Marriage Equality Comes to Wisconsin

Maybe it would help if you didn't directly quote websites that have an agenda to push, in this case the website you have shared is pushing the "Support/Protect traditional marriage!" agenda.

I mean, if you want I can go ahead and post tons of data and stats from websites that push pro same sex marriage agendas. How much would you be willing to believe that data?

 

Heck I conclusively proved that the court did deny her claim- just by claiming that is what the court said.

 

Like I said- there simply aren't enough homosexuals around to adopt all of the children abandoned by fellow heterosexual Americans.

But I certainly think that the children that homosexuals adopt deserve the same benefits of a married home as the children heterosexuals birth do.

 

Yeah, while I would believe ANY adopted children are equally deserving you insist those adopted by homosexuals be given special preference. For you its all about promoting homosexuality and absolutely nothing to do with the wellbeing of children.
Kind of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing sickening when the wellbeing of children is sacrificed to achieve it.

 

Well, I don't know that I will take it, but I certainly wont point to the absence of any denial in quoted portion as some kind of proof that you are lying and proof that there was no such denial, LIKE YOU WOULD.

 

See, told you. Hell on the other thread on transgender I can quote the APA identifying transgender as a mental disorder and the fools still don't believe it.
And I merely supplied the very first of 24,000 search results on "prior heterosexual relationship". Its a fact. I couldn't care less if you believe it.

On the other hand, lesbian mothers mostly became parents through prior heterosexual relationship by all age groups
http://blog.lgbthealthequity.org/2010/07/08/sexual-orientation-and-reproductive-health/

 

If I quoted stats from a super liberal website that clearly had an agenda to push wouldn't you also be screaming bias and false stats?

 

That's why I posted the stats from LGBT healthequity.org since you wont believe anything about homosexuals unless it comes from homosexuals.

 

Yeah I see that one too except I see the same claim being made but no actual stats or data. Yes they can claim that all they want, as can you, but where exactly is the data to back it up? What are they basing this claim on?

 

I am not the one telling the children being raised by homosexual parents that their parents shouldn't be married- you are.

Like I said- there simply aren't enough homosexuals around to adopt all of the children abandoned by fellow heterosexual Americans.

But I certainly think that the children that homosexuals adopt deserve the same benefits of a married home as the children heterosexuals birth do.

You don't.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL.....of course you wouldn't......you would just make new stuff up....

- - - Updated - - -

And their kids deserve the protection of marriage also.

 

Appeal to tradition ain't good enough.

 

Argumentum ad antiquatum is a logical fallacy. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Dental floss is right this just isn't good enough. Logical fallacies don't make logical arguments. Try again.

 

No, I am the one saying anyone other than a heterosexual couple should not be marrying, including the much more numerous than gay couples, the closely related couples. You are the one saying marriage must be extended selectively to the gay couples.

 

But you have not provided a single cogent reason for this. Just a lot of circular arguments, misdirections, lies, and hot air.

This is a change of subject, another of your tricks to avoid honesty.

No, it's the US Constitution saying a compelling reason must be provided to deprive a class of people of guaranteed rights. What people are doing here is naming the class and asking for that compelling reason. What YOU are doing is saying "hey, look at some other class over there!" But this still doesn't work, because people keep returning you to the subject you are evading with all you've got.

Incidentally, I'll be traveling through Wisconsin in a few weeks. I'll probably feel a bit better knowing that the constitution is honored there, more than it once was.

 

Yes, your argumentum ad antiquatum fallacy that you clutch onto but also removes logic from your argument.

This is your standard tu quoque fallacy.

You are avoiding having to address the criticism by turning it back on the accuser. Answering criticism with criticism.

And this is your special pleading fallacy. You are making up exceptions when the claim. had been shown to be false. Same sex marriage would simply remove the opposite gender requirement from the list of things that must be to legally get married.

Now if you are going to play that "gay marriage" angle. You are using ambiguity in language fallaciously.

This doesn't make special rights for gay people, that is total and complete dishonesty. By allowing people to marry somebody of either sex, it gives everybody more freedom and more choice.

 

Nope. It is simple biology.

You need to argue that with all these courts creating a right to "GAY marriage"

 

You are saying that gay couples should not be allowed to be married, like heterosexual couples are- which is discrimination..

And that results in thousands of children in gay households being raised without the protection of marriage.

Which is what you profess to be trying to prevent happening to children birthed accidentally by heterosexuals.

Which results in the children of homosexual parents being discriminated against also.

 

Nope, thats your and the courts strawman. Whether they are gay, couldnt be more irrelvant.

 

Notice that?

 

Actually you explicitly named gay couples:
No, I am the one saying anyone other than a heterosexual couple should not be marrying, including the much more numerous than gay couples

The courts disagree

3. It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.

 

No, YOU named gay couples.

 

Actually you explicitly named gay couples:
No, I am the one saying anyone other than a heterosexual couple should not be marrying, including the much more numerous than gay couples

 

Ah, the last refuge of the habitual liar - accuse everyone else of lying. By now, that's all he's got - all his OTHER lies have been torn to shreds and burned.

 

Copy and paste the lie.

 

Your deleting the last portion of the sentence doesnt change the meaning of the sentence I wrote.