A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

Your strawman. You tried to take my point of what science has done, and equate it to something science has not done and claimed by that later that I was wrong. If my example was anstrawman, then point out, as I just did, what your original point was, and what unrelated point I created to refue was.

 

I never claimed there is a "requirement that a marriage be consummated". That's your strawman. A product of your mind. You can let it go now.

???? Im the one who said consummation has become irrelevant since gay marriage was made legal.

 

And you still haven't contradicted a thing Ive said. I didn't say husbands are the only ones obligated. I said they are the only ones "obligated by marriage"

 

Currently, two people of the same sex cannot produce a child with both of their DNA. My assertion was that my dog and I can produce a child the same way same sex couples CURRENTLY IN THE REAL WORLD produce a child.

 

I'm pointing out that it never was relavant even before same sex marriage became legal. You have a tallent for bring up red herrings to the issue.

 

Which still raises the question of how this has any impact on why same sexed couples should get the same benefits and protections of legal marriage as opposite sexed couples?

 

I didn't bring up consummation. That was another poster chasing after the strawman that I had suggested a man had sex with his horse when in fact I had said I saw a man marry his horse. No law prohibited him or banned him from doing so. JUST like whenever I bring up the single mother and grandmother down the street from my home. Living together, owning their house together, raising the three children for over a decade. Grandmother has adopted the children, as their father died. Pointing out that they are prohibited by law in 50 states from marrying, and everyone chimes in with the condemnation of a woman having sex with her own daughter. Its just a distraction to avoid addressing the content of what they are responding to.

 

Because a man in a gay marriage wont be giving birth. And while it makes perfect sense to presume that a husband is the father of any child his wife bears, especially in marriage from the dawn of civilization until the 1980s when they could determine paternity with a test, it would make no sense to presume that the lesbian spouse of the mother is the father, or a second mother, because we know she is not and the father still has his say in such matters.

BUT Im sure its only a matter of time before some married lesbian will argue in court that

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;....

is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

Procreation is entirely irrelevant to marriage.

 

A partnership is what we are defining and without need of any change in meaning.

 

That is a lie, and you know it, that is mere children's concepts v reality, that being step siblings makes anyone related, when most jurisdictions allow second Cousins to Marry, and that is not a great idea as diseases are more likely in closer blood relations.
Hence why history shows families like the Rothchilds
Showed a famed line of disease.

 

The word marriage originated as defining the union between a man and a woman, a husband and a wife. Words are used for the purpose of communication, and a partnership between two persons doesn't require it being called a marriage, nor should government require a religious or civil ceremony to make it binding.
From what I've seen, the issue has been no matter what it is called, the SS groups demand societal recognition of it equal to a marriage when in reality it is only similar, while contractually and legally imposing the same duties, responsibilities, and entitlements upon the partners and government.
The anti-SSM groups could not exist if the word marriage is not used. They could only then be called the anti-SS group.

 

For the 50th time, what does this have to do with same sex marriage?
You wanting to f*** your dog is irrelevant
Ancient Roman law is irrelevant
Procreation is irrelevant
Maternity is irrelevant
Presumption of paternity is irrelevant

You have to have a logical somewhere, why should same sex marriage be banned?
Why can you not answer this simple question

 

Absolutely nothing. That's the point. Only a husband married to a wife is obligated by marriage to provide and care for any child she bears.

 

The fact remains is there is no legally justifiable reason to ban asmae sex couples from marriage.

 

And this is incorrect.

 

No law banned anyone from marrying. Ive seen same sex weddings performed here in conservative central Texas long before the Obergefell decision. No law prohibited them from doing so. No law punished them for doing so.

 

Nah, just another of those inconvenient facts you cannot accept. Even in Liberal California


7540.

Except as provided in Section 7541, the child of a wife cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage.

 

Which is also, you guessed it, irrelivant.

 

You realize what the word presumed means, correct?

Your statement “Only a husband married to a wife is obligated by marriage to provide and care for any child she bears.” is false. Unless you are saying that if the wife has a child with a man that is not her husband, then the husband is liable anyway...

Seems your arguments are twisted and warped logic wrapped in lies, strawmen and redherrings.
And y’all wonder why same sex marriage sailed through the courts so quickly - this is the kind of arguments it was up against.

 

Relevant to the post it was in response to.

 

Yes.

Many of you here on this forum seem fond of these declarations of "false" in response to something I said, and yet never get around to pointing out exactly what is "false" .

Yes, until someone shows otherwise. If it was just a boyfriend living with her, instead of a husband, the law would not presume the boyfriend is the father

Put on your big boy pants and identify what is "false"

 

The entire statements are usually false, anyone with any reading comprehension that is looking at the statement find the errors to be self evident.

You will just ignore it and continue pulling absurd reasons why same sex couples should not be able to wed, you keep dancing around this very simple question. But here goes:

[Only] and no one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively, this word indicates no exception, a definite a (husband married to a wife) is obligated by marriage to provide and care for [any] used to refer to one or some of a thing or number of things, no matter how much or many again, another definite child she bears.

The statement is incorrect for numerous reasons, primarily because the words you used are concrete and unambiguous (ie only and any) which would indicate the following: The only instance a man is obligated to provide care for a child is if he is married to the woman prior to its conception and that upon marriage the husband is obligated to provide care to any child the wife bears while they are together regardless of who the biological father is. Which is just simply false, men are obligated / forced to provide financial care irregardless to the marital status of their biological offspring if they fail to do so willingly. Also, men are not liable or obligated / forced to care for for children borne by their wives if they are not the biological father and do not hold custody.

Words have meaning which is why the battle for marriage equality is so intense for those in support and those against it. Ignoring the legal protections, the tax breaks and the estate planning benefits it is important for many people to tie themselves to their partner emotionally and psychologically. You have yet to present a reason why we should tell those people no.

 

IF you are saying here what I think you are saying then we might have a common point of agreement. The legal status of marriage should only be limited to consenting adults. Since it doesn't require sex or children, there is no reason not to allow such situations as above to occur. I often use my father and brother as an example. My brother has lived in that house literally all his life. I don't foresee him going anywhere. So why should he not enjoy the legal benefits, including automatic inheritance and ability to make medical decisions when dad no longer can?

 

That doesn't answer the question. If procreation is not a requirement of marriage, why should anyone be denied access to this legal institution?