Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[ShackledNation]

Pure bullshit. Wiv

So you've got nothing. Well, I should have guessed. Since you have nothing of substance to say, this discussion is over.

It was never a conversation, I am simply pointing out your misunderstanding and ignorance.

You think that historically marriage was the equivalent of slavery,

you have taken this thread so far from the op the only thing left is to point towards your post, and state the fact....

bullshit

Women used to be considered no more than property in a marriage. Is that akin to slavery or isn't it?

Thus one of the main original reasons for marriage. In fact, the whole tradition of the father walking the bride down the aisle and handing her off to the husband started as a transfer of property.

Exactly. But these people don't care about tradition. It is clear they are motivated by animus and nothing more.

 

[bripat9643]

With 32 states pushing the US Supreme Court to make a final decision on gay marriage, how heavily will the welfare of children weigh in on that debate?

Are children a part of the gay marriage discussion? Well, the Europeans think so... European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What do you believe? Vote the poll.

the "creation" of marriage has nothing to do with children and everything to do with property. children are not part of the equation. should they be?

That's utter horseshit. Property is only an issue because wives and children make the disposition of your property an issue.

false. apparently your knowledge of history is nonexistent, as well.

Prove it.

 

[bripat9643]

Whether it's all mechanics isn't the issue. The fact is that the mechanics make it impossible for a true homosexual to have sex with a woman.

No it doesn't and you're a fool to think it does.

Since you insist on debating the issue, we'll have to get down to the nitty gritty. How does a homosexual have sex with a woman if he can't get an erection?

He can get one....he just has to think of someone else when he's doing it.

I could never get an erection if some male wanted to have sex with me, so how could a homosexual get an erection when trying to have sex with a woman. The idea of having sex with a man is a big turn off. It's creepy and disgusting.

You obviously don't know what the **** you're talking about.

Oh, you'd be surprised. Close your eyes and you don't care whose lips are on your dick...and your dick sure as he'll doesn't care.

You can have an orgasm with the aid of an inanimate object...that does not made you an objectophile.

Please spare us your lurid fantasies. I certainly would care. I don't get turned on staring at some guy's harry ass. That's the bottom line.

 

[Pop23]

In prison or out, they are gay or bisexual.

Doesn't take rocket surgery to figure that out.

Now for your example

Any lesbian (coughs) that has sex with men every day are:

A. Bisexual

B. A hooker

C. Being held hostage and forced to have sex daily. (If it's ISIS and you see a video camera being brought in, you will not worry about the sex tomorrow)

D. A bisexual hooker being held hostage and forced to have sex with a man daily.

Pick one

Your ignorance is truly astounding. I pity you that you can't separate sex from sexuality.

I'm smart enough to know the difference between a lesbo and a bisexual.

What you got against bisexuals? Aren't they part of the LGBTQ LMNOPs?

You may understand the technical difference in terms but you don't understand sexuality.

You think the act of sex defines the person. I'm sad for you.

Pure bullshit. Wiv

So you've got nothing. Well, I should have guessed. Since you have nothing of substance to say, this discussion is over.

There was never discussion, you pontified.

Bullshit means the discussion is over, idiot. Bullshit means that what you posted is so far removed from reality as well as from the premise of the thread that the only thing left is to point that out by simply stating, bullshit.

ShackledNation, your posts are all bullshit, they are simple rubbish.

There is no response other than to call, bullshit, when someone just posts a litany of false premises.

children, they have no voice within ShackledNation 's ignorance

You speak of which you know nothing.

^^^pure projection*^^^

Every one if your "arguments" has crumbled like a cookie.

You think gays are icky and shouldn't have children. You lose.

Seems to me she makes sense. You dance around every issue, this poster hits the nail on the head each and every time.

I know that hurts, but get used to it.

Well you inadvertently got the word .... "head."

Now you're contributing!

Good for you

 

[Seawytch]

With 32 states pushing the US Supreme Court to make a final decision on gay marriage, how heavily will the welfare of children weigh in on that debate?

Are children a part of the gay marriage discussion? Well, the Europeans think so... European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What do you believe? Vote the poll.

the "creation" of marriage has nothing to do with children and everything to do with property. children are not part of the equation. should they be?

That's utter horseshit. Property is only an issue because wives and children make the disposition of your property an issue.

Look up the first court cases regarding marriage. Tell us what they were about.

What cases would those be, the ones during the Roman Empire? Why don't you cite one of these court cases you're referring to?

Nope...this is the US and we're talking US law. What were the first US court cases about?

 

[bripat9643]

Pure bullshit. Wiv

So you've got nothing. Well, I should have guessed. Since you have nothing of substance to say, this discussion is over.

It was never a conversation, I am simply pointing out your misunderstanding and ignorance.

You think that historically marriage was the equivalent of slavery,

you have taken this thread so far from the op the only thing left is to point towards your post, and state the fact....

bullshit

Women used to be considered no more than property in a marriage. Is that akin to slavery or isn't it?

Thus one of the main original reasons for marriage. In fact, the whole tradition of the father walking the bride down the aisle and handing her off to the husband started as a transfer of property.

Exactly. But these people don't care about tradition. It is clear they are motivated by animus and nothing more.

What could be more ridiculous than some apologist for "gay marriage" whining about tradition?

 

[elektra]

Sad, I think it is beyond belief that people refuse to allow children to have a voice, children who are to be adopted.

A decent society would guarantee a mom and dad to orphaned children.

It is simple, a child learns from a healthy, natural family. A child needs a man and woman to learn. Sure, many overcome single parent families, but nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family.

Homosexuals and the Activists will never know the truth, for they have chosen and live a life in which they never see the intricate dynamics lived between father, mother and the children.

everything you say is counter to the reality.

as for your absurd comment "nothing beats Christmas with parents and grandparents who have literally given birth to the family" may be one of the more ignorant things I've ever heard.

I'm also not sure how this type of nonsense has anything to do with WHETHER children should be part of the discussion in terms of gay marriage. (which i'm pretty sure is a troll topic, anyway).

Counter to the reality you live,

And I am sorry you do not know a family Christmas.

 

[bripat9643]

With 32 states pushing the US Supreme Court to make a final decision on gay marriage, how heavily will the welfare of children weigh in on that debate?

Are children a part of the gay marriage discussion? Well, the Europeans think so... European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What do you believe? Vote the poll.

the "creation" of marriage has nothing to do with children and everything to do with property. children are not part of the equation. should they be?

That's utter horseshit. Property is only an issue because wives and children make the disposition of your property an issue.

Look up the first court cases regarding marriage. Tell us what they were about.

What cases would those be, the ones during the Roman Empire? Why don't you cite one of these court cases you're referring to?

Nope...this is the US and we're talking US law. What were the first US court cases about?

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

 

[ShackledNation]

Pure bullshit. Wiv

So you've got nothing. Well, I should have guessed. Since you have nothing of substance to say, this discussion is over.

There was never discussion, you pontified.

Bullshit means the discussion is over, idiot. Bullshit means that what you posted is so far removed from reality as well as from the premise of the thread that the only thing left is to point that out by simply stating, bullshit.

ShackledNation, your posts are all bullshit, they are simple rubbish.

There is no response other than to call, bullshit, when someone just posts a litany of false premises.

children, they have no voice within ShackledNation 's ignorance

You speak of which you know nothing.

Like I thought, nothing. Just personal attacks. Typical.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't get turned on staring at some guy's harry ass. That's the bottom line.

Exactly...and you're still missing the point, obviously. (Which solidifies my point about your ignorance)

You would not be turned on but you could still close your eyes and get it up. Your dick doesn't care, your mind does.

 

[Seawytch]

the "creation" of marriage has nothing to do with children and everything to do with property. children are not part of the equation. should they be?

That's utter horseshit. Property is only an issue because wives and children make the disposition of your property an issue.

Look up the first court cases regarding marriage. Tell us what they were about.

What cases would those be, the ones during the Roman Empire? Why don't you cite one of these court cases you're referring to?

Nope...this is the US and we're talking US law. What were the first US court cases about?

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

 

[Pop23]

You really are dense.

If it's for birth control you had better be able to produce the name of a single child born by a lesbian coupling.

Do you not understand the meaning of birth control?

Let me help ya

It's used to stop a female from getting pregnant FROM INTERCOURSE.

Do you deny that women take birth control pills to control their periods? Or maybe that is too hard for you to understand. Do women take birth control pills to control their periods?

I've never denied that women will take the pill to control their periods, or that they take the pill to control acne. But lesbians that take the pill for birth control MUST NOT BE LESBIANS.

Do you even understand what you are doing to yourself?

Have any idea where babies come from?

Here's a clue.

Two women having sex cannot make each other pregnant. Neither has sperm. SO NO BIRTH CONTROL IS EVER REQUIRED.

Jesus Man, save yourself from looking the board idiot.

Cite where I said lesbians take birth control pills "for birth control." I never did. That was your own pathetic strawman.

You responded to my statement that only heterosexual couples must endure the risk and expense of birth control.

You danced around that by stating that lesbians use some lesbians use birth control pills to control periods.

They ARE not used for the control of birth then are they?

 

[bripat9643]

That's utter horseshit. Property is only an issue because wives and children make the disposition of your property an issue.

Look up the first court cases regarding marriage. Tell us what they were about.

What cases would those be, the ones during the Roman Empire? Why don't you cite one of these court cases you're referring to?

Nope...this is the US and we're talking US law. What were the first US court cases about?

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't get turned on staring at some guy's harry ass. That's the bottom line.

Exactly...and you're still missing the point, obviously. (Which solidifies my point about your ignorance)

You would not be turned on but you could still close your eyes and get it up. Your dick doesn't care, your mind does.

Since you don't have a dick, how would you know?

 

[Pop23]

Cite where I said lesbians take birth control pills "for birth control." I never did. That was your own pathetic strawman.

I had to take it as a surrogate. I was 36 when I had to take it the first time.

Was your partner the father?

 

[kaz]

With 32 states pushing the US Supreme Court to make a final decision on gay marriage, how heavily will the welfare of children weigh in on that debate?

Are children a part of the gay marriage discussion? Well, the Europeans think so... European Court Rules Gay Marriage not a Human Right ... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

What do you believe? Vote the poll.

What about children? I don't understand what you are asking.

 

[Seawytch]

Look up the first court cases regarding marriage. Tell us what they were about.

What cases would those be, the ones during the Roman Empire? Why don't you cite one of these court cases you're referring to?

Nope...this is the US and we're talking US law. What were the first US court cases about?

Those are the first court cases regarding marriage. Marriage has existed for thousands of years. Court cases in the United States don't prove a thing about the origins of marriage.

The origins of which, civil or religious? How are the origins relevant to the discussion?

The discussion is about why marriage exists. That goes right to the subject of origins.

But we are talking about US law. How does your interpretation of the origin (which you have not supported with fact) of marriage (civil or religious, you haven't answered) apply to the discussion?

 

[ShackledNation]

I understand the "mechanics" just fine. That you think it's all "mechanics" is what makes you so ignorant.

Whether it's all mechanics isn't the issue. The fact is that the mechanics make it impossible for a true homosexual to have sex with a woman.

No it doesn't and you're a fool to think it does.

Since you insist on debating the issue, we'll have to get down to the nitty gritty. How does a homosexual have sex with a woman if he can't get an erection?

He can get one....he just has to think of someone else when he's doing it.

I could never get an erection if some male wanted to have sex with me, so how could a homosexual get an erection when trying to have sex with a woman? The idea of having sex with a man is a big turn off. It's creepy and disgusting.

You obviously don't know what the **** you're talking about.

By your logic, men who masturbate couldn't get erections because they are not sexually attracted to their own hand.

You do not have 100% control over what your small little penis does. If it is physically stimulated enough, it very well could become erect at the hands of another man. Furthermore, gay men in the closet often want to be straight, so it is quite easy to fake it. And unless you have no imagination, fantasizing about gay sex while with a woman is quite possible.

 

[bripat9643]

Whether it's all mechanics isn't the issue. The fact is that the mechanics make it impossible for a true homosexual to have sex with a woman.

No it doesn't and you're a fool to think it does.

Since you insist on debating the issue, we'll have to get down to the nitty gritty. How does a homosexual have sex with a woman if he can't get an erection?

He can get one....he just has to think of someone else when he's doing it.

I could never get an erection if some male wanted to have sex with me, so how could a homosexual get an erection when trying to have sex with a woman? The idea of having sex with a man is a big turn off. It's creepy and disgusting.

You obviously don't know what the **** you're talking about.

By your logic, men who masturbate couldn't get erections because they are not sexually attracted to their own hand.

You do not have 100% control over what your small little penis does. If it is physically stimulated enough, it very well could become erect at the hands of another man. Furthermore, gay men in the closet often want to be straight, so it is quite easy to fake it. And unless you have no imagination, fantasizing about gay sex while with a woman is quite possible.

Oh puhleeze. I can't believe anyone is puerile enough to argue about this shit. Is there any detail of human relations, no matter how sordid and distasteful, that you aren't willing to bring up in your quest to give homos a privilege that serves no social purpose in their case?

 

[elektra]

Pure bullshit. Wiv

So you've got nothing. Well, I should have guessed. Since you have nothing of substance to say, this discussion is over.

There was never discussion, you pontified.

Bullshit means the discussion is over, idiot. Bullshit means that what you posted is so far removed from reality as well as from the premise of the thread that the only thing left is to point that out by simply stating, bullshit.

ShackledNation, your posts are all bullshit, they are simple rubbish.

There is no response other than to call, bullshit, when someone just posts a litany of false premises.

children, they have no voice within ShackledNation 's ignorance

You speak of which you know nothing.

Like I thought, nothing. Just personal attacks. Typical.

Calling what you post, bullshit, then explaining to you what bullshit is, is not a personal attack nor an attack of any other sort.

It is telling that ShackledNation characterizes people recognizing that ShackledNation 's posts are irrelevant to the OP or simply false, with a person attack.

ShackledNation is self-centered, thinking this is about himself, Anything contrary to ShackledNation's posts or politics becomes a personal attack, so little confidence ShackledNation has in himself, he takes things personally. Grow up, it's about the children, not your perceived war with republicans.