Same-sex marriage will not change a single day-to-dy thing for Americans

The only people that will be affected by same sex marriage are gay couples who get married.

 

And I think that's a pretty weak basis. The problem is that the many alternative marriage models put forth are all about who the individual wants to marry. It's not that anyone is being denied marital rights. Really, I can get meet some in Vegas tonight and get married. There's no prerequisite of love or anything of the sort. I don't think the desire of a marriage with someone of the same sex actually creates a different class of people - that's probably the furthest stretch of 'class' that is commonplace to hear.

well, as I said for pretty clear cut reasons, I think that's a bogus exception. I mean, do you actually think that if you don't allow gays in Texas to marry then no gays in Texas will have sex? Now same question for siblings in Texas.

seriously, that meme better get this post at least one like, it took me three tries to get it to work....[/QUOTE]

eh? lost me on the first part, but I'll like for that. It's actually pretty funny and kind of true. I'd like to start using that.

- - - Updated - - -

Are the only people affected by welfare benefits welfare recipients?

 

Go ahead, all you have to do is put the imgur URL between img tags. The Donny and Marie Osmond joke refers to a Family Guy cutaway gag with Donny and Marie in the same bed and Donny says to Marie "We, uh, can NOT tell Mom". You can see it on YouTube by searching for "Family Guy donny and marie". I may be smart, but I'm not above a good FamGuy reference.

 

Actually, its the courts stating so. 1000s of years of history doing so. As well, every state has this or similar law.

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;

Only a man is presumed to be the father because the biological dictates of procreation require a man.

 

That statute has no import on this discussion. That is not the statute dealing with what constitutes a marriage within the state.

 

Soooo then what morality were you referring to?

That would be a morality judgment Im not making. What does the equal protection clause have to do with "dignity"

 

Garbage.

A single mom is natural - two dads isn't.

Because in this set up, a young boy actually has a feminine influence rather than a gay-only one.

Vice versa is also true.

 

Because they haven't known any different - doesn't make it right though.

But if gays want children, why don't they just have them au naturale?

face it, if a man can't be bothered to do the deed with a woman, who says he'll be bothered to look after his adopted kid.

 

I was not referring to morality. I was referring to the responsibility a father has to his child.

If a law is designed to impart dignity, it must do so equally. There is no exception to the content of the laws that must be equally applied.

You brought dignity into the discussion by referring to it in the post that I had quoted. You said:

Somehow you think that gays lack the dignity that opposite-sex couples get through marriage, and since you don't seem to want gays to be able to marry, you thus want them to have less dignity.

Homosexual relationships in penguins have been known since 1911. Thus it's natural, since it takes place in nature. Your premise that it isn't natural is what's garbage.

Have you not seen some gays? I know one gay guy who is more girly than a few biological females I know.

 

Its one of the effects of marriage which is only applicable in the case of a man and a woman. And no one is arguing what constitutes marriage and I am instead demonstrating the basis of marriage's limitation to men and women.

 

Doesn't make it wrong either.

You've basically just called into question every step-father that's ever existed.

And lets not pretend like getting a woman pregnant means you're going to stick around and be a good Dad. If a gay couple is adopting a child, it's something they will have been working at for months, years even, just like everyone looking to adopt. How they are as parents will depend entirely on who they are as people, just like it does for every. single. parent. that has ever existed. Stop thinking you have even the slightest idea at all what kind of parents a gay couple might end up being. This is a judgment made from pure ignorance my friend.

 

Okay, let me make this perfectly clear for you, large font, bolded, and underlined.

Paternity is separate from marriage! They are two separate areas of the law. You are not making a case for marriage being restricted to opposite-sex couples. The only thing you are doing is showing your own ignorance of the law.

 

Well, two male penguins are known to display nesting behaviors, mimicking heterosexual couples by mock incubating an egg shaped rock. So its natural for a rock two have two dads, but not a baby penguin.

 

Actually that statute originates from the "Uniform Marriage Act" adopted in similar form in every state.

 

Hypocritical to claim marriage is unrelated to procreation and therefore cant be limited to only heterosexual couples, the only couples with the potential of procreation, and then prohibit all closely related couples, even 85 year olds, because of the potential of procreation. ESPECIALLY when its two closely related adults of the same sex seeking marriage.
The evidence they have that marriage is unrelated to procreation, is the fact that we let infertile old couples marry, but we must prohibit two 85 yr old brothers from marrying because of the potential of procreation and possible genetic defects?????? Crazy. Beautiful demonstration of the torturous twisting of the facts necessary to argue a constitutional right to gay marriage.

 

Again, procreation is not referred to in the laws about marriage itself unless you can point out a statute defining marriage that refers to procreation within the statute.

Doesn't mean the UMA is, itself, unconstitutional. It also does not change the fact that you are trying to change the topic from marriage to paternity.

Actually, in the wild, males have been known to nest actual eggs and raise the chicks if I remember correctly.

 

Most step fathers don't adopt their step children. Most of the time the childrens father wouldn't be willing to surrender their parental rights making way for an adoption. As well such an adoption would end any monthly child support payments being made for the benefit of the children.
A man marrying a woman with children or a woman marrying a man with children, creates no legal obligation to their spouses children.

 

Statutes don't express the intent of laws and instead only define their operation.

No one claims it is.

 

If a Statute is worded so that it contains a reference to procreation, the litigation can be extended. Won't change the end result, but might extend the bans for a few years. Of course, I could see vindictive Conservative bastards playing legal tiddlywinks with same-sex marriage the same way they screw around with abortion.

The references to marriage being heterosexual only will be deemed unconstitutional. Whether within the next five years or ten or thirty years, it will be eliminated. Marriage is, fundamentally at its core, a social contract, and if treated as such, a contract can be entered into by any number of consenting adults. That procreation is not the only reason marriage exists, means that it cannot be restricted to just those that can procreate.

I don't mind if the bigots keep trying to drag it out, they only look like bigger and bigger assclowns the more its dragged on.

 

That interlocutor has already been told the above, likely thousands of times. And what you've said is true. Here is what I am certain of:

Some people here frequently play 'ignorant'... just to waste time and have intellectual energy misdirected. It is a ploy of theirs.

 

I'm cynical enough to believe it's not an act, and that there are people here that really are that ignorant.

I have come across some of the most intelligent people I have ever interacted with on this site. On the other hand, I have also come across some on this site that are so stupid that I wonder whether they even have fully-functional brains.

 

I've dealt with that interlocutor for years now... what you've said to him/her has been said by MANY.

 

So we are onto animals now are we, well guess what, dogs eat their own turds, guess that means humans should do to....

and girly men are exactly what young boys should avoid, not come home to after football practice.

 

no, but at least it's natural and there will be a real biological link.

and why don't these gay men just have a one off session with a woman - are they scared of a vagina or something?

 

Let's try to remain on topic, we don't need to hear about your breakfast.

You said homosexuality was not natural. I refuted that by pointing out that in the wild, penguins have been observed in homosexual partnerships. Since homosexuality exists in nature, it is by definition, natural.