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

You are to old a goat GOG but thanks for the offer!

Can you find a goat that can sign a marriage contract? Originally Posted by WTF

What's the point of a marriage contract?

Gay rights zealots love to treat the subject of polygamy as irrelevant to their goal of getting state sanction for male-male, or female-female marriages. It isn't.

The laws against polygamy generally are written to prevent one man from marrying multiple women, or one woman from marrying multiple men. They may in some cases use language like "more than two persons" without specifying that the two persons be of opposite sex. But I would imagine that in most cases they specify one man/one woman. Basic to all proscriptions of polygamy is the assumption that there is a compelling state interest in preserving marriage as between only ONE MAN and only ONE WOMAN.

So if men can marry men, does that mean that the polygamy laws do not apply to them? It would seem so.

If we have to re-write polygamy laws to EXPLICITLY ban one man from marrying multiple men, I'd love to hear the floor debate on that bill. Despite silly claims to the contrary by gay rights zealots, there ARE valid arguments to be made to uphold the REQUIREMENT that marriage can only be between one man and one woman. The zealots simply deny that there are. But suppose we concede this point about no compelling state interest in preserving one man/one woman marriage as the only legitimate form. If we can no longer say there is a sufficiently compelling state interest in limiting marriage to one man/one woman, then what could POSSIBLY be the compelling state interest in limiting gay marriage to two men or two women, or heterosexual marriage to one man/one woman?

This is just the beginning ...

Because a goat can not give his/her permission to have sex. It is rape. Goat rape. Are you for rape.

What part of mutual sex do you not understand?

What part of age of consent will you not understand.

Find me a goat that can convey his approval of having sex with you and wants to sign a marriage document and I will say go for it Originally Posted by WTF

i bet a dog has humped your leg before

I am arguing opinion vs. opinion as it pertains to right or wrong.

I am arguing facts as it pertains to discrimination.

I am arguing facts as it pertains to the evolution of blacks and whites being able to marry and now gays. I argue that you are on the losing side of this issue. The facts are in my corner.

We can argue right or wrong on the issue till the cows come home and never solve a thing.


Only if you believe that marriage is only for procreation. Is that what you believe? Gay sex in the animal kingdom is natural, it happens all the time. It is only innatural if you are forced to do it. Nobody is forcing you to marry nor watch gay sex. Gay sex is different from marriage. You keep forgetting that fact.

Not letting Gays marry is discrimination. That is a fact, no matter how long a tradition , it does not change the fact that it is discrimination. Originally Posted by WTF

Social/Historical Fact: For some two thousand years, marriage has been defined as 'one man' married to 'one woman'. Your -- and the LBGT community's -- opinion: marriage needs to be redefined.

Your opinion: homosexuality is 'natural'. Scientific Fact: No same sex relationship has ever naturally spawned a child; hence, it is unnatural.

Female Black Widow spiders kill and eat their mates. So much for your 'animal kingdom' analogy.

Your argument that this somehow a Civil Rights issue is also invalid: sexual behavior is manifestly different from skin color and gender (congenitally determined); thus, incomparable.

That only holds if we buy into the idea that sex is only for procreation. I don't buy that. And anyone on here who has sex for fun or other reasons doesn't either.

If sex is only for procreation, then we must all be Catholics. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No, homosexual sex is still a deviant and unnatural act. If it weren't deviant and unnatural, a greater part of society would be involved.

i bet a dog has humped your leg before Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Well we didn't get married.

Social/Historical Fact: For some two thousand years, marriage has been defined as 'one man' married to 'one woman'. Your -- and the LBGT community's -- opinion: marriage needs to be redefined. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The fact is they have been discriminating against gays for over 2000 years.
My opinion is that it should be changed, yes. You are correct in that assumption.

Your opinion: homosexuality is 'natural'. Scientific Fact: No same sex relationship has ever naturally spawned a child; hence, it is unnatural.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are mixing two different points as one. Children have nothing to do with marriage. There are many childless human relationships, are those marriages invalid?

Homosexuality is natural to those that are homosexual. Just because they are in the minority does not make it unnatural. It makes it unnatural to the majority. There is a huge difference a man of your intelligence should easily grasp.

Your argument that this somehow a Civil Rights issue is also invalid: sexual behavior is manifestly different from skin color and gender (congenitally determined); thus, incomparable.

. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I could care less if you call it a Civil Rights issue. It is discrimination pure and simple. If the majority people were gay and banned a man and a woman from getting married and recieving all the benifits that bestows, that too would be discrimination based on gender. That is wrong IMHO. If you think different, so be it.

No, homosexual sex is still a deviant and unnatural act. If it weren't deviant and unnatural, a greater part of society would be involved. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Deviant from the standard norm does not mean it is wrong. If just means they are in the minority. You keep getting caught up in this unnatural act as if unnatural can be voted on and the majority wins. Natural or unnatural is a private matter that varies from person to person.

That is what a real Conservative thinks, not imposing their views of natural/unnatural on others. I'm a bit suprised by your stance on this, educated people generally are more enlightened on this matter unless they are over 50-60, then old habits take over and common sense gets thrown out the window.

Deviant from the standard norm does not mean it is wrong. If just means they are in the minority. You keep getting caught up in this unnatural act as if unnatural can be voted on and the majority wins. Natural or unnatural is a private matter that varies from person to person.
Originally Posted by WTF

Kinda nullifies your whole argument against animal marriage, doesn't it?... Now, let's take consent out of it and talk about marrying an inanimate object. If I want to marry my pocket watch, is that allowed?

Only if it knows how to use its hands, and has a pretty face.



LOL! Gawd, I am funny!

Kinda nullifies your whole argument against animal marriage, doesn't it?... Now, let's take consent out of it and talk about marrying an inanimate object. If I want to marry my pocket watch, is that allowed? Originally Posted by boardman

You can not take consent out of the equation, that is called slavery. Is that what you want to revert back to?

And no it does not nullify your fixation with marrying a animal, what part about two consenting adults don't you get?

When was the last animal you had consent, to you fucking them

Who gives a fuc if you want to marry your pocketwatch. In that case you should be stuck in the funny farm and out of harms way.

You can not take consent out of the equation, that is called slavery. Is that what you want to revert back to?

And no it does not nullify your fixation with marrying a animal, what part about two consenting adults don't you get?

When was the last animal you had consent, to you fucking them

Who gives a fuc if you want to marry your pocketwatch. In that case you should be stuck in the funny farm and out of harms way. Originally Posted by WTF

You have just applied your own standard of deviance to me and therefor discriminated against me.

Only if it knows how to use its hands, and has a pretty face.



LOL! Gawd, I am funny! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

boardman could have a bunch of CuckooClock for kids!

You have just applied your own standard of deviance to me and therefor discriminated against me. Originally Posted by boardman

Did I base it on your race or gender?

Do you understand the definition of discrimination?

You want to discriminate based on gender. But if you want to marry your pocketwatch , fine with me. You are not hurting a soul. There is nothing to get consent from. It raises a huge legal question though when you die. Does your inhiertance go to your pocketwatch or your Cuckoo kids!

boardman could have a bunch of CuckooClock for kids!

Originally Posted by WTF

Sex is not a requirement of marriage and if you want to do away with the age old standards of marriage then neither is consent. So all you are left with is two adults. What if I as an adult want to get married but not to another adult. Maybe I believe I have a legitimate reason. Why would you want to discriminate against me for that. Because you have defined marriage as being between two consenting adults?

Why does it have to be between two consenting adults? Why can't it be between 1 consenting adult and one un-consenting adult? Because you say so?

Did I base it on your race or gender?

Do you understand the definition of discrimination?

You want to discriminate based on gender. But if you want to marry your pocketwatch , fine with me. You are not hurting a soul. There is nothing to get consent from. It raises a huge legal question though when you die. Does your inhiertance go to your pocketwatch or your Cuckoo kids! Originally Posted by WTF

That's a legitimate question and maybe it's the reason I wanted to marry my pocket watch so that my kids couldn't inherit anything from me.

Sex is not a requirement of marriage and if you want to do away with the age old standards of marriage then neither is consent. So all you are left with is two adults. What if I as an adult want to get married but not to another adult. Maybe I believe I have a legitimate reason. Why would you want to discriminate against me for that. Because you have defined marriage as being between two consenting adults?

Why does it have to be between two consenting adults? Why can't it be between 1 consenting adult and one un-consenting adult? Because you say so? Originally Posted by boardman

Because that is slavery. If you want to marry me but I do not consent, you still get to? Two consenting adults!I think you are a tad confused on age requirement and consent. You folks can not enter into a legal contract.

I have already asked you if you want to revert back to the good ole days!

Because that is slavery. If you want to marry me but I do not consent, you still get to? Two consenting adults!I think you are a tad confused on age requirement and consent. You folks can not enter into a legal contract.

I have already asked you if you want to revert back to the good ole days! Originally Posted by WTF

Aren't you applying your morals in making that statement. Cultures all around the world still arrange marriages and many times a very young child is involved. I don't think they consider it slavery.