Gay Marriage Legalized In France

[Mystletainn]

My head hurts from this contradiction-ness.

Even I don't contradict myself like that >.>

Making laws for the benefit of a minority alone is not liberty, it´s tiranny. A sex-based tiranny, mind you, makes it all even more abhorrent. Hence no contradiction. Quite au contraire.

You spelled some stuff wrong. TRY AGAIN :3

[Agymnum]

And that's why let same sex marriage legal.

What, by giving legitimacy to a sin? Makes perfect sense (note: dripping sarcasm). Let them love each other, but they can do it without stealing marriage from its intended owners.

You don't own marriage?

Do you have a copyright on it? No? It's not yours, then.

Marriage existed before monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) and will continue to exist after your pitiful religions have been extinguished.

[Ainin]

Making laws for the benefit of a minority alone is not liberty, it´s tiranny. A sex-based tiranny, mind you, makes it all even more abhorrent. Hence no contradiction. Quite au contraire.

You spelled some stuff wrong. TRY AGAIN :3

It's convenient he underlines his own mistakes.

[Valcouria]

Two gays cannot naturally procreate by themselves. A woman is necessary for the continuation of the species. Marriage enshrines this fundamental, basic tenant of natural law.

Why should the world have more kids again? Right. We want to speed up our demise. Nice job breaking it hero.

It's not about the fact that there are too many people already. It is the fact-the basic, irreplaceable fact-that new generations need to be produced. Gays can't do that naturally, and so should not have access to an institution that can.

[The Emerald Dawn]

Why should the world have more kids again? Right. We want to speed up our demise. Nice job breaking it hero.

It's not about the fact that there are too many people already. It is the fact-the basic, irreplaceable fact-that new generations need to be produced. Gays can't do that naturally, and so should not have access to an institution that can.

Marriage does not mean procreation.

[Blekksprutia]

If gay marriage is such a corruption of mankind, then how do you explain this fabulous couple?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_and_Silo

[Ainin]

Why should the world have more kids again? Right. We want to speed up our demise. Nice job breaking it hero.

It's not about the fact that there are too many people already. It is the fact-the basic, irreplaceable fact-that new generations need to be produced. Gays can't do that naturally, and so should not have access to an institution that can.

Yes, but our growth rate is unsustainable. Homosexuality is a drop in the bucket when considering growth rates. So your argument is invalid.

[Mystletainn]

Why should the world have more kids again? Right. We want to speed up our demise. Nice job breaking it hero.

It's not about the fact that there are too many people already. It is the fact-the basic, irreplaceable fact-that new generations need to be produced. Gays can't do that naturally, and so should not have access to an institution that can.

But it's their choice. I say let them be. After all, we aren't supposed to judge others and claim it's "word of God"

[Agymnum]

Why should the world have more kids again? Right. We want to speed up our demise. Nice job breaking it hero.

It's not about the fact that there are too many people already. It is the fact-the basic, irreplaceable fact-that new generations need to be produced. Gays can't do that naturally, and so should not have access to an institution that can.

Neither should sterile people, or old people, or asexual people.

Hell, while we're at it, let's institute eugenics as well. Ugly people, stupid people, and religious people (because believing in a sky god with no proof is pretty stupid) don't get to get married and procreate any more.

That will leave the beautiful, intelligent, secular people to populate the world as the superior Aryan human race.

[Valcouria]

Two gays cannot naturally procreate by themselves. A woman is necessary for the continuation of the species. Marriage enshrines this fundamental, basic tenant of natural law.

Meep
Meep again.

The egg...comes from a woman. The sperm...comes from a man. YOU NEED BOTH. Gays can't do that.

And as for animals...as I have said, they serve no functioning purpose in continuing their species.

[Mystletainn]

Meep
Meep again.

The egg...comes from a woman. The sperm...comes from a man. YOU NEED BOTH. Gays can't do that.

And as for animals...as I have said, they serve no functioning purpose in continuing their species.

Oooo.... Anthropocentric AND spiteful....

[Agymnum]

Meep
Meep again.

The egg...comes from a woman. The sperm...comes from a man. YOU NEED BOTH. Gays can't do that.

And as for animals...as I have said, they serve no functioning purpose in continuing their species.

Animals serve no functioning purpose in continuing their species?

LOL U SO FUNNY

[Lyassa and Nairoa]

Making laws for the benefit of a minority alone is not liberty, it´s tiranny. A sex-based tiranny, mind you, makes it all even more abhorrent. Hence no contradiction. Quite au contraire.

You spelled some stuff wrong. TRY AGAIN :3

Ok, here it is, thanks for the correction.

Making laws for the benefit of a minority alone is not liberty, it´s tyranny. A sex-based tyranny, mind you, makes it all even more abhorrent. Hence no contradiction. Quite au contraire.

[Neutraligon]

The egg...comes from a woman. The sperm...comes from a man. YOU NEED BOTH. Gays can't do that.

And as for animals...as I have said, they serve no functioning purpose in continuing their species.

Oooo.... Anthropocentric AND spiteful....

gay uncle theory for the win.

[Valcouria]

Two gays cannot naturally procreate by themselves. A woman is necessary for the continuation of the species. Marriage enshrines this fundamental, basic tenant of natural law.

What about a gay guy and a gay woman copulating?

Technically that is classified under heterosexuality; a man and a woman, as it should be.

[Mystletainn]

You spelled some stuff wrong. TRY AGAIN :3

Ok, here it is, thanks for the correction.

Making laws for the benefit of a minority alone is not liberty, it´s tyranny. A sex-based tyranny, mind you, makes it all even more abhorrent. Hence no contradiction. Quite au contraire.

The government should protect all freedoms.

Nice try bub.

[Anachronous Rex]

Meep
Meep again.

The egg...comes from a woman. The sperm...comes from a man. YOU NEED BOTH. Gays can't do that.

And as for animals...as I have said, they serve no functioning purpose in continuing their species.

Sure it does. Gay uncle theory.

Humans are K-strategists.

[Neutraligon]

You spelled some stuff wrong. TRY AGAIN :3

Ok, here it is, thanks for the correction.

Making laws for the benefit of a minority alone is not liberty, it´s tyranny. A sex-based tyranny, mind you, makes it all even more abhorrent. Hence no contradiction. Quite au contraire.

But this is making a law about allowance rather than restriction. Since the majority already has the rights, allowing homosexuals to marry is in no way restricting heterosexual marriage. So again how is this tyranny?

[Mkuki]

What about a gay guy and a gay woman copulating?

Technically that is classified under heterosexuality; a man and a woman, as it should be.

But you just said "Two gays cannot naturally procreate by themselves"...

[Zavea]

What, by giving legitimacy to a sin? Makes perfect sense (note: dripping sarcasm). Let them love each other, but they can do it without stealing marriage from its intended owners.

You don't own marriage?

Do you have a copyright on it? No? It's not yours, then.

Marriage existed before monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc) and will continue to exist after your pitiful religions have been extinguished.

i'm filing a DMCA on your marriage license unless you pay me 100 bitcoins!

[Agymnum]

You spelled some stuff wrong. TRY AGAIN :3

Ok, here it is, thanks for the correction.

Making laws for the benefit of a minority alone is not liberty, it´s tyranny. A sex-based tyranny, mind you, makes it all even more abhorrent. Hence no contradiction. Quite au contraire.

The Emancipation Proclamation was tyranny.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were tyranny and still are.

Free speech is tyranny. Free religion is tyranny. Free assembly is tyranny.

More than any of this, legislating morality based on a single religion (which isn't even the majority, mind you, it's only a plurality) is tyranny.

[Neutraligon]

What about a gay guy and a gay woman copulating?

Technically that is classified under heterosexuality; a man and a woman, as it should be.

No it isn't. The to people copulating, while performing heterosexual sex, are still homosexual.

[Mystletainn]

Oooo.... Anthropocentric AND spiteful....

gay uncle theory for the win.

That ends the thread right?

[Ainin]

gay uncle theory for the win.

That ends the thread right?

Yup. Go home everyone.

[Valcouria]

What, by giving legitimacy to a sin? Makes perfect sense (note: dripping sarcasm). Let them love each other, but they can do it without stealing marriage from its intended owners.

Marriage is "owned" by society. Society is obviously very willing to allow homosexuals to marry so, no you are wrong. Also, for many it isn't a sin.

Marriage (as it should be) is also a religious institution, outside the frivolous whims of society. And many don't think it's a sin because, from my vantage point, many are deviating away from proper religious orthodoxy.

Society is only demonstrating how it is becoming debauched, debased, and depraved.