Male Sexual Orientation Influenced by Genes

Basically it comes down to this- some people who find same gender marriage morally objectionable also just happen to consider homosexuals to be selfish self absorbed p***ks.

They know that merely arguing that homosexuals should not be allowed to be married because they are 'selfish self absorbed p***ks' wouldn't make a very persuasive argument to any rational person- so they invent tortured 'logic'' to narrow down marriage to only be for heterosexuals- without just saying "marriage is just for heterosexuals because marriage is just for heterosexuals".

The problem with the tortured rationals that they use is that they don't hold up to scrutiny- it becomes clear with all of the exceptions and holes to the rationalizations that they just are excuses to discriminate against 'selfish self-absorbed pr**ks'.

 

How is his arguement circular?

 

Because it demands that we accept the conclusion (that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman) without questioning the premises (the assertion that the definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman). Not to mention that the premise and conclusion are essentially identical; rationalizing that marriage is limited to a man and woman based on procreation is just a short detour between the two.

One might also say that it's a case of begging the question. We are disputing the restriction of legal marrriage to opposite sexes, and instead of answering that question by showing why marriage shouldn't be extended to same-sex couples, all we get is a reassertion of the very definition that we're disputing.

 

NOOO. You got anassertion as to WHY marriage is limited to heterosexuals.

 

Same circular argument for the very same purpose.

 

No, the states argue marriage is limited to men and women because only men and women have the potential of procreation. The courts claim this is false. Claim that marriage is instead so limited in order to disparage and injure homosexuals and demands the state justify such an intent.

 

Having fun running in circles dixon? Hey as long as you're having a good time.

 

How is Dixon using a circular arguement? Saying that men and women have procreation potential is not a circular arguement.

 

Well that is part of your circular argument to- where you make up what the states and courts are stating.

 

Get an argument, if you can.

 

Like I said, it's just a detour between a premise and conclusion that are the same. It's a means of dodging the question; one that tries to pretend that procreation is the sole reason for marriage to exist, then offers up more dodges and detours - many of them circular as well. It's propped up by fallacious appeals to tradition, and eventually circles back to restate the original assertion as if it were the conclusion.

Whatever links between marriage and procreation have been created in the law, overstating that relationship, and pretending that it is the very definition of marriage does not make a persuasive case for excluding same-sex marriages from legal recognition.

Likewise, pretending that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples isn't the same thing as excluding same-sex couples fools no one but those who choose to fool themselves with such malarkey. It's a poor attempt at a "rational basis" argument that completely falls apart when one examines the disconnect between what the law does, and what proponents of the restriction claim to be its purpose.

Without a rational relationship between the law and its outcomes, it doesn't matter who is being excluded; the law simply fails the lowest standard of review.It should come as no surprise, however, that the Court considers the facts about who is being targeted by an irrational law, and to what suspect purpose. And therefore no surprise at all when in this case it turns out that gay people are at the center of that bull's eye, even though the law doesn't mention homosexuality explicitly. The law has been crafted in such a way that it masquerades as being about something it's not. Ultimately, what it's about is a group of people trying to insert their religious beliefs about marriage into the law in order to control the lives of others; people over whom they have no legitimate power. It doesn't matter how many voters they can persuade to vote for such a crap law - that doesn't magically make it okay.

So yes, passing those bans on same-sex marriage recognition was not about 'preserving' or 'protecting' 'traditional marriage'; it was always about disparaging same-sex relationships and trying to prevent them from attaining any sort of legal or social status. That people fell for the 'protection of marriage' schtick is disheartening, to say the least.

 

Nope, procreation is the sole reason for marriages limitation to men and women. As opposed to the courts allegation that the sole reason is an intent to "disparage and injure" homosexuals.

The law intended to "disparage and injure homosexuals" has no rational relation. But thats just the courts strawman. And THE ONLY targeting is by the courts who exlusively extend marriage to gays for no other reason than the fact that they are gay.

 

And there's the circular restatement of the assertion as conclusion I mentioned, right on cue.

That's just your opinion - one that ignores the reality of what has been presented before the courts.

Utterly false statement. You will not find in the final orders of any decision on any of these cases that marriage was extended exclusively to 'gays', nor words to that effect. What you will find is the court striking down the bans in a way that allows same-sex couples - regardless of how they identify their sexuality - to marry, absent some other barrier in the law. Pretending that it's only 'gays' because the court didn't strike other barriers in the law that weren't even part of the case before them is just a deluded fantasy, or a thoroughly dishonest attempt to deceive people into believing that 'gays' are getting some sort of special treatment, when that isn't true at all.

Now, since all you have is repetition of the same tired arguments, back to ignoring you until you present something new.

 

It not

- - - Updated - - -

What courts claim this? How can you continue to show your face around here after getting caught making (*)(*)(*)(*) up all the time? I would think you'd be embarrassed.

 

Almost every federal court since the Windsor decision declaring DOMAs intent to be to "disparage and injure homosexuals". You wouldnt have a clue as to what the courts say and you only embarass yourself demonstrating your ignorance of the topic.

 

You will find it in abundance in the arguments those final orders are based upon.

 

Oddly enough the States provide multiple reasons to limit marriage to a man and a woman- all of which the courts have noted do not justify ignoring the individual rights of marriage that same gender couples have.

And once again- that is just a fiction you keep promoting.

 

No, you will not. The above is yet another dishonest attempt to deceive people. Yes, you will find abundant reference to gay people within the opinion, but that is not even remotely the same thing as this:

"And THE ONLY targeting is by the courts who exlusively extend marriage to gays for no other reason than the fact that they are gay."

The court's ruling does not extend marriage exclusively to 'gays'. There is nothing you can point to in their orders that does this, and the orders are what matters. Not in any district court's orders, and not in any of the appeals courts' orders. The orders are what matters as far as the interpretation of how the law may or may not be applied. Likewise, there is nothing in the courts' holdings indicating that marriage is extended exclusively to 'gays', nor creating a precedent for the same.

Let's also tackle the "for no other reason than the fact that they are gay" nonsense as well. The courts lay out in their long opinions why they are striking the law being challenged before them as unconstitutional. If you read the entire ruling (and it's a lot of reading, per case), and then magically conclude that it's "for no other reason than the fact that they are gay", then I seriously have to question your reading comprehension; apparently confounded by an extreme bias that prevents you from reading the opinion objectively.

It doesn't matter how much of a court opinion you pull out of context and quote here - it still won't turn the courts' orders into exclusively extending marriage to gays just because they're gay. Making ridiculous, dishonest statements like that is why you have no credibility in my judgment.

 

Which court would that be Dixon? Wisconsin- nope:

Wisconsin only uses the word 'disparage' twice- once totally out of context- and the other when quoting Windsor:

Instead, the Court stated that “no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to
disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in
personhood and dignity

The judge went on to say that her decision didn't rely on Windsor.

Although there is support for a view that Windsor is controlling in this case, I need
not resolve that question. Even if I assume that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage is not
“unusual” in the same sense as the laws at issue in Romer and Windsor, I conclude that
defendants have failed to show that the ban furthers a legitimate state interest

Pennsylvania's decision mentions 'disparage' exactly once- again citing Windsor- not as an argument as to what the State did.

Windsor found DOMA unconstitutional because “no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure.” Windsor,

Do any of these cases mention this other than as part of citing Windsor? The Supreme Court found that the Federal Government passed DOMA with the purpose and effect to disparage and injure- I haven't seen that claim for any state.

Feel free to provide examples Dixon- at this point I call this 'pants on fire' false.

 

The precise words used arent important, although Kennedy's "disparage and injure" homosexuals is cited in most of the recent federal cases. The point is that they argue the state limits marriage to heterosexual couples in order to exclude homosexuals when in fact it is an intent to include all with the portential of procreation. Has nothing to do with sexual orientation. And yet the Wisconsin court cites

(“ecause it is homosexuals who are the target of the distinction here,
the level of scrutiny applicable to sexual-orientation-based distinctions applies.&#8221.

 

Considering you are the one making the claim I would say the words are important.

Which court would that be Dixon? Wisconsin- nope:

Wisconsin only uses the word 'disparage' twice- once totally out of context- and the other when quoting Windsor:

Instead, the Court stated that “no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to
disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in
personhood and dignity

The judge went on to say that her decision didn't rely on Windsor.

Although there is support for a view that Windsor is controlling in this case, I need
not resolve that question. Even if I assume that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage is not
“unusual” in the same sense as the laws at issue in Romer and Windsor, I conclude that
defendants have failed to show that the ban furthers a legitimate state interest

The State provided lots of reasons to exclude same gender couples from marriage- and as the judge pointed out- the State does not 'include all with the potential of procreation'- since the State has a provision to allow heterosexuals to marry only if they prove that they have no potential for procreation.

 

Pennsylvania

Indeed, far from affording the
statute the presumption of validity, Windsor found DOMA unconstitutional
because “no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and
to injure.”

 

I'll ask again. what court claims this?

lol, ive demolished every argument you've made. I'm not the one embarrassed

 

This is what you claimed:

Dixon: As opposed to the courts allegation that the sole reason is an intent to "disparage and injure" homosexuals.

The court in Pennsyvlania merely cited Windsor- and never made any allegation that the state of Penn 'sole reason' was an intent to disparage and injure homosexuals'

Another big fail on your part.

Is there any court- other than the Supreme Court- that used that argument Dixon?

I haven't seen one

- - - Updated - - -

As opposed to the courts allegation that the sole reason is an intent to "disparage and injure" homosexuals.

Still looking for any evidence that any court other than the Supreme Court in Windsor, made such an allegation.

 

Pretty much says it all.