If there is no rational requirement for the gender of the couple to be male/female, then there is no reason to ban gays from marriage. If there is nothing that sets them apart, then there is no reason to elevate the male/female coupling above homosexuals. No rational reason, no test to verify procreation, no reason to ban gay marriage. So, then, your argument is pointless.
Anything that brings them closer to kissing in public I'm against. Because it's disgusting and shouldn't be seen by children, or me either for that matter.
A display of affection - a simple kiss - is "disgusting'? You've got to be kidding me. Are you disgusted by straight couples kissing too? Man, I feel sorry for your children.
Gays are not banned. Merriage is limited to a man and a woman, regardless of their sexual orientation. Gays generally dont want to enter into such a relationship.
No one has an obligation to refrain from behavior that you personally find disgusting. You're welcome to your opinion that it should not be seen by children, just as I'm welcome to mine that it reveals you to be an extremely prejudiced person.
This is why the Consitution is so great; The Constitution councils against the state making laws on the basis of religion which prevents folks like you from forcing your personal religious beliefs on others. The fact that you have a personal religious moral belief is not a valid reason to compel the state to ban gays from kissing. If were able to make an argument against kissing, it would apply to "all kissing" unless you could distinguish why one form of kissing is different than another.
How is it disgusting? I assume you want heterosexual kissing banned too? Maybe we should just ban anything some people find disgusting. Well, I think your face is disgusting and shouldn't be seen by my children. Should I be able to make you wear a bag over your head in public? By your logic, you'd agree.
That is stupid, bigoted BS. Really. BTW, shouldn't that be seen by kids? You (on the other hand), should be handling this better than you're indicating you would. You're going to make yourself literally knutz... by being as closed-minded as you are. I tell you what, you can dislike it... but you'd better not get into anyone's face or personal business with that BS. Eventually, you'll likely meet your match and regret considering being more reasonable... when you could have or should have. Homosexual people have always been here on this planet, and they will always be. If you want to be 'combative' about their existence... then you'll find plenty of fights; it futile to fight reality on that level, but it seems you'll go ahead and engage anyway. So be it. (Bring it!)
Gay's already have the freedom to kiss in public. Did you really labor under the false assumption that they couldn't? I find it in poor taste for any couple to play tonsil hockey in public, be they homosexual or heterosexual. However, that is not illegal.
Oooh my, semantics. Nice. To bad the majority of laws in the country are already gender neutral, and thus marriage laws should be as well. There is no reason that marriage should be denied to member of the same sex. Come back when you have an argument that has grounds in logic.
But gender isnt neutral § 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;....... Only applies in the case of a man and a woman
Well, it is if you live in one of 6 states. If not, it is why now, and from the beginning of our history in the US, you cant marry your macho boyfriend.
People can not make sense of the concept of that "gay agenda", because it is an over-dramatized construct; it's made up. Yes individual people ALL have agendas, but they aren't always sinister or oppressive. LOL!! That's about it. (Besides seeking equal rights, that is.) Many who are anti-homosexual, have sought to mischaracterize ANYTHING-HOMOSEXUAL as being wrong, sinister or dark. It is based upon fear, hatred and bigotry which MANY were taught as young people; the latest generation isn't nearly as afflicted with the same.
advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships.
That's fairly irrelevant. Why? That standard is obviously broken, being married in no way guarantees the husband is the paternal father. Secondly, homosexuals have available to them several methods of having children that does in fact guarantee that one partner is indeed the biological parent of the child. Unlike heterosexual couples, homosexual actually have to WANT a child to become parents, it isn't as easy as missed birthcontrol pill for them.
???? Presumptions were never intended to be guarantees. Any two people could do that. Not sure what you think that does for your arguments regarding gay marriage.
Homosexuality and acceptance of it IS already 'normal', even 'common'. Get real. Things that BOTH homosexuals and heterosexuals recognize and possess.
hopefully mulpitle personality people can have the same rights and marry all the voices in their head
this paternity law has no relevance to the topic. it's already been refuted. if daddy isn't daddy, he has no responsibility.
So lets see your evidence. Ive shown you it was prohibited before the 70s in Minnesota. From 1776 to the 1970s, lets see even one example of a legal same sex marriage.
