Why should not homo couples have the same marriage rights as heteros?

Frankly---the anti gay equality agenda doesn't care about kids. If you did, you would be thinking about the couple of million children who live in a household with one or more gays folks who cant get married. Children benefit from having married parents but you don't want to hear that.

 

Because it works. Science always wins over religion.

Bogus science Jeff? Do I really have to prove once again all humans prepare for procreation when sexually stimulated?

Which as you know I never said.

Nor did I say this either.

Please read what I said Jeff not what you want it to say. I never said procreation was a requirement for marriage. Ever. I said the human body's reaction to sexual stimulation to prepare for procreation proves heterosexuality is genetic and homosexuality is not. I would ask you not assign an argument I never made.

And just as I said not a single one of those dealt with gay marriage by the Supreme Court. Ever. You are only making my point for me Jeff.

You mean the activist liberal judges yes they have in the lower courts. Not the Supreme Court Jeff as I said.

You just proved my point again Jeff. No liberal has ever been able to argue why gay marriage and only 2 person adult homosexual marriage is worthy of being lawful while excluding all other forms of marriage.

You couldn't do it. All you could do is falsely label my argument as a strawman (which you should really look up in the dictionary) and refused to formulate any argument for gay marriage that only allows for 2 person adult homosexual marriage is worthy of being lawful while excluding all other forms of marriage.

The burden of proof is on those who want to change the law Jeff. Not the other way around.


You are welcome to come back when you can formulate that argument and prove how my scientific facts of what the human body does when sexually stimulated is false.

 

I don't see why it matters what our bodies biologically do when sexually stimulated in regards to marriage.

 

I explained that but I can again. If we all can admit the truth that homosexuality is not genetic or natural, it cannot stand upon the back of the civil rights movement that dealt with race and gender two proven genetic traits.

Now you have to ask yourself what makes homosexuality and only 2 person adult homosexuality special enough that it and only it can be considered for state marriage recognition while continuing to discriminate against all other sexual preferences who also wish for state recognition of their marriages. That is the question the gay movement and the far left cannot answer.

 

Same sex couples cannot procreate with each other. The vast majority of heterosexual couples have at least the potential for procreation.

 

If we can all admit that religion is not genetic or natural then that too should no longer be something which carries with it basic civil rights and protections under the law.

That is easy though. They should be allowed to marry as well, plural marriage and even incest marriage, so long as it is consenting adults involved. (I'd go into depth why child marriages should remain illegal but I am sure you already know why.)

I honestly don't see how making it legal for one group and then working our way into making it legal for others is 'discriminatory' though. It's just a one step at a time thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Sam you have already admitted that is not why you are against same sex marriage. Shall I dig up the post where you declare you are against it due to religious reasons only?

 

I am not against same sex marriage simply for religious reasons. there are other reasons i am against it.

 

Ha, riiiggghhhht...

 

Prove me wrong!

IOW, what proof do you have that my views on this issue are ONLY based on my religious beliefs? im not denying that religion is a contributing factor, but it's not the only reason i'm against gay marriage.

 

Once I get off work I'll go ahead and dig up that old post of yours.

 

So what? I mean seriously, so what? Every single last elderly couple has no such potential. Every single couple where one or both are sterile has no such potential. You have no problems with all those marriages, and there are many thousands of them. You have no problem with couples (like me and my wife) who never had any desire to procreate and never did.

So clearly, your objection has nothing to do with procreation. Your problem is, you can't find any OTHER argument to support your bigotry, so you have to do the best you can with what you have, even if doing so makes you both inconsistent and dishonest.

 

I'm inclined to believe you on this. You are opposed due to simple bigotry, and you use religion as an excuse. But of course it's not religious at all (to the limited extent that religion is NOT an excuse people have to rationalize their prejudices). If you were to see the light and drop the religion schtick, you would STILL be a bigot.

 

Yes, but the fact that the majority of hetero couples have the potential for procreation serves as a basis for defining marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of whether or not all of those couples procreate or have the potential to procreate.

 

A while ago, I posted the challenge below for someone to come up with an even more absurd reason to oppose same sex marriage than the moronic clap trap heard so many times before. Ladies and gentleman we have several winners, although the authors will remain known only to me, and themselves, for fear of reprisals.

Just when I thought that I heard it all, this tread has become a rich oasis, a treasure trove if you will , of new and imaginative inane nonsense. I am truly impressed. This is especially remarkable considering that the op pleaded with people to not derail the thread with idiocy. Anyway, here they are:

“Heterosexuality is genetic, homosexuality is not” No I can’t explain it, you’ll have to ask him or her. But it is indeed a gem. . I’m not taking a position here as to whether or not homosexuality has a genetic component. I’m just saying that if one orientation is genetic than all must be. Otherwise, it’s like saying that green eyes is genetic, but brown eyes is not.

“Marriage is not a right and the only supreme court case that said it is a right had to do with race”. Realty? Google that again please.

The burden of proof is on those who would seek to change the law (gays) and show what the benefit (for granting marriage rights) to gays would be. Kind of contrary to the way our legal system works)

Marriage is not a right because it requires a license. Yes of course, it’s a privilege then, something that must be earned, right? Do you have to study and pass a test to get married? I bet a lot of people opposed to same sex marriage would say that carrying a fire arm is a right, while ignoring the fact that a license is required.

The Universal declaration of human rights (in stating that marriage is a right) is a meaningless irrelevancy and the UN is not an authority. And the USSC was wrong plain and simple. Yes plain and simple all right. Mostly simple, as in simplistic. I’ll bet the author of this one also believes that agenda 21 is a UN plot to confiscate our cars, force us to live in cities and usurp US sovereignty \


Here is my original post:

Good work folks. Thanks so much for your thoughtful contributions! have a good evening!

 

Bovine excrement!

 

Sam, do you know what "special pleading" is? Do you understand why it's a fallacy?

It's like arguing that stealing things isn't theft if you are poor. I listed CLASSES of heterosexual couples with NO potential for procreation and NO exceptions within each class, and you simply hand-waved them away because they don't fit your prejudice. Can you not understand how dishonest that is?

Meanwhile, MOST gays and lesbians DO have the potential for procreation, and many of them use it. And you wave that away as well. Incredibly dishonest.

 

what's that?

No they don't. They can't reproduce with each other. They can only reproduce with in vitro fertilization.

- - - Updated - - -

Please explain how my arguement was "bull(*)(*)(*)(*)".

 

Which is also true of many heterosexual marriages. I guess you really don't understand what special pleading is.

You have not constructed an argument. You have asserted your opinion, ignored every response, and asserted it again. That's not an argument. Your assertion is FALSE. It's a lie. Repeating it doesn't make it come true.

Marriage is NOT about procreation.

 

Not the majority of them.

i have constructed an arguement.

 

And you STILL haven't learned to spell "argument."

OK, your "argument" is that some children are born inside marriages and some not (in the US, it's currently about 50-50). But since some children ARE born in marriages, therefore we should outlaw the constitutionally guaranteed right to marriage for those who also have children, but not with one another.

This is like saying we should outlaw every religion except one, on the grounds that SOME of the people who accept that one religion behave better than others who make the same claim. In other words, it's not an argument.

Marriage is not about procreation. The right to marry is guaranteed. The ability to procreate is not a legal matter at all. You "argument" is saying that we should prohibit bananas on the grounds that apples are not oranges.

Sam, nobody is fooled by this. I doubt you are fooled either.

 

Strawman.

I never said that. If an opposite gender couple cannot have a biological child with each other and can only adopt, they still should be allowed to marry

 

Your argument is rife with fallacy. As flintc pointed out, you have used the special pleading fallacy, you have used an appeal to nature, you have used an appeal to emotion.

You may have presented an argument but not a logical one.

- - - Updated - - -

That is special pleading and it is a logical fallacy.

 

The problem with that theory is that religion is protected by the first Amendment in the Constitution unlike gay marriage or homosexuality which don't exist anywhere in the Constitution.

See thats the sticky point though. What gives you the right to decide what laws should be banned and what should remain when it comes to marriage? If you had your way you would remove any laws passed by the public making gay marriage illegal so why is that ok while you claim age laws to stay in place other than your own morality as justification?

Its the justification used that's the problem. If you were going through an amendment I'd say have at it since it needs no justification. But your side isn't going through that. Its trying to use law decades or hundreds of years old to justify modern day social claims to make new law and eliminate existing law. When you do that the justification you use must be scrutinized. The proper legal way is to propose an amendment but that's not what your side is pursuing. Consequences of opening laws never intended for marriage matter.

 

Yes, nobody disagrees with this. If a same-sex couple cannot have a biological child with each other, the argument is they should ALSO be allowed to marry, because the US Constitution guarantees legal equality, and marriage is a legal contract.

Now, you are supposed to argue by providing a compelling reason the US Constitution should NOT be obeyed. Something even more compelling. You have done so. You haven't even tried.

 

Oh but there is.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It is the grievance of many American people that states are permitted to discriminate against sex in marriage. We have the right to have it redressed.

Minors are a special status. I would say that relatives are a special class be them by affinity or consanguinity.

Illogical slippery slope fallacy