Gay marriage is not a human right, according to European ruling

The limitation to men and women has been consistant from the dawn of human civilization until 2001. Matrimony, latin root of the word Mater, MOTHER. Only women become mothers and only men are responsible for them doing so.

 

I agree. Perfect argument to eliminate government marriage.

 

You'll need to demonstrate a better understanding of the Constitution before I waste my time trying to explain it to you.

Educate yourself and learn how to have safe sex. Your sexual health is your responsibility, not mine.

 

I could not disagree more. It is very far fetched, in a world full of parents, that prepubescent children...should be allowed to have sex

Animals being part of a legal marriage contract.......really?

 

So, you have no real answer for either question. Why am I not surprised?

 

The Constitution does not say that I can paint my car purple. Yet I can paint my car purple. You'll need to demonstrate a better understanding of the Constitution before I waste my time trying to explain it to you.

And your sexual health is still​ your responsibility, despite your attempts to shift that burden to the government nanny...

 

Nobody said anything about "prepubescent children". But now we know where you would draw the line.

 

The idea that having children is limited only to male/female couples is not true anymore. They have the capability of taking DNA of same sex couples and place them in a blank egg now. Male couples require a surrogate, but two lesbian couples can carry the child themselves. There is also adoption.

Also, if we are going to ban gays from marrying because they can't naturally procreate together, then, in order to keep to equal protection under the law, you must also ban all women who are barren, all paraplegics, and all other person who can not have children from marrying as well. You can not single out only one group of people, and not apply it to all others.

 

the human capacity for perversion seems to know no bounds. maybe you just haven't been around long enough to notice or haven't been paying attention. when i was a youngster no one would have believed we would be performing over a millions abortions each year and that there would be an entire industry devoted to expanding on those numbers. no one would have thought of dressing their young daughters like hookers and sending them off to school. this is the price we pay for abandoning the concept of personal responsibility and embracing a something for nothing attitude of entitlement. the idea that parents would abandon their their children to the vagaries of the adult world would seem to be a natural progression in such an environment.

 

I've in favor of killing 1st and 2nd trimester fetuses upon demand by the Mother. No cerebral cortex, no sentience. No drama. You're wasting your breath.

Neither gay marriage, nor abortion are perverted

 

Phil Robertson married a 16 year old when he was 19.

Do you think Phil Robertson is a pedophile?

 

*High-fives Phil Robertson*

 

funny - i was under the impression that our discussion, though it is contained within a thread about gay marriage, had diverged from the main discussion and centered itself on the possibilities of legalized bestiality and statutory rape. having begun, i believe, with the notion of marrying a moose, it has strayed far from the original topic as it has popped up now and again. at no time have i described homosexuality as a perversion. i have used the term "aberrant", but tend to shy away from that particular moral distinction.

as for your stand of accepting abortion on demand as anything short of a perversion, that would seem to suggest a distinct lack of humanity and an embrace of the entitlement attitude i earlier decried. does it not seem perverse to you to create life only to destroy it? it has always seemed odd to me that i, as a man who knows just how cheap life really is, should place a higher value on it than those who make such great claims of compassion. all because the life in question is incapable of fending for itself or contemplating complex thought patterns. i guess that's my grandfather the minister peeking out from my subconscious and maintaining that it is the weakest among us who most deserve our support.

 

Deciding that you'll oppose marriage for those in an "inferior" position seems rather arbitrary. A feminist might argue that in our cisgendered, rape-culture patriarchy, women are in an inferior position so they shouldn't be allowed to marry...except I guess another woman or...
... a Moose. After all, we own animals, kill, them, and eat them without their consent so I don't know why they should have the right to refuse marriage. It's not the animal's right that counts, its the human being who wants to marry.
Love is Love.

 

Any two people can create a child using artificial means or adoption. Hell, my dog and I could do that. Does nothing for your arguments for "gay marriage"

WELL, you can read ANY marriage law ANYWHERE in the US from ANY TIME from colonial America to the present day, and you wont find even one single reference to sexual orientation in ANY marriage law. Let alone some law that "ban gays from marrying". Two heterosexual men would be denied a marriage license, NOT because they might be gay but instead because they are of the same sex. Procreation would be an impossibility.
And secondly, we don't know which women are "barren". We don't know which couples will actually produce children. We only know that every single couple who does produce children will be a couple made up of a man and a woman. Even if they are gay.
And thirdly, government has no concern if married couples procreate or not. Their only concern is unmarried couples doing so because the most frequent alternative to being born to a married mother and father is being born to a single mother with an absent or unknown father. Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal convictions as an adult. All giving rise to governmental concern and only when men have sex with women. The most frequent alternative to being born through artificial means or adopted by a gay couple, is being born to a married mother and father.
AND finally, ABSURD to argue marriage cant be limited to men and women as the only couples with the potential of procreation, because not all heterosexual couples have the ability or desire to procreate and then argue that it must also be extended to gay couples, on the off hand chance that they might decide to have a child through artificial insemination, surrogacy or adoption. Heterosexual sex has a strong, natural tendency to lead to procreation. Homosexual sex has no tendency whatsoever to lead to artificial insemination, surrogacy or adoption. Rubbing genitals just like a real mom and dad doesn't endow homosexuals with superior child raising abilities above ANY two consenting adults that could adopt or create a child through artificial means.

 

It doesn't. Encouraging men and women to marry with thousands of tax breaks and governmental entitlements provides a benefit to society. More children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home and fewer single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Encouraging moose (*)(*)(*)(*)ers to marry the moose of their choice provides no such benefit to society. Now sure, it could make the moose (*)(*)(*)(*)ers feel a little better about their sexual orientation and could help society at large to become more accepting of the moose (*)(*)(*)(*)ers..... but whats the purpose? As a small government republican I just don't see any benefit to more "respect" and "dignity" for the moose (*)(*)(*)(*)ers in our midst. More acceptance for the practice of moose (*)(*)(*)(*)ing.

 

Have you look at opinion polls lately? I guess not! The MAJORITY of Americans are in favor of civil unions AND gay marriage! The government is in fact reflecting the quick change in public opinion about gay rights that occur at an exponential speed over the last 10, and especially 5 years.

Keep up with reality. . . "public opinion" is no longer as bigoted as what you seem to remember!

 

Sorry, dear. . . it takes some brain and skills to become a doctor. However, EVERYONE is allowed to try!

 

??? Girls go through puberty at 10 or 11. 16 yrs old is well past that.

 

Sure we can. We might not be able to identify every woman who is 'barren' but we can certainly identify women who are 'barren'- for instance any woman who has had a hysterectomy.

The State however doesn't require couples who want to marry to procreation- or the potential for procreation. Women with hysterectomies can marry just fine. Men with no testicles can marry.

The State will even require a couple to prove that they are incapable of procreation- so the state can indeed require a couple to prove that they are incapable of procreation before they allow them to marry.

Clearly if the State was actually concerned with the potential for procreation, they could require a couple to demonstrate that they did indeed have the potential for procreation- i.e. testes and wombs intact, with no tubes tied.

But the state doesn't care whether two heterosexuals have the potential for procreation- unless they demand that they have no potential.

 

Sex does not require marriage, and marriage does not require sex.

It is a domestic contract entered into by two adults.

Any reproductive issues are tangential at best.

Islamic theocracies under sharia law are not about to to recognize gender equality any time soon, but progress in advanced democracies and states has certainly been impressive.I'd expect it to continue.

 

Gay people are human....thus are their rights.

Don't like gays...okay, that is your right.

I don't like stupid people....but they can do whatever they want as long as it's legal.

I do not care to make stupidity illegal.

 

Sorry Dix, you and I are done with this topic. No offense.

 

but, but, but.... just imagine the possibility of creating an entirely new species. a hairless moose with opposable thumbs? perhaps a very large human with huge antlers and hooves. the possibilities seem endless.

 

i've had my fill of stilted polls and skewed questionnaires. what i find more telling are the number of times even supposedly progressive regions have tried to block gay marriage and been shot down by the courts and activist judges. what it all suggests, what is a more than likely scenario, is that we are simply becoming more amenable to the notion that the will of the people is of no importance, that the duties of the state are to now include not just the protection of our rights, but the invention of them as well. it has long been the contention of the statists that it is the government that bestows rights upon the people, it would now seem that many of the rest of us are resigning ourselves to this perversion of liberty as fact.

i find myself once again being forced to repeat myself and have been placed in the unenviable position of having to state that if you are incapable of reading the preceding pages of a thread or are just too lazy to do so, you may not have anything of value to add to the conversation.