Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[bripat9643]

You've just engaged in motivated reasoning in this comment. I don't think it's fruitful to continue any further. You're going to stick to your beliefs no matter what and I've now had first hand experience in two threads with you. I know all I need to at this point.

It always gets to that point. You can beat these homos over the head with logic, but once they get to the point where their logic fails, they just keep muttering "Nuh Uhn!." From then the only thing you can do is ridicule them.

 

[bodecea]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

There most certainly is...it's called equal protection under the law. If opposite gender couples have legal marriage, per the 14th amendment, same gender couples cannot be denied the same protections afforded under a legal marriage license.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah, you're all finished.

You're very comfortable putting words into the mouths of gay parents, you're very comfortable telling everyone else what they will teach their hypothetical 9-year-old children, but you refuse to tell anyone how you would educate your kids about sex. Suddenly, this isn't about you. Suddenly, I'm "dictating" the conversation.

I can't dictate what kind of sick **** you are, I can only observe your sick fuckedness.

Enjoy your night.

I will enjoy my night, thank you.

Ricechickie exposed ricechickie, you described heterosexual parents teachings as indoctrination, correct that if that is not what you meant.

Ricechickie also stated heterosexuals can not describe our intimacy with our wife to our children.

I will sleep good knowing all is quoted and saved so that those who read without posting, know the facts as well as the tactics of those who are homosexual activists.

The Icing on the Cake is when I asked a specific relevant question in which if anyone answered, would show their views contradictory to their position.

I am a sick ****, proven here, as ricechickie states, should sick - ****'s adopt 9 year old boys, and remember, I am gay, so as a gay sick ****, should I be allowed to adopt 9 year old boys?

Once again, a question put to ricechickie,

Is English not your first language? That would explain a lot.

Here is the perception of what YOU are saying:

Elektra: Gays should not be able to adopt because they have sex

Explain to us how we got that wrong, because that is what I've gotten out of your posts. You seem to think that gays cannot have children because they have sex, but you have no problem with straights having children and sex. Explain this double standard to us, please.

Same sex coupling is a form of sex, like a tricycle is a form of transportation.

Learn to ride a trike and you think you deserve a pilots license.

So, you think the government should rank kinds of sex and award marriage licenses based on what kind of sex one can or does perform?

It already does.

Oh...so missionary position sex gets a different license than oral sex gets?

 

[Pop23]

I will enjoy my night, thank you.

Ricechickie exposed ricechickie, you described heterosexual parents teachings as indoctrination, correct that if that is not what you meant.

Ricechickie also stated heterosexuals can not describe our intimacy with our wife to our children.

I will sleep good knowing all is quoted and saved so that those who read without posting, know the facts as well as the tactics of those who are homosexual activists.

The Icing on the Cake is when I asked a specific relevant question in which if anyone answered, would show their views contradictory to their position.

I am a sick ****, proven here, as ricechickie states, should sick - ****'s adopt 9 year old boys, and remember, I am gay, so as a gay sick ****, should I be allowed to adopt 9 year old boys?

Once again, a question put to ricechickie,

Is English not your first language? That would explain a lot.

Here is the perception of what YOU are saying:

Elektra: Gays should not be able to adopt because they have sex

Explain to us how we got that wrong, because that is what I've gotten out of your posts. You seem to think that gays cannot have children because they have sex, but you have no problem with straights having children and sex. Explain this double standard to us, please.

Same sex coupling is a form of sex, like a tricycle is a form of transportation.

Learn to ride a trike and you think you deserve a pilots license.

So, you think the government should rank kinds of sex and award marriage licenses based on what kind of sex one can or does perform?

It already does.

Oh...so missionary position sex gets a different license than oral sex gets?

One, when performed by opposing genders can, and often does created population, the other is a form of masturbation.

What about the above do you not understand

That is why a tricycle and a jet are both referred to as modes of transportation, but only one required a license.

Are you really that simple?

 

[bodecea]

Is English not your first language? That would explain a lot.

Here is the perception of what YOU are saying:

Elektra: Gays should not be able to adopt because they have sex

Explain to us how we got that wrong, because that is what I've gotten out of your posts. You seem to think that gays cannot have children because they have sex, but you have no problem with straights having children and sex. Explain this double standard to us, please.

Same sex coupling is a form of sex, like a tricycle is a form of transportation.

Learn to ride a trike and you think you deserve a pilots license.

So, you think the government should rank kinds of sex and award marriage licenses based on what kind of sex one can or does perform?

It already does.

Oh...so missionary position sex gets a different license than oral sex gets?

One, when performed by opposing genders can, and often does created population, the other is a form of masturbation.

What about the above do you not understand

That is why a tricycle and a jet are both referred to as modes of transportation, but only one required a license.

Are you really that simple?

Again, you are focussed on procreation which is not necessary for legal marriage for not one state requires procreation for getting a marriage license. Once some state does make that requirement, get back to us.

 

[bripat9643]

Is English not your first language? That would explain a lot.

Here is the perception of what YOU are saying:

Elektra: Gays should not be able to adopt because they have sex

Explain to us how we got that wrong, because that is what I've gotten out of your posts. You seem to think that gays cannot have children because they have sex, but you have no problem with straights having children and sex. Explain this double standard to us, please.

Same sex coupling is a form of sex, like a tricycle is a form of transportation.

Learn to ride a trike and you think you deserve a pilots license.

So, you think the government should rank kinds of sex and award marriage licenses based on what kind of sex one can or does perform?

It already does.

Oh...so missionary position sex gets a different license than oral sex gets?

One, when performed by opposing genders can, and often does created population, the other is a form of masturbation.

What about the above do you not understand

That is why a tricycle and a jet are both referred to as modes of transportation, but only one required a license.

Are you really that simple?

Yes, she is. When they know they have lost the point, they pretend to be stupid and incapable of committing logic.

 

[bripat9643]

Same sex coupling is a form of sex, like a tricycle is a form of transportation.

Learn to ride a trike and you think you deserve a pilots license.

So, you think the government should rank kinds of sex and award marriage licenses based on what kind of sex one can or does perform?

It already does.

Oh...so missionary position sex gets a different license than oral sex gets?

One, when performed by opposing genders can, and often does created population, the other is a form of masturbation.

What about the above do you not understand

That is why a tricycle and a jet are both referred to as modes of transportation, but only one required a license.

Are you really that simple?

Again, you are focussed on procreation which is not necessary for legal marriage for not one state requires procreation for getting a marriage license. Once some state does make that requirement, get back to us.

Being an adult isn't "necessary" for legal marriage. In fact, being human isn't even necessary. The legislature can pass any kind of legislation it wants regarding legal marriage. The issue here isn't what's necessary but what's desirable and useful. There's nothing useful or desirable about gay marriage. It has no social utility of any kind.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

There most certainly is...it's called equal protection under the law. If opposite gender couples have legal marriage, per the 14th amendment, same gender couples cannot be denied the same protections afforded under a legal marriage license.

Wrong. Laws are preferentially applied because of gender all the time. For instance, there are building codes regarding the design of bathrooms in public buildings. The specifications for women's bathrooms are different than the specifications for men's bathrooms.

 

[Seawytch]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

Actually, the rational judges are ruling against what voters and legislators did. Voters have changed their minds too since those initiatives passed.

Civil Rights should never be put to majority vote.

 

[Pop23]

So, you think the government should rank kinds of sex and award marriage licenses based on what kind of sex one can or does perform?

It already does.

Oh...so missionary position sex gets a different license than oral sex gets?

One, when performed by opposing genders can, and often does created population, the other is a form of masturbation.

What about the above do you not understand

That is why a tricycle and a jet are both referred to as modes of transportation, but only one required a license.

Are you really that simple?

Again, you are focussed on procreation which is not necessary for legal marriage for not one state requires procreation for getting a marriage license. Once some state does make that requirement, get back to us.

Being an adult isn't "necessary" for legal marriage. In fact, being human isn't even necessary. The legislature can pass any kind of legislation it wants regarding legal marriage. The issue here isn't what's necessary but what's desirable and useful. There's nothing useful or desirable about gay marriage. It has no social utility of any kind.

Point in case, in the time of war, soldiers are required to protect the union, same sex coupling cannot produce a single soldier. After war, replacing population is required to properly replenish the armed forces (see France after WWI). Same sex coupling cannot replenish the ranks.

Simpletons see no value in heterosexual coupling, or minimize it to those couples who's only sexual gratification are forms of masturbation, but reality is.....

Heterosexuality is key to everything, short and long term.

 

[bodecea]

So, you think the government should rank kinds of sex and award marriage licenses based on what kind of sex one can or does perform?

It already does.

Oh...so missionary position sex gets a different license than oral sex gets?

One, when performed by opposing genders can, and often does created population, the other is a form of masturbation.

What about the above do you not understand

That is why a tricycle and a jet are both referred to as modes of transportation, but only one required a license.

Are you really that simple?

Again, you are focussed on procreation which is not necessary for legal marriage for not one state requires procreation for getting a marriage license. Once some state does make that requirement, get back to us.

Being an adult isn't "necessary" for legal marriage. In fact, being human isn't even necessary. The legislature can pass any kind of legislation it wants regarding legal marriage. The issue here isn't what's necessary but what's desirable and useful. There's nothing useful or desirable about gay marriage. It has no social utility of any kind.

Oh?

 

[Silhouette]

... you are focussed on procreation which is not necessary for legal marriage for not one state requires procreation for getting a marriage license. Once some state does make that requirement, get back to us.

However in Utah and other states, you are required to be married in order to adopt if you are cohabitating with another person. It's not whether or not you can procreate, but whether or not you are married that affects adoption in some states. They want to encourage a strong commitment and marriage is a legally-binding commitment that is more difficult to get out of than merely announcing "I'm moving out".

And before I hear anything about "how strong a committment gays have with each other", we need to consider other factors with regards to children that marriage is so very important for. Like how bodecea and Seawytch haven't stood up to denounce gay pride parades that do lewd acts where they hope kids will be watching. Or how they haven't stood up to denounce Harvey Milk as the LGBT icon in California where they both reside. Both these acts of passive submission to that culture's value system is highly problematic for gays accessing adoptable orphans via the legal-loophole they're wanting in "gay marriage".

 

[bodecea]

It already does.

Oh...so missionary position sex gets a different license than oral sex gets?

One, when performed by opposing genders can, and often does created population, the other is a form of masturbation.

What about the above do you not understand

That is why a tricycle and a jet are both referred to as modes of transportation, but only one required a license.

Are you really that simple?

Again, you are focussed on procreation which is not necessary for legal marriage for not one state requires procreation for getting a marriage license. Once some state does make that requirement, get back to us.

Being an adult isn't "necessary" for legal marriage. In fact, being human isn't even necessary. The legislature can pass any kind of legislation it wants regarding legal marriage. The issue here isn't what's necessary but what's desirable and useful. There's nothing useful or desirable about gay marriage. It has no social utility of any kind.

Point in case, in the time of war, soldiers are required to protect the union, same sex coupling cannot produce a single soldier. After war, replacing population is required to properly replenish the armed forces (see France after WWI). Same sex coupling cannot replenish the ranks.

Simpletons see no value in heterosexual coupling, or minimize it to those couples who's only sexual gratification are forms of masturbation, but reality is.....

Heterosexuality is key to everything, short and long term.

And how big a dent in the population do you anticipate homosexual marriage making?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

Actually, the rational judges are ruling against what voters and legislators did. Voters have changed their minds too since those initiatives passed.

Civil Rights should never be put to majority vote.

Those aren't rational judges. They are partisan hacks. There is no civil right for gay people to marry. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and that's all it will ever be. So called "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

 

[bendog]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

There most certainly is...it's called equal protection under the law. If opposite gender couples have legal marriage, per the 14th amendment, same gender couples cannot be denied the same protections afforded under a legal marriage license.

Wrong. Laws are preferentially applied because of gender all the time. For instance, there are building codes regarding the design of bathrooms in public buildings. The specifications for women's bathrooms are different than the specifications for men's bathrooms.

What's frightening about this isn't the irrational comparison parodying logic, but the fact someone agreed with it. LOL

 

[Silhouette]

... you are focussed on procreation which is not necessary for legal marriage for not one state requires procreation for getting a marriage license. Once some state does make that requirement, get back to us.

However in Utah and other states, you are required to be married in order to adopt if you are cohabitating with another person. It's not whether or not you can procreate, but whether or not you are married that affects adoption in some states. They want to encourage a strong commitment and marriage is a legally-binding commitment that is more difficult to get out of than merely announcing "I'm moving out".

And before I hear anything about "how strong a committment gays have with each other", we need to consider other factors with regards to children that marriage is so very important for. Like how bodecea and Seawytch haven't stood up to denounce gay pride parades that do lewd acts where they hope kids will be watching. Or how they haven't stood up to denounce Harvey Milk as the LGBT icon in California where they both reside. Both these acts of passive submission to that culture's value system is highly problematic for gays accessing adoptable orphans via the legal-loophole they're wanting in "gay marriage".

^^
Still waiting for bodecea's reply ...lol..

 

[bendog]

Why would anyone bother to reply? Your drivel is based upon crackpot websites. Gay pride parades are now corporate sponsored events. No doubt there are some idiots in the gay pride attendees, but your entire "thought process" is just more of your exhibition of your intolerance and frankly creepy obsession with other people's sexuality.

 

[Seawytch]

Same sex coupling is a form of sex, like a tricycle is a form of transportation.

Learn to ride a trike and you think you deserve a pilots license.

So, you think the government should rank kinds of sex and award marriage licenses based on what kind of sex one can or does perform?

It already does.

Oh...so missionary position sex gets a different license than oral sex gets?

One, when performed by opposing genders can, and often does created population, the other is a form of masturbation.

What about the above do you not understand

That is why a tricycle and a jet are both referred to as modes of transportation, but only one required a license.

Are you really that simple?

Yes, she is. When they know they have lost the point, they pretend to be stupid and incapable of committing logic.

Says the individual ridiculously arguing that procreation has anything to do with civil marriage. What state requires procreation for a marriage license? None is it?

 

[Seawytch]

Yes Pop, we have sex, we have relationships and we have children. We also have legal civil marriage in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Our inability to procreate with each other, is not a consideration in whether or not we achieve marriage equality. Your strawman is irrelevant and your analogy way off. It is more like you wish to deny me a license because my car runs on something other than gasoline.

It may not be a consideration for you, but it is a consideration for the voters and for rational people. The is no rational basis to extend marriage to gay couples. None.

Actually, the rational judges are ruling against what voters and legislators did. Voters have changed their minds too since those initiatives passed.

Civil Rights should never be put to majority vote.

Those aren't rational judges. They are partisan hacks. There is no civil right for gay people to marry. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and that's all it will ever be. So called "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

Riiiggght...despite the FACT that judges appointed by both Democrats and Republicans have ruled for marriage equality..."procreation boy" calls them partisan.

 

[Silhouette]

Why would anyone bother to reply? Your drivel is based upon crackpot websites. Gay pride parades are now corporate sponsored events. No doubt there are some idiots in the gay pride attendees, but your entire "thought process" is just more of your exhibition of your intolerance and frankly creepy obsession with other people's sexuality.

Well if you're addressing me, I'm not the one putting on gay sex act parades and inviting children to attend. It would be harder indeed to be obsessed with the topic if it wasn't on parade in front of kids on main street, wouldn't you say? I think you're placing the blame for all the exposure of the topic on the wrong person...lol..