Why the problem with gays?

[resister]

You got to be joking. Using a third party is not procreation. Please read the thread and quit going over ground that has been asked and answered.

Two homos or lesbos(in and of themselves,Alone)will never,ever , reproduce.Evolution assures it

[Dr. Who]

You got to be joking. Using a third party is not procreation. Please read the thread and quit going over ground that has been asked and answered.

Procreation is making babies. Is a baby not a baby when it starts in a fertility clinic? In that case, my niece and nephew, whom my sister had via insemination because her husband has a low sperm count are not people.

[Negative1]

They're too loud about their stupid cause to be approved by the state, and it's all they focus on.

I disapprove of state-sanctioned marriage.

[Standing Wolf]

Two homos or lesbos(in and of themselves,Alone)will never,ever , reproduce.Evolution assures it

If you want that to be the criteria for allowing couples to participate in the institution of civil marriage, are you in favor of denying a license to a couple in their seventies? Chances are, barring a miracle, they're not going to reproduce, either.

[Negative1]

I'm in favor of denying licenses for everything.

[Standing Wolf]

They're too loud about their stupid cause to be approved by the state, and it's all they focus on.

I disapprove of state-sanctioned marriage.

Then you wouldn't mind if the State told divorcing couples to go away and work it out for themselves...or to get the clergyman who married them to divide their property and decide on the custody of their minor children.

And since "marriage" wouldn't be any of the State's business, anyone could perform a "marriage" ceremony, and wed three men, six women and a goat if they felt like it.

I could - quite literally - go on for hours listing legal reasons why the idea of - no pun intended - divorcing the State from the institution of marriage is an utterly ridiculous notion.

[Negative1]

Then you wouldn't mind if the State told divorcing couples to go away and work it out for themselves...or to get the clergyman who married them to divide their property and decide on the custody of their minor children.

And since "marriage" wouldn't be any of the State's business, anyone could perform a "marriage" ceremony, and wed three men, six women and a goat if they felt like it.

I could - quite literally - go on for hours listing legal reasons why the idea of - no pun intended - divorcing the State from the institution of marriage is an utterly ridiculous notion.

Yes, I would agree with that, and you could go on for hours being wrong about why the state must be involved in anything, but that's your time.

[resister]

If you want that to be the criteria for allowing couples to participate in the institution of civil marriage, are you in favor of denying a license to a couple in their seventies? Chances are, barring a miracle, they're not going to reproduce, either.

I was stating a cold, hard, fact.You twisted it too put words in my mouth.Try to read what I said.Thats all imeant. Period..

[resister]

If you want that to be the criteria for allowing couples to participate in the institution of civil marriage, are you in favor of denying a license to a couple in their seventies? Chances are, barring a miracle, they're not going to reproduce, either.

My "wife"is 66 i'm 36.We got half the plumbing there.We have been together 6 years.In my heart I know I am with her until the end(GOD willing)we will not legally marry due to financial reasons.I'm fine with that.I am blessed to have this time in my life with her, whether the gov. approves or not.Fok em

[Negative1]

I'm tired of sex of being a main topic of debate when the wankers running the place are doing bad $#@! all over the place, and the entire system is a fraud.

Congrats, gay distractors.