Gay marriage

There are 20 comments on the Mar 28, 2013, Los Angeles Times story titled Gay marriage. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court is considering two controversial cases involving whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry: Proposition 8, California's 2008 ban on gay marriage, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which since 1996 has defined marriage for federal purposes as a union between a man and a woman.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

“"Not all who wander are lost."”

Since: Mar 10

freshroast666@gmail.com

#5616 Sep 18, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears that you are still trying to roll back the fact that you authored a sentence which doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
"why require what a married couple must protect from?"
<quoted text>
An intelligent person would not imply that procreation of child rearing was a prerequisite for, or requirement of legal marriage. That is simply not the case.
<quoted text>
This doesn't change the fact that procreation and child rearing are neither a prerequisite for, or a requirement of legal marriage. You look foolish in making this irrelevant argument.
<quoted text>
No, I am merely pointing out that your argument is utterly irrelevant. The state allows children to be raised even by single or unwed parents.
An intelligent person would see that there is no correlation between legal marriage and procreation or child rearing.
You don't really expect KiMare to craft sentences that actually make sense, do you? His dialogue is so rehearsed, so repetitive, and so nonsensical that it's a lot like arguing with a Tickle Me Elmo doll with its pre-programmed responses. Why this topic is as important as it is to KiMare remains a mystery, but he sure does devote an inordinate amount of time and energy to his pointless crusade. I find his passion for this issue pretty comical. He fancies himself to be in possession of rare knowledge that few have and then tries to come across as arrogant and condescending. Hilarious stuff and a seemingly endless source of amusement. Let's just count our blessings that people like him will continue to have no effect whatsoever on the people they wish they could change.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5618 Sep 19, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
<quoted text>You don't really expect KiMare to craft sentences that actually make sense, do you? His dialogue is so rehearsed, so repetitive, and so nonsensical that it's a lot like arguing with a Tickle Me Elmo doll with its pre-programmed responses. Why this topic is as important as it is to KiMare remains a mystery, but he sure does devote an inordinate amount of time and energy to his pointless crusade. I find his passion for this issue pretty comical. He fancies himself to be in possession of rare knowledge that few have and then tries to come across as arrogant and condescending. Hilarious stuff and a seemingly endless source of amusement. Let's just count our blessings that people like him will continue to have no effect whatsoever on the people they wish they could change.
It's not complicated for anyone else MM,

When you make simple statements of fact that pull the rug out from under gay twirl, why change?

Smile.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5620 Sep 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
If same sex marriage becomes law, you could be sued next. Alienation of affection as grounds for divorce; same sex marriage might harm gays more than anyone else.
Brian, 2 of the 3 suits are in jurisdictions that don't allow gay marriage, further proving the lunacy of your claim. Get thee to an insane asylum.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5621 Sep 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Aaannnnnd he's back to asserting that marriage must 'demand' that which couples must use protection to avoid. Do you understand how stupid that is?
Back to constructing sentences that don't mean anything, I see.
KiMare wrote:
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
Of course, this is demonstrably untrue, as heterosexual couples incapable of procreation are regularly allowed to marry.
Excuse me while I illustrate how inept your hypothesis is.
"Already, this procreative definition of marriage has led to some puzzled questioning by Judge Walker, and some peculiar exchanges, like this one, at the pretrial hearing:

The Court: The last marriage that I performed, Mr. Cooper, involved a groom who was ninety-five, and the bride was eighty-three. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?
Mr. Cooper: No, your Honor, you weren’t. Of course, you didn’t.
The Court: And I might say it was a very happy relationship.
Mr. Cooper: I rejoice to hear that.

Same-sex couples “do not naturally procreate,” Cooper persisted.“That is the natural outcome of sexual activity between opposite-sex couples.”

“Fair enough, but procreation doesn’t require marriage,” replied Judge Walker, who noted that he’d heard on the radio that morning that forty per cent—“can this be right?”—of pregnancies occur in unwed females. Yes, Cooper allowed, that was a sad statistic, but the state still discouraged sexual activity among people who are not married, as it should, because it had a “vital interest” in “promoting responsible procreation.” The “body politic ultimately has to take responsibility or shoulder some of the burden”—often through public assistance—of raising children when their parents didn’t “take that responsibility properly.”(He did not address whether gays and lesbians were any more likely to shirk their responsibility, perhaps because many gay and lesbian parents go to great lengths to have children in the first place.)"
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18...
KiMare wrote:
ss couples are a defective failure of mating behavior.
Which would be a valid point, if legal marriage actually were based upon mating behavior as you assert.
KiMare wrote:
Making them a absolute failure at the very starting step of marriage.
Much like the absolute failure that is your attempt at logic? Grow up.
KiMare wrote:
Aaannnnd it only goes down hill from there...
Your argument? There's no further down the hill to go. You had no valid basis to begin with.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5622 Sep 19, 2013
MirthMenace wrote:
You don't really expect KiMare to craft sentences that actually make sense, do you?
I think KiMare is an idiot... Actually, that would be an insult to the idiots.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5623 Sep 19, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Back to constructing sentences that don't mean anything, I see.
<quoted text>
Of course, this is demonstrably untrue, as heterosexual couples incapable of procreation are regularly allowed to marry.
Excuse me while I illustrate how inept your hypothesis is.
"Already, this procreative definition of marriage has led to some puzzled questioning by Judge Walker, and some peculiar exchanges, like this one, at the pretrial hearing:
The Court: The last marriage that I performed, Mr. Cooper, involved a groom who was ninety-five, and the bride was eighty-three. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?
Mr. Cooper: No, your Honor, you weren’t. Of course, you didn’t.
The Court: And I might say it was a very happy relationship.
Mr. Cooper: I rejoice to hear that.
Same-sex couples “do not naturally procreate,” Cooper persisted.“That is the natural outcome of sexual activity between opposite-sex couples.”
“Fair enough, but procreation doesn’t require marriage,” replied Judge Walker, who noted that he’d heard on the radio that morning that forty per cent—“can this be right?”—of pregnancies occur in unwed females. Yes, Cooper allowed, that was a sad statistic, but the state still discouraged sexual activity among people who are not married, as it should, because it had a “vital interest” in “promoting responsible procreation.” The “body politic ultimately has to take responsibility or shoulder some of the burden”—often through public assistance—of raising children when their parents didn’t “take that responsibility properly.”(He did not address whether gays and lesbians were any more likely to shirk their responsibility, perhaps because many gay and lesbian parents go to great lengths to have children in the first place.)"
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18...
<quoted text>
Which would be a valid point, if legal marriage actually were based upon mating behavior as you assert.
<quoted text>
Much like the absolute failure that is your attempt at logic? Grow up.
<quoted text>
Your argument? There's no further down the hill to go. You had no valid basis to begin with.
Your hog article is from Jan of 2010 so it is a little dated. Older heterosexuals seldom get married. Even if they do and are biologically incapable of producing offspring the male female format is still there. None of it validates SSM which biologically cannot naturally produce offspring 100% of the time.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5624 Sep 19, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Your hog article is from Jan of 2010 so it is a little dated.
That doesn't make the point, which you fail to address here, any less valid.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Older heterosexuals seldom get married.
That is irrelevant. Both older and infertile heterosexuals are allowed to legally marry, and each condition openly sdisplays the fallacy of the notion that legal marriage has a prerequisite or requirement of procreation.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Even if they do and are biologically incapable of producing offspring the male female format is still there.
Can you indicate any state interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional? I don't think you can.
lightbeamrider wrote:
None of it validates SSM which biologically cannot naturally produce offspring 100% of the time.
Uhm, infertility in heterosexuals has the same result, but it has already been clearly illustrated that the state has no interest in preventing them from marriage.

The reality remains that you lack a rational and factually supported argument. The US Constitution mandates to provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

Homosexuals are persons.

Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union.

Constitutional rights may be suspended, if and only if, doing so serves a compelling governmental interest (e.g. denying convicted felons the right to legally possess a firearm). Can you indicate any such interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry? I don't think you can.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5625 Sep 19, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Back to constructing sentences that don't mean anything, I see.
<quoted text>
Of course, this is demonstrably untrue, as heterosexual couples incapable of procreation are regularly allowed to marry.
Excuse me while I illustrate how inept your hypothesis is.
"Already, this procreative definition of marriage has led to some puzzled questioning by Judge Walker, and some peculiar exchanges, like this one, at the pretrial hearing:
The Court: The last marriage that I performed, Mr. Cooper, involved a groom who was ninety-five, and the bride was eighty-three. I did not demand that they prove that they intended to engage in procreative activity. Now, was I missing something?
Mr. Cooper: No, your Honor, you weren’t. Of course, you didn’t.
The Court: And I might say it was a very happy relationship.
Mr. Cooper: I rejoice to hear that.
Same-sex couples “do not naturally procreate,” Cooper persisted.“That is the natural outcome of sexual activity between opposite-sex couples.”
“Fair enough, but procreation doesn’t require marriage,” replied Judge Walker, who noted that he’d heard on the radio that morning that forty per cent—“can this be right?”—of pregnancies occur in unwed females. Yes, Cooper allowed, that was a sad statistic, but the state still discouraged sexual activity among people who are not married, as it should, because it had a “vital interest” in “promoting responsible procreation.” The “body politic ultimately has to take responsibility or shoulder some of the burden”—often through public assistance—of raising children when their parents didn’t “take that responsibility properly.”(He did not address whether gays and lesbians were any more likely to shirk their responsibility, perhaps because many gay and lesbian parents go to great lengths to have children in the first place.)"
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/01/18...
<quoted text>
Which would be a valid point, if legal marriage actually were based upon mating behavior as you assert.
<quoted text>
Much like the absolute failure that is your attempt at logic? Grow up.
<quoted text>
Your argument? There's no further down the hill to go. You had no valid basis to begin with.
Aaannnnnd you are desperately playing dumb to avoid an irrefutable point. That's okay, I'm happy to stuff it in your face.

Marriage needs protection to prevent pregnancy unless age or a medical condition prevents it. Why would anyone need to require it? This procreation condition, best engaged within a committed relationship sets it as unique among all other human relationships.

Moreover, this special potential has distinguished marriage in every single culture in human history!

SS couples NEVER are subject to that issue! In fact, gay couples need protection just to abusively mimic intercourse.

When children were removed from consideration in divorce, society saw a horrendous rise in divorce and single parent homes, to the devastating detriment of children. Legalizing abortion was the next governmental intervention, again at the expense of 40 million children's lives. Now you want us to believe that a government intervention in another cultural standard will benefit children???

You play dumb well because you are an idiot.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5626 Sep 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Aaannnnnd you are desperately playing dumb to avoid an irrefutable point. That's okay, I'm happy to stuff it in your face.
Thus far, all you have done is prove that you don't have a very masterful command of the English language or the use of logic. I am happy to let you continue to make a fool of yourself.
KiMare wrote:
Marriage needs protection to prevent pregnancy unless age or a medical condition prevents it. Why would anyone need to require it?
Marriage is needed to prevent pregnancy? Do you realize how dumb this makes you look?
KiMare wrote:
This procreation condition, best engaged within a committed relationship sets it as unique among all other human relationships.
Yet the state does not intervene in the 40% of cases of procreation outside of wedlock, further illustrating the absurdity of your position.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
KiMare wrote:
Moreover, this special potential has distinguished marriage in every single culture in human history!
SS couples NEVER are subject to that issue! In fact, gay couples need protection just to abusively mimic intercourse.
Actually, there have been many cases of societies allowing same sex marriage throughout history. This is a fact you would understand if you bothered to study history rather than simply go off half cocked and offer a bunch of opinion with no basis in fact.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers...
http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-m...
KiMare wrote:
When children were removed from consideration in divorce, society saw a horrendous rise in divorce and single parent homes, to the devastating detriment of children. Legalizing abortion was the next governmental intervention, again at the expense of 40 million children's lives.
Now you want us to believe that a government intervention in another cultural standard will benefit children???
This isn't about children, divorce (which is still legal), or abortion (which is similarly still legal). You are ham handedly attempting to obfuscate the thread and misdirect the conversation. One could infer that you are resorting to this irrelevant argument because you have no valid and on topic arguments.

Once again, you haven't made a fool of me, you have made a fool of yourself. Congratulations.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5627 Sep 19, 2013
lides wrote:
That doesn't make the point, which you fail to address here, any less valid.
It adds context. You are using dated material.
That is irrelevant. Both older and infertile heterosexuals are allowed to legally marry, and each condition openly sdisplays the fallacy of the notion that legal marriage has a prerequisite or requirement of procreation.
It does not justify SSM. Hetero marriage is overall the best environment for raising children. I see it at work all the time. Married men going home to their wives and children. Taking them to the Doctor. These are responsible working stable males whose families mean everything to them. Couples do not normally know they are infertile until after they are married. I have already addressed the older couple and you have dismissed it. You have no rational basis for the imposition of SSM. People are sick of it. They do not want it. They do not want their children taught these things are normal because they are in reality perversions and it is wrong to lie to children.
Can you indicate any state interest served by such a restriction that would render it constitutional? I don't think you can.
What restriction? This is what i wrote,
LBR wrote. Even if they do and are biologically incapable of producing offspring the male female format is still there
------
Uhm, infertility in heterosexuals has the same result, but it has already been clearly illustrated that the state has no interest in preventing them from marriage.
The only requirement is adult male female. Male male or female female is a drastic switch which opens the door for other perversions to follow which most in your group do not care about. If SSM is legal then i don't know what some in your group have against two brothers getting married or even incest marriage logically. If one is justified then logically the next steps are logical outcomes.
Homosexuals are persons.
So are pedophiles.
Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union.
Constitutional rights may be suspended, if and only if, doing so serves a compelling governmental interest (e.g. denying convicted felons the right to legally possess a firearm). Can you indicate any such interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry? I don't think you can.
None that you would accept because your group come across as fanatics seeking to impose moral stupidity on everyone else whether they like it or not. You fail to mention the health risks associated with sodomy practiced on massive scales. The HIV pandemic spread mostly through sodomy in the United States. You want to justify it all through through an interpretation of the Constitution with zero precedent post 50 years ago. SSM has zero historical precedent but that does not bother your group in continually appealing to the Constitution. You are selective in your facts which has a specific agenda in mind. I suggest you move to a state where it is legal and live out your days with the realization that your serenity is in exact proportion to your acceptance and inverse proportion to your expectations. Quit trying to coerce everyone to your particular idea of utopia.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5629 Sep 19, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
It adds context. You are using dated material.
And yet, you seem to lack the ability to offer a rational rebuttal of that argument. That an argument is two years old does not instantaneously render it invalid. Using your logic Brown v Board of education is no longer valid because it brought about desegregation in the 1950's.

Feel free to offer a valid rebuttal, if you are able to do so. I don't think you can.
lightbeamrider wrote:
It does not justify SSM. Hetero marriage is overall the best environment for raising children. I see it at work all the time. Married men going home to their wives and children. Taking them to the Doctor. These are responsible working stable males whose families mean everything to them. Couples do not normally know they are infertile until after they are married. I have already addressed the older couple and you have dismissed it. You have no rational basis for the imposition of SSM. People are sick of it. They do not want it. They do not want their children taught these things are normal because they are in reality perversions and it is wrong to lie to children.
Yet the state does not intervene in cases of out of wedlock births, it allows divorce, and also allows adoption. Simply put, the state does not have an interest in what you assert is the overall best environment for raising children, and there is mounting evidence in the form of studies to illustrate that your assertion is patently incorrect. Just because you make a claim does not make it true.
lightbeamrider wrote:
What restriction? This is what i wrote,
------
The only requirement is adult male female. Male male or female female is a drastic switch which opens the door for other perversions to follow which most in your group do not care about. If SSM is legal then i don't know what some in your group have against two brothers getting married or even incest marriage logically. If one is justified then logically the next steps are logical outcomes.
Herein lies the problem with your argument. Limiting marriage to being between man and a woman is, in itself, a restriction. Unless you can offer a compelling governmental interest served by such a restriction, the fact remains that it is unconstitutional.
lightbeamrider wrote:
So are pedophiles.
Pedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not. Your argument is once again, illogical, invalid, and irrelevant.
I, for one, think that when one stoops to such sensational and inflammatory arguments, they actually know that they can't offer a valid and on topic argument, and are merely attempting to stir the pot.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5630 Sep 19, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
None that you would accept because your group come across as fanatics seeking to impose moral stupidity on everyone else whether they like it or not. You fail to mention the health risks associated with sodomy practiced on massive scales. The HIV pandemic spread mostly through sodomy in the United States. You want to justify it all through through an interpretation of the Constitution with zero precedent post 50 years ago. SSM has zero historical precedent but that does not bother your group in continually appealing to the Constitution. You are selective in your facts which has a specific agenda in mind. I suggest you move to a state where it is legal and live out your days with the realization that your serenity is in exact proportion to your acceptance and inverse proportion to your expectations. Quit trying to coerce everyone to your particular idea of utopia.
When last I checked, allowing same sex marriage does not impose a morality on anyone. Denying it, on the other hand does. If same sex marriage is allowed, you are still allowed to feel that it is wrong, and not to enter into such a union.
If we are to allow free will and free expression, that means allowing people to engage in choices that may have health concerns. We also allow people to choose to smoke and drink in spite of the fact that each of those choices carry health concerns.
Actually, the 14th Amendment has precedent in providing equal protection of the law for all people since 1868, when it was passed.
Actually, I live in two states that have already done the right thing and passed marriage equality. The rest will soon follow, because those who oppose equality, like yourself, lack a valid legal argument to deny it.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#5631 Sep 19, 2013
lides wrote:
And yet, you seem to lack the ability to offer a rational rebuttal of that argument. That an argument is two years old does not instantaneously render it invalid. Using your logic Brown v Board of education is no longer valid because it brought about desegregation in the 1950's.
Feel free to offer a valid rebuttal, if you are able to do so. I don't think you can.
Its a hog and dated article and i am not going to go point by point especially to a fanatic.
Yet the state does not intervene in cases of out of wedlock births, it allows divorce, and also allows adoption. Simply put, the state does not have an interest in what you assert is the overall best environment for raising children,
You have plenty of youth dysfunction in the poor sections of Chicago and Detroit. They murder each other and bystanders get shot. An academic student was gunned down a while back. So many articles it is hard to keep track. Most come from single parent families doomed to live in poverty. Your point is patently absurd. Should Detroit be the blueprint for your area? The state has no interest? You are absolutely crazy. You might have a point in that the state may have an interest in this continuing madness by robbing everybody of their constitutional rights under the guise of protection.
Herein lies the problem with your argument. Limiting marriage to being between man and a woman is, in itself, a restriction.
So? Marriage is restricted by law. That is why a man cannot marry his horse and an adult male cannot marry a 13 year old.
Pedophilia is illegal, homosexuality is not. Your argument is once again, illogical, invalid, and irrelevant.
They are people. That was my only point. Now you are ignoring context.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5633 Sep 19, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus far, all you have done is prove that you don't have a very masterful command of the English language or the use of logic. I am happy to let you continue to make a fool of yourself.
<quoted text>
Marriage is needed to prevent pregnancy? Do you realize how dumb this makes you look?
<quoted text>
Yet the state does not intervene in the 40% of cases of procreation outside of wedlock, further illustrating the absurdity of your position.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm
<quoted text>
Actually, there have been many cases of societies allowing same sex marriage throughout history. This is a fact you would understand if you bothered to study history rather than simply go off half cocked and offer a bunch of opinion with no basis in fact.
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers...
http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-m...
<quoted text>
This isn't about children, divorce (which is still legal), or abortion (which is similarly still legal). You are ham handedly attempting to obfuscate the thread and misdirect the conversation. One could infer that you are resorting to this irrelevant argument because you have no valid and on topic arguments.
Once again, you haven't made a fool of me, you have made a fool of yourself. Congratulations.
Speaking of a command of English, where did I say marriage is needed to prevent pregnancy?

Speaking of government interest, actually we the people end up supporting those 40% out of wedlock babies.

Speaking of history, there are extremely rare and brief moments where an incident of ss couples showed up. However, it never lasted or established itself and spread. Not in one single culture.

Your adamant limp wristed hissy fit is not a valid argument to separate procreation from marriage, or make a duplicate gendered half equal to marriage.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5634 Sep 19, 2013
lides wrote:
Brian, 2 of the 3 suits are in jurisdictions that don't allow gay marriage, further proving the lunacy of your claim. Get thee to an insane asylum.
No, all those states have PC business regulations; same sex marriage isn't the only bad law. Also, this proves my statement, no state bans same sex marriage. We've even see states fine businesses for not servicing same sex marriage; it's untrue to claim same sex marriage is banned anywhere in the USA.

We're too good, we don't propose criminalizing same sex behavior. We aren't extremists like the same sex marriage supporters who sue their Christian neighbors.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5635 Sep 19, 2013
lightbeamrider wrote:
Its a hog and dated article and i am not going to go point by point especially to a fanatic.
The take away is that you can't offer a basic rebuttal of a concept that is still true, and you wish to dismiss it as an "old" argument in spite of the fact that it is only two years old, and is part of a proceeding that was upheld by the US Supreme Court upon appeal.
lightbeamrider wrote:
You have plenty of youth dysfunction in the poor sections of Chicago and Detroit. They murder each other and bystanders get shot. An academic student was gunned down a while back. So many articles it is hard to keep track. Most come from single parent families doomed to live in poverty. Your point is patently absurd. Should Detroit be the blueprint for your area? The state has no interest? You are absolutely crazy. You might have a point in that the state may have an interest in this continuing madness by robbing everybody of their constitutional rights under the guise of protection.
And your point is? None of this has any relevance to the topic at hand.

In short, you are rambling.
lightbeamrider wrote:
So? Marriage is restricted by law. That is why a man cannot marry his horse and an adult male cannot marry a 13 year old.
Once again, your examples are irrelevant. Neither an animal, nor a 13 year old can legally consent. Adult homosexuals can legally consent.
lightbeamrider wrote:
They are people. That was my only point. Now you are ignoring context.
The problem is that your point lacks substance, regardless of the "context."

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5636 Sep 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, all those states have PC business regulations; same sex marriage isn't the only bad law. Also, this proves my statement, no state bans same sex marriage. We've even see states fine businesses for not servicing same sex marriage; it's untrue to claim same sex marriage is banned anywhere in the USA.
We're too good, we don't propose criminalizing same sex behavior. We aren't extremists like the same sex marriage supporters who sue their Christian neighbors.
Your statement is idiotic, and you;ve yet to answer the basic question of how providing a service for someone with different political or religious views in any way impacts a business owners free exercise of religion or free speech. Simply put, it doesn't, and only a idiot would claim that it did.

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#5637 Sep 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Speaking of a command of English, where did I say marriage is needed to prevent pregnancy?
Speaking of government interest, actually we the people end up supporting those 40% out of wedlock babies.
Speaking of history, there are extremely rare and brief moments where an incident of ss couples showed up. However, it never lasted or established itself and spread. Not in one single culture.
Your adamant limp wristed hissy fit is not a valid argument to separate procreation from marriage, or make a duplicate gendered half equal to marriage.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCR09D1CU...
You said:
"Marriage needs protection to prevent pregnancy unless age or a medical condition prevents it."

Actually, we the people don't end up supporting every out of wedlock birth, your claim is utterly without logical foundation.

Regarding history, it appears you are back tracking on your claim that this is without historical precedent.

it appears that you have no valid argument and you know it.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#5638 Sep 19, 2013
lides wrote:
Your statement is idiotic, and you;ve yet to answer the basic question of how providing a service for someone with different political or religious views in any way impacts a business owners free exercise of religion or free speech. Simply put, it doesn't, and only a idiot would claim that it did.
So, you claim the KKK would be right to sue a Jewish photographer who refused to service their rally? What kind of bad law is that?

PC leftist fascist law, new government regulation of business morality. Socialist, leftist destruction of fundamental institutions like marriage and family.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#5639 Sep 19, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/TCR09D1CU...
You said:
"Marriage needs protection to prevent pregnancy unless age or a medical condition prevents it."
Actually, we the people don't end up supporting every out of wedlock birth, your claim is utterly without logical foundation.
Regarding history, it appears you are back tracking on your claim that this is without historical precedent.
it appears that you have no valid argument and you know it.
1. Now go back and read what YOU said I said;

"Marriage is needed to prevent pregnancy"

2. Now you insert 'every' in supporting unwed mothers, something I never said.

The fact is, even some support involves government interest making YOUR assertion 'utterly without logical foundation'.

3. I backtracked on nothing. No culture in history has had ss couples labeled as married from start to finish. Not a single one.

Every single culture in known human history has had marriage.

You keep trying to throw children under the bus and ignore the cultural and religious practice. Like a rat sneaking in through the sewer, you are trying to impose an impostor relationship on marriage through a manipulation of the law.

In the end, all you have is a mutually sterile, pointlessly duplicate gendered half of marriage.

And there is not one damn thing you can do to change that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min Agents of Corruption 160,994
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min Agents of Corruption 324,655
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min John Galt 1,220,549
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 9 min IND 179,323
News Kasich Weighs Odds, Money in Possible President... 12 min Wholly Silicon Wafer 1
News Obama amnesty greater threat to blacks than pol... 12 min OccupyThis 5
News Obama turns up heat on climate change debate in... 16 min OzRitz 76
News Majority Oppose 'Religious Freedom' Laws That C... 1 hr serfs up 207
More from around the web