Gallup- Support for same-sex marriage hits new high majority-

????LOLOLOL Yeah, nothing exclusive to one gender or the other as one of both are required

 

But its not available to "everyone else". There is no restrictions regarding homosexuals and the limitation to a man and a woman certainly isn't the only limitation.

 

You already produced one, and now two people have pointed it out to you. You have made a logical error of the form:

If A, therefore B
B
Therefore, A

This is incorrect. But this might be too abstract, considering your demonstrated high density, so let's plug in some examples:
Eating spinach is good for your health
You are healthy
Therefore, you eat nothing but spinach.

- - - Updated - - -

Sigh. Gays wish to marry, the same as straights. Same ceremony, same legal condition, same restrictions, benefits, expectations, the whole works. YOU know this, everyone knows this. They do not wish ANYTHING different from what straights take for granted.

You couldn't be honest if you tried, could you?

 

Nope. Nothing prior to that ruling prohibited it.

- - - Updated - - -

Show me any statute which prohibited it prior to the 1979s ruling

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing prohibited same sex marriage until the 1970s

- - - Updated - - -

It of course specifically denied gay couples.

And I am of course correct.

- - - Updated - - -

Strawman/red herring

 

No state limited it to a man and woman. Your statute does not support your claim. It doesn't limit it to opposite sex marriage. Sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't say what you want it to. Sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

No they aren't. The statute you quoted is entirely absent of any exclusion.

- - - Updated - - -

No requirement anywhere in that statute. Sorry

 

Nobody has produced even one single example of a same sex marriage, any where in the US at any time from 1776 to 2002. Why do you compulsively lie?

 

That's an old joke, containing some truth. So when the gays get married, they won'tbe getting any either.

 

We are pointing out there was no prohibition until 1970

 

Only because you people can convinced yourself that "male...and...female" can mean a male and a male or a female and a female.

Or minnesotas marriage law from the territorial days...

"such marriages are accordingly prohibited"

 

Its a fact. Laws didnt make it a crime to engage in sexual relations between a man and a woman without marriage to encourage procreation but in fact to stop it from occuring outside of marriage.
One only need to look at the black community in the US. to see this. LOWER marriage rates than whites with HIGHER birth rates than whites. The result being more black kids with their single mother on her own with absent or unknown fathers. Marriage inhibits procreation

 

And yet, you keep telling others "what the topic of the thread is"....which is NOT your view of the legality or Constitutionality of gay marriage....but the POLLING on it.

And keep demanding that THEY "stick to the subject"....which YOU clearly are NOT.


Once again, another of your little "routines".

 

The kids are getting it right.


freedom makes America more American

 

I'll happily let the homophobes have the blogs to rant and whine and complain until their arthritic old fingers can't type anymore in the nursing home "Internet cafe" 30 years from now.....

the polling is going against them, as clearly are the court cases. When 61% of young REPUBLICANS support marriage equality....the homophobes are doomed going into the future.

So let them throw their poo from their cages, if it makes them feel better.

 

You aren't under the impression that the Mormons created Prop 8 without any intentions to restrict GAY marriage...........are you?....................you are!!!.............awe, how adorable

 

Marriage laws never specified that gays could not enter into marriage, because at the time they were written, no gays had ever tried it. Gay marriage wasn't illegal anywhere in the US till Bush era Republicans started to create gay marriage bans.

Why do you think they need gay marriage bans?.....they're designed to stifl the inevitable collapse of marriage inequality

 

You and Dixon, sitting in a tree.....k-i-s-s-i-n-g....

The ONLY thing Prop 8 was designed to do was prevent people with same sex orientation from getting married.

 

Apparently you believe equal treatment equals 'stupid tortured logic'.

The reason voters in California voted yes for Prop 8 was to prevent homosexuals from being allowed to marry.

But the intent is really immaterial. The result was discrimination, and a violation of the Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

The only requirements there are that a male couldn't get married until he was 18, and a female couldn't get married until she was 16, and neither could get married if they were already married to someone else.

 

Exactly, thank you.....because those laws did not say a female had to marry a man. They just said they can't marry anyon before 16 for girls and 18 for boys.

 

Equal treatment would involve marriage for any two consenting adults. You advocate INequality by design to favor the gays.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you like...12 years old?

 

Are you like.....a humorless prude?

The ONLY thing Prop 8 was designed to do was prevent people with same sex orientation from getting married.

 

"Male...and ....female", NOT male or female. Words have meaning.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, it was to maintain the limitation to men and women .

 

And there still are no laws that prohibit gays from marrying. Only laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman. Their sexual orientation is of no concern.

 

The statute you cited does not limit it. The Minnesota case was the first prohibition. Nothing prior did so.

 

BTW, in case you don't notice the subtext. dixon (and one other has tried this) wants to tell us that he's "okay" with a homosexual man marrying a woman.....that's "fine". But that if a homosexual man marries a man....he opposes it out of his love of "traditional marriage".

But look at what he's saying. He's saying he would rather have a "straight" marriage based on a lie or doomed to fail......than a gay marriage.

Now does that indicate support for "marriage"....or simply hatred of gays getting married to each other?

 

The challenge was to find any law explicitly disallowing same-sex marriage. You produced one that, sure enough, did not explicitly disallow same-sex marriage. NOW you are asking for something different - an EXAMPLE of a same-sex marriage, rather than a law specifically forbidding them. You were shown to be wrong, and you moved the goalposts accordingly. Which is right up there with your usual level of honesty.