Respect for Marriage Act?

[Curried Goats]

The battle was lost, the war is still in doubt.

There's no doubt in my mind, speak for yourself.

And in 3-5 years? Game/set/match.

Is that what the adults at your fantasy meeting concluded?

And I will lose my right to same sex marriage.

But not the frequency with which you get man handled.

 

[surada]

Where did I claim such?

#221

 

[HeyNorm]

There's no doubt in my mind, speak for yourself.

Is that what the adults at your fantasy meeting concluded?

But not the frequency with which you get man handled.

Not interested dude. I hear there’s bars that cater to that though. But you’re likely a regular at em.

 

[HeyNorm]

#221

Nope, but that’s ok.

 

[Curried Goats]

Not interested dude. I hear there’s bars that cater to that though. But you’re likely a regular at em.

More fantasy? We understand the escapism in light of your ongoing loser status.

 

[HeyNorm]

More fantasy? We understand the escapism in light of your ongoing loser status.

You a heterophobe? The way you post makes everyone probably think so. I mean you even think everyone should mix their reproductive parts in a test tube.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, gay union can not create children. The only way they can is from outside their union.

ALWAYS.

And? Many hetero couples get help from various sources to conceive.

And many hetero couples choose not to have children. Is their marriage invalid?

 

[Curried Goats]

You a heterophobe? The way you post makes everyone probably think so. I mean you even think everyone should mix their reproductive parts in a test tube.

Have I said that? Just because you've said some stupid and embarrassing things that we can all point and laugh at doesn't mean you have to make up stories about others.

 

[HeyNorm]

And? Many hetero couples get help from various sources to conceive.

And many hetero couples choose not to have children. Is their marriage invalid?

Not at all invalid.

1. To discriminate based on a reproductive disability should not be allowed. Not in marriage or any other civil contract. And discrimination because of advanced age is also despicable.

2. Many who marry, but don’t want a child is still valid. Many will change their mind, and the others should not be forced to give birth (does that argument sound familiar?).

Now, if marriage is not intended to be for those of opposite sex, how can the requirement for those participants to be “not too closely related” withstand judicial scrutiny?

I just don’t see the argument.

 

[HeyNorm]

Have I said that? Just because you've said some stupid and embarrassing things that we can all point and laugh at doesn't mean you have to make up stories about others.

More likely they are arguments that actually make sense, but you would have to give up your SJW card when you change your mind.

 

[Curried Goats]

More likely they are arguments that actually make sense, but you would have to give up your SJW card when you change your mind.

No. All your arguments thus far have proven to be ass. You have no reason to oppose same sex marriage save bigotry.

 

[HeyNorm]

No. All your arguments thus far have proven to be ass. You have no reason to oppose same sex marriage save bigotry.

What bigoted statement have I made?

I know, I know, you can’t find any, but because I hurt your feels, I must be a bigot

 

[WinterBorn]

Not at all invalid.

1. To discriminate based on a reproductive disability should not be allowed. Not in marriage or any other civil contract. And discrimination because of advanced age is also despicable.

2. Many who marry, but don’t want a child is still valid. Many will change their mind, and the others should not be forced to give birth (does that argument sound familiar?).

Now, if marriage is not intended to be for those of opposite sex, how can the requirement for those participants to be “not too closely related” withstand judicial scrutiny?

I just don’t see the argument.

The ability to bear children without outside help is not a requirement of marriage. It is an excuse used to prohibit same sex marriages.

I still do not understand why people get so worked up about something that has absolutely no effect on them.

 

[Curried Goats]

What bigoted statement have I made?

The ones where you oppose same sex people being allowed to marry who the adults want to.

I know, I know, you can’t find any, but because I hurt your feels, I must be a bigot

We have found you out bigot and society doesn't care about your feelings, it recognizes the legal right of same sex couples to marry.

 

[HeyNorm]

The ability to bear children without outside help is not a requirement of marriage. It is an excuse used to prohibit same sex marriages.

I still do not understand why people get so worked up about something that has absolutely no effect on them.

Then I guess we don’t need that pesky “not too closely related” requirement, right? Because it ONLY makes sense if the couple has the ability to create offspring, right?

 

[HeyNorm]

The ones where you oppose same sex people being allowed to marry who the adults want to.

We have found you out bigot and society doesn't care about your feelings, it recognizes the legal right of same sex couples to marry.

Nope, I am 100% inclusive.

 

[Curried Goats]

Not at all invalid.

1. To discriminate based on a reproductive disability should not be allowed. Not in marriage or any other civil contract. And discrimination because of advanced age is also despicable.

2. Many who marry, but don’t want a child is still valid. Many will change their mind, and the others should not be forced to give birth (does that argument sound familiar?).

Now, if marriage is not intended to be for those of opposite sex, how can the requirement for those participants to be “not too closely related” withstand judicial scrutiny?

I just don’t see the argument.

Just because one provision of marriage is designed to protect any potential offspring from compromised DNA does not mean marriage is intended for the opposite sex. That's not how logic and reason work Short Bus.

 

[Curried Goats]

Then I guess we don’t need that pesky “not too closely related” requirement, right? Because it ONLY makes sense if the couple has the ability to create offspring, right?

Just because a provision makes sense in one instance doesn't mean it follows that those are the only instances that are valid. Learn to logic better.

 

[HeyNorm]

Just because one provision of marriage is designed to protect any potential offspring from compromised DNA does not mean marriage is intended for the opposite sex. That's not how logic and reason work Short Bus.

So I guess the whole “similarly situated” argument just blew up?

Thought so.

 

[Curried Goats]

So I guess the whole “similarly situated” argument just blew up?

Is that what you guess?

Thought so.

Why? Go ahead and share your opinion on the matter so we can point and laugh at you again.