Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[Bob Blaylock]

Wrong. Gay men produce sperm and donate it to a woman of any sexual orientation . Lesbians can carry the child of a sperm donor who may be gay or straight. Same sex couples are not reliant on straight people

Ultimately, even if it is done in such an artificial manner, and completely removed from any actual social relationship between the child, his father, and his mothers, it still takes a heterosexual act to create that child. There is no way around this basic biological fact, and no homosexual way to produce a child.

Surely it is deeply unethical and immoral to intentionally produce a child, with no intent of providing that child with a proper family, with a father and a mother.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

True, but only one of the groups are necessary for the existence of the species, making the difference ultimately important. The existence of the second group? Not so much.

The difference is remarkable although some, less important similarities do exist.

Gay men and lesbians are not steril

The worlds population is not in danger of collapsing

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Marriage is about a LOT more than procreation. It's about 2 consenting adults who decide to spend the rest of their life together. Now, Government has decided that to make that commitment official confers financial and legal advantages. And you want to deny those rights to a portion of the population

Family, based on a marriage between a man and a woman, is the basis for every stable human society that has ever existed, or ever will exist. Society has a legitimate interest in encouraging and promoting this structure, and so it is certainly legitimate for government to give financial and legal incentives in that direction.

Why should these same incentives be given to those who only wish to undermine this structure, and to destabilize society? That's just crazy. That defeats the very purpose of these incentives.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That certainly was a nice deflection. But in each and every creation of offspring, regardless of sexuality, a male component and a female component is required.

Thanks.

What deflection? It was a dirct reponse to your inane assertion that gay people need straignt people to reproduce

No one needs you to tell them that " a male and female component" is needed. That in no way negates anything that I have said

Again I ask. What is your point and what does it have to do with the marriage issue?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Both groups have couples that can't or don't want children
Both groups have couples that will adopt and/or use inseminations to conceive.

They have a lot more similarities than you want to admit.

This is odd. Why is HeyNorm giving you a thumbs up when you are pushing back against what they said? Something is wrong with this picture.

 

[AsherN]

Family, based on a marriage between a man and a woman, is the basis for every stable human society that has ever existed, or ever will exist. Society has a legitimate interest in encouraging and promoting this structure, and so it is certainly legitimate for government to give financial and legal incentives in that direction.

Why should these same incentives be given to those who only wish to undermine this structure, and to destabilize society? That's just crazy. That defeats the very purpose of these incentives.

What destabilization? 2 loving people making a life together?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What destabilization? 2 loving people making a life together?

You will soon realize that https://www.usmessageboard.com/members/bob-blaylock.55534/ is not playing with full deck

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Cruz is right. That's not the job of the Supreme Court

Then what is the job of the Supreme Court?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

as usual you totally missed the point. there is a difference between being open and flaunting. that is my issue. openness is fine, flaunting is wrong no matter who is doing it.

Define flaunting

 

[HeyNorm]

What deflection? It was a dirct reponse to your inane assertion that gay people need straignt people to reproduce

No one needs you to tell them that " a male and female component" is needed. That in no way negates anything that I have said

Again I ask. What is your point and what does it have to do with the marriage issue?

I made no such assertion. Two married straight men could not create offspring from solely within their marriage either. A female, regardless of her sexuality would be a requirement to do so.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I made no such assertion. Two married straight men could not create offspring from solely within their marriage either. A female, regardless of her sexuality would be a requirement to do so.

Really? Now you are throwing curve balls with this "two married straight men " thing. You keep repeating the fact the it takes a male and a femal to produce a child but refuse to acknowledge the fact that gay people do in fact have children


Did you not not say that gay people rely on straight people to produce children? Yes you did! Did I not explain why that is bullshit? Yes I did! And you accused me of deflecting? I am beginning to become annoyed with you.

You seem to think that because it takes a mle and a female to produce a chlild , that gays are dependent og straight people to have children. That is a non sequitur fallacy! Your premis does not support your conclusion!

Let's just cut to the chase here . Once again. This thread is about the legalization of same sex marriage. Obviously you have something that you want to say about that or you would not be here. Equally obvious is that you are not willing or able to say what it is that is on your mind.

Just cut the crap about who can produce children and how they can do it- grow a spine -and say what it is you believe about legal gay marriage and explain how this reproductive matter relates to gay marriage. Just do it! Or, as my father used to say: Shit or get off of the pot.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Related News:

Old Habits Are Hard to Break: Anti-Equality Leaders’ Dishonest and Alarmist Attacks on the Respect for Marriage Act | Right Wing Watch

Commentary A bipartisan majority cleared the way this week for the U.S. Senate to consider legislation that would protect legal recognition for same-sex

www.rightwingwatch.org

It’s important to note that the religious right’s claims about the Respect for Marriage Act are not only rejected by the Mormon Church. The law is backed by 40 religious organizations that represent millions of Americans from different faiths. A Thursday morning press conference supporting the legislation was co-sponsored by the Interfaith Alliance, Faithful America, Keshet, The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, United Church of Christ Justice and Local Church Ministries, National Council for Jewish Women, and Hindus for Human Rights, among others.

Moreover, opponents of marriage equality do not come close to speaking for most Americans, most people of faith, or even most Christians. A survey released earlier this year by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 68 percent of Americans support marriage equality, as do most white Catholics, white mainline Protestants, and majorities of Black, Hispanic, White, and multiracial Americans. Almost 80 percent of Americans, including about two-thirds of Republicans, support laws protecting LGBTQ people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodations, and housing. About two-thirds of Americans oppose allowing business owners to refuse to provide products or services to gay or lesbian people based on their religious beliefs.

 

[HeyNorm]

Really? Now you are throwing curve balls with this "two married straight men " thing. You keep repeating the fact the it takes a male and a femal to produce a child but refuse to acknowledge the fact that gay people do in fact have children


Did you not not say that gay people rely on straight people to produce children? Yes you did! Did I not explain why that is bullshit? Yes I did! And you accused me of deflecting? I am beginning to become annoyed with you.

You seem to think that because it takes a mle and a female to produce a chlild , that gays are dependent og straight people to have children. That is a non sequitur fallacy! You premis does not support your conclusion!

Let's just cut to the chase here . Once again. This thread is about the legalization of same sex marriage. Obviously you have something that you want to say about that or you would not be here. Equally obvious is that you are not willing or able to say what it is that is on your mind.

Just cut the crap about who can produce children and how they can do it- grow a spine -and say what it is you believe about legal gay marriage and explain how this reproductive matter relates to gay marriage. Just do it! Or, as my father used to say: Shit or get off of the pot.

I never said gay people rely on straight people to produce offspring.

You don’t comprehend well.

Or do you believe same sex marriage is just about gay unions?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I never said gay people rely on straight people to produce offspring.

You don’t comprehend well.

Bullshit!
From your post 1810:

One group is reliant on the other group to become a “parent”, and the two remain incredibly different.

Is there something wrong with you?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I never said gay people rely on straight people to produce offspring.

You don’t comprehend well.

Or do you believe same sex marriage is just about gay unions?

What in the hell is that supposed to mean? It is about gay unions. The fact that two straight people of the same sex could marry is irrelevent and it rarely happens.

You continue to avoid the topic of the role of producing children in relation to same sex marriage You seem to be playing some sick and bizarre game here. I do not have time for your childish games.

Now two questions!

1Do you think that gay couples shoud be able to marry? Yes or no? If not, why not?

2 What role, if any does reproduction have in relation to whether or not two GAY people of the same gender can marry ?

Very straight forward no bullshit questions. Deal with it!

 

[HeyNorm]

Bullshit!
From your post 1810:



Is there something wrong with you?

Lol. The two groups were.

1. Couples made up of opposite sex individuals

2. Couples made up of same sex individuals.

No sexuality was mentioned.

You’re becoming tiresome.

 

[HeyNorm]

What in the hell is that supposed to mean? Its is about gay unions. The fact that two straight people of the same sex could marry is irrelevent.

You continue to avoid the topic of the role of producing children in relation to same sex marriage You seem to be playing some sick and bizarre game here. I do not have time for your childish games.

It’s absolutely relevant. Are you trying to limit people rights?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Lol. The two groups were.

1. Couples made up of opposite sex individuals

2. Couples made up of same sex individuals.

No sexuality was mentioned.

You’re becoming tiresome.

What a bunch of bullshit! I know and you you know what you meant. More sick games! Where are all of the same sex couples who are not gay?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It’s absolutely relevant. Are you trying to limit people rights?

How the fuck am I trying to limit anyones rights. YOU are tiresome , Answere my questions in 1836 or get the fuck out of here