6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage

[Skylar]

There are moms and grandmas raising kids too. Maybe we should allow them to get married?

Wouldn't the children of gays and lesbians benefit from their parents being married? Kennedy certainly thinks so.

It is a corner that they paint themselves into.

The anti-gay activists claim that marriage is all about the children- about ensuring that children are raised in a stable home with married parents- but what they mean is 'marriage is for heterosexuals because sometimes heterosexuals have biological children'

Even the homophobes (generally) accept that heterosexuals who adopt children are real parents- and that marriage would be a good thing for those children.

But they don't seem to think that marriage would be a good thing for the children of gay parents.

OR they think that the children of gay parents don't deserve the protections that the children of heterosexual parents have.


BUT what I really think that the homophobes believe is that homosexuals should be banned from having children-that government should ensure that lesbians don't bear children, that homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, and ultimately government should put homosexuals back to living in fear in the closet.

You've already demonstrated failure to understand the argument. No need to demonstrate further.

You have already demonstrated that you don't care about children, and that your entire argument is designed to encourage discrimination against homosexuals.

Ad hom fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Ad hom fallacies like...."you clearly do not understand the argument. Is this because you are being deceptive or are you actually this stupid?"

Laughing.....you're done, buddy. You've painted yourself into a corner, simultaneously arguing that the ability to procreate is irrelevant...and basing your entire argument on the ability to procreate. Which obviously doesn't work.

Try again. This time without the fallacies and self contradictions.

 

[Syriusly]

The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

Procreating isn't a requirement of marriage. As no couple in any State is required to have children or be able to have children in order to be married. Making it an irrelevant criteria in determining who can and can't enter into a legally recognized marriage.

Why then would we make up a standard that doesn't exist, exclude all straight people from it, and then apply it to gays exclusively? Obviously we wouldn't.

As for 'raising well adjusted children', you're offering us baseless speculation as evidence. Which it obviously isn't.

Red herring. No one says procreation ought to be a requirement. The fact is that generally and characteristically heterosexual couples will produce and raise children. The law is geared to what generally and characteristically happens.

Clearly it is not.

As I have pointed out before- Wisconsin requires some couples to prove that they are not capable of having children before they allow them to marry.

That law is not geared to 'what generally and characteristically happens'.

Other than gender- what is the difference between allowing two first cousin couples- one gay, one straight- who are not capable of procreating- to marry?

 

[Skylar]

There are moms and grandmas raising kids too. Maybe we should allow them to get married?

Wouldn't the children of gays and lesbians benefit from their parents being married? Kennedy certainly thinks so.

It is a corner that they paint themselves into.

The anti-gay activists claim that marriage is all about the children- about ensuring that children are raised in a stable home with married parents- but what they mean is 'marriage is for heterosexuals because sometimes heterosexuals have biological children'

Even the homophobes (generally) accept that heterosexuals who adopt children are real parents- and that marriage would be a good thing for those children.

But they don't seem to think that marriage would be a good thing for the children of gay parents.

OR they think that the children of gay parents don't deserve the protections that the children of heterosexual parents have.


BUT what I really think that the homophobes believe is that homosexuals should be banned from having children-that government should ensure that lesbians don't bear children, that homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, and ultimately government should put homosexuals back to living in fear in the closet.

You've already demonstrated failure to understand the argument. No need to demonstrate further.

Translation: you're stuck.

You're as predictable as clockwork. When your argument breaks, you start with your 'secret evidence' schtick. Where you have the answer....but you can't state it.

Laughing.....you don't need an excuse to run, Rabbi. Just run.

Since you do not undestand my argument you cannot refute it. Declaring victory is hollow and cheap. Like your posts.

That's the 5th post in a row where you refuse to discuss the topic. You blinked, Rabbi. Your insults and secret evidence are your tell.

If you're going to abandon your own gay marriage arguments and treat them like the garbage they are, surely you can understand if we treat your arguments the same way.

 

[Syriusly]

I said the fact that A couple cannot procreate is irrelevant.

If its irrelevant, then why would we exclude gays based on a criteria that doesn't apply to anyone? Remember, NO straight couple is denied marriage due to their inability to procreate or their refusal to do so.

The standard of exclusion you've cited for stripping gays and lesbians of their right to marry....doesn't apply to anyone.

The fact that generally and characteristically some classes of couples do is the essence of the argument.

Save when you make millions of exceptions. But only for straight people and by the millions.

You're kinda stuck. You're violating the 14th amendment by not offering gays the same protection under the law as you do straights....by withholding the exceptions that you give to straights. And the millions of infertile and childless couples demonstrate that there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Your argument fails twice. Which is probably why the courts have overturned gay marriage bans by the States 24 times so far.

You clearly do not understand the argument. Is this because you are being deceptive or are you actually this stupid?

I clearly understand that your argument doesn't work. Which is why you're resulting to insults rather than rational debate.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have needed to run.

You do not understand my argument. I can demonstrate that conclusively.

Yet you don't.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wouldn't the children of gays and lesbians benefit from their parents being married? Kennedy certainly thinks so.

It is a corner that they paint themselves into.

The anti-gay activists claim that marriage is all about the children- about ensuring that children are raised in a stable home with married parents- but what they mean is 'marriage is for heterosexuals because sometimes heterosexuals have biological children'

Even the homophobes (generally) accept that heterosexuals who adopt children are real parents- and that marriage would be a good thing for those children.

But they don't seem to think that marriage would be a good thing for the children of gay parents.

OR they think that the children of gay parents don't deserve the protections that the children of heterosexual parents have.


BUT what I really think that the homophobes believe is that homosexuals should be banned from having children-that government should ensure that lesbians don't bear children, that homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, and ultimately government should put homosexuals back to living in fear in the closet.

You've already demonstrated failure to understand the argument. No need to demonstrate further.

You have already demonstrated that you don't care about children, and that your entire argument is designed to encourage discrimination against homosexuals.

Ad hom fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Ad hom fallacies like...."you clearly do not understand the argument. Is this because you are being deceptive or are you actually this stupid?"

Laughing.....you're done, buddy. You've painted yourself into a corner, simultaneously arguing that the ability to procreate is irrelevant...and basing your entire argument on the ability to procreate. Which obviously doesn't work.

Try again. This time without the fallacies and self contradictions.

I am pointing out you cannot argue because you do not understand the argument. I can even demonstrate that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wouldn't the children of gays and lesbians benefit from their parents being married? Kennedy certainly thinks so.

It is a corner that they paint themselves into.

The anti-gay activists claim that marriage is all about the children- about ensuring that children are raised in a stable home with married parents- but what they mean is 'marriage is for heterosexuals because sometimes heterosexuals have biological children'

Even the homophobes (generally) accept that heterosexuals who adopt children are real parents- and that marriage would be a good thing for those children.

But they don't seem to think that marriage would be a good thing for the children of gay parents.

OR they think that the children of gay parents don't deserve the protections that the children of heterosexual parents have.


BUT what I really think that the homophobes believe is that homosexuals should be banned from having children-that government should ensure that lesbians don't bear children, that homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, and ultimately government should put homosexuals back to living in fear in the closet.

You've already demonstrated failure to understand the argument. No need to demonstrate further.

Translation: you're stuck.

You're as predictable as clockwork. When your argument breaks, you start with your 'secret evidence' schtick. Where you have the answer....but you can't state it.

Laughing.....you don't need an excuse to run, Rabbi. Just run.

Since you do not undestand my argument you cannot refute it. Declaring victory is hollow and cheap. Like your posts.

That's the 5th post in a row where you refuse to discuss the topic. You blinked, Rabbi. Your insults and secret evidence are your tell.

If you're going to abandon your own gay marriage arguments and treat them like the garbage they are, surely you can understand if we treat your arguments the same way.

Since you are not offering any argument nor refutation of my argument, which yoiu fail to understand, there is no discussion.

 

[Skylar]

The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

Procreating isn't a requirement of marriage. As no couple in any State is required to have children or be able to have children in order to be married. Making it an irrelevant criteria in determining who can and can't enter into a legally recognized marriage.

Why then would we make up a standard that doesn't exist, exclude all straight people from it, and then apply it to gays exclusively? Obviously we wouldn't.

As for 'raising well adjusted children', you're offering us baseless speculation as evidence. Which it obviously isn't.

Red herring. No one says procreation ought to be a requirement. The fact is that generally and characteristically heterosexual couples will produce and raise children. The law is geared to what generally and characteristically happens.

Clearly it is not.

As I have pointed out before- Wisconsin requires some couples to prove that they are not capable of having children before they allow them to marry.

That law is not geared to 'what generally and characteristically happens'.

Other than gender- what is the difference between allowing two first cousin couples- one gay, one straight- who are not capable of procreating- to marry?

Ah, but requiring that that a couple CAN'T reproduce before they marry proves that the State has an interest in couples that can reproduce.

Um, somehow. Ask how exactly......and Rabbi gets uselessly vague.

 

[The Rabbi]

I said the fact that A couple cannot procreate is irrelevant.

If its irrelevant, then why would we exclude gays based on a criteria that doesn't apply to anyone? Remember, NO straight couple is denied marriage due to their inability to procreate or their refusal to do so.

The standard of exclusion you've cited for stripping gays and lesbians of their right to marry....doesn't apply to anyone.

The fact that generally and characteristically some classes of couples do is the essence of the argument.

Save when you make millions of exceptions. But only for straight people and by the millions.

You're kinda stuck. You're violating the 14th amendment by not offering gays the same protection under the law as you do straights....by withholding the exceptions that you give to straights. And the millions of infertile and childless couples demonstrate that there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

Your argument fails twice. Which is probably why the courts have overturned gay marriage bans by the States 24 times so far.

You clearly do not understand the argument. Is this because you are being deceptive or are you actually this stupid?

I clearly understand that your argument doesn't work. Which is why you're resulting to insults rather than rational debate.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have needed to run.

You do not understand my argument. I can demonstrate that conclusively.

Yet you don't.

Sure I can.
Here:
Pretend you are me for a second. Please state my argument against gay marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

Procreating isn't a requirement of marriage. As no couple in any State is required to have children or be able to have children in order to be married. Making it an irrelevant criteria in determining who can and can't enter into a legally recognized marriage.

Why then would we make up a standard that doesn't exist, exclude all straight people from it, and then apply it to gays exclusively? Obviously we wouldn't.

As for 'raising well adjusted children', you're offering us baseless speculation as evidence. Which it obviously isn't.

Red herring. No one says procreation ought to be a requirement. The fact is that generally and characteristically heterosexual couples will produce and raise children. The law is geared to what generally and characteristically happens.

Clearly it is not.

As I have pointed out before- Wisconsin requires some couples to prove that they are not capable of having children before they allow them to marry.

That law is not geared to 'what generally and characteristically happens'.

Other than gender- what is the difference between allowing two first cousin couples- one gay, one straight- who are not capable of procreating- to marry?

Ah, but requiring that that a couple CAN'T reproduce before they marry proves that the State has an interest in couples that can reproduce.

Um, somehow. Ask how exactly......and Rabbi gets uselessly vague.

Called the exception that proves the rule. Get it?

 

[Skylar]

It is a corner that they paint themselves into.

The anti-gay activists claim that marriage is all about the children- about ensuring that children are raised in a stable home with married parents- but what they mean is 'marriage is for heterosexuals because sometimes heterosexuals have biological children'

Even the homophobes (generally) accept that heterosexuals who adopt children are real parents- and that marriage would be a good thing for those children.

But they don't seem to think that marriage would be a good thing for the children of gay parents.

OR they think that the children of gay parents don't deserve the protections that the children of heterosexual parents have.


BUT what I really think that the homophobes believe is that homosexuals should be banned from having children-that government should ensure that lesbians don't bear children, that homosexuals are not allowed to adopt children, and ultimately government should put homosexuals back to living in fear in the closet.

You've already demonstrated failure to understand the argument. No need to demonstrate further.

Translation: you're stuck.

You're as predictable as clockwork. When your argument breaks, you start with your 'secret evidence' schtick. Where you have the answer....but you can't state it.

Laughing.....you don't need an excuse to run, Rabbi. Just run.

Since you do not undestand my argument you cannot refute it. Declaring victory is hollow and cheap. Like your posts.

That's the 5th post in a row where you refuse to discuss the topic. You blinked, Rabbi. Your insults and secret evidence are your tell.

If you're going to abandon your own gay marriage arguments and treat them like the garbage they are, surely you can understand if we treat your arguments the same way.

Since you are not offering any argument nor refutation of my argument, which yoiu fail to understand, there is no discussion.

And post number 6 where you refuse to discuss gay marriage. You've already refuted yourself...insisting that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. And then making procreation the center point of your entire argument. Its like watching a snake eat its own tail.

Infertile couples and couples that never have children establish, undeniably, that there's a valid basis to marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Worse, no couple is required to procreate or be able to procreate in order to marry. Why then would we deny gays the right to marry......based on an extra legal standard that applies to no one?

Obviously we wouldn't. And in 35 states, we don't.

 

[Syriusly]

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false.

Then same sex marriage has always been legal?

Yes. Show me one place where anyone was ever prosecuted for having a gay wedding.

Then what, pray tell, is all the hub bub about? If same sex marriage has always been legal, what are conservatives fighting? Why did they submit appeals to say, Prop 8?

You fellas may want to compare your notes. Because if your claims are valid and gay marriage has always been legal, then they just wasted tons and tons of money on lawyers opposing gay marriage.

We are fighting extending state benefits to couples whose relationship generally and characteristically does nothing to benefit the state.
Doubtless that argument s lost on you.

Nope. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have the same privilege.

Yep- just a white person was allowed to marry anyone they wanted- as long as they were white. That worked so well for you in court 50 years ago.

Only clueless drones are buying the proposition that there is some correlation between skin color and genitalia. Black people certainly don't buy it.

Its not even that. Blacks are a distinct group. You pretty much either are or arent. Gays? No such thing. You can look at a black person and know he's black. Gays? No such thing. They arent remotely comparable and keep in mind black churches helped defeat gay marriage in California.

LOL.....Conservatives argue all the time that Obama is not black- that he is really half white or that he is arab.

So much for being a distinct group.

Obama is black. He himself frequently makes the point that he is black and doesnt look like the other presidents.
/fail

Oh I agree that Obama is 'black'

But as I pointed out

LOL.....Conservatives argue all the time that Obama is not black- that he is really half white or that he is arab.

Here is quote from right here on the boards:

He's an Arab by birth, and could give a flying FUCK about the United States of America to which he owes ZERO allegiance

 

[The Rabbi]

You've already demonstrated failure to understand the argument. No need to demonstrate further.

Translation: you're stuck.

You're as predictable as clockwork. When your argument breaks, you start with your 'secret evidence' schtick. Where you have the answer....but you can't state it.

Laughing.....you don't need an excuse to run, Rabbi. Just run.

Since you do not undestand my argument you cannot refute it. Declaring victory is hollow and cheap. Like your posts.

That's the 5th post in a row where you refuse to discuss the topic. You blinked, Rabbi. Your insults and secret evidence are your tell.

If you're going to abandon your own gay marriage arguments and treat them like the garbage they are, surely you can understand if we treat your arguments the same way.

Since you are not offering any argument nor refutation of my argument, which yoiu fail to understand, there is no discussion.

And post number 6 where you refuse to discuss gay marriage. You've already refuted yourself...insisting that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. And then making procreation the center point of your entire argument. Its like watching a snake eat its own tail.

Infertile couples and couples that never have children establish, undeniably, that there's a valid basis to marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Worse, no couple is required to procreate or be able to procreate in order to marry. Why then would we deny gays the right to marry......based on an extra legal standard that applies to no one?

Obviously we wouldn't. And in 35 states, we don't.

Pretend you are me for a second. State my argument against gay marriage. This will prove conclusively you do not understand it.

 

[Skylar]

The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

Procreating isn't a requirement of marriage. As no couple in any State is required to have children or be able to have children in order to be married. Making it an irrelevant criteria in determining who can and can't enter into a legally recognized marriage.

Why then would we make up a standard that doesn't exist, exclude all straight people from it, and then apply it to gays exclusively? Obviously we wouldn't.

As for 'raising well adjusted children', you're offering us baseless speculation as evidence. Which it obviously isn't.

Red herring. No one says procreation ought to be a requirement. The fact is that generally and characteristically heterosexual couples will produce and raise children. The law is geared to what generally and characteristically happens.

Clearly it is not.

As I have pointed out before- Wisconsin requires some couples to prove that they are not capable of having children before they allow them to marry.

That law is not geared to 'what generally and characteristically happens'.

Other than gender- what is the difference between allowing two first cousin couples- one gay, one straight- who are not capable of procreating- to marry?

Ah, but requiring that that a couple CAN'T reproduce before they marry proves that the State has an interest in couples that can reproduce.

Um, somehow. Ask how exactly......and Rabbi gets uselessly vague.

Called the exception that proves the rule. Get it?

How does it prove the rule? Remember, there is no such rule. No couple is required to procreate or be able to procreate for their marriages to be valid.

Anywhere. So why would we exclude gays from marriage based on a 'rule' that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason.

 

[Skylar]

Translation: you're stuck.

You're as predictable as clockwork. When your argument breaks, you start with your 'secret evidence' schtick. Where you have the answer....but you can't state it.

Laughing.....you don't need an excuse to run, Rabbi. Just run.

Since you do not undestand my argument you cannot refute it. Declaring victory is hollow and cheap. Like your posts.

That's the 5th post in a row where you refuse to discuss the topic. You blinked, Rabbi. Your insults and secret evidence are your tell.

If you're going to abandon your own gay marriage arguments and treat them like the garbage they are, surely you can understand if we treat your arguments the same way.

Since you are not offering any argument nor refutation of my argument, which yoiu fail to understand, there is no discussion.

And post number 6 where you refuse to discuss gay marriage. You've already refuted yourself...insisting that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. And then making procreation the center point of your entire argument. Its like watching a snake eat its own tail.

Infertile couples and couples that never have children establish, undeniably, that there's a valid basis to marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Worse, no couple is required to procreate or be able to procreate in order to marry. Why then would we deny gays the right to marry......based on an extra legal standard that applies to no one?

Obviously we wouldn't. And in 35 states, we don't.

Pretend you are me for a second. State my argument against gay marriage. This will prove conclusively you do not understand it.

Why don't you state your argument.....instead of giving us excuse after excuse why you continue to run from it. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to abandon them.

 

[The Rabbi]

Since you do not undestand my argument you cannot refute it. Declaring victory is hollow and cheap. Like your posts.

That's the 5th post in a row where you refuse to discuss the topic. You blinked, Rabbi. Your insults and secret evidence are your tell.

If you're going to abandon your own gay marriage arguments and treat them like the garbage they are, surely you can understand if we treat your arguments the same way.

Since you are not offering any argument nor refutation of my argument, which yoiu fail to understand, there is no discussion.

And post number 6 where you refuse to discuss gay marriage. You've already refuted yourself...insisting that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. And then making procreation the center point of your entire argument. Its like watching a snake eat its own tail.

Infertile couples and couples that never have children establish, undeniably, that there's a valid basis to marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Worse, no couple is required to procreate or be able to procreate in order to marry. Why then would we deny gays the right to marry......based on an extra legal standard that applies to no one?

Obviously we wouldn't. And in 35 states, we don't.

Pretend you are me for a second. State my argument against gay marriage. This will prove conclusively you do not understand it.

Why don't you state your argument.....instead of giving us excuse after excuse why you continue to run from it. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to abandon them.

/fail.
If you cannot state my argument you do not understand it. I've stated here plenty of times already.

 

[Skylar]

That's the 5th post in a row where you refuse to discuss the topic. You blinked, Rabbi. Your insults and secret evidence are your tell.

If you're going to abandon your own gay marriage arguments and treat them like the garbage they are, surely you can understand if we treat your arguments the same way.

Since you are not offering any argument nor refutation of my argument, which yoiu fail to understand, there is no discussion.

And post number 6 where you refuse to discuss gay marriage. You've already refuted yourself...insisting that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. And then making procreation the center point of your entire argument. Its like watching a snake eat its own tail.

Infertile couples and couples that never have children establish, undeniably, that there's a valid basis to marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Worse, no couple is required to procreate or be able to procreate in order to marry. Why then would we deny gays the right to marry......based on an extra legal standard that applies to no one?

Obviously we wouldn't. And in 35 states, we don't.

Pretend you are me for a second. State my argument against gay marriage. This will prove conclusively you do not understand it.

Why don't you state your argument.....instead of giving us excuse after excuse why you continue to run from it. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to abandon them.

/fail.
If you cannot state my argument you do not understand it. I've stated here plenty of times already.

If you can't state your argument, then you clearly didn't understand it. Why do you refuse to make your own case?

Because your argument is self contradictory nonsense perhaps? Procreation can't simultaneously be irrelevant to the validity of a marriage AND a valid basis for excluding a given couple from marriage. Worse, procreation is a standard that no one is held to. Why would we exclude gays based on a standard that applies to NO one?

If you can't answer, just say so. Because I can answer: we wouldn't. And in 35 of 50 States, we don't.

 

[Silhouette]

...Having established that children or the ability to have children aren't necessary to have a valid marriage.....why would we ban gays or lesbians based on their inability to have kids? The criteria you're using to exclude gays.....doesn't apply to anyone. Why then would it apply to gays, and then apply ONLY to gays?

It makes no sense.

That's wrong and a strawman. This isn't the reason states are involved in marriage. They are involved because where children come from [men having sex with women] they want to incentive both blood parents to stay together in marriage for the benefit of what happens when men and women have sex.

In a gay "marriage" there will be a lack of one blood parent 100% of the time with any children who find themselves in that unfortunate situation. The states DO NOT want to incentivize any other arrangement where a child is missing one or both of its blood parents 100% of the time. This applies to single parenthood too.

If you make the argument that children caught up in gay lifestyles "need the benefits of marriage", then you're arguing that single parent's kids also need the benefits of marriage. Otherwise, the state has an interest in incentivizing NEITHER because the state knows and believes that a child's best and highest shot at becoming a well-rounded productive and mentally balanced citizen of that state is with both blood parents in the home.

This is the brass ring. Childless hetero couples don't tarnish the shine of that brass, nor the size and shape of the ring since they do not mar the standard male/female incentivized arrangement. States aren't involved in determining if couples CAN have children, only that the arrangement of two adults in that home must be of the type that COULD have blood children under normal circumstances.. That is a state's right to protect its children in marriage. Otherwise states have no earthly reason whatsoever to be involved in incentivizing marriage at all.

The child's best shot at a well rounded formative experience is with the instinctive blood relationship of the two parents in his or her home. It is a deep, reptilian urge to protect that no other arrangement has. It's not merely about "love" of the child. All other arrangements are unfortunate and not worthy of the brass ring. If two people who happen to qualify as "potential blood parents" turn out to be sterile, that circumstance doesn't dismantle the qualifications of "man/woman", so they are allowed.

All other arrangements including single parenthood, polygamy or gay marriage are not incentivized because of the potential they have of depriving the child of two singular devoted blood parents.

The state wants to encourage just that situation and no other..

 

[The Rabbi]

Since you are not offering any argument nor refutation of my argument, which yoiu fail to understand, there is no discussion.

And post number 6 where you refuse to discuss gay marriage. You've already refuted yourself...insisting that procreation is irrelevant to marriage. And then making procreation the center point of your entire argument. Its like watching a snake eat its own tail.

Infertile couples and couples that never have children establish, undeniably, that there's a valid basis to marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. Worse, no couple is required to procreate or be able to procreate in order to marry. Why then would we deny gays the right to marry......based on an extra legal standard that applies to no one?

Obviously we wouldn't. And in 35 states, we don't.

Pretend you are me for a second. State my argument against gay marriage. This will prove conclusively you do not understand it.

Why don't you state your argument.....instead of giving us excuse after excuse why you continue to run from it. If your claims had merit, you wouldn't have had to abandon them.

/fail.
If you cannot state my argument you do not understand it. I've stated here plenty of times already.

If you can't state your argument, then you clearly didn't understand it. Why do you refuse to make your own case?

Because your argument is self contradictory nonsense perhaps? Procreation can't simultaneously be irrelevant to the validity of a marriage AND a valid basis for excluding a given couple from marriage. Worse, procreation is a standard that no one is held to. Why would we exclude gays based on a standard that applies to NO one?

If you can't answer, just say so. Because I can answer: we wouldn't. And in 35 of 50 States, we don't.

I've stated my arrgument numerous times here.
You are deflecting. If you understoof the argument you would be able to demonstrate that. Instead you make baseless wild accusations. prove me wrong: state my argument

 

[Syriusly]

Special treatment- as in being treated the same as heterosexuals.......yeah great argument.

Nope. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have the same privilege.

Yep- just a white person was allowed to marry anyone they wanted- as long as they were white. That worked so well for you in court 50 years ago.

The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

There is no science to support your purely homophobic assertion.

Seriously? Did you flunk Bio 101?

I understand biology fine- and I can read scientific papers- and once again:

Your quote:
The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

There is no science to support your purely homophobic assertion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Homosexuals have the same privilege.

Yep- just a white person was allowed to marry anyone they wanted- as long as they were white. That worked so well for you in court 50 years ago.

The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

There is no science to support your purely homophobic assertion.

Seriously? Did you flunk Bio 101?

I understand biology fine- and I can read scientific papers- and once again:

Your quote:
The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

There is no science to support your purely homophobic assertion.

Sorry. Maybe you can get a refund on your education.