"Marriage is for a man and a woman," HE believes

[Sampson Simpson]

There are two parts to this topic: human psychology and the law. Gay marriage is a legal thing and, therefore, a 14th Amendment issue. The human psychology aspect comes into play with those who scream gays are perverts and "unnatural".

more like human assholishness. Gay's marrying have no affect on these people what so ever. They are just being assholes, plain and simple. Probably to make up for their own insecurities about their ****ty, sad lives

 

[Divine_Wind]

I'm calling bull****. I don't think a single gay rights supporter finds it amusing.

You can scream bull**** all you like. You can even jump up and down, but it won't change the fact I think it's amusing to see the anticonstituitonalists seek to undermine the Constitution in a battle they are constantly losing.

 

[Divine_Wind]

Nor did I ever claim that you had. I stated that by quoting my question, and then responding with other questions, instead of answering it, you created the impression that you agreed with the idea I had done so. If you didn't think that I was equating homosexuality with a disorder, why did you even quote my question? What was your point that you were trying to get across?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I was curious about clarifying what you mean. Text is a poor means of communication. If you hadn't gotten into a snit about being asked some questions, we'd be a full day ahead by now.

Sent from the International Space Station using laser beams

 

[Carjosse]

Please stick to your own business instead of trying to tell me what does or does not affect me.

Why should I have a say in it? Well, for one thing, it's my country, not yours. Second, I can say exactly what I feel is the truth and anything I want to say.

Catch my drift?

Why do you have a right to tell others how they should live their life when it has no effect on anyone else but them?

 

[Divine_Wind]

Nor did I ever claim that you had. I stated that by quoting my question, and then responding with other questions, instead of answering it, you created the impression that you agreed with the idea I had done so. If you didn't think that I was equating homosexuality with a disorder, why did you even quote my question? What was your point that you were trying to get across?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

You obviously care a lot more about this than I do.

Getting back to the subject; do you agree that who and what consenting adults do with each other sexually is no ones business, much less the governments and that all laws must pass the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause? A simple yes or no to each is fine.

 

[Lursa]

You are correct. It is one of many. But procreation is the number one reason.

No it's not. If that were the case, each person having sex would be trying for a pregnancy.

That's certainly not the case. See: birth control sales and use. See: abortion.

It's not the primary reason people have sex and it's not the primary reason people marry.

 

[Lursa]

No. She can have all the sex she wants. Ever heard of condoms?

Perhaps this ignorance about the effectiveness of condoms is the reason so many people end up dealing with accidental pregnancies?

My hope is this ignorance isnt widespread but IMO it probably is...that, mixed with expedience.

 

[American]

You can scream bull**** all you like. You can even jump up and down, but it won't change the fact I think it's amusing to see the anticonstituitonalists seek to undermine the Constitution in a battle they are constantly losing.

Your post is amusing.

 

[Lursa]

Unless you are a polygamist, polygamy does not affect you in any way. Why should you (or the state) have a say in it?

It does in terms of govt benefits and tax breaks. OTOH, there is no law that forbids people from living without legal contracts in such situations, or from creating such bonds officially within a religion.

 

[Lursa]

Why do you have a right to tell others how they should live their life when it has no effect on anyone else but them?

He did not answer the question of how it affected him. He's mentioned a 'gay agenda' many times but never managed to describe exactly what that is, how their 'agenda' in life is any different than straight peoples'.

 

[maquiscat]

Same with incest, or sex with animals, necrophilia, etc etc.

Incest, as long as it is between two adults, is the only comparable one. Unless you can show where the animal in question has enough sleep awareness and intelligence to provide informed consent, then the act is forced upon them. With necrophilia, the previous occupant of the body is not there to give consent and the body is not the property of the other to do such things with. Any other examples in your "etc etc"?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

I was curious about clarifying what you mean. Text is a poor means of communication. If you hadn't gotten into a snit about being asked some questions, we'd be a full day ahead by now.

Sent from the International Space Station using laser beams

This is why I said that if you were trying to probe deeper then you should have put that out at the start. But I get it. Without the visual and audio cues we are used to, what is said by one, usually as if those cues were still there, can be taken differently by the other than intended.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[ttwtt78640]

It does in terms of govt benefits and tax breaks. OTOH, there is no law that forbids people from living without legal contracts in such situations, or from creating such bonds officially within a religion.

There is no difficulty in having business partnership contracts with more than one partner.

 

[maquiscat]

You obviously care a lot more about this than I do.

Getting back to the subject; do you agree that who and what consenting adults do with each other sexually is no ones business, much less the governments and that all laws must pass the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" clause? A simple yes or no to each is fine.

Indeed. This even extend to incest among adults.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

It does in terms of govt benefits and tax breaks. OTOH, there is no law that forbids people from living without legal contracts in such situations, or from creating such bonds officially within a religion.

Or even without a religion. There are athiests who are poly.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

There is no difficulty in having business partnership contracts with more than one partner.

Business laws are not laid out the same as marriage laws. Additionally, there is no one licenses withing business law that grant the sheer number of Rights and responsibilities as occurs with a marriage license.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

I agree. Go for it, I say. Just don't tell me it's not wrong.

It is apparently wrong for you, because you're not gay. That's OK. eace

 

[RamFel]

Re: "Marriage is for a man and a woman," HE believes

*blink.....blink...blink*

Short of STI protection, why would she even need a condom used? It is impossible for her to get pregnant because she has NO UTERUS! That's what a hysterectomy is; the removal of the uterus.

So let's try this again. And we will even back up a step. Is sex without the possibility of procreation wrong, and thus should not even be done?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

No. It's not wrong. And you should know that I was not talking specifically about women. Women are not the only one's that make babies. If she does not want a baby, then she should use a condom. Why you blinked three times, and why you brought up that question is a mystery to me. Only you can answer that.

 

[Lursa]

There is no difficulty in having business partnership contracts with more than one partner.

Not sure what that has to do with it, I was thinking more about govt entitlements and benefits.

People can always have business contracts.

 

[Divine_Wind]

more like human assholishness. Gay's marrying have no affect on these people what so ever. They are just being assholes, plain and simple. Probably to make up for their own insecurities about their ****ty, sad lives

Agreed. Why others seek to impose their will on others is, IMO, antiAmerican.

 

[RamFel]

then your claim of "Wrong sexual equipment for reproduction" fails
also do you have a link proving its factually the number one reason because i doubt thats true...

we'll be waiting

Sorry, but you already know I don't do that for things that are obvious. Here's a challenge. Why don't you prove it? I am trired of constantly battling you all the time because all you do is poke fun, type in giant text, and all for what? from 30 minutes of antics which are not funny. This should be fun.

Go for it. Im waiting.

Because it doesn't matter. It won't be true.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: "Marriage is for a man and a woman," HE believes

No. It's not wrong. And you should know that I was not talking specifically about women. Women are not the only one's that make babies. If she does not want a baby, then she should use a condom. Why you blinked three times, and why you brought up that question is a mystery to me. Only you can answer that.

He brought it up because it was obvious you had no idea what a hysterectomy was nor do you have any clue what you are talking about when it comes to this subject. Everybody object who does understand this subject sees it and you prove it over and over again.

So back to the fails you posted, you said it was wrong now you are claiming its not wrong? which is it?

 

[AGENT J]

Sorry, but you already know I don't do that for things that are obvious.Here's a challenge. Why don't you prove it? I am trired of constantly battling you all the time because all you do is poke fun, type in giant text, and all for what? from 30 minutes of antics which are not funny. This should be fun.

Go for it. Im waiting.

Because it doesn't matter. It won't be true.

Translation: you were caught lying again and you cant back up your claim LMAO

we all knew this dodge was coming so ill ask you again to further own and embarrass the lie you got caught posting

Here we are in the same spot, do you have a link proving its factually the number one reason, please post it, we'll be waiting thanks!


who bets my request is dodged again?

 

[RamFel]

Re: "Marriage is for a man and a woman," HE believes

He brought it up because it was obvious you had no idea what a hysterectomy was nor do you have any clue what you are talking about when it comes to this subject. Everybody object who does understand this subject sees it and you prove it over and over again.

So back to the fails you posted, you said it was wrong now you are claiming its not wrong? which is it?

I am no genius its true. And I am still waiting for your answer.

You are not in charge here.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: "Marriage is for a man and a woman," HE believes

I am no genius its true. And I am still waiting for your answer.

You are not in charge here.

aaaand another dodge and deflection LMAO

yes we ALL know you are no genius

1.) so you admit you had no clue what a hysterectomy was? yes or no
2.) you said it was wrong now you are claiming its not wrong? which is it?

let us know, thanks!