SCOTUS Refuses review of opinions striking down gay marriage bans

Which again is subjective....do you understand what subjective means? Originally Posted by WTF

It doesn't mean objective scientific fact like only a man and a woman can create a baby.......how's the husband hunting going fagboy?

Which again is subjective....do you understand what subjective means? Originally Posted by WTF

I don't care if it's subjective or not. I am just putting it out there. Besides it's subjective to you cause you can't dispute it.


Jim

I would agree by that definition that banning marriage among gays is discrimination.

I will go further by giving you my definition of discrimination

Discrimination would be the behavior of treating someone differently based on personal characteristics.

Can we agree on that? Originally Posted by boardman

What is the matter LL....having trouble answering a question? Originally Posted by WTF

What is the matter WTF...having trouble answering a question?

Thursday night football...missed this. Trust me, I will not run from this thread. It is not a hard position to defend in my book.

I will go further by giving you my definition of discrimination

Discrimination would be the behavior of treating someone differently based on personal characteristics.

Can we agree on that? Originally Posted by boardman

We can. Can we agree that not all discrimination is bad? After all, we treat people in wheel chairs differently by building them bigger bathroom stalls...ramps and the like.

It doesn't mean objective scientific fact like only a man and a woman can create a baby.......how's the husband hunting going fagboy? Originally Posted by LowRider69

You and your stupid man + woman = baby.... bullshit.

So all couples that do not produce a baby should not be allowed to marry ? Is that your premises? The only reason for marriage is babies. No sport fucking? No transferring of rights and legal protections upon death....just babies.

If your argument is for kids , then there should be no divorce and no marriage that does not produce a baby or you are just promoting another Straw man ...

You and your stupid man + woman = baby.... bullshit.

So all couples that do not produce a baby should not be allowed to marry ? Is that your premises? The only reason for marriage is babies. No sport fucking? No transferring of rights and legal protections upon death....just babies.

If your argument is for kids , then there should be no divorce and no marriage that does not produce a baby or you are just promoting another Straw man ... Originally Posted by WTF

The exception never makes the rule shit4brains.......

only MF sex can produce a baby.....Neither MM nor FF produce babies...

OVER 90% of normally married couples have children.....

You want gay marriage legalized because you want to marry a man....you are single and over 50 and have waited a long time to have a husband to love you long time!

Marriage is government regulation of a private relationship....you want government regulation and interference in gay people's relationships? That doesn't sound like a good thing.....

Nobody has ever banned gay marriage....it's mostly not legally recognized, but never banned.....there is a huge difference, but a hillbilly scumbag like you who dropped out of high school is not smart enough to understand it....

gay people are not discriminated against.....they can marry an adult of the opposite sex like anybody else and often do......

You and your stupid man + woman = baby.... bullshit.

So all couples that do not produce a baby should not be allowed to marry ? Is that your premises? The only reason for marriage is babies. No sport fucking? No transferring of rights and legal protections upon death....just babies.

If your argument is for kids , then there should be no divorce and no marriage that does not produce a baby or you are just promoting another Straw man ... Originally Posted by WTF

Well the Man + Woman = Baby bullshit is what makes the world go around. I suppose you'll argue that's subjective too.

Jim

Well the Man + Woman = Baby bullshit is what makes the world go around. I suppose you'll argue that's subjective too.

Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

So marriages that do not produce a baby are not marriages? One is not legally married until they produce offspring. Women that are sterile can not marry? Is that your argument?

You do not have to be married to have a baby btw. So the world will still turn. The world already has more extra kids than parents. Gay couples can adopt, so there.

My guess is two Gay Goat herders adopted Lowrider.

You do not have to be married to have a baby. The world already has more extra kids than parents. Gay couples can adopt, so there.

My guess is two Gay Goat herders adopted Lowrider. Originally Posted by WTF

Most places gays cannot adopt if they admit to being gay......we never said anything about adopting children....we all said CREATING/PRODUCING children....

Children who grow up to be worthless pieces of shit like you are a burden to society......marriage was intended to prevent society from having too many people of your type.....

So are you for not making legal marriages that do not produce a baby? Women that are sterile can not marry? Is that your argument?

You do not have to be married to have a baby btw. So the world will still turn. The world already has more extra kids than parents. Gay couples can adopt, so there.

My guess is two Gay Goat herders adopted Lowrider. Originally Posted by WTF

the exception does not make the rule....

how do you know before marriage a woman is sterile?





BTW, why do you think marriage is a good thing for the people in it?

how do you know before marriage a woman is sterile?
Originally Posted by LowRider69

You ever heard of science dick weed? You get tested before you get married according to you man + wife = baby , marriage proponents, that is the argument for gays not to marry, they can not have kids. Well then anyone who can not produce offspring , can not get married would /should be your logic. .

BTW, why do you think marriage is a good thing for the people in it? Originally Posted by LowRider69

For some yes, for others no. Very subjective question.

So marriages that do not produce a baby are not marriages? One is not legally married until they produce offspring. Women that are sterile can not marry? Is that your argument?

You do not have to be married to have a baby btw. So the world will still turn. The world already has more extra kids than parents. Gay couples can adopt, so there.

My guess is two Gay Goat herders adopted Lowrider. Originally Posted by WTF

Marriage may not produce kids. But marriages that do produce children also produce families and that's what a man women union is designed to do. The only argument gays have in the marriage debate is they think they should have the same legal perks as a married heterosexual couple has. It just so happens the sexual practices between homosexuals is still on the books as illegal in many states and that's one reason why homosexual marriages aren't legal in all states. Homosexual behavior is not regarded as a normal part of human culture, in fact studies of homosexual behavior in prisons between otherwise heterosexual inmates is due to their inability to cope with the stresses of prison life.

Jim

I would agree by that definition that banning marriage among gays is discrimination.

I will go further by giving you my definition of discrimination

Discrimination would be the behavior of treating someone differently based on personal characteristics.

Can we agree on that? Originally Posted by boardman

Thursday night football...missed this. Trust me, I will not run from this thread. It is not a hard position to defend in my book.


We can. Can we agree that not all discrimination is bad? After all, we treat people in wheel chairs differently by building them bigger bathroom stalls...ramps and the like. Originally Posted by WTF

Absolutely, ADA was about to be my example of good discrimination.

I'm just wondering though.
On what basis do you choose to discriminate against polyamorous marriage?
What about sibling marriage?
or underage marriages?

There are people groups that practice these things or at least desire to...or do you not believe that? I won't even get into Human-animal marriage.

Don't they have a right to define marriage in the way they choose if we allow that for gays?

You are the self described champion of anti-discrimination yet you've just discrimnated as blatantly as anyone on the board. Why is that? Personal disgust? Some kind of moral code instilled in your upbringing? Don't tell me that underage or palyamorous marriage is inherently wrong, That would be subjective, You do know what subjective means, don't you?
And before you go and say those people can do those things, it's no skin off your nose, let me remind you that we both agreed on a contemporary secular definition of marriage.

By re-defining marriage to suit the needs of a few aren't we discriminating against those that originally defined marriage. Or is that not a personal characteristic for them and their belief system?

I couldn't give two fucks if a couple(insert your own meaning here) want's to be recognized as a couple by the state or federal government. Man, woman, whatever, they should have the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else when it comes to taxes and benefits. But are you prepared to give those same rights to others who you might find personally disgusting in their practices not just gays.

WTF is wrong with the term civil union. Isn't that a term the LGBT community came up with? How about the state gets out of the business of marriage altogether. Keep marriage in the church. Do it like the Catholics do, or used to do. Refuse to recognize divorce granted by the state. Only Civil unions or the dissolution of same can be recognized by the state. Let each people group have their own rules of Marriage. Wouldn't that be the ultimate in separation of church and state?

Let's go it one further. Let's make civil unions a contract that has an expiration date. That contract would, up front, define the boundaries of the union, the property of the union and upon dissolution of the union, the terms of separating property. We wouldn't get it all right at first but our system of common law would allow that unforeseen circumstances during dissolution could be dealt with and decided upon by impartial juries and judges and put into the contracts of future civil unions. That's how LLC's do it. Near the end of the term of the civil union the partners can decide if they want to stay in the partnership. It would only take one no vote to dissolve the partnership.

The real point here is that you like to point out other's hypocrisy. I know you don't take this board seriously(only when you want to) but others do. You use terms like teabilly to insult and constantly use homophobic slurs yet you claim to be a Libertarian. Either you are a faux Libertarian or you are purposefully being obtuse. Try being a little less obtuse, offer meaningful thought and commentary from time to time and stay away from the temptation to insult someone based on their beliefs. After all isn't the way someone chooses to feel about a particular issue a personal characteristic. Oh shit, there you go discriminating again. Or do you think I'm being obtuse?

Fortunately, some folks understand that there are issues (you know, Constitutional rights and all that) that are larger than that.....at least for the states that are populated by....mmmm....you and those that think like you? Originally Posted by timpage

Marriage is a vow between a man and a woman.
The constitution was not written with homosexuals in mind, therefore I am glad that homosexuals are deprived of the same rights as heterosexuals.
I will allow that this issue will not die. The homsexuals are just like the race card players. They will not be satisfied with equal treatment, they want to be special and treated better than others. They want your acceptance and your pity for what they have endured.
Let the homsexuals have their own festive union or what ever they choose to call it.
Do not let them pollute and violate the intent and tradition of marriage

Marriage is a vow between a man and a woman.
The constitution was not written with homosexuals in mind, therefore I am glad that homosexuals are deprived of the same rights as heterosexuals.
I will allow that this issue will not die. The homsexuals are just like the race card players. They will not be satisfied with equal treatment, they want to be special and treated better than others. They want your acceptance and your pity for what they have endured.
Let the homsexuals have their own festive union or what ever they choose to call it.
Do not let them pollute and violate the intent and tradition of marriage Originally Posted by rioseco

Wish I had said that...