Record Support for Gay Marriage[W:162:334]

CaptainCourtesy said:

Well, since we are talking about SSM, and you made such a silly overgeneralization, here's one that the right expouses: SSM will change the concept of marriage! It's stupidity like this that demonstrates just how out of touch with reality the right is.

See what happens when you make silly overgeneralizations?

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

Oh, I see now. You don't know what it is to quote or misquote someone.

So you said "I dont (sic) want to answer you clearly....if you accept it, don't."
See how I "quoted" you, but it's not quite what you said? That's what I would call a misquote.

I would ask that you quote me on the stuff about gays not being able to procreate, but who knows what you would put up there, based on your interpretation.

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

I see it all the time.

Click to expand...

votemout said:

bs! Bs bs bsbsbsbsbsbsbssb

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

Hey, let's all agree that I have no idea how to quote! I admit it! I dont know how.

Got that cleared up now?

Good....now back to the topic and let's see if you can support your posts regarding procreation/kids/SSM. (You didnt say they couldnt procreate, but you used procreation and kids as a reason you think SSM is wrong....if I'm wrong...please do clarify!)

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

Yes, you are wrong. I didn't say it's wrong, I said it's not the same as marriage. I said it is different. As an example, having kids, zero chance. Normal marriage, a pretty good chance. In fact, the human race is depending on it.

So why change the definition of marriage? Gays won't except all the benefits of marriage, without taking the title too. That tells me it's all political. It's not about what they want, it's about forcing their (the left) beliefs on other people.

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

You are wrong. Each individual marriage between two people of the opposite sex have varying chances of making babies, including absolutely zero. In fact, both my parents after their divorce had zero chance of every making babies again. My father has since been able to remarry anyway, despite that zero chance he has of making babies. Plus, in some states, the law specifically states that certain couples can't be able to make babies in order to be able to legally get married (go look up some of the laws by state on first cousins getting married). That proves that marriage is not about making babies.

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

We are talking about procreation here, and gay couples can't do it, ever. That's pretty clear. I don't think a state law will change that.

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

We are talking about procreation here, and gay couples can't do it, ever. That's pretty clear. I don't think a state law will change that.

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

And I am talking about procreation too. My parents can both get married and no matter what couple they make, they cannot procreate ever. They are still allowed to get married though. And this is because the laws of marriage are not based on procreation, particularly when it comes to who can enter into a marriage. Many, many more opposite sex couples cannot procreate with each other, ever, than same sex couples.

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

I am not saying any laws are based on procreation, I am pointing out that that is a difference. If you go back to the point I was making, it was that SS couples are different than OS couples, and a SSM is different from standard marriage. It seems that those that are for gay marriage refuse to admit that gay sex can not ever result in procreation. Just because people can't have children because of various reasons, doesn't mean that all couples can't have children. And if you have a union that, overall, in every instance, can't produce kids, then that is different from what a marriage is.

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

Yes, it is a difference. And white is different from whole wheat, and cotton is different from wool. What you haven't demonstrated is that that difference matters.

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

Then your point is that you don't care if they are different, we should just call them both the same thing. And I'm fine with gays having all the same rights in their union as marriage, but apparently they MUST have the name. Has to be, in your face, don't care about the rights without the name, and we must accept it. I must accept it. If they say 2+2=5, we must agree. A familiar ring from the left.

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

Then your point is that you don't care if they are different, we should just call them both the same thing. And I'm fine with gays having all the same rights in their union as marriage, but apparently they MUST have the name. Has to be, in your face, don't care about the rights without the name, and we must accept it. I must accept it. If they say 2+2=5, we must agree. A familiar ring from the left.

Click to expand...

Deuce said:

The name is not based on procreation, because infertile couples are still referred to as married. An infertile couple will never produce children. That's your criteria, remember.

Anthony60: it's not in your face, you don't have a right to sole ownership of a word, and you don't have to accept it. You still get to disapprove all you want. You still get to rant and rave all day that same-sex marriages aren't real marriages. You have that right.

What you don't have is the right to actually enforce that belief on others in violation of the US constitution.

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

I'm getting a little tired of people twisting what I say, to something I didn't say, so as to fit their inadequate argument.

Click to expand...

TheNextEra said:

You are the one that brought up pro-creation as being the defining difference between marriage between gays and heterosexuals. The fact is procreation is not and has not been required to use the word marriage, so your entire argument is invalid. The ability to procreate is not a requirement to use the word marriage. YOU are free to disagree with gays being allowed to marry, but it is in fact MARRIAGE.

You will eventually be lumped in the same category as those who were against interracial marriage. Feel proud with the company you will keep :lamo

Click to expand...

Cardinal said:

When my wife and I got married no marriage official asked us if we had any intention of having kids (spoiler alert: we don't).

Click to expand...

TheNextEra said:

You are the one that brought up pro-creation as being the defining difference between marriage between gays and heterosexuals. The fact is procreation is not and has not been required to use the word marriage, so your entire argument is invalid. The ability to procreate is not a requirement to use the word marriage. YOU are free to disagree with gays being allowed to marry, but it is in fact MARRIAGE.

You will eventually be lumped in the same category as those who were against interracial marriage. Feel proud with the company you will keep

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

I am not saying any laws are based on procreation, I am pointing out that that is a difference. If you go back to the point I was making, it was that SS couples are different than OS couples, and a SSM is different from standard marriage. It seems that those that are for gay marriage refuse to admit that gay sex can not ever result in procreation. Just because people can't have children because of various reasons, doesn't mean that all couples can't have children. And if you have a union that, overall, in every instance, can't produce kids, then that is different from what a marriage is.

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

See, you are wrong. It is not marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Procreation is just an aspect that does not exist between SS couples. You know, just a building block of society, the family unit, and the continuation of human kind. No big deal.

More twisting of my words. Please show where I said it was THE defining issue. Also show where I said it was REQUIRED to use the word marriage. Bet you can't. Well, I shouldn't say that, since I've already been quoted here as saying things I did not say.
And you finish up nicely with the old invalid comparison of interracial marriage, which is between a man and a woman.

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

Families are different, whether you approve or not. Two people of the same sex can have a family, raise children, go through all the ups and downs that two people of the opposite sex do.

Click to expand...

You keep claiming that their marriages are not a marriage. You fail to add the qualifying caveat that this is only when using your personal definition of what you view marriage to be. Many others define marriage much differently than you do, including not having procreative ability or the requirement of a man and a woman as part of that definition.

Click to expand...

Anthony60 said:

I don't disagree with that at all. I never said they can't have a family, or all the rights of a married couple.

No need to add a personal "qualifying caveat", as this is the opinion of millions in this country, as evidenced by the many votes taken among the states.

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

We are discussing marriage laws here. If someone is not prevented from marrying due to an inability to procreate by the law then other couples' inability to procreate has no relevance to why they should not be allowed to marry.

Click to expand...

roguenuke said:

Those votes that were taken many years ago. No different than the vote in Mississippi just recently that said that millions of people there want the definition of marriage to only include those of the same race, a commonly held opinion of the 1970s and earlier.

Click to expand...