Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Nope, we have legally been given the right to marry and we practice that right daily.

 

Fallacy fallacy. Calling everything a fallacy so you don’t have to address it.

 

Far better for the child to enter into and age out of the foster system then. Got it.
Life ends up not being great for those places into that situation.

 

You should present your findings to the SCOTUS. I’m sure they’ll be very interested in your take.

 

Already have done so. The difference is that "A", in principle, has the ability to procreate while "B", in principle, does NOT have the ability to procreate. It requires a different label since, per the proof of identity, A ≠ B.

Under this comparison, what you need to draw the comparison from is the following: Heterosexual couple "A" is NOT heterosexual couple "B", however, we refer to both heterosexual couples as "marriages". With that adjustment, yes, I agree with you. That's the very point that I am making.

You, instead, are attempting to equate the identity of a homosexual couple with the identity of a heterosexual couple (ie, "A equals B"), but they are two completely different things because they have at least one trait which distinguishes them... One can procreate in principle while the other cannot.

You tell me why you are redefining it. Idk why you are doing so...

 

People.

Irrelevant whether they listen or not. They are wrong, and I have told you why they are, using the Constitution itself to show that they are.

Inversion Fallacy.

ie, the child is not being raised by their parents, as I've been saying all along.

 

They were given the WORD civil unions to identify what their specific union is... They were banned from engaging in such unions by the States which think homosexuality is immoral behavior. What I said makes perfect sense if you do not distort what I said...

And, once again, SCOTUS is not an Oligarchy. Read Article III of the US Constitution. Read Article VII. Read Amendment X. The Constitution is VERY clear about who has that power, and it is NOT SCOTUS.

 

So “they were given the WORD civil unions” but then banned in 17 states from using that word. Ok, if thats all it takes — I hear-by give you the exclusive right to the word marriage but I am going to let everyone else have it also. Happy now?

 

Absolutely correct!!! Gays have always had the right to marry; they haven't been denied any rights.

Precisely. It is the STATES who drafted and ratified the US Constitution. It belongs to THEM, not to SCOTUS. THEY have power over the US Constitution (specifically, all the powers that they have not relinquished within the Constitution), not SCOTUS. That's the point I was making by including Article VII in my argumentation.

Precisely right!!

 

We lacked the right to marry the consenting adult of our choice. Until that point only heterosexuals had that right. It was found unconstitutional and was addressed. Incidentally, their decision gave you that right as well. Yay more rights for everyone!
If the states were the only ones with the right to make such a determination, why did they let the SCOTUS do it?

 

The Constitution is very easy to understand. It is written in English. It is quite accessible, too. Take a gander at it sometime!

 

Where did you get you law degree?

 

Argument By Repetition Fallacy.

 

Fallacy Fallacy. Not what a Fallacy Fallacy is.

Logic is not Algebra, and Algebra is not Logic. You attempted to redefine Logic into Algebra.

 

False Dichotomy Fallacy. Maybe there's other family members who could raise the child.

What is "best" for the child very much depends on individual circumstances and can't really be discussed in a general sense.

 

SCOTUS is not an Oligarchy. See Article III of the US Constitution.

 

Joke Fallacy. Failing to get a joke.
This was also a joke.

 

They weren't banned from using the word. They were banned from the legal recognition of their "union", since their union did not consist of a man and a woman.

See above.

 

If a child is on their way into the foster system then they don’t have family willing/able to take care of them. Given the clear lack of families available for adoption how could you say you care about what’s good for children and also claim SSM couples should not be raising any?

 

Yet again you; you should go let them know. I’m sure they’ll be interested in hearing you out.

 

Which has been deemed unconstitutional. Sorry, you’re on the wrong side of the law on this one.

 

So they were given a “word” but could not legally utilize the “word”.

That does not even begin to make sense.

So we go back to the fact, y’all are not upset that gay people were given equal benefit under the law by being allowed to wed, your issue is actually any legal union outside of a male and a female. Which is why your argument failed in virtually every court across the nation.

 

No, you already had the right to marry any consenting adult of your choice. YOU didn't marry out of your own choice. YOU chose to have a civil union instead.

See above. Both heterosexuals AND gays had that right.

Nothing was unconstitutional about it. No rights were being denied.

I already had that right.

You'd have to ask them.

 

A law degree is not required to read and comprehend the US Constitution. All that is necessary is reading comprehension skills and an understanding of the English language.

 

Because foster care does not place children under the roof of people who are known to have at least one major mental disorder.