DOMA ruling is a start.

[abandonconflict]

Your beloved four-term President George W. Obama offers a kindhearted reminder to ALL citizens of this fine nation - gay and straight - that marriage is and always should be a bond between three entities: two lovers, and the government. Because making your personal life our business - and finding creative ways to punish you for it - is what we do best!

^^La Verdad^^

 

[BigNBushy]

I was once in a conversation with a guy who said that the basis of marriage is the production of children, hence the reason gay people ought not be married. However, he did not seem to favor disallowing sterile heterosexual couples from being able to marry. I really have never heard a rational reason why there should be any ban on any marriage. I am even in favor of allowing plural marriage. Whatever free people want to do, they ought to be able to do so long as another is not harmed.

 

[abandonconflict]

How about just abolishing the institution of marriage from the role of gov't (hopefully in the process of abolishing gov't) in order to stop making it other people's business who you love.

 

[Red1966]

The only argument you ever really hear is that the "sanctity" of marriage has to be protected. Well, for that to hold any water divorce rates need to be less than 50% after just a few years. I don't give a rats ass about gay people, no more or less than any other group out there. I do care about freedom. And giving gays the right to marry takes away no rights from anyone else. Its a no brainer. Anyone against it is either ignorant or bigoted.

"for that to hold any water divorce rates need to be less than 50% after just a few years"? Why? Why should this standard apply? Gays have always had the right to marry, and most did, and most of those had children, too.

 

[kpmarine]

"for that to hold any water divorce rates need to be less than 50% after just a few years"? Why? Why should this standard apply? Gays have always had the right to marry, and most did, and most of those had children, too.

Where have gays always had a means of getting married?

 

[SHOTGUN420]

serious question here. not trolling.

if there are two transgendered individuals, one male to female and one female to male, and they wish to marry each other, ought they be able to marry under the definition of "traditional marriage" (one man, one woman), or should they only be married where gay marriage is allowed?

First you will need to define your definition of traditional marriage . Traditional to me is between and man and woman . The female being the bride and the male being the groom. If they are transgendered they should have to reverse their sex change before getting married under traditional marriage or get married when gay marriage ect. is allowed seems like common sense.

yeah, good job on trying to convince us that you have nothing against gays and marriage equality.

haters gonna hate.

Since when have I been trying to convince you of anything? I state reality and you can't handle it not my problem. I said it before and ill say it again I don't give 2 shits about gays marrying (let the voters decide) , who is pretending to be another sex or , who fucks who in the ass that is someones personal business. I just seems like attention whores like to bring attention to themselves via their sexual preference.

 

[Doer]

Funny the contradiction between "alway" and "only a few years." I think I get you but you might want to re-phrase?

 

[kpmarine]

Since when have I been trying to convince you of anything? I state reality and you can't handle it not my problem.

So then explain how bestiality is the next logical step please. That was the "reality" you stated.

 

[Doer]

I was once in a conversation with a guy who said that the basis of marriage is the production of children, hence the reason gay people ought not be married. However, he did not seem to favor disallowing sterile heterosexual couples from being able to marry. I really have never heard a rational reason why there should be any ban on any marriage. I am even in favor of allowing plural marriage. Whatever free people want to do, they ought to be able to do so long as another is not harmed.

Oh, that is just what they tell us in Sunday school to keep us off their daughters, right? How did that work out?

Marriage and the Church are intertwined about one thing only. Bastards and property inheritance. In most of the world for most all time marriage is a political play and has nothing to do with sex. The entire War Cult is arranged around dynastic wealth and the Champions of battle to sire the next generations.

Having bastards has everything to do with contested wealth passing, top dog family struggles, civil war and thus it is a Sin unto Gawwwwwwwd.

Thus is is ever so.

In Wasziiistan and the Wahabi territories, to peek at a girl and not just invite your buddy with a reach around, is a Sin unto Gawwwwwwd.

Just a different War Cult is all.

 

[Red1966]

Where have gays always had a means of getting married?

Everywhere. Read some history. Ask your relatives. Doesn't everybody have a gay cousin with kids she conceived while married? When you go to get a marriage license, they don't ask if you're gay.

 

[Red1966]

So then explain how bestiality is the next logical step please. That was the "reality" you stated.

Bestiality? Nah. My moneys on polygamy!

 

[SHOTGUN420]

So then explain how bestiality is the next logical step please. That was the "reality" you stated.

It may not be the very next step but its in line waiting so tell me would you be against it? How do you feel about interspecies sex?

 

[kpmarine]

Everywhere. Read some history. Ask your relatives. Doesn't everybody have a gay cousin with kids she conceived while married? When you go to get a marriage license, they don't ask if you're gay.

Ah, so you mean they could get married, just only to someone of the opposite sex?

 

[kpmarine]

It may not be the very next step but its in line waiting so tell me would you be against it? How do you feel about interspecies sex?

It can wait in line all it wants. Animals can't consent so it's a non-issue. Personally, I feel that shit is pretty wrong. I'm sure there's some nut out there that thinks his sheep loves him though.

 

[SHOTGUN420]

It can wait in line all it wants. Animals can't consent so it's a non-issue. Personally, I feel that shit is pretty wrong. I'm sure there's some nut out there that thinks his sheep loves him though.

And I'm sure that nutjob thinks your a bigot for telling him/her who they can and cannot marry. Who are you to say who they can and cannot love your just a bigot is what will be said.

Or how about the scumbag pedophiles that get younger kids to say they enjoy it is that consent? and when it is pushed as consent as disgusting as it is. Will you be for it or the bigot against it.

Do you see your logic here?

Why does everyone have to be forced to accept another groups way of life?

 

[kpmarine]

And I'm sure that nutjob thinks your a bigot for telling him/her who they can and cannot marry. Who are you to say who they can and cannot love your just a bigot is what will be said.

Or how about the scumbag pedophiles that get younger kids to say they enjoy it is that consent? and when it is pushed as consent as disgusting as it is. Will you be for it or the bigot against it.

Do you see your logic here?

Why does everyone have to be forced to accept another groups way of life?

I don't care if they call me a bigot. The fact is that animals and children cannot consent; no matter how much someone insists otherwise. Until animals and children become capable of entering into a contract of their own free will it's apples to oranges in respect to same-sex marriage. Fucking an animal is animal cruelty, and fucking a child is child abuse; fucking another consenting adult is nothing like those. Apparently I'm missing your point, what is wrong with my logic here?

As far as having to accept another groups way of life; welcome to living in what's supposed to be a country with equal rights. If it's not harming someone or something else, then you should accept it. You don't have to like it though.

 

[Total Head]

And I'm sure that nutjob thinks your a bigot for telling him/her who they can and cannot marry. Who are you to say who they can and cannot love your just a bigot is what will be said.

Or how about the scumbag pedophiles that get younger kids to say they enjoy it is that consent? and when it is pushed as consent as disgusting as it is. Will you be for it or the bigot against it.

Do you see your logic here?

Why does everyone have to be forced to accept another groups way of life?

just so i'm clear, you're comparing consent between two adults to consent between a man and a horse or a man and a child? you're saying that it's legitimate to compare the ability of a 30 year old man to consent to the ability of an 8 year old boy? someone who has a legal guardian because of their age? or an animal with no ability to use human language and questionable cognitive abilities?

you're saying that because people try to justify a and b, it calls into question the legitimacy of something that is completely unrelated?

so if i am attacked by a bear and i shoot it, this opens the door to people being allowed to shoot people who wear nickleback shirts? i mean, it's only logical. why should i be forced to accept people who wear nickleback shirts? shit's dangerous.

 

[UncleBuck]

Ah, so you mean they could get married, just only to someone of the opposite sex?

you got it! it's red logic.

red also believes that women could always vote as long as they were men, and black people never had to be slaves as long as they were white.

he works with nobel prize winners, there is no arguing with his supreme logic.

 

[kpmarine]

you got it! it's red logic.

red also believes that women could always vote as long as they were men, and black people never had to be slaves as long as they were white.

he works with nobel prize winners, there is no arguing with his supreme logic.

Ah, but of course! I've been looking at this the wrong way. If those damn uppity gays would just start putting their genitals elsewhere; they have the same rights. How silly of me.

 

[UncleBuck]

Ah, but of course! I've been looking at this the wrong way. If those damn uppity gays would just start putting their genitals elsewhere; they have the same rights. How silly of me.

makes me wonder what kind of repressed individual would so adamantly keep stating something like that, as red so often does.