AA group sent packing or church would be forced to host homosexual events

LoL Causing the nullification of the separation of church and state would be the worse mistake homosexuals ever made.

 

How is this to the "general public" and what exactly is the general public? You were already asked about this but dodge, now try to focus this time.

If I have a barn in the back and I "rent" it to a friend now and then for a party or other occasion I then legally have to rent it to anyone who comes along?

A AA groups ask a church if the can use one of theirs rooms for weekly meetings for a nominal sum to cover utilities and clean up and now they have to rent to anyone who ask?

 

Actually the less of it the better, what is the vital interest society and our species has in encouraging and promoting and sanctioning it?

That is exactly what legal marriage is, a legal sanctioning. What is so difficult for you to understand about that?

What kind of relationships and for what purpose?

OK that doesn't change the fact that there is no vital interest in promoting or encouraging or sanctioning homosexuality.

 

Yes because that heterosexuality is so vital to our species and society it is to be encourage and promoted therefore we sanction it. Not so homosexuality. There is not vital need for homosexuality nor does our species have a vested interest in promoting it.

 

When the 97% decided they wanted to regulate the affairs of the 3% because conformist cannot stand "abnormal" in the land that allegedly supports individuality I would imagine.

 

Can you link me to the homosexual couple that created a child together and are the biological parents providing a mother and a father to that child.

Keep trying.

 

Lol So youve abandoned all pretense of attempting to defend homosexual marriage with any semblance of logice because youve recognized that every argument you use to defend homosexuality you reject for incest and every argument you use to justify discrimination against incestuous couples can also be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals. In short youre engaging in blatant hypocrisy.

And you do realize that homosexuality was illegal as well right? And it can be made illegal again if need be. But incest itself is not illegal as long as its between two consentual adults.

Last those homosexuals are incapable of creating a child in and of themselves. They are incapable of provising the benefit we are paying for.

 

Depends on the degree. Most if not all states have laws against direct family members, mother-son father daughter and siblings. Some against cousins some not.

Yep, one of them will have to engage in some type of actual direct or artificial heterosexuality.

 

Hate to break this to you but "majority rules" is a pretty natural doctrine for human cultures the world over.

Its a great place to start and can reasonably loosen over time (gay marriage) but should never completely flip flop to become "minority rules" as is currently the case with liberals (forcing business to cater to gay marriage).

The sooner more people realize its not gay may outright that most of us are against but rather the landslide of caveats that liberals push on us under the scam/guise of equality, the sooner you'll find some new allies.

But if you people continue to march on calling the rest of us racist and bigots while demanding everything under the sun via manifest-special-snowflake-destiny then you're going to find opposition at ever turn.

 

I am a gay man who supports businesses being able to discriminate against gays. I doubt you will find many of us people. Go figure....

 

That's why I always maintain the notion that its liberalism hijacking the LGBT cause for their own agenda, and not regular people -who happen to be gay- making a fight of everything.

 

The democratic party is leading from behind on the issues once they saw every day gays making progress without them. It is all a con to get votes and, more importantly, money from the gay 1% ers. Either way, I think people should be as free to be as discriminatory as they so desire. Let the marketplace sort it out instead of Big Brutha.

 

None of which is required for marriage. Keep trying. Infertile and elderly couples marry who can not produce children, therefore your entire premis is baseless drivel.

Keep trying.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't have to as none of that is required for marriage.

So again...keep trying.

 

Of course you realize you have no argument here because you've presented no argument against gay marriage. Instead you've presented argument in favor of incestual marriage.

As previously stated procreation is not a requirement for marriage . Never had been.

As for making homosexuality illegal don't make me laugh. We've already defeated those efforts in court.

Your entire argument centers around a sum total of maybes that in no way have been proven to be real.

Post a single US court case using gay marriage to justify incestual marriage. Put your money were your big mouth is.

 

No actually I didn't. I presented an argument for why homosexual marriage should be banned just like we've banned incestuous marriage. Furthermore there are ANY NUMBER of reasons that we discriminate against behaviors in this country... ALL of which can also be used to describe homosexuality. Yet for some reason (as illustrated above) homosexuals seem to be immune to those same reasons. You live in a bubble of hypocrisy... and when that bubble pops don't come crying to us.

Well of course not and nobody is going to stop a gay couple from going to any town in any county in any state in this country and having a little marriage ceremony and giving each other rings. Nobody is stopping them from marriage. However, marriage BENEFITS are provided for the purpose of the promotion of procreation. As such homosexuals do not qualify because they are incapable of procreation.

What the hell are you talking about "already defeated those efforts in court"? You do understand that all it takes to reverse judicial activism, is more judicial activism. Right? You think the fights over? LoL

That doesn't even make any sense what are you babbling about?

That wasn't the point. If you weren't being an emotional child you would know that. But considering your ENTIRE argument is based upon emotional hypocrisy, I'm not surprised.

 

But it is the purpose and why we have it at all, we don't just have marriage for the fun of it.

Oh they can adopt and be grandparents and serve as a mother/father figure all of which we should encourage and support. No we can't force people to procreate or create a nuclear family but we certainly need to encourage and promote doing so and then sanction it as it is the prime directive of the species and vital to our existence as a species and a society.
Keep trying.

So in fact you still can't come up with a reason we as a species should encourage and promote homosexuality and sanction it.

 

Again your running away from backing up your argument. Which is based entirely on your apparent want to legalize incestual marriage.

Listen if you want to marry someone closely related to you, more power to you. But it doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage being legalized.

As for procreation, as already stated, there is no requirement for procreation in order to marry. If you believe there is post the legal backig for that theory. Again, put up or shut up.

As for the already defeated attempts at making homosexuality illegal...ever heard of sodomy laws? Oh that's right theyre unconstitutional. Keep dreaming. You've lost. Deal with it.

 

So you admit procreation is not required then say "But gays still can't." Marriage is to protect families, encourage monogamy, and establish inheritance lines. All of which gays qualify for and benefit from. You can keep trying the procreation line but it hasn't worked in court yet? Why? Because gays have kids to.

 

Lol at the pathetic attempt to shame the other side into not beating you like you stole something by insenuating that that they engage in perversion. Its almost as pathetic as saying theyre gay though not wquite as abhorrent.

The only person here who has failed is you because you now refuse to engage in any attempt at a defense of that perversion as you know ill crush any argument that you make. So rather than attempt to debate you take the cowards way out by attacking the other side.

Furthermore you continue to make the same nonsensical argument about procreation because youre being willfully ignorant about the argument made. Because of this the only argument you have is a strawman argument about it not being a requirement to get married when that was not and is not the point. But you know that youre simply engaging in dishonest debate because nobody is successfully able to refute my argument without engaging in hypocrisy.

Before i crush your pathetic argument i want to make you aware i can unequivocally show that the legal argument for marriage benefits was solely intended to promote procreation so im giving you the opportunity to make a better argument. Take the chance so you dont get embarrassed.

 

Oh my someone likes to stroke his own ego in public doesn't he?

As I've already pointed out your attempt at arguments centering around procreation are entirely ridiculous.

I don't have to defend homosexuality on a morality stand point as the law is not based around biblical morality or morality specifically. What one person finds I moral is pointless in law. Don't make me laugh.

So let's see your air tight argument.ci highly suspect if you had one you would have already made it. Don't dissapoint me.

 

Oh look...still waiting on that air tight argument. What a shock!!

 

people are still hetero or homo regardless if they are allowed to get married, do you really think if you could not get married you would become homo? get real...

 

So, you believe that the only reason we do not all become homosexuals is that heterosexuality is promoted and sanctioned while we are growing up? Were you that anxious to become a homosexual yourself, that you feel all men must be constantly restrained from doing it?

 

You're being dishonest and there's really no need to do so but here you go. The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation, either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the interest in responsible procreation. In one of the earliest opinions, arising from a challenge to Washington’s marriage law:

1974 Singer v Hara

The court asserted, “The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.”5 The court also said that the state’s failure to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples “is based upon the state’s recognition that our society as a whole views marriage as the appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and the rearing of children.”6 The court rejected the contention that the fact that some married couples do not have children defeats this interest, noting that “[t]hese . . . are exceptional situations.”7 It went on to say,

"Further, it is apparent that no same-sex couple offers the possibility of the birth of children by their union. Thus, the refusal of the state to authorize same-sex marriage results from such impossibility of reproduction rather than from an invidious discrimination “on account of sex.” Therefore, the definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman is permissible as applied to appellants . . . because it is founded upon the unique physical characteristics of the sexes and appellants are not being discriminated against because of their status as males per se."

 

Oh look a ruling in 1974...that means nothing in the face of the over forty cases in favor of same sex marriage in the last decade.

So...lookie there your argument doesn't even address a single thing pointed out. Why? Because that ruling hasn't been used to justify the bans and hasn't been able to keep the bans from being ruled unconstitutional.

So there goes your air tight argument. It never stood a chance.