A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

Many words can and are used in context. I do grant that in and of it self, births are a frequent occurrence, or as you note, not seldom. However, the context in which the word "seldom" was used was with regards to the act of sex leading to births, which then places births as a seldom result of sex. Your refusal to account for this context clearly shows the dishonesty to which you hold your position.

BTW, where exactly do you get your 360,000 times a day? You have yet to cite any such source for such a number.

 

Again out of seven billion yes it is.

 

No you didn't refute it. Because you can't.

The number of times couples have sex is far far far greater than the number of children they produce.

You attempted to say the sexual intercourse that does not produce children doesn't count but it most certainly does.

So you didn't refute it you didn't try to refute it you try to negate data that doesn't support your narrative.

 

360,000 births a day Einstein.

 

No **** Sherlock. I wasn't questioning what you were referring to, but the source of your information. Where is that number coming from? You know, like a real source, not pulled out of your arse.

 

Don't call that oddity "marriage". Marriage exists when the couple is made by a man and a woman. Period.

Call it "civil union" or "nice party", but not marriage.

 

Uh......Nope

 

The word marriage is used in far more applications than simply human interaction. Such as, " The device was a marriage of art and science." This is before we look at the fact that the institution to which we English speakers attach the word "marriage" to has had a multitude of combinations over the course of human history, including same sex, polygamy (and not just polygyny), and even ghost marriages. You can wish it as much as you want but marriage has never been one man and one woman only.

 

It's called marriage.

 

Why not? Get with the times. Why does It bother you that day people have the same rights that you have

 

Because it's ICKY!

 

Whatever gave you the idea that we were asking permission? We gay folks are not asking you if you will share 'marriage' with us.


We are telling you. Marriage is as much our intellectual property, as it is your intellectual property. You want to have a civil union? Feel free. If I want to get married, and my spouse will have me, you are not going to get any say in what we call it. You don't own it.

 

99 times out of 100 religion.

 

Why is it icky? What about men who marry women 20 years younger? That’s icky! What about two obese people marrying? That’s icky! We shouldn’t allow that ...

 

Onna counta days bein' queers an such...it jus aunt natral fer guys ta be a packin' fudge lessn day is makin' candy.

 

I don't expect you to wait for my permission!!! Are you living in a democracy or what?

I was expressing my stance. Marriage is a matter of a union between two individuals of different gender. You want to call a same gender union "marriage". Be free to do it and if the majority of the voters of your country will agree about this ... no problem at all. But you cannot force me to think that a union between two persons of the same gender is a "marriage" [or are you worse than who would prohibit you to call your union "marriage"?].

Law is a matter, personal [personal] persuasions are a well different matter.

 

I don't wish that ... I think that. Are you going to prohibit to persons to think?

Then, as I was saying, if a law states that a union between a women and a male chimp is a marriage ... no problem, but I will never think that's a marriage.

 

Guess you never had oral sex....ya know hetero and stuff....What is really sick here is the need to fantasize and reduce gay people to sex..Keep your mind out of the gutter

 

One would hope you understand I am making fun of the haters.

 

Oh my....I’m newish here and don’t know all the people...sorry!
I wasted my wit....

 

Sarcasm's not your strong point is it?

 

It's not up to just voters here. The US is a Constitutional Republic not a flat-out democracy. He has a constitutional right to marry his partner regardless of gender.

You can think what you like. Doesn't change the law though.

You're not obligated to agree with all laws.

 

In fact ...

Anyway, also Italy is a Republic with a Constitution and here marriages between two persons of the same gender are illegal. If they want they can do a "civilian union".

It's not said that different cultures produce the same outcome.

 

No, it is bestiality and illegal anyway.

 

Very well put !!!!!