"Supreme Court should act on gay marriage"

I wasnt making an argument to limit marriage to the opposite sex einstein. I am arguing what IS, not what should be. Im sure its all too complicated for you to follow.

 

So?

Sigh... Homosexuals have children.

I don't need to. I never argued to limit it to just couples that are eligible for marriage. It simply is. And should you want to take this limits away that it's a separate argument.

 

Closely related couples have even more children. AND I said their coupling does not produce children. Heterosexual coupling have a strong, natural tendency to lead to procreation. Homosexual couplings have no such tendency. Its an impossibility. And homosexual sex has no tendency to lead to adoption, invitro fertilization or use of surrogate mothers.

Yeah, I cant make sense either of what the courst have done in about 30 states. Extending marriage to exclusively gay couples while other couples continue to be denied the right to marriage.

 

Here is an interesting take on the proceedings of Tuesday. Don't be upset bigots. The world won't end, Christianity will not be abolished and you won't be forced to get gay married.

 

What an absurd thought, that this thousands of years old institution of marriage has evolved for the purpose of bestowing dignity upon men and women in a marriage. AS IF a man and a woman who have joined together in a committed relationship to found a family, become mothers and fathers to THEIR children, providing and caring for them together in the home, need a governmental endorsement to be dignified. I think that his personal opinion is that two homosexuals together in the home somehow isn't dignified and NEEDS government endorsement to be so.

Ironic that someone who "doesn't understand the tradition" will likely be deciding that "we know better" than the states regarding the tradition. AND IT SHOULD BE difficult for him to decide that "oh, well, we – we know better” than the states, why they have ALWAYS in THEIR law limited marriage to men and women. The states say they have done so because "men and women" are making all the babies, and these federal courts simply declare that the stated intent is a lie and that the state has instead always limited marriage to men and women in order to exclude the homosexuals, to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. That "we know better" than the states, why they enacted their own laws.

 

So?

so fight for their rights.

 

Except that what you're arguing has no bearing on the situation or reasoning against gay marriage.

So...what's your point?

 

???? Actually it has everything to do with the courts argument. The states say that their marriage statutes are limited to men and women because men and women do all the procreating. These federal courts are coming in and claiming that this is a lie and that instead what appears to be an intent to limit marriage to those couples with a potential of procreation, is in fact all but a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" gays. It is the entire basis of their arguments. Their argument requires that this 1000s of year old limitation to men and women be viewed as only having one purpose, excluding homosexuals, as opposed to its actual purpose, INCLUDING heterosexual couples. An absurd argument.

 

You probably believe this stuff too:

 

Notice you are very fond of challenging arguments I have never made. Fond of bringing in arguments from outside of the forum to refute instead of refuting the arguments made here on the forum.

 

Slavery has been around for thousands of years in many places too. Does that make it right? Again, you are appealing to tradition which is a fallacy. Also, your "tradition" will still be intact for you as you will still have your heterosexual marriages regardless. Two gays marrying doesn't affect YOUR marriage. If it does, you have more problems than SSM.

 

Of course not. My point seems to escape you. Im not arguing what should be and am instead arguing what has been. For thousands of years.

 

And adding gays to that mix is not going to change that. Are two heterosexuals STILL going to be able to be married? Yes.

You and others don't own the tradition of marriage for who is involved. Plain and simple. The use of marriage IN THIS COUNTRY is being used in a way to disparage gays since government is involved. Many cons told gays that their relationships weren't legitimate BECAUSE they couldn't get married and fought against their rights BECAUSE they couldn't get married. Once that happened, you and others opened yourself up to this.

Now, usually on cue you bring up at this point in the argument about incest, polygamy, closely related couples, etc. being allowed to marry. If you and other incest, polygamy, closely related couples want to argue the inclusion of those into marriage take it to court like the same sex marriage proponents have. Hell, you might even win. Would that be great for you.

 

Actually it would eliminate it

 

So once SSM is legalized heterosexuals won't be able to be married? That's news to me, please show me where THAT is.

 

???? You dont even have a clue as to what I am even talking about. Typical.

 

That would make two of you.




​

 

Nothing in this post is correct. That is not the ruling or argument in any court case.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it has no effect what so ever on it.

 

Well that is the only way the tradition is eliminated. You, and all the others are still able to participate in YOUR tradition. You just don't get to have government enforce your tradition boundaries on others. That isn't destroying a tradition. My family does not eat Turkey on Thanksgiving, yet that is a tradition for many families to do. Does my not having Turkey destroy YOUR tradition of having it? No.

As usual, cons think they are the center of the world and if someone else can LEGALLY do something, they go crazy.

 

??? No, I am up to speed on what I am talking about

Araxel is under the impression

And I pointed out that it in fact would be eliminated. Probably sails over your head as well.

 

And I showed that you were wrong. Either explain what is wrong in the argument I presented or I'll take your concession to you losing.

 

Im not speaking to tradition and am instead speaking of the LAW. Marriage LAWS limitation to men and women is based upon the biological fact that only women give birth and only men are responsible for them doing so. I would also argue that the same tradition of marriage is also based upon that biological fact. And no doubt you've convinced yourself that the tradition is as well based upon a desire to exclude homosexuals. To disparage and injure homosexuals, based upon animus towards homosexuals. Because god hates homosexuals.

 

I just did and it sailed right over your head. Try not deleting from my post the portion that answers the question you are now asking.

"adding gays to that mix" "eliminates" "marriage statutes [that] are limited to men and women because men and women do all the procreating". Are you two stuck on stupid?

 

On that, we should probably agree to disagree.




​

 

Yes, we're stuck on that claim. And that claim is as you describe.




​