Heterosexual couple files gay marriage lawsuit in Kansas

Your point is pointless.

In the case of step parents, it's the same thing. Are we going to go in your nonsense circles again?

 

You merely keep repeating the same simplistic argument over and over again. You got nothin' else.

Of course you think homosexuality is deviant, I think its existence is a natural occurrence, just like left handedness. did your god create homosexuals so you could feel good about the fact you aren't?

I'll ask you directly once more:

Do you think that men who get vasectomies and women who have tubal ligations should have the right to marriage and all the rights and benefits afford a married couple if they can't procreate?

Do you think that married couples should NOT BE AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED such rights and benefits UNTIL THEY HAVE CHILDREN, so to provide them with an additional conditional and specific incentive to have kids?

the exact same emotional commitments that heterosexual couples NEED that marriage validates and consummates. Yes it gives them the same commitment. Exactly like heterosexual couples.

Oh no, I freely confess that I am bigoted against bigots. I have NO problems with my bigotry and have devoted considerable time in analyzing the ideological subjects of that bigotry to acquire knowledge of them. I consider ignorant bigotry to be a cancer in society.

And yes I do consider my bigotry to be right, because in almost every case its bigotry directed towards other bigots and/or bigoted ideology. (pedophilia being the single exception)

What a crock. I have been married for 41 years, raised four kids and am still hopelessly in love with my wife.

I don't hoist up homosexuals or single moms on any pedestal. I merely ACCEPT THEM FOR WHAT THEY ARE - HUMANS with the same needs that everyone else has.

Your blame others ploy is noted.
Apparently all those single moms didn't have moms and dads and a "nuclear family", an in America at least, had sex education classes that called taught kids the only acceptable form of contraception was abstinence.
Examined the divorce rate lately? I guess that isn't a contributing factor to the breakdown of the Ozzie and Harriet nuclear family.

What a twisted piece of logic, not to mention display of bigotry. Wonder why SCOTUS is striking down gay marriage bans like bowling pins? EQUAL RIGHTS MEANS EQUAL RIGHTS.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A CHOICE. HOMOSEXUALITY CANNOT BE "CURED".

tell ya what, why don't you get off your one note procreation excuse and expand you knowledge. There are literally hundreds of scientific studies on both the individual and societal benefits of marriage. Not that you'd let a little thing like science alter your opinion.

just a couple of sources: google "psychological benefits of marriage"

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201206/why-get-married-these-answers-may-surprise-you

http://www.familyfacts.org/briefs/1/the-benefits-of-marriage

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/10/same-sex.aspx

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/02/14/are-you-getting-health-benefits-from-marriage/

Marriage was never about love. Hmmmmm. so you aren't a Christian. coulda fooled me.

homosexuality is not sexual deviance. It is merely an alternative sexuality.
Pedophiles are sexual deviants, rapists are sexual deviants, and every other sexual act that requires a victim.

At least I have gotten you to admit you are a bigot.


I have proudly stated my own bigotries repeatedly over all the years I've been a member of this community, so it should come as no surprise to anyone around here that knows me.

No, I am actually better in my bigotry than you, because my bigotry is against bigots. I will also defend your right to be a bigot.
Your bigotry is against people you generalize as deviants as an excuse for denying them equal rights.

I am so glad you are comfortable being heterosexual. A huge accomplishment no doubt.

 

I will get social security too, ok, but we both paid into it, they will be the same... unless one dies first, then the remain spouse can PICK one check or the other, doesn't get both

health insurance for gov jobs and military ... that the benefit you worried about them getting, how much do they spend on hetero-sexual couples today, you think they should not get it too

if it's gonna cost that much for homo-sexuals, that is just a tiny itty bitty fraction of the cost for heterosexuals

.

 

likely less than one percent.

 

Since when are there "other groups" to be legitimately considered? Homosexuality is nothing more than a perverted behavior no different than any other perverted behavior.

 

Often...versus Always. Big difference, which you were asking.

You can keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, no issue for me. We both know the truth.

 

LOL....speaking of Children can 2 men make them without outside help? I don't need a legal document for that. Legal documents do not have to be involved to validate what you know to be true. It takes a Male and a Female to create life...not two Males or Females.

Examples like that are why I called your question foolish. Find me a legal document that proves Biology?? Pointless question, and shows someone cannot think for themselves.

 

it's all in the push to portray the homosexual lifestyle as being "normal"

- - - Updated - - -

please discuss the topic and not other forum members

thanks

 

Because I need nothing else. If someone keeps telling you 4 when the subject of 2+2 comes up...I'm sure you'll tire of it, but thats the answer.

Biology and the percentages show it to be deviant. Dont try and pretend this is just an opinion based statement. it's factual.

Pointless question only serving to cloud the issue. No matter what surgeries a Heterosexual has or does not have, they still arent a Homosexual. Marriage is about the building of families. Homosexuals do not create families, theyc annot...as such were never fit for such a union.

Marriage is the foundation of building a family. Another cloud question which has 0 to do with homosexuals.

There is no reason for a society to validate their coupling. They are not Heterosexuals, and were never meant to be included in the Institution of Marriage. That is the foundation of the family, which they cannot create by themselves.

Oh good, glad you're accepting of that. I have no problem with mine either, just wanted to make sure we were both on the same page.

As do I. I look aorund at our society and I see kids with no Fathers at home...I see single Moms without husbands, I see 2 males or 2 females pretending they're a mating pair....and I see the loss of the family unit. The family unit is the backbone of any healthy society, and trying to make everyone feel good about their choices has killed it. I'll not be a part of that thank you.

Their needs, when catered to, contribute to the death of the family unit.

The divorce rate goes hand in hand with what we've talked about above. We're ina society of people like you who "accept them for what they are". When that person with kids wants to leave their spouse...because they arent getting a thrill anymore...you're the type that would "accept them" and make them feel ok about breaking up a family. Seen it many times.

I'm the guy that would try and get them to patch things up, and not make it easy to ditch commitments.

There were no rights that Homosexuals didnt have. The SC mis interpereted this one IMO.

Of course it's a choice. Never seen that 50 year old "Gay" man....who left his wife and kids before?

To ask me to get off my "one note procreation excuse" shows you and I have very different belief systems, as to what a Marriage is. I dont see how you can NOT bring up procreation, when Marriage is the contract which brings 2 people together to create a family unit.

Thats what a Marriage is. You cannot remove it from the discussion, despite how it hurts the "were all the same" narrative.

Alternative sexuality...lol...that is just another way of saying Deviant. Sorry, the definitions say you're wrong once again.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deviant

I mean, it's right there. So what is the Sexual Norm for our species again?

Yes, they certainly are Deviants, however you are wrong about requiring a victim. Deviant is a very straight forward, and simple term. I gave it to you above. Victimhood is not required for something to be deviant.

Everyone is with regards to something. Anyone who thinks or says they are not...is simply dishonest.

Well, then give it no more thought. When someone keeps going on about it, it seems like a defense mechanism from here. Notice, I havent been constantly explaining mine away? because I am secure in it.

Hahaha Bigotry against Bigots??? Well, whatever you have to tell yourself I guess. At least you have accepted that you are also a Bigot. I know you are trying to make it sound like you were all along, and comfortable with it...but I'm not buying. You're trying to explain it too much, which tells me until I called you on it you thought only those other people were bigots, but not you...you're better than that.

You arent.

No accomplishment....simply the way our species is wired, and the path that should be nurtured by a society above all others. Deviant choices of course should be allowed if people wnat them, however they should not be Validated, and put on the same level. They are simply not the same.

 

Yep.
Not buying. Acceptance and Tolerance is fine.....but I'm not going to watch people try and tell me it's the same, and validate it as so. It is not. It's a scary sign of the failings of our society however, that some people do seem to buy into that narrative.

 

Small difference.

nuh uhh.

 

Be all-end all difference. Gays do not have the ability to procreate, and have no place under an institution meant for the creation of a family unit since they themselves cannot create that unit. To welcome them into such an institution tarnishes the entire institution.

Says the guy who's argument went from the "exact same"...to now having to admit a "difference"..yet still wants to try and pretend there is wiggle room by saying "small difference".

Sorry Poly, you're wrong once again, and all the "im paper you're glue" kindergarten denials arent going to change it.

 

For the same reason we're paying the same benefits to opposite sex couples....

 

Because they're able to procreate without a third party?

 

Because procreation is irrelevant. The rights married couples receive are not based on their ability to procreate.

 

No matter how many times you make that ridiculous statement benefits are not a right.

 

says you... your wrong

people also said inter-racial couples were perverted once.. they were wrong too

.

 

Actually, I agree with you. But I don't agree that a heterosexual marriage contract is (or should be) the same as a homosexual marriage contract. Further, a state should be free to encourage one type of contract without obligation to the other.

Only because that's the solution the gay movement has pushed for. It has been unwilling to accept a reasonable compromise, such as the "straight" vs. "gay" contract distinction.

I disagree, because two people in a committed yet unmarried relationship can "play house" and live together without being penalized by the law. Straight and gay couples alike do this all the time. Freedom is not the issue.

I'm not describing a phenomenon, I'm predicting or hypothesizing an outcome. There is no proof, only the experiment being performed in the lab of U.S. culture.

Are you suggesting that foreign-born gays can't become legal residents or U.S. citizens? Or that gays can't create trusts? You don't need marriage to be granted residency or to avoid estate taxes.

Someone once said everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's illogical to regard a group representing less than two percent of the population as "normal."

A law that seeks to banish a people group to legal irrelevance is hardly the same thing as one that recognizes heterosexual marriage as distinct from homosexual marriage. States ought to have the power to decide whether or not they legally recognize and endorse gay marriages. The current movement seeks to force states to concede that recognition, and that's going too far.

 

You can get married any time you want, and it will come out of my pocket. What are you doing to deserve that privilege?

Or are you saying you would be ok with that privilege being taken away?

And what have we seen you do with the privilege? Mostly cost me even more in supporting the courts for all your divorces. Or having more children than you can support. Which means my tax dollars support them instead.

Why? Why do I owe them money before they have produced anything? Why do I owe them money without even obligating them to produce anything?

What you are talking about is social engineering...using the government to encourage certain behavior. But as a social engineering tool, marriage is sloppy at best.

Why don't we change it to an opt-in system, and the people who believe as you do can pay for it. Wouldn't that be more fair?

They are getting subsidies not available to other citizens, as well as privileges not available to people who can't get married. How is that not special rights?

No you are not...they are not required to produce anything. Sterile couples can get married as easily as anyone else. There is no requirement at all to have the ability or desire to procreate. Even if both parties sterilize themselves, publically, before the wedding they are legally allowed to get married. There is not even the most trivial effort from the government to prevent this.

Thats why no one buys the "it's about the children" argument. Heteros themselves know that is a lie. You are not required to be married to have children, and people without children can get married. The law does not even care how "perverted" the couple may be (I can cite examples). The only requirement (until now) has been you have to be hetero and an adult...thats it.

What I am saying is that famers and their vegetables have nothing to do with anything. It's a flawed analogy. Because marriage is not about producing a product.

Would you give money to a farmer without any requirement at all that he even attempt to farm? Even if he salted his own land to prevent any possibility of ever getting a single crop? He is fully capable of farming, but doesn't want to for whatever reason.

It would be pretty stupid to give that farmer money when he does those things, don't you think?

Your argument hurts my head as well.

 

When they take it to the courts, just like the homos did.

Like oral sex? Like cousin-marriage? What is your objective definition of "perverted"?

 

Can't change the mind of a bigot whose opinion in entrenched and impervious to facts.

When you look around and see single mothers and divorced fathers, you blame homosexuals and a permissive society. I totally understand, because of course it absolves those that think like you of any of your own responsibility.

Every single mother had a mother and father. I guess her parents weren't very good at instilling her with appropriate values.
Every single mother, had a man participate in the act and then bugger off. all those men had parents who weren't very good at instilling him with appropriate values including taking responsibility.

But for some strange reason, gay people are a leading cause of the breakdown of the family. Cnsidering they are in a such a small minority, they sure must have powerful ju-ju to accomplish that.

Seems you have trouble with people opting out of their "commitments" but you absolutely refuse to recognize that gay people WANT to make those very same commitments.

Yes, homosexuals did not have the right to marry, nor to have access to all the rights and benefits that marriage affords the partners.

I am sure SCOTUS is all twisted up about your uninformed legal opinion.

Yes I have I have encountered this specious argument before as I have also encountered gay people who had been in straight relationships.

IN virtually every case, those homosexuals were repressed by their families, friends, community, faith while being pressured by family, career, social acceptance etc to be "normal".

But I wouldn't expect you to even remotely consider such "mamby pamby psychological mumbo jumbo" regardless how researched and documented it might be.

No marriage has ALWAYS been first about property rights.

Regrettably you simply cling to this flimsy procreation excuse, even tho its many holes have been pointed out to you.

Humans are all the same, deserving of the same rights, privileges and benefits afforded all others. Isn't that what Jesus preached?

mea culpa.

The sexual norm for our species is promiscuity accompanied by male dominance of females.
Not much of student of history or anthropology it seems.

I have always considered deviant to be associated with perversion and evil, but it is really a rather innocuous word that simply means non-conforming. thank you for that little tidbit of knowledge.

I get the feeling that you most definitely are not using it as a synonym for non mainstream, but for perversion.

As far as I am concerned, sexual deviance (perversion) requires a victim.

Whatever is done privately by an individual or between two or more consenting adults is perfectly fine with me as long as there is no victim.

laugh all you want if it makes you feel better, but my position has been consistent since day one on this forum, and my posting history confirms that I have declared my bigotry and the subjects of that bigotry openly and as circumstance required. Like in this exchange with you.

As to explain to much, I couldn't care less you think that.
I state my case in the fashion I do, because too many people don't think much about their bigotry. To them its emotional and visceral, not intellectual. Its religious not behavioral. To many its merely blind acceptance of dogma, no thought required.

Yes a facetious accomplishment because it is the way the majority of our species is "wired".
Apparently those that are not "wired" like that are to be denied equal rights.

 

Your rationalization is awesome.

No body cares anymore...so let dogs marry fish and pigs work at Mc Donald's and a black man be president...who gives a crap anymore.

 

What he said is factually correct...there is no requirement under the law to be able to procreate to get married.

There are rights attached to marriage:

This is not a comprehensive list...it is only a sample.

 

I am thinking the same thing.

Ummm...no obviously you do not understand. Broken homes...single moms..etc are not blamed on homosexuality. A society all wrapped up in it's own inward desires yes...homosexuality, no.

I mention them all together because Homosexuality is just one more log thrown on the fire of what used to be Family.

This is what happens when you let moral values slide, and everyone strives to make them feel better about it. You get what we have today, people who hold a very limited view of responsibility.

This is you making things up again. I corrected this above already.

The type of commitments we are talking about do not fit "gay". We're discussing "family" commitments. Biology...not Bigotry...eliminates Homosexuals from this one. They do not make families, why do we need to legitimize whatever commitments they wish to make with a certified Marriage??
They an't make said commitments without it? No, this is about validation of their choices. Always was. They want the perverse sexual behaviors to be seen and promoted as being exactly the same thing as normal mating practices.

Why would they? they arent a Family producing unit...a Family creating institution like Marriage never was meant for them.

They interperet it as they wish, doesnt mean they're always right. Im sure they are not interested in my opinion, it doesnt change that opinion for me, and it doesnt make me all of a sudden forget that 2 Males playing mating pair is pure confusion. Their decision will not change my outlook on it one bit.

LOl....casting aside verifiable choice on display...as a "specious" argument. And I notice you had to disclaimer it as "virtually"...in other words you arent ruling out choice...you just tried to hide it in your "mamby pamby mumbo jumbo" and hope noone would notice.

No, sorry...the fact a Man could have been attracted to, and had kds with a WOman...disporoves that there is a "born in attraction towards the same sex", and when you add in that he was able to move from this to a Same Sex partner...and still perform...the only real answer is choice.

Choice is important because it relates to Gay marriage. There have never been people who oculd not get Married. this is another way you guys word things to make it seem as if someone is being wronged or held back. However it is not true. Everyone in America could always get Married....some simply didnt want to becuase they wanted a same sex partner.

Now if osmeone was born with an attraction to Same sex...we'd all be wrong to hold that aginst them, and not offer it. However, if the only reason they didnt have a <arriage was because of a choice they were makiing...well then there is no discrimination. We do not have to write and rewrite customs to appease to peoples bad choices.

Choice is very important throughout all ends of this argument. This is why you'll always see the advocates trying to knock down examples of choice by pretending that people were always "hiding who they are" for fear of reprisals or other such nonsense.

Like you did above...virtually.

Marriage has always been about property rights? Well, maybe to some...certainly not to me or people I know. it was about creating a family unit, in which the first step was to get married...then start having kids.

And we do all have access to the same benefits...however some people choose paths which lead away from them. As to Jesus, Im sure he did preach that, I rememeber alot from my youthful years in Church and School...but honestly for the last 25+ years, i have found I dont really believe in that stuff.

Haha...and you're not much for being able to answer straight forward, simple questions without trying to twist them. Should tell you something.

The easy answer which you didnt want to give of course was Male and Female reproduction. We all know why you didnt want to answer it.

Well you can consider it to be anything you like. However if that happens to be wrong...well, it's wrong. I am also fine with whatever 2 people want to do with themselves, that is not the argument here and you are making the same mistake people always make.

There is a big difference between 2 people being allowed to do what they want with their bodies (freedom, acceptance, tolerance)...and the State comin in and saying we need to Certify it with Marriage just like an actual Mating Pair.(Validation)

We do not. This kind of behavior doesnt deserve any Validation, any more than any other sexual fetishes people may choose to partake in.

This is the part you guys laways miss in your zeal to defend Gay. noone gives a toss if poeople are Gay...it might be an eyerolling choice for me..but I dont care what people do.

My resistance is focused on why exactly we have to pretenbd this is the same thing, and why an Institution like Marriage needs to open up, and validate this kind of behavior??

Stamping and Sealing it as normal...is a totally different argument than telling people they cannot be Gay. Noone cares who is Gay or not...

Sure you did that here....after I called you on it. but hey, whatever..Ireally dont care about that man. We're all bigots towards something, anyone who says otherwise is lying.

No rights were ever denied. Any Gay man could have gotten Married if they wanted to....they didnt want to because they didnt want a Woman. Unless you are telling me that a Gay man would be turned down at the Altar with a Lady friend? Is that what you are saying? or are you simply one of many who confuse "benefits of an institution" with "rights".

 

Marriage is. And benefits are part of marriage. And they aren't based on procreation.