What's new

Gay Marriage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Ms Tree have you ever hooked an air hose male to male or female to female and have it work? No? I did not think so.
 
Heterosexual sex is part of the natural order of the world. Gays seek to change the natural order to suit themselves.
 
Actually, can anyone come up with a legal argument against equal marriage rights?

Just think about it. You could be the savior of marriage for the religious right? TV shows, book offers, speaking engagements. You'd be rich.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
 
The PRESIDENT has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases.
 
If you have a brain in your head this should really, really concern you.
 
 
 
In a separate letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, Holder noted that Congress still had the ability to participate in these lawsuits in lieu of the Justice Department.
On February 24, the Department of Justice notified the First Circuit Court of Appeals that it would "cease to defend" Gill and Massachusetts as well. On July 1, 2011, the DOJ, with a filing in Golinski, intervened for the first time on behalf of a plaintiff seeking to have DOMA Section 3 ruled unconstitutional, arguing that laws that use sexual orientation as a classification need to pass the court's intermediate scrutiny standard of review. The DOJ made similar arguments in a filing in Gill on July 7.
 
In June 2012, filing an amicus brief in Golinski, two former Republican Attorneys General, Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft, called the DOJ's decision not to defend DOMA Section 3 "an unprecedented and ill-advised departure from over two centuries of Executive Branch practice" and "an extreme and unprecedented deviation from the historical norm".
 
700UW said:
That has to be the most stupid analogy I have ever read.
 
He's trying to show you brain dead progressives by supporting the gay thing you can attain your zero population growth model to save the planet.
 
Yep gays getting married will lead to the downfall of humans, and the planet will be left with no human life.
 
Guess you havent heard of adoption or surrogacy.
 
I would have thought the religious right would be more concerned with a 50% divorce rate leading to the down fall of man kind.  Guess not.
 
Still not a single legal argument posted.  Color me surprised.
 
Adoption? Surrogacy? Where are all the surrogates going to come from?....

Voluntary adoptions in the US are statistically less than 1% of all births as of a few years ago. It had been above 9% in the early 1970's.

The 8% variance is explained away by a combination of increased social acceptance of single parents (or perhaps the greater availability of welfare?), greater use of birth control, and easier access to abortion from 1970 forward. So, there's no way that even if adoption doubled you'd be able to make up for a more serious decline in the birth rate than what we're already seeing.

All that said, gay households only represent <5% of the total population, so it's a bit far fetched to point to that alone as the potential downfall of the human race. That's not to say that we won't eventually see the impacts from further meddling with natural law, or if the % of gay households suddenly jumped to above 10-15% of the US population.

Just look at what's happened to China with their restrictive birth control policies. Their birth rate is at 0.5% -- in about 20 years, they're going be the GM of national economies, with more than twice as many non-working citizens for every one in the workforce. Their economy will eventually collapse from that.

Now imagine the "one child" mindset being imposed on the rest of the world in the name of climate change or some other cause.
 
There is no social benefit derived from homosexuality.
 
There is no social benefit derived from gay marriage.
 
You can say the same about hetero marriages.
 
eolesen said:
Adoption? Surrogacy? Where are all the surrogates going to come from?....Voluntary adoptions in the US are statistically less than 1% of all births as of a few years ago. It had been above 9% in the early 1970's.The 8% variance is explained away by a combination of increased social acceptance of single parents (or perhaps the greater availability of welfare?), greater use of birth control, and easier access to abortion from 1970 forward. So, there's no way that even if adoption doubled you'd be able to make up for a more serious decline in the birth rate than what we're already seeing.All that said, gay households only represent <5% of the total population, so it's a bit far fetched to point to that alone as the potential downfall of the human race. That's not to say that we won't eventually see the impacts from further meddling with natural law, or if the % of gay households suddenly jumped to above 10-15% of the US population.Just look at what's happened to China with their restrictive birth control policies. Their birth rate is at 0.5% -- in about 20 years, they're going be the GM of national economies, with more than twice as many non-working citizens for every one in the workforce. Their economy will eventually collapse from that.Now imagine the "one child" mindset being imposed on the rest of the world in the name of climate change or some other cause.
So if gay marriage is legal in all states, more heterosexual couples will stop having babies?

I cannot see a correlation between gay marriage and lower than normal birth rates.

Will the gays who cannot marry suddenly decide that they are not gay and start having unprotected sex with the opposite sex?

Feel free to provide some data supporting that.

"Meddling with natural law?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top