Why do gays make their sexuality an issue?

You are mistaken. We regulate relations between closely related couples for other reasons. A judge cannot sit on her fathers case even if she's not procreating with him, a surgeon cannot operate on his daughter even if he's not procreating with her. The IRS and SEC have different rules for contracts between closely related couples, even if they have zero potential to procreate.
​

 

gays are obsessed with informing you that they are gay...and you better accept this.. if you ever disagree with anything they do or say.... you are homophobic...

it works the same way with jews.

 

OF COURSE I can, just as Ive done 100 times. Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult, when compared to children born to women married to the childs father. ONLY when procreation occurs is there a child in need of a stable home to provide and care for them. NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION.

 

LOLOLOL!!!! YOU were talking about marriage. But of course, that why you now dash off to the IRS SEC and AMA guidelines having nothing to do with marriage.​

 

Never claimed any individual couple did have to. The law classifies people into groups all the time. Some state laws restrict marriage to those who are 18 and above, under the assumption that someone over 18 has the level of maturity appropriate for such a commitment. The fact that there are 17 year olds, more than mature enough to enter such a commitment, and the fact that there are 19 year olds who clearly are not mature enough, doesnt negate the legitimacy of the rule. The exception does not prove the rule. For administrative conveneince the laws classify people into groups, as opposed to a case by case basis for every single couple that were to marry.

 

Yes, but we do not refuse to countenance marriages between such couples for other reasons - unless of course you have in mind reasons which are founded in objective morality, and somehow I doubt that's the case.

 

Strawman.

You're the one who claimed that the courts mandated gay marriage. Show me any same-sex couple that was denied marriage because they weren't romantically involved and not for some other cause. If the court did what you claim, you should be able to find such a case. The fact that you can't serves to illustrate that your claim is bogus.

 

So straight couples don't have to be able to procreate...but your reasoning for deny homosexuals is that they can't procreate.

And you still can't grasp the fact that this glaring double standard doesn't pass the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.

That argument falls flat on its face. Sorry, no matter how many times your repeat it...its still wrong.

 

I suspect you dont know the first thing about the US Constitution let alone the 14th amendment. Has no effect upon my argument. This silly logic of yours has been addressed by the courts repeatedly.

 

romance wasn't always "normal" in marriage. For hundreds of years, there were arranged marriage where no romance was involved.

 

There are seriously questions of influence, free will, and child safety that exist when allowing parents to marry their children. I don't mind discussing those issues with you, or the necessity of bans on consanguineous marriage.

But those issues have nothing to do with the gender based restrictions on marriage. Restrictions that seem to have no reason to exist beyond an arbitrary choice by some people to make the lives of same sex couples more difficult.​

 

and now of course your argument is losing in federal court.

 

Those are court cases regarding state supreme courts. They pertain to state constitutions, they were not supreme court cases.

Secondly, legal double standards do not stand as equal protection.

Keep trying.

 

I was referring to marriages between adults.

Believe me, I have no reservations about your enthusiasm for the idea of taking the conversation down a road to nowhere.

They have plenty to do with it, since homosexual couples who presume to rear children as their own impose their insanity on said children of necessity.

 

The only consistant characteristic of marriage that has remained consistant throughout history, around the world, no matter the religion or culture, marriage has been between a man and a woman. From the dawn of civilization to 2001

 

Marriage is governed by STATE law and those are both State Supreme Courts, the highest authority regarding state law. All the states with court mandated gay marriage were mandated by State courts. And, from the Baker V Nelson case-

AND

A US Supreme Court precedent.

 

Nonsense. Husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. Two parts of the whole. The biology of procreation isnt arbitrary.

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points").

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

Not because gays are icky, but instead because only heterosexuals procreate. The above marriage law is from over 2000 years ago. The fact that gays have been screaming for the last 40 of those 2000 years, demanding marriage, doesnt transform the intent of marriages limitation to heterosexual couples to something other than what it has always been.

 

Just 'cause daddy waited until Suzy was 16 doesn't change the fact that letting a father marry his daughter raises questions of child safety. There are issues of free will and undue influence even after Suzy can vote. But if you really want to push for making marrying your kid legal: make your case. I'll hear you out.​

Sounds like your concern is not with same sex marriage, but with homosexual couples raising children. Again, have an issue with it: make that case. ... and please do start with your assumption that all homosexuals are insane. That kind of naked prejudice make where you're coming from so much clearer.

Let me know though, when you get back to the issue of same sex marriage.​

 

The presumption that marriage involves only mothers and fathers, is arbitrary. And incorrect. Men do not need to marry a woman "so that he may have children by her," nor would most of us respect a man with so shallow a motivation.​

​

 

Not if she's an adult, there aren't.

Yes, but those issues exist in every marriage. So as usual, you're just nattering away about nothing in hopes of confusing the issue.

{Insults and personal attacks are NOT allowed}

A predictable misperception on your part, and almost certainly deliberate.

 

Except of course same sex marriage is also thousands of years old. And no prohibition existed in the US prior to the 1970s

 

Lets see your evidence. Your little personal proclamations couldnt be more meaningless.

 

Functioning legs arent neccessary for procreation.

 

asked and answered dozens of times. that's what happens when you copy and paste the same debunked bull(*)(*)(*)(*) over and over.

 

and procreation isn't necessary for marriage.