Chick Fil-A Day!

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

So a homosexual relationship has to be adulterous to be procreative? The relationship itself is, the adulterous one is. A man and his filing cabinet can also have surrogates, by the way.

Tell them they can't get married because of consent? "OH YEAH? WHAT ABOUT MARRIED COUPLES WHERE ONE BECOMES RETARDED AND IS INCAPABLE OF FURTHER CONSENT, AND ALSO INCAPABLE OF GETTING A DIVORCE!" Then you tell them, it's just a theoretical imperfection. Just like some childless heterosexual marriages.

Admit it you just want to pass laws making Christian Fundiementalism law. I have lost all respect I had for you. (although that implys I had some in the first place)

Assuming an ulterior motive and then attacking it rather than the argument is textbook strawman.

[Genivaria]

What so wrong about two men who love each-other being allowed to marry?

Go on admit it..

What is so wrong about a man who loves his sound system getting married to it, when it can't suffer if the marriage is bad but would make the man very happy? We let people do things to inanimate objects like cut them up, burn them, crush them, throw them in a fire, make contracts of TOTAL OWNERSHIP on them. Why are you opposed to this man treating his sound system like a partner?

Your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous.

[The Black Forrest]

What so wrong about two men who love each-other being allowed to marry?

Go on admit it..

What is so wrong about a man who loves his sound system getting married to it, when it can't suffer if the marriage is bad but would make the man very happy? We let people do things to inanimate objects like cut them up, burn them, crush them, throw them in a fire, make contracts of TOTAL OWNERSHIP on them. Why are you opposed to this man treating his sound system like a partner?

*dig dig dig* Nope, still can't find it.

Maybe if I read it backwards?

[Ifreann]

Eh, I don't feel like transatlantic chicken.

[Revolutopia]

Why can't a gay or bi man marry a gay or bi man, or a gay or bi woman a gay or bi woman?

They very well can't!

Because that would open the door to all sorts of other non-procreative based relationships.

Slippery Slopes are not reasons to deny individuals equal rights.

[Typhlochactas]

Statistics show that unmarried couples are more likely to have children than married couples. If you really wanted procreation, you'd abolish marriage.

[Beiluxia]

No...im pretty sure Homosexuals can still procreate, they still have reproductive organs. They are very well capable. But then again maybe you just haven't heard of these nice little things call Surrogates.

So a homosexual relationship has to be adulterous to be procreative? The relationship itself is, the adulterous one is. A man and his filing cabinet can also have surrogates, by the way.

Tell them they can't get married because of consent? "OH YEAH? WHAT ABOUT MARRIED COUPLES WHERE ONE BECOMES RETARDED AND IS INCAPABLE OF FURTHER CONSENT, AND ALSO INCAPABLE OF GETTING A DIVORCE!" Then you tell them, it's just a theoretical imperfection. Just like some childless heterosexual marriages.

Surrogates don't need to have sex with a male in order to have the baby, they just need the sperm. So no, not all gays are adulterous when they use a surrogate mother to produce a baby. I'd also like to point out that "a man & his filing cabinet" =/= "two men" so stop judging gays as if they were the same as bestiality and other forms of sexuality.

[Mussoliniopoli]

Admit it you just want to pass laws making Christian Fundiementalism law. I have lost all respect I had for you. (although that implys I had some in the first place)

Assuming an ulterior motive and then attacking it rather than the argument is textbook strawman.

Infertile couples? Answer or GTFO.

[Inky Noodles]

Hopefully I can make my point.
I know I suck at MC paint.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/551249_450369921661330_1068445527_n.jpg

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

By the way, by precedent it is constitutional to restrict marriage to one man one woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

By precedent it was constitutional to consider people property. We fixed that.
By precedent it was constitutional to forbid the production, sale, possession and use of alcohol. We fixed that too.
Be precedent it was constitutional to forbid whites and blacks to marry... we fixed that too.

See where we're going with this?

So until the SCOTUS rules or an amendment to the constitution is made, it is constitutional, that's just what you said. By the way, prohibition was by amendment, not precedent.

[The Realm of God]

What so wrong about two men who love each-other being allowed to marry?

Go on admit it..

What is so wrong about a man who loves his sound system getting married to it, when it can't suffer if the marriage is bad but would make the man very happy? We let people do things to inanimate objects like cut them up, burn them, crush them, throw them in a fire, make contracts of TOTAL OWNERSHIP on them. Why are you opposed to this man treating his sound system like a partner?

To rational men decide to get married. I am not seeing the comparison.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Assuming an ulterior motive and then attacking it rather than the argument is textbook strawman.

Infertile couples? Answer or GTFO.

It's a theoretical imperfection, much like married couples where one partner becomes mentally unsound, therefore unable to consent or seek a divorce. Would you swoop in and annul their marriage?

[Libertas Liber]

What so wrong about two men who love each-other being allowed to marry?

Go on admit it..

What is so wrong about a man who loves his sound system getting married to it, when it can't suffer if the marriage is bad but would make the man very happy? We let people do things to inanimate objects like cut them up, burn them, crush them, throw them in a fire, make contracts of TOTAL OWNERSHIP on them. Why are you opposed to this man treating his sound system like a partner?

Because there is no point in marrying your sound system. You receive no greater benefit from the sound system if you're married it than if you weren't. Btw, your argument is stupid.

[Genivaria]

Hopefully I can make my point.
I know I suck at MC paint.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/551249_450369921661330_1068445527_n.jpg

Your argument still makes no sense.

[Katganistan]

By precedent it was constitutional to consider people property. We fixed that.
By precedent it was constitutional to forbid the production, sale, possession and use of alcohol. We fixed that too.
Be precedent it was constitutional to forbid whites and blacks to marry... we fixed that too.

See where we're going with this?

So until the SCOTUS rules or an amendment to the constitution is made, it is constitutional, that's just what you said. By the way, prohibition was by amendment, not precedent.

Until the amendment was struck down, it was legal to prohibit it, yes?

[Beiluxia]

What so wrong about two men who love each-other being allowed to marry?

Go on admit it..

What is so wrong about a man who loves his sound system getting married to it, when it can't suffer if the marriage is bad but would make the man very happy? We let people do things to inanimate objects like cut them up, burn them, crush them, throw them in a fire, make contracts of TOTAL OWNERSHIP on them. Why are you opposed to this man treating his sound system like a partner?

two gay men =/= guy & sound system. Stop judging gays as though they are the same as bestiality and other forms of sexuality. Judge each one based on their own merit. I feel as though I'm repeating myself over and over again and you're not listening.

[Mussoliniopoli]

Infertile couples? Answer or GTFO.

It's a theoretical imperfection, much like married couples where one partner becomes mentally unsound, therefore unable to consent or seek a divorce. Would you swoop in and annul their marriage?

So why is infertile couples ok but Homosexual relations are not? Oh because you are a Christian Bigot. Just admit it and get over it.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

What is so wrong about a man who loves his sound system getting married to it, when it can't suffer if the marriage is bad but would make the man very happy? We let people do things to inanimate objects like cut them up, burn them, crush them, throw them in a fire, make contracts of TOTAL OWNERSHIP on them. Why are you opposed to this man treating his sound system like a partner?

Because there is no point in marrying your sound system. You receive no greater benefit from the sound system if you're married it than if you weren't. Btw, your argument is stupid.

Sure there is. He married the sound system. Now, he can bequeath stuff to it, leaving out his rotten kids. Anything he says to it cannot be used against him in court. Tax benefits from listing it as a dependent. TONS of benefits.

[Revolutopia]

Infertile couples? Answer or GTFO.

It's a theoretical imperfection, much like married couples where one partner becomes mentally unsound, therefore unable to consent or seek a divorce. Would you swoop in and annul their marriage?

According to your views, yes.

[Conserative Morality]

But, but stopping the Holocaust is as bad as perpetrating the Holocaust!

That brightened my day.

[Genivaria]

Because there is no point in marrying your sound system. You receive no greater benefit from the sound system if you're married it than if you weren't. Btw, your argument is stupid.

Sure there is. He married the sound system. Now, he can bequeath stuff to it, leaving out his rotten kids. Anything he says to it cannot be used against him in court. Tax benefits from listing it as a dependent. TONS of benefits.

Its funny that your the only one here who thinks marrying a sound system makes sense.

[Beiluxia]

Infertile couples? Answer or GTFO.

It's a theoretical imperfection, much like married couples where one partner becomes mentally unsound, therefore unable to consent or seek a divorce. Would you swoop in and annul their marriage?

Judge each based on their own merits. What part of this sentence do you not understand?

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

It's a theoretical imperfection, much like married couples where one partner becomes mentally unsound, therefore unable to consent or seek a divorce. Would you swoop in and annul their marriage?

So why is infertile couples ok but Homosexual relations are not? Oh because you are a Christian Bigot. Just admit it and get over it.

DId you read anything that I just said? We ban things that are obviously unable to reproduce to make fertile offspring, like men and stereos, men and men, men and dogs, and men and horses. There is no way to be 100% infertile, even if there's one gamete still hanging around and the odds are ridiculously low that your seed will survive to an egg. Even if you had no lower body, you could still take your DNA, the mother's egg and make a baby. Can't do that with two males or two females.

[The Black Forrest]

Infertile couples? Answer or GTFO.

It's a theoretical imperfection, much like married couples where one partner becomes mentally unsound, therefore unable to consent or seek a divorce. Would you swoop in and annul their marriage?

Legally (I use that term loosly as I am not qualified), I believe you have grounds for annulment if one side of the party knowing entered into marriage under such false pretenses.

Even in the case of on person being crazy, I believe the system will appoint a person for their interests.

Our lurking lawyers can probably answer that one.

[Mussoliniopoli]

But, but stopping the Holocaust is as bad as perpetrating the Holocaust!

That brightened my day.

I live to serve.