Anti LGBT Mindset: Why are YOU against gay rights? READ MOD WARNING IN OP BEFORE POST

It has been assessed, it simply isn't a compelling argument. Being able to marry either sex regardless of your own doesn't exclude close relatives from marrying. Their closeness in relation exclude them.

Your argument isn't logical. It's a fallacy. It's one of two fallacies. The appeal to tradition it the appeal to nature.

The courts are realizing that is a logical fallacy.

No, they likely agree that two people of the same sex can't procreate exclusively with each other, they also likely accept the fact that marriage is for procreation.

Your facts aren't relevant. Homosexuals can procreate.

Your argument is garbage.

 

So you are saying that because incestious couples will still be denied marriage rights that it is unconstitutional for same sex marriage... Interesting, care to what part of the constitution that would be located in? No, didn't think so.

Since you want to deprive same sex couples the pursuit of happiness as well as disallowing the structure and security that marriage typically brings it is your side that must defend what purpose the discrimination serves. An appeal to tradition is such a great argument, keep using it in court - we will keep securing our rights.

The courts (both conservative and liberal disagree with your facts, your reasoning, and your legal arguments.

 

You don't understand. The courts are requiring a "compelling" governmental interest, BECAUSE they allege its intent is to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. A law with the intent to include all couples with the potential of procreation only needs to be rationally related to serving some governmental interest. The governmental interest is to improve the wellbeing of children and limiting marriage to heterosexual couples is rationally related to that interest because only heterosexual couples produce children.
Gays beginning to scream for gay marriage in the 90s, doesn't transform the intent of the limitation into an intent to "disparage and injure" gays, any more that Mormons in the 1800s screaming for plural marriage turned marriages limitation to just one, into an intent to "disparage and injure" Mormons. Every state limited marriage to just one before Mormonism was even invented.

 

Including gay couples makes excluding closely related couples unconstitutional. Just as heterosexual couples are INCLUDED because of the potential of procreation, closely related couples are EXCLUDED because of the potential of procreation. Even if they have no intent of procreating. Even if they don't have the ability to procreate. With this new gay marriage, this new marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, theyve lost the only justification there ever was to exclude closely related couples.

 

There are some people who get married and don't have children, and there are those who are sterile. Lol! Don't even tell me you're against gay marriage because they can't procreate with one another . . .

So why are you against SSM?

 

No I understand. I just think your interpretation of it is a bit whiney.

The law by its nature disparages homosexuals. I don't think the court is saying that it was ment for that purpose.

Homosexual couples have the potential to procreate.

No, marriage has nothing to do with the well being of children, particularly children of homosexual couples.

Homosexuals DAMN SURE CAN PROCREATE. They are human and they aren't sterile. So that argument is bunk.

Gays can and do have children. Do you are lying. Marriage isn't about improving the well being of children. It ignores children of homosexual couples.

You're stupid argument has been destroyed. It's illogical this it shouldn't convince any judges. It was beaten by a layman without a law dagree.

 

There are closely related couples who don't have children and those who are sterile soooo, not sure of your point.

And a married couples not procreating is of no concern to the government. The concern is unmarried couples doing so. That is only a concern when the couple is a heterosexual couple. My ex wife took birth control pills for years, only to find out in her 2nd marriage that she had been infertile all along. STILL, her Dr prescribed her birth control pills because as a sexually active heterosexual woman, she is presumed to have the potential of procreation. An infertile woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, taking birth control pills isn't the concern of the Dr. A fertile woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, NOT taking birth control is the concern.

 

I don't see how that proves anything at all. Not a very good argument, sorry to say. There is absolutely no reason why two gay people shouldn't be able to be married, just as heterosexual people do. That is just like . . . outright discrimination against them. This is supposed to be a free country. Are you comfortable with the government telling certain groups of people that it is actually illegal for them to be married? Being a kind of libertarian, I don't like the government intervening on people's lives in that way. It's just wrong.

Now, if they were under age of consent or related (as you were alluding to earlier), then that should still remain illegal because there is potential that it is an "abusive" situation in those cases.

 

I said heterosexual couples, "COUPLES" being the operative qualifier. Homosexual COUPLES cant procreate. Only one of them and a 3rd party of the opposite sex can procreate.

 

Yes there is. Only heterosexual couples procreate. AND using your logic there is absolutely no reason why two closely related people shouldn't be able to be married. If you want to treat them differently than the gay couples, you need SOME justification for doing so.

 

And what does any of this have to do with a gay American Citizens rights?

In 28 states, gay people can be legally be evicted for being gay.
In a number of states, gay people can be fired from their jobs for bring gay - it's just
in the last few years that gay's in the military have been able to keep their jobs if found out.

By the way, it always cracks me up when people who are against gay marriage because of tradition or sanctity of the institution start talking about ex-wives ... I've been married to the same woman for 24 years this Sunday - doesn't bother me one bit if a gay couple wants to marry. It won't have the slightest impact on my marriage or my thoughts on marriage.

 

I do. Because in most cases of incest, there is a victim, especially in a parent/child relationship. Those people are really screwed up people and they CAN procreate and produce some messed up kids.

 

If you want to marry your sister's daughter or your brother, then put together a coalition of like minded people and petition the courts to do so - but stop hiding behind SSM.

 

So what, they are still children of homosexual couples. Are they some type of special person that can't benefit from their parents being married?

You said it was to the benefit children. Gay couples have children. So you lied. It's not too improve the well-being of children. It's only to improve the well being of children of heterosexuals.

 

He doesn't, he is just trying to say that there is something wrong with ssm.

 

I am not against gays or lesbians but I am opposed to them kissing and lewd behavior in Public. Just as I am for any heterosexual couple showing lewd behavior. Two men kissing in public is simply not something I can get behind. Sorry, just my opinion. What a couple wants to do sexual out of public view is just fine and I support their right to do so. Just not in public. But then again, I also find T.V. Commercials promoting Viagra, condoms, feminine products, underwear to be unappropriate during prime time.

 

Are you sure? Some of these people seem absolutely obsessed with the idea of incest. Look at how many time they bring it up in these threads.

 

It's a red herring.

 

Ive never even suggested someone engage in incest. I'll wait here while you busy yourself with that strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

Its a strawman.

 

The 3 children/grandchildren being raised by their single mother and grandmother together down the street for over a decade, are children of the couple. The grandmother even adopted them. Soooo not sure of your point. EVERY single justification given for "gay marriage" applies equally as well to marriage between any two consenting adults.

 

You stated marriage was for the benefit of children. My point is you were lying.

Okay. Don't recall arguing that it didn't.

 

Nobody is suggesting that anybody engage in incest. The single mother and grandmother down the street raising their 3 children / grandchildren for over a decade have never engaged in incest. The millions of homes made up of two closely related adults and the biological children of one of them arent engaging in incest. They are building stable homes. Stable homes that the courts claim gay marriage is intended to foster.

 

String together a few words and make your argument as to why its a lie, if you can. The benefit to children is having both their mother and father in the home working together to provide and care for their children and fewer children in the most common alternative of children with a single mother on her own with an absent or unknown father. Gay couple with kids requires that the child be seperated from one or both of their biological parents.

 

Actually a Steadman would be a misrepresentation of somebody else's argument. You didn't do that.

A red herring is a bait and switch, and it actually isn't a logical fallacy.

You want to yak about something unrelated in hopes to derail the conversation, because your arguments are illogical, and you think distracting people with nonsense will sane you some face.

So it is indeed a red herring.

The problem you have with your red herring is that it only works on people that just feel off the turnip truck.

 

So your position on gay rights is what, exactly?