Gays have the same rights as straight people

You need to learn to punctuate better. This is nonsensical.

 

Then explain where I confused you.
Kindly elucidate yer concerns.

 

Okay. This part makes least sense of all.

Are you trying to say that gays can't marry because homosexuality is simply an adopted lifestyle choice? What the hell are you saying here?


And this other party is confusing too:

There is no subject here. What "does not"?

Your post is so ambiguous that I can't tell if you're for or against gay marriage.

 

I am not trying to say I am affirming that nowhere in America's history have 2 men
or 2 woman had the right to a valid marriage.Defying and defiling the very
construct and defintion of what marriage constitutes.
You cannot via mere public peer pressure change historical norms that have served
civil society for the better for centuries.

 

Yea, I've seen his posts before. Same with most of these guys. In a lot topics there are good points on both sides, but on this issue there really is no argument at all as to why the state needs to prevent same sex couples from marrying (and therefore the eventual outcome it pretty obvious). So folks who don't want to let go of their prejudice have no choice but to dig in their heals or dance in circles.​

 

Oh. So you're making a terrible argument. Please allow me to vanquish it.

 

Also, I am compelled to address this issue once again.

Let's see if someone can pose a decent counter to this argument:

So far the only response I've gotten was from Dixon. All he could say was "this is a silly argument" and retreated. Then he had the nerve to ask for a more detailed explanation when I called him out on bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Sigh...

 

Thanks for giving us a pictoral of what unconscionable Bias we can expect in this
debate.

 

​

 

they are banning same sex marriage.

no they aren't, because procreation is irrelevant.

you can't ban same sex couples from marrying, using the impossibility of procreation as an argument, if no requirement for procreation exists. this is why your argument is self defeating.

this is simply flat out wrong.

of course it does, and that's what gets your panties all knotted up.

 

it completely destroys it.

I comprehend perfectly well. first, heterosexual couples are not the ONLY couples who procreate. second, you can't use the inability to biologically procreate as a reason to ban same sex couples from marrying, if there is no requirement for the ability or intention to procreate. your argument is self defeating.

 

We don't. We just give them enough rope to hang themselves.

 

Meanwhile back in the real world, is not strictly a religious tradition and event, but a legal institution in which believers and non-believers alike participate. You're welcome to your own opinion, but not your own facts, as the saying goes.

Whether or not they do, it's no business of yours. You are not the boss of everyone else, much as you'd apparently like to be.

Also not up to you. You can rage impotently all you like, but you still aren't the boss of anyone else' church, either.

Whoa there, preacher. Your church and society are not one and the same. The reach of your church should only extend to its members. Leave the rest of society alone. There are many of us who do not want your beliefs governing our lives any more than you want "queers" in your church.

You don't. You RESPECT their RIGHT to govern their own lives according to their own beliefs.

 

You two should talk.​

​

 

Once again a gay hater retreats when confronted with a point he can't defeat.

 

That is wrong assumption, that where all gays make logical mistake. You have to prove first that they are in infertile status.
Much simpler way is to issue marriage license for man and woman.

 

Yet the state still grants licenses to people who are noticeably incapable of procreation.

 

In democratic society you have to prove first. Since burden of proof is on the government government makes it easier, by just giving marriage license to any man and woman.
There is no proof needed for gay couples, so no regulation and licensing is necessary.

 

What is this nonsense?

If the potential for procreation were required of people seeking marriage licenses, why would the government assume that burden? Why wouldn't they place the burden on the applicants. In fact, that's pretty much what an application is. The application is proving that he/she meets the requirements of whatever he/she is applying for.

You've yet to demonstrate that potential for procreation is required for a marriage license.

 

Everything is inside out in your head. Only gays think that marriage is a welfare for a sex.
Government issues license not to require something but to encourage man and woman to formalize relationship in order to build optimal environment for procreation and rearing children.

 

Even if true, do you believe that is the only purpose of marriage licenses? You really think they serve no purpose to the parents that are not related to children?

 

A marriage certificate allows couples a legal status with associated rights and privileges. In denying a same sex couple that certificate you are not freeing them from regulation. You are denying them those rights and privileges.

If no regulation is necessary, then don't regulate them. Give them a marriage certificate without regulation or licensing.
​

 

The license is to require something. Otherwise it would be freely handed out and not really a license. In the case of marriage license, it requires a number of things. This includes requiring the couple to be of legal age, not otherwise married, prove their identity, and assert they are acting of their own free will.

If you think it encourages breading children... well, you are delusional. But handing one to a same sex couple doesn't in anyway reduce the encouragement you think you're providing the first couple.
​