Gay marriage

Brian_G wrote:

Keeping marriage one man and one woman makes economic good sense. Same sex marriage makes more wasteful government spending on entitlements for a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries.

Are they wasteful when spent on opposite sex beneficiaries?

Do you have two working brain cells?

The Moral Compass wrote:

<quoted text>
Or your mom, again..I guess there is a possibility I could be your father,
You are gonna have to take me to Maury though bitch, I told your fat ass mama to take her birth control and she told me she was. Ohhhhh maybe that's why you are retarded

I'm retarded because you're my dad?
Is your infant daughter retarded? Guess it's too early to tell.

The Moral Compass wrote:

<
, all these years I thought she was lying about taking it.

Why would your banging my mom reflect badly on her, but not you?
That's an odd, but common, double standard.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
By that reason it has to be FUNDAMENTAL without regard to number, or consanguinity as well!
Alas it's FUNDAMENTAL based on the understanding of marriage as monogamous conjugal union!
<quoted text>
It's a right for individual men and women to enter into a specific legally recognized union, one man and one woman as husband AND wife. The man and woman need not be a "couple" romantically, or other wise involved, prior to the marriage.
<quoted text>
Yes it will.

Just curious, what will you do if the SCOTUS does rule that same-sex couples have the right to marry?

Even you have to admit that such a ruling is a distinct possibility.

I know that if the SCOTUS rules against us, we will continue to work state-by-state until same-sex couples are able to marry in all 50 states, even if that takes another decade or two. The changing demographics are on our side regardless, so it's only a matter of time before we have a majority of support, even in states like Alabama & Mississippi.

But I've always wondered what the anti-gays will do, especially if they lose at the SCOTUS. Will you push for a federal marriage amendment? Or attempt to impeach the SCOTUS justices? Or start another civil war?

Most likely you'll just piss & moan about "activist judges" until you eventually die in misery obsessing over what "the gays" are doing in bed....

The Moral Compass wrote:

<quoted text>
Anti-gay = anyone who proves Sheeple is full of crap.

You didn't prove that, crappie.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh the irony.

Hey, I've already said I can accept polygamy being legalized with one simple condition.

No child brides for anyone anywhere for any reason.

Yet you STILL refuse to commit to such a simple proposal.

That really makes me question your claim you're only talking about adults.

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
"Marriage equality" is NOT marriage equivalency.
“The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.”– Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 971) 191 N.W.2d 185, 186, appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)

That definition violates the 14th Amendment, regardless of its age.

Pietro Armando wrote:

“Having children is a primary purpose of marriage.”– Heup v. Heup (Was. 1969) 172 N.W.2d 334, 336
“One of the primary purposes of matrimony is procreation.”– Zoglio v. Zoglio (D.C. App. 1960) 157 A.2d 627, 628
“[P]rocreation of children is one of the important ends of matrimony.”– Stegienko v. Stegienko (Mich. 1940) 295 N.W. 252, 254
“It has been said in many of the cases cited that one of the great purposes of marriage is procreation.”– Gard v. Gard (Mich. 1918 169 N.W.908, 912)
“One of the most important functions of wedlock is the procreation of children.”– Grover v. Zook (Wash. 1906) 87 P.638, 639.

You don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry, so none of that matters.
IF one did have to be able to procreate in order to marry, we could talk about whether or not that should be a requirement, especially with people living longer, but it's not a requirement, so it's not an issue.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey, I've already said I can accept polygamy being legalized with one simple condition.
No child brides for anyone anywhere for any reason.
Yet you STILL refuse to commit to such a simple proposal.
That really makes me question your claim you're only talking about adults.

If you would just be honest you would agree that I am talking about consenting adults. Yet you STILL refuse to be honest.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Because it's a red herring.

So you're saying if polygamy is legalized, NO ONE is going to marry a child under age 18?

Just what do you base that belief on?

Certainly not the history of polygamy- past & present.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Because it's a red herring.

Btw, YOU were the one bitching that all you wanted to do was discuss polygamy.

Turns out you only want to discuss SOME aspects of legalizing polygamy, while refusing to discuss the 13 y/o elephant in the room.

Brian_G wrote:

Keeping marriage one man and one woman makes economic good sense. Same sex marriage makes more wasteful government spending on entitlements for a new class of same sex dependent beneficiaries.

And it would save even MORE taxpayer money if we banned opposite-sex marriage....

The Moral Compass wrote:

<quoted text>
This coming from the lady(thing) that thinks its normal for a man to put his penis in another mans pooper. I fairly certain If I go any where you will be on a burning bus seat next to me so whats your favorite color roomie??

Since there is no argument against gay marriage, all you fundies can do is try to demonize gay people. Most people who have anal sex are straight. Anything wrong with them?

You've put down people for riding the bus. Well, Einstein, how will there be a bus seat next to you if you aren't riding the bus? I'm not putting down people who ride on the bus, I'm just pointing out how stupid you are. LOLSER!

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
You're confusing "equality" with equivalency. As a male member of the humans species, how are you not treated equally, as any other man, as it pertains to marriage?

My legal marriage from Massachusetts isn't recognized by 32 states, while the overwhelming majority of men who got legally married in Massachusetts are legally recognized as married in all 50 states.

That's not equality.

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
Now you're starting to get it!

So which is it then?

Are you admitting polygamists will be able to marry ten to twenty 13 y/o girls?

Or are you finally ready to publicly support a law banning anyone from marrying a child for any reason?

I await your decision.

The Moral Compass wrote:

<quoted text>
You are pitching a tent right now cause eight queers think you are brilliant, apparently. Probably because they too thought "camel toe" was one word.

Reminds me of the joke where a camel first looks down at his feet and thinks "crap! I got p ussy toes".
Have you rethought your agenda yet compass?

The Moral Compass wrote:

<quoted text>
Laughing at your own jokes is the epidemy of desperation and sadness with ones self. Please? I'm a straight dude who is actually married and advocating traditional marriage,

Gay marriage doesn't affect traditional marriage at all.

The Moral Compass wrote:

I have no fan club here that's your schtick. You seem to need the approval of others much more than normal people do though so no surprise there. You must be really unhappy with your boyish looks.

You don't have a fan club!?

Frankie Rizzo wrote:

<quoted text>
If you would just be honest you would agree that I am talking about consenting adults. Yet you STILL refuse to be honest.

Then why the refusal to agree that states should ban anyone from marrying children?

The Moral Compass wrote:

<quoted text>
If you were any dumber...never mind that's an impossibility. Do you enjoy getting taken to school every day by a guy that cant even spell "does"?? Do enjoy the reputation of a windbag whom is completely false in about 94% of your arguments and 100% unsuccessful in all of them? Do you enjoy pointing out the massive failure that is the gay movement? Of course you think 17 states out of fifty is even mildly successful so I would assume you do.

That you think the anti-gays losing 17 states in a row to marriage equality isn't indicative of a trend shows how unhinged from reality you are.

I have no doubt you'll still be claiming you're not losing any more states years after same-sex couples can marry in all 50 states.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
So which is it then?
Are you admitting polygamists will be able to marry ten to twenty 13 y/o girls?
Or are you finally ready to publicly support a law banning anyone from marrying a child for any reason?
I await your decision.

Are you admitting gay men are able to marry a 13 yo boy even if polygamy stays illegal?

I await your idiotic non response.

You continue to argue that consenting adults should not be allowed to marry because they are non consenting children.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Then why the refusal to agree that states should ban anyone from marrying children?

Because it's irrelevant. It's a red herring.

WeTheSheeple wrote:

<quoted text>
Then why the refusal to agree that states should ban anyone from marrying children?

Why the refusal to acknowledge I have repeatedly stressed CONSENTING ADULTS?