I have Advocated for Civil Unions for 20 years...

[NYcarbineer]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've got no problem with Civil Unions...if it is what everyone gets, gay or straight. Seems an awfully inefficient way to grant gays and lesbians the same rights, but at least you aren't filling in the pool completely.

The anti-gay bigots who want to cling to the word 'marriage' as their own, and deny it to gays, are doing so for the sake of symbolism;

they believe that the same sex union is inferior to the opposite sex union, and therefore only the latter has the right to the 'sacred' word,

marriage. By denying the use of the word to gays, they can symbolically perpetuate that belief.

I think they're just afraid that if they let us do it, we'll do it better.

lol, that's a low bar to clear.

 

[Toro]

The Possibily ONLY Exists with Heterosexuals.

It NEVER Exists with Homosexuals and they are Designed and Equipped to do it.

Their Defiance of it is NOT Society's Burden.

Nor should those who are not Deliberately Defying it be Punished for the Potential of not being Fertile or even Trying to have Kids simply because Homosexuals are Butthurt about not getting a False Validation from a Society that won't Embrace them.

Petulant Brats you Activists are.

Seriously... The Closer you Feel you are to Victory for this Absurdity the more and more you are Acting like Children.



peace...

I asked a simple question and you mostly ranted.

Cutting through your rant, your answer appears to be that the possibility exists only for heterosexuals. That is simply not true for all heterosexuals. Women of a certain age are unable to procreate. Some men are sterile. My mother is a twin. Because of the way the embryo separated at birth, she was physically unable to procreate, so my parents adopted.

So if procreation is the basis of marriage as you claim, our marriage laws discriminate against some people and not others.

It only EVER Exists with Heterosexuals... Homosexuals are ALL Designed and Equipped to Couple with the Opposite Sex barring Physical Defect...

Their Defiance is NOT Society's Burden it is Inherently, Naturally, Physically, Biologically and Facutally Unequal to that which Created them

This information I am giving you is not up for Debate.

Petulant Babies you Activist are Acting when you get this way.



peace...

It only ever exists with some heterosexuals. It does not exist for all. Yet we extend the legal entity of marriage to all heterosexuals, including to those who cannot procreate. Thus, procreation applied consistently cannot be the basis of marriage.

 

[DGS49]

It is an irritating conceit of this generation that they presume (1) they are smarter than previous generations, and (2) history goes only as far as they personally can remember.

The institution of marriage has a history of thousands of years, and until VERY recently, all marriage laws were intended, mainly, to protect the interests of wives and children in the face of a husband/father with ALL THE POWER AND WEALTH in the family/relationship, who could ruin the wives and children simply by abandoning them or withdrawing his support. He was the breadwinner, the property owner, and the "Master of the House."

Marriage laws protected abandoned spouses with alimony and statutory inheritance rights; they protected the children with an obligation of the father to support them financially even if the marriage broke down. They made it difficult and painful to divorce, because such a development invariably created hardship for the wife and children. Accordingly, wives were (and still are) given greater credence and consideration in Family Court.

BUT NONE OF THIS HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP! There is no inequality of power or wealth or earning power between the partners, no natural ability to procreate, no need to protect one partner over the other in case of divorce or death of a partner. Pretending that there is "no difference" between a homosexual relationship and a MARRIAGE is ridiculous folly.

There are many commonalities: a loving relationship, commitment, cohabitation, shared assets and plans, but until recently, the structure of the safety net for wives and children that was constructed by the states' marriage laws simply made no sense for homosexual couples.

It is not "hate" that drives most people to refuse to bring gay couples within the protections of state marriage laws, it is logic.

 

[DGS49]

And another thing, the current generation has NO IDEA what it was like in the relatively recent past when artificial birth control did not exist. The idea of getting married without expecting or "planning to have" kids was non-existent. If you intended to have sexual intercourse on your wedding night and beyond, then you MUST HAVE ASSUMED that kids were part of the picture.

People who politically support "gay marriage" always bring up the cases when heterosexuals get married with no ability (seniors) or intention of having kids, then say that if marriage laws accommodate them, then they should accommodate homosexuals who, without extraordinary intervention, cannot have children.

Marriage laws were never intended to benefit such couples, and only did so on the margins.

 

[mal]

Your position can be summed up in a much more tidy manner: Separate but equal

Individuals are Equal.

Homosexual Coupling and Heterosexual Coupling... Not Equal.

This if Fact not Fiction.

One Creates Life... The other does not... All are Designed and Equipped for it.

The Defiance is not Society's Burden.



peace...

Your procreation argument is DOA.

The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic traditional procreative purposes, and it will refocus the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage away from the raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults," Cooper said.

Justice Elena Kagan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, pressed Cooper on that argument, asking him why then the government could not bar couples who are both over the age of 55 from marrying, on the assumption that they are infertile.

Cooper replied that it would violate the Constitution to ban older people from marrying.

"Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples—both parties to the couple are infertile," Cooper began, before he was interrupted by the audience in the courtroom erupting into laughter.

"I can just assure you, if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage," Kagan retorted, provoking more laughter.

Justice Antonin Scalia jumped into the fray, joking that "Strom Thurmond was not the chairman of the Senate committee when Justice Kagan was confirmed."

Thurmond, the late South Carolina Republican senator, fathered children well into his 70s with his decades-younger wife. Kagan pointed out that in her hypothetical, both members of the couple would be over 55, not just the man.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also cast doubt on the procreation aspect of Cooper's argument, reminding him that the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that prisoners have a right to marry even if they are locked up and unable to procreate with their new spouse. Cooper replied that even in that case, the prison was a co-ed facility and it's possible the prisoner would have had children.

In gay marriage case, justices focus and trade laughs on fertility question

When your argument is so absurd that the courtroom erupts into laughter while you are making it, you're fucked.

Um... Yeah.



peace...

 

[mal]

I asked a simple question and you mostly ranted.

Cutting through your rant, your answer appears to be that the possibility exists only for heterosexuals. That is simply not true for all heterosexuals. Women of a certain age are unable to procreate. Some men are sterile. My mother is a twin. Because of the way the embryo separated at birth, she was physically unable to procreate, so my parents adopted.

So if procreation is the basis of marriage as you claim, our marriage laws discriminate against some people and not others.

It only EVER Exists with Heterosexuals... Homosexuals are ALL Designed and Equipped to Couple with the Opposite Sex barring Physical Defect...

Their Defiance is NOT Society's Burden it is Inherently, Naturally, Physically, Biologically and Facutally Unequal to that which Created them

This information I am giving you is not up for Debate.

Petulant Babies you Activist are Acting when you get this way.



peace...

It only ever exist with some heterosexuals. It does not exist for all. Yet we extend the legal entity of marriage to all heterosexuals, including to those who cannot procreate. Thus, procreation applied consistently cannot be the basis of marriage.

It Never Exists with Homosexuals yet they are Designed to Couple with the Opposite Sex and Equipped to do so.

The Couplings are Documentably Unequal.



peace...

 

[NYcarbineer]

It only EVER Exists with Heterosexuals... Homosexuals are ALL Designed and Equipped to Couple with the Opposite Sex barring Physical Defect...

Their Defiance is NOT Society's Burden it is Inherently, Naturally, Physically, Biologically and Facutally Unequal to that which Created them

This information I am giving you is not up for Debate.

Petulant Babies you Activist are Acting when you get this way.



peace...

It only ever exist with some heterosexuals. It does not exist for all. Yet we extend the legal entity of marriage to all heterosexuals, including to those who cannot procreate. Thus, procreation applied consistently cannot be the basis of marriage.

It Never Exists with Homosexuals yet they are Designed to Couple with the Opposite Sex and Equipped to do so.

The Couplings are Documentably Unequal.



peace...

So if a male soldier lost his genitals in an explosion in Iraq, in your world would he be allowed to 'marry', or enter a 'civil union'?

 

[The Rabbi]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've got no problem with Civil Unions...if it is what everyone gets, gay or straight. Seems an awfully inefficient way to grant gays and lesbians the same rights, but at least you aren't filling in the pool completely.

The anti-gay bigots who want to cling to the word 'marriage' as their own, and deny it to gays, are doing so for the sake of symbolism;

they believe that the same sex union is inferior to the opposite sex union, and therefore only the latter has the right to the 'sacred' word,

marriage. By denying the use of the word to gays, they can symbolically perpetuate that belief.

I think they're just afraid that if they let us do it, we'll do it better.

Because the record for homosexuals on health and well being is so much better than the general population, right?
lol.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why are you attaching the ability to procreate to marriage?

If that's your whole argument behind not supporting gay "marriage", then you have to know you're bound to lose this argument.

 

[RDD_1210]

The anti-gay bigots who want to cling to the word 'marriage' as their own, and deny it to gays, are doing so for the sake of symbolism;

they believe that the same sex union is inferior to the opposite sex union, and therefore only the latter has the right to the 'sacred' word,

marriage. By denying the use of the word to gays, they can symbolically perpetuate that belief.

I think they're just afraid that if they let us do it, we'll do it better.

Because the record for homosexuals on health and well being is so much better than the general population, right?
lol.

That has what to do with the topic exactly?

Oh I get it, you're grasping at straws now.

 

[Toro]

It only EVER Exists with Heterosexuals... Homosexuals are ALL Designed and Equipped to Couple with the Opposite Sex barring Physical Defect...

Their Defiance is NOT Society's Burden it is Inherently, Naturally, Physically, Biologically and Facutally Unequal to that which Created them

This information I am giving you is not up for Debate.

Petulant Babies you Activist are Acting when you get this way.



peace...

It only ever exist with some heterosexuals. It does not exist for all. Yet we extend the legal entity of marriage to all heterosexuals, including to those who cannot procreate. Thus, procreation applied consistently cannot be the basis of marriage.

It Never Exists with Homosexuals yet they are Designed to Couple with the Opposite Sex and Equipped to do so.

The Couplings are Documentably Unequal.



peace...

And "couplings" between older heterosexual couples and younger heterosexual couples are also documentably unequal. Yet we don't deny marriage to older heterosexual couples.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why are you attaching the ability to procreate to marriage?

If that's your whole argument behind not supporting gay "marriage", then you have to know you're bound to lose this argument.

Only if you're arguing with idiots.
We can ask how did the idea of marriage become so enshrined that it is intertwined in many many areas of life? The answer is the state has an interest in fostering traditional marriage because it is more likely to produce good citizens than other arrangements. This is proven. The fact that not all marriages will produce children, or even good children, or will even last is not an argument against the basic fact. It is an exception to the rule.

 

[RDD_1210]

Why are you attaching the ability to procreate to marriage?

If that's your whole argument behind not supporting gay "marriage", then you have to know you're bound to lose this argument.

Only if you're arguing with idiots.
We can ask how did the idea of marriage become so enshrined that it is intertwined in many many areas of life? The answer is the state has an interest in fostering traditional marriage because it is more likely to produce good citizens than other arrangements. This is proven. The fact that not all marriages will produce children, or even good children, or will even last is not an argument against the basic fact. It is an exception to the rule.

False and laughable. Every last bit of it. Like I said you have to know you're fighting a losing battle, but please continue to cling to your outdated and small minded ideas. Hahahahahahahahah

 

[The Rabbi]

Why are you attaching the ability to procreate to marriage?

If that's your whole argument behind not supporting gay "marriage", then you have to know you're bound to lose this argument.

Only if you're arguing with idiots.
We can ask how did the idea of marriage become so enshrined that it is intertwined in many many areas of life? The answer is the state has an interest in fostering traditional marriage because it is more likely to produce good citizens than other arrangements. This is proven. The fact that not all marriages will produce children, or even good children, or will even last is not an argument against the basic fact. It is an exception to the rule.

False and laughable. Every last bit of it. Like I said you have to know you're fighting a losing battle, but please continue to cling to your outdated and small minded ideas. Hahahahahahahahah

Translation: Damn I can't refute that so I got to laugh at it to appear smart.

 

[RDD_1210]

Only if you're arguing with idiots.
We can ask how did the idea of marriage become so enshrined that it is intertwined in many many areas of life? The answer is the state has an interest in fostering traditional marriage because it is more likely to produce good citizens than other arrangements. This is proven. The fact that not all marriages will produce children, or even good children, or will even last is not an argument against the basic fact. It is an exception to the rule.

False and laughable. Every last bit of it. Like I said you have to know you're fighting a losing battle, but please continue to cling to your outdated and small minded ideas. Hahahahahahahahah

Translation: Damn I can't refute that so I got to laugh at it to appear smart.

What is there to refute? You didn't post anything except your opinion....which I pointed out is laughable. Post something based on fact and not your opinion and I'll be happy to refute that as well.

 

[mal]

It only ever exist with some heterosexuals. It does not exist for all. Yet we extend the legal entity of marriage to all heterosexuals, including to those who cannot procreate. Thus, procreation applied consistently cannot be the basis of marriage.

It Never Exists with Homosexuals yet they are Designed to Couple with the Opposite Sex and Equipped to do so.

The Couplings are Documentably Unequal.



peace...

And "couplings" between older heterosexual couples and younger heterosexual couples are also documentably unequal. Yet we don't deny marriage to older heterosexual couples.

Of course not... There's not Justification to Punish them because your Choice lacks it's own Validation.

They are not Defying their Natural Design and Equipment and aside from Defect they were Capable of ProCreation at some point.

Marriage is a Reflection of that.

No Homosexual Couple has ever or will ever.

The Coupling is Inherently Unequal.

Have a Civil Union and a Smile.



peace...

 

[mal]

Why are you attaching the ability to procreate to marriage?

If that's your whole argument behind not supporting gay "marriage", then you have to know you're bound to lose this argument.

Nope... You are Consistently Wrong in each Sentence.



peace...

 

[mal]

It only ever exist with some heterosexuals. It does not exist for all. Yet we extend the legal entity of marriage to all heterosexuals, including to those who cannot procreate. Thus, procreation applied consistently cannot be the basis of marriage.

It Never Exists with Homosexuals yet they are Designed to Couple with the Opposite Sex and Equipped to do so.

The Couplings are Documentably Unequal.



peace...

So if a male soldier lost his genitals in an explosion in Iraq, in your world would he be allowed to 'marry', or enter a 'civil union'?

One Man and One Woman is the Standard... And how we are Designed and Equipped by Nature.

Defect or Accident is Irrelevant.

Stop trying to Deny those who don't Defy their Natural Design their Fundamental Right to Marriage simply because Homosexual Coupling is Inherently Unequal to Heterosexual Coupling.

It's REALLY Childish.



peace...

 

[RDD_1210]

Why are you attaching the ability to procreate to marriage?

If that's your whole argument behind not supporting gay "marriage", then you have to know you're bound to lose this argument.

Nope... You are Consistently Wrong in each Sentence.



peace...

So you're not attaching the ability to procreate to marriage?

 

[The Rabbi]

False and laughable. Every last bit of it. Like I said you have to know you're fighting a losing battle, but please continue to cling to your outdated and small minded ideas. Hahahahahahahahah

Translation: Damn I can't refute that so I got to laugh at it to appear smart.

What is there to refute? You didn't post anything except your opinion....which I pointed out is laughable. Post something based on fact and not your opinion and I'll be happy to refute that as well.

Every time I post something based on fact (which I did previously) you run away screaming like a little girl. Debating you is like shoving a mountain of jello.