Debunking the interracial marriage arguement.

Language changes, deal with it.

 

You said:

To which I replied is untrue as marriage was not always limited to heterosexuals as same sex unions not only existed but were endorsed in ancient Greece, Egypt, and even in your beloved Mesopotamia and Rome that you quote so often. I am sure the irony is lost on you.
What are you having problems understanding?

So again:

Invalid in the eyes of the law and inaccurate in the eyes of history. Are you even trying anymore?

 

You labor under the false assumption that these definitions in some way stop gay from gaining their constitutionally protected right to marry.

Hasn't stopped the removal of the unconstitutional bans yet.

Keep making your same old broken arguments, we will keep winning in court, again and again and again.

 

??? That was the CURENT definition from Merriam Websters.

 

I know you dont understand, but your statement doesnt even contradict mine, sooooo youll need to point out what was false.

Were were talking about marriage, not unions. Diddling young boys was for sexual pleasure, but still, men only married women.

I understand just fine. Why cant you understand that you still havent even contradicted my statement that "Marriages limitation to men and women predates the founding of our country"

- - - Updated - - -

No einstein they clearly show that matrimony is defined as marriage.

 

Well, if you want the views of a feminist who thinks marriage is nothing but mens institution to oppress women.

 

How about the view of marriage of guys like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, dixon?


BTW, why don't you ever cite State v. Jackson. Missouri (1883) in your discussions of "procreation and marriage"?

 

Repeatedly refute. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry. Matrimony is a religious institution. .

 

Here's where dixon shifts to "potential for procreation".....yet still claims that a woman who has had a hysterectomy has the right to marry a man.....but no right to marry another woman.

Back and forth, back and forth. Same arguments...shot down with logic...and his own contradicitons.

 

What would I be shifting from? You can just copy and paste my post from this thread that I would be shifting from.

- - - Updated - - -

Just copy and paste my contradicting statements and put them side by side.

 

From BC Roman CIVIL law

"matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."

 

Marriage and matrimony are the same thing.

 

What is their view? I suspect, even in divorce, they both fulfilled their obligations of marriage to both their former spouses and children. Dont know either of their ex wives, but wouldnt be surprised to find a woman who is a housewife by occupation, and worth millions still, even in divorce.

- - - Updated - - -

You havent refuted Merriam Websters. Youve merely lost track of what you were arguing.

 

Merriam Webster isn't a law book.

 

And THAT is your central mistake, and the reason these stupid arguments go round and round and round again with the same people saying the same stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) over and over.

 

How about a FRESH one, dixon?

You discuss how important "potential for procreation" is to who is allowed to get married.

And I'll ask about the women who is post-hysterectomy.....

and you explain how you SUPPORT her right to get married, even though she has no potential for procreation.

Fresh out of the oven.

- - - Updated - - -

Rush Limbaugh has been married FOUR times....he has ZERO children.

Ergo by the dixon rule of "potential for procreation"....you better oppose Rush being allowed to get married a FIFTH time in the future.

 

So in other words you haven't actually read the book.

 

No, that would be your rule. Government has no concern with married couples not procreating and is only concerned with unmarried couples doing so.

 

Notice you provided nothing but your thoughts, when you claimed it was my statements that contradict.

 

Marriage = union: Here, lets look to the dictionary...

Marriage: n: The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:

Arguing semantics just makes you look foolish. Unions between people existed long before the concept of marriage was invented.
From the source that you ignored:

So it was not "diddling young boys" as you so eloquently put it; but a union recognized by the state (now referred to as a marriage). Statements like this and the reference to phedophilia and anal sex are what puts the bigot label on people such as yourself.

I cannot wait on a Supreme Court ruling, I hope they use your well thought out arguments as precedence.

 

BC roman law has no relevance to US law.

 

Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition.



Please do show me anywhere in that definition the gender of the people are mentioned.

 

Nope. One is legally recognized, the other is a religious institution.

 

and is an appeal to tradition as well.

 

Matrimony is a religious institution. Marriage is a legal one. You don't get a matrimony license. You get a marriage license.

You remain incorrect........again.

- - - Updated - - -

Government isn't concerned with anyone procreating. That's why it is and has always been irrelevant to who can marry.