Roy Moore, Alabama Judge, Suspended Over Gay Marriage Stance

I gave you the facts

 

yea, but they do not exist in reality.
if they do it would be very easy to provide a source of those facts.

 

this entire post is incoherent.

- - - Updated - - -

of course they do. it's why you lost and why same sex marriage bans no longer exist.

no problem. let me know which one you would like sourced.

 

I do not have to counter your arguments, simple logic and reasoning take care of them. You asserted that homosexuals being allowed to marry is going to create more homosexuals - it is so ludicrous it's laughable.

How is a homosexual couple any different from an infertile couple?

 

They provided some 28 or so pages of their reasoning for the decision. If you cannot understand or comprehend their reasoning, that's not their fault. If you don't agree with their reasoning or justification, again, that's not their fault.

 

first you have to find out when procreation and sex become irrelevant to the marriage.
At least in Loving vs Virginia procreation was linked to marriage.
At some point, according to you, it has become irrelevant.
I am sure you will point to the particular event when Supreme Court has declared irrelevance.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and they have failed to provide the reason why homosexuals get special rights.
That essentially means 28 pages has nothing to do with their decision.

 

easy, it's irrelevant before, during and after.

no it wasn't.

it has always been irrelevant.

the supreme court never declared it relevant.

homosexuals don't get special rights.

 

I am sure, for the person who defies human logic it is laughable, but reality of science is that if you provide reward for certain type of behavior people behave accordingly.

There is no such thing as infertile couple, from the government standpoint.
Government has NO idea which couple is or will be infertile.
Laws are about population, they are not issued for individual names.

 

So if it was irrelevant why did anti-miscegenation law were stuck down.
They very well could be married without procreation.
Why man is still presumed a father by default.
As always, I do not expect that you provide the answer because you do not have one.

 

Logic and you remained, tragically, utterly unacquainted. This isn't about science, and there is no 'reward' for homosexuals by getting married. This seems to be really hard for you to grasp.

Of course there's such a thing. What a silly thing to say.

 

If the government was providing financial incentives only for homosexual unions you might be correct that the number of those unions would increase, not necessarily homosexuality just the union itself. Since the government is doing no such thing (unless heterosexual unions have been banned in the last few hours) your argument is invalid.

Exactly, a gay couples has the same ability to foster a stable home, consolidate incomes, adopt and raise children and contribute to the community as an infertile heterosexual couple. Similarly situated, which is why the laws prohibiting contractual agreements based on gender were struck down and will not be reinstated.

 

because banning a couple from marriage based on the racial makeup of the couple is unconstitutional.

and people do get married without procreation.

because it's easier than doing paternity tests.

I've answered and refuted every moronic and incoherent thing you've posted

- - - Updated - - -

lol, WHAT?

2 90 year old heterosexuals are infertile.

this is incoherent.

 

Kreo, Please click on this link. https://www.bing.com/images/search?...=immagaes+children+same+sex+parents&FORM=IGRE

Then, if you can, please honestly answer the following questions:

The children depicted are either the biological child of a gay person who is in a same sex relationship, or was adopted by a gay person in a same sex relationship, which, in case you don't know has been allowed in most states for quite some time. In all cases, the child relates to the non biological adult as a parent figure and there is a bond. Got that so far? Good. These questions are:

1. Should these children be placed at risk of being orphaned and taken away from the non biological partner, if something were to happen to the biological parent BECAUSE they were not able to marry, and /or the non biological parent could not adopt as a second parent?

2. Should these children be deprived of heath insurance because the biological parent does not have coverage, and the non biological parent, who does have coverage through his employer can't marry his partner and adopt his child?

3. Should these children be deprived of the financial benefits of having married parents- benefits that could make there life a little better in some small ways?

Please spare us the usual incoherent blathering and bovine excrement and give some thought to those children who are the victims of discrimination as much as their gay parents.

Dixon, You're welcome to take a stab at this too as long as you don't invoke you "mother and grandmother down the street"

 

Losers in court always claim the court is rigged or biased or bribed. As for the rest of your polemics,on homosexuality, I am 50+ years old and I have heard that garbage for 35 of them. It has never impressed me, and the majority of Americans have concluded it does not impress them any more either.

You have lost.

 

Again, your inability to understand the reasoning doesn't mean it was wrong. It just means that you fail to understand. And your inability to understand why gays and lesbians didn't actually get special rights, but rather had barriers removed to rights they already had, doesn't mean the decision was wrong. It just means you fail to understand what the core issue was.

 

If you are so convinced why even bother to respond. But you are not convinced. Your win is no different then Supreme Court rule on condemning private property for the special benefit of the other private owner.

That is exactly why you guys can't stop discussions, because you are trying to impose faulty logic on the general public.

 

Then you would have no problem to explain it in simple terms. Reasoning is universal.
So far you can't

 

Relatives can organize excellent family and adapt children, but since you have denied benefits for them children will suffer.

 

Holy Crap! I gave you a chance to show that you have a heart, a soul and/or a brain and you blew it on all 3 counts! You can't even acknowledge that gay people have children in their who need the same protections and benefits as other children. Instead you just serve up more logical fallacies -although I don't expect you to know what that means. You are truly pathetic!

I might have to deal with the fact that there are people like you in the world, but I thank the Gods and Goddesses every day that I am not you!

We are done here.

 

LOL. You wrote this post and plopped in a reference to 'faulty logic'? There are no rational connections between any of the sentences, and there are no structural bridges between your conclusions and what proceeds them. Rewrite your paragraph so that it passes the standards of a 7th grade writing teacher. Then we can look for logic or its fault lines.

 

So you are against children?
You do not want more freedom for people?

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, mentally challenged people always blame others for grammar.

 

One can provide a nuclear family with a mother and a father, the other can't.

 

Heterosexuality is not only necessary for our species and society it is VITALLY necessary to bring into this world and to raise our future generations and therefore we must encourage and support and sanction the institutions in which we hope that occurs. Their is no such necessity or vital need for homosexuality in our species in fact there is no benefit to encouraging and sanctioning homosexuality at all.

 

If the entire human race suddenly became homosexual, procreation can and would still occur. orientation can not be encouraged any more than green eyes can.

irrelevant. The constitution precludes excluding them from marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

also irrelevant. procreation is not a requirement. But, children raised by same sex parents do as well or better than children raised by opposite sex parents.

 

But getting married is the first step and often does as we hope it does "alter their view"

Every child has a right to the best chance to have a mother AND a father in their lives and to purposely deny a child either in order to satisfy ones own self interest should not be encouraged, supported nor sanctioned. And no there is a basis inequality between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples especially when it comes to the nuclear family in which we hope all children can be raised.

We'll not doing very well.

Laws are based on our societal reasoning. You have given me no necessary or vital reasoning to encourage or sanction homosexuality.

Yes I know, why do you assume I have "religious" views?