60 Percent Of Americans Soon Will Live In States With Marriage Equality

[Syriusly]

If George Carlin was still alive, he would just be tearing this issue up. Marriage Equality? That's like Pet Sincerity parking or Oval circularity day. The Idea of gays needing a special right to marry each other is so contrived as to be a joke. Why take this seriously?

In a way you are correct- gays don't need a special right- they just are asking to be treated the same as heterosexual couples.

Marriage is marriage- what same gender couples are fighting for is being treated legally the same as my wife and I.

 

[Syriusly]

What's obvious is that same sex couplings create zero children.

The fact that my kind does, makes your delusions, and your assertions laughable.

The obvious problem with your reasoning being that marriage doesn't requuire children or the ability to have them. A full 25% of marriages never produce children.

Nor are marriages the only way to produce children. Nor are biological children the only way to have a family. One can adopt.

All of which you ignore. But there's no reason a rational person ever would.

A full 100% of same sex couplings produce children.

The law can't change biology.

You can kick and scream till the cows come home, the two demographic groups are nowhere near the same.

LOL...you got that wrong but it is amusing- and completely as irrelevant as the rest of your posts.

Meanwhile your side keeps losing.

 

[Politico]

No, the bigotry was based on a superficial trait. This is not about a superficial trait.

We KNOW mixed races can procreate. We also KNOW same sex couplings can't.

You are as ignorant and bigoted as they were. They didn't see their bigotry and you don't see yours. Same bigots, different day and target. You're in fine company, bigot.

Your delusions make it impossible for you to see the obvious

That is your problem.

If you can't create another enabler, THEY must be a bigot

That is the problem with enablers, the delusioned never get past the delusions.

Pity really

The "obvious" is that procreation has never been required for civil marriage and yet you want to make it one only for gays (who can and do procreate). That makes you an anti gay bigot. Wear it proudly old fella.

What's obvious is that same sex couplings create zero children.

The fact that my kind does, makes your delusions, and your assertions laughable.

The argument that fails every time in court.

Well since the laws were legislated I can see your position. In any case there has never been any argument to have. Two women nor two men can make a baby.

 

[Syriusly]

You are as ignorant and bigoted as they were. They didn't see their bigotry and you don't see yours. Same bigots, different day and target. You're in fine company, bigot.

Your delusions make it impossible for you to see the obvious

That is your problem.

If you can't create another enabler, THEY must be a bigot

That is the problem with enablers, the delusioned never get past the delusions.

Pity really

The "obvious" is that procreation has never been required for civil marriage and yet you want to make it one only for gays (who can and do procreate). That makes you an anti gay bigot. Wear it proudly old fella.

What's obvious is that same sex couplings create zero children.

The fact that my kind does, makes your delusions, and your assertions laughable.

The argument that fails every time in court.

Well since the laws were legislated I can see your position. In any case there has never been any argument to have. Two women nor two men can make a baby.

I am not sure what your point is.

No one is arguing that two women or two men can have a natural child together.

No more than an infertile couple can have a natural child together.

 

[Politico]

The point is a same sex couple cannot produce children together. Infertility has nothing to do with the discussion. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

 

[Skylar]

The point is a same sex couple cannot produce children together. Infertility has nothing to do with the discussion. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

The point is that the ability to have children isn't a requirement of marriage and applies to no one. Why then would a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one prevent gays and lesbians from marrying?

It obviously wouldn't.

 

[Politico]

I wasn't arguing whether it was a requirement or whether there should be a standard. If anyone here seems obsessed with that it is you.

 

[Syriusly]

The point is a same sex couple cannot produce children together. Infertility has nothing to do with the discussion. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

And an infertile couple cannot produce children together.

Again- what point are you trying to make.

No one is arguing that same sex couples or infertile couples can produce children together.

 

[Skylar]

I wasn't arguing whether it was a requirement or whether there should be a standard. If anyone here seems obsessed with that it is you.

Then the inability to produce children is a non-issue in determining the validity of a marriage.

 

[Politico]

Yes it is a fact we are in agreement. Again why are you obsessing over it?

 

[Seawytch]

Nope...but yours is obvious for all to see. Not a single couple in the history of the United States has ever had to procreate in order to civilly marry...nor has any civil marriage been rendered null and void for an inability or even an unwillingness to have children. Couples marry ALL THE TIME that never have any intention or even ability to have children...but you don't want to keep them from civil marriage, only the gays.

About 1 in 4 marriages never result in kids. If the institution of marriage can survive 25% of marriages failing to meet the imaginary 'children are the purpose of marriage' standard, then surely it can survive gays and lesbians failing to meet the same imaginary standard.

Not to mention the fact that a quarter of gay couples are raising children.

 

[Seawytch]

The point is a same sex couple cannot produce children together. Infertility has nothing to do with the discussion. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

It is a "point" that has no bearing on civil marriage...Not sure why that's so hard for bigots to understand.

 

[Redfish]

What skylark says is bull and falsehoods and concoctions about what states want to do, as usual from Leftists. And what the other Ss don't git is that sexual orientation is a choice not a human condition,

Hmmm not my experience. I have never been attracted to men. Even as a child- even before I knew about sex I liked women.

And do to this day- the way they smell, their curves, everything. I could never 'choose' to be attracted to a man. That is just one of the reasons I am happily married to my wife for over 20 years.

But for you, you believe it is a choice?

Could you chose to be attracted to the same gender? Assuming you are a man, could you decide to look at a picture of Brad Pitt and think "Man I would love to get boned by him"?

Of course you could- and maybe you have- chose to have sex with someone of the same gender without actually being attracted to them- but homosexuality- and heterosexuality- is about which gender you are sexually attracted to- when I walk down the street, I check out women's shapes- not mens.

What about you? Tell us how your orientation is a choice for you.

I am very sorry, but homosexuality is a genetic abnormality. It is a violation of mammalian biology.

I am glad that you and wytchey are a happy couple, but no matter how many times you say you are normal, you aren't. We still care about you and want you to have equality and a good life. But your union is NOT a marriage. Your attempt to mandate societal acceptance of abnormality as normal will not work.

 

[Redfish]

To believe that something is wrong, is not prejudice. Its a belief based on knowledge of human biology.

And what does 'human biology' have to do with the validity of marriage? I've studied biology. There's no mention of marriage anywhere.
And in 0 of 50 states is a couple required to have children or to be able to have children in order to get married. 1 in 4 marriages never result in children. Why then would gay marriage be 'wrong' for failing to meet a legal standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

In short, why would gay marriage be 'wrong'?

the voters in 30 states voted to ban gay marriage. A society decides what it considers right or wrong by majority vote.

This is not a constitutional issue. It is a cultural issue. Let the people decide and get on with life. This country has much more serious problems than whether it calls a gay union a marriage.

 

[Redfish]

The point is a same sex couple cannot produce children together. Infertility has nothing to do with the discussion. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

It is a "point" that has no bearing on civil marriage...Not sure why that's so hard for bigots to understand.

sorry, wytch. But on that point you are the bigot.

 

[Seawytch]

The point is a same sex couple cannot produce children together. Infertility has nothing to do with the discussion. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

It is a "point" that has no bearing on civil marriage...Not sure why that's so hard for bigots to understand.

sorry, wytch. But on that point you are the bigot.

Oh, you'll have to explain that one Fishy.

 

[Redfish]

I wasn't arguing whether it was a requirement or whether there should be a standard. If anyone here seems obsessed with that it is you.

Then the inability to produce children is a non-issue in determining the validity of a marriage.

the only issue here is whether the American society as a whole wants to call gay unions marriages.

Gays claim that their issue is equality, but its not. The gay issue is about only one thing, the use of the word "marriage".

That is their agenda because they want to mandate societal acceptance of a lifestyle that a majority of human beings consider abnormal, deviant, or just plain wrong.

Thats the issue. The rest of this is bullshit.

 

[Redfish]

The point is a same sex couple cannot produce children together. Infertility has nothing to do with the discussion. Not sure why that's hard to understand.

It is a "point" that has no bearing on civil marriage...Not sure why that's so hard for bigots to understand.

sorry, wytch. But on that point you are the bigot.

Oh, you'll have to explain that one Fishy.

bigoted = intolerant of the views of others if those views differ from yours.

 

[Pop23]

What's obvious is that same sex couplings create zero children.

The fact that my kind does, makes your delusions, and your assertions laughable.

The obvious problem with your reasoning being that marriage doesn't requuire children or the ability to have them. A full 25% of marriages never produce children.

Nor are marriages the only way to produce children. Nor are biological children the only way to have a family. One can adopt.

All of which you ignore. But there's no reason a rational person ever would.

A full 100% of same sex couplings produce children.

The law can't change biology.

You can kick and scream till the cows come home, the two demographic groups are nowhere near the same.

LOL...you got that wrong but it is amusing- and completely as irrelevant as the rest of your posts.

Meanwhile your side keeps losing.

Thanks for noticing the error.

To correct, a full 0% of same sex coupling has ever resulted in the creation of a child.

If that doesn't show that the two demographic groups are dynamically different, well, nothing will.

 

[Pop23]

Your delusions make it impossible for you to see the obvious

That is your problem.

If you can't create another enabler, THEY must be a bigot

That is the problem with enablers, the delusioned never get past the delusions.

Pity really

The "obvious" is that procreation has never been required for civil marriage and yet you want to make it one only for gays (who can and do procreate). That makes you an anti gay bigot. Wear it proudly old fella.

What's obvious is that same sex couplings create zero children.

The fact that my kind does, makes your delusions, and your assertions laughable.

The argument that fails every time in court.

Well since the laws were legislated I can see your position. In any case there has never been any argument to have. Two women nor two men can make a baby.

I am not sure what your point is.

No one is arguing that two women or two men can have a natural child together.

No more than an infertile couple can have a natural child together.

Of the two specific demographic groups, one DOES, the other DOES NOT.

That makes the dynamics of the relationships remarkably different.