Gay Marriage Debate - Greeneville, TN

Discuss the national Gay Marriage debate in Greeneville, TN.

Do you support gay marriage?

Greeneville opposes
Oppose
 
531
Support
 
270

Vote now in Greeneville:

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7622 Jan 19, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I'll bite... In what way does my post expose my lie about gay parenting skills?
You're the one who brought Loren Marks into the discussion. For God's sake, he's more likely to try to support your side. Have you had a look at his CV? He graduated from Brigham Young. Every other study or essay he authors is about faith and religion.
Although, I have to say, as soon as I saw his picture, he made my gaydar light up like a Christmas tree.
He's the one who says that there is not enough scientific data available to definitely denounce LGBT parenting skills.
And you are the one who promoted the studies he debunked.

Now, according to you, everyone who disagrees with you is gay.

I think you are trying to divert attention from your issue of pedophilia.

Leave the kids alone VV!

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7623 Jan 19, 2013
Proof there is no such thing as gay 'marriage';

Who gets the bachelor party?
Who goes downstairs in the middle of the night to check on the noise?
Who forgets the anniversary?
Who refuses to stop and ask for directions?
Which one of you will take forever to get ready?

Snicker.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#7624 Jan 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You are engaging in the classic gay twirl of doing exactly what you say you are not. Using queer to try to embarrass a straight man (with a lesbian trapped inside).
Here are the answers you wanted;
1. Don't know a lot of what you just lied that I did. What I do know is that the anus is not designed for intercourse. Therefore, anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning. Which is the sum total of what I have basically said from the beginning and which you have been unable to refute because it is the simple truth. A simple single truth that exposes the defect of homosexuality.
2. Hardly. I am on here to defend marriage from having an imposter relationship imposed on it. The inherent harm, unhealthiness and demeaning nature of anal sex is simply one of numerous issues I raise to distinguish marriage from desecration. My 'If You' lists a whole bunch of other issues.
3. I've listed numerous effects of the attempted deception. However, it is primarily the children that I am trying to protect from people like you.
4. I didn't fabricate anything. Did you?
That's how you man up. Take your advice and quite trying to deplete women and children's resources. You are a big boy, you don't need their protection.
Smile.
You talk about anal sex twice in your response... Point made...

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#7625 Jan 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are the one who promoted the studies he debunked.
Now, according to you, everyone who disagrees with you is gay.
I think you are trying to divert attention from your issue of pedophilia.
Leave the kids alone VV!
Smirk.
I cited the studies.

And Loren Marks didn't debunk them... He said that there isn't enough evidence either way to support or refute the studies. At best, he is neutral.

Furthermore, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is gay. I only think those "straight men" who are obsessed with gay men, gay sex, and who are so vehemently against gay people likely have some latent issues.

At least I have a study that backs up my beliefs... http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/102/4/815...

Freud called it "reaction formation". Look into it.

You want to discuss pedophilia--bring some proof. Call some witnesses.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#7626 Jan 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
eryvermilion wrote:
You say:
"Marriage without children is simply friendship. No prevailing reason for government involvement. Contracts already address every issue."
--So, barren couples, elderly couples, and any other couples who choose not to have children should not be allowed to marry?\
<quoted text>
Don't forget (deliberately) to add that I also said it was never a problem until gay couples that are barren attempted to fake marriage.
That is your problem. Why are you so ashamed of your relationships that you want to impose an imposter one on marriage?
Smile.
<quoted text>
1. It wasn't me that had 'no problem' with childless couples, it IS the government and has been historically. Never a problem until gays demanded to impose and imposter relationship.
2. You refuse to answer how heterosexual couples who most likely DO procreate opens the door for gay couples who NEVER procreate.
3. I don't deem relationships marriage or friends, reality does. Reality is, friendship ideally has ALWAYS been one of the elements of marriage. It just was not the only element.
You also refuse to answer how a marriage segregated from procreation is anything the government has a prevailing interest in protecting and providing for.
4. Even worse, you dumb down marriage below even friendship to a legal contract! Again, something anyone and any number of people qualify for.
5. This lists numerous distinctions between marriage and gay unions;
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
" It wasn't me that had 'no problem' with childless couples, it IS the government and has been historically. Never a problem until gays demanded to impose and imposter relationship."
Actually it never was a problem.. because children never was a reason for marriage... A nice bi product... but not the reason... next.
You refuse to answer how heterosexual couples who most likely DO procreate opens the door for gay couples who NEVER procreate.
A) why should I , vv or mrango answe any question you pose when you skip over ours?
B)I did answer that many many times before... In fact I answered it again in this post See above.
"3. I don't deem relationships marriage or friends, reality does. Reality is, friendship ideally has ALWAYS been one of the elements of marriage. It just was not the only element.
And yet another lie.. do you want me to go back and post the number of times you said a ssm was a frinedship and not a marriage?... really..
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#7627 Jan 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
eryvermilion wrote:
You say:
"Marriage without children is simply friendship. No prevailing reason for government involvement. Contracts already address every issue."
--So, barren couples, elderly couples, and any other couples who choose not to have children should not be allowed to marry?\
<quoted text>
Don't forget (deliberately) to add that I also said it was never a problem until gay couples that are barren attempted to fake marriage.
That is your problem. Why are you so ashamed of your relationships that you want to impose an imposter one on marriage?
Smile.
<quoted text>
You also refuse to answer how a marriage segregated from procreation is anything the government has a prevailing interest in protecting and providing for.
4. Even worse, you dumb down marriage below even friendship to a legal contract! Again, something anyone and any number of people qualify for.
5. This lists numerous distinctions between marriage and gay unions;
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
"You also refuse to answer how a marriage segregated from procreation is anything the government has a prevailing interest in protecting and providing for."
Again I answered this many times... procreation is not required for marriage. Government interest.. try larger income... which leads to more taxes payed, more items bought, more.... you get the jist.

"Even worse, you dumb down marriage below even friendship to a legal contract! Again, something anyone and any number of people qualify for."

Hate to break it to you... marriage is a legal contract. Ask any lawyer.
Now the fact that you agree that as a contract " anyone and any number of people qualify for." shows there is hop for you yet
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#7628 Jan 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
KiMare wrote:
eryvermilion wrote:
You say:
"Marriage without children is simply friendship. No prevailing reason for government involvement. Contracts already address every issue."
--So, barren couples, elderly couples, and any other couples who choose not to have children should not be allowed to marry?\
<quoted text>
Don't forget (deliberately) to add that I also said it was never a problem until gay couples that are barren attempted to fake marriage.
That is your problem. Why are you so ashamed of your relationships that you want to impose an imposter one on marriage?
Smile.
<quoted text>
r.
5. This lists numerous distinctions between marriage and gay unions;
If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage
If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage
If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders
If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history
If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect
If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships
If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity
If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent
If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act
If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end
If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest
If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none
If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'
Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.
"If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage"

Who said that... please post the post # it was said in... wait another lie...

"If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage"
Again who said that?.... Now there are certain benefits, that can not be acquired outside marriage. But the question is.. tell me why a ssc should be forced to go through the cost and hassle of drawing up legal documents to get the same thing a osc gets 5 minutes into their marriage?(wait you dont answer questions posed to you... well ones that hurt you cause at least)

"If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders"
You been tw Brian G...he tries to use this inane argument also... Exactly what does it mean...

"If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history"
Not about religion... as we are not a theocracy
Not about history as history changes.
It is about equal treatment and rights of all citizens.

The rest is just to tediously silly to respond to.

Btw.. did you ever figure out how infertile couples could be married and not just friend when they can have no more children than a ssc who you say would have afriendship and not a marriage?....

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#7629 Jan 19, 2013
If love is more than just a contract, then it must be love based. Right?

And if marriage is love based, then every unrelated, consenting adult couple who is in love should be allowed to get married.

If marriage is only about reproduction, then barren couples and other couples who do not intend to have children should not be allowed to marry

If marriage is only to keep roving husbands from going out and spreading their seed, then all men should be thoroughly tested for potential infidelity before being allowed to marry.

If marriage is only a legal contract then every unrelated, consenting adult couple should be allowed to be married so that they can enjoy all of the rights and protections of marriage.

“Marriage equality for all”

Since: Jul 07

Illinois

#7630 Jan 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are a mongrel, aren't you.
'Intimacy' refers to sex in the context I spoke.
Anal sex is not intimacy, it is sodomy, abusive and demeaning.n It is still outlawed in most countries.
Nowhere have I asserted that ALL gays engage in anal sex. You lied again.
You still have no argument. Marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior. Gay unions are literally 'unmarriage'.
:-)
You're still a total douche-bag, Kuntmare. If you're going to refer to a "context", that context should be included in your post and not just some random "bigger scheme".

There are millions of str8 and gay couples that would take issue with you about gay sex and intimacy.

Mating behavior has very little, if anything, to do with marriage. Many people manage to procreate without the benefit of marriage. Virtually every other species of animal manages to procreate without the benefit of marriage. Marriage and procreation are two entirely different things. Many people, who are married, never procreate. As others have pointed out, there is no difference between those couples and gay couples.

Until you rip barren couples a new a-hole for not procreating, you have no business sticking your stanky vagina into the rights of gay couples.

We're married. I'm glad that pisses you off.

Still a total douche-bag, Mangina Man.

“Marriage equality for all”

Since: Jul 07

Illinois

#7631 Jan 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Proof there is no such thing as gay 'marriage';
Who gets the bachelor party? DIDN'T WANT ONE
Who goes downstairs in the middle of the night to check on the noise? ME
Who forgets the anniversary? ME
Who refuses to stop and ask for directions? HIM
Which one of you will take forever to get ready? HIM
Snicker. NOT
Again, comedy is best left to the gays, the jews, and people with a sense of humor.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7632 Jan 20, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You talk about anal sex twice in your response... Point made...
I answered your questions.

You twisted what I said.

Point made (Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning).

Pedophiles try to deflect from the real issue. Leave our children alone VV!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7633 Jan 20, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
I cited the studies.
And Loren Marks didn't debunk them... He said that there isn't enough evidence either way to support or refute the studies. At best, he is neutral.
Mocking 'studies' that without substantiation ALL come to the exact same conclusion is debunking. Not to mention these comments;

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/2465 ...

"According to Marks, over 75% of the 59 studies cited in the APA brief were based on small, non-representative, non-random samples that did not include any minority individuals or families. In addition, almost 50% did not include a heterosexual comparison group and only a few analyzed outcomes that extend beyond childhood, such as income, and educational attainment."

"David Eggebeen, Associate Professor of Human Development and Sociology at Pennsylvania State University, said:

"Dr. Marks' paper, by turning a bright light on the shortcomings of previous work, challenges researchers to develop better data and conduct kinds of analyses that allow more confidence in generalizations. The Regnerus paper introduces a data set based on a national probability sample that has the potential to address some of Mark's criticisms. The analyses in the Regnerus paper are provocative but far from conclusive. These very preliminary findings should not detract from the real importance of this paper, the description of a new data set that offers significant advantages."

Characteristics of a Pedophile :

-Often the pedophile is male and over 30 years of age.
-Single or with few friends in his age group.
-If married, the relationship is more "companion" based with no sexual relations.
-He is often vague about time gaps in employment which may indicate a loss in employment for questionable reasons or possible past incarceration.

By your own words, you are on here for the kids.

The signs are clear VV.

:-)

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7634 Jan 20, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
" It wasn't me that had 'no problem' with childless couples, it IS the government and has been historically. Never a problem until gays demanded to impose and imposter relationship."
Actually it never was a problem.. because children never was a reason for marriage... A nice bi product... but not the reason... next.
You refuse to answer how heterosexual couples who most likely DO procreate opens the door for gay couples who NEVER procreate.
A) why should I , vv or mrango answe any question you pose when you skip over ours?
B)I did answer that many many times before... In fact I answered it again in this post See above.
"3. I don't deem relationships marriage or friends, reality does. Reality is, friendship ideally has ALWAYS been one of the elements of marriage. It just was not the only element.
And yet another lie.. do you want me to go back and post the number of times you said a ssm was a frinedship and not a marriage?... really..
More gay twirl. You are so predictable...

1. First you accuse me of having a problem, now you deny the government does, what are you going to do now?

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia

"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels

"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill

Now answer my question;

How does heterosexual couples who most likely DO procreate open the door for gay couples who NEVER procreate? Even SCOTUS has acknowledged the importance numerous times!

2. You deliberately misquoted what I said. A tactic of a liar who has no legitimate argument.

Why does your cause need these tactics???

I said relationships without children are only friendships. Relationships that hold the potential of procreation INCLUDE friendship.

You are attempting to dumb down marriage to a contract, something marriage is not needed for. I raised the bar to a friendship, something the government has no prevailing interest in.

Next.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7635 Jan 20, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"You also refuse to answer how a marriage segregated from procreation is anything the government has a prevailing interest in protecting and providing for."
Again I answered this many times... procreation is not required for marriage. Government interest.. try larger income... which leads to more taxes payed, more items bought, more.... you get the jist.
"Even worse, you dumb down marriage below even friendship to a legal contract! Again, something anyone and any number of people qualify for."
Hate to break it to you... marriage is a legal contract. Ask any lawyer.
Now the fact that you agree that as a contract " anyone and any number of people qualify for." shows there is hop for you yet
1. See post above.

2. See post above.

"You also refuse to answer how a marriage segregated from procreation is anything the government has a prevailing interest in protecting and providing for."

-The government interest is to tax? You need to be married for that to happen? REally stretching there... silly stupid.

Simple proof you have no answer.

Next.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7636 Jan 20, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love
If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage"
Who said that... please post the post # it was said in... wait another lie...
I am responding to general excuses for calling gay unions marriage.

-"Why stop love" It doesn't.
-"Marriage is just two committed people" No it's not just two committed people, it is far more than a friendship.
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by a imposition on marriage"
Again who said that?.... Now there are certain benefits, that can not be acquired outside marriage. But the question is.. tell me why a ssc should be forced to go through the cost and hassle of drawing up legal documents to get the same thing a osc gets 5 minutes into their marriage?(wait you dont answer questions posed to you... well ones that hurt you cause at least)
-You just did. Those rights and benefits were established over time to protect mothers and children. Gay couples don't qualify or need those same benefits, and would in fact deplete resources for women and children.

Man up, get welfare if two guys can't take care of each other!
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders"
You been tw Brian G...he tries to use this inane argument also... Exactly what does it mean...
You know exactly what it means.

In fact, marriage hails back to the REunion of genders into the very roots of evolution, genderless simple life forms. Duplicate genders create no such union. They will never be more than a duplicated HALF of what marriage is!
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
"If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history"
Not about religion... as we are not a theocracy
Not about history as history changes.
It is about equal treatment and rights of all citizens.
The rest is just to tediously silly to respond to.
Btw.. did you ever figure out how infertile couples could be married and not just friend when they can have no more children than a ssc who you say would have afriendship and not a marriage?....
Didn't say it was about religion or culture, I said it is viciously insensitive to both. Hardly the mark of a sensitive, cultured person.

As noted above, there is nothing 'equal' you've established.

You have no answer for any of the points, it just gets embarrassingly obvious the more you go on.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7637 Jan 20, 2013
Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
You're still a total douche-bag, Kuntmare. If you're going to refer to a "context", that context should be included in your post and not just some random "bigger scheme".
There are millions of str8 and gay couples that would take issue with you about gay sex and intimacy.
Mating behavior has very little, if anything, to do with marriage. Many people manage to procreate without the benefit of marriage. Virtually every other species of animal manages to procreate without the benefit of marriage. Marriage and procreation are two entirely different things. Many people, who are married, never procreate. As others have pointed out, there is no difference between those couples and gay couples.
Until you rip barren couples a new a-hole for not procreating, you have no business sticking your stanky vagina into the rights of gay couples.
We're married. I'm glad that pisses you off.
Still a total douche-bag, Mangina Man.
Mongrel boy, leave the thinking to the men, find someone to troll who cares.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#7638 Jan 20, 2013
Marengo Jon wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, comedy is best left to the gays, the jews, and people with a sense of humor.
That really stepped on your toes.

Snicker.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#7639 Jan 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
More gay twirl. You are so predictable...
1. First you accuse me of having a problem, now you deny the government does, what are you going to do now?
"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."- Skinner v Oklahoma
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."- Loving v Virginia
"Our Court has not recognized a fundamental right to marry that departs in any respect from the right defined by the US Supreme Court in cases like Skinner which acknowledged that marriage is "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race" because it is the primary institution supporting procreation and child-rearing (316 US at 541; see also Zablocki, 434 US 374; Griswold, 381 US 479). The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. Although plaintiffs suggest that the connection between procreation and marriage has become anachronistic because of scientific advances in assisted reproduction technology, the fact remains that the vast majority of children are conceived naturally through sexual contact between a woman and a man."- Hernandez v Robels
"It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress. "- Maynard v Hill
Now answer my question;
How does heterosexual couples who most likely DO procreate open the door for gay couples who NEVER procreate? Even SCOTUS has acknowledged the importance numerous times!
2. You deliberately misquoted what I said. A tactic of a liar who has no legitimate argument.
Why does your cause need these tactics???
I said relationships without children are only friendships. Relationships that hold the potential of procreation INCLUDE friendship.
You are attempting to dumb down marriage to a contract, something marriage is not needed for. I raised the bar to a friendship, something the government has no prevailing interest in.
Next.
Smirk.
Gay twirl... since i am hetero... what....
Maybe we should just consider your responses idiot twirl,, or bigot twirl.. or better yet idiot bigot twirl

Notice how in all the irrelevant SCOTUS things you posted that none of them said it was a reqirement?.... And what you posted STILL goes to the question of if what they said was true... and you want to use it to deny ssm because they can not " supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured. " Then how do they differ from infertile couples?.... How can a couple where do to what ever reason, will not be able to have children, be married... especially under what you posted?.... One of these days you will answer the question.

"The binary nature of marriage—its inclusion of one woman and one man—reflects the biological fact that human procreation cannot be accomplished without the genetic contribution of both a male and a female. "
Which is true in a ssm and a infertile couple... so the difference is...

"Marriage creates a supportive environment for procreation to occur and the resulting offspring to be nurtured."

If you are infertile does not matter how suppportive the enviroment is... no child will come... just like a ssm... so again the difference?

2. You deliberately misquoted what I said. A tactic of a liar who has no legitimate argument.

Really what did I mis quote. I usually cut and paste to deny such allegations.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#7640 Jan 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>

Now answer my question;
How does heterosexual couples who most likely DO procreate open the door for gay couples who NEVER procreate? Even SCOTUS has acknowledged the importance numerous times!
2. You deliberately misquoted what I said. A tactic of a liar who has no legitimate argument.
Why does your cause need these tactics???
I said relationships without children are only friendships. Relationships that hold the potential of procreation INCLUDE friendship.
You are attempting to dumb down marriage to a contract, something marriage is not needed for. I raised the bar to a friendship, something the government has no prevailing interest in.
Next.
Smirk.
"Now answer my question"
Again you demand answers when you refuse to answer my questions... But that is ok, I have no problem being an adult and directly answering questions.

"How does heterosexual couples who most likely DO procreate open the door for gay couples who NEVER procreate? Even SCOTUS has acknowledged the importance numerous times!'

What SCOTUS recognized was that procreation does happen in marriage... not that it was a requirement. Again going by what you posted of SCOTUS, then anyone who can not pop one out can not get married.
Now your correct questions should be..."How does heterosexual couples who most likely DO procreate open the door for infertile couples who NEVER procreate? Unless you care to tell me the difference between a osc infertile couple and a ssc... but we know y ou dont want to answer that .

2. You deliberately misquoted what I said. A tactic of a liar who has no legitimate argument.
Why does your cause need these tactics???"
How did I misquote you.

"said relationships without children are only friendships. Relationships that hold the potential of procreation INCLUDE friendship."
You said this time and time again... and time and time again I ask you to tell me the difference between an infertile couple (rather it be via nature, being fixed, or post menopausal) relationship without children are not only friendships?.... Since they do not have the potential of procreation.. then by your logic that is all they can be.

'You are attempting to dumb down marriage to a contract, something marriage is not needed for.'

If mariage was not at its core a contract... why would you need to go through the pain and agony of divorce?... See divorce ends the marriage by breaking the contract.....

"I raised the bar to a friendship, something the government has no prevailing interest in."
First you raised the bar.... little full of ourselves aren't we....
Second Not exactly sure what you mean (dont worry it is not the first time you do not make your thoughts clear)
Thirdly... If by raising the bar you mean on ssm... then it all comes full circle to the question you refuse to answer.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#7641 Jan 20, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
1. See post above.
2. See post above.
"You also refuse to answer how a marriage segregated from procreation is anything the government has a prevailing interest in protecting and providing for."
-The government interest is to tax? You need to be married for that to happen? REally stretching there... silly stupid.
Simple proof you have no answer.
Next.
Smirk.
-The government interest is to tax? You need to be married for that to happen? REally stretching there... silly stupid.
Simple proof you have no answer.
Not what I said was it.... but nice try.... I said when married t he joint income rises (joint which is different from shacking up and there is no contract combining assets) so again spin denied.
Next

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
who is tired of cable company in town? 5 min JanWill6023 15
Merge beween Laughlin and Takoma 55 min Justsayin 3
fun thing to do ***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Sep '10) 1 hr Dillard 5,708
your boy/girl friend still go to their ex's fam... 1 hr Unbelieveable 7
Wha postion do u sleep in? 1 hr Dena Bank 12
Jordan Greenway 1 hr Chic 3
Who are the parents of the baby that died from ... (Sep '12) 1 hr Worried Mom 113
What I learned about relationshps 3 hr csmaven 62
"Greeneville police: 2 infants found dead in ho... 3 hr idiots 172
***** last post wins ***** 3 hr Alex Nicole 623
Principal at Mosheim 5 hr really 83
Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]