Consenting adults

Never made any such argument but since you claim Ive done so "repeatedly" and every post Ive made is in the "record" in the forum, why don't you just quote my post where I did. You know, show us for once, you are not just making this (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go along.

 

Where do you see the qualifier of "ONLY". Where do you see the subject of "laws and rights".
The limitation to men and women exists to serve the governmental interest in improving the wellbeing of children. IF the discrimination doesn't serve a legitimate governmental interest it is unconstitutional. Discrimination MUST serve some legitimate governmental interest. NOT "laws and rights exist only to serve the interests of government."

You are just crafting strawmen to scamper off after because that's what you do here.

 

And as the courts keep telling you, US law doesn't work that way. You have to demonstrate an interest served by the denial of a right.

It's why you consistently lose in court

 

Of course it does. The courts falsely accuse the states of an intent to disparage and injure homosexuals when there is no such intent. IF THERE WAS such an intent, THEN the law would work as you describe.

 

By stating that gays cannot marry because the express purpose for marriage is procreation and procreation only...you are establishing procreation as the key prerequisite for marraige.

Its not a strawman if it is your argument. Even if you try so desperately to use circular logic to avoid that fact that indeed it is exactly what your argument is.

Keep trying. You will keep losing.

 

No no no no!!! Marriage does NOT exist to "serve the government interest." The government exists to serve the interests of the people, not the other way around.

Sorry, but we are not here to serve the interests of government. The government is here to serve the interests of the people.

And once more for the world! Human activities that serve no government interest are STILL protected in the interests of freedom and liberty. There is no test, and had damn well better be no test, of "serves the interests of the government" to decide whether we are free to do something.

You don't seem to understand this, no matter how many people explain and no matter how they explain it. But one more try: skydiving serves no government interest. Should it therefore be illegal? Hiking and camping and strolling in the park serve no government interest, should those therefore be illegal?

The default is NOT that everything should be illegal UNLESS someone can show that it serves the purposes of the government. The default is, quite properly, that everything is LEGAL unless the government can demonstrate that it is actively harmful to others. Same-sex marriage is in no conceivable way harmful to others, so by default it's fine. This is grade-school civics, obvious to anyone not blinded by bigotry.

 

Laws banning marriage prima facie demean and injure those excluded from marriage. Now, why do you suppose all those states went to the effort of banning marriages? Do you suppose they were all accidents, and the states had NO CLUE that those they were deliberately depriving of their rights, might be upset by it? Believe it or not, neither the states nor the courts have made the effort you have to look stupid.

 

No, the friggin delicate as a *******ned flower sensibilities of the homosexuals feel demeaned by societies recognition of the nuclear family, mothers and fathers raising their children, and their inability to participate.

- - - Updated - - -

Thats not what I said. Stick with my words. Your interpretations of them seem to only further confuse you.

 

Of course, nobody made any such claim sooooooo I'll wait here while you scamper of after the same old strawmen, again and again. Marriage INHIBITS procreation.

 

Gee, you're being denied the rights of citizenship that I enjoy? Why, you crybaby! You don't DESERVE the same rights as I do, because you're different and therefore inferior.

Great argument you have there. Who could possibly be offended by it?

- - - Updated - - -

Procreation is a red herring. Marriage does not exist for procreation. As has been pointed out to you probably a hundred times. Isn't it odd that whenever anyone disputes one of your ignorant claims, you immediately insist you never said any such thing - and then repeat the same claim.

 

Uuuuhhhh no, you just made up that silly argument. Not mine.

As I have pointed out 100 times, marriage INHIBITS procreation. Birth control doesnt exist for procreation, AND YET, men and women who engage in sexual relations use birth control because of the potential of procreation.

 

That's exactly your argument. But asking you to be honest for once falls on deaf ears every time.

And I might point out that the sun rises in the east 100 times, and it will become no more relevant to this discussion. Marriage is not about procreation, that's not what marriage is for. Procreation is IRRELEVANT. Every court that has had to suffer people bleating about procreation has pointed this out. If you wish to discuss procreation, find a biology forum.

 

so?

Than no interest is served than they have no need to exclude anybody.

The people aren't subject of the government.

Not really the same thing. That has a direct cost on the tax payer.

 

No one claimed it is. Marriages limitation to men and women is about procreation, in that only men and women have the potential. A distinction, narrower than the broad side of a barn, so probably beyond your abilities to perceive.

 

Sure it is. Tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage cost the taxpayer. Mrs Windsor of the DOMA case sued because she owed the federal government over $300,000 in estate taxes if the federal government didn't recognize her marriage. Food stamps for Bill Gates wouldn't cost the taxpayer that much.

 

No, it's not. Procreation is irrelevant.

But of course, you've been asked about marriages you have no problem with, even though procreation is impossible. Remember? Elderly couples, sterile people, etc.? Are you now going to pretend you've forgotten all about those marriages? And have you already forgotten that courts have pointed these out repeatedly? Or are you just lying again?

 

You seem to think this is an empirical country. Money that is collected as taxes isn't the government's it belongs to the people. They just don't take as much from people if they have exemptions.

It isn't the government's money

 

Just as I have no problem with the Dr prescribing my ex wife birth control pills for 4 or 5 years, only to find out with her second husband, that she never had the ability to procreate. Remember? Because just as Drs aren't concerned with infertile women taking birth control pills, and are only concerned with a fertile woman who doesn't want to get pregnant, NOT taking birth control pills. Government isn't concerned with married women not procreating and is instead only concerned with unmarried women doing so.
BECAUSE, children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts AND criminal conviction as an adult. A legitimate governmental interest, unlike this attempt to win more dignity and respect for homosexuals with "gay marriage".

 

No one claimed it was. The $300,000 tax the federal government had to return to Mrs Windsor had to be replaced with taxes from the rest of us. Just as the cost of food stamps to Bill Gates would have to be paid with taxes from the rest of us.

 

No, the taxes were never collected. They didn't have to repay anything. It was never their money in the first place. They wouldn't have to be replaced.

It's not the government's money, it never was.

 

No one claimed it was the governments money. Got anything relevant to the post of mine you chose to quote and respond to?
And not that your claim that the taxes were not collected has a damned bit of relevance to the topic of discussion, but as usual you are wrong

You had no idea if she had or had not paid the estate tax. Why do you just make up (*)(*)(*)(*) to fill your gaps in knowledge? Its that integrity issue of yours again. Im sure youll probably claim you forgot to put a question mark after
"No, the taxes were never collected"?

 

Yes, it isn't the government's money to take. They don't owe squat. Look at the case.

Please, you go from democrat to communist to empirical to argue against same sex marriage. You have no integrity, your argument failed, I proved it, using conservative values. Than you call my character into question because your argument fails.

So what now, you are going to continue with your extremely hypocritical attack I my character for three days?

It's not the government's money, they improperly confiscated wealth, Mrs Windsor proved that, you are wrong, end of discussion.

 

This is from your link...

Thus I am correct, it was never the government's place to confiscate money from Mrs Windsor. Thus there were no tax deficits. It doesn't cost anybody anything. The government was forced to return money it stole.

 

I'll go with what US law actually is and what the courts actually said than your made up bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

And you'll continue losing.

 

Nothing in the US law contradicts my statement. And the courts dont dispute my laws, they dispute my facts. Claiming the limitation of marriage to men and women is intended to exclude homosexuals. Intended to actually "disparage and injure" homosexuals when in fact it is because only women give birth and only men cause them to do so. Has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.