I am not for being gay but

Not my strawman. It's your failed idiotic argument

 

Show us you are not a bald faced liar and copy and paste where I EVER claimed couples "have to have the potential to procreate in order to marry".

Its your strawman. Has always been your strawman. You cant even begin to comprehend my arguments, let alone address them. Thats why you have nothing but your constant stream of strawmen to busy yourself with. It what I have come to expect from you.

 

Not my strawman. It's your idiotic and self defeating argument. It falls apart without a requirement for the potential of procreation. Without that requirement you have absolutely no justification for excluding same sex couples

 

Soooooo....Show us you are not a bald faced liar and copy and paste where I EVER claimed couples "have to have the potential to procreate in order to marry".

 

Not my strawman. It's your idiotic and self defeating argument. It falls apart without a requirement for the potential of procreation. Without that requirement you have absolutely no justification for excluding same sex couples

 

Your own words prove my point. If you are not arguing they have to have the potential of procreation, and you are arguing marriages must have the presence of a man and a woman, then you have no argument. You are arguing "marriage licenses should only be given to couples with a man and a woman because currently marriage licences are given only to couples with a man and a woman." That's even worse than your potential for procreation argument--its a blatant tautology.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, here you go. If you don't believe the potential for procreation has anything to do with who can marry...stop posting about it.

If you are not arguing the potential for procreation is the reason only men and women can marry (which is literally and exactly what you said) then you have no argument, only a tautology and circular reasoning.

 

You people are a joke. That is precisely what I am arguing. What every court case cited evidences.

 

Then why on earth did you say this?

When anyone proves that the potential for procreation has nothing to do with who can marry, you immediately say "I never said that!" And then one post later you say "the potential for procreation is the reason only men and women can marry."

You are trying to hold two completely opposite views at once and appeal to them when convenient...that's the joke.

 

it's a pathetic debate tactic known as equivocation. every time Dixon is backed into a corner, this is the trollish game he plays, for pages on end, to derail the topic of the thread.

 

Yeah I gave up getting locked into pointless debates with him a looong time ago.

 

That's what I told myself but I keep coming back...its almost sadistic.

 

In order to show the poster is a bald faced liar when neither you or he can produce the quote of mine where I said any such thing.

 

I showed you already.

 

Nope, it was claimed that I said couples

"have to have the potential to procreate in order to marry"

and you quoted me where I said

“the potential of procreation is the only reason marriage has for thousands of years been limited to a man and woman”

If you cannot comprehend the difference in meaning between the two statements, I dont know that I would be able to help you.

 

equivocation is a desperate and pathetic debate tactic

 

You said only a man and a woman have the potential to procreate...that is a couple. The meaning is exactly the same whether you specifically use the word couple or not. And you know this, because in another thread you did use the word couples.

You're all over the place, dixon.

 

I'm right here where I have always been. Your not even contradicting anything I've said above. Just again chasing after irrelevancy in order to avoid the relevant.

 

You got that right.

 

I guess if you have nothing relevant to the topic of discussion, juvenile attempts at humor are all you have left.

 

Your post was arguing in circles. I thought a picture would help illustrate that to you, since multiple posters simply explaining it to you hasn't worked.

 

You are the only one going in circles. Arguing that I meant "couples" when of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing course I am talking about couples. I never claimed otherwise. I never claimed "couples have to have the potential of procreation in order to marry". You present as evidence that i had my statement "the potential of procreation is the only reason marriage has for thousands of years been limited to a man and a woman", because you are not capable of comprehend the difference in meaning and the fact that nothing within my statement even implies that "couples have to have the potential of procreation in order to marry". And the difference doesn't have a thing to do with whether a man and a woman is a couple.

 

equivocation is a desperate and pathetic debate tactic

 

Your claims of equivocation are meaningless without stringing together a few words to identify the equivocation. But you don't know how to formulate arguments, so all we ever get from you are statements of your conclusions.
Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples because only heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation, in no way implies individual couples "have to have the potential of procreation in order to marry"

 

sure thing Dixon. limiting marriage only to heterosexuals because only they can procreate(which isn't true), but at the same time saying you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry.

I'm not sure how you don't fall down more with all the arguing in circles you're forced to do.

 

Well, first, a lesbian and a turkey baister full of donated semen isn't a "couple" procreating. Otherwise I'm not sure of your point. It is very easy to identify the presence of both sexes necessary for procreation. Next to impossible to accurately identify the actual ability to procreate. Not to mention that marriages limitation to men and women, is as old as the institution itself. The ability of medical science to now accurately identify some cases of an inability to procreate does nothing to change the motivations behind the limitation to heterosexual couples that was already in place.(*)

The only circles are the ones you have created.(*)Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, the only couples with a potential of procreation, doesn't create a constitutional requirement that government exclude any individual couple that does not have an actual ability to procreate. Bright lines drawn in the law. Usually created for their ease in identification, not precision. For instance some SS benefits go automatically to a deceased,s dependent biological children, but to non biological dependent children, only upon a showing that the child was actually reliant upon the deceased before their death. Under the theory that biological children are always reliant upon their biological parents in the home, while unrelated dependants may or may not be reliant. Supreme court held this was constitutional simply for administrative convenience. Government can limit marriage to heterosexual couples because it is easier to identify the presence of a man and a woman, than it is to identify the presence of a man and woman with the actual ability to procreate. And homosexual couples demands that marriage be made available to homosexual couples, doesn't transform marriages 1000s of years old limitation to men and women into a nefarious plot to exclude homosexual couples. It is still intended to include all couples with the potential of procreation.