LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[Silhouette]

You don't make abnormal behavior "normal". You don't make the exception the rule. That's what's going on with marriage. LGBT seek to remove the clear robust icon and flatten it into a muddy freeforall of mental anomolies playing at man and wife. That's what happens when you allow a cult to tamper with mainstream values. The ripple effects run deep. Deeper than you will allow yourself to think. Speaking of keeping your blinders on from fear...

I don't need to even consider abnormal behaviour really.
If it's against the law, it's against the law and the law may deal with this.
If it's not against the law then the people should be able to do if they choose, it's not for me or you to tell them otherwise.

It is against the law to practice sex with the same gender and to want to marry that person, in many, many states. So you concede then that the law may deal with this in those states. Good. I see we are on the same page. Utah wins.

I remember I think it was Kennedy's comments after Lawrence v Texas where he said something like "just because we are decriminalizing sodomy, doesn't mean sodomy gets to marry". I wonder if he is regretting the decision to decriminalize it now? Or will stand firmly to assert what he said before in the Utah case?

 

[GreenBean]

So what? So what is that you made a false claim about blacks and marriage equality and I showed you how wrong you are...that's "so what".



Gays are married and creating our families just like everyone else...and apparently it bothers you a great deal. (good)

Seahag - we've had this conversation b4 - there's no statistical evidence indicative of you dykes being bad parents, there is however a trove of data to prove that your male counterparts need to be tediously analyzed, psychologically profiled and in most cases excluded from even being considered as adoptive parents

No actually, all the studies have shown that gay parents of either gender do not disadvantage their children.

Our kids are fine. Worry about kids of divorced parents.

Hey Seahag, just came bk from a trip,so my apologies for not responding to your tripe in a timely fashion,I know you must have been heartbroken.

Adoption of children by same-sex couples is a "social tragedy of the first order." Adoption by gay parents "a devastating trend" of "narcissistic" and "self-centered adults," .... Placing children in settings that even homosexuals admit are inherently unstable and even dangerous Is obviously a terrible, terrible idea. .... While the trend line for gay adoptions is “absolutely straight up,” according to Adam Pertman of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, Gary Gates of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at UCLA estimates that only four percent of the adopted population lives in gay-headed homes. ..... Gay Adoption Is A "Social Disaster"

In addition Queer males are notorious child molesters/pedophiles, as been demonstrated time and again. Take for instance the case of the 2 Australian faggots - Gays molest kids at a pathetically higher rate than normal people- in fact it seems that the entire sole driving force behind their disgusting and despicable existence is sexual gratification - nothing else matters to these vile perverts - it's their greatest joy in life. STAY AWAY FROM THE KIDS YOU SICK BASTARDS !!!!

[ame=http://youtu.be/7cKRy2WJ_tw]Pedophiles Adopt and Molest Boy - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Pop23]

Yes, the question are tough for frigidweirdo. Yet s/he accuses that others "don't want to go too deep from fear".

I'm not trying to be an ass. I have made many statements on these boards that I think the entire concept of Marriage may well be a thing of the past, like the horse and buggy.

Marriage SHOULD become a matter left to religion. The States should start establishment of contractual relationships that give the participants within those contracts the same rights, responsibilities and restrictions currently bestowed on Married couples.

The reason the word Marriage should go away is so that we no longer confuse it with the Church and because it carries a tradition that no longer applies. Start anew.

That being said, the concept of one Man plus one Woman, or Two single sex partners, though acceptable to the parties agreeable to those contracts seem to discount the third of the three basic sexualities, Bisexuals.

I keep hearing that the bisexual would have to choose one sex or the other to enter into either a unifying contract, or a Marriage, should we choose to simply modify traditional marriage. Yet that appears to me to ask bisexuals to make a choice that is not completely satisfactory.

More than one on this thread claims that this is appropriate, however, when given an example of a situation that indeed could happen, satisfying all parties involved all they can come up with is asking me if I could be attracted to another female other than my current wife?

An apples and orange comparison. Everyone obviously could. The difference is that I am entered into a contract, with another heterosexual which satisfies my sexuality.

Lets say I do become attracted to a female I am not currently married too. As per the current law I have a choice to divorce my wife and marry the other women. That would make sense. I am choosing a partner that fulfills my needs.

A bisexual however, might have a partner that finds another of the same sex attractive. She then proposes adding the same sex member to the partnership creating a female/female/male partnership. The female in the original partnership in bisexual. How do you apply the Gay or Heterosexual "rule" and make that equitable to an individual that is sexually attracted to BOTH genders.

It makes no sense to apply a standard of picking only one gender to a sexuality that desires a relationship with both.


Should the bisexual couple be given the right to include additional partners to satisfy the sexualities within the already established partnership?

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, the question are tough for frigidweirdo. Yet s/he accuses that others "don't want to go too deep from fear".

I'm not trying to be an ass. I have made many statements on these boards that I think the entire concept of Marriage may well be a thing of the past, like the horse and buggy.

Marriage SHOULD become a matter left to religion. The States should start establishment of contractual relationships that give the participants within those contracts the same rights, responsibilities and restrictions currently bestowed on Married couples.

The reason the word Marriage should go away is so that we no longer confuse it with the Church and because it carries a tradition that no longer applies. Start anew.

That being said, the concept of one Man plus one Woman, or Two single sex partners, though acceptable to the parties agreeable to those contracts seem to discount the third of the three basic sexualities, Bisexuals.

I keep hearing that the bisexual would have to choose one sex or the other to enter into either a unifying contract, or a Marriage, should we choose to simply modify traditional marriage. Yet that appears to me to ask bisexuals to make a choice that is not completely satisfactory.

More than one on this thread claims that this is appropriate, however, when given an example of a situation that indeed could happen, satisfying all parties involved all they can come up with is asking me if I could be attracted to another female other than my current wife?

An apples and orange comparison. Everyone obviously could. The difference is that I am entered into a contract, with another heterosexual which satisfies my sexuality.

Lets say I do become attracted to a female I am not currently married too. As per the current law I have a choice to divorce my wife and marry the other women. That would make sense. I am choosing a partner that fulfills my needs.

A bisexual however, might have a partner that finds another of the same sex attractive. She then proposes adding the same sex member to the partnership creating a female/female/male partnership. The female in the original partnership in bisexual. How do you apply the Gay or Heterosexual "rule" and make that equitable to an individual that is sexually attracted to BOTH genders.

It makes no sense to apply a standard of picking only one gender to a sexuality that desires a relationship with both.


Should the bisexual couple be given the right to include additional partners to satisfy the sexualities within the already established partnership?

Utah has made a very compelling argument that i agree with. Marriage as one man and one woman should be incentivized for the sake of children. Children born to their two natural parents stand the best chances statistically of those genetic drives to protect and raise their own young. Barren hetero couples don't interfere legally with the description so they are allowed. As long as they keep trying!..lol..

The best married situation for the benefit of children is one man, one woman, not related too closely by blood. Utah's premise is that marriage is the gold ring to grab for and as such comes with perks that other arrangements do not. They want to incentivize a steady population of children who have the best shot at life and protection from their natural blood kin in a life bonded pair.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is against the law to practice sex with the same gender and to want to marry that person, in many, many states. So you concede then that the law may deal with this in those states. Good. I see we are on the same page. Utah wins.

I remember I think it was Kennedy's comments after Lawrence v Texas where he said something like "just because we are decriminalizing sodomy, doesn't mean sodomy gets to marry". I wonder if he is regretting the decision to decriminalize it now? Or will stand firmly to assert what he said before in the Utah case?

The law is the law.

However law is changeable, and people put pressure on the govt to change things.

However, the 9th and 14th amendments are part of the law. The right to privacy is part of the law. In fact part of the higher law. It's call constitutional law.

If you ask someone what they think are fundamental things that the govt shouldn't have a choice in, marriage would probably be quite high up there.
Everyone more or less expects to be able to choose who they marry based on love. It's a given in US society, as in most of the west.

Whether Kennedy regrets it or not, his job is to interpret the constitution, not make law. Clearly the Constitution is being taken a little more notice by people as we advance in time and technology.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, the question are tough for frigidweirdo. Yet s/he accuses that others "don't want to go too deep from fear".

I'm not trying to be an ass. I have made many statements on these boards that I think the entire concept of Marriage may well be a thing of the past, like the horse and buggy.

Marriage SHOULD become a matter left to religion. The States should start establishment of contractual relationships that give the participants within those contracts the same rights, responsibilities and restrictions currently bestowed on Married couples.

The reason the word Marriage should go away is so that we no longer confuse it with the Church and because it carries a tradition that no longer applies. Start anew.

That being said, the concept of one Man plus one Woman, or Two single sex partners, though acceptable to the parties agreeable to those contracts seem to discount the third of the three basic sexualities, Bisexuals.

I keep hearing that the bisexual would have to choose one sex or the other to enter into either a unifying contract, or a Marriage, should we choose to simply modify traditional marriage. Yet that appears to me to ask bisexuals to make a choice that is not completely satisfactory.

More than one on this thread claims that this is appropriate, however, when given an example of a situation that indeed could happen, satisfying all parties involved all they can come up with is asking me if I could be attracted to another female other than my current wife?

An apples and orange comparison. Everyone obviously could. The difference is that I am entered into a contract, with another heterosexual which satisfies my sexuality.

Lets say I do become attracted to a female I am not currently married too. As per the current law I have a choice to divorce my wife and marry the other women. That would make sense. I am choosing a partner that fulfills my needs.

A bisexual however, might have a partner that finds another of the same sex attractive. She then proposes adding the same sex member to the partnership creating a female/female/male partnership. The female in the original partnership in bisexual. How do you apply the Gay or Heterosexual "rule" and make that equitable to an individual that is sexually attracted to BOTH genders.

It makes no sense to apply a standard of picking only one gender to a sexuality that desires a relationship with both.


Should the bisexual couple be given the right to include additional partners to satisfy the sexualities within the already established partnership?

Makes no sense.

A straight man marries a woman. He feels attracted to another woman, he can cheat, he can divorce or he can do nothing.

A gay man marries another man. He feel attracted to another man, he can cheat, he can divorce or he can do nothing.

A bisexual man marries another man. He feels attracted to a woman, he can cheat, he can divorce or he can do nothing.

You choose one person, a bisexual person can choose a person of either sex, they can marry that person and only that one person.

They are free to choose whichever consenting adult they would like to marry.

It's not difficult. It's equal.

Bisexuality does not mean that someone suddenly has the right to marry two people, one of either sex just because they like one person of either sex.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Utah has made a very compelling argument that i agree with. Marriage as one man and one woman should be incentivized for the sake of children. Children born to their two natural parents stand the best chances statistically of those genetic drives to protect and raise their own young. Barren hetero couples don't interfere legally with the description so they are allowed. As long as they keep trying!..lol..

The best married situation for the benefit of children is one man, one woman, not related too closely by blood. Utah's premise is that marriage is the gold ring to grab for and as such comes with perks that other arrangements do not. They want to incentivize a steady population of children who have the best shot at life and protection from their natural blood kin in a life bonded pair.

So, they should ban divorce for those with children under the age of 18. They should prevent the parents from going to prison for the sake of the children. They should make it illegal for them to argue seriously and continuously for the sake of the children.

Seriously, if it's about the children, and only the children, then you'd have a problem on your hands.

But then, when people get married, the state can say "your marriage is not in the best interests of potential children" and refuse the marriage. They should ask couples if they are going to have children, if they say no, then they can't marry.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, the question are tough for frigidweirdo. Yet s/he accuses that others "don't want to go too deep from fear".

I'm not trying to be an ass. I have made many statements on these boards that I think the entire concept of Marriage may well be a thing of the past, like the horse and buggy.

Marriage SHOULD become a matter left to religion. The States should start establishment of contractual relationships that give the participants within those contracts the same rights, responsibilities and restrictions currently bestowed on Married couples.

The reason the word Marriage should go away is so that we no longer confuse it with the Church and because it carries a tradition that no longer applies. Start anew.

That being said, the concept of one Man plus one Woman, or Two single sex partners, though acceptable to the parties agreeable to those contracts seem to discount the third of the three basic sexualities, Bisexuals.

I keep hearing that the bisexual would have to choose one sex or the other to enter into either a unifying contract, or a Marriage, should we choose to simply modify traditional marriage. Yet that appears to me to ask bisexuals to make a choice that is not completely satisfactory.

More than one on this thread claims that this is appropriate, however, when given an example of a situation that indeed could happen, satisfying all parties involved all they can come up with is asking me if I could be attracted to another female other than my current wife?

An apples and orange comparison. Everyone obviously could. The difference is that I am entered into a contract, with another heterosexual which satisfies my sexuality.

Lets say I do become attracted to a female I am not currently married too. As per the current law I have a choice to divorce my wife and marry the other women. That would make sense. I am choosing a partner that fulfills my needs.

A bisexual however, might have a partner that finds another of the same sex attractive. She then proposes adding the same sex member to the partnership creating a female/female/male partnership. The female in the original partnership in bisexual. How do you apply the Gay or Heterosexual "rule" and make that equitable to an individual that is sexually attracted to BOTH genders.

It makes no sense to apply a standard of picking only one gender to a sexuality that desires a relationship with both.


Should the bisexual couple be given the right to include additional partners to satisfy the sexualities within the already established partnership?

Makes no sense.

A straight man marries a woman. He feels attracted to another woman, he can cheat, he can divorce or he can do nothing.

A gay man marries another man. He feel attracted to another man, he can cheat, he can divorce or he can do nothing.

A bisexual man marries another man. He feels attracted to a woman, he can cheat, he can divorce or he can do nothing.

You choose one person, a bisexual person can choose a person of either sex, they can marry that person and only that one person.

They are free to choose whichever consenting adult they would like to marry.

It's not difficult. It's equal.

Bisexuality does not mean that someone suddenly has the right to marry two people, one of either sex just because they like one person of either sex.

Why?

A man marrying a women fulfills his heterosexuality completely within the union

A man marrying a man fulfills his homosexuality completely within the union

A women marrying a man does NOT fulfill her bisexuality completely within the union

You seem to want her to make a choice that flies in the face of her sexuality

How does this in any way = equality

Sound hypocritical. Like I got mine, screw you. That is what heterosexuals have been long accused of.

You are simply hung up on tradition.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why?

A man marrying a women fulfills his heterosexuality completely within the union

A man marrying a man fulfills his homosexuality completely within the union

A women marrying a man does NOT fulfill her bisexuality completely within the union

You seem to want her to make a choice that flies in the face of her sexuality

How does this in any way = equality

Sound hypocritical. Like I got mine, screw you. That is what heterosexuals have been long accused of.

You are simply hung up on tradition.

A man is designed to spread his seed, they don't want just want woman, they want lots.

You seem to have made this into some kind of mathematical equation rather than actual logic.

A man who wants to have a different woman every day, like say Presidents Clinton and Kennedy, and also chooses to marry, can't fulfill their completely.

You make an absurd point that a bisexual person has to have gay and straight relationships at the same time. Why? Have you ever met a bisexual person?

I lived with one at university. He was NEVER with two people at the same time, in fact he was hardly with anyone.

 

[Seawytch]

Let's recap this shall we?

You think that bisexuals will be happy choosing just one gender for a lifetime partner.

Is that a correct statement?

For you reference:

Bisexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shall we continue?

Why wouldn't they be? Just because a bisexual is attracted to both men and women does not mean they must act on their attractions. Have you ever been attracted to someone other than your life partner?

A guess nobody has to act on their attractions?

Again, my equality is not in question.

And equality for bisexuals isn't either. In 17 states and the District of Columbia they aren't discriminated against. In 17 states a bisexual can marry who they fall in love with regardless of gender...as it should be.

 

[Seawytch]

Seahag - we've had this conversation b4 - there's no statistical evidence indicative of you dykes being bad parents, there is however a trove of data to prove that your male counterparts need to be tediously analyzed, psychologically profiled and in most cases excluded from even being considered as adoptive parents

No actually, all the studies have shown that gay parents of either gender do not disadvantage their children.

Our kids are fine. Worry about kids of divorced parents.

Hey Seahag, just came bk from a trip,so my apologies for not responding to your tripe in a timely fashion,I know you must have been heartbroken.

Adoption of children by same-sex couples is a "social tragedy of the first order." Adoption by gay parents "a devastating trend" of "narcissistic" and "self-centered adults," .... Placing children in settings that even homosexuals admit are inherently unstable and even dangerous Is obviously a terrible, terrible idea. .... While the trend line for gay adoptions is “absolutely straight up,” according to Adam Pertman of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, Gary Gates of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at UCLA estimates that only four percent of the adopted population lives in gay-headed homes. ..... Gay Adoption Is A "Social Disaster"

In addition Queer males are notorious child molesters/pedophiles, as been demonstrated time and again. Take for instance the case of the 2 Australian faggots - Gays molest kids at a pathetically higher rate than normal people- in fact it seems that the entire sole driving force behind their disgusting and despicable existence is sexual gratification - nothing else matters to these vile perverts - it's their greatest joy in life. STAY AWAY FROM THE KIDS YOU SICK BASTARDS !!!!

Beanie, haven't you learned your lesson? You shouldn't discuss topics that 1) you have no idea about and 2) get you suspended.

 

[GreenBean]

No actually, all the studies have shown that gay parents of either gender do not disadvantage their children.

Our kids are fine. Worry about kids of divorced parents.

Hey Seahag, just came bk from a trip,so my apologies for not responding to your tripe in a timely fashion,I know you must have been heartbroken.

Adoption of children by same-sex couples is a "social tragedy of the first order." Adoption by gay parents "a devastating trend" of "narcissistic" and "self-centered adults," .... Placing children in settings that even homosexuals admit are inherently unstable and even dangerous Is obviously a terrible, terrible idea. .... While the trend line for gay adoptions is “absolutely straight up,” according to Adam Pertman of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, Gary Gates of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at UCLA estimates that only four percent of the adopted population lives in gay-headed homes. ..... Gay Adoption Is A "Social Disaster"

In addition Queer males are notorious child molesters/pedophiles, as been demonstrated time and again. Take for instance the case of the 2 Australian faggots - Gays molest kids at a pathetically higher rate than normal people- in fact it seems that the entire sole driving force behind their disgusting and despicable existence is sexual gratification - nothing else matters to these vile perverts - it's their greatest joy in life. STAY AWAY FROM THE KIDS YOU SICK BASTARDS !!!!

Beanie, haven't you learned your lesson? You shouldn't discuss topics that 1) you have no idea about and 2)



get you suspended.

Beanie, haven't you learned your lesson? You shouldn't discuss topics that 1) you have no idea about and

My knowledge on the topic is unsurpassed and irrefutable, which you have apparently learned, and is why you refuse to address the content of my posts - primarily because you know you will torn apart.

2) get you suspended

That might be true elsewhere, but USMB is not chained by the Liberal Mob and as has been demonstrated , is one of the few places on the web where true freedom of speech reigns - I know that Queers, Dykes , Liberals and Nazis such as yourself hate freedom of speech - but get used to it - it's coming back

 

[Pop23]

Why?

A man marrying a women fulfills his heterosexuality completely within the union

A man marrying a man fulfills his homosexuality completely within the union

A women marrying a man does NOT fulfill her bisexuality completely within the union

You seem to want her to make a choice that flies in the face of her sexuality

How does this in any way = equality

Sound hypocritical. Like I got mine, screw you. That is what heterosexuals have been long accused of.

You are simply hung up on tradition.

A man is designed to spread his seed, they don't want just want woman, they want lots.

You seem to have made this into some kind of mathematical equation rather than actual logic.

A man who wants to have a different woman every day, like say Presidents Clinton and Kennedy, and also chooses to marry, can't fulfill their completely.

You make an absurd point that a bisexual person has to have gay and straight relationships at the same time. Why? Have you ever met a bisexual person?

I lived with one at university. He was NEVER with two people at the same time, in fact he was hardly with anyone.

A Man is designed to spread his seed? Naturally?

I am not sure I would bring design or nature into this.

Nature is reliant on Heterosexuality, to a less extent Bisexuality and has zero reliance on Homosexuality, so that argument makes no sense and actually bolsters my argument that bisexuality is not being treated equally.

You go to great extent to the "cheating" that everyone can do to fulfill their sexuality. I suppose they can, anyone can of course, but ALL of those affairs fall outside the Marriage contracts.

Heterosexuals may fulfill their sexuality within the Marriage Contract if they wish

Homosexuals may fulfill their sexuality within the Marriage Contract if they wish

Bisexuals cannot fulfill their sexuality within the Marriage Contract.

I posted this before:

Two bisexuals, one male, one female meet, fall in love and after discussion think that marriage is a good idea. One benefit is that they both desire a biological child. So they marry and soon have the child.

Later she meets a female that she's attracted to, and they fall in love. She introduces her to her husband and he admits he's attracted to her also. This seems perfect for all concerned. As time goes by, the female and the husband also fall in love and have a child. They all are happy with the arrangement, but they can't marry?

Why?

The only answer I have seen is that the bisexual must be forced to make a choice, based on traditional values that creates a burden on them that is none existent in Heterosexual or Homosexual Marriage.

 

[Seawytch]

Hey Seahag, just came bk from a trip,so my apologies for not responding to your tripe in a timely fashion,I know you must have been heartbroken.

Adoption of children by same-sex couples is a "social tragedy of the first order." Adoption by gay parents "a devastating trend" of "narcissistic" and "self-centered adults," .... Placing children in settings that even homosexuals admit are inherently unstable and even dangerous Is obviously a terrible, terrible idea. .... While the trend line for gay adoptions is “absolutely straight up,” according to Adam Pertman of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, Gary Gates of the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at UCLA estimates that only four percent of the adopted population lives in gay-headed homes. ..... Gay Adoption Is A "Social Disaster"

In addition Queer males are notorious child molesters/pedophiles, as been demonstrated time and again. Take for instance the case of the 2 Australian faggots - Gays molest kids at a pathetically higher rate than normal people- in fact it seems that the entire sole driving force behind their disgusting and despicable existence is sexual gratification - nothing else matters to these vile perverts - it's their greatest joy in life. STAY AWAY FROM THE KIDS YOU SICK BASTARDS !!!!

Beanie, haven't you learned your lesson? You shouldn't discuss topics that 1) you have no idea about and 2)



get you suspended.

Beanie, haven't you learned your lesson? You shouldn't discuss topics that 1) you have no idea about and

My knowledge on the topic is unsurpassed and irrefutable, which you have apparently learned, and is why you refuse to address the content of my posts - primarily because you know you will torn apart.

2) get you suspended

That might be true elsewhere, but USMB is not chained by the Liberal Mob and as has been demonstrated , is one of the few places on the web where true freedom of speech reigns - I know that Queers, Dykes , Liberals and Nazis such as yourself hate freedom of speech - but get used to it - it's coming back

If the topic is bovine feces, I agree. If the topic is gay parenting...what you know wouldn't fill a thimble.

Just a word of caution, Bean...keep away from gay=pedophile. It's wrong to start with and you've already gotten in trouble for it. Our kid are fine, leave the subject alone.

 

[Silhouette]

A man is designed to spread his seed, they don't want just want woman, they want lots.

You seem to have made this into some kind of mathematical equation rather than actual logic.

I like Utah's logic regarding children.

Utah has made a very compelling argument that i agree with. Marriage as one man and one woman should be incentivized for the sake of children. Children born to their two natural parents stand the best chances statistically of those genetic drives to protect and raise their own young. Barren hetero couples don't interfere legally with the description so they are allowed. As long as they keep trying!..lol..

The best married situation for the benefit of children is one man, one woman, not related too closely by blood. Utah's premise is that marriage is the gold ring to grab for and as such comes with perks that other arrangements do not. They want to incentivize a steady population of children who have the best shot at life and protection from their natural blood kin in a life bonded pair.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A Man is designed to spread his seed? Naturally?

I am not sure I would bring design or nature into this.

Nature is reliant on Heterosexuality, to a less extent Bisexuality and has zero reliance on Homosexuality, so that argument makes no sense and actually bolsters my argument that bisexuality is not being treated equally.

You go to great extent to the "cheating" that everyone can do to fulfill their sexuality. I suppose they can, anyone can of course, but ALL of those affairs fall outside the Marriage contracts.

Heterosexuals may fulfill their sexuality within the Marriage Contract if they wish

Homosexuals may fulfill their sexuality within the Marriage Contract if they wish

Bisexuals cannot fulfill their sexuality within the Marriage Contract.

I posted this before:

Two bisexuals, one male, one female meet, fall in love and after discussion think that marriage is a good idea. One benefit is that they both desire a biological child. So they marry and soon have the child.

Later she meets a female that she's attracted to, and they fall in love. She introduces her to her husband and he admits he's attracted to her also. This seems perfect for all concerned. As time goes by, the female and the husband also fall in love and have a child. They all are happy with the arrangement, but they can't marry?

Why?

The only answer I have seen is that the bisexual must be forced to make a choice, based on traditional values that creates a burden on them that is none existent in Heterosexual or Homosexual Marriage.

What is this "fulfill their sexuality" lark?

Listen, my aunt, as my father found out, who didn't have children, managed to be married into her 70s and still made it to sex clubs all the time. It was tolerated within the marriage.
She could never have fulfilled her sexuality within her marriage to her husband.

She was straight, by the way.

So..... what? Are you now saying that people who want to have sex with different people are being treated unfairly?

Cheating is outside of the marriage contract, having sex with other people is like this, but some people just damn well need sex with other people.

As for your little scenario. Why can't they marry? Because you can only be married to one person legally. You must choose which person you want to be married to. If you want to f**k around with other people while you are married, and your partner doesn't mind, then this is what you can do.

You're making an absurd claim about "fulfilling your sexuality" which we could find millions of straight, or gay people, who would not be able to fulfill their sexuality within their marriage either.

So you're calling for polygamy. Which to be honest I don't really care if people want polygamy as long as it's not done from male supremacist point of view.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I like Utah's logic regarding children.

Utah has made a very compelling argument that i agree with. Marriage as one man and one woman should be incentivized for the sake of children. Children born to their two natural parents stand the best chances statistically of those genetic drives to protect and raise their own young. Barren hetero couples don't interfere legally with the description so they are allowed. As long as they keep trying!..lol..

The best married situation for the benefit of children is one man, one woman, not related too closely by blood. Utah's premise is that marriage is the gold ring to grab for and as such comes with perks that other arrangements do not. They want to incentivize a steady population of children who have the best shot at life and protection from their natural blood kin in a life bonded pair.

Utah's logic could cause many problems.

The best situation for children could be one man and one woman married. The worst situation for children could also be one man and one woman married.

40% first marriage divorce rate suggests that it's not always such a great place to be growing up. I know kids who are having a hell of a time because their mom and dad are making their lives hell right now.

Now, if you really wanted it to all be about the children, then maybe you'd have education for people in choosing the right partner, in how to bring children up, and you'd have support all along the way for this. It'd cost lots of money though. Oh, wait, you don't want to spend money to get to this point, you just want marriage.

Now, answer this question.

If gay people can marry each other, how does this affect children?

It doesn't. Not one bit.

So, having marriage contracts and tax breaks and things on top of this but making them equal, doesn't do much different for the kids than happens now.

Unless of course you're going to stop any heterosexual couple which doesn't want children, from marrying.

 

[Pop23]

A Man is designed to spread his seed? Naturally?

I am not sure I would bring design or nature into this.

Nature is reliant on Heterosexuality, to a less extent Bisexuality and has zero reliance on Homosexuality, so that argument makes no sense and actually bolsters my argument that bisexuality is not being treated equally.

You go to great extent to the "cheating" that everyone can do to fulfill their sexuality. I suppose they can, anyone can of course, but ALL of those affairs fall outside the Marriage contracts.

Heterosexuals may fulfill their sexuality within the Marriage Contract if they wish

Homosexuals may fulfill their sexuality within the Marriage Contract if they wish

Bisexuals cannot fulfill their sexuality within the Marriage Contract.

I posted this before:

Two bisexuals, one male, one female meet, fall in love and after discussion think that marriage is a good idea. One benefit is that they both desire a biological child. So they marry and soon have the child.

Later she meets a female that she's attracted to, and they fall in love. She introduces her to her husband and he admits he's attracted to her also. This seems perfect for all concerned. As time goes by, the female and the husband also fall in love and have a child. They all are happy with the arrangement, but they can't marry?

Why?

The only answer I have seen is that the bisexual must be forced to make a choice, based on traditional values that creates a burden on them that is none existent in Heterosexual or Homosexual Marriage.

What is this "fulfill their sexuality" lark?

Listen, my aunt, as my father found out, who didn't have children, managed to be married into her 70s and still made it to sex clubs all the time. It was tolerated within the marriage.
She could never have fulfilled her sexuality within her marriage to her husband.

She was straight, by the way.

So..... what? Are you now saying that people who want to have sex with different people are being treated unfairly?

Cheating is outside of the marriage contract, having sex with other people is like this, but some people just damn well need sex with other people.

As for your little scenario. Why can't they marry? Because you can only be married to one person legally. You must choose which person you want to be married to. If you want to f**k around with other people while you are married, and your partner doesn't mind, then this is what you can do.

You're making an absurd claim about "fulfilling your sexuality" which we could find millions of straight, or gay people, who would not be able to fulfill their sexuality within their marriage either.

So you're calling for polygamy. Which to be honest I don't really care if people want polygamy as long as it's not done from male supremacist point of view.

Ok, I'm trying to stay civil

Your argument is that because some within the subset of Hetero and homosexual marriage will stray outside the marriage I t's OK that bisexuals MUST to be completely fulfilled

The argument then could be that marriage between only a male and a female is acceptable because anyone can stray outside the marriage to be sexually fulfilled.

You are putting a Burden on one group NOT placed on the other two and call that equitable?

 

[GreenBean]

Beanie, haven't you learned your lesson? You shouldn't discuss topics that 1) you have no idea about and 2)



get you suspended.

My knowledge on the topic is unsurpassed and irrefutable, which you have apparently learned, and is why you refuse to address the content of my posts - primarily because you know you will torn apart.

2) get you suspended

That might be true elsewhere, but USMB is not chained by the Liberal Mob and as has been demonstrated , is one of the few places on the web where true freedom of speech reigns - I know that Queers, Dykes , Liberals and Nazis such as yourself hate freedom of speech - but get used to it - it's coming back

If the topic is bovine feces, I agree. If the topic is gay parenting...what you know wouldn't fill a thimble.

Just a word of caution, Bean...keep away from gay=pedophile. It's wrong to start with and you've already gotten in trouble for it. Our kid are fine, leave the subject alone.

Just a word of caution, Bean...keep away from gay=pedophile. It's wrong to start with and you've already gotten in trouble for it. Our kid are fine, leave the subject alone.

No I haven't , and yes , when speaking of Gay males / percentage wise, it is true Gay does Equal Pedophile statistically speaking of course. That is not to say that every Gay male is a baby boinker - but a very large percentage is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ok, I'm trying to stay civil

Your argument is that because some within the subset of Hetero and homosexual marriage will stray outside the marriage I t's OK that bisexuals MUST to be completely fulfilled

The argument then could be that marriage between only a male and a female is acceptable because anyone can stray outside the marriage to be sexually fulfilled.

You are putting a Burden on one group NOT placed on the other two and call that equitable?

No, i'm not putting the burden on anyone.

Either you have polygamy or you don't.

Your argument is that straight and gay people can be sexually fulfilled within the marriage and bisexual people can't. This is complete nonsense.

Straight people might not like being with just one person. So you're advocating polygamy.


Every person should be able to marry a consenting adult of their choice, unless it harms others, which would be incest.

You're bring sex into this issue. What does sex have to do with all of this?

Many people get married and sex outside of marriage, you don't need to be married to have sex, and you can be married and agree to have sex with other people, it happens.

So, i'll ask some questions.

Will a straight person ALWAYS be sexually fulfilled in a marriage with a person of the opposite sex?

Will a gay person ALWAYS be sexually fulfilled in a marriage with a person of the same sex?

Will a bisexual person NEVER be sexually fulfilled in a marriage with only one person?

Does a bisexual person have to have sex with both males and females in order to be sexually fulfilled?