaining, but we have been down this road before. I have two adopted nieces. Neither share my brothers DNA

You seem to have a hatred for people who don't buy into you're fairy tales.

If I walk up to a store keeper and give him a dollar for an apple and he hands me an orange, it does not make the orange taste like an apple.

If that is true then how can you argue that gays are inferior to straights because our children don't share both our DNA?

You keep taking left turns

We were talking marriage and the burdens one has and the other does not. Making one and Apple and the other an orange, or more to the point, one a car and the other a jet airplane.

 

[Seawytch]

Your emotional response is entertaining, but we have been down this road before. I have two adopted nieces. Neither share my brothers DNA

You seem to have a hatred for people who don't buy into you're fairy tales.

If I walk up to a store keeper and give him a dollar for an apple and he hands me an orange, it does not make the orange taste like an apple.

If that is true then how can you argue that gays are inferior to straights because our children don't share both our DNA?

You keep taking left turns

We were talking marriage and the burdens one has and the other does not. Making one and Apple and the other an orange, or more to the point, one a car and the other a jet airplane.

Okay, so we're talking marriage. You don't believe your brother and his wife should be able to marry because they didn't procreate naturally?

 

[Pop23]

If that is true then how can you argue that gays are inferior to straights because our children don't share both our DNA?

You keep taking left turns

We were talking marriage and the burdens one has and the other does not. Making one and Apple and the other an orange, or more to the point, one a car and the other a jet airplane.

Okay, so we're talking marriage. You don't believe your brother and his wife should be able to marry because they didn't procreate naturally?

You made a false assumption. They ALSO have natural born children. They took expensive steps so not to have more so they could afford to ALSO adopt.

See the burden of heterosexuality?

 

[Seawytch]

You keep taking left turns

We were talking marriage and the burdens one has and the other does not. Making one and Apple and the other an orange, or more to the point, one a car and the other a jet airplane.

Okay, so we're talking marriage. You don't believe your brother and his wife should be able to marry because they didn't procreate naturally?

You made a false assumption. They ALSO have natural born children. They took expensive steps so not to have more so they could afford to ALSO adopt.

See the burden of heterosexuality?

Oh, there you go...they get your special breeders license.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

No, it's not about the bennies. I just said go ahead and take away all tax benefits for legal marriage, I don't care. We will still want equal access to civil marriage. I got married, after all, before we could GET the bennies.

That will not happen.



I have been in these discussions more times than I care to recount.



In the end, it nearly invariably boils down to the bennies.



You would not be looking to little pieces of paper issued by faceless, paper shuffling bureaucrats if you did not get some sort of thing, to which you believe yourself entitled.



But if little pieces of paper are what it takes to complete your life, the prisoner is you.

That little piece if paper is the difference between being treated as equal and being treated like 2nd class citizens. If it is of so little importance, why are folks fighting SO hard against us getting it?

Are you only contemptuous of gays marrying or all married people?

Boy, you really have some self-esteem challenges. The obsessive need for some to obtain little pieces of paper from bureaucrats to validate themselves is terribly saddening.

Haven't given a moment's thought to the reality that it takes two to fight, have you?

 

[Freewill]

I'm amused that he thinks gays will lose despite it being the homophobes who keep losing at every turn

I'm a "liberalphobe", and I know I'm winning.

Here's the latest win against discrimination in this country:

Ohio will have to recognize gay marriages, judge says

Happened just 2 days ago.

I can understand how a homosexual like yourself enjoys this news. Once again you get to force YOUR religious beliefs on the majority. Once again the obvious will of the people has be thwarted by what I assume is another homosexual. Every time the question is left to the people homosexuals lose. But homosexual judges impose their will on the people.

No one cares that you are a homosexual. You don't have to keep it to yourself but I am not sure why homosexuals feel the need to parade their sexual proclivities down the main street. Why can't homosexuals, just be who you are without the need for validation by forcing every to accept the new definition of marriage?

BTW, you don't have the gonads to use an avatar with a depiction of Mohammad BPUH.

 

[Pop23]

Okay, so we're talking marriage. You don't believe your brother and his wife should be able to marry because they didn't procreate naturally?

You made a false assumption. They ALSO have natural born children. They took expensive steps so not to have more so they could afford to ALSO adopt.

See the burden of heterosexuality?

Oh, there you go...they get your special breeders license.

Your misrepresenting my position is both amusing and tiresome. I get the feeling you do this because you're are not capable of justifying you position.

My position is that what we have is a demographic that wants to fit in with another demographic, and the fit just does not work in the way you want it too.

The two groups are comprised of:

1. Heterosexual couples. A male and a female combining to make single unit. That unit contains all the components required for our species to progress.

2. Homosexual couples. Two same sex individuals that combine to create a single unit. This unit DOES NOT contain the components required for our species to progress.

Our need for a government exists because the species exists. The species exists because males breed with females, not because two of the same sex enjoy sex.

Traditional marriage existed to combine two individuals into one single unit that could create offspring within that unit. The offspring of this unit being important for the species and the government to continue.

Same sex marriage can never accomplish this within the defined unit. Just can't happen.

You will make the argument that you can use an outside source to provide the resource needed to create a child. But the demographic "same sex couples" MUST procreate in that manner, it has no choice.

The demographic "heterosexual couples" is self contained.

A vast difference that, until they create synthetic sperm or egg splicing creates a huge hurdle.

Sorry,

Never is a very long way from Always. Female/Female sex has NEVER created a child. Children ALWAYS come from Males in combination with females.

 

[bodecea]

I'm a "liberalphobe", and I know I'm winning.

Here's the latest win against discrimination in this country:

Ohio will have to recognize gay marriages, judge says

Happened just 2 days ago.

I can understand how a homosexual like yourself enjoys this news. Once again you get to force YOUR religious beliefs on the majority. Once again the obvious will of the people has be thwarted by what I assume is another homosexual. Every time the question is left to the people homosexuals lose. But homosexual judges impose their will on the people.

No one cares that you are a homosexual. You don't have to keep it to yourself but I am not sure why homosexuals feel the need to parade their sexual proclivities down the main street. Why can't homosexuals, just be who you are without the need for validation by forcing every to accept the new definition of marriage?

BTW, you don't have the gonads to use an avatar with a depiction of Mohammad BPUH.

Thank you for spelling the word "homosexual" correctly. So many times.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm a "liberalphobe", and I know I'm winning.

Here's the latest win against discrimination in this country:

Ohio will have to recognize gay marriages, judge says

Happened just 2 days ago.

I can understand how a homosexual like yourself enjoys this news. Once again you get to force YOUR religious beliefs on the majority. Once again the obvious will of the people has be thwarted by what I assume is another homosexual. Every time the question is left to the people homosexuals lose. But homosexual judges impose their will on the people.

No one cares that you are a homosexual. You don't have to keep it to yourself but I am not sure why homosexuals feel the need to parade their sexual proclivities down the main street. Why can't homosexuals, just be who you are without the need for validation by forcing every to accept the new definition of marriage?

BTW, you don't have the gonads to use an avatar with a depiction of Mohammad BPUH.

You see the reason to oppose a state permitting marriage equality as a matter of religion? You claim that homosexuals enjoy the news of expanding equality as a means of forcing a religious belief upon others.

Religion has nothing to do with it. Marriage equality does not force any religious agenda. It is a matter of civil rights. Secular rights.

 

[Seawytch]

That will not happen.







I have been in these discussions more times than I care to recount.







In the end, it nearly invariably boils down to the bennies.







You would not be looking to little pieces of paper issued by faceless, paper shuffling bureaucrats if you did not get some sort of thing, to which you believe yourself entitled.







But if little pieces of paper are what it takes to complete your life, the prisoner is you.

That little piece if paper is the difference between being treated as equal and being treated like 2nd class citizens. If it is of so little importance, why are folks fighting SO hard against us getting it?



Are you only contemptuous of gays marrying or all married people?

Boy, you really have some self-esteem challenges. The obsessive need for some to obtain little pieces of paper from bureaucrats to validate themselves is terribly saddening.



Haven't given a moment's thought to the reality that it takes two to fight, have you?

So you think the Lovings were lacking self esteem?

 

[bodecea]

I'm a "liberalphobe", and I know I'm winning.

Here's the latest win against discrimination in this country:

Ohio will have to recognize gay marriages, judge says

Happened just 2 days ago.

I can understand how a homosexual like yourself enjoys this news. Once again you get to force YOUR religious beliefs on the majority. Once again the obvious will of the people has be thwarted by what I assume is another homosexual. Every time the question is left to the people homosexuals lose. But homosexual judges impose their will on the people.

No one cares that you are a homosexual. You don't have to keep it to yourself but I am not sure why homosexuals feel the need to parade their sexual proclivities down the main street. Why can't homosexuals, just be who you are without the need for validation by forcing every to accept the new definition of marriage?

BTW, you don't have the gonads to use an avatar with a depiction of Mohammad BPUH.

Interesting....so, when a christian gets legally married, they are forcing THEIR religious beliefs on everyone else?

And when a buddhist gets legally married, they are forcing THIER religious beliefs on everyone else?

And when an atheist gets legally married, they are forcing THEIR religious beliefs on everyone else?

 

[bodecea]

That little piece if paper is the difference between being treated as equal and being treated like 2nd class citizens. If it is of so little importance, why are folks fighting SO hard against us getting it?



Are you only contemptuous of gays marrying or all married people?

Boy, you really have some self-esteem challenges. The obsessive need for some to obtain little pieces of paper from bureaucrats to validate themselves is terribly saddening.



Haven't given a moment's thought to the reality that it takes two to fight, have you?

So you think the Lovings were lacking self esteem?

Apparently, anyone who seeks that piece of paper is lacking in esteem, eh?

 

[Seawytch]

Boy, you really have some self-esteem challenges. The obsessive need for some to obtain little pieces of paper from bureaucrats to validate themselves is terribly saddening.







Haven't given a moment's thought to the reality that it takes two to fight, have you?

So you think the Lovings were lacking self esteem?

Apparently, anyone who seeks that piece of paper is lacking in esteem, eh?

Wow...that's A LOT of people.