• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Other than kinda ruining the neighborhood, it affords rights privileges and immunities that the law intended for traditional families -- the basic unit of society.

Kiddo - the basic unit of society is dollars. Everybody knows that!

Say guess what?

I'll bet this has actually happened:

Two homosexual men go to a house owned by a lesbian couple.

Both have intercourse with the lesbian couple, and the lesbian couple both have kids.

Procreation!

Man that must burn you up. Bigots are so funny.
 
Other than kinda ruining the neighborhood, it affords rights privileges and immunities that the law intended for traditional families -- the basic unit of society.

OK, so an unmarried gay couple in the neighborhood is fine but if they get married that ruins it for everybody.

and -

affording the rights privileges and immunities of marriage to gay couples will cause heterosexuals who would otherwise get married to stay single and celibate.

Right - Can't argue with that logic
 
That Nature, Mother Nature or the God of Nature has willed that male and female be united for the propagation of the species, is self evident, and therefore not subject to irrational argument

If you throw out "common sense" then you might as well be in favor of marrying a horse.
It was "common sense" that the sun revolved around the Earth.

"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin." ~ Cardinal Bellarmine
 
affording the rights privileges and immunities of marriage to gay couples will cause heterosexuals who would otherwise get married to stay single and celibate.

Now that's just silly. The only logical conclusion is that everyone really wants to get gay married, but have been settling for straight marriages, since those were the only legal kind. Once gay marriage is legal, everyone will want one.
 
OK, so an unmarried gay couple in the neighborhood is fine but if they get married that ruins it for everybody.

and -

affording the rights privileges and immunities of marriage to gay couples will cause heterosexuals who would otherwise get married to stay single and celibate.

Right - Can't argue with that logic

Unfortunately it seems like the only kind of logic that Robert uses.
 
Last edited:
No harm? Taken to its logical extreme, same sex marriage is a suicide pact for the species.


Humans have just passed the 7 Billion population mark, I don't think gay marriage is going to make much of dent unless they make it compulsory...
 
Dibs on Andrej Pejic.

Not sure if I'd go that way or the George Clooney manly man route.

Who am I kidding? If I was gay, I'm still just an overweight balding 50 year old and I'd be lucky to get a Steve Buscemi or Danny Devito.
 
Let me put it to you ABC Kindygarten simple:
When you use an orifice for something other than it's purpose in nature, that is unnatural and unnatural acts can lead to horrific natural consequences. Common Sense.

Quick, what's the purpose of the mouth? What should be done with those that use it for other things? Who get's to decide the "purpose" of such things? Do humans that use the appendix for gut flora regulation get condemned as well since the appendix had another use originally?

That Nature, Mother Nature or the God of Nature has willed that male and female be united for the propagation of the species, is self evident, and therefore not subject to irrational argument

Do you really think allowing gay marriage has any effect on procreation?

News flash! The gay people getting married were gay and having gay sex prior to the marriage. They don't just become heterosexual and start making babies by the barrel as soon as gay marriage is denied to them.

So the same number of gay people will exist with or without gay marriage. Therefore arguing about procreation is pointless in this context.
 
Last edited:
Not sure if I'd go that way or the George Clooney manly man route.

Who am I kidding? If I was gay, I'm still just an overweight balding 50 year old and I'd be lucky to get a Steve Buscemi or Danny Devito.
All kinds of dating websites just for bears, chubs, daddies and chasers.

;-}
 
Not sure if I'd go that way or the George Clooney manly man route.

Who am I kidding? If I was gay, I'm still just an overweight balding 50 year old and I'd be lucky to get a Steve Buscemi or Danny Devito.

I'll take Alexander Skaarsgard.

I wouldn't kick Clooney out of bed. Especially if he used the Everret McGill persona the whole time.

If I were sentenced to a long prison term, I wouldn't mind finding Paul Rudd as my cellmate. Because what happens in Cell Block D, stays in Cell Block D.
 
If Heather Has Two Mommies...

So at the Parent Teacher conference, Heather has two Mommies but no daddy? How about if Heather has 3 Mommies? How about 10 Mommies, but no Daddy? At some point doesn't Heather become uh, confused? Are there any limits at all to an amoral anything goes society? What?
 
So at the Parent Teacher conference, Heather has two Mommies but no daddy?
Maybe. Would that be so horrible?

How about if Heather has 3 Mommies? How about 10 Mommies, but no Daddy? At some point doesn't Heather become uh, confused?
We're not talking about polygamy. We're talking about gay marriage.

Are there any limits at all to an amoral anything goes society? What?
That doesn't follow from gay marriage and is frankly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
 
Just so we're perfectly clear, Robert, morality is not a legal issue. I think your anti-gay bigotry is amoral, but that is no reason to make your hatred illegal so long as you aren't harming others. Just because you think homosexuality is amoral is not reason enough to make it illegal.

We're talking about the legality of gay marriage.
 
So at the Parent Teacher conference, Heather has two Mommies but no daddy? How about if Heather has 3 Mommies? How about 10 Mommies, but no Daddy? At some point doesn't Heather become uh, confused?

Children are confused by lots of things: why the sky is blue, why they're not allowed to have cookies for breakfast, why the neighbor's kids go to a different church than they do, etc.

As Louis C.K. explains in this [NSFW] clip, we don't decide public policy based on parents' desire to not talk to their kids:

 
No harm? Taken to its logical extreme, same sex marriage is a suicide pact for the species.
So you're basically committing yourself to the position that, by allowing same-gender couples to be marry, opposite-gender couples will suddenly lose the capacity to procreate. To borrow the language of the Ninth Circuit decision, I'm am aware of not basis on which this argument would be even conceivable plausible.

No, same-gender marriage will not stop heterosexual couples from procreating. Hell, it won't even stop same-gender couples from procreating, as they occasionally do in previously heterosexual relationships or medical intervention.

The "species suicide" belief is a bizarre fantasy which exists only in the heads of conspiracy nutjobs and bigots. It so far divorced from reality, so removed from any string of logic, so void of any factual basis whatsoever that it cannot be taken seriously any context, let alone form the basis for depriving gay couples of their fundamental right to marry.

0 for 9, getting pretty bleak now...
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom