I am not for being gay but

your argument falls apart because no potential of procreation needs to exists in order to marry. that is why you are forced to go around in circles making a fool of yourself.

 

So you say "the potential of procreation is the only reason marriage is limited to heterosexual couples"...yet also say "couples don't have to have the potential of procreation in order to marry." Those two beliefs blatantly contradict each other.

 

My argument doesn't need a requirement of the potential of procreation. You confuse your personal opinions of the way things should be with the requirements of our constitution.

 

Contradicts your personal view of the way things should be. Otherwise there is no contradiction at all

 

Of course it needs a requirement. Without one, you have no justification for barring same sex couples from marriage. Which is why your argument is so idiotic and self defeating

 

No, its a logical contradiction. You are saying completely opposite things.

 

What silly nonsense. The existence of heterosexual couples who cannot procreate, doesn't contradict with the fact that only heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation

 

It contradicts your premise for who can marry

 

????? it precisely conforms with it. You obviously have not yet comprehended my premise.

 

Nope. Total contradiction

 

If marriage is limited to heterosexual couples because only heterosexual couples can procreate, but the potential for procreation isn't a requirement for marriage...then marriage is not limited to hetersoexual couples for that reason.

Only fertile heterosexual couples can procreate, but that doesn't mean it logically follows that only fertile heterosexual couples can marry. Therefore, if only heterosexual couples procreate, it cannot logically follow that only heterosexual couples can marry. You could just keep broadening the definition, and saying only couples can procreate, and therefore only couples can marry. The potential for procreation is no logical basis for limited marriage to heterosexual couples, because a couple can be heterosexual and not have that potential. It is an absurd argument that a 1st grader could see as bogus.

 

Court precedent DIRECTLY contradicts your silly fool, first grader logic.


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

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
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

i]t 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

In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...

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

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

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

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

 

Quoting outdated and overturned state court decisions doesn't help you

 

Quit nicely and directly contradicts both yours and Liberalis' assertions. And not a one of the decisions has been overturned.

 

Nope. Outdated and overturned decisions don't help you.

Same sex marriage is legal in Washington state.

 

Court precedent doesnt become outdated. Especially considering we are talking about marriages limitation to men and women which is thousands of years old. And none of the decisions have been overturned.

 

We are arguing that court decisions prohibiting same-sex marriage, like laws that do the same, should be overturned. You are arguing that same-sex marriage should be illegal...because its illegal. Again, that is a tautology. You still have no argument.

 

I never argued "same sex marriage should be illegal" and have consistantly only opposed "gay marriage". Watch the silly man chasing his own strawmen.

 

This is another fun part of a dixon debate on gay rights.

He claims he doesn't want same-sex marriage to be illegal, he just wants gay marriage to be illegal. Now...watch the fun as he tries to explain the "difference" and how it's "not a contradiction".

 

It's gotten so stupid that it truly painful to watch.

 

Nope, I have only opposed "gay marriage".

 

Of course they become outdated, especially when 12 states and several federal courts have called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on the arguments made in them.

And washington now has same sex marriage, which overturned the washington state court ruling.

 

It's dixons default tactic when getting his ass kicked. Equivocation is a desperate and pathetic debate tactic

 

You really are clueless. The Washington legislation didn't overturn any court decision.

 

Of course it did