Kal, Kal, you KNOW that's not true right? You MUST know that even clones would have genetic drift and random mutations. Surely you KNOW this. Further, there is some research that suggests that in the future, and when we finally get to a point where Eugenics will be a reality (Which it will) we will be able to design our offspring however we choose. Incest, although repulsive (Kind of ironic since most people up until this latest push by gays to shame anyone that is verbally repulsed by gay sex, were indeed repulsed by gay sex as well) and taboo, isn't taboo for science sake. In fact I'd say that science or any harmful effects of familial breeding are nonsense and demonstrably not true. In other words, much like gay rights advocates use the "what harm does it cause", mantra, the same exact argument can be said of consensual incestuous relationships. Mother, son, brother sister, sister father.. What a brave new world eh?
Tim-
I personally find the idea of incest repulsive, but isn't it hypocritical to support open marriage for all, and not incestuous marriage? It is.
He has a domestic partner and they have a son. I'd say he is married [at least common law]. Now due to the stroke of his own pen, he'll likely be able to marry.
Michael J. McShane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's nice, but when the 14th was written as a reconstruction amendment (1868) until Brown V the Board of Education (1954) the SCOTUS did not recognize segregation of the races as unconstitutional. Try again.
Why vote? We can just do away with it altogether and have the Judiciary decide everything.
You didn't answer the question. Everyone has the right to call names and label people. You have the right to ignore them.
The question is what right is taken from YOU when SSM is legalized and you can't even answer the question without making an appeal to your emotions, which don't matter.
And for a couple of centuries homosexuals were treated as criminals and they dared not come out...much less demand that they be treated with equal rights. As such it was never brought before the courts before. Now that they have the security to come out they are bringing their case before the courts. As is proper.
BTW: It took a couple of centuries before Loving v. Virginia to happen also.Are you going to try and use your excuse on that case as well? It would at least be consistant.....
My rights aren't in question.
I've never said I was against Gay Marriage because I thought it's existence would infringe upon my rights.
Now I think your'e being a bit disingenuous when you describe their labels as something that's innocuous and harmless. When they apply these labels to high profile people who disagree with their agenda, it's not with the intention of causing them harm.
It's to set an example. If you disagree with us, we'll target you and ruin your reputation, Professional or otherwise.
I can already call whatever I want to be marriage. The only thing being fought for is the legal definition. I could care less what Webster's dictionary has for the definition of marriage. All I care about is all people having the same protection under the law. They dont. Legal marriage WAS voted on at some point for it to be a law.
Again, it is wrong for a person to be attacked and ostracized for it.
My rights aren't in question.
I've never said I was against Gay Marriage because I thought it's existence would infringe upon my rights.
Now I think your'e being a bit disingenuous when you describe their labels as something that's innocuous and harmless. When they apply these labels to high profile people who disagree with their agenda, it's not with the intention of causing them harm.
It's to set an example. If you disagree with us, we'll target you and ruin your reputation, Professional or otherwise.
How about being labeled a Bigot and a Hater because I believe the proper definition of Marriage is between a Man and Woman.
How about those who claim to have their agenda justified on the basis of "equal rights" purposely ignoring and attacking the rights of those who may disagree with them.
My problem with Gay marriage has always been a issue of a activist minority getting to redefine a age old definition thats transcended Culture, religion and race.
And they're method of forcing their agenda on the rest of America.
No, the issue is NOT just about legalities.
If that were the case then these people would have been satisfied with Civil Unions.
No, this is activism, a coordinated attack of a age old definition that transcends Religion and cultures and races.
1.)No, the issue is NOT just about legalities.
2.) If that were the case then these people would have been satisfied with Civil Unions.
3.) No, this is activism, a coordinated attack of a age old definition that transcends Religion and cultures and races.
I'm gay. And your whole argument hinges are your right to view, and thus label, me as a second class citizen, a deviant, and someone who is otherwise unequal to you. That is your right. But you now want to argue that Labels and words can hurt? Suck it up buddy.
What defines a Marriage is the ability of two people to maintain a monogamous relationship and bear children.
To pass on their genes to their offspring.
Your " Rights " aren't being denied and the refusal to allow Gays to be married doesn't make you a second class citizen.
1.) What defines a Marriage is the ability of two people to maintain a monogamous relationship and bear children.
To pass on their genes to their offspring.
2.) Your " Rights " aren't being denied and the refusal to allow Gays to be married doesn't make you a second class citizen.
3.) Rights are extended out to the individual not to a Couple. and you STILL have the right to get married.
4.) NO PERSON, regardless of Sexual preference has ever had the Right to marry what or whoever he or she wanted. You cant marry a child, close blood relative, someone who's already married, etc.
5.) Our laws govern marriage but were not the source of the definition of marriage.
1.) lol yes it is that why these wrongful discrimination (bannings) go to court and are found to be ILLEGAL
2.) no civil unions are NOT equal rights so wrong again, also many s bigoted states have banned those too
3.) sorry wrong again because none of those things have anythign to do with equal rights.
facts win again
are you ever going to post anything you can support? please do so now, thanks.
Good for you and I could really could care less who you sleep with.
Marriage is a fundamental Human institution that predates our Constitution and our Laws. Its based around Sociological tenants that have been in place since humans had the intelligence to form Unions with specific partners for the purpose of bearing and raising children.
So what defines that institution ? Love ? Companionship ?
No,because if that were the case you could conceivably be married to a Parakeet or a Cat or even a child.
So Sex ?? No that doesn't define the institution of marriage either.
What defines a Marriage is the ability of two people to maintain a monogamous relationship and bear children.
To pass on their genes to their offspring.
Your " Rights " aren't being denied and the refusal to allow Gays to be married doesn't make you a second class citizen.
Rights are extended out to the individual not to a Couple. and you STILL have the right to get married. NO PERSON, regardless of Sexual preference has ever had the Right to marry what or whoever he or she wanted. You cant marry a child, close blood relative, someone who's already married, etc.
Our laws govern marriage but were not the source of the definition of marriage.
Good for you and I could really could care less who you sleep with.
Marriage is a fundamental Human institution that predates our Constitution and our Laws. Its based around Sociological tenants that have been in place since humans had the intelligence to form Unions with specific partners for the purpose of bearing and raising children.
So what defines that institution ? Love ? Companionship ?
No,because if that were the case you could conceivably be married to a Parakeet or a Cat or even a child.
So Sex ?? No that doesn't define the institution of marriage either.
What defines a Marriage is the ability of two people to maintain a monogamous relationship and bear children.
To pass on their genes to their offspring.
Your " Rights " aren't being denied and the refusal to allow Gays to be married doesn't make you a second class citizen.
Rights are extended out to the individual not to a Couple. and you STILL have the right to get married. NO PERSON, regardless of Sexual preference has ever had the Right to marry what or whoever he or she wanted. You cant marry a child, close blood relative, someone who's already married, etc.
Our laws govern marriage but were not the source of the definition of marriage.
Nonsense. If it were just about " legalities" we wouldn't be having this debate. By now most States would have agreed to Civil Unions and the issue would have been dealt with.
This is a small activist minority attacking a age old definition as they attempt to redefine it based on what suites them.
See ? IT IS about activism over legalities.
And no one's violating your " Rights ". Rights are extended out to the individual, not to the Gay couple, or any couple for that matter.
LOL !! " Facts win again " ?? Gotta love it when you guys claim victory.
Again, your rights aren't being "violated". You can still get married.
Your issue is that you don't agree with the current laws that regulate who or what you can get marry too.
Are you ever going to post anything that makes sense ?
1.)Nonsense. If it were just about " legalities" we wouldn't be having this debate.
2.)By now most States would have agreed to Civil Unions and the issue would have been dealt with.
3.) This is a small activist minority attacking a age old definition as they attempt to redefine it based on what suites them.
4.) See ? IT IS about activism over legalities.
5.) And no one's violating your " Rights ".
6.) Rights are extended out to the individual, not to the Gay couple, or any couple for that matter.
7.) LOL !! " Facts win again " ?? Gotta love it when you guys claim victory.
8.) Again, your rights aren't being "violated".
9.) You can still get married.
10.) Your issue is that you don't agree with the current laws that regulate who or what you can get marry too.
11.) Are you ever going to post anything that makes sense ?
Indeed..
An openly Gay judge ruled on the Oregon law yesterday. (should have recused himself)
US judge strikes down Oregon gay marriage ban as state refuses to defend it (+video) - CSMonitor.com
This will continue until the states say NO MORE!
Oh yes great slave to the alter of huge government. May it bestow on you your every fantasy.
I'd have no problem with allowing polygamy. Incest however, no thanks. For the simple fact that genetics don't like it and its too easy for the dominate sibling to "persuade" the non-dominate sibling into such things.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?