Gay Marriage Debate - Greeneville, TN

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Greeneville, TN.

Do you support gay marriage?

Greeneville opposes
Oppose
 
537
Support
 
277

Vote now in Greeneville:

“Free to buy cake”

Since: Jul 07

wherever I like.

#7419 Jan 6, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice words... irrelevant to the question asked but nice
Now I will ask again
so the reason for marriage is procration.. and since gays can not "procreate" they are denied the right to marry...
Infertile couples can not procreate.. Yet they can marry.. going against your scotus paste
People who are "fixed" can not procreate... yet they are allowed to marry... going against your SCOTUS paste
Post menopausal women can not procreate... yet they are allowed to marry ... going agaisnt your SCOTUS paste....
So obviuosly either
A) procreation is not a standard for marriage
or
B) these groups should be denied like homosexuals
No way around it"
Do you agree with that... or not and why
Kuntmare can't agree with you, because then zher trolling act is over. Your argument is perfectly logical, and we've all raised these points multiple times. Kuntmare isn't here for the debate; she's only here to troll.

“Free to buy cake”

Since: Jul 07

wherever I like.

#7420 Jan 6, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:

Oh, and my marriage license says 'bride' and 'groom'.
According to your self-admission, it should say bride, bride, and groom.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7421 Jan 7, 2013
Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
Kuntmare can't agree with you, because then zher trolling act is over. Your argument is perfectly logical, and we've all raised these points multiple times. Kuntmare isn't here for the debate; she's only here to troll.
I'm the only one on here giving reasoned replies to questions.

You have only made foul-mouthed ad homoan attacks. Nothing else.

The troll is obvious to sensible, moral people.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7422 Jan 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Procreation basis of marriage?!? Where is the law that mandates procreation?!?
Gay people don't have imposter relationships.
See, that's just another insult you hurl at gay people. Unless you've been in in a gay relationship, you have no way to judge.
Oh... That begs the question; Have you been in a gay relationship in the past? Is that how you know so much about homosexuality?
1. I answered this question yesterday. When I answered it, you moved on and made other assertions which I answered. Now you are starting over. Look at the answer yesterday.

2. Any gay couple calling their relationship 'marriage' is an imposter relationship. No different than calling the tail on a dog a leg.

3. Talking about homosexuality requires I be gay? You talk about pedophilia, that explains a lot...

4. My best friend all through school is gay. I have lived around gays all my life. I work with a lesbian. I have many gay relationships. Lesbian couples have trouble around me, because one ends up being attracted to me(probably to the lesbian in me, but the straight man says it is the Bruce Willis look-a-like attraction).

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7423 Jan 7, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice words... irrelevant to the question asked but nice
Now I will ask again
so the reason for marriage is procration.. and since gays can not "procreate" they are denied the right to marry...
Infertile couples can not procreate.. Yet they can marry.. going against your scotus paste
People who are "fixed" can not procreate... yet they are allowed to marry... going against your SCOTUS paste
Post menopausal women can not procreate... yet they are allowed to marry ... going agaisnt your SCOTUS paste....
So obviuosly either
A) procreation is not a standard for marriage
or
B) these groups should be denied like homosexuals
No way around it"
Do you agree with that... or not and why
Apparently you have a comprehension deficit. You asked for the basis of marriage. I gave you a list of reasons, distinct from gay relationships.

Only you are blindly framing the question as one reason. Silly stupid.

Moreover, I've answered why the rare exceptions in heterosexual couples is distinct from the absolute defective condition of gay couples.

This is simply a shift from the idiotic question of suggesting the government should 'require' procreation.

Here is a distinction; Marriage is a REQUIRED relationship that produces healthy children, ESSENTIAL for society to exist. Gay couples are not.

Government has an interest in supporting and protecting marriage. It has no essential interest in supporting and protecting friendships.

Smile.

“Free to buy cake”

Since: Jul 07

wherever I like.

#7425 Jan 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm the only one on here giving reasoned replies to questions.
You have only made foul-mouthed ad homoan attacks. Nothing else.
The troll is obvious to sensible, moral people.
Snicker.
Your replies are silly words strung together in an effort to sound intelligent. Alas, they remain nothing more than your opinions.

The foul-mouth attacks haven't even begun yet.

Troll on, Mangina Man.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#7426 Jan 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I answered this question yesterday. When I answered it, you moved on and made other assertions which I answered. Now you are starting over. Look at the answer yesterday.
2. Any gay couple calling their relationship 'marriage' is an imposter relationship. No different than calling the tail on a dog a leg.
3. Talking about homosexuality requires I be gay? You talk about pedophilia, that explains a lot...
4. My best friend all through school is gay. I have lived around gays all my life. I work with a lesbian. I have many gay relationships. Lesbian couples have trouble around me, because one ends up being attracted to me(probably to the lesbian in me, but the straight man says it is the Bruce Willis look-a-like attraction).
Smirk.
1.) You've never answered the question. You've side-stepped it repeatedly.
2.) In CT, DC, IA, MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, VT, and WA same sex couples can legally marry. Regardless of how much you stomp your feet and whine, YOU will not be able to say that these people are legally married.
YOU cannot redefine marriage for these states.
And this is only the beginning.
3.) I have only spoken about pedophilia after YOU FIRST brought up the subject. Go back and have a look.
So, YOU, may have some skeletons rattling around in your closet (the one you're in); not me.
4.) Not sure what you're trying to prove by this final comment. Are you saying that some of your best friends are gay?
I would submit that based on your comments here, you are hardly their best friends.
You insult them, you mock them, you spread lies and misinformation about them--all behind their backs. THAT is not the definition of a friend.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#7427 Jan 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you have a comprehension deficit. You asked for the basis of marriage. I gave you a list of reasons, distinct from gay relationships.
Only you are blindly framing the question as one reason. Silly stupid.
Moreover, I've answered why the rare exceptions in heterosexual couples is distinct from the absolute defective condition of gay couples.
This is simply a shift from the idiotic question of suggesting the government should 'require' procreation.
Here is a distinction; Marriage is a REQUIRED relationship that produces healthy children, ESSENTIAL for society to exist. Gay couples are not.
Government has an interest in supporting and protecting marriage. It has no essential interest in supporting and protecting friendships.
Smile.
You say "Marriage is a REQUIRED relationship that produces healthy children, ESSENTIAL for society to exist. Gay couples are not."

Marriage is not required to produce healthy children. Many, many children of unmarried couples are fully functioning adults; just as many, many children of married couples are totally dysfunctional.

Gay couples take up the slack in providing homes and parenting for kids who linger throughout the adoption system, who would otherwise not have these things. These gay parents are fully capable of raising children.

You act as though raising kids is something takes some kind of magical penis/vagina spirit. Hardly...

As long as you can love a child, provide them with what they need, support them, and stay by their side, then you can be a parent--regardless of what gender you are attracted to.

In short, where you put your dick does not impact your ability to raise a kid.

So stop acting like it's some kind of huge, mysterious and mystical power that only certain super-straight, married people are capable of.

Climb down off the cross, honey; somebody else needs the wood.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#7428 Jan 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you have a comprehension deficit. You asked for the basis of marriage. I gave you a list of reasons, distinct from gay relationships.
Only you are blindly framing the question as one reason. Silly stupid.
Moreover, I've answered why the rare exceptions in heterosexual couples is distinct from the absolute defective condition of gay couples.
This is simply a shift from the idiotic question of suggesting the government should 'require' procreation.
Here is a distinction; Marriage is a REQUIRED relationship that produces healthy children, ESSENTIAL for society to exist. Gay couples are not.
Government has an interest in supporting and protecting marriage. It has no essential interest in supporting and protecting friendships.
Smile.
No simply denying your spin. You are the one who put the emphasis on marriage and procreation by cutting and pasting the quotes from various judges ... infact you do it again
"Marriage is a REQUIRED relationship that produces healthy children, ESSENTIAL for society to exist. Gay couples are not.
Government has an interest in supporting and protecting marriage. It has no essential interest in supporting and protecting friendships."

In essence you are saying that government has an interest in marriage as it produces children.... and a ssc do not. So what is the government interest in the osc who want to be married yet for what ever reason can not have children?..... Remember "It has no essential interest in supporting and protecting friendships." So if theses osc can not have children... the state would be "supporting and protecting" their "friendship"

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7429 Jan 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I answered this question yesterday. When I answered it, you moved on and made other assertions which I answered. Now you are starting over. Look at the answer yesterday.
2. Any gay couple calling their relationship 'marriage' is an imposter relationship. No different than calling the tail on a dog a leg.
3. Talking about homosexuality requires I be gay? You talk about pedophilia, that explains a lot...
4. My best friend all through school is gay. I have lived around gays all my life. I work with a lesbian. I have many gay relationships. Lesbian couples have trouble around me, because one ends up being attracted to me(probably to the lesbian in me, but the straight man says it is the Bruce Willis look-a-like attraction).
Smirk.
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) You've never answered the question. You've side-stepped it repeatedly.
2.) In CT, DC, IA, MA, MD, ME, NH, NY, VT, and WA same sex couples can legally marry. Regardless of how much you stomp your feet and whine, YOU will not be able to say that these people are legally married.
YOU cannot redefine marriage for these states.
And this is only the beginning.
3.) I have only spoken about pedophilia after YOU FIRST brought up the subject. Go back and have a look.
So, YOU, may have some skeletons rattling around in your closet (the one you're in); not me.
4.) Not sure what you're trying to prove by this final comment. Are you saying that some of your best friends are gay?
I would submit that based on your comments here, you are hardly their best friends.
You insult them, you mock them, you spread lies and misinformation about them--all behind their backs. THAT is not the definition of a friend.
1. Haven't answered the procreation difference? Really.

2. Call gay couples whatever you want. They will never be the same as marriage. It is simply impossible because they are distinct in everything but the number of people. Additionally,'gay' will always precede the description.

3. The issue wasn't who talked about it first, it is that you are very defensive about it. And according to your logic, that means you are a pedophile. Have you ever molested an underage boy? Looked at male child pornography?

4. You have no ability to judge my friends. Or my relationship with gays. You are in denial of reality and science, and incredibly bigoted toward anyone who disagrees with anal abuse and desecrating marriage. That is your problem, not my friends.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7430 Jan 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a distinction; Marriage is a REQUIRED relationship that produces healthy children, ESSENTIAL for society to exist. Gay couples are not.
Government has an interest in supporting and protecting marriage. It has no essential interest in supporting and protecting friendships.
Smile
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
No simply denying your spin. You are the one who put the emphasis on marriage and procreation by cutting and pasting the quotes from various judges ... infact you do it again
"Marriage is a REQUIRED relationship that produces healthy children, ESSENTIAL for society to exist. Gay couples are not.
Government has an interest in supporting and protecting marriage. It has no essential interest in supporting and protecting friendships."
In essence you are saying that government has an interest in marriage as it produces children.... and a ssc do not. So what is the government interest in the osc who want to be married yet for what ever reason can not have children?..... Remember "It has no essential interest in supporting and protecting friendships." So if theses osc can not have children... the state would be "supporting and protecting" their "friendship"
1. So you agree that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the sole birthplace of society because it is by far the best place for new members of society to be raised?

2. Please give reason what prevailing interest the government would have in protecting and supporting selective friendships?

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#7431 Jan 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I answered this question yesterday. When I answered it, you moved on and made other assertions which I answered. Now you are starting over. Look at the answer yesterday.
2. Any gay couple calling their relationship 'marriage' is an imposter relationship. No different than calling the tail on a dog a leg.
3. Talking about homosexuality requires I be gay? You talk about pedophilia, that explains a lot...
4. My best friend all through school is gay. I have lived around gays all my life. I work with a lesbian. I have many gay relationships. Lesbian couples have trouble around me, because one ends up being attracted to me(probably to the lesbian in me, but the straight man says it is the Bruce Willis look-a-like attraction).
Smirk.
<quoted text>
1. Haven't answered the procreation difference? Really.
2. Call gay couples whatever you want. They will never be the same as marriage. It is simply impossible because they are distinct in everything but the number of people. Additionally,'gay' will always precede the description.
3. The issue wasn't who talked about it first, it is that you are very defensive about it. And according to your logic, that means you are a pedophile. Have you ever molested an underage boy? Looked at male child pornography?
4. You have no ability to judge my friends. Or my relationship with gays. You are in denial of reality and science, and incredibly bigoted toward anyone who disagrees with anal abuse and desecrating marriage. That is your problem, not my friends.
1.) I'm not interested in going back over your rot. The bottom line is that procreation is not a requirement to become legally married in this country.
2.) You can call marriage anything YOU want, but it will never negate the millions of long-term same-sex relationships that are in every way equal to heterosexual relationships except through law.
3.) Never been a pedophile. Never looked at kiddie porn. I've never gone into graphic detail about pedophilia the way that you continue to do with regards to gay male sex.
That you continue to focus on gay male sex almost exclusively--ignoring lesbians--indicates a serious fixation that you have. I've posted the study that shows how people such as yourself--yammering on against gay male sex--tend to have secret homosexual attractions.
That you take such exception to my observations to your likely and perfectly legal attractions to men, is just another indication that you are hiding something.
I'm just saying that you should look into it. Maybe you'd be a little happier with yourself and wouldn't feel so compelled frequent TOPIX in order to get your "fix" of gay male interaction.
4.) My basis for judging your relationships with your friends comes from your continued spread of lies and other untruths about gays. If you respected your "gay friends" you wouldn't do these things.
Even a child raised by same-sex parents could see that.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#7432 Jan 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a distinction; Marriage is a REQUIRED relationship that produces healthy children, ESSENTIAL for society to exist. Gay couples are not.
Government has an interest in supporting and protecting marriage. It has no essential interest in supporting and protecting friendships.
Smile
<quoted text>
1. So you agree that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the sole birthplace of society because it is by far the best place for new members of society to be raised?
2. Please give reason what prevailing interest the government would have in protecting and supporting selective friendships?
Just because you repost it does not make it any less illogical than the first time.

You are saying that marriage is a required relationship that produces babies. That is the states interest in marriage. Since homo. can not produce babies they do not meet the government interest in marriage

Am I right so far?

If so then tell me how a osc who can not have children meet the states interest for marriage?.... They are no differennt than a ssc. Neither group will provide children... so where is the states interest.... why should they be allowed to marry?
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#7433 Jan 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a distinction; Marriage is a REQUIRED relationship that produces healthy children, ESSENTIAL for society to exist. Gay couples are not.
Government has an interest in supporting and protecting marriage. It has no essential interest in supporting and protecting friendships.
Smile
<quoted text>
1. So you agree that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the sole birthplace of society because it is by far the best place for new members of society to be raised?
2. Please give reason what prevailing interest the government would have in protecting and supporting selective friendships?
1. So you agree that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the sole birthplace of society because it is by far the best place for new members of society to be raised?

No I never said that at all. Procreating never has is not now nor ever will be a condition for marriage.

2. Please give reason what prevailing interest the government would have in protecting and supporting selective friendships?
You call it friendship... how is a ssc any more or less of a friendship than that of a infetile couple, a couple where one is "fixed" or a couple where the women is post menopausal?.... what is the difference between the four couples? Yet you allow the last three "friendships" to marry....

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7434 Jan 7, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
1.) I'm not interested in going back over your rot. The bottom line is that procreation is not a requirement to become legally married in this country.
2.) You can call marriage anything YOU want, but it will never negate the millions of long-term same-sex relationships that are in every way equal to heterosexual relationships except through law.
3.) Never been a pedophile. Never looked at kiddie porn. I've never gone into graphic detail about pedophilia the way that you continue to do with regards to gay male sex.
That you continue to focus on gay male sex almost exclusively--ignoring lesbians--indicates a serious fixation that you have. I've posted the study that shows how people such as yourself--yammering on against gay male sex--tend to have secret homosexual attractions.
That you take such exception to my observations to your likely and perfectly legal attractions to men, is just another indication that you are hiding something.
I'm just saying that you should look into it. Maybe you'd be a little happier with yourself and wouldn't feel so compelled frequent TOPIX in order to get your "fix" of gay male interaction.
4.) My basis for judging your relationships with your friends comes from your continued spread of lies and other untruths about gays. If you respected your "gay friends" you wouldn't do these things.
Even a child raised by same-sex parents could see that.
1. Still wondering why the government would need to 'require' childbirth for marriage... funny. Why???

2. Redumbant gender couples are exactly like diverse (unsegregated) gendered couples? Two really stupid assertions in a row... you need help.

3. This is a perfect example of your obvious denial about pedophilia. An innocent person would simply say,'no I'm not.' Have you ever had gay sex with an under-aged male?

4. You are simply lying again. Please delineate my 'lies and untruths'.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7435 Jan 7, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
1. So you agree that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting the sole birthplace of society because it is by far the best place for new members of society to be raised?
No I never said that at all. Procreating never has is not now nor ever will be a condition for marriage.
2. Please give reason what prevailing interest the government would have in protecting and supporting selective friendships?
You call it friendship... how is a ssc any more or less of a friendship than that of a infetile couple, a couple where one is "fixed" or a couple where the women is post menopausal?.... what is the difference between the four couples? Yet you allow the last three "friendships" to marry....
1. Does the government have a prevailing interest in protecting and supporting marriage for the sake of providing the best setting for new members of society to be raised?
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#7436 Jan 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Does the government have a prevailing interest in protecting and supporting marriage for the sake of providing the best setting for new members of society to be raised?
Since procreation is not a a prereq for marriage... illogical question

No for grins and giggles, lets say I agree with you that "it does"... That would still leave the question of if the goverment had that intersest.. what interest would a osc who could not have children. The answer would be the same interest as they do in an ssc... So either
A) government does not allow them to marry
or
B) there is no interest in procreation therefore no reason to deny ssc from marrying...

Can't have it both ways. If as you say the government interest is in children.. then only those who can produce children can marry...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7437 Jan 7, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
Since procreation is not a a prereq for marriage... illogical question
No for grins and giggles, lets say I agree with you that "it does"... That would still leave the question of if the goverment had that intersest.. what interest would a osc who could not have children. The answer would be the same interest as they do in an ssc... So either
A) government does not allow them to marry
or
B) there is no interest in procreation therefore no reason to deny ssc from marrying...
Can't have it both ways. If as you say the government interest is in children.. then only those who can produce children can marry...
No if, ands, or buts. Why does the government have a prevailing interest in marriage?

“Free to buy cake”

Since: Jul 07

wherever I like.

#7438 Jan 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
No if, ands, or buts. Why does the government have a prevailing interest in marriage?
Property rights.

“Free to buy cake”

Since: Jul 07

wherever I like.

#7439 Jan 7, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a distinction; Marriage is a REQUIRED relationship
Oh stop, puhleeeeeze. I can't stop laughing. This is the funniest sh1T I've ever read.
If I had a Mangina, it'd probably be moist.

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.

Greeneville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ronnie Shelton 38 min Chickie 8
Flag at the hill. 1 hr Dixie Chick 6
Brian uhls 37, any info? 2 hr Lawrdplz 25
Tracey at Marsh 2 hr Stupid 22
w illiam parton 4 hr citizen 5
The Persecution Begins 5 hr Hump Hammer 52
Beandon Portten 6 hr Hoke 2
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]