Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...

[PaintMyHouse]

There you go comparing a demographic sub set to an entire demographic group.

Do you not see the folly?

Your admitting the difference in the two!

But you must, the two demographic groups ARE different in a very critical way.

One group insures the survival of the species

The other can't

There is no greater reality

The greater reality is that marriage is a modern concept, a contract, in our case issued by the State. The vast majority of humans who have walked the earth were born of women who were not married, it's not a requirement to produce children, but our society does have a requirement that to discriminate you must have a rational basis for doing so. In this case the courts can find no such thing, because there is no such thing. That is the reality.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yeah right, there are going to be massive support and lawsuits demanding sisters to legally marry.
Can you believe the nonsense these kooks come up with?

Of course I can. Look at the ridiculous things bigots used to say about interracial marriage...

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”– Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959

"The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion." - Virginia Supreme Court 1878

"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites." - State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883)

"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good." - Scott v. Georgia (1869)

"By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong." - Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863

"Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral." - Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney

Back to the nonsense about race being the equal to homosexuality.

They are equal in the fact that the majority denied the minority their rights, and they were wrong and got left in the past, just as you will be. Their arguments then were just as irrational as yours are today,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah right, there are going to be massive support and lawsuits demanding sisters to legally marry.
Can you believe the nonsense these kooks come up with?

It only takes one

But thanks for playing

Incorrect.

Such a ‘lawsuit’ would never be ‘filed,’ as it’s completely devoid of merit, given the fact there is no injured party.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You should have been a comedian!



With only one of the two groups is fertility even an issue!



The two groups then are not even close to the same.



My god, I took the horse to water and it still won't drink!

Wrong, infertility is an issue with some straight couples. They use the same technologies that are used by gays to create their families. There is no difference in the "dynamics" of these couples.

Fertility is an "issue" with any couple that wants children. It's just not an issue with gays that don't want children...like older couples that marry. Again, no difference in the "dynamics".

You're gasping at straws fighting a losing battle with illogical ammunition.

There you go comparing a demographic sub set to an entire demographic group.

Do you not see the folly?

Your admitting the difference in the two!

But you must, the two demographic groups ARE different in a very critical way.

One group insures the survival of the species

The other can't

There is no greater reality

And this is completely irrelevant to the issue, where the ability to procreate is not a prerequisite to marry.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Bumping for Pop to answer.

The Answer is no... And in that you support Sisters Marrying.



peace...

Why they deny it is beyond me

What’s beyond you is the fact that the issue is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant.

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah right, there are going to be massive support and lawsuits demanding sisters to legally marry.
Can you believe the nonsense these kooks come up with?

Of course I can. Look at the ridiculous things bigots used to say about interracial marriage...

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”– Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959

"The purity of public morals, the moral and physical development of both races….require that they should be kept distinct and separate… that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion." - Virginia Supreme Court 1878

"They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid the intermarriage of blacks and whites." - State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883)

"The amalgamation of the races is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results. Our daily observation shows us, that the offspring of these unnatural connections are generally sickly and effeminate [...]They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good." - Scott v. Georgia (1869)

"By the laws of Massachusetts intermarriages between these races are forbidden as criminal. Why forbidden? Simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong." - Senator James R. Doolittle (D-WI), 1863

"Intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral." - Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Taney

Back to the nonsense about race being the equal to homosexuality.

Then, naturally, you can point out where I compared race to sexual orientation. Oh, right...I didn't. What I did compare is stupid things people say. Now they say things like "if we let gays marry, we must let siblings marry" and before they said stupid things like above. I'm not comparing race and sexual orientation, I'm comparing BIGOTS.

 

[Seawytch]

You should have been a comedian!



With only one of the two groups is fertility even an issue!



The two groups then are not even close to the same.



My god, I took the horse to water and it still won't drink!

Wrong, infertility is an issue with some straight couples. They use the same technologies that are used by gays to create their families. There is no difference in the "dynamics" of these couples.

Fertility is an "issue" with any couple that wants children. It's just not an issue with gays that don't want children...like older couples that marry. Again, no difference in the "dynamics".

You're gasping at straws fighting a losing battle with illogical ammunition.

There you go comparing a demographic sub set to an entire demographic group.

Do you not see the folly?

Your admitting the difference in the two!

But you must, the two demographic groups ARE different in a very critical way.

One group insures the survival of the species

The other can't

There is no greater reality

Pop, how many times do you have to be asked...where is procreation a requirement to marry? Since the answer is no where, why do you keep on a failed path? Procreation does not matter in regards to civil marriage. Maybe your religion says you must be baby pez machines in order to marry, but not a single locality does.

Stick to religion...it can be irrational, the law cannot.

 

[mal]

Wrong, infertility is an issue with some straight couples. They use the same technologies that are used by gays to create their families. There is no difference in the "dynamics" of these couples.

Fertility is an "issue" with any couple that wants children. It's just not an issue with gays that don't want children...like older couples that marry. Again, no difference in the "dynamics".

You're gasping at straws fighting a losing battle with illogical ammunition.

There you go comparing a demographic sub set to an entire demographic group.

Do you not see the folly?

Your admitting the difference in the two!

But you must, the two demographic groups ARE different in a very critical way.

One group insures the survival of the species

The other can't

There is no greater reality

Pop, how many times do you have to be asked...where is procreation a requirement to marry? Since the answer is no where, why do you keep on a failed path? Procreation does not matter in regards to civil marriage. Maybe your religion says you must be baby pez machines in order to marry, but not a single locality does.

Stick to religion...it can be irrational, the law cannot.

You and the other Kilt continue to make the case for Sibling Marriage...



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

There you go comparing a demographic sub set to an entire demographic group.

Do you not see the folly?

Your admitting the difference in the two!

But you must, the two demographic groups ARE different in a very critical way.

One group insures the survival of the species

The other can't

There is no greater reality

Pop, how many times do you have to be asked...where is procreation a requirement to marry? Since the answer is no where, why do you keep on a failed path? Procreation does not matter in regards to civil marriage. Maybe your religion says you must be baby pez machines in order to marry, but not a single locality does.

Stick to religion...it can be irrational, the law cannot.

You and the other Kilt continue to make the case for Sibling Marriage...



peace...

No, not really, but if that's your battle, good luck. Gays wanting to marry has absolutely nothing to do with sibling marriages. If siblings wanted to sue to marry, nothing is stopping them now. Either they have the merits to fight their battle to the SCOTUS or they don't, completely divorced from the marriage equality battle for gays. Best of luck to you, Mal. I hope you win.

 

[Gadawg73]

How many gay marriages have their been in the last few years?
And how has any of them had effected negatively on anyone?

 

[Gadawg73]

There you go comparing a demographic sub set to an entire demographic group.

Do you not see the folly?

Your admitting the difference in the two!

But you must, the two demographic groups ARE different in a very critical way.

One group insures the survival of the species

The other can't

There is no greater reality

Pop, how many times do you have to be asked...where is procreation a requirement to marry? Since the answer is no where, why do you keep on a failed path? Procreation does not matter in regards to civil marriage. Maybe your religion says you must be baby pez machines in order to marry, but not a single locality does.

Stick to religion...it can be irrational, the law cannot.

You and the other Kilt continue to make the case for Sibling Marriage...



peace...

You're fucked up mal.
No one supports that.
Out of all your claims I see.

 

[bodecea]

How many gay marriages have their been in the last few years?
And how has any of them had effected negatively on anyone?

You just gave me an idea.

 

[mal]

Pop, how many times do you have to be asked...where is procreation a requirement to marry? Since the answer is no where, why do you keep on a failed path? Procreation does not matter in regards to civil marriage. Maybe your religion says you must be baby pez machines in order to marry, but not a single locality does.

Stick to religion...it can be irrational, the law cannot.

You and the other Kilt continue to make the case for Sibling Marriage...



peace...

You're fucked up mal.
No one supports that.
Out of all your claims I see.

I am not.

If the Justification is that ProCreation is not a Requirement of Marriage and that is why Gays should have thier Unions called Equal in Law to Man and Wife then they are making the case that Siblings should have the same "rights" in Marriage.

From EVERYTHING I have read from them, it's is (2) Consenting Adults, regardless of Sex.

They have to make the case Against Sibling Marriage if they are being Honest about what they seek being a "Right" for all Consenting Aged Adults.

If ProCreation is not in the Equation then Siblings should not be Denied the Right that Gays seek.

You can't Expand Rights in an Exclusionary way... End of ******* list.



peace...

 

[mal]

Pop, how many times do you have to be asked...where is procreation a requirement to marry? Since the answer is no where, why do you keep on a failed path? Procreation does not matter in regards to civil marriage. Maybe your religion says you must be baby pez machines in order to marry, but not a single locality does.

Stick to religion...it can be irrational, the law cannot.

You and the other Kilt continue to make the case for Sibling Marriage...



peace...

No, not really, but if that's your battle, good luck. Gays wanting to marry has absolutely nothing to do with sibling marriages. If siblings wanted to sue to marry, nothing is stopping them now. Either they have the merits to fight their battle to the SCOTUS or they don't, completely divorced from the marriage equality battle for gays. Best of luck to you, Mal. I hope you win.

I am not Advocating for Sibling Marriage... You are. If ProCreation is not in the Equation then your Demand for the Expansion of Marriage "Rights" can't be denied to other Consenting Adults.

Either ProCreation plays a Role or it doesn't.

You can't have it both ways.

Your ONLY Argument Against Sibling Marriage is the Possibility of Birth Defects.

If ProCreation is not part of the Debate for Gay Marriage then the same Standard has to be Applied to ALL Consenting Adults.

You are no different than (2) Sisters Seeking the Benefits of Marriage from the State that Care for a Child together.

NO DIFFERENT.

Why do you do seek "Rights" to the Exlusion of others?



peace...

 

[Seawytch]

You and the other Kilt continue to make the case for Sibling Marriage...



peace...

No, not really, but if that's your battle, good luck. Gays wanting to marry has absolutely nothing to do with sibling marriages. If siblings wanted to sue to marry, nothing is stopping them now. Either they have the merits to fight their battle to the SCOTUS or they don't, completely divorced from the marriage equality battle for gays. Best of luck to you, Mal. I hope you win.

I am not Advocating for Sibling Marriage... You are. If ProCreation is not in the Equation then your Demand for the Expansion of Marriage "Rights" can't be denied to other Consenting Adults.

Either ProCreation plays a Role or it doesn't.

You can't have it both ways.

Your ONLY Argument Against Sibling Marriage is the Possibility of Birth Defects.

If ProCreation is not part of the Debate for Gay Marriage then the same Standard has to be Applied to ALL Consenting Adults.

You are no different than (2) Sisters Seeking the Benefits of Marriage from the State that Care for a Child together.

NO DIFFERENT.

Why do you do seek "Rights" to the Exlusion of others?



peace...

Sure Mal, whatever you say. I'm not the one bringing up siblings at every turn...it's kinda like ya'll and gay sex. Can't stop bringing it up. It's weird, but I digress.

I'm advocating for marriage equality for gays and lesbians, which has nothing to do with your apparent desire to see siblings able to marry. I don't care if siblings marry since the percentage of those wishing to do so would be beyond infinitesimal. Best of luck in your battle.

 

[Pop23]

You and the other Kilt continue to make the case for Sibling Marriage...



peace...

No, not really, but if that's your battle, good luck. Gays wanting to marry has absolutely nothing to do with sibling marriages. If siblings wanted to sue to marry, nothing is stopping them now. Either they have the merits to fight their battle to the SCOTUS or they don't, completely divorced from the marriage equality battle for gays. Best of luck to you, Mal. I hope you win.

I am not Advocating for Sibling Marriage... You are. If ProCreation is not in the Equation then your Demand for the Expansion of Marriage "Rights" can't be denied to other Consenting Adults.

Either ProCreation plays a Role or it doesn't.

You can't have it both ways.

Your ONLY Argument Against Sibling Marriage is the Possibility of Birth Defects.

If ProCreation is not part of the Debate for Gay Marriage then the same Standard has to be Applied to ALL Consenting Adults.

You are no different than (2) Sisters Seeking the Benefits of Marriage from the State that Care for a Child together.

NO DIFFERENT.

Why do you do seek "Rights" to the Exlusion of others?



peace...

Notice that one minute this is not about gay marriage, but simply same gender, then it's all about gay marriage?

What keeps gay siblings marrying?

Interesting

And yet if procreation is not part of the equation, then why the limit of the partnership to two?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And yet if procreation is not part of the equation, then why the limit of the partnership to two?

The rational basis for that needs to be explored but at the moment the contract is only for two, however many still require one to be female and one male, which makes gay couples unequal before the law.

As for siblings and other relations, if you are over 18 knock yourself out. "But that's icky" is not a rational basis for denying someone their rights.

 

[Pop23]

And yet if procreation is not part of the equation, then why the limit of the partnership to two?

The rational basis for that needs to be explored but at the moment the contract is only for two, however many still require one to be female and one male, which makes gay couples unequal before the law.

As for siblings and other relations, if you are over 18 knock yourself out. "But that's icky" is not a rational basis for denying someone their rights.

What a world you want to create. WTG

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And yet if procreation is not part of the equation, then why the limit of the partnership to two?

The rational basis for that needs to be explored but at the moment the contract is only for two, however many still require one to be female and one male, which makes gay couples unequal before the law.

As for siblings and other relations, if you are over 18 knock yourself out. "But that's icky" is not a rational basis for denying someone their rights.

What a world you want to create. WTG

It's a unique thing here, we call it logic.

 

[kaz]

And yet if procreation is not part of the equation, then why the limit of the partnership to two?

The rational basis for that needs to be explored but at the moment the contract is only for two, however many still require one to be female and one male, which makes gay couples unequal before the law.

As for siblings and other relations, if you are over 18 knock yourself out. "But that's icky" is not a rational basis for denying someone their [color]rights.[/color]

This is the basic bullshit of your side. People have a "right" to be left alone from government if they are not harming anyone else. No one, NO ONE, has a "right" to demand anything from others, and someone else getting it doesn't make it a "right."