Gays Speak Against Gays Adopting, Politics Not Reported.

[Pop23]

Every man, woman and child that has ever walked this planet were the product of male / female coupling. NONE are the product of same sex coupling.

Yet homosexual women have given birth to children.

Yet women have given birth to LBGT children.

Your argument nakes no sense at all in terms of marriage equality.

Homosexual women rely on a male to do so

Homosexual males rely on a female to do so

Glad I could hep ya Son.

 

[Pop23]

Which does not dispute what I wrote.

The two demographic groups are vastly different.

Saying "they're different" doesn't make it so. Be specific Pops on these "differences". You're "straights gotta use birth control" doesn't cut it. I know lots of heterosexuals that don't and don't have children and I know lots of lesbians that have to use birth control. Try again, Poppy and be specific. Tell me what you perceive the difference is between my marriage and any other couple with children. Explain the difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple. Be specific.

He was specific. You cant have children, period. That is a cold hard fact.

He is an idiot and now so are you. Of course we can have children. Being gay does not make you infertile.

Does that mean that gays should be barred from marrying? I don't think so and certainly the majority of people also do not agree BUT to claim that there are no differences in your relationship to a heterosexual one is absolutely asinine. Of course its different. That is life.

So name them. Name these "differences" in a heterosexual marriage and a same sex one. Be very specific.

Now you want very specific? Specific wasn't good enough?

Here's very specific k?

Every man, woman and child that has ever walked this planet were the product of male / female coupling. NONE are the product of same sex coupling.

Next request by SeaWytch..........

Be very very specific.

Pops, you weren't specific or very specific. You were silly then sillier. And now we're back to the "it takes a penis and a vagina to make a baby" bullshit. It doesn't. It takes sperm and an egg. You don't need "heterosexual coupling" to produce a child. The creation of a child has nothing to do with parenting or marriage. You KNOW this. Not a single childless couple has ever been banned from civilly marrying because of that fact. They've never been forced to divorce if no child was produced.

Why won't you answer a simple question? What are the differences between gay and straight couples? Birth control failed. Both straight and gay couples use and don't use birth control. Try again.

Sperm only can be supplied by males

Eggs by females.

Silly aye?

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of pOps opinion has eanything to do with marriage equality.

 

[Pop23]

None of pOps opinion has eanything to do with marriage equality.

Can't handle the truth?

I getcha

 

[kaz]

Wow, is all I got to say, actually not really as you will see as I go on.

I guess I do not need to say much to set this up, I will just begin with two articles, both from Gay people.

I 8217 m Gay and I Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Public Discourse

I'm hetero and I oppose hetero government marriage

 

[kaz]

None of pOps opinion has eanything to do with marriage equality.

My God, trying to live life without government bestowing recognition and party gifts to let people know they are gay and they are OK. I mean who could go on in life without that?

You're still in favor of discrimination, I am still not. I want government to treat all citizens equally. You want government to grant special favors to ones who decide to pair up.

 

[Pop23]

None of pOps opinion has eanything to do with marriage equality.

My God, trying to live life without government bestowing recognition and party gifts to let people know they are gay and they are OK. I mean who could go on in life without that?

You're still in favor of discrimination, I am still not. I want government to treat all citizens equally. You want government to grant special favors to ones who decide to pair up.

Start a thread on this, it is an incredibly interesting topic

 

[elektra]

None of pOps opinion has eanything to do with marriage equality.

That is because a man and a man is different than a woman and a man.

Two men or two women are different, they can never be equal. It's called Biology.

Unless you live in the society of the seawytch, a society of Eunuchs.

Funny, those who claim to be guided by science, ignore science when it comes to gay marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You misuse the term "eunuchs", look it up.

Marriage equality deals with people, hon.

 

[Pop23]

You misuse the term "eunuchs", look it up.

Marriage equality deals with people, hon.

Yes, and marriage is equal already. Gay or straight all may marry if they choose to.

To much common sense for you?

 

[elektra]

You misuse the term "eunuchs", look it up.

Marriage equality deals with people, hon.

Ekta is my favorite record label, not my sec. And hence we see how jakestarkey believes, he/she assumes without knowing.

I am a guy, not hon, you got the wrong just like you got marriage wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage equailty is not here until any adult cn marry another adult he wants.

Too much common sense for you?

 

[Seawytch]

None of pOps opinion has eanything to do with marriage equality.

That is because a man and a man is different than a woman and a man.

Two men or two women are different, they can never be equal. It's called Biology.

Unless you live in the society of the seawytch, a society of Eunuchs.

Funny, those who claim to be guided by science, ignore science when it comes to gay marriage.

So it is a form of Torettes Syndrome. Are you seeing a professional?

What parenting skill requires either a penis or a vagina? How, exactly, are gay couples with children different than straight couples with children? How, exactly, are gay couples without children different than straight couples without children?

 

[Seawytch]

You misuse the term "eunuchs", look it up.

Marriage equality deals with people, hon.

Yes, and marriage is equal already. Gay or straight all may marry if they choose to.

To much common sense for you?

Just like blacks and whites still had "equality" with anti miscegenation laws, right Pop? Your argument is exactly like those opposed to interracial marriage. Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. They had equality, right Pops?

 

[emilynghiem]

Simple, separate the spiritual relationship part that belongs to the private individuals and churches
from the legal agreement for shared custody, estate or finances that is a business contract.

As tradition, we have let the personal part be under the state marriage laws.
this issue brings out the need to separate church and state.

No problem with what people do on their own as part of their church or personal beliefs.
The problem is legislating or mandating a policy through the state as public: that
part should remain neutral, and keep the personal issues or religious/spiritual beliefs free and out of state regulations.
if it involves a crime, such as abusing children, that is a matter of public safety and protection.
but things liek if you beleive in same sex marriage or not is religious and outside govt to decide.

Well, I said two articles, but all I can do is read this and say, Wow.

It is refreshing to see intelligence articulated so well. What more can be said.

I wish I said it this way, I will have to plagiarize/steal this for myself;

"Marriage is not an elastic term. It is immutable. It offers the very best for children and society. We should not adulterate nor mutilate its definition, thereby denying its riches to current and future generations."

So what was it called prior to the invention of Judaism when two people chose to devote themselves to one another, live together, and love each other?

Marriage existed long before religions that condemn homosexuality did. That being the case, to presume a marriage must conform to how it's defined by those religions is faulty reasoning.

Adam and Eve weren't married by the way, nor is any ceremony described in Judaism beyond 3 requirements: coin of low value being given to symbolize how one provides for their spouse, a written contract detailing promises and obligations, and an oral agreement that marriage is what's occuring. This establishes a mostly civil contract moreso than some religious rite which was designed to unite two families into one moreso than celebrate anyone's love for each other. Marriage for love is still relatively new. Until recently marriage had nothing to do with love as was a business arrangement. Just as any two legal-adults may now enter into financial contracts with one another, so to should any two people of the same sex. Can enter into any other contract already. Because marriage has economic impacts and legal right adjustments (hospital visitation et al.) it should be afforded to any two adults who could enter into other contracts. The religious tie-in is redundant and moot.

 

[emilynghiem]

You misuse the term "eunuchs", look it up.

Marriage equality deals with people, hon.

Yes, and marriage is equal already. Gay or straight all may marry if they choose to.

To much common sense for you?

Just like blacks and whites still had "equality" with anti miscegenation laws, right Pop? Your argument is exactly like those opposed to interracial marriage. Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. They had equality, right Pops?

Both involve religious views and should be kept private to indviduals and churches.

Leave the state laws to handle neutral policies and keep anything out of govt
that the public does not agree on, to prevent religious imposition either way.

 

[Seawytch]

Simple, separate the spiritual relationship part that belongs to the private individuals and churches
from the legal agreement for shared custody, estate or finances that is a business contract.

As tradition, we have let the personal part be under the state marriage laws.
this issue brings out the need to separate church and state.

No problem with what people do on their own as part of their church or personal beliefs.
The problem is legislating or mandating a policy through the state as public: that
part should remain neutral, and keep the personal issues or religious/spiritual beliefs free and out of state regulations.
if it involves a crime, such as abusing children, that is a matter of public safety and protection.
but things liek if you beleive in same sex marriage or not is religious and outside govt to decide.

Religious and civil marriage are separate.

 

[emilynghiem]

Simple, separate the spiritual relationship part that belongs to the private individuals and churches
from the legal agreement for shared custody, estate or finances that is a business contract.

As tradition, we have let the personal part be under the state marriage laws.
this issue brings out the need to separate church and state.

No problem with what people do on their own as part of their church or personal beliefs.
The problem is legislating or mandating a policy through the state as public: that
part should remain neutral, and keep the personal issues or religious/spiritual beliefs free and out of state regulations.
if it involves a crime, such as abusing children, that is a matter of public safety and protection.
but things liek if you beleive in same sex marriage or not is religious and outside govt to decide.

Religious and civil marriage are separate.

Yes they should be, but the way the laws are written and processed through the state,
people are mixing these two levels together and causing objections by the other groups.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Change 'marriage law' to 'civil union law' and allow any official the right to marry, but the couple will register a 'civil union' with the state.

 

[Pop23]

You misuse the term "eunuchs", look it up.

Marriage equality deals with people, hon.

Yes, and marriage is equal already. Gay or straight all may marry if they choose to.

To much common sense for you?

Just like blacks and whites still had "equality" with anti miscegenation laws, right Pop? Your argument is exactly like those opposed to interracial marriage. Blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. They had equality, right Pops?

Males and females coupling is necessary to move society forward.

Males coupling with males?

Sticky sheets and nothing more.

Sorry, you fail again