Killing Homosexual Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Yes, I’ve heard that said before….mostly by people who have not really thought it through, who have not really considered what that would look like.

I've thought it through and I agree with myself.

It will look like this... ____________________________________.

Where there was once State sanctioning of marriages gay and straight, there would be no marriages gay or straight. At least not sanctioned by the state. Individuals can call whatever they like "marriage" and it's not anyone's business.

Yea we know ...not workable, not possible, not happening

Yep... workable, possible, already happening.

What you propose could be workable- but won't be. It is possible- but it won't happen. And it isn't happening anywhere in the United States- not now- not in the forseeable future.

It already happened in Alabama and it passed. Due to a really stupid Wallace-era law, the bill required a super majority because it wasn't on conservative governor Bentley's agenda. Rest assured, it will be on the governor's agenda next session and it will again pass and become state law. Other states are also preparing legislation similar in nature and it doesn't matter if you are in denial of this.

Sounds like you should take contentment lessons from worldwatcher on this. Just keep telling yourself it will not harm your gay marriage for the State of Alabama not to sanction or issue a license for it. Because that is what is about to happen and not only in Alabama.

The Alabama law was first proposed prior to Obergefell, it was recently reintroduced and failed again.

Bill to abolish marriage licenses dies in Alabama House 9.15.15 http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/bill_to_abolish_marriage_licen.html

It was a stupid idea that would solve nothing and result in a myriad of problems and unintended consequences.

Rep. Patricia Todd, D-Birmingham, the Alabama Legislature's first openly gay member, questioned whether the change would matter to probate judges who claim religious objections to same-sex marriage.

"What is the difference between handing me a piece of paper for a license vs. accepting a piece of paper from me for a marriage contract?" Todd asked.

Rep. Marcel Black, D-Tuscumbia, said he thought the law would be challenged in court if the bill passed, resulting in legal costs for taxpayers.

Rep. Juandalynn Givan, D-Birmingham, said Alabamians who married under a contract might run into problems when they had to provide proof of marriage in other states.

"This bill makes absolutely no sense," Givan said. "There is no rhyme or reason for this bill."

They also tried it in Oklahoma where it was a disaster…..

This is a great example of the stupidity and chaos that will ensue when trying to get government out of marriage in order to thwart same sex marriage:

Weird Bill Intended To Block Marriage Equality In Oklahoma May Totally Backfirehttp://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/13/3633556/is-this-real-life/


Earlier this week, Oklahoma lawmakers took the first step in passing a bill that was originally poised to hinder marriage equality. But after a wave of criticism pressured lawmakers to tweak the measure, it now might actually end up supporting LGBT people — assuming it doesn’t send the state’s marriage system into chaos first.

On Wednesday, the Oklahoma state house passed H.B. 1125, a Republican-backed bill which has raised concerns for potentially violating the U.S. Constitution. The sponsor of the bill, state Rep. Todd Russ (R), said the proposed law was designed with two goals in mind: remove government from the business of issuing marriage licenses by requiring clergy who officiate weddings to file “certificates of marriage” on their own, and preventing judges who disapprove of marriage equality from having to officiate same-sex weddings, which are legal in the state.

He went on to say:


“

The point of my legislation is to take the state out of the process and leave marriage in the hands of the clergy,” Russ told the Oklahoman.


Russ openly admitted in an interview with ThinkProgress that the bill stemmed from his opposition to marriage equality, saying that he wrote it after the Supreme Court “crammed” same-sex marriage “down our throats” when it upheld a decision by a federal judge to strike down the state’s same-sex marriage ban last October — something Russ contends is an example of government “overreach.”

Actually, the supreme court did not uphold the decision. They just refused to hear the appeal from the state on the decision of the 10th circuit. A minor point perhaps but it also exposes a sloppy thought process and inattention to detail.

The initial bill waswidelycriticized for being unconstitutional, with LGBT advocates, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and news outlets blasting its requirement that only “an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination” or a rabbi be allowed to contract a formal marriage.

The really stupid thing about the initial version of the bill was that while violating the constitution, it would not prevent gays from marrying:

Oddly, if the bill’s goal was to inhibit same-sex couples from getting married, it failed out of the gate. Troy Stevenson, head of the LGBT advocacy group Freedom Oklahoma, noted that Russ may not have realized that “there are … 160 members of clergy who have publicly declared their willingness to marry LGBT people,” and that several major Christian denominations already allow clergy to officiate same-sex marriages, many of which already have a presence in Oklahoma.


Perhaps the sponsors didn’t know this , or they thought that opponents of same sex marriage would be appeased because it was not state sponsored. I don’t think so, it would still be ”marriage”

As pressure mounted on Russ to kill the legislation, however, something strange happened: instead of pulling the bill, Russ simply amended it, re-inserting a clause that allowed judges to officiate weddings. The change was initially welcomed by LGBT advocates such as Stevenson, but also caused confusion, because it defeated the bill’s aim of fully removing government officials from marriages services. In fact, without the clergy-only provision, some Democrats noted that the bill was arguably pro-LGBT, since it does not define marriage specifically as a union between a man and a woman, effectively re-affirming the legitimacy of same-sex unions in the state.

In addition

Other lawmakers also pointed out that, since Russ’ bill requires the government to simply file marriage certificates, it removes the state’s ability to prevent instances bigamy or polygamy.

Well maybe not because other laws cover those things, but you can see how confusion can arise

Clearly the Supreme Court [said] that it cannot be constitutionally appropriate to have an opposite sex stated in the language, so that was struck,” he told ThinkProgress. “My objective here today is not to overthrow the [Supreme Court] ruling. My bill is basically an attempt to sidestep what is basically the claim by the Supreme Court … [The bill] doesn’t condone same-sex marriage, and it doesn’t disallow same-sex marriage — my bill is silent on that matter.”

So then what the hell is the point of all of this? They might as well just accept marriage equality and be done with it.

But as the vote neared Wednesday, Republicans doubled down on what many were now calling the “Marriage Chaos Bill” — even if they weren’t exactly sure what they were voting for.


Indeed, Russ’ claim that the law allows government to “exit the [marriage] game” appears incomplete at best. True, while judges are able to officiate marriages under the law, they are not required to, and whereas previously clerks issued marriage licenses, they are now asked simply to file “marriage certificates” (or common law affidavits) created elsewhere. But this only tweaks some aspects of how government interacts with the beginning of the marriage process — it doesn’t change the fact that marriages are still legal entities recognized by the state.

And it gets even crazier

Also, while the most offensive parts of the bill appear to be corrected, there remain several legal concerns.

The measure, for instance, might expose a violation of the establishment clause already existent in Oklahoma law. In its current form, the bill makes concessions for accepting marriage certificates from Quakers, Baha’is, and Mormons who do not have traditional clergy, but it does not outline similar explanations for Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists,

groups who also lack Christian-style clergy but which have communities in the state. There are also lingering questions over whether or not same-sex marriages — or really any marriage performed under this system — would still be recognized if people moved out-of-state.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

For Boss and others like him.

Do the people who think homosexuality / transgender people are perverted suffer from a lack of self esteem or personal security? Anyone who is secure in their gender role knows that they cannot simply switch hit. If you constantly find it necessary to criticize those different from you, are you simply trying to prop up your own masculinity? Are you afraid of stumbling into sin because you feel it a choice rather than a biologic fact? Are you fighting something inside yourself?

Could it be that those obsessed with gays are secretly gay? That could explain why they see something everywhere, you only see what you want to, you only see where your mind leads you. "Jesse Bering has written a thought provoking article for the magazine, January 30, 2009 issue of the magazine, Scientific American Mind. In it he cites two pieces of empirical research that support the notion of homophobic young men harbor secret homosexual impulses. Both research studies were published in the distinguished publication, Journal of Abnormal Psychology. The first study was done in 2006 by Henry Adams and his team at the University of Georgia. Complete descriptions of the works can be found on Scientific American Mind but you may have to pay for the article or buy the magazine."

Clinical Depression, Separation Anxiety: Allan Schwartz, Ph.D.

"Compassion is the antitoxin of the soul: where there is compassion even the most poisonous impulses remain relatively harmless." Eric Hoffer

I've thought that for years. The homophobic response is rooted really in the self loathing that creeps in when they get that little taint tingle after hearing talk about anything gay. It's sad really that they have been so thoroughly conditioned to hate themselves.

 

[EverCurious]

I'm just going to repost what I had said in the other thread here.

You're mistaken the argument for same sex marriage has actually been on supreme court record since 1967. The Supreme had long elected not to make a call on various cases, preferring to leave it to the individual states decisions - until states like Virginia decided to turn it to a discrimination issue by repeatedly tightening their state law's to specifically and willfully harm the Constitutionally protected rights of fellow American's, turning SSM not into merely a state issue, but a /national/ issue that could no longer be left unaddressed by the Supreme.

Its' actually rather amusing, because you dipshits made the /exact/ same mistake with inter-racial marriages too - forcing it to the supreme with laws that expressly and intentionally discriminated against Americans. Apparently "tradition" is so blind it can't learn from the past heh

 

[Hutch Starskey]

OK. You go make all those changes all across the country...

It's not up to me, it's up to the States. Alabama has already tried to pass a measure... actually, did pass it, but needed a super-majority because of some stupid rule regarding the governor's agenda. It will eventually be passed because it had enormous support. The same thing is happening in states across the country where same-sex marriage had been banned. This won't take long to develop once it starts.

There is not one word in the Constitution which requires States to recognize marriage. I think this is something Constitutional Conservatives, Social Conservatives and Libertarian Conservatives can all support.

So your solution is that states stop marrying anybody and instead calls it a union or something like that? I think that's fair. And if a gay or straight couple wants to call themselves married, they just have to find a church that will do it.

States don't need to call it anything. You can call it whatever you please. If churches want to ordain it, that's up to the churches. If there is some legal need for establishment of partnership, there are contracts for that. Marriage need not be a state or government issue at all. It's not in the Constitution, it's not a requirement of government to recognize or sanction it.

Some smart ass says... get with the 21st century, Boss! Well... okay, let's get with the 21st century and get government out of the marrying business where they don't fucking belong!

States don't need to call it anything. You can call it whatever you please.

We have chosen to call it marriage. It's done.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've never said a thing about getting rid of civil marriages. You can link the legislation and give me your spin on it all day long, the state was no longer going to license or sanction marriage.

Civil Marriages would still exist in Alabama.

When you say "Alabama would still have marriages" what the hell does that mean?

Just what is says. They may change the method of entering into a Civil Marriage, but Civil Marriage would still exist.

The State of Alabama doesn't have marriages, states do not get married.

They recognize the legal status of Civil Marriage. Changing the method that status is entered into within the State doesn't change the Status.

Will marriages still happen within the state? Sure... no one ever suggested we're going to try society without civil marriage. The issue is state recognition of marriage through a licensing process and that was going to end and it will end.

State recognition of Civil Marriage isn't going to end. A pissy response because the gheys can not get married the same way we heterosexuals do doesn't change that.

This has nothing to do with recognizing marriage licenses issued in other states, that has also been settled by SCOTUS and is not in question.

Agreed, Alabama doesn't control the method of entering into Civil Marriage in other States.

But thank you again for confirming that this doesn't bother you and isn't a problem for you. It's important that you remain content as you watch this idea spread across the country in every state. Just keep telling yourself that it doesn't harm your gay marriage for the state to not sanction it.

You are correct, it doesn't bother me at all if Alabama wants to change the way the allow couples to enter into Civil Marriage. If it's "registering a form" v. "issuing a license" - that is up to the people of Alabama.

It really no different know then those few States that have Common Law Marriage where couple become legally married by living together and declaring they are married without a licenses. It's been a concept around for a long time. So why be upset to something that has a basis in hundreds of years of existence.

As for your problems in the military, that is not a concern of the State of Alabama or any other state. If some other entity requires a marriage license issued from Alabama they're going to be shit outta luck.

No they won't.

Alabama will still be maintaining the Marriage Form filed by the couple and will be able to obtain copies in the future just like they can with Marriage Licenses. Remember the law calls for them to file the Form as part of the Civil Marriage process. Copiers of the form will be maintained by the State.


>>>>

 

[Boss]

You don't think that the majority of the court was aware of, or was influenced by the opinion polls?

Dear Lord! ...The function of the supreme court is NOT to base opinions and rulings on polls! If that's the case, we don't need a fucking SCOTUS! We can let Gallup and Pew Research determine what is or isn't "Constitutional" based on a fucking poll! Why do we need a court?

This is the dumbest thing I've read from a liberal today. Really? You were serious?

Get real Boss Man. I didn't say that the decision was based on opinion, now did I? However, they, unlike you, are not living in a bubble. They had to have asked themselves if the American people were ready for it. They had to consider how it would play out. They are actually human beings you know. And yes, the applied constitutional law to the matter.

And I disagree that they applied the Constitution as they should have. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the basis of what is in the Constitution without regard for what they personally believe is right or wrong or what public perception of right and wrong is. They are not moral judges, they are justices charged with applying the Constitution as it is written. The Constitution does not grant the Federal government authority over the domain of marriage. That is strictly a State right reserved for the state and the people. They have no authority to change that.

It seems that you are jubilantly proud of the fact that we have an activist Supreme Court. But I wonder if you would feel this way if the court were being activist the other way? Maybe in the future a more Christian-Conservative SCOTUS will "interpret" their own morality into law and you'll have to live with that being crammed down your throat against your will? Because that is what happens when you have activist courts... the power of the people is gone... you gave it to the courts. Or... maybe you're a young mush-brain who has never seen the progressive pendulum swing the other way, as it has done throughout history? Yes, it can happen... it has happened before. It will happen again.

 

[Boss]

Interesting and revealing choice of words for this thread 'killing homosexual marriage.' Not 'ending' or 'repealing' but 'killing.'

Kind of an ironic take on O'Reilly's "Killing" series. And yes... it's a comprehensive plan to kill gay marriage. This is a cultural thing that has emerged as the result of a perception of inequity. If you remove whatever is causing that perception, there can be no more inequity. The point is moot. It ceases to be a cultural thing anymore, except in the relatively small and isolated gay community. in 20 years, the next generation is intrigued by the crazy "teens" when same-sex marriage was a thing.

 

[Boss]

Interesting and revealing choice of words for this thread 'killing homosexual marriage.' Not 'ending' or 'repealing' but 'killing.'

Kind of an ironic take on O'Reilly's "Killing" series. And yes... it's a comprehensive plan to kill gay marriage. This is a cultural thing that has emerged as the result of a perception of inequity. If you remove whatever is causing that perception, there can be no more inequity. The point is moot. It ceases to be a cultural thing anymore, except in the relatively small and isolated gay community. in 20 years, the next generation is intrigued by the crazy "teens" when same-sex marriage was a thing.

 

[Boss]

Interesting and revealing choice of words for this thread 'killing homosexual marriage.' Not 'ending' or 'repealing' but 'killing.'

Kind of an ironic take on O'Reilly's "Killing" series. And yes... it's a comprehensive plan to kill gay marriage. This is a cultural thing that has emerged as the result of a perception of inequity. If you remove whatever is causing that perception, there can be no more inequity. The point is moot. It ceases to be a cultural thing anymore, except in the relatively small and isolated gay community. in 20 years, the next generation is intrigued by the crazy "teens" when same-sex marriage was a thing.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You don't think that the majority of the court was aware of, or was influenced by the opinion polls?

Dear Lord! ...The function of the supreme court is NOT to base opinions and rulings on polls! If that's the case, we don't need a fucking SCOTUS! We can let Gallup and Pew Research determine what is or isn't "Constitutional" based on a fucking poll! Why do we need a court?

This is the dumbest thing I've read from a liberal today. Really? You were serious?

Get real Boss Man. I didn't say that the decision was based on opinion, now did I? However, they, unlike you, are not living in a bubble. They had to have asked themselves if the American people were ready for it. They had to consider how it would play out. They are actually human beings you know. And yes, the applied constitutional law to the matter.

And I disagree that they applied the Constitution as they should have. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the basis of what is in the Constitution without regard for what they personally believe is right or wrong or what public perception of right and wrong is. They are not moral judges, they are justices charged with applying the Constitution as it is written. The Constitution does not grant the Federal government authority over the domain of marriage. That is strictly a State right reserved for the state and the people. They have no authority to change that.

It seems that you are jubilantly proud of the fact that we have an activist Supreme Court. But I wonder if you would feel this way if the court were being activist the other way? Maybe in the future a more Christian-Conservative SCOTUS will "interpret" their own morality into law and you'll have to live with that being crammed down your throat against your will? Because that is what happens when you have activist courts... the power of the people is gone... you gave it to the courts. Or... maybe you're a young mush-brain who has never seen the progressive pendulum swing the other way, as it has done throughout history? Yes, it can happen... it has happened before. It will happen again.

The fact that you have a faulty, antebellum understanding of Federalism is your problem and yours alone. The fourteenth amendment provides for equal protection under the law in all actions taken by the state in any matter that involves civil rights. As far as marriage goes, case law solidly establishes the limits of states right:

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Make that 15 times with Obergefell. You will see that one of those prior case is Loving V. Virginia. Do you think that the Court was engaging in inappropriate activism in that case too? The answer has to either be “yes” to both Loving and Obergefell or “no” to both. And don’t tell me that race is different that sexuality. Of course it is different. However, the legal principles are the same.

As far as activism goes, I don’t agree with everything that the court does. Funny thing is though, you guys only scream activism when a decision supports a liberal cause. I am well aware of the fact that that activism can go the other way, but when it does, you guys don’t have a problem with it.

Actually, the issue of judicial activism or "legislating from the bench" is rather complicated, but you wouldn't know that from the way conservatives like to dumb it down.

“Legislating from the bench” implies a justice system comprised of two types of judges: those who merely interpret law and those with political agendas who create law…………

This distinction, however, covers up the fact that vague language and political and societal change necessitate that law be created through legal interpretation. A.E. Dick Howard, professor of Constitutional law at the University of Virginia, told the HPR that ambiguous phrases found in the Constitution such as “due process of law, equal protection of law, and cruel and unusual punishment” require interpretation to be applied. The interpretations of these phrases must change as unforeseeable circumstances arise, making the courts an avenue for interpretation to substantially affect law. Accordingly, the phrase “legislating from the bench” is at best misleading, and analysis of its historical application reveals its necessity. Legislating from the Bench - Harvard Political Review

It would appear that the term is most often used by those who wish to deride decisions that the court has made. And both liberals and conservatives do it.

As Sen. McCain’s comment indicates, popular belief suggests only liberals are guilty of supporting politically active judges. However, both Democrats and Republicans have accused judges of over-stepping their boundaries in the past. As Howard explained, “In the 1930s, during the New Deal, it was liberals complaining that the courts were making social and economic judgments that the legislature should make.” Later, conservatives took up the cry as the infamously liberal Warren Court took on similar political activism; it is this court that is remembered by conservatives and from whom many of the negative connotations of “legislating from the bench” are derived. More recently, it was the conservative Rehnquist court that, according to Howard, “struck down acts of Congress at a greater rate than did the more liberal Warren Court.” Liberals are consequently not the only judges who have a habit of correcting the law. http://harvardpolitics.com/online/legislating-from-the-bench/

 

[EverCurious]

It's actually much more than just what the supreme court has said on it, it's also what all the lower courts have said; and the vast majority have agreed that marriage is a right and thus protected by the constitution.


But it's okay, they'll push this stupid "no state marriage" thing, it'll go to the supreme because they've made it a national issue due to the crossing of state border issues, and the supreme will fix it. then they can come up with another silly "idea" - all the while bleeding out more and more support because they show their hand.

 

[JimBowie1958]

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

A gay man can marry a gay woman just like anyone else in a real marriage would marry someone of the opposite sex.

The SCOTUS ruling overturned the meaning of the word marriage which has been established for thousands of years.

If the thought that the SCOTUS can redefine words in order to reinterpret law does not scare the beejeezus out of you then you are an ignorant fool.

 

[Pop23]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

Is the marriage of two elderly people invalid? Is procreation a requirement of marriage? Your argument falls on its face.

You just love bringing up the elderly and disabled.

Tell me exactly how many same sex couples can not procreate within their unions because of reproductive disabilities or advanced age?

Here's a clue, 0% and still not a single child ever born by same sex coupling.

True Story

You are presuming there is a legal obligation on the married couple to procreate. Where is this a law?

No, you did.

 

[Pop23]

It's actually much more than just what the supreme court has said on it, it's also what all the lower courts have said; and the vast majority have agreed that marriage is a right and thus protected by the constitution.


But it's okay, they'll push this stupid "no state marriage" thing, it'll go to the supreme because they've made it a national issue due to the crossing of state border issues, and the supreme will fix it. then they can come up with another silly "idea" - all the while bleeding out more and more support because they show their hand.

I don't think most States will want to sanction same sex sibling marriage, but they might be forced to, so what other option will they have but to end is during license.

 

[Pop23]

There is nothing wrong with legal homo marriage as long as it's between a homo man and a lesbian. That scenario can procreate so the protection of legal marriage is valid.

There is nothing wrong with legal marriage between two men or between 2 women. Marriage doesn't require procreation- the intent to procreate- or even the ability to procreate.

The only thing wrong is the attempt by homophobes to discriminate against homosexuals.

Wow, so siblings should be allowed to marry as long as they are of the same sex?

Why do you believe siblings should be allowed to marry?

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

I do not think they should dimwit, give me the compelling state interest in denying the right to same sex heterosexual sibling from entering into a marriage.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

A gay man can marry a gay woman just like anyone else in a real marriage would marry someone of the opposite sex.

The SCOTUS ruling overturned the meaning of the word marriage which has been established for thousands of years.

If the thought that the SCOTUS can redefine words in order to reinterpret law does not scare the beejeezus out of you then you are an ignorant fool.

Oh please, not that inane bigoted bovine excrement about how a gay man can marry a woman.....ALL OVER AGAIN. That is just stupid. Please see post 92 on this thread. It's dumbs it down for you real good.

 

[Pop23]

What I believe is that a homosexual couple, when it comes to marriage , should be treated legally exactly the same as my wife and I were treated.

Why do you think that homosexual couples should be discriminated against, and not treated equally?

A gay man can marry a gay woman just like anyone else in a real marriage would marry someone of the opposite sex.

The SCOTUS ruling overturned the meaning of the word marriage which has been established for thousands of years.

If the thought that the SCOTUS can redefine words in order to reinterpret law does not scare the beejeezus out of you then you are an ignorant fool.

Oh please, not that inane bigoted bovine excrement about how a gay man can marry a woman.....ALL OVER AGAIN. That is just stupid. Please see post 92 on this thread. It's dumbs it down for you real good.

They can and have.

 

[Silhouette]

So again, it is this perception of inequity and discrimination which has prompted the heterosexual support behind gay marriage. If States remove themselves from the issue by rendering marriage licensing obsolete, there is no more inequity or discrimination. Without that perception, the heterosexual support for gay marriage dissipates and eventually goes away, along with the popularity of gays marrying. After all, if there is no benefit to marriage from government, what is the point for homosexuals? Sure, there might be that rare case like the gay wedding I attended in 1986, but I am betting the vast majority of gay couples wouldn't really give a crap about "marrying" if there weren't some benefit.

There is, and it's the reason they've lobbied so hard, especially the gay men: preferential access to adoptable little boys...er...I mean kids. But oddly they seem to really always wind up with boys, statistically speaking. In fact, every single picture I've seen of two gay men with kids around them, the children are male children. Isn't that weird?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Oh please, not that inane bigoted bovine excrement about how a gay man can marry a woman.....ALL OVER AGAIN. That is just stupid. Please see post 92 on this thread. It's dumbs it down for you real good.

IT is not 'just stupid' it is the law.

Discrimination is specific to a specific act. It doesn't mean 'you don't like it', you stupid fagot

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh please, not that inane bigoted bovine excrement about how a gay man can marry a woman.....ALL OVER AGAIN. That is just stupid. Please see post 92 on this thread. It's dumbs it down for you real good.

IT is not 'just stupid' it is the law.

Discrimination is specific to a specific act. It doesn't mean 'you don't like it', you stupid fagot

Feel free to continue to wallow in your ignorant horseshit. . Read Post 92 above, ...or are you afraid that you might learn something?And making assumptions about someone sexuality is as stupid as stupid get. It tells me more than I need to know about you.