77 Non-religious reasons to support traditional marriage.

[J]

Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a union
between one man and one woman.







http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf


or


http://tiny.cc/krmxo








--
J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[Kat]

On Feb 5, 1:07 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a union
> between one man and one woman.
>

> http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-r...

>
> or
>
> http://tiny.cc/krmxo
>
> --
> J Young

> jdyou...@ymail.com

That list was posted by a religious group. Just sayin.

[JTEM]

J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a union
> between one man and one woman.

> http://tiny.cc/krmxo

#1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 are an argument against divorce, an argument
for making divorce illegal, as well as marriage when one member
of a couple is infertile. not against gay marriage.

#6, 7 & 8 is just plain lying, not to mention inconsistent with 1
through 5 (above). There are studies. They are conclusive. The
children of same-gender couples do perfectly fine.

To be consistent with 1 through 5 (above), they would have to
show that same-gender couples are somehow worse for the
development of children THAN SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS.

The rest is just rehashing the exact same nonsense.

If these homophobes actually believed the crap they are
spewing they wouldn't waste their time worrying about
gay marriage.

For real.

There are so many heterosexuals getting divorced, and so
many heterosexuals having children out of wedlock that gay
marriage is too low of a priority. No, if these people were
sincere they wouldn't even think about gay marriage until
they made divorce illegal and out-of-wedlock children a
felony.



-- --

New episode of "Watch This" with Ashley Bottoms.

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/15871139066

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <5chrsu....@news.alt.net>, J <jdyo...@ymail.com>
wrote:

Wow, somebody actually wasted their time creating that idiotic list.
Bigotry sure takes a lot of work.

--
JD

"the lybian lier"

[DanielSan]

I love "reasons" 9-21, under the header "But Not All Married Couples
Have Children, How Can You Say Marriage Is About The Benefits To Children?"

It completely ignores that then restates is assertions that the purpose
of marriage is for children.

Then "reasons" 22-28 attack "step-parent" households and claim that
same-sex couples would be similar to step-parent households. But we do
not make it illegal for there to be step-parents.

"Reasons" 29-36 attack the gender roles parents play for their children,
but then again, this is irrelevant due to the fact that single-parent
households are not illegal and a single parent is allowed to raise children.

Reasons 37-43 attack same-sex marriage as "diminishing fathers" even
though, y'know, gay men can be fathers.

In short: None of these reasons are viable. But, I love "reason 77":

"Same sex marriage amounts to a hostile takeover of civil society by the
state."

Wow. Fearmonger much? Projection, even more?

[DanielSan]

Holy CRAP! "Reasons" 59 and 60 are insane! Are you sure this is not a
Poe like Betty Bowers?

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

On Feb 4, 10:07 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a union
> between one man and one woman.
>

> http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-r...
>
> or
>
> http://tiny.cc/krmxo

I picked one at random and read it. After that, I figured the whole
list is just right-wing propaganda. The one I read is number 44 (the
first numbered item on the second page), followed by my thoughts on
the matter:

"44. No one has a right to have a child. Children are not objects, to
which other people have rights. Children are persons, with rights of
their own."

Becoming a parent is not a matter of rights, but a matter of
privilege, yet that statement manipulatively creates a false
impression that many people think it's a right. Every parent knows
that their children aren't objects (people who think that are not
parents, they're oppressive psychopaths and are one of the main
justifications for having a foster care system). Children do have
some rights, but there's a balance where they also have to obey their
parents who are responsible for their well-being.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"No man should bring children into the world who is unwilling to
persevere to the end in their nature and education."
-- Plato of Athens

[ram...@truthonly.com.swordofbaal]

"J" wrote in message news:5chrsu....@news.alt.net...

Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a union
between one man and one woman.

Have you seen that Washington State is about to bring in Gay
Marriage......................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Washington

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:07:47 -0800,
All-Around Bigoted Lowlife & Avowed NAZI-Lover,

"Jon Young"/"Auric Hellman<jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:


> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but
> a union between one man and one woman.

It certainly did. *You* and your hateful and mindless ilk LOST!

http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

http://
defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/
77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

>or

http://tiny.cc/krmxo

What a CROCK!! Whomever concocted that pile of idiocy
was born too late. Those are the same sorts of submoronic
reasons that the segregationists had for opposing interracial
marriage.

They, TOO ended up being laughingstocks.

And any who dared to remain *uncloseted* as racists
after 1967 were/are social PARIAHS.

Such lowlife LOSERS as you -- "AURIC."

"*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

"Jon Young"/"IBen Getiner" -- INSANITY Personified as
He Praises the Atrocities Done by the NAZIS, posting
under the Alias, "Auric Hellman"

"I'm a devout Catholic and would like to see the Muslims start
stoking-up the ovens in Tel Aviv."
From: "Auric Hellman" <adhe...@volcanomail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.israel
Subject: Re: I'd like to see the Muslims destroy...
Date: 17 Sep 2006 18:42:33 -0700
Message-ID: <1158543753.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.117.14

"Sunday, April 15th is Holocaust Memorial Day. What is the appropriate
greeting one gives this day? Does one say "Happy Holocaust" or send
cards that read "Wish you were there"? I'm trying my best to be
politically correct."
From: "Auric Hellman" <adhell...@volcanomail.com>
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.jewish,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.gossip.royalty
Subject: Holocaust Memorial Day
Date: 8 Apr 2007 19:52:17 -0700
Message-ID: <1176087137.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 18:39:03 +1000, <ram...@truthonly.com.Sword of
Baal> wrote:

>Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
>logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a union
>between one man and one woman.

True.

=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
God is a spirit. 0% proof!

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 04:49:52 -0600, "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯)
<http://www.TravelForPay.org>" <b...@c.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:07:47 -0800,
>All-Around Bigoted Lowlife & Avowed NAZI-Lover,
>"Jon Young"/"Auric Hellman<jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
>> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but
>> a union between one man and one woman.
>
> It certainly did. *You* and your hateful and mindless ilk LOST!
>
>http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf
>
>http://
>defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/
>77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf
>
>>or
>
>http://tiny.cc/krmxo
>
> What a CROCK!! Whomever concocted that pile of idiocy
>was born too late. Those are the same sorts of submoronic
>reasons that the segregationists had for opposing interracial
>marriage.

This time they got it right, and you have no argument!

[Kat]

Hardly. It was a joke, and a sexist one at that.

[Mitchell Holman]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in news:5chrsu....@news.alt.net:

>
> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a
> union between one man and one woman.
>

So you cannot list them, much less defend them.

That speaks volumes...........





Mitchell Holman

Massachusetts, with it's "marriage destroying" gay
marriage law, has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

[sbalneav]

On 12-02-05 12:07 AM, J wrote:
>
> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a union
> between one man and one woman.

Already found a problem with #3:

Man/woman marriage sets the foundation for
children to have the same biological, legal and
care-giving parents. Same sex marriage separates
these functions among different people.

So, if this is a problem, where do these same people stand
on adoptions? LOTS of their "objections" also work against
adoptions.

[DanielSan]

Almost all of those "reasons" are speaking about how it allegedly
affects children, and, even though they give a category about marriages
that do not result in procreation, they don't speak on it at all.

[ilbe...@gmail.com]

On Feb 5, 2:01 am, DanielSan <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/4/2012 11:47 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article<5chrsu.abr.1...@news.alt.net>, J<jdyou...@ymail.com>

> > wrote:
>
> >> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
> >> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a union
> >> between one man and one woman.
>

> >>http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-r...

> >> reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf
>
> >> or
>
> >>http://tiny.cc/krmxo
>
> > Wow, somebody actually wasted their time creating that idiotic list.
> > Bigotry sure takes a lot of work.
>
> I love "reasons" 9-21, under the header "But Not All Married Couples
> Have Children, How Can You Say Marriage Is About The Benefits To Children?"
>
> It completely ignores that then restates is assertions that the purpose
> of marriage is for children.
>
> Then "reasons" 22-28 attack "step-parent" households and claim that
> same-sex couples would be similar to step-parent households.  But we do
> not make it illegal for there to be step-parents.
>
> "Reasons" 29-36 attack the gender roles parents play for their children,
> but then again, this is irrelevant due to the fact that single-parent
> households are not illegal and a single parent is allowed to raise children.
>
> Reasons 37-43 attack same-sex marriage as "diminishing fathers" even
> though, y'know, gay men can be fathers.
>
> In short: None of these reasons are viable.  But, I love "reason 77":
>
> "Same sex marriage amounts to a hostile takeover of civil society by the
> state."
>
> Wow.  Fearmonger much?  Projection, even more?

The BIGGEST reason should be because Homosexuals present a very real
danger to themSELVES with the STD's that come directly from feces
love making and urination on each other. Even death. If it were so
permissable how come theres so many horrible consequences to the
lifestyle ? And why cant they refrain from demanding the entire
nation call it an acceptable, permissible, non perverted
lifestyhle ? THEY are the ones who are intolerant..intolerant of
those who disagree with their agenda

[ilbe...@gmail.com]

On Feb 5, 2:17 am, "Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess"

Theres no such thing as 'a true atheist' . You dont have the faith
required to be a real one. Wannabe...yes, but not a true one .

Dave
American Theist #007.5
(Shaken AND stirred)

[ilbe...@gmail.com]

On Feb 5, 12:07 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a union
> between one man and one woman.
>

> http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-r...

>
> or
>
> http://tiny.cc/krmxo
>
> --
> J Young

> jdyou...@ymail.com

Excellent. Thanks for the list.

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:11:20 +1100,
Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> (¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯)

> <http://www.TravelForPay.org> wrote:
>> All-Around Bigoted Lowlife & Avowed NAZI-Lover,
>> "Jon Young"/"Auric Hellman<jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:


>>> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
>>> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but
>>> a union between one man and one woman.

>> It certainly did. *You* and your hateful and mindless ilk LOST!

http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

http://
defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/
77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

>>>or

http://tiny.cc/krmxo

>> What a CROCK!! Whomever concocted that pile of idiocy
>> was born too late. Those are the same sorts of submoronic
>> reasons that the segregationists had for opposing interracial
>> marriage.

>This time they got it right, and you have no argument!

Are you REALLY as IGNORANT as that?!?

Just WHAT do you suppose the *actual* reason was why "Auric"
didn't simply POST those 77 so-called reasons? He may have TOLD
you it was because they were too lengthy -- but it could have been
done in two or three posts of reasonable length with no sweat.

I'll bet it was because "Auric" was HOPING people would think
to themselves, "WOW!! 77 reasons, huh? Gee! At least SOME of
those must be factual, so I'll have to re-think the notion that I've
had about being FAIR to people." Without even bothering to go to
that link and SEEING for *themselves* how INANE and SPECIOUS
**all 77** of those so-called "reasons" are!

The FACT is that NO *facts* even EXIST that argue against same
sex marriage. And people who CLAIM otherwise are hateful CON
artists. (E.g., all of the LEADERS of the organizations of the oligar-
chical RRR Cult.)

(BTW -- the number of *religious* reasons to oppose same-sex
marriage *also* is ZERO!)

So I'm going to take ALL 77 of those submoronic reasons, one
after another, and REFUTE them with FACTS, one-by-one, until I've
made DOG MEAT of all 77 of them. In a series of post of reasonable
and easy-to read length.

THUS, that HATE-article will be a tool to UNDERMINE further the
loathsome hate-agenda against Civil & Human Rights that the author
of it was touting.

And that will cause "Auric's" post to fit Egalistarian Strategy (2),
below -- and my responses to it will comprise Strategy (1).

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The TWO-PRONGED Strategy for *Hastening* the DEMISE
of the Hate-Agendas Against Girls, Women, and Gays
on the Part of the Bigots of the RRR & LDS Cults

"Jon Young"/"Auric Hellman" on 4-26-11, wrote:

> Your continued posting to Usenet...

...is a very effective, 2-pronged method of UNDERMINING the hateful
agendas against the harmless and beneficial personal liberties of bigoted
LOSERS like you, which contribute to the *hastening* of the day when
those agendas will lie mouldering and dead at the bottom of the Drain of
Extinction -- right alongside the bones of the EQUALLY-loathsome and -mor-
onic agendas of the segregationists, never to be heard from again. The
two prongs of that dissembling of those agendas, here in Usenet (not even
counting the many OTHER ways I do that) are:

(1) Marshall and present the FACTS that wreck the agendas by
revealing the *speciousness* of them. And point out something
that the bigots can NEVER refute -- that their emperor (the agen-
das have NO clothes (facts.) NO facts even EXIST that they can
bring to bear to defend or support their moronic and ludicrous
agendas. (Which is why the RRR and LDS Cults **depend** on
appealing to the lowest-intellect level of Americans for recruit-
ment and maintenance as their lemmings to be their cash cows
and propaganda-PARROTS. It take a *massive* amount of GUL-
LIBILITY to fall for the LIES that the leaders constantly spew.

(2) Spur the bigots into making total FOOLS of themselves by posting
the most ABSURD crap imaginable. Thus helping to raise the cons-
ciouness of society to the realization that it would be more worth-
while to attend a rat fight than to have ANYTHING to do with the
hate-agendas or the bigots that espouse and tout them.

A **VERY** effective combination. Which becomes even MORE so
whenever readers FORWARD or RE-PUBLISH any of the above-describ-
ed material.

The progress of the hate-agendas to their DOOM is inexorable and
once that has happened, their extinction will be irreversible and irrevo-
cable.

The *agendas* will be remembered by society only with REVULSION.

The "bigots* will be remembered by society only with DERISION.

The SAME well-deserved fate that befell the segregationists.

Good RIDDANCE to *putrid* garbage! One less TOXIN in American
society. America WILL become a Bigotry-Free Zone.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

••• Rest in Peace •••
••• George Richard Tiller, MD •••
••• A True American HERO! •••
••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 •••
••• Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com •••

"He saved the lives of thousands of women who would've
died otherwise, thousands who would've been made sterile
or gravely injured by childbirth. He knew his life was at grave
risk. Dr. Tiller was a true Saint."

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

-- Craig Chilton (E-Mail me if you wish, from websites below.)

http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
http://www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!

[Don Martin]

That would explain why anti-abortion shits so rarely adopt kids not aborted.

--

aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage

Post #1 -- "Reasons" #1-22 & Their REFUTATIONS

= = = = = = = = = =

This link recently was provided by a bigot who totally shot himself
in the foot, butt, head, and everywhere else in between by doing so:

http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

http://
defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/
77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.

And in this series of posts, I will DEBUNK every single
one of those SPECIOUS 77 "reasons" to be a hateful and
ignorant bigot.


"77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage"

CATEGORY 1

"The Essential Public Purpose of Marriage"

1 -- "The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach
mothers and fathers to their children and to one
another."

FACT: Tens of millions of COHABITATING couples in the
USA alone who have children are every bit as
attached to their children and to each other as
any married couples are. A mere ceremony and
piece of paper is basically meaningless w/respect
to that reality. (And people are figuring that out
at an *accelerating* rate, which probably will
causes marriage to become virtually EXTINCT in
another 30-40 years. Making ALL of this a truly
moot question.)

2. -- "Man/woman marriage allows children to know and
be known by their biological parents. Same-sex
marriage separates children from at least one
parent."

FACT: I wonder how ADOPTEE Dave Thomas (founder of
"Wendy's" and outspoken advocacy of adoption)
would have responded to that "reason?" ALL
children who have been ADOPTED by people who
are not biologically related to them have parents
who are *every bit* as supposedly "separated"
from their parents as ANY child having one or both
parents who are gay have EVER been. ("Separ-
ated?!?" What HOGWASH!)

3. -- "Man/woman marriage sets the foundation for chil-
dren to have the same biological, legal, and care-
giving parents. Same-sex marriage separates

these functions among different people."

FACT: What a *ludicrous* comment! Legally-married =
identical *legality* of BOTH opposite-sex and same-
sex couples. Which is possible now in a fast-grow-
ing number of nations and U.S. states. And same-
sex parent are NO less "care-giving than opposite-
sex ones. And the "biological" whine is as *spec-
ious* as it was in the previous "reason."

4. -- "Man/woman marriage provides children with access
to their genetic, cultural, and social heritage."

FACT: Children of same-sex couples who have been ob-
tained via surrogate mothers and IVF are far
MORE likely to have such access as most of the
vast majority of the children who have been
ADOPTED by opposite-sex couples do.

5. -- "Even though it is not always possible, children have
the best life chances when they are raised by their
biological married parents."

FACT: Tens of MILLIONS of adults who grew up having
ADOPTIVE parents would laugh long and loudly
at that *ludicrous* "reason!"

SO MUCH for CATEGORY 1 having a SHRED of credibility!

CATEGORY 2

"Some People Say that Research Shows that
Children of Same-Sex Couples Do Just as
Well as do the Children of Opposite-Sex
Couples."

Actually, it tends to be pretty much all of the people who are
sensible and intelligent enough to be fair-minded *egalitarians*
who say that.

6. -- "The research in this area is preliminary. We don't
have studies that last long enough to show the
long-term impact of being raised in a same-sex
household."

FACT: Millions of children have been raised in same-sex
household for decades wherein their parents
either were single parents or cohabitating same-
sex parents. For there to be NO clear evidence
over all that time, with so MANY people, that
there is anything detrimental about being raised
in those households, vis-a-vis by opposite-sex
couples, is strong evidence that there is NO such
problem.

7. -- "Much of the research in this area does not use
a representative sample of same-sex couples.
People volunteer to be in the study. Volunteers
are often more affluent, more educated, and
more likely to be better parents regardless of
sexual orientation."

FACT: In other words, you have NO point. Your 7th
"reason" has to do ONLY with the *economic*
status of ANY households.

8. -- "Each member of the same-sex couple may be a
fine parent. But two good mothers do not add
up to a father."

FACT: TWO good mothers may well be even *better*
than ONE father. Your "reason" is POINTLESS.

SO MUCH for CATEGORY 2 having a SHRED of credibility!

CATEGORY 3

"But Not All Married Couples Have Children.
How Can You Say that Marriage is About the
Benefits to Children?"

9. -- "This looks at marriage from the adult point of
view. It reveals just how deeply same-sex
marriage inverts the purpose of marriage."

FACT: Not *nearly* as much as your "reason" inverts
LOGIC. The "purpose" of marriage is that
which it means to every given couple, case-
by-case. So there can by MYRIADS of "pur-
poses."

10. -- "Look at marriage from the child's point of view.
Not every marriage produces children, but every
child has parents."

FACT: PER your category under which this "reason"
was listed, these "reasons" all should be deal-
in with same-sex couples who do NOT have
children. So your comment is pointless.

11. -- "Every child is entitled to a relationship with
both parents."

FACT: Then take that up with the MILLIONS of HETERO-
sexual single-parent-houshold parents. Your
"reason" is *equally* applicable to THEM. And...
see the FACT stated in response to "Reason
#10, above.

12. -- "Every child is entitled to know and be known by
both parents."

FACT: You EXCLUDED children from the discussion in
this Category of "reasons," PER the wording
that you applied in the Category. (And... see
my **refutation** to your "Reason #2. And
again, your "reason" has LESS to do with same-
sex marriage as it does to heterosexual SINGLE
parents. Your specious reasoning is *crumbling*
at an ACCELERATING pace!)

13. -- "No child can possibly protect these entitlements
on his or her own."

FACT: With the exception of TEENS who can provide
sufficiently-COGENT reasons to a court to be
*emancipated* from his/her parents, NO child-
ren have "entitlements" that are accorded
only to adults age 18 and over. (An in some
cases, age 21.) So this has NOTHING to do
with gender composition of married parents.
(And AGAIN, you are OFF-topic in *this* Cate-
gory.)

14. -- "Adult society must protect the child's right to
affiliation with both parents."

FACT: Children have EVERY BIT as much "affiliation"
with legally-married same-sex parents as they
do to legally-married opposite-sex couples.
(And by your own proclamation, per THIS
Category, only the potential impact of the
marriage of same-sex couples who have NO
children upon children should be being address-
ed by any of the "reasons" in this category.
There is NO WAY that same-sex married couples
who have NO children can have ANY effect on
children, adverse or otherwise.)

15. -- "Adult society must protect these rights through
prevention of harm, not through restitution
after the fact."

FACT: WHAT "rights?" WHAT "harm?" You are getting
more *arcane* by the minute! The children of
same-sex parents who are legally married have
the SAME rights as the children of legally-married
opposite-sex parents! (And again, per THIS
Category, only the potential impact of the
marriage of same-sex couples who have NO
children upon children should be being adress-
ed by any of the "reasons" in this category.
There is NO WAY that same-sex married couples
who have NO children can have ANY effect on
children, adverse or otherwise.)

16. -- "Man/woman marriage is the institution adult
society uses to pro-actively protect the rights
of all children to affiliation with both parents."

FACT: SAME as the one given to the LAST "reason."

17. -- "Same-sex marriage changes marriage from a
child-centered institution to an adult-centered
institution."

FACT: "NOT for the same-sex couples, either married
OR cohabitating, who have kids!! (And, by the
way, there are *exponentially* MORE married
OPPOSITE-sex couples who have kids than there
are married SAME-sex couples who have kids.
And for THOTH types of households, the equa-
tion is *identical* -- Caring and loving married
parents who have kids. (And again, this sup-
posed "reason" is OFF-topic in THIS Category.)"

18. -- "Without man/woman marriage, there will be no
institution specifically protecting the rights of
children to be in relationship with both parents."

FACT: That's totally inane.The refutation is the SAME
as that which was provided to "reason" #15.

19. -- "Adopted and foster children tell us that they
long for relationship with their biological parents."

FACT: Many of them DO. But in the case of the kids
of SAME-sex couples, they have an ADVANTAGE
in that respect. Since in MOST cases, one of
their parents IS a biological parent. Whereas
most of the adopted kids of opposite-sex couples
NEVER succeed in learning who their biological
parents were. (And again, this supposed
"reason" is OFF-topic in THIS Category.)"

20. -- "The law in most states helps children find their
birth parents."

FACT: That's a lie, because in most states, the path
to that is LADEN with roadblocks, and far more
often than not, that is IMPOSSIBLE to deter-
mine. But the GOOD news for the kids having
SAME-sex parents is that they usually HAVE
a biological parent who is RAISING them!

21. -- "Deliberately conceiving a child with the life plan
that he or she will never have a relationship
with his or her father is unjust and cruel to the
child."

FACT: Take that up with the tens of millions of people
who have ever had kids that they adopted-OUT.
Who in almost all cases are HETERO-sexuals.
And then ask all the people who have been --
and are being -- raised by one or two gay par-
ents if they preferred that they had NEVER
been born. See how they would respond to
THAT question.

SO MUCH for CATEGORY 3 having a SHRED of credibility!

= = = = = = =

The REFUTATIONS of *specious* "reasons" 22-77 will
be furnished in subsequent posts.

The BOTTOM LINE to all of these refutations is that these
debunkings comprise further substantiation that NO FACTS even
EXIST that argue against same-sex marriage -- and that same-
sex marriage is beneficial to the SAME degree that opposite-
sex marriage is. And is 100% HARMLESS.

It takes a very IGNORANT bigot to oppose Marriage Equality.

Intelligence and bigotry are mutually-exclusive. They don't
go together.

And once Marriage Equality is universally legal in ALL 50
U.S. States, the result will be the same as it was back in 1967
when that happened for interracial marriage. The sky never fell,
American society was *enhanced* by its increased FAIRNESS,
and afterward, almost NO one was complaining about it anymore.
its legalization became NO big deal to the former whiners, almost
instantly! And society found itself wondering what all the FUSS
had been about.

That history now is *repeating* -- beneficially!


*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

[Ray Fischer]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should

Irrational cult beliefs are not evidence, nazi turd.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe

[Paul David Wright]

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote in news:5chrsu....@news.alt.net:

>
>

> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a
> union between one man and one woman.
>

IOW, more lies.

--
PDW

Check out my blog:
The first is a preview of my superhero comic book.
http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/


And my books:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pdwright42

[Paul David Wright]

Barry OGrady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote in
news:ndssi7tb7cv870gbe...@4ax.com:

They did no such thing.

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

All newborns are atheists by definition -- atheists lack belief in
deities and supernatural agents. A belief in deities and/or
supernatural agents is something that is learned, most commonly
through religious teachings.

Since the definition of atheism is very simple - the lack of belief in
deities and supernatural agents - it is easy for anyone to be a true
atheist. And since there is no requirement to have always been an
atheist, a theist always has the option of reverting back to atheism.

> You dont have the faith required to be a real one.   Wannabe...yes,
> but not a true one .

That's a logical fallacy because faith is not an element of atheism.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support."
-- John Buchan

[Loirbaj]

There can no more be a 'marriage' between
2 homosexualists than there can be between
a rat and a weasel.

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage

Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS

= = = = = = = = = =

This link recently was provided by a bigot who totally shot himself
in the foot, butt, head, and everywhere else in between by doing so:

http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

http://
defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/
77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.

And in this series of posts, I will DEBUNK every single
one of those SPECIOUS 77 "reasons" to be a hateful and
ignorant bigot.


"77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage"

CATEGORY 4

"Some People Say Children Only Need Two
Adults Who Love Each Other, and that Love
is More important than Biology."

22 -- "If the love between adults were the only important
factor,we would expect step-parents to be interchange-
able with biological parents. But this is usually not the
case."

FACT: This has NOTHING to do with the gender composition of
married couples. You merely are mentioning the diff-
erence between kids having married couples as parents
wherein the parents are their biological parents vis-a-vis
being NON-biological parents. So let's deal with opposite-
sex married couples who have ADOPTED children (there
have been and are tens of MILLIONS of them over time
in the USA) -- vis-a-vis legally-married same-sex couples
who have obtained kids the SAME way that sterile hetero-
sexuals do: surrogate mothers, IVF, etc.

Except for the married same-sex couples who have
adopted, ALL of their kids ARE being raised by a bio-
logical parent. The kids who are raised by heterosexual
ADOPTIVE parents are being raised by NO biological
parents. And there are *exponentially* MORE kids in
the *latter* situation. Kids that you are NOT whining
about.

23. -- "Children in stepparent households, on average, have
more emotional problems and lower school achievement
that children of married parents."

FACT: Talk about apples-and-oranges! You supposedly are be-
moaning same-sex marriage, and then you give a "reason"
to oppose it wherein the "inferior" couple you cite IS a
"married" heterosexual couple! MOST kids being raised
by step-parents are being raised by MARRIED couples
(opposite-sex ones, in almost all cases) in which one of
the child's biological parent's has left via divorce or has
died, and the other biological parent who still is raising
him/her has remarried. In most cases, that works out
fine, unless the kid happens to resent the step-parent.
But that latter problem doesn't even EXIST for the child-
ren of same-sex married couples. Or even of same-sex
cohabitating ones!

(Again, you are whining about same-sex marriage while
irrationally and hypocritically IGNORING the same-sex
partners who are *cohabitating! That's weird... so go
figure the warped mentalities of people like you who are
ignorant enough to be BIGOTS!)

24. -- "Discipline can be complicated in stepparent households,
compared with households with married biological par-
ents. Some biological parents exclude the stepparent
from discipline, saying 'They are my kids, not yours.'"

FACT: You *really* blew yourself out of the water with THAT
one! Such a problem doesn't even EXIST for either
same-sex or opposite-sex couples (married OR cohabita-
ting) who have ADOPTED their children, OR for ones
who have obtained their kids via surrogate mothers or
IBF! (You clearly are becoming more *desperate* with
every supposed "reason" for opposing same-sex mar-
riage that you present... and more FOOLISH.)

25. -- "Some parents in stepparent homes expertly pit the par-
ents against each other."

FACT: Refuted by the SAME as that above, for "reason" #24.

26. -- "Loyalties in stepparent households can be complicated.
The biological parent can feel torn between commitment
to the child and commitment to the spouse. Intact bio-
logical families are more likely to feel that loving their
child is also an act of love for the child's other parent."

FACT: Apples-and-oranges again. See the rebuttal to #24.

27. -- "Research shows that stepfathers spend less time with
their children than do biological fathers. Remarried
mothers, on average, spend less time with their own
children. The child and the spouse become competitors
for the mother's attention."

FACT: Apples-and-oranges again. See the rebuttal to #24.
(And same-sex married couples should take note of
that and see if they can do a better job of STAYING
married than so many opposite-sex couples have.)

28. -- "Same-sex parenting means that one of the adults will
have no biological relationship to the child and may be
more like a stepparent than a biological parent. We
can't assume the adults' love for each other will re-
solve the complications inherent in stepparent families."

FACT: UNLIKE most opposite-sex-marriage stepparent sit-
uations, in which the children have already been BORN
to one of the parents -- which can lead to various types
of conflicts -- that situation is almost NONEXISTENT
with same-sex-married families. Since same-sex mar-
riage has been legal for such a short time in those
locales. Thus very FEW of the deaths, abandonments,
and divorces that make follow-on stepparent arrange-
ments possible have even *happened* as yet, for them.

SO MUCH for CATEGORY 4 having a SHRED of credibility!

CATEGORY 5

"Men and Women are Not Interchangeable"

29. -- "Same-sex marriage makes an implicit statement that moth-
ers and fathers are interchangeable, and that sex is irrel-
evant to parenting. The burden of proof should be on
those who make this strong, non-intuitive claim."

FACT: In ALL cases, casual, multiple-partner, swinger, unmar-
' ried or married, gay, bi, or straight -- sex is the world's
FAVORITYE and MOST enjoyable form of *recreation*!
So whether it's engaged in with an *additional* purpose
being to procreate or not, the procreation is secondary
to the pleasure derived. And in the case of BOTH of the
*millions* of cohabitating and married opposite-sex
couples who happen to be UNABLE to conceive, and
same-sex couples -- if they want kids, they simply ADOPT
them, or they go the surrogate-mother or IVF route.

Strange -- I don't see you WHINING about the *straights*
who do that! Hypocrite!

30. -- "Even same-sex couples believe sex is relevant: the sex
of their partners. A gay man insists on a male sex part-
ner. He is not satisfied with a female sex partner, no mat-
ter how masculine she may be. A lesbian insists on a fe-
male sex partner. Even a very feminine man will not do."

FACT: SO?? Your POINT? What about BIsexuals? And the
people who are *straights*? To each his or her own.
There's supposed to be some "reason" here for oppo-
sing same-sex marriage?? You've gotta be KIDDING!!

31. -- "It is unjust for the law to decree that adults are entitled
to have what they want, namely, partners of the same
sex, while children have to accept whatever we give
them.

FACT: So it's "unjust" for people to have reasonable and harm-
less personal liberties in a nation that PRIZES according
those to its citizens, whenever possible?

32. -- Mothers and fathers each make unique contributions to
the child's development Father absence creates risks in
children that mother absence does not create.

FACT: Then you logically should have NO problem when the
same-sex married partners who have kids happen to both
be MALE. (Too bad you are one very ILLOGICAL bloke!)
It's very interesting, TOO, to watch you doing all this
hypocritical whining about gay couples, while IGNORING
millions of straight SINGLE parents whom you blithely let
off the hook!

By the way. millions of gay couples who are COHABITA-
TING, either because they choose to, or haven't yet been
able to get legally married, have kids TOO. But you're
presenting the above as a reason to oppose same-sex
*marriage*?!? How STRANGE is THAT?? You clearly are'
one *very* bigoted and illogical HYPOCRITE!

[[[ READERS: If the "arguments" that were presented in that
California trial by the defenders of Proposition
8 were nearly as INANE as the one's that THIS
person has been spewing, it's no wonder they
have been fighting so desperately to keep the
transcripts from being released! to the public!
That would be DEVASTATING to them and their
hate-agendas! ]]]

33. -- Teenaged girls without fathers are at risk for early sex-
sexual activity, multiple sex partners, out-of-wedlock
pregnancy, and sexually-transmitted diseases.

FACT: Gee! Then in the course of your busybodyism it looks
like you should be doing MOST of your whining about
the MILLIONS of heterosexual *single* women who
have daughters, huh?

34. -- Teenaged boys without fathers are at risk for juvenile
delinquency, violence, criminal activity, gang membership,
and incarceration.

FACT: See the rebuttal to the previous "reason" ( #33) and
substitute "sons" for "daughters."

35. -- Pre-teen girls not living with their biological fathers get
their menstrual periods sooner than girls who live with
their fathers. Getting an early period is associated with
a host of health problems...

FACT: So that doesn't happen to girls who live with their bio-
logical fathers, but DOES happen to girls who've been
ADOPTED? Interesting! And... just HOW does the
supposed "reason" to oppose same-sex marriage come
into play as being a WORSE scenario than the girl's
being raised by *cohabitating* same-sex parents?
Many of which couples, married or not, are same-sex
MALES?

36. -- Children need help and guidance in developing their
sexual identities. Same-sex marriage will make this
task more difficult, if not legally forbidden.

FACT: Most children, having been BORN with their sexual
orientations, have NO gender-identity problems.
That occurs most often with TRANS-gendered people,
and even THEY usually *know* to which gender they
are attracted, but were born into bodies inconsistent
with their desired. Such as Chaz Bono, who was BORN
a female physically, but mentally was male. So had a
sex-change operation to remedy that. Whether or not
his/her parents had been a same-sex couple (married
or not!!) would have had NO bearing on any of that!

SO MUCH for CATEGORY 5 having a SHRED of credibility!

= = = = = = =

The REFUTATIONS of *specious* "reasons" 37-77 will

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage

Post #1 -- "Reasons" #1-21 & Their REFUTATIONS

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

[Loirbaj]

Homosexualist 'marriage' is less able to produce
a child, than is a 'marriage' of a rat and a weasel.

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage

Post #3 -- "Reasons" #37-43 & Their REFUTATIONS

= = = = = = = = = =

This link recently was provided by a bigot who totally shot himself
in the foot, butt, head, and everywhere else in between by doing so:

http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

http://
defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/
77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.

And in this series of posts, I will DEBUNK every single
one of those SPECIOUS 77 "reasons" to be a hateful and
ignorant bigot.


"77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage"

CATEGORY 6

"Redefining Marriage Marginalizes Fathers"

[[[ The wording of this Category is FLAWED, because
there is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that
would permit or accord a SPECIAL right to opposite-
sex couples to EXCLUDE same-sex partners from
marrying. Thus, NO "redefining" of marriage is
even being discussed in any of this series of posts.
IF such an exclusion were ever passed as a Consti-
tutional amendment, THAT would be a REdefinition
of marriage. ]]]

37 -- "The claim that mothers and fathers are interchangeable
will affect men and women differently."

FACT: In society, mothers and fathers have ALWAYS been as
interchangeable as any people within those roles have
ever chosen to be, case-by-case. For example, we've
always seen cases where the mothers have been the
breadwinners, and the fathers have been the "how-
makers, living at home and raising the kids." And
when that's been the case historically, it's had nothing
to do with same-sex-married couples. So "Reason #37"
never even STARTED to be a "reason" to oppose same-
sex marriage.

38. -- "When a child is born, a mother is always somewhere
close by. Fathers are intrinsically less connected to
children than mothers. The essential purpose of man/
woman marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to
their children and to each other. Same-sex marriage
implies that the attachment of fathers to their children
is irrelevant."

FACT -- No, because the "essential purpose" of ANY coup-
ple's marriage is EXACTLY that which the individual
couple CHOOSES for it to be, case-by-case. NO
law even EXISTS that dictates the roles that any
parents play in the family relationship. The law
ONLY deems that children are properly cared-fro,
and not subjected to abuses. And by the way, HALF
of American children are being raised in SINGLE-
parent families, with millions of those parents being
*fathers*. So "Reason #38" has NOTHING to do
with same-sex marriage. Particularly since it makes
NO difference to the way children are being raised
if the same-sex couple is COHABITATING or MAR-
RIED.

39. -- Countries with same-sex marriage symbolically dim-
inish fatherhood. The Province of British Columbia,
Canada, changed its birth certificates. They have a
place for the mother's name, and a check-off box for
the 'Other Parent/Father.'"

FACT -- What about the *other* nine Canadian provinces?
And that nation's three territories? And what about
other nations? And does B.C. *omit* a space for
the entry of the father's name? And even if it DID,
it is the *woman* who gave BIRTH. In short, this
is much ado about nothing. Trivialities that would
have not affect the way the family functions. A
clutching-at-straws on the part of writer(s) of
these "reasons."

40. -- The United kingdom used to have a requirement that
unmarried women could not use artificial reproductive
technology unless they could show that the child's
need for a father would be met. They dropped this
requirement after instituting same-sex marriage, for
fear of offending lesbian couples.


FACT -- All things considered, that law shouldn't have made
it out of the Dark Ages to begin with. All over the
world, tens of millions of single parents of both
genders are doing excellent jobs of raising their kids.
(And unless something has happened very recently
to change the situation, as of this response on 2-5-
2012, same-sex marriage has not yet been fully
enacted yet in the UK. They have domestic part-
nerships with all of the privileges of marriage.

41. -- Once same-sex marriage becomes legally and socially
acceptable, more women will decide to raise children
together. They will view this as easier than putting
forth the effort of crossing the gender divide and
cooperating with a man through marriage.

FACT -- Not likely in more that a *handful* of cases at most.
People MARRY people with whom they are sexually
attracted, which means that almost all such same-sex
marriages would be comprised (in the case of women)
of 2 lesbians, a lesbian and a bi, or 2 bis. There is NO
reason here to oppose same-sex marriage. Especially
when cohabitation is basically *identical* to marriage
in all ways except the range of privileges that are
granted by governments to one or the other or both
arrangements.

42. -- "in today's climate, we can imagine people looking at
two women raising children together and saying, 'See,
it is just as I have always thought: Women don't need
a man. Children don't really need fathers." It is almost
inconceivable that two men raising children together
then conclude that children don't need mothers."

FACT -- In the 21st century, people are fast figuring out that
it is one or two mature and responsible adults that
people need as a parent or parents. THAT is all that
COUNTS.

43. -- "Same-sex marriage wilt further marginalize gendered
language and gender roles. In Scotland, schools stop-
celebrating Father's Day. Montgomery County, MD
removed all references to gender in the county code.
The words, 'father' and 'mother,' 'husband' and 'wife'
are becoming suspect.

FACT -- Languages are alive, and they evolve to accommodate
societal changes. That's trivial -- and the things you
described would have happened without same-sex
marriage. Cohabitation is fast REPLACING/supplant-
ing ALL marriage, as that overly-complicated institu-
tion is becoming recognized as outmoded and unnec-
essary.

SO MUCH for CATEGORY 6 having a SHRED of credibility!

= = = = = = =

The REFUTATIONS of *specious* "reasons" 44-77 will

[Wayne]

"(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) " wrote in message
news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...

> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>
> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>

> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.

-
Since marriage is between a man and a woman, the destruction of your
arguments can be summed up as follows:

Reasons 1-77 apply to a non-marriage hypothetical. Thus, the 77 rebuttals
written by Craig are irrelevant.

[DanielSan]

On 2/5/2012 7:49 PM, Wayne wrote:
>
>
> "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) " wrote in message
> news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
>> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>>
>> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>>
>> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
> -
> Since marriage is between a man and a woman

That's one version of it.

[Vurgil]

In article <jgnika$p12$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:

> "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) " wrote in message
> news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>
>
> > ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
> > Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
> >
> > Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
> >
> > That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
> >used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
> >same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
> -
> Since marriage is between a man and a woman

While church marriage, and in most states legal marriage, may be so
limited, there is no reason why the definitions may not be extended.

After all, the right to vote was originally limited to male property
owners in both Britain and the US, but has now been considerably
extended from its original limits in both Britain and the US.

And legal marriage between adults of the same gender is now possible in
several US states, with more seriously considering it, so that in those
states marriage is no longer necessarily between a man and a woman, as
you claim, and you are therefore making false claims.

[John Baker]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:49:29 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>
>"(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) " wrote in message
>news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>
>
>> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
>> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>>
>> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>>
>> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>>used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>>same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>-
>Since marriage is between a man and a woman,

You're starting with a premise that is not universally granted. This
negates the remainder of your "argument."

>the destruction of your
>arguments can be summed up as follows:
>
>Reasons 1-77 apply to a non-marriage hypothetical. Thus, the 77 rebuttals
>written by Craig are irrelevant.

77 reason why 'Wayne' is an idiot.

[Wayne]

True. It also happens to be the correct definition.

[Wayne]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:11:43 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
> In article <jgnika$p12$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > "(¯`·.ž Craig Chilton ž.·Ž¯) " wrote in message
> > news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> > > ⠢⠢⠢ DEBUNKING ⠢⠢⠢ 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that

were
> > > Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
> > >
> > > Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
> > >
> > > That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
> > >used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
> > >same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
> > -
> > Since marriage is between a man and a woman


> While church marriage, and in most states legal marriage, may be
so
> limited, there is no reason why the definitions may not be extended.

There is no reason to change a definition to an incorrect definition.

[Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess]

Your information is outdated. The entire world has changed in recent
decades.

--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess

"By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if
you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher."
-- Socrates of Athens

[Wayne]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:18:04 -0500, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
wrote:

> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:49:29 -0800, "Wayne"
<mygarb...@verizon.net>
> wrote:


> >
> >
> >"(¯`·. Craig Chilton .· ¯) " wrote in message
> >news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
> >
> >
> >> DEBUNKING 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
> >> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
> >>
> >> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
> >>
> >> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
> >>used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
> >>same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
> >-
> >Since marriage is between a man and a woman,


> You're starting with a premise that is not universally granted. This
> negates the remainder of your "argument."

You very well know that I am right, even if you pretend otherwise.

[DanielSan]

"Incorrect definition"?

[DanielSan]

How do you figure?

[Ray Fischer]

Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:11:43 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>> In article <jgnika$p12$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>

>> > "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) " wrote in message
>> > news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > > ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that

>were
>> > > Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>> > >
>> > > Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>> > >
>> > > That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> > >used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> > >same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>> > -
>> > Since marriage is between a man and a woman
>
>
>> While church marriage, and in most states legal marriage, may be
>so
>> limited, there is no reason why the definitions may not be extended.
>
>There is no reason to change a definition to an incorrect definition.

The Bible refers to other forms of marriage. King Soloman, for
example, had several hundred wives.

[Ray Fischer]

You're an arrogant religibot convinced of your own infallibility.

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

[[[ DIREGARD the LYING subject header above, by a
bigoted idiots. THIS is the REAL header of my series
of posts. ]]] ---

••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons" for
Opposing 100%-HARMLESS Same-Sex Marriage.

= = = = = = = =

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:49:29 -0800,
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:

> (¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯)

> <http://www.TravelForPay.org> wrote:


>> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
>> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>>
>> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>>
>> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.

> Since marriage is between a man and a woman...

...and a man and a man, and a woman and a woman, and in ALL
cases is totally HARMLESS, it is **easy** to DEBUNKK any and all of the
supposed "arguments" that oppose same-sex marriage Because ALL
such "arguments" are SPECIOUS -- no matter HOW many of them can
by conjure up by ignorant lowlifes.

NO *FACTS* even EXIST to oppose same-sex marriage.

And by now, it is legal in SO MANY places, that the genie's
out of the bottle forevermore. For example, any same-sex couple
can come here to IOWA whenever they want from anywhere in the
USA or the rest of the world, , get legally married, and return home
the same day if they wish. No waiting period, and no waiting period!

You *submoronic* BIGOTS have LOST -- forever!!

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The Same-Sex Marriage "Threat" in a Nutshell

Please explain.

Will my marriage end in divorce because of it? Will yours?
Will anyone's?

Will it stop people who love each other from getting married?

Will it stop people who love each other from getting married
in their place of worship?

Will it stop people who love each other from being married
by secular authorities?

Exactly how will 'traditional marriage' will be destroyed by
same sex marriage?

-- "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com>, 4-29-09

(Expect that the MOST intelligent response to the
above that you will EVER hear from an RRR or LDS
Cultist would be: "Dawk.") -- Craig


*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

-- Craig Chilton (E-Mail me if you wish, from top 5 websites below.)
Tens of thousands of posts to Usenet since 1994 -- *ALL* made
under my REAL, FULL, and easily-VERIFIABLE name. Because
as a fair-minded egalitarian, I have NOTHING to be ashamed-of!

[[ Readers: If you respond to my post, and you wish for me to
SEE your response, you'll need to make sure that you include
alt.politics.homosexuality in the cross-postings, and that the
total number of groups in the cross-postings is five or fewer.
That's because the vilest and most irrational of the Anti-Human
& Civil Rights bigots are those seeking to deny EQUAL rights to
gays. So in defending those rights, as one of their straight
egalitarian allies, I monitor and post almost exclusively from
that group. ]]

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

••• Winston Churchill said it PERFECTLY! •••

"When you find a job you love, you'll never work again!"

THIS is just such a job... and it's AVAILABLE right now,
throughout the USA & Canada... and in Europe and Aus-
tralia:
<http://www.TravelForPay.org>

One of the world's...

-- BEST-loved
-- LEAST-known
-- MOST- easily-accessible... jobs.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Other highly-informative Resources:

http://www.egalitarian.biz/08/Menu-Page.html -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- For ACTUAL Christianity!

http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"

http://www.jennyjerrome.org/ -- Abortion-Provider Database!
http://www.gynpages.com/ -- Another Source of Providers.
http://www.bradleymanning.org -- Accord FAIRNESS to a HERO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnziHJV0n44 -- More on that
http://preview.tinyurl.com/cu5pcu -- FACTS About ILLEGAL Aliens.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481 -- Excellent article!
http://themindlesspraetorianblog.blogspot.com/ -- Excellent blog!
http://tinyurl.com/6v3m4uo -- Excellent Video! (Or if link doesn't
work, reassemble these components in your browser):

http://
front.moveon.org/two-lesbians-raised-a-baby-and-
this-is-what-they-got/?id=33426-1654150-W3_xbnx

And ONE MORE: Read this, and then take future action accordingly:

Regarding: http://base8.lavenderliberal.com/index.html

It currently is down, but when active, it provides a very USEFUL
Searchable Database of the Proposition Hate (8) ENEMIES of Human
Rights! KNOW the enemies... and then HARASS and BOYCOTT the
enemies, as much as it is legally possible to do so! Watch my SIGs
for updates on this.

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

[[[ DIREGARD the LYING subject header above, by a
bigoted idiots. THIS is the REAL header of my series
of posts. ]]] ---

••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons" for
Opposing 100%-HARMLESS Same-Sex Marriage.

= = = = = = = =

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:01:13 -0800,

Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
> (¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯)

> <http://www.TravelForPay.org> wrote:


>> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were

>> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>>
>> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>>
>> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.

http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

[[[ DIREGARD the LYING subject header above, by a
bigoted idiots. THIS is the REAL header of my series
of posts. ]]] ---

••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons" for
Opposing 100%-HARMLESS Same-Sex Marriage.

= = = = = = = =

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:56:37 -0800,
Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
> (¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯)

> <http://www.TravelForPay.org> wrote:


>> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were

>> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>>
>> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>>
>> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.

http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:59:14 -0800,
Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:


> There is no reason to change a definition to an incorrect definition.

Then there is NO problem, since there is NOTHING in the U.S.
Constitution that accords or permits a SPECIAL right to opposite-sex
couples to EXCLUDE same-sex couples from marriage. AS WRITTEN,
the Constitution *already* includes same-sex couples in marriage.

And the hateful and ignorant people who so desperately want to
make ASSES of themselves by passing a HATE-Amendment will
NEVER succeed. Society has left those lowlife-losers behind, forever!

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Voices of REASON, on Same-Sex Marriage

Set #9 of Responses to Jack Cafferty ("The Cafferty File") on CNN
Wed, 5-27-09: "What will it take for Americans to
embrace the idea of gay marriage?"

MATTHEW FERGUSON: Just as interracial marriage was finally ‘accept-
ed' so too will gay marriage be accepted. Right now it's all about hetero-
sexual prejudice. Americans hide behind religion when speaking out
against gay marriage but if people were truly honest about it, they
would admit that homosexuality just makes them uncomfortable. Even-
tually we will get to a point where fighting against gay marriage just
won't be worthwhile.

RC: Gay marriage will be legalized when the stale, bigoted political
beliefs of aging conservatives die with them. They are the ones that
insist on infusing religion and politics at every opportunity. It is the
prerogative of every church to choose whether or not to marry gay
couples, but they may not to tell the government whether can do the
same. Hurry up and die already so the world can move on without you
while dismissively recalling your inappropriate and out of touch beliefs.

RYAN in OHIO: People will begin to endorse Gay marriage once people
begin to think and live in the 21st century and begin to discredit the
Biblical scriptures of old.

THAMAS BATE in Ft. Lauderdale, FL: What if gays stopped paying
taxes until they have equal rights? I think then what ever right wing
groups oppose gay marriage, might just rethink their stance on the
issue.

HEADBUSSA: The only way America will wake up and realize same-
sex marraige should take place is if a gay or lesbien goes into a burning
school and save at least 15 children. It's a shame gays and lesbians
would have to do something so extreme just to have rights and prove
they are equal to straight people

ADAM T. in Alameda, CA: I live in California in the San Francisco Bay
Area and I have been watching this battle rage on since I was a little
kid and it always ends up being a church or faith that wants to deprive
human beings of rights that are supposed to be for everyone!
Until people stop mixing the deadly concoction of politics and religion,
the gay community will not be free of this legal persecution.

T: It will take every American knowing a gay person or having a gay
child. Once they see that love is love, unless they are right wing idiots,
the viewpoint usually changes. My best friend of 12 years has been
with the same man for 7 years and he should have the same right to
marry as I do. I know many gay couples that have been together longer
than I've even been with my husband, yet we can get married & divor-
ced in 72 hours? How fair is that? Not much!

CHRIS in Philadelphia, PA: Opponents of gay marriage need to stop
viewing it as a zero-sum game, where one side stands to lose something
if the other side gains. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does nothing
to infringe upon the rights of heterosexual couples who enjoy the same
freedoms. This idea of "the sanctity of marriage" is nothing more than a
bumper sticker slogan that, unfortunately, has been all too effective in
trying to apply some logic to what is fundamentally a moral question.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

[Loirbaj]

77 Reasons, no.
A million reasons and counting.
The dead homosexualist killed by VD.
77 Reasons Homosexualists DANGEROUS near Children

[Loirbaj]

77 Reasons, no.
A million reasons and counting.
The dead homosexualist killed by VD.

No homosexualist should be allowed
within a mile of a child.

[Barry OGrady]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:56:37 -0800, Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:50:45 -0800, DanielSan
><daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/5/2012 7:49 PM, Wayne wrote:
>> >
>> >

>> > "(ｯ`ｷ. Craig Chilton .ｷ ｯ) " wrote in message

>> > news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >> DEBUNKING 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
>> >> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>> >>
>> >> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>> >>
>> >> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> >> used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> >> same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>> > -
>> > Since marriage is between a man and a woman
>
>
>> That's one version of it.
>
>True. It also happens to be the correct definition.

True.

=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
God is a spirit. 0% proof!

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

[[[ DISREGARD the LYING subject header above, by a
bigoted idiot. THIS is the REAL header of my series

of posts. ]]] ---

••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons" for
Opposing 100%-HARMLESS Same-Sex Marriage.

= = = = = = = =

Barry O'Grady <ath...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:


...NOTHING intelliigent.

Since same-sex marriage is 100% HARMLESS,
and he can'r seem to figure that out.

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage

Post #4 -- "Reasons" #44-51 & Their REFUTATIONS

= = = = = = = = = =

This link recently was provided by a bigot who totally shot himself
in the foot, butt, head, and everywhere else in between by doing so:

http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

http://
defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/
77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.

And in this series of posts, I will DEBUNK every single
one of those SPECIOUS 77 "reasons" to be a hateful and
ignorant bigot.


"77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage"

CATEGORY 7

"The Pandora's Box of Artificial Reproduction"

[[[ The writer's staying on THIS nonsensical topic would
NEGATE every "reason" in this Category. Since
non-coital reproduction on the part of married part-
ners is done by many MILLIONS of OPPOSITE-sex
married couples! ]]]

44. -- "No one has a right to have a child. Children are not ob-
jects, to which other people have rights. Children are
persons, with rights of their own."

FACT: Almost EVERYONE in America has the right to have
children. And if any of the rights which are accorded
to minors by the state are violated by their parents,
the law has the right to intervene in the children's
behalf. Since the rights accorded to the children of
same-sex married parents are IDENTICAL with those
of opposite-sex married parents, this "reason" to
oppose same-sex marriage it totally POINTLESS.

45. -- "We will not be able to maintain a free society if some
people come into being as objects, created by other
people for their own purposes."

FACT: As of the moment of birth, ALL people are PEOPLE,
and they all have the same rights under the U.S.
Constitution. This supposed "reason" to oppose
same-sex marriage *also* is INANE, and has NOTH-
ING more to do with same-sex marriage as it does
to opposite-sex marriage.

46. -- "Artificial reproductive technology violates the dignity
of the child."

FACT: It would be hard to imagine that ANY person, either
as a child or a an adult, would give a flying rat's rump
about anything so TRIVIAL. That which *counts*, to
person, is the fact that he/she is HERE! (And again,
this has nothing more to do with same-sex married
couples than it does to opposite-sex married ones.)

[[[ READERS: If the "arguments" that were presented in that
California trial by the defenders of Proposition
8 were nearly as INANE as the one's that THIS
person has been spewing, it's no wonder they
have been fighting so desperately to keep the
transcripts from being released! to the public!
That would be DEVASTATING to them and their
hate-agendas! ]]]

47. "Using donated sperm or eggs necessarily involves the
alienation of the child from one or both parents."

FACT: In his/her desperation, the writer of this "reason" to
oppose same-sex marriage just very *conveniently*
overlooked the millions of people who have ADOPTED
children -- and trashed them in the process. (And again,
this has nothing more to do with same-sex married
couples than it does to opposite-sex married ones.)

48. "Children who were conceived by artificial insemination
with donor sperm often experience a sense of loss from
not knowing their [biological] fathers."

FACT: This would be NO more true for children of same-sex
married couples than it would be for the FAR GREATER
number of them who have opposite-sex married parents.
So this is NO reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

49. "Advocates of the unlimited use of artificial reproductive
technology argue, 'Our children will be fine, because we
wanted these children so badly.' Turn this statement
around: 'We got to manufacture another human being
because we wanted to.' It no longer sounds so appeal-
ing."

FACT: So far, NONE of these supposed 77 "reasons" to
oppose same-sex marriage would have ANY appeal
for most people in possession of working brains. In
THIS case, (1) There is NO difference between
having a deep desire to have children and employing
technology to accomplish that, and having a deep
desire to have children, and having sex to accomp-
lish that. (And again, this has nothing more to do
with same-sex married couples than it does to op-
posite-sex married ones.)

50. "Same-sex marriage creates an entitlement to the use
of artificial reproductive technology."

FACT: Just when we thought these reasons couldn't pos-
sibly become more *ludicrous*, THIS one crops up!
ALL people. married or not, who wish to avail them-
selves of reproduction-enhancement technology
need to do no more than simply pay the FEE for it.
And this even includes *single* people. Again, we
see that there is NO reason here to oppose same-
sex marriage!

51. -- "An 'entitlement' to the use of artificial reproductive
technology means that anyone with money gets to
do anything they want. This cannot be correct, from
any moral or religious perspective. Yet same-sex
marriage advocacy is driving the law in that direction."

FACT: Here we can see how UNINFORMED this person is,
since those who have the money to pay for it can
obtain ANYTHING in our society that it is LEGAL for
them to obtain. Including reproduction-enhance-
ment technologies. ANYONE, single, cohabitating,
or married... gay or straight... can hire a surrogate
mother, or have IVF or artificial insemination done.
There are NO laws against any of that, for anyone!
(So again, this has NOTHING to with same-sex mar-
riage, per se.) (And there is NOTHING "incorrect"
about it, from ANY standpoint. For sure, the re-
sulting KIDS will be delighted that it was done, if
they learn about it. And probably APPRECIATE
the extra effort and expense that was gone to in
order for that to be accomplished. Vis-a-vis the
kids who simply got there as a result of a tryst by
a guy and gal in a car's back seat.)

SO MUCH for CATEGORY 7 having a SHRED of credibility!

= = = = = = =

The REFUTATIONS of *specious* "reasons" 52-77 will

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

lish that. (2) Again, this has nothing more to do

with same-sex married couples than it does to op-
posite-sex married ones.

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage

Post #5 -- "Reasons" #52-60 & Their REFUTATIONS

= = = = = = = = = =

This link recently was provided by a bigot who totally shot himself
in the foot, butt, head, and everywhere else in between by doing so:

http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

http://
defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/
77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.

And in this series of posts, I will DEBUNK every single
one of those SPECIOUS 77 "reasons" to be a hateful and
ignorant bigot.


"77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage"

CATEGORY 8

"Same-Sex Marriage Redefines Marriage"

[[[ This entire Category is self-NEGATING from the get-go!
Because the U.S. Constitution in no way specifies or sup-
ports the according of a SPECIAL right to opposite-sex
couples to marry, to the EXCLUSION of same-sex couples.
In order TO **redefine** marriage, a hateful Constitution-
al Amendment to that effect would have to be enacted.
Which would require ratification by 3/4 of the states. And
since the MAJORITY of Americans now *favor* same-sex
marriage being legal, there's NO WAY that *that'll* ever
happen. ]]]

52. -- "The state creates same-sex marriage by saying that
marriage is the union of any two persons, instead of the
union of a man and a woman. Same-sex marriage af-
fects everyone because the new legal definition applies
to everyone."

FACT: ALL legal marriages are state-sanctioned. Undocumented
marriages went out with jumping the broom in the era of
Kunta Kinte, prior to 1865. And per the U.S. Constitution.
there is NO way that the EXCLUSION of marriage to same-
sex couples is any more permissible than the exclusion of
it to interracial couples was. ALL of the so-called "DOMA"
laws are unconstitutional, so ultimately will become foot-
noted in the history books. AND -- same-sex marriage
affects everyone to the same extent that *all* FREEDOMS
do. Freedom is GOOD, and harms NO one.

53. -- "Genderless marriage will drive out gendered marriage.
Same-sex marriage transforms marriage from a gender
based institution to a gender-neutral institution."

FACT: The writer MIGHT have an argument if it were EUNUCHS
that were being discussed here. But if he were to have
been intelligent enough to consult a few GAY couples, he
would have found that they are anything BUT "gender-
less," and that most of them have very satisfying sex lives!
AND -- millions of gays singles and couples even have kids,
which they obtained in any of the usual no-coital ways,
such as adoption, artificial insemination, surrogate moth-
ers, and IVF. That said -- ALL marriage IS clearly on the
way out, including, ultimately, same-sex marriage. But
SSM has nothing to do with it. At an accelerating pace,
society is REPLACING/supplanting marriage with far-less-
complicated *cohabitation*. Very SENSIBLE! In 30-40
years, marriage probably will be recalled by society as "a
quaint and outmoded custom that people used to allow
themselves to become ensnared by." In the MEANTIME,
gay couples should no longer be relegated to steerage
aboard the "Marriage Ship Titanic," and be given full
access to the deck chairs. Because they are Constitu-
tionally entitled to that.

54. -- "Judges who have imposed same-sex marriage have
made statements that appear superficially plausible in
the context of same-sex marriage, but which are cer-
tainly false as general statements."

FACT: Wow! That came straight out of the "RRR CULT Propa-
ganda Playbook!" The only thing missing was the "black-
robed, unelected" part. It would be very interesting to
see the guy who wrote that trying to explain just HOW
**freedom** can be "IMPOSED" upon anyone! Or just
HOW the marriage of any same-sex couple could in *any*
way be detrimental to the marriage of any opposite-sex
couple. Or to *anyone* or *anything*. Those so-called
"DOMA" laws -- "Defense of Marriage Act" -- totally miss-
ing the ACTUAL threats to marriage: no-fault divorce,
and the *cohabitation* that is rapidly REPLACING it!

55. -- "The judges who imposed same-sex marriage in Iowa
stated, 'The research suggests ... that the traditional
notion that children need a mother and a father to be
raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults is based more
on stereotype than anything else.' This is not true as a
general statement.

FACT: As a person who has lived in Iowa for most of my life,
I can attest personally to the fact that since Iowa's
law against same-sex marriage was struck down in a
UNANIMOUS decision by the Iowa Supreme Court,
life in Iowa has not changed in ANY way. Except for
the fact that it is now one of the steadily growing num-
ber of FAIR states, and that MOST people are very
happy about that. We tragically lost 3 of our egalitar-
ian Supreme Court judges in an election -- but that
was ONLY because bigoted HATE-groups spent millions
of dollars the CON the more ignorant (and thus gullible)
echelon of Iowans into voting them out. The SAME
way that the RRR & LDS Cults CONNED the equivalent
groups of Californians into passing Proposition Hate (8).
Many Iowa cities are so friendly to gay couples that
they provide FREE wedding planning to them, no mat-
ter where they come from to get here.

56. -- The judge who overturned California's Proposition 8
stated, "Gender no longer forms an essential part of
marriage; marriage under the law is a union of equals.'
The first statement assumes what needs to be proven.
The second statement creates a false dichotomy, sug-
gesting that unless gender is irrelevant, marriage is
necessarily something other than the union of equals."

FACT: The judge was right, and there is no reason to make
marriage appear to be more glorious or auspicious
than it is. It's merely a legal agreement by two people
to join in a state-licensed partnership that can be what-
ever they choose to make of it for themselves.

57. -- "If enough judges say enough implausible things, people
will lose respect for the law."

FACT: Then it's a good thing that the vast majority of judges
do NOT do that. If they started DENYING personal
liberties to people, and were allowed to get away with
THAT, then people would *rapidly* lose respect for
the law. Fortunately, for America, the appellate
courts, since the dark day of the Dred Scott Decision,
have been very good at SUPPORTING personal liber-
ties. (e.g., "Brown vs. Board of Education" (1954)
led to the DOOM of the Jim Crow Era in the South
and segregation. "Roe vs Wade" EMANCIPATED all
girls and women from involuntary servitude to UNwant-
ed pregnancies against their will, in 1973. "Loving vs.
Virginia" (1967) struck down all laws against interracial
marriage. Another decision *reversed* an attempt to
CENSOR the Internet! The Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court enabled that state to become the FIRST
*free* state in which same-sex couples NO LONGER
were *excluded* from marriage. And "Lawrence vs.
Texas" in 2003 kicked *all* levels of government OUT
of America's bedrooms and sex lives!) MOST of the
appellate court justices in the USA are HEROES who
have saved hundreds of millions of Americans from
*decades* of unconscionable repression and grief!

58. -- "Creating one legal institution of same and opposite
sex couples requires the law to strip away all the
essential purposes of marriage and leaves only the
inessential private purposes of marriage."

FACT: Per the Constitution, marriage makes NO distinction
in marriage based on gender composition, so the
only thing being stripped away these days are the
RIGHTS of people, by the hateful, repressive, hate-
ful and draconian supposed "Defense of Marriage
Acts" (DOMAs) which "defend" against NO threats
to marriage. And the ONLY "essential" purposes of
marriage are too numerous to count, since they ARE
the "private" ones that each couple *designates* for
itself, case-by-case. NO laws even EXIST that re-
quire married couples to do anything but become
*legally* divorced, should they ultimately choose to
go that route.

59. -- "The judge who overturned California's Proposition 8
stated, 'Marriage is the state recognition and ap-
proval of a couple's choice to live with each other,
and to form a household based on their own feelings
about one another and to join in an economic part-
nership and support one another and any depen-
dents.' By this definition, college roommates or
members of clubs count as 'married.'"

FACT: Wrong. The key difference is that actual married
couples have obtained a state license to become
married, and then have completed the task by
being wed in a ceremony performed by any person
who is legally empowered to officiate.

60. -- "By the time the activists are finished, there will be
nothing left of marriage but a government registry
of friendships."

FACT: First of all, those "activists" are in actuality the egal-
itarians who have managed, down through the ages,
to enable America to *continue* to be a FREE coun-
try in the face of ignorant and/or hateful forces of
repression. During Civil Rights Movement I, they
were called "Civil Rights Workers" by intelligent and
fair-minded people... and by hateful terms by the
mindless segregationists. Marriage didn't change
one whit when the hateful exclusion of interracial
couples from it was ended. And it won't change
one whit when the hateful exclusion of same-sex
couples from it is full ended. Any more than has
happened in the ever-growing roster of FREE
states and nations.

SO MUCH for CATEGORY 8 having a SHRED of credibility!

= = = = = = =

The REFUTATIONS of *specious* "reasons" 61-77 will

[MarkA]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:07:47 -0800, J wrote:

>
> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should logically
> end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a union between one
> man and one woman.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf
>
>
> or
>
>
> http://tiny.cc/krmxo

Hmmmm..... instead of posting a link to "77 reasons", why don't you post
ONE GOOD reason?

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:43:53 -0500,
MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:


> Hmmmm..... instead of posting a link to "77 reasons",
> why don't you post ONE GOOD reason?

And become the FIRST person on the planet *ever*
to come up with one.

We all know that THAT'LL never happen.

[Barry OGrady]

77 rdasons is better.

[Wayne]

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
news:4f2f8b6c$0$12012$742e...@news.sonic.net...

Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:11:43 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>> In article <jgnika$p12$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>

>> > "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) " wrote in message
>> > news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > > ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that

>were
>> > > Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>> > >
>> > > Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>> > >
>> > > That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> > >used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> > >same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>> > -
>> > Since marriage is between a man and a woman
>
>
>> While church marriage, and in most states legal marriage, may be
>so
>> limited, there is no reason why the definitions may not be extended.
>
>There is no reason to change a definition to an incorrect definition.

<The Bible refers to other forms of marriage. King Soloman, for
<example, had several hundred wives.
-

And none of his wives were men.

[Wayne]

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

news:4f2f8b8c$0$12012$742e...@news.sonic.net...

Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:18:04 -0500, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:49:29 -0800, "Wayne"
><mygarb...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >"(¯`·. Craig Chilton .· ¯) " wrote in message
>> >news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
>> >> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>> >>
>> >> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>> >>
>> >> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> >>used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> >>same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>> >-
>> >Since marriage is between a man and a woman,
>
>
>> You're starting with a premise that is not universally granted. This
>> negates the remainder of your "argument."
>
>You very well know that I am right,

<You're an arrogant religibot convinced of your own infallibility.
-

Me a "religibot"? LOL...yeah, that's a good one.

[Wayne]

"DanielSan" wrote in message news:jgnrlv$ibp$1...@dont-email.me...

-
Yep. For example, you can call a gynecologist a proctologist...but it
doesn't make the gynecologist a proctologist. Well except in Craig's mind
perhaps.

[Bill Taylor]

In article <t800j7l22bcmtm8rt...@4ax.com>
"(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://wwwqetergtwretwer.org>"

<b...@c.com> wrote:
>
>
> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>
> Post #5 -- "Reasons" #52-60 & Their REFUTATIONS
>
> = = = = = = = = = =
>
> This link recently was provided by a bigot

Another bigot? Perhaps you need to broaden the circle of those
whom you associate with.

[Bill Taylor]

In article <bmsvi75vrq9sth8nc...@4ax.com>
"(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://dtrhrty4ry.org>"

<b...@c.com> wrote:
>
>
> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>
> Post #4 -- "Reasons" #44-51 & Their REFUTATIONS
>
> = = = = = = = = = =
>
> This link recently was provided by a bigot

Is everyone you come in contact with a bigot?

[Barry OGrady]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:49:03 -0800, "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net>
wrote:

Why are you talking to yourself?

[JohnN]

On Feb 5, 1:07 am, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a union
> between one man and one woman.
>

> http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-r...
>
> or
>
> http://tiny.cc/krmxo
>
> --
> J Young
> jdyou...@ymail.com

Thank you IBen for actually finding something I have wanted for
awhile: a list of why same-gender marriage should not be aloud.
Unfortunately the first statement is asseerted without any evidence.
It is a false assertion so I will just ignore all of it.

But, hey, thanks again.

JohnN

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On 6 Feb 2012 22:22:49 -0000,

Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
> (¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯)

> <http://www.TravelForPay.org> wrote:


>> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
>> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>>
>> Post #5 -- "Reasons" #52-60 & Their REFUTATIONS
>>
>> = = = = = = = = = =
>>
>> This link recently was provided by a bigot

> Another bigot? Perhaps you need to broaden the circle of those
> whom you associate with.

No need. The number of fellow egalitarians that I already associate
with are more than enough to make DOG MEAT of any "arguments" and
agendas that bigoted LOWLIFES like you spew and espouse.


*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On 6 Feb 2012 22:22:49 -0000,
Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:

> (¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯)

> <http://www.TravelForPay.org> wrote:


>> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
>> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>>

>> Post #5 -- "Reasons" #52-60 & Their REFUTATIONS

>>
>> = = = = = = = = = =
>>
>> This link recently was provided by a bigot

http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"

[Jeanne Douglas]

On Feb 5, 6:35 pm, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> Homosexualist

What's a homosexualist?

JD

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:51:11 -0800,
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:


[ ... ]

> ... For example, you can call a gynecologist a proctologist...but it

> doesn't make the gynecologist a proctologist. Well except in Craig's
> mind perhaps.

Your irrational (and lying) OBSESSION with me is noted.

Looks like that's the best that bigots can do, since NO *facts*
even EXIST that support their specious hate-agendas against the
harmless and beneficial personal liberties of tens of millions of
people. Agendas that are pursued by LOSERS for NO good reason.


*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

The TWO-PRONGED Strategy for *Hastening* the DEMISE
of the Hate-Agendas Against Girls, Women, and Gays
on the Part of the Bigots of the RRR & LDS Cults

"Jon Young"/"Auric Hellman" on 4-26-11, wrote:

> Your continued posting to Usenet...

...is a very effective, 2-pronged method of UNDERMINING the hateful
agendas against the harmless and beneficial personal liberties of bigoted
LOSERS like you, which contribute to the *hastening* of the day when
those agendas will lie mouldering and dead at the bottom of the Drain of
Extinction -- right alongside the bones of the EQUALLY-loathsome and -mor-
onic agendas of the segregationists, never to be heard from again. The
two prongs of that dissembling of those agendas, here in Usenet (not even
counting the many OTHER ways I do that) are:

(1) Marshall and present the FACTS that wreck the agendas by
revealing the *speciousness* of them. And point out something
that the bigots can NEVER refute -- that their emperor (the agen-
das have NO clothes (facts.) NO facts even EXIST that they can
bring to bear to defend or support their moronic and ludicrous
agendas. (Which is why the RRR and LDS Cults **depend** on
appealing to the lowest-intellect level of Americans for recruit-
ment and maintenance as their lemmings to be their cash cows
and propaganda-PARROTS. It take a *massive* amount of GUL-
LIBILITY to fall for the LIES that the leaders constantly spew.

(2) Spur the bigots into making total FOOLS of themselves by posting
the most ABSURD crap imaginable. Thus helping to raise the cons-
ciouness of society to the realization that it would be more worth-
while to attend a rat fight than to have ANYTHING to do with the
hate-agendas or the bigots that espouse and tout them.

A **VERY** effective combination. Which becomes even MORE so
whenever readers FORWARD or RE-PUBLISH any of the above-describ-
ed material.

The progress of the hate-agendas to their DOOM is inexorable and
once that has happened, their extinction will be irreversible and irrevo-
cable.

The *agendas* will be remembered by society only with REVULSION.

The "bigots* will be remembered by society only with DERISION.

The SAME well-deserved fate that befell the segregationists.

Good RIDDANCE to *putrid* garbage! One less TOXIN in American
society. America WILL become a Bigotry-Free Zone.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

••• Rest in Peace •••
••• George Richard Tiller, MD •••
••• A True American HERO! •••
••• August 8, 1941 – May 31, 2009 •••
••• Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com •••

"He saved the lives of thousands of women who would've
died otherwise, thousands who would've been made sterile
or gravely injured by childbirth. He knew his life was at grave
risk. Dr. Tiller was a true Saint."

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

-- Craig Chilton (E-Mail me if you wish, from websites below.)

http://www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
http://www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the hateful RRR Cult!

http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Cult Bigotry
http://www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:45:03 -0800,
"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:

> "Ray Fischer" wrote:


>> The Bible refers to other forms of marriage. King Soloman,
>> for example, had several hundred wives.

> And none of his wives were men.

But if they HAD been, it *still* would have been NO big deal.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Loirbaj wrote:

> No homosexualist

[Jeanne Douglas]

On Feb 6, 3:29 am, Loirbaj <Rhodi...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> 77 Reasons, no.
> A million reasons and counting.
> The dead homosexualist

What's a homosexualist?

> 77 Reasons Homosexualists

What are homosexualists?

JD

[DanielSan]

So, do you think that when I use the word "pan" to describe a camera
moving side-to-side across the subject, I'm using an incorrect
definition? Such as the following sentence:

"The camera panned down the racetrack as Dale Earnhardt Jr. went into
lap 14."

[Smiler]

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:01:13 -0800, Wayne wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:18:04 -0500, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:49:29 -0800, "Wayne"
> <mygarb...@verizon.net>

>> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >"(¯`·. Craig Chilton .· ¯) " wrote in message
>> >news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were

>> >> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>> >>
>> >> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>> >>
>> >> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> >>used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> >>same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>> >-

>> >Since marriage is between a man and a woman,
>
>
>> You're starting with a premise that is not universally granted. This
>> negates the remainder of your "argument."
>

> You very well know that I am right, even if you pretend otherwise.

Another moron that 'thinks' it can read minds.

--
Smiler,

The godless one. a.a.# 2279

All gods are tailored to order. They're made to

exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage

Post #6 -- "Reasons" # 61-69 & Their REFUTATIONS

= = = = = = = = = =

This link recently was provided by a bigot who totally shot himself
in the foot, butt, head, and everywhere else in between by doing so:

http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

http://
defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/
77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.

And in this series of posts, I am DEBUNKING every single

one of those SPECIOUS 77 "reasons" to be a hateful and
ignorant bigot.


"77 Non-Religious Reasons to Support Man/Woman Marriage"

CATEGORY 9

"Redefining Marriage Redefines Parenthood"

[[[ This entire Category is self-NEGATING from the get-go!
Because the U.S. Constitution in no way specifies or sup-
ports the according of a SPECIAL right to opposite-sex
couples to marry, to the EXCLUSION of same-sex couples.
In order TO **redefine** marriage, a hateful Constitution-
al Amendment to that effect would have to be enacted.
Which would require ratification by 3/4 of the states. And
since the MAJORITY of Americans now *favor* same-sex
marriage being legal, there's NO WAY that *that'll* ever
happen. ]]]

61. -- "Man/woman marriage is the institution that attaches
mothers and fathers to their children.Same-sex marriage
transforms marriage into an institution that separates
children from at least one of their parents."

FACT: How amazing that such a short comment can be so dead
wrong in SO many ways!

• HALF of all American children live in SINGLE-parent
families. Does the writer of these "reasons" think
that this is more desirable than situations in which
children have TWO loving and caring parents?

• Does the writer see more of a disconnect of the child
from the parents in this case wherein one of the par-
ents is not a birth parent than he does in an identical
situation in which the IVF or surrogate mother had to
do with OPPOSITE-sex parents? If NOT, when *why*
the vendetta against same-sex marriage?

• Does the writer see more of a disconnect of the child
from the parents in this case wherein one of the par-
ents is not a birth parent than he does in an identical
situation in which the IVF or surrogate mother had to
do with OPPOSITE-sex parents? If NOT, when *why*
the vendetta against same-sex marriage?

• What about the SAME scenario that was just describ-
ed -- except that the parents had never bothered to
get married in the first place, and had always been a
COHABITATING, opposite-sex couple instead? THEN
who would this relate vis-a-vis same-sex marriage?

• One has to wonder if he is even AWARE that the
above scenarios involve far more people that there
even ARE gay people in the USA? If so, how can he
possibly see ANY significance in including a relatively-
tiny addition of same-sex MARRIED couples into the
equation? Especially since he has said nothing to
indicate that he finds it problematical that same-sex
parents are COHABITATING. Over a million same-sex
parents who have kids in the USA *are* cohabitating,
and thus would seem to be IDENTICALLY related to
their children as same-sex MARRIED couples with
children are.

This is an EXCELLENT example of the sheer and profound
IRRATIONALITY that is a common denominator that pervades ALL
who are bigoted and ignorant enough to oppose same-sex marriage.

Since opposing Marriage Equality makes NO SENSE whatsoever,
I'm betting that most of these bigots have serious problems with low
self-esteem, and are seeking -- either consciously or subconsciously --
to compensate by having company in a faction that openly is seeking
to CONTROL other people. VULNERABLE people. People who have
experienced a long tradition of being victimized by the degradations
and discriminations and bullying applied to them by such lowlife losers
down through the ages.

It's not about FACTS with the bigots. They would *love* for such
facts as they could draw upon to be available to them -- but since NO
such facts even EXIST, they are relegated to a losing position of being
able to offer SPECIOUS and VACUOUS "arguments" that sensible and
intelligent people see through in a heartbeat. And HOPE that they will
fly.

Tough luck for them, and GOOD fortune for society: they WON'T.

62. -- "Same-sex marriage opens the door to children having
more than two legal parents, as it has in Canada."

FACT: And that would be a problem WHY? I'm not sure just what
circumstance would be likely to make that possible, and it
probably doesn't happen very often. But if they ALL love
the child, then that would be one very lucky kid! Sort of
like winning a parental Lotto!

63. -- Same-sex marriage routinely placed biological parents on
the same legal footing with adults who have no genetic
relationship to the child.


FACT: The SAME is true of all OPPOSITE-sex married couples who
have obtained children via IVF, artificial insemination, and
surrogate mothers. So what makes SAME-sex married
couples worthy of being singled out for criticism, vis-a-vis
THEM? There are *millions* MORE of them?!? And... what
makes *cohabitating* couples who've had kids that way --
EITHER opposite-sex OR same-sex -- "better" that same-
sex couples who are MARRIED?

64. -- Same-sex marriage eliminates the legal principle that biology
is the primary means of establishing parental rights and re-
sponsibilities.

FACTS: • ALL methods of human reproduction are biological.
Artificial-intelligence robots haven't been invented
yet.

• ALL that is needed for establishing parental rights
and responsibilities is to be in a parental SITUATION.
It is perfectly legal for a couple (either same-sex or
opposite-sex) to obtain children by ANY legal means,
and raise them. Even if only cohabitating. And as
long as they don't abuse their child or subject him
or her to deprivation, there's no problem. If there
IS such a problem. the law steps in to sort it out.

So this "reason" to oppose same-sex marriage has
NO validity, because there is no distinction in this
manner between cohabitating same-sex parents
legally-MARRIED ones.

65. -- "Some principle will take the place of the biological principle.
That principle will be the state assignment of parental
rights and responsibilities."

FACT: That "reason" is pointless and vapid. And is rebutted
by the SAME facts that rebutter the previous "reason,"
Number 64.

66. -- Judges in Washington State created a four-part test
to determine whether an unrelated adult counts as a
child's 'de facto parent.' These determinations re-
quire family courts to examine the most private parts
of the family's life.

FACT: The END of the exclusion of same-sex couples from mar-
riage in Washington State is *imminent* as I'm writing this.
So obviously, the "four points" to which you referred
above apply to family situations that do NOT yet include
families of same-sex married couples. Thus, I see NO
way that adding those to the mix would cause any prob-
lem whatsoever. The writer has provided NO reason
to continue the exclusion of same-sex couples from
marriage in that state -- or anywhere else -- herein.

67. -- Same-sex marriage undermines the legal principle that
children are entitled to a relationship with both parents."

FACT: NO more so than do any of the HOST of scenarios that
I presented in my rebuttal to "Reason # 61. The writer
of these reasons should get back to me AFTER he's
taken on the COHABITATION of couples (both opposite-
sex and same-sex) with EQUAL vigor and vengeance that
he's so *speciously* been waging upon same-sex marriage.

68. -- "Same-sex marriage separates children from at least one
of their parents, not due to extraordinary circumstances,
as arise in adoption, but as a routine procedure."

FACT; Again we see a case where one of these "reasons" to
oppose same-sex marriage provides NO distinction be-
tween situations that prevail with respect to opposite-
sex married parents vis-a-vis same-sex married ones.
And it completely IGNORES all of the *cohabitating*
parents.

69. -- Adoption currently exists to give children the parents
they need, not to give parents the children they want.

FACT: Totally wrong. It fulfills BOTH situations. And it does so
for ALL adoptions. Adoptions by singles, cohabitating
couples, and married couples. Gay and straight. So in
this LUDICROUS reason, we see the increasing despera-
tion of a bigot who couldn't make a valid point in defense
of his specious agenda against same-sex marriage if his
life depended on it.

SO MUCH for CATEGORY 9 having a SHRED of credibility!

= = = = = = =

The REFUTATIONS of *specious* "reasons" 70-77 will
be furnished in the next and final post of this series of seven..

[Ray Fischer]

Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" wrote in message

Since you now admit that you were either lying outright or grossly
ignorant when you claimed that "marriage is between a man and a woman"
we can safely discredit all of your subsequent claims.

--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe

[Ray Fischer]

And a liar.

[DanielSan]

On 2/5/2012 6:39 AM, IlBe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2:01 am, DanielSan<danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/4/2012 11:47 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In article<5chrsu.abr.1...@news.alt.net>, J<jdyou...@ymail.com>

>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
>>>> logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a union
>>>> between one man and one woman.
>>
>>>> http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-r...

>>>> reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf
>>
>>>> or
>>
>>>> http://tiny.cc/krmxo
>>
>>> Wow, somebody actually wasted their time creating that idiotic list.
>>> Bigotry sure takes a lot of work.
>>
>> I love "reasons" 9-21, under the header "But Not All Married Couples
>> Have Children, How Can You Say Marriage Is About The Benefits To Children?"
>>
>> It completely ignores that then restates is assertions that the purpose
>> of marriage is for children.
>>
>> Then "reasons" 22-28 attack "step-parent" households and claim that
>> same-sex couples would be similar to step-parent households. But we do
>> not make it illegal for there to be step-parents.
>>
>> "Reasons" 29-36 attack the gender roles parents play for their children,
>> but then again, this is irrelevant due to the fact that single-parent
>> households are not illegal and a single parent is allowed to raise children.
>>
>> Reasons 37-43 attack same-sex marriage as "diminishing fathers" even
>> though, y'know, gay men can be fathers.
>>
>> In short: None of these reasons are viable. But, I love "reason 77":
>>
>> "Same sex marriage amounts to a hostile takeover of civil society by the
>> state."
>>
>> Wow. Fearmonger much? Projection, even more?
>
> The BIGGEST reason should be because Homosexuals present a very real
> danger to themSELVES with the STD's that come directly from feces
> love making and urination on each other. Even death.

Marriage =/= anal sex. And heterosexuals engage in anal sex and can get
STDs.

> If it were so
> permissable how come theres so many horrible consequences to the
> lifestyle ?

So, heterosexual intercourse is free of any horrible consequences?

> And why cant they refrain from demanding the entire
> nation call it an acceptable, permissible, non perverted
> lifestyhle ?

Heterosexual intercourse can be perverted as well. What are you talking
about?

> THEY are the ones who are intolerant..intolerant of
> those who disagree with their agenda

So, you disagree that they should be treated like human beings?!

[Arlon]

> There are studies. They are conclusive.
> The children of same-gender couples do
> perfectly fine.

Homosexuals did "perfectly fine" in ancient Greece and
Rome. That is not because those were great civilizations.
They weren't. They were great _conquerors_ because they were
_not_ great civilizations. They were quite newly "civilized"
and lacked respect for others' property and that is why
they took control. Of course their control fell later as did
the acceptance of homosexuality.

I do agree with what you said about heterosexual marriage
being so lax these days as to be as much a problem as homosexual
marriage. Exceptions were allowed and more exceptions and more
exceptions until there was no rule anymore to make exceptions for.
It needs to be reset.

Any "study" that shows homosexual "success" or that
children in their care do fine was done by imbeciles who
haven't studied a history book well much less anything
else.

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage

Post #6 -- "Reasons" # 61-69 & Their REFUTATIONS

= = = = = = = = = =

This link recently was provided by a bigot who totally shot himself
in the foot, butt, head, and everywhere else in between by doing so:

http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

http://
defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/
77-non-religious-reasons-man-woman-marriage.pdf

That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.

[(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) <http://www.TravelForPay.org>]

On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 06:36:22 -0800 (PST),
"IlBeBauck" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote:


> Thanks for the list.

NOW you get to be treated to the total and irrefutable
DEBUNKING of every single idiotic item on it. All 77 of 'em!!

The first 69 refutations have been posted.

Only 8 to go!

THEN I'll convert all of those into ••• RESOURCE POSTS •••
that I will refresh regularly.

Accomplishing BOTH Egalitarian Strategies (1) and (2), below. ---

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

[Ray Fischer]

Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess <fidem....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 5, 9:56 pm, Wayne <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:50:45 -0800, DanielSan
>> <danielsan1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > On 2/5/2012 7:49 PM, Wayne wrote:
>> > > "(¯`·.  Craig Chilton  .· ¯) " wrote in message
>> > >news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>>

>> > >>     DEBUNKING     77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
>> > >> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>>

>> > >> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>>

>> > >> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> > >> used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> > >> same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.

>> > > -
>> > > Since marriage is between a man and a woman

>> > That's one version of it.
>>
>> True.  It also happens to be the correct definition.
>
>Your information is outdated.

It's just stupid and wrong.

> The entire world has changed in recent
>decades.

His defnition was NEVER the only definition for "marriage".
He's just a dumbass rightard with more hate than brains.

[Wayne]

"DanielSan" wrote in message news:jgpsep$fqu$5...@dont-email.me...

-
In relation to the subject, this question is too fucking stupid to warrant
an answer.

[DanielSan]

You're the one thinking that marriage for gay couples is an "incorrect
definition" like tyring to calla gynecologist a proctologist.

[Paul David Wright]

Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote in
news:8a48478c-b633-4905...@o13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:

> There can no more be a 'marriage' between
> 2 homosexualists than there can be between
> a rat and a weasel.
>

So, you are all for denying people their human rights, huh, asshole?

--
PDW

Check out my blog:
The first is a preview of my superhero comic book.
http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/


And my books:
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/pdwright42

[Paul David Wright]

Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote in
news:d602032f-3a3d-4286...@i2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:

> Homosexualist 'marriage' is less able to produce
> a child, than is a 'marriage' of a rat and a weasel.
>

Fuck you, lying asshole.

[Paul David Wright]

Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:almarsoft.7782...@news.eternal-september.org:

> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:50:45 -0800, DanielSan
> <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/5/2012 7:49 PM, Wayne wrote:
>> >
>> >

>> > "(ｯ`ｷ. Craig Chilton .ｷ ｯ) " wrote in message
>> > news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >> DEBUNKING 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were

>> >> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>> >>
>> >> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>> >>
>> >> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> >> used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> >> same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>> > -
>> > Since marriage is between a man and a woman
>
>

>> That's one version of it.
>
> True. It also happens to be the correct definition.
>

Nope.
It is not, asshole.

[Paul David Wright]

DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:jgnrmd$ibp$2...@dont-email.me:

> Path:
> news.albasani.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!
mx
> 04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: DanielSan
> <daniel...@gmail.com> Newsgroups:
> alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.atheism,alt.bible,alt.
a
> bortion Subject: Re: DEBUNKING Craigs rebuttal 77 SPECIOUS
> "Reasons" for Opposing
> 100%-HARMLESS Same-Sex Marriage.
> Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 22:24:07 -0800
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 27
> Message-ID: <jgnrmd$ibp$2...@dont-email.me>
> References: <5chrsu....@news.alt.net>
> <p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com>
> <jgnika$p12$1...@dont-email.me> <jgnimr$l8b$6...@dont-email.me>
> <almarsoft.7782...@news.eternal-september.org>
> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15;
> format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Injection-Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 06:24:13 +0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
> posting-host="xcEuYTOaZTI+iUIHYKT5iQ";
> logging-data="18809";
> mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org";
> posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Jfo0R07MeiitTbXzMdcyd574PziTBG28="
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222
> Thunderbird/9.0.1 In-Reply-To:
> <almarsoft.7782...@news.eternal-september.org>
> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120205-3,
> 02/05/2012), Outbound message Cancel-Lock:
> sha1:Mq/B0HFmCo7ejEG0VWyyUwPLX38= Xref: news.albasani.net
> alt.politics.usa:713859 alt.politics.homosexuality:411013
> alt.atheism:2325772 alt.bible:456148 alt.abortion:591735

>
> On 2/5/2012 9:56 PM, Wayne wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:50:45 -0800, DanielSan
>> <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2/5/2012 7:49 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "(ｯ`ｷ. Craig Chilton .ｷ ｯ) " wrote in message
>>> > news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> DEBUNKING 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were
>>> >> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>>> >>
>>> >> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>>> >>
>>> >> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>>> >> used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>>> >> same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>>> > -
>>> > Since marriage is between a man and a woman
>>
>>
>>> That's one version of it.
>>
>> True. It also happens to be the correct definition.
>

> How do you figure?
>

Because HE SAYS SO!! Haven't you heard that the 'Almighty Wayne' is
ALWAYS correct?

--
PDW, who can't believe he wrote that with a straight face....

[Paul David Wright]

Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:almarsoft.4907...@news.eternal-september.org:

> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:11:43 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>> In article <jgnika$p12$1...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>

>> > "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) " wrote in message

>> > news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > > ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that
> were
>> > > Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>> > >
>> > > Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>> > >
>> > > That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> > >used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> > >same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>> > -
>> > Since marriage is between a man and a woman
>
>

>> While church marriage, and in most states legal marriage, may be
> so
>> limited, there is no reason why the definitions may not be extended.
>
> There is no reason to change a definition to an incorrect definition.
>

Sez you.
And you are wrong.

--
PDW

[Paul David Wright]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:jgpi50$rhh$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>
> "DanielSan" wrote in message news:jgnrlv$ibp$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 2/5/2012 9:59 PM, Wayne wrote:

>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:11:43 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>>> In article <jgnika$p12$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> > "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) " wrote in message >
>>> news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>>> > > > > ⤢⤢⤢ DEBUNKING ⤢⤢⤢ 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that
>> were
>>> > > Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>>> > >
>>> > > Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>>> > >
>>> > > That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>>> > >used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>>> > >same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>>> > -
>>> > Since marriage is between a man and a woman
>>
>>
>>> While church marriage, and in most states legal marriage, may be
>> so
>>> limited, there is no reason why the definitions may not be extended.
>>
>> There is no reason to change a definition to an incorrect definition.
>

> <"Incorrect definition"?
> -
> Yep. For example, you can call a gynecologist a proctologist...but it
> doesn't make the gynecologist a proctologist. Well except in Craig's
> mind perhaps.
>
>

And you don't get to make those decisions, rightard asshole.

[Paul David Wright]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:jgucp6$803$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> "DanielSan" wrote in message news:jgpsep$fqu$5...@dont-email.me...
>
> On 2/6/2012 1:51 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>
>>
>> "DanielSan" wrote in message news:jgnrlv$ibp$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> On 2/5/2012 9:59 PM, Wayne wrote:
>>> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:11:43 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>>>> In article <jgnika$p12$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>

>>>> > "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) " wrote in message >
>>>> news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>>>> > > > > ⤢⤢⤢ DEBUNKING ⤢⤢⤢ 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that

So, you do think you are the one to make up definitions, do you?
Well, fuck you, rightard.

[Paul David Wright]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:jgphl0$ons$1...@dont-email.me:

>
>
> "Ray Fischer" wrote in message

> news:4f2f8b6c$0$12012$742e...@news.sonic.net...

>
> Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:11:43 -0700, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
>>> In article <jgnika$p12$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>> "Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>

>>> > "(¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯) " wrote in
>>> > message news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77

>>> > > SPECIOUS "Reasons* that
>>were
>>> > > Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>>> > >
>>> > > Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>>> > >
>>> > > That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>>> > >used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>>> > >same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>>> > -
>>> > Since marriage is between a man and a woman
>>
>>
>>> While church marriage, and in most states legal marriage, may be
>>so
>>> limited, there is no reason why the definitions may not be extended.
>>
>>There is no reason to change a definition to an incorrect definition.
>

> <The Bible refers to other forms of marriage. King Soloman, for
> <example, had several hundred wives.
> -
> And none of his wives were men.
>
>

So fucking what, asshole?

[Paul David Wright]

Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote in
news:5d8c51d0-b44b-4371...@t2g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

> 77 Reasons, no.
> A million reasons and counting.

> The dead homosexualist killed by VD.
> 77 Reasons Homosexualists DANGEROUS near Children
>

More hateful lies.

[Paul David Wright]

Loirbaj <Rhod...@wmconnect.com> wrote in
news:bcd25047-bb31-40af...@18g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> 77 Reasons, no.
> A million reasons and counting.
> The dead homosexualist killed by VD.

> No homosexualist should be allowed
> within a mile of a child.
>

And neither should you, deviant liar.

[Paul David Wright]

Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:almarsoft.8013...@news.eternal-september.org:

> On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:18:04 -0500, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
> wrote:

>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:49:29 -0800, "Wayne"
> <mygarb...@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >"(¯`·. Craig Chilton .· ¯) " wrote in message
>> >news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >
>> >> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that were

>> >> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>> >>
>> >> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>> >>
>> >> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>> >>used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>> >>same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>> >-

>> >Since marriage is between a man and a woman,
>
>
>> You're starting with a premise that is not universally granted. This
>> negates the remainder of your "argument."
>

> You very well know that I am right, even if you pretend otherwise.
>

You really are full of yerself, aren't you, asshole?

[Paul David Wright]

"Wayne" <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:jgphsg$pvm$1...@dont-email.me:

>
> "Ray Fischer" wrote in message

> news:4f2f8b8c$0$12012$742e...@news.sonic.net...

>
> Wayne <mygarb...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:18:04 -0500, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
>>wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:49:29 -0800, "Wayne"
>><mygarb...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >"(¯`·. Craig Chilton .· ¯) " wrote in message
>>> >news:p4sti79h9ghg8d669...@4ax.com...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> ••• DEBUNKING ••• 77 SPECIOUS "Reasons* that
>>> >> were
>>> >> Idiotically put forth by a Bigot for Opposing Same-sex Marriage
>>> >>
>>> >> Post #2 -- "Reasons" #22-36 & Their REFUTATIONS
>>> >>
>>> >> That's because *NO* FACTS even EXIST that can be
>>> >>used as a sensible argument against 100%-HARMLESS
>>> >>same -sex marriage; Marriage Equality.
>>> >-
>>> >Since marriage is between a man and a woman,
>>
>>
>>> You're starting with a premise that is not universally granted. This
>>> negates the remainder of your "argument."
>>
>>You very well know that I am right,
>

> <You're an arrogant religibot convinced of your own infallibility.
> -

> Me a "religibot"? LOL...yeah, that's a good one.
>
>

Thanks for proving it, asshole.

[Paul David Wright]

"IlBe...@gmail.com" <ilbe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9ada6586-191b-4e62...@eb6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:


> On Feb 5, 2:17=A0am, "Fidem Turbare, atheist goddess"
> <fidem.turb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On Feb 4, 10:07=A0pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Too long to post but the link will lead to evidence that should
>> > logically end any debate doubting that marriage is anything but a
>> > union between one man and one woman.
>>
>> >http://defendmarriageillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/77-non-
r
>> >...
>>

>> > or
>>
>> >http://tiny.cc/krmxo
>>
>> I picked one at random and read it. =A0After that, I figured the
>> whole list is just right-wing propaganda. =A0The one I read is number
>> 44 (the first numbered item on the second page), followed by my
>> thoughts on the matter:
>>
>> "44. No one has a right to have a child. =A0Children are not objects,
>> to which other people have rights. =A0Children are persons, with
>> rights of their own."
>>
>> Becoming a parent is not a matter of rights, but a matter of
>> privilege, yet that statement manipulatively creates a false
>> impression that many people think it's a right. =A0Every parent knows
>> that their children aren't objects (people who think that are not
>> parents, they're oppressive psychopaths and are one of the main
>> justifications for having a foster care system). =A0Children do have
>> some rights, but there's a balance where they also have to obey their
>> parents who are responsible for their well-being.
>>
>> --
>> Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
>> "No man should bring children into the world who is unwilling to
>> persevere to the end in their nature and education."
>> =A0 =A0-- Plato of Athens
>
> Theres no such thing as 'a true atheist' .

And you continue to be wrong, Davie.