It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[bodecea]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men ******* each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

They're not anything if not imaginative.

Somehow they want to discriminate against anyone with a family member because of possible procreation, but in the same breath, say procreation isn't a requirement to marry?

Such hypocrisy.

Yet ask them to explain why?

Deflect and deflect

They can't handle the exact same arguments they developed as their own marketing scheme.

Show us which state requires (or has required) proof of procreation to get a legal marriage license.

 

[bodecea]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men ******* each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.

So a woman MUST consent to anal sex with her husband because all sex is equal.

Houston, we have a problem.

Whaaaaaaaa? Seems to me that somebody has anal sex on the brain.

 

[Pop23]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men ******* each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

They're not anything if not imaginative.

Somehow they want to discriminate against anyone with a family member because of possible procreation, but in the same breath, say procreation isn't a requirement to marry?

Such hypocrisy.

Yet ask them to explain why?

Deflect and deflect

They can't handle the exact same arguments they developed as their own marketing scheme.

Show us which state requires (or has required) proof of procreation to get a legal marriage license.

You won that war idiot.

Show us a state that requires sex as a requirement to marry.

That would be refreshing.

 

[Boss]

What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.

I'm actually FOR gays getting married... I think that sanctified union with a member of the opposite sex might be good for them. Perhaps it might steer them away from their sexual impulses to engage in homosexual behaviors?

Oh... you were talking about GAY marriage which isn't REAL marriage, weren't you? ...My bad!

 

[Pop23]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men ******* each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.

So a woman MUST consent to anal sex with her husband because all sex is equal.

Houston, we have a problem.

Whaaaaaaaa? Seems to me that somebody has anal sex on the brain.

Must be you then. You made the implication, I just followed up.

 

[bodecea]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men ******* each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.

So a woman MUST consent to anal sex with her husband because all sex is equal.

Houston, we have a problem.

Whaaaaaaaa? Seems to me that somebody has anal sex on the brain.

Must be you then. You made the implication, I just followed up.

I did? I brought anal sex up? You might want to check again.

 

[Pop23]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men ******* each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.

So a woman MUST consent to anal sex with her husband because all sex is equal.

Houston, we have a problem.

Whaaaaaaaa? Seems to me that somebody has anal sex on the brain.

Is that the sound you make when entered? TMI

 

[Pop23]

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men ******* each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.

So a woman MUST consent to anal sex with her husband because all sex is equal.

Houston, we have a problem.

Whaaaaaaaa? Seems to me that somebody has anal sex on the brain.

Must be you then. You made the implication, I just followed up.

I did? I brought anal sex up? You might want to check again.

You didn't ignore the post, did you?

 

[Seawytch]

What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.

I'm actually FOR gays getting married... I think that sanctified union with a member of the opposite sex might be good for them. Perhaps it might steer them away from their sexual impulses to engage in homosexual behaviors?

Oh... you were talking about GAY marriage which isn't REAL marriage, weren't you? ...My bad!

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

 

[Pop23]

What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.

I'm actually FOR gays getting married... I think that sanctified union with a member of the opposite sex might be good for them. Perhaps it might steer them away from their sexual impulses to engage in homosexual behaviors?

Oh... you were talking about GAY marriage which isn't REAL marriage, weren't you? ...My bad!

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

And, unless you can name a compelling state Intetest, so will the marriage of two brothers.

How proud you must be.

 

[Boss]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men ******* each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

So.....let's be clear here. When you think of SSM, your mind immediately defaults to anal sex. What does your mind immediately default to when you think of DSM?

DSM? Well, I think of YOU, of course!

...Oh wait, I bet you weren't talking about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?

 

[Boss]

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

Congratulations. It's still not a real marriage.... never will be.

 

[Montrovant]

Back atcha? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Opposite sex cousins who are fertile can procreate and Wisconsin clearly is concerned about that when cousins marry. Hence the need to prove infertility before cousins marry. Wisconsin also prevents all siblings from marrying, infertile or not, indicating that procreation is not the only factor involved.

Is that what you are wanting to hear?

You hypocrite

Exactly what gender is being discriminated against. Your argument is both, which by its very basis means neither.

Get it now. That is the basis for gender discrimination cases, one over the other. So name the gender being discriminated against.

When it comes to marrying a man, men were discriminated against based on their gender. When it comes to marrying a woman, women were discriminated against based on their gender. What's difficult to understand about that argument?

See Claytons post.

Do you understand that simply because you have a right, not using it is not discrimination, right?

Again, what are you talking about? Prior to various court decisions and legislation in the past 12 or so years, a man could not marry a man but a woman could. The only thing preventing a man from marrying a man was his gender. He did not have a right to marry a man that he did not use.

Are you unaware you won that argument?

We've moved on, argue all you want. That's not the issue.

The argument is, the compelling state interest that the state has in denying same sex siblings.

You deflect away from that as often as you like, that's how you roll.

Wisconsin and several other states seems to think its procreation, yet the burdon of proof is arbitrarily applied. And still more curious is that they don't apply this same standard on partnering in an LLC?

Neither partnership required sex, yet only opposite gender cousins must prove infertility to enter one of these?

That is as discriminatory as it gets.

Actually, yes, I was unaware. Your posts are sometimes fairly confusing.

Let's try this again : If Wisconsin allows infertile cousins to marry but not fertile cousins, that indicates that procreation is the major factor in the decision to prevent cousins from marrying, yes? If Wisconsin does NOT allow infertile siblings to marry that seems to indicate that procreation is not the major factor in the decision to prevent siblings from marrying.

A marriage is not an LLC. It is a form of contract with some unique attributes. To compare it with a type of company as though they are exactly the same is disingenuous at best.

 

[Montrovant]

Now THAT's an imaginative excuse for being against SSM......

No... what is "imaginative" is that two men ******* each other in the anus constitutes marriage.

What's interesting is that when you think of gays marrying, you "imagine" how they have sex.

So a woman MUST consent to anal sex with her husband because all sex is equal.

Houston, we have a problem.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Montrovant]

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

Congratulations. It's still not a real marriage.... never will be.

I'm sure she's devastated that her marriage is not a real Boss marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

LOL! So... ROFL! So ... huh... if the SUPREME LEGISLATURE decided that 'being The Obligatory Weird Aunt is all that is necessary to license you as a brain surgeon... you're claiming that this would qualify you to cut into a human skull and operate upon a human brain?

"I'm A REAL BRAIN SURGEON! SEE MY LICENSE!"

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

These people are ABSOLUTELY HELPLESS!

Suffice it to say: Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Montrovant]

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

LOL! So... ROFL! So ... huh... if the Federal Government licensed you as a brain surgeon... you're claiming that this would qualify you to cut into a human skull and operate upon a human brain?

"I'm A REAL BRAIN SURGEON! SEE MY LICENSE!"

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

These people are ABSOLUTELY HELPLESS!

Suffice it to say: Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

It's so odd that you put a comma after marriage there!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

LOL! So... ROFL! So ... huh... if the SUPREME LEGISLATURE decided that being 'The Obligatory Weird Aunt is all that is necessary to license you as a brain surgeon... you're claiming that this would qualify you to cut into a human skull and operate upon a human brain?

"I'm A REAL BRAIN SURGEON! SEE MY LICENSE!"

ROFLMNAO!

You can NOT make this crap up!

These people are ABSOLUTELY HELPLESS!

Suffice it to say: Marriage, is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

It's so odd that you put a comma after marriage there!

What's weird about a pause? Now, please be as specific as your intellectual limitations, allow.

 

[Boss]

And yet despite your delusions about it, my marriage license is as valid as yours.

Congratulations. It's still not a real marriage.... never will be.

I'm sure she's devastated that her marriage is not a real Boss marriage.

Not just Boss, it's society in general. In every conversation here about this subject, the term "marriage" has to be accompanied by an adjective to distinguish a difference. If there is a difference then it isn't the same. We can fantasize and pretend otherwise, but we all know that gay marriage is not real marriage.

A piece of paper from the state doesn't make it any more real. My state can give me a piece of paper that says I am a unicorn, it does not make me a unicorn.

 

[Syriusly]

Didn't you say it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage?

Look at how easy it was to get you to argue with yourself again.

Yes, it is same sex. What's your problem numbnuts. Which gender was being discriminated against, which would be necessary for intermediate scrutiny. One being favored over the other.

So shit for brains, which was, male or female?

You want siblings, mothers and sons, and gay couples to have the freedom to legally marry?

Gay couples always could Sally

Mothers can marry

Sons can marry

Are you really stoopid?

I oppose family members from marriage, but have been searching for a constitutionally sound legal reason to prohibit that.

You struggle with that also I see.

Or maybe the reason you can't name the compelling State reason is that YOU ACTUALLY WANT FAMILY MEMBERS TO MARRY?

You sly dog you.

You want siblings to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mothers and sons to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want gay couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mixed race couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?

No, you perverted silly goose. I've posted my opposition dozens of times.

You blind? Masturbation will do that

Then wny are you calling me a racist- when you opposed mix race couples having the freedom to marry each other.
Me:
You want siblings to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mothers and sons to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want gay couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?
You want mixed race couples to be able to have the freedom to marry each other?

Pops:No, you perverted silly goose. I've posted my opposition dozens of times.

So to recap- you oppose the legal right for gay couples marrying, mixed race couples marrying, siblings marrying and mothers marrying their sons.

I support the legal right for gay couples marrying and mixed race couples marrying.

So of course you call me a bigot and a racist.

Because I don't opposed mixed race marriages like you do.

What a bigot you are.