Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Faun]

Ummm ... please show me where playing basketball is a right?

If it's not, then what's the justification for Title IX?

Holyfuckingshit, are you ever brain-dead.

It's justifiable because it's not mandated that universities add a women's basketball team. That's a choice made by the university. If a university doesn't want to add a women's basketball program, they don't have to.

Laws mandate equality; title XI is not a law.

Of course Title IX is a law, seriously what is wrong with you?

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

A truism to the argument. I'll let you google what that means.

The point is that according to your logic, it's Unconstitutional. As long as women are allowed to play on men's teams, they have the same rights as men and the Constitution, according to you, requires laws to be gender blind

My G-d, you're hopelessly retarded. The law enforces applicable schools provide access to the sport, not to the team. The difference between that a same-sex marriage is that marriage is a fundamental right towards the inalienable right to pursue happiness whereas playing on a particular basketball team is not.

Your argument is so foolish, it's no different than saying in order to justify same-sex marriage, male boxers in schools offering such a sport should be allowed to fight women participating in the same sport.

 

[Faun]

Because it's denying people access to an inalienable right and I don't believe there is valid reason for doing so.

So, clown, more doublespeak. I can't believe you actually picked that avatar, it's like the only self awareness you've ever exhibited.

So it's not important to you, but it's critical that people have an inalienable right that isn't inalienable but it is. Orwell would be proud

The clown you felt was qualified to lead the nation.

Bull, he sucked. He was running against a Marxist who's an empty suited clown. So is the clown in your avatar you or Obama?

Yet you still wanted him to lead the nation. Make all the fun you want of him; or me for making fun of him, he was the guy you wanted in office.

Strawman. I wanted the Marxist to not lead the nation. I'd do it again, and I hadn't voted Republican since 1988. But Obama crossed the line from running as a Marxist and ruling as one like the Democrats before him. You should learn about voting between two candidates.

So you voted for Romney to not lead the nation??

So who's the clown in the avatar? You or Obama?

Neither ... it's the guy you wanted to lead the nation.

 

[Faun]

Holyfuckingshit, are you ever brain-dead.

It's justifiable because it's not mandated that universities add a women's basketball team. That's a choice made by the university. If a university doesn't want to add a women's basketball program, they don't have to.

Laws mandate equality; title XI is not a law.

Of course Title IX is a law, seriously what is wrong with you?

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

Hmmm, yes it does. It applies to any university that receives money from the federal government. That means every single one of the except one.

Again, it's a choice of the university.

Yeah, right, if they refuse to accept any federal funding. No student loans, no Pell grants, no anything.

Furthermore, how does that make it not discrimination?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

 

[RKMBrown]

How is government involvement in contracts between consenting adults unequal treatment under the law? WTF are you talking about?

Asked and answered a hundred times. Government marriage was between a man and a woman. Gays and straights had equal access to that. Gays want something else, and they want it decreed by courts violating the Constitution and legislating from the bench.

Now in your liberal mind you hear that means gays can't have gay marriage. No, it just means they have to do what everyone else does, convince the legislature, which the people have the power to do by electing the representatives they want

No such thing as government marriage. There are only marriages between two consenting adults, that's it.

Governments merely provide a license to those two consenting adults. The license merely records the contract that the two consenting adults enter. The government is not an a part of the contract... it merely records the contract. No one is getting a "government marriage" there is no such thing.

As for your full of shit comment that Gays and straights had equal access marriage... OMFG ass hole. No, gays did not have access to marry a consenting adult of their choice, they were only allowed to marry a consenting adult of another sexual orientation that they did not want to marry. Given that half the country is male, the other half female, government was restricting them from marrying HALF THE COUNTRY. More particularly they were being restricted from marrying anyone IN THE HALF THAT THEY WANTED TO CHOOSE FROM.

As for your total bullshit that gays want some violation to the constitution or legislation from the bench... omfg YOU ARE DUMB. They want the opposite, they want the laws banning them from being married to be thrown out. IOW they want unconstitutional laws thrown out. Which btw is the purpose of the SCOTUS. They don't need to "re-define" marriage to throw out unconstitutional laws. That is a bullshit strawman.

As for your second strawman that I'm a liberal. No, ya DUMB ASS LIAR I'm conservative, I'm more conservative than you are. Your problem is you think liberty is your liberty to put your JACK BOOT ON GAYS.

You insult me by telling a libertarian that I'm a conservative than insult me again by telling me I'm not really conservative you are...



When you make up your mind, let me know.

As for your post, wow. You're a conservative who thinks that government not giving validation and tax breaks to gays for mating is putting a "JACK BOOT ON GAYS." Sure, a conservative thinks people have to be given whatever they tell government to give them. Sure sounds like quacking, liberal

No. You insult mankind, including yourself, every time you open your mouth.

I'm a conservative libertarian. That does not mean I'm a bigoted homophobe such as yourself. Only some conservatives are bigoted homophobes such as yourself. Just because you are a bigot does not mean everyone else is.

Tax breaks for marriage is completely "irrelevant" to the issue of gay marriage. That is just another one of your stupid strawmen. Tax breaks for marriage are there for anyone that decides to get married, who is not having their rights infringed through laws that disallow them to become married.

Your jack boot on gays is you taking your boot and metaphorically stomping it on the neck of all gays continually with nearly every one of your posts. You deserve to be summarily slapped.

My point is that we have to fight government to stop it from taking away our rights. You somehow think that means force government into giving us our rights. ROFL... you're the opposite of a libertarian. You are an authoritarian. No different than RW claiming to be a republican while pissing on everything conservatives believe in. You piss on liberty at every chance in the name of authority.

If "marriage" is a "right" and it's defined only by the participants, then why isn't it actually open to eveyone? Polygamy, narcissists marrying themselves, someone who wants to marry no one, why can't everyone get a marriage license? Man/woman and 2 adults is just as arbitrary. Why couldn't my grandmother get perks for caring for her sister for over a decade?

And what's truly stupid is your argument that it's defined by the participants (which you actutally don't think) and you decide yourself you get government perks. Positive rights is an oxymoron

It's not open to everyone because of people like you who are busy bodies wanting to control the lives of others.

As for a getting married to yourself... do you have a split personality?

As for polygamy, yes that should be legal for consenting adults.

As for marrying no one... there is no law against naming yourself no one, but it's been done before... my name is no man...

Everyone can't get a marriage license because kids and people in comas are not consenting adults.

Consenting adults entering into a contract between each other is not arbitrary. Contracts are not arbitrary documents.

Your grandma can get perks for caring for her sister. It's under the check mark "dependent" on your IRS and welfare forms.

What is really stupid is whoever taught you to read cause I never said a single what you are saying I said. I suggest you learn to use quotes. Cause your ability to read and comprehend ... yeah its a big fail.

Rights are not oxymorons, ya moron.

 

[Faun]

Spits the dumbfuck who actually compared a drivers license is to driving lime a marriage licence is to procreation.

Should I care what an abject imbecile thinks of me?

Google the word "analogy" so you learn what it means. Seriously. You may one day have a discussion with people who don't already know you're stupid. At least make it as challenging as you can for them to figure it out

In response to me pointing out how marriage is not is not a requirement to procreate, dumbfuckbri replied with people drive without a drivers license. Too stupid beyond words, but that's what people can expect from idiots like you and him. Marriage licenses and drivers licenses establish each as legal. A marriage license has nothing to do with procreation. Furthermore, marriage is a right, driving is not.

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

That would be relevant if it had to do with how he used the analogy, but he didn't. You said people procreate without a license, he said people drive without a license too. You have to look at how the analogy is used, Opie the Clown

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

 

[RKMBrown]

Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changed who you could marry for zero gays. The laws were applied equally

Not true. Being gay changes who you can marry for everyone.

Really? Name one

RKMBrown

True... Not that I want to marry a guy, since I'm not gay, but I don't appreciate being told I can't even if I wanted to. I don't like being told I can't do something when no one is gonna get hurt by my action.

So you could marry a man since you're straight but if you were gay you couldn't marry a man? What law says that? I'm pretty sure you actually can't marry a man even though you're straight, but if you can show evidence to the contrary I'll consider that

Try again.

 

[RKMBrown]

Really? Name one

RKMBrown

True... Not that I want to marry a guy, since I'm not gay, but I don't appreciate being told I can't even if I wanted to. I don't like being told I can't do something when no one is gonna get hurt by my action.

How do you feel about being told that you can't snort Cocaine?

I don't think it's any of YOUR GOD DAMN BUSINESS WHAT I DO.

My God you liberal automaton, you don't grasp a question, do you? Either that or you do, this is two in a row bripat blew holed in your argument and your response was duh, dar, you don't get it.

If you're right, why do you have to, let's go with "play" dumb? You should encourage questions

Incorrect. You fail to understand my answer... because you are an authoritarian that can't grasp liberty.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course Title IX is a law, seriously what is wrong with you?

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

Hmmm, yes it does. It applies to any university that receives money from the federal government. That means every single one of the except one.

Again, it's a choice of the university.

Yeah, right, if they refuse to accept any federal funding. No student loans, no Pell grants, no anything.

Furthermore, how does that make it not discrimination?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Gays have "access" to marriage. Gay men can marry any female they want to marry.

 

[bripat9643]

Google the word "analogy" so you learn what it means. Seriously. You may one day have a discussion with people who don't already know you're stupid. At least make it as challenging as you can for them to figure it out

In response to me pointing out how marriage is not is not a requirement to procreate, dumbfuckbri replied with people drive without a drivers license. Too stupid beyond words, but that's what people can expect from idiots like you and him. Marriage licenses and drivers licenses establish each as legal. A marriage license has nothing to do with procreation. Furthermore, marriage is a right, driving is not.

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

That would be relevant if it had to do with how he used the analogy, but he didn't. You said people procreate without a license, he said people drive without a license too. You have to look at how the analogy is used, Opie the Clown

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

Sorry, but the analogy is valid. Having a driver's license doesn't require you to drive.

 

[RKMBrown]

Really? Name one

RKMBrown

True... Not that I want to marry a guy, since I'm not gay, but I don't appreciate being told I can't even if I wanted to. I don't like being told I can't do something when no one is gonna get hurt by my action.

How do you feel about being told that you can't snort Cocaine?

I don't think it's any of YOUR GOD DAMN BUSINESS WHAT I DO.

I didn't ask you what you do. I asked you how feel about being told that you can't snort Cocaine? Do you believe government should control our access to recreational drugs?

I didn't say you asked me what I do. I provided you an answer to your question. Define control our access... They have the power through the constitution to control commerce in so far as they can make the manufacturers place labels regarding use and safety... They have the power to tax. They have the power to regulate worker safety where the drugs are farmed and packaged.. yada yada

Banning recreational drugs used in the home... grown at the home... etc... those types of restrictions should not be allowed by the feds without a constitutional amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

RKMBrown

True... Not that I want to marry a guy, since I'm not gay, but I don't appreciate being told I can't even if I wanted to. I don't like being told I can't do something when no one is gonna get hurt by my action.

How do you feel about being told that you can't snort Cocaine?

I don't think it's any of YOUR GOD DAMN BUSINESS WHAT I DO.

I didn't ask you what you do. I asked you how feel about being told that you can't snort Cocaine? Do you believe government should control our access to recreational drugs?

I didn't say you asked me what I do. I provided you an answer to your question. Define control our access... They have the power through the constitution to control commerce in so far as they can make the manufacturers place labels regarding use and safety... They have the power to tax. They have the power to regulate worker safety where the drugs are farmed and packaged.. yada yada

Banning recreational drugs used in the home... grown at the home... etc... those types of restrictions should not be allowed by the feds without a constitutional amendment.

Actually, the federal government has no such power under the Commerce clause. Whether it does or not, it still has control.

 

[Seawytch]

In response to me pointing out how marriage is not is not a requirement to procreate, dumbfuckbri replied with people drive without a drivers license. Too stupid beyond words, but that's what people can expect from idiots like you and him. Marriage licenses and drivers licenses establish each as legal. A marriage license has nothing to do with procreation. Furthermore, marriage is a right, driving is not.

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

Yes, I already noted that you said the analogy wasn't valid because a driver's license isn't a marriage license. Then you compounded your stupidity by repeating it.

No, that's not what I said. Why lie? What I said was...

"Driving without a license is illegal. Reproducing without being married is not."​

... pointing out how retarded you are for drawing an analogy between driving, which requires a license; and procreation, which does not.

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

Hmmm, yes it does. It applies to any university that receives money from the federal government. That means every single one of the except one.

Again, it's a choice of the university.

Yeah, right, if they refuse to accept any federal funding. No student loans, no Pell grants, no anything.

Furthermore, how does that make it not discrimination?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Gays have "access" to marriage. Gay men can marry any female they want to marry.

Argument tried and failed. They tried to tell Mildred Loving she could marry any black man and it wasn't discrimination because the same laws applied to all races equally.

Gay men can marry another man in a majority of the state's...37 at last count.

 

[Faun]

In response to me pointing out how marriage is not is not a requirement to procreate, dumbfuckbri replied with people drive without a drivers license. Too stupid beyond words, but that's what people can expect from idiots like you and him. Marriage licenses and drivers licenses establish each as legal. A marriage license has nothing to do with procreation. Furthermore, marriage is a right, driving is not.

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

Yes, I already noted that you said the analogy wasn't valid because a driver's license isn't a marriage license. Then you compounded your stupidity by repeating it.

No, that's not what I said. Why lie? What I said was...

"Driving without a license is illegal. Reproducing without being married is not."​

... pointing out how retarded you are for drawing an analogy between driving, which requires a license; and procreation, which does not.

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

Hmmm, yes it does. It applies to any university that receives money from the federal government. That means every single one of the except one.

Again, it's a choice of the university.

Yeah, right, if they refuse to accept any federal funding. No student loans, no Pell grants, no anything.

Furthermore, how does that make it not discrimination?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Gays have "access" to marriage. Gay men can marry any female they want to marry.

Here's the part you can't understand, please pay close attention....

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the inalienable right to pursue happiness. How is a gay man marrying a woman and not the man he's in love with, pursing happiness? More to the point, why should the government be allowed to cock block him (pun intended) from pursuing his happiness by marrying (which is a fundamental right) the man he loves?

Go......

 

[Faun]

In response to me pointing out how marriage is not is not a requirement to procreate, dumbfuckbri replied with people drive without a drivers license. Too stupid beyond words, but that's what people can expect from idiots like you and him. Marriage licenses and drivers licenses establish each as legal. A marriage license has nothing to do with procreation. Furthermore, marriage is a right, driving is not.

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

That would be relevant if it had to do with how he used the analogy, but he didn't. You said people procreate without a license, he said people drive without a license too. You have to look at how the analogy is used, Opie the Clown

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

Sorry, but the analogy is valid. Having a driver's license doesn't require you to drive.

But is required to drive; whereas a marriage license is not required to procreate. Your analogy remains the failure it always was.

 

[bripat9643]

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

That would be relevant if it had to do with how he used the analogy, but he didn't. You said people procreate without a license, he said people drive without a license too. You have to look at how the analogy is used, Opie the Clown

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

Sorry, but the analogy is valid. Having a driver's license doesn't require you to drive.

But is required to drive; whereas a marriage license is not required to procreate. Your analogy remains the failure it always was.

As we have already explained to you, if the comparison was exact it wouldn't be an analogy. You're only proving that you're a moron incapable of committing logic.

 

[bripat9643]

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

Yes, I already noted that you said the analogy wasn't valid because a driver's license isn't a marriage license. Then you compounded your stupidity by repeating it.

No, that's not what I said. Why lie? What I said was...

"Driving without a license is illegal. Reproducing without being married is not."​

... pointing out how retarded you are for drawing an analogy between driving, which requires a license; and procreation, which does not.

Hmmm, yes it does. It applies to any university that receives money from the federal government. That means every single one of the except one.

Again, it's a choice of the university.

Yeah, right, if they refuse to accept any federal funding. No student loans, no Pell grants, no anything.

Furthermore, how does that make it not discrimination?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Gays have "access" to marriage. Gay men can marry any female they want to marry.

Here's the part you can't understand, please pay close attention....

Marriage is a fundamental right towards the inalienable right to pursue happiness. How is a gay man marrying a woman and not the man he's in love with, pursing happiness? More to the point, why should the government be allowed to cock block him (pun intended) from pursuing his happiness by marrying (which is a fundamental right) the man he loves?

Go......

The first part you get wrong is that marriage is not a fundamental right. You also are mistaken in thinking that marriage exists to help people "pursue happiness." It exists to facilitate the reproduction of healthy well adjusted men and women. Happiness is merely a byproduct of that process.

 

[bripat9643]

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

Yes, I already noted that you said the analogy wasn't valid because a driver's license isn't a marriage license. Then you compounded your stupidity by repeating it.

No, that's not what I said. Why lie? What I said was...

"Driving without a license is illegal. Reproducing without being married is not."​

... pointing out how retarded you are for drawing an analogy between driving, which requires a license; and procreation, which does not.

Hmmm, yes it does. It applies to any university that receives money from the federal government. That means every single one of the except one.

Again, it's a choice of the university.

Yeah, right, if they refuse to accept any federal funding. No student loans, no Pell grants, no anything.

Furthermore, how does that make it not discrimination?

Because they have access to the sport. How many times do you need to be told that until you finally understand?

Gays have "access" to marriage. Gay men can marry any female they want to marry.

Argument tried and failed. They tried to tell Mildred Loving she could marry any black man and it wasn't discrimination because the same laws applied to all races equally.

Gay men can marry another man in a majority of the state's...37 at last count.

That's the argument Faun was making, so tell him it failed. Furthermore the Loving case had nothing to do with argument of "separate but equal."

 

[kaz]

Google the word "analogy" so you learn what it means. Seriously. You may one day have a discussion with people who don't already know you're stupid. At least make it as challenging as you can for them to figure it out

In response to me pointing out how marriage is not is not a requirement to procreate, dumbfuckbri replied with people drive without a drivers license. Too stupid beyond words, but that's what people can expect from idiots like you and him. Marriage licenses and drivers licenses establish each as legal. A marriage license has nothing to do with procreation. Furthermore, marriage is a right, driving is not.

The funny part is that you actually believe you're posting good arguments.

Here's a clue for you: learn what the word "analogy" means. Your claim is that the driver's license isn't a good analogy because it's a driver's license and not a marriage license.

In short, your a moron. It must hurt to be as stupid as you.

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

Yes, I already noted that you said the analogy wasn't valid because a driver's license isn't a marriage license. Then you compounded your stupidity by repeating it.

No, that's not what I said. Why lie? What I said was...

"Driving without a license is illegal. Reproducing without being married is not."​

... pointing out how retarded you are for drawing an analogy between driving, which requires a license; and procreation, which does not.

That isn't the way said they are the same. Again, Google what an analogy is

 

[kaz]

If it's not, then what's the justification for Title IX?

Holyfuckingshit, are you ever brain-dead.

It's justifiable because it's not mandated that universities add a women's basketball team. That's a choice made by the university. If a university doesn't want to add a women's basketball program, they don't have to.

Laws mandate equality; title XI is not a law.

Of course Title IX is a law, seriously what is wrong with you?

Yes, I stand corrected, it is a law. But it doesn't apply to all universities.

A truism to the argument. I'll let you google what that means.

The point is that according to your logic, it's Unconstitutional. As long as women are allowed to play on men's teams, they have the same rights as men and the Constitution, according to you, requires laws to be gender blind

My G-d, you're hopelessly retarded. The law enforces applicable schools provide access to the sport, not to the team. The difference between that a same-sex marriage is that marriage is a fundamental right towards the inalienable right to pursue happiness whereas playing on a particular basketball team is not.

Your argument is so foolish, it's no different than saying in order to justify same-sex marriage, male boxers in schools offering such a sport should be allowed to fight women participating in the same sport.

So separate but equal, blacks had access to drinking fountains and bathrooms, so you think Jim Crow was legal. Actually, it wasn't, Grand Wizard

 

[Faun]

Umm, no ... what made it a failed analogy was your bizarre comparison of driving a car with procreation. A marriage licence legalizes marriage, not procreation. Whereas a drivers license legalizes driving.

That would be relevant if it had to do with how he used the analogy, but he didn't. You said people procreate without a license, he said people drive without a license too. You have to look at how the analogy is used, Opie the Clown

Which was the analogy he offered in response to me pointing out that a marriage license is not required to procreate. His analogy was a failure from before he even hit [post reply].

Sorry, but the analogy is valid. Having a driver's license doesn't require you to drive.

But is required to drive; whereas a marriage license is not required to procreate. Your analogy remains the failure it always was.

As we have already explained to you, if the comparison was exact it wouldn't be an analogy. You're only proving that you're a moron incapable of committing logic.

But you're an abject imbecile who can't understand what he writes, no less what others write. So of course it's beyond your limited capabilities to comprehend an analogy is used to compare two things to highlight similarities. Now with that in mind, your analogy of comparing driving without a drivers license, which is not legally allowed, with procreating without a marriage license, which is legally allowed in response to me pointing out a marriage license is not required to procreate, is a completely failed analogy since it bears no similarity to the context of which you replied.

And get this .... the part I highlighted is salient to why you failed. Not that you'll understand that either.