Curious...do homophobes think they're going to "bring it all back"?

???? No they just get the same rights as the fertile, no extra rights involved.

 

thus the reason your idiotic arguments are self defeating. same sex couples would get the same rights, not extra rights.

 

Yep. That is the clear truth.

 

Amen to that!!

 

Nonsense. Consider these: Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Until your views and rhetoric account for that where all people are concerned... then you'll be challenged and disagreed with.

 

You pull your own unique perspectives from that history. Others who also have a measure of historical scholarship under their belt, do not agree with many of your assumptions or conclusions.

I understand you trying to build a case for your argument, but for the most part you have convinced only yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Great points!!

 

man that sounds good....

 

Today, homosexual people WILL fight for their rights and protect themselves. Some people did not ever want that to come to fruition... but they should have known that it was inevitable.

The liars, hypocrites and homophobes who advocate for the immoral persecution and hatred of homosexuals, should no more be tolerated than those who would promote anti-antisemitism or racism. The sooner Americans get that through their heads... the better-off the nation will be.

 

Tough nuckies, instead you get pride parade, openly homosexual soldiers, and gay marriage now legal in ten states.

 

Encouraging heterosexual couples to marry reduces the number single parents on their own providing and caring for their children and increases the number with the benefit of both their Parents in the home. Encouraging homosexuals to marry does not.

 

Because statutes generally don't specify the motivations behind the law and only specify the details regarding the application of the law. As well all these court cases creating gay marriage claim that encouraging the formation of stable homes, and yet, no where in the law does it say anything about the formation of stable homes.
As well
160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

 

no it doesn't. if it did, the divorce rate wouldn't be over 50%.

procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

 

procreation is not mentioned in any marriage law or on any marriage license. it is irrelevant to who can marry.

no court has created gay marriage. what the courts have done is to remove the gender restriction regarding marriage.

long ago refuted. this is a paternity law, not a marriage law. if daddy isn't daddy, he has no responsibility.

 

Not sure of your point. STILL, children born to their married parents are still more likely to have the benefit of both heir mother and father in the home when compared to children born to single mothers. Thus my use of the term "REDUCES" as opposed to the term eliminated.

- - - Updated - - -

Its like you didnt even read the post of mine you quoted and responded to.

 

I know you weren't talking to me...and I don't mean any offense...but these threads always unfold the same way for you.

You offer the concept that marriage is for people who want to have kids, and only heterosexuals can have kids.

When flaws and exceptions are pointed out, and counter arguments are successful...you rattle through the same revolving door of discredited points...seemingly without an overview of them, which would allow you to see you've not won the argument.

On the lighter side...I'm betting you feel the same way about people you argue with on this issue

 

my point was obvious. you made an incorrect statement in support of an invalid argument.

and if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass. which is just a relevant statement as yours to the topic of equal rights for same sex partners.

of course I read it. that's why I directly refuted what you posted.

 

Never said any such thing. Try to avoid dashing after every strawman you can imagine. Most pregnancies are unplanned. Women become pregnant even though they didnt want to have kids. Their children benefit just as much from marriage as children of planned pregnancies

 

??? You'll find the views expressed in my statements in the dozens of court cases across the country upholding the constitutionality of marriage limited to heterosexual couples. Never seen anything about frogs in ANY court cases.

 

no marriage law or marraige license mentions procreation, the ability to procreat or the intention to procreate. it has no relevance. sorry

 

Ah the good old days...

War is never over unless one side quits fighting.. This is unlikely to stop any time soon.

 

Unless of course, one side wins.

Gay Marriage will be legal everywhere in the US, because the SCOTUS will eventually rule against the prohibition of it on constitutional grounds.

 

Sadly you are probably right. But do you really think the other side will quit fighting? They still rail against abortion and it has been legal for 40+ years. Why will this be any different?

 

I think it will be once people get to know us better and we're more visible. Once they realize that people like RTL are blatantly lying about us, things will get better.

 

Nonsense. Majority of self identified homosexuals have sex with both men and women. Bisexuals who choose to identify as a homosexual. Just as there are many other bisexuals who choose to identify as heterosexual. Your crazy if you think society doesnt influence those decisons.

 

You wont find any prohibition of "gay marriage" in the law and the constitution doesnt permit such preferential treatment of "gay marriage" for the gays, without some rational relation between being gay and some legitimate governmental interest that is served by that discrimination. What governmental interest is only served in the case of gays? I cant imagine any. Can you?