Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
PS If two men, or two women are married, is there some sort of test that they can take to determine if they are gay or not, so that we know what to call it and what rules and legal system they fall under?
If you think that I am mcking you, you are right.
So you are saying that regardless of seuality, all same sex couples are suject to the same rules and legal system and the union is called the same thing? And what would it be called and what exactly are the "rules"?Why would a test be required in the first place? Whether the two individuals are gay or straight, if they are of the same sex, their biological nature as a couple are the same. Which, by the way, is quite different than opposite sex couples.
So you are saying that regardless of seuality, all same sex couples are suject to the same rules and legal system and the union is called the same thing? And what would it be called and what exactly are the "rules"?
Looks like we have come full circle. As I suspected you are still stuck in the mud over that conception issue. You do not seam to learn. very easily. GAY PEOPLE HAVE CHILREN. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW THEY ARE PARENTS TO THOSE CHILDREN WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE BIOLOGICALLY RELATED.You, and a very small subset of the total can claim that a Union of opposite sex couple are similarly situated to same sex couples, but as I demonstrated in my initial post, and those since, they are worlds apart.
Only participation of males/females combined, can offspring be created. And without offspring, the species fails to exist.
That’s science and reality.
The difference in vast.
What are the different purposes? Spell it out.Oh, I don’t see how the two could hold the same moniker. They serve far different purpose. One is a Marriage as traditionally defined, the second could be named something appropriate to its function, but not Marriage.
Looks like we have come full circle. As I suspected you are still stuck in the mud over that conception issue. You do not seam to learn. very easily. GAY PEOPLE HAVE CHILREN. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW THEY ARE PARENTS TO THOSE CHILDREN WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE BIOLOGICALLY RELATED.
They all are similarly situated! Still waiting for you to tell us what the rules are for those gay couples. What would the law say?
What are the different purposes? Spell it out.
At least you are finally admitting that you advocate unequal treatment for gay and straight couples, and that you are , therefore a BIGOT
That is just to stupid to comment on! You seem to be getting desparate.If I demand a truck driver to have a CDL license even though they have an automobile license, am I a bigot?
You really don't learn very well and you keep proving it.Yes, gay people do have children, but ALWAYS rely on those of the opposite sex to conceive. That again is simple biological fact.
Gay couples cannot conceive within their own relationship, unless the gay couple are opposite sex. That is also biological fact.
To call this similar to the demographic made up of opposite sex couples is absurdity.
No fucking shit! So what?Gay couples cannot conceive within their own relationship, unless the gay couple are opposite sex. That is also biological fact.
You really don't learn very well and you keep proving it.
The fact that it takes the biological elemnts of a man and a woman to to conceive a child is obvious and therefore stupid to keep repeating. And the fact is that gay couples need "third party help" to conceive and that only one partner will be a biological parent. So what?
It is also true that the same can be said of many many heterosexual couples. You seem to be unable to understand that gay and lesbian people have all of the working parts needed to produce a child. You are confusing homosexuality with sterility. Please give me a sign that you are not actually that stupid!
Are you actually advocating for those heterosexual couples-and therefor their children- to be treated differently than the same sex couples? Yes or no and why?
Children are children regardless of how they came into the world and who they are born to ....Do you agree or not?
All children deserve to be abe to say that their parents are married. Yes or no?
All children deserve the legal protection and financial security of having two parents who are both their legal guardians Yes or No?
So what exactly are your different rules and legal system for gay couples. What does gay marriage or what ever you want to call actually look like. Spell it out!
You are the very definition of absurdity. Children are children. Parents are parents regadless of biology. All parents and all children deserve to be treated equally. You bigots insist on using children as pawns in your failed and pathetic crusade against marriage equality and the more you do that, the more despicable you become. We are at a point here where you are actually nauseating me.Yes, gay people do have children, but ALWAYS rely on those of the opposite sex to conceive. That again is simple biological fact.
Gay couples cannot conceive within their own relationship, unless the gay couple are opposite sex. That is also biological fact.
To call this similar to the demographic made up of opposite sex couples is absurdity.
No fucking shit! So what?
You are the very definition of absurdity. Children are children. Parents are parents regadless of biology. All parents and all children deserve to be treated equally. You bigots insist on using children as pawns in your failed crusade against marriage equality and the more you do that, the more despicable you become. We are at a point here where you are actually nauseating me.
OK ,let's back up a bit. You keep emphasising tat they are "different" My position is "not really" Not different than many heterosexual couples who cannot have children one on one and certainly not different in any meaningful way from all of the others- because have children are conceived is not important. What is important is the ability of the adults to be parents and in that respect-THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE .Obvioulsy we are not going to agree on that. So, let me ask you this (again):Then the two demographic groups a quite different. But thanks for asking again.
WHAT???Children as pawns? Us? We make them!
So how many cases of straight people want to marry someone of their own gender have you come up with so far?
I could see business partners of the same sex insisting on a marriage contract to protect their interests in the case of a breakup or the death of a partner. The idea of "same sex marriage" is a new one, the lawyers haven't figured out how to manipulate it fully.
The real problem is that people aren't permitted to have a "Same Sex Marriage" at the same time as a normative marriage, and that could be discriminatory against those who are already normatively married but entering a tricky business matter where they might want this further protection.
OK ,let's back up a bit. You keep emphasising tat they are "different" My position is "not really" Not different than many heterosexual couples who cannot have children one on one and certainly not different in any meaningful way from all of the others- because have children are conceived is not important. What is important is the ability of the adults to be parents and in that respect-THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE .Obvioulsy we are not going to agree on that. So, let me ask you this (again):
Are children of gay couples less valuable and less deserving of the rights, benefits and protections that childrenof heterosexual couples enjoy by virtue of the fact that their parents can be married? YES or NO?
I will ask you once again and I will keep asking until you grow a spine and tell the truth. What does "marriage" or what ever you want to call it for gay people actually look like and what rights and protections that heterosexuals enjoy would not be extended to gay couples AND THEIR CHILDREN? Not a hard quetion if you arre willing to honestly stand by your convictions. But I do not think that you are.
Well, I wouldn't say that. This is a case of a state using state money to help people In remote areas send their children to a school. Were not talking about them forcing people to go to a religious school.What it shows is the line between separation of church and state is fading.
The TRUMPCourt is willing to allow religions to ignore any civil right as long as they claim religious exemption.
