Curious...do homophobes think they're going to "bring it all back"?

And THAT definition makes skydiving or dying your hair a perversion.

 

So why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married? If there's nothing wrong with it?

 

I skydive, but wasnt aware of any prohibition in the bible. Or dying your hair.

 

Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/co.../759341opn.pdf
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=316&invol=535
It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .(*)

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=434&invol=374
Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.....

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....

And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/co.../759341opn.pdf
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...(*)

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation...

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment(*)
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:

"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:

"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:

"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."...

It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined.

A license to enter into a status or a relationship which the parties are incapable of achieving is a nullity...

In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage
http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfr...0029.KY.htm/qx

 

Because your definition of perversion was "those types of human behavior that deviate from that which is understood to be orthodox or normal." You did not use the buybull to define it, you defined it like that. Under that definition, anything that is not normal, (which brings up the question of "in what way") is a perversion, and since the overwhelming number of people do not skydive, that would make skydiving abnormal.

 

....really? C'mon you just used it in a non-religious setting to describe your opposition to people doing it to the Constitution. Is homosexuality "perverted" in your opinion outside of a religious context, yes or no?

 

So again, you're back to "Marriage is about procreation....but procreation doesn't matter."

And you HONESTLY don't see yourself contradicting yourself....do you?!?!??!?

 

Has a different meaning when applied to a human behavior than when applied to interpreting the Constitution.

 

More accurately, fertile heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. Yet even when this is not possible the Supreme Court has defended their civil right to marry.

No one is denying marriage is linked to procreation, but what we ARE saying is that not only is it not limited by one's ability or willingness to procreate, but that any attempts to restrict its access (prisoners for example) have been declared unconstitutional - even when there is no apparent government interest anywhere to be served.

Marriage invites government involvement and is hardly about privacy. Why you've quoted this I have no idea.

DOMA was passed in part to "express disapproval of homosexuality". The reasoning given to try and paint DOMA as Constitutional falls apart because same-sex marriage in no way detracts from any of those purposes, and it fails to afford equal protection to those legally married in their states.

The telling part is where you say "nearly all decisions". Turner v. Safley giving all prisoners including those who will never be able to procreate with their wives certainly didn't link marriage to procreation. If anything it severed it as prisoners have no "fundamental right" to procreation.

Traditionally linked, not judicially or actually bound by it.

This was a narrowly decided 5-4 decision, you do realise? 4 of the justices disagreed with this person's rationale, which isn't saying much apart from "I think it's ok that a couple who have no ability to procreate can receive over a thousand rights, and for all you gays identically situated, well it's just tough ****!". There is no argument for that which doesn't violate equal protection.

It doesn't matter how old an institution is. Including gay people doesn't take anything away from it, and for heterosexuals it remains exactly the same.

Abstract Symmetry my ass. In terms of procreational ability post-menopausal and sterile couples are IDENTICAL to same-sex couples. It's a straight-up equal protection issue as long as there is no reason apart from their ability to procreate that disqualifies them from receiving the rights of marriage.

From Merriam-Webster:

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Your law dictionary is clearly out of date or politically biased given that the actual legal REALITY is that "marriage" in parts of US law refers to a union of two men or two women.

Irrelevant now given how it is defined culturally (most Americans recognise same-sex marriage, or just marriage) and legally (Nine US states + DC and many jurisdictions around the world).

 

The definition you quoted didn't say that at all - it merely identified a frequent use among the religious. It didn't say that the word can only be used in a religious context when referring to human behavior, you just pulled that out of your ass to avoid answering the question.

 

No, the contradiction is in your fabricated quotes youve attributed to me. And thats the courts I was quoting.

 

Producing biological offspring is not required in order to marry. Trying to use the inability to do so is an invalid argument

 

You probably shouldn't rely on the courts for your argument since they keep calling bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your argument.

 

And you support what "the courts" say....right? Or are you posting things you disagree with?!?!??!?

dixon, you go round and round....you want to exclude gays from marrying because of "marriage is for procreation"...then in the next second, you declare "But procreation isn't necessary for marriage" because you get caught in the "infertile heterosexual couple" trap.

Your continual point is like somebody saying "I oppose women being allowed to drive cars....because cars are directly related to racing in NASCAR. Oh, but you don't have to be a NASCAR racer to be allowed to drive a car. Non-NASCAR men can still drive...just no women." when somebody points out that not every man is going to be able to race stock cars.

 

Okay. That's one way to see things. Got it.

And that is why millions of people are surely going to disagree with your views.

 

Well, at least you are honest as to what you want. Sad state of affairs when government cant give a preference to biological parents, because it offends the homosexuals who cant procreate. That the delicate sensibilities of a tiniest minority of gays are more important han the wellbeing of millions of children.

 

In this case, if one were "sharp", they would know what "reading between the lines" meant

 

Noooooo it is the limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples that is based upon their potential of procreation. Just as it is the potential of procreation that excludes closely related couples from marriage. Just as it is the impossibility of procreation that can lead to marriages between platonic couples being annuled for a failure to consummate the marriage. Just as it is the impossibility of procreation between a couple who hasnt consummated the relationship that leads to marriages being declared fraudulent.

 

Your views are convoluted, deceptive and repulsive. (More honesty for you.)

 

How is the well being of children compromised by allowing same-sex couples to marry?

 

Oh... did I leave out "homophobic"?

 

You people only further confuse yourselves when you ponder the meaning of the blank space between the lines while ignoring what is contained within those lines.

 

Because if you smear a little 'homophobia' onto your logic, THAT has to be the outcome. Don't you see?

 

Nope, because the right of "groups" of heterosexual couples who have no right to procreate have been upheld, severing procreation as a valid reason for excluding same-sex couples.

 

That's yet another clue into Dixon's anti gay pathology.

We know that he shows signs of traditional machismo, so at one time he was either teased for being a sissy, or beaten into becoming a bully.

Women are bad as far as Dix's psyche is concerned, and that's why he tried to insult you by calling you one...of course that's all delivered under the guise of a witty Hamlet quote.

It's entirely possible that Dix is a bible thumper, and lies about being an Atheist for convenience in this argument.

It's entirely possible Dix's argument has little to do with the Constitution...after all...the Tea Party purports worship of the Constitution, when in reality they're just a bunch of Republicans who hate the fact that one of "those people" are in the white house