Marriage is a constitutional right and not for the purpose of procreation

You forgot the part that we base discrimination on. Race creed or sex.

Nobody can marry their siblings or animals. Blacks, whites, gays or straight. Nobody can marry a dog or sibling.. No exceptions.

You discriminate by saying that two people can marry but only of the opposite sex. That is discrimination. Just as saying that two people can marry but only if they are the same skin color.

You need to learn what discrimination is it is the part after 'but' . As in "Two people can marry but they must be of the opposite sex.''




When you discriminate against everyone , is it discrimination.

Nobody can marry their dog but nevergaveitathought. He can. See that is discrimination. You are the exception. That is why it is discrimination. You have an age of consent that everyone has to abide by. Not just black people or gay people, everyone. Originally Posted by WTF

plowing the same ground with you is so brutally stupid

plowing the same ground with you is so brutally stupid Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

That is wtf the people aganist blacks and whites getting married said

you misunderstand the argument of why government should protect and hold special by law arrangements between a man and a woman and promote that.

its much like why everyone pays property tax to support the local school district even if you have no kids, because its good for society.

and even though kids can be had out of wedlock, and more and more that happens, but why promote that? and even though some marriages dont bring forth children, potentially they could. do you want to micro-manage that?

what is the reason we have so many societal problems as it is? feral kids. why not give benefit to something that is better, better for society and the kids themselves, and promote that. thats not to object to arrangements between consenting adults as they wish, its just to have a uniqueness in law that promotes and protects an arrangement between a man and woman, for that is uniquely different. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Good Lord....for the kids, let us do it for the kids! Let us burn gays at the stake for our poor lil kids! You sound just like the racist before you that argued that blacks and whites should not marry.

No, WTF, you are wrong, and you are quibbling.

The LBGT community is seeking to universally "redefine" marriage. They wish to impose their unnatural world view on society as a whole. If the LBGT community truly wanted the same rights enjoyed by the rest of society, they should choose (a behavioral act) to marry someone of the opposite sex.

And again, sexual behavior is manifestly different from skin color and gender (congenitally determined); thus, incomparable. So your, and SE1's, argument that "marriage" is a "civil right" is bogus. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Nobody is making anybody get married to the same sex, that would be as wrong as not letting the same sex get married.

Yours is a dogmatic view , not a Conservative one. We can argue right or wrong but that is a fact. No true Conserative imposes his views on others, that is a liberal affliction.

Good Lord....for the kids, let us do it for the kids! Let us burn gays at the stake for our poor lil kids! Originally Posted by WTF

you are given to hyperbole

in the words of every government worker, teacher union member, and dem in congress who wants to spend your money on themselves...."for the children"

http://www.newswise.com/articles/exp...e-court-ruling

The Loving v. Virginia ruling and the subsequent accelerated acceptance of interracial marriages attests to Americans' willingness to expand their definition of the family, Powell said. Americans have expanded their view in many ways, including how they view mothers who work outside of the home. Powell is seeing this same trajectory concerning views of same-sex couples and same-sex marriage. "Interracial marriage in the 1950s was something people didn't talk about. It was something people were uncomfortable talking about. As long as there was silence, there couldn't be acceptance. But since Loving v. Virginia, there has much more open discussion of this topic. We see a similar pattern today with same-sex marriage and civil union. These topics were not part of our national conversation until around a decade ago. But the discourse has changed dramatically and has become more open in the past few years."
* The demographic factors that predicted acceptance of interracial marriage through the years are very similar to the factors that predict support for same sex marriage. The factors include higher levels of education, gender -- women were more supportive of more expansive definitions of the family -- and age, young people are more likely to challenge the boundary. "The arguments that currently are used to oppose same-sex marriage closely mirror the arguments that were used in the past to oppose interracial marriage," Powell said. "It's evident that debates regarding same sex marriage are very reminiscent of the debates in the past about interracial marriage."

you are given to hyperbole

in the words of every government worker, teacher union member, and dem in congress who wants to spend your money on themselves...."for the children" Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I was not the one who said this:

its much like why everyone pays property tax to support the local school district even if you have no kids, because its good for society.



. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I was the one making fun of your'For the kids'' argument.

I was not the one who said this:



I was the one making fun of your'For the kids'' argument. Originally Posted by WTF

duh

i know that

but i cant resist jabbing unions and dems

Nobody is making anybody get married to the same sex, that would be as wrong as not letting the same sex get married.

Yours is a dogmatic view , not a Conservative one. We can argue right or wrong but that is a fact. No true Conserative imposes his views on others, that is a liberal affliction. Originally Posted by WTF

You are quite correct about it being a 'liberal affliction', and that is precisely the issue. In your every post; however, you keep ignoring that simple fact. The LBGT is seeking to impose its unnatural world view on society, not vice versa. What say you deal with that simple fact!?!

BTW, a conservative will fight to "conserve" his/her POV.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/exp...e-court-ruling

The Loving v. Virginia ruling and the subsequent accelerated acceptance of interracial marriages attests to Americans' willingness to expand their definition of the family, Powell said. Americans have expanded their view in many ways, including how they view mothers who work outside of the home. Powell is seeing this same trajectory concerning views of same-sex couples and same-sex marriage. "Interracial marriage in the 1950s was something people didn't talk about. It was something people were uncomfortable talking about. As long as there was silence, there couldn't be acceptance. But since Loving v. Virginia, there has much more open discussion of this topic. We see a similar pattern today with same-sex marriage and civil union. These topics were not part of our national conversation until around a decade ago. But the discourse has changed dramatically and has become more open in the past few years."
* The demographic factors that predicted acceptance of interracial marriage through the years are very similar to the factors that predict support for same sex marriage. The factors include higher levels of education, gender -- women were more supportive of more expansive definitions of the family -- and age, young people are more likely to challenge the boundary. "The arguments that currently are used to oppose same-sex marriage closely mirror the arguments that were used in the past to oppose interracial marriage," Powell said. "It's evident that debates regarding same sex marriage are very reminiscent of the debates in the past about interracial marriage." Originally Posted by WTF

Once again, sexual behavior is manifestly different from skin color and gender (congenitally determined); thus, incomparable. So your, and SE1's, argument that "marriage" is a "civil right" is bogus.

BTW, a conservative will fight to "conserve" his/her POV. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Not one that imposes his/her POV onto others. Conservatives live their life's POV's , they do not impose them on others or restrict others from living theirs.

Yours is Dogmatic in this regard. Slight difference

Once again, sexual behavior is manifestly different from skin color and gender (congenitally determined); thus, incomparable. So your, and SE1's, argument that "marriage" is a "civil right" is bogus. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Once again we are talking about the right to marry. Not sexual behavior. There is no law that says one has to submit to sex once married. Nor should there be. You could be married and never have sex. Your argument is a strawman as COG likes to say

The LBGT is seeking to impose its unnatural world view on society, not vice versa. What say you deal with that simple fact!?!

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It is only unnatural to you and I . It is not unnatural to them.

Next they are not trying to impose it upon you and I. They are trying to do what comes natural to them. You are trying to impose your POV on them by denying the the same rights you have. The right to marry the person they love. That is wtf you are really trying to do.

Once again we are talking about the right to marry. Not sexual behavior. There is no law that says one has to submit to sex once married. Nor should there be. You could be married and never have sex. Your argument is a strawman as COG likes to say Originally Posted by WTF

"You could be married and never have sex" Right! Just look at Bill and Hillary. Everyone knows that Chelsea's "father" was a turkey baster.

Big Jake can't wait till he can marry his goats...

Once this line is crossed it's just a matter of time until it happens.