Homosexual marriage

what does gender preference have to do with equality?

all people are equal, even if a canuck

the idiocracy is the idea that the tax advantages apply to non producing couples.

just because a man wants to act like a girl or a woman act like a man, dont make love or marriage different.

what has occurred is people have come to accept the misleadings of false pretenses. ie... the definition of sexual orientation alone is one of the stupidest creations of berkeley (california), that i have ever witnessed evolving within the political-educational system.


bottom line is, gays aint treated unequally.... what is unequal is the bias that people must accept the definitions of bigots as being true.

ie... there is no such thing as a groom that is a woman nor a bride that is a man. But people like to play the parts as if acting is normal.

you forgot..... israel.

conservative is not what you are ranting about.

It is the idea of requiring people to be like you!

Equality is an American way. Canadians aint enabling equality by letting people take advantage of the legal system by acting out a part.

love does not require marriage and the idiots that believe, sell or even tell people that are morons.

Or just bonafide liars!

The bigot is the idiot that tries to call people names for not believing as they do. it is almost like a christian calling someone an atheist for not believing in their beliefs; just stupid and people allow it. (which is stupid in itself)

 

then get em a psychologist and let the treatment be given!



"look at the watch..... you are a man (women), your gender is found by looking between your legs. You do not need a winkie in the behind. You are important to life and can procreate. Marriage is not required for love.


be honest with yourself"


try that for starters.


Homosexual marriage is just a legal argument for monetary gains (on many fronts). The idiots that claim the reason is love and equality are just self-centered fools.

And the ones that are supporting the rant, are perhaps just mentally challenged.

This is an old argument and from the biological debate to the legal debate, i have measured, weighed and leave the idiots 'wanting' as it is a dead issue.

Rather than make the issue about love and equality why not just address the reasons for being married or not and deal with them directly. but the concept of marriage itself is for lineage protection; procreation..........and from there forth, it is a useless institution.

 

What force of law?

You mean the civil rights we all enjoy?

 

giving a tax advantage to a non producing couple. That is a force of law.

Gays, hetero and all man/women, black, white, red and yellow, are all equal.

Telling a child that a person can be born a male and genetically be gay is a stoned cold lie, unless specifically a hermaphrodite

"""In biology, a hermaphrodite is an organism that has reproductive organs normally associated with both male and female sexes."""


forcing people to 'accept' a lie is a force of law.

But anyone can LOVE anyone, no matter the gender, race, creed, religion, culture, beliefs, etc.......

The problem with the issue is some bigots continually try to require people believe their form of belief and in this case using a force upon others.

it is almost as ignorant as making a law that people cannot state that ww2 was not just a holocaust to jews.

ie.... In some countries claiming holohaox is just a form of bigotry is against the law.

 

So if any couple doesn't procreate they should be denied tax benefits of marriage?

 

It is an argument for equality, whether you like it or not.

 

You've been married to a woman, you have no children, but if you had a daughter you'd give her to the lesbians for training, and if you had a son you'd give him to pederasts for training, just in order to poke an eye of those who are right and to express your hatred to conservatives with capitol C.

Pick up your saliva... and your eye.

 

This is a tired old argument:

"Are you saying that people who don't procreate shouldn't marry? Is that your position? Well what about couples who can't have children? Should they not be able to marry?"

It's a strawman argument. The opponents of gay marriage don't base their argument on being able or not being able to have children or intending or not intending to have them. So save the drama.

 

to you that is what it is.

I know better.

ie.... people think that pursuing truth is against 'god' too and them morons are still walking around.

Heck, there are people who think that the 2nd law of thermodynamic is a law of nature and have no idea what the so called "law" even means.

 

that fix is better than allowing male brides when we both know the terminology alone is an oxymoron

ie..... it would be best to reverse stupid laws that enable even worse


In either sense the argument is in a religious section because bigots like to make the argument a religious one, when in reality it is a political one.



But to directly address your question; YES. Why do couples without another mouth to feed be granted a tax benefit?

 

the ability to procreate has nothing to do with marriage.

 

By knowing better you invoke a vast conspiracy. Which is more likely, a vast conspiracy or the part of the pro-equal rights crowd, or it is what it is? I will go with the latter.

 

Father,

Islamophobia is a mortal sin.

 

That's a load of dog crap.

 

Sometimes I wonder if I am aligned with one dimensional people. Get with the program. Do you know what tactics are?

 

I didn't get the memo.

 

Very well said. And that is exactly the point that these so called "limited government" phony conservatives refuse to recognize. They LOVE "big government" when it comes to the social issues. They are, it seems, unable to extricate themselves emotionally from the discussion. They should frankly just butt out. No pun intended.

 

I'll take it one step further and say people shouldn't be financially coerced by their government to do anything. That is, if we wish to live in a "free country."

 

Yet you can still offer no justification from the continued denial of the civic franchise to our gay fellow citizens. No one is asking you to redefine anything. The argument is for simple LEGAL parity.

 

Other way around: Government sanctioned marriage is a civil union. Yet the "civil unions" offered only to same-sex couples in some states are not equal to 'government sanctioned marriage' because of Section 3 of the federal 'Defense of Marriage' Act (DOMA).

 

Absolutely. Yet run this by the "limited government" phony conservatives and they'll literally go into convulsions while quoting bible verses. They LOVE big government when it comes to injecting the bible into public life.

 

Actually the way most states statutes work, it is a party to the contract. The state tacitly participates in the union and then becomes arbiter upon dissolution.

 

No one is asking for your approval of anything, nor are you in a position to give it. The argument is about simple legal parity.

 

I think you have it backward there, sir. It is "everyone else" who wants to impose their will on a group of people whose actions they merely find offensive, but are not harmful to them. That is not democracy--just plain old mob rule.

"Majority rule is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

- B. Franklin

 

Dude, I'd like some of whatever you're smoking.