Gay lobby’s next target: Benefits in all 50 states

What's to stop a hetero couple from doing the same?

 

I was refuting the other posters claims that "it was never used as a restriction under any circumstances."

"any" BEING THE OPERATIVE WORD YOU DONT COMPREHEND. It was used in BC Rome, Ancient Mesopotamia, 1800s marriage statutes and the marriage statutes of 37 states today

 

There is that word you dont comprehend. The only equivocation would be you using the term "discrimination" and then later claimed you meant unconstitutional discrimination. Wheres an example of my equivocation?

 

I'm sorry, calling BS on this one. Show me the historic precedent for excluding women who'd gone through "the change".

- - - Updated - - -

WTF are you talking about? Your argument that same-sex marriage cannot possibly be a "right" is based on an erroneous appeal to history.

 

Next to no widows remarried. Common understanding didn't include menopause. Short lifespans took care of the rest.

Now it's on you.

Provide the example of gay marriage in history.

There is none.

.

 

It was true prior to 1887 that interracial marriage had no national legal precedent in the US.

See... we can all raise worthless points!

 

He quite clearly stated it was "expected from ALL marriages.." and said nothing about excluding anyone. Try to resist the urge to dash after every strawman you can imagine. If you are going to bother quoting other peoples posts, why not address the content of those posts

 

we have never required any 1 to breed in the united states hell can you show that marriage was required to produce offspring in Rome?

 

Hey, whaduyaknow! We're making history!

 

in the post you quoted where I quoted you.

 

Thats because there was legal precedent prior to 1887. Laws against interracial marriage existed only in particuliar states. His assertion is factual while yours is made up in order to try and support your assertions.

 

Moses had a mixed marriage. The prohibition in America was not the historical standard of the world but the exception.

You and rahl, in spades.

Dazzle me with your next post or join the hundreds I have on ignore.

 

If you can locate your nads, point to one of the many posts of mine youve quoted AND THEN identify the equivocation within the post, like I did with yours.

 

But the law wasn't altered as life-spans increased to enforce this imagined concept that procreation and marriage are inseparable.

And what's your point? Society is still evolving. In the grand scheme of history, it wasn't that long ago that racism was inshrined into law.

 

Gays do have the same rights, they can marry someone of the opposite sex. No one's stopping a gay man from marrying a woman just because "he's gay", so this is a fabrication.

What this is doing is re-defining "equal rights" to include rights purely on the basis of what someone is attracted to, which is silly. Gay marriage isn't a constitutional right and should be left up to the states.

 

How can procreation be expected from a woman who is obviously unable to conceive?

What a joke your 'arguments' are!

 

Discrimination based on sex is a violation of equal protection under the law. Denying people the right to marry whom they love based solely on sex is unconstitutional.

 

The point is clearly that an appeal to history is fallacious. No more, no less. Picking holes in my examples doesn't change that fact.

 

Homosexuality isn't a sex.

See above.

What if someone is "in love" with a horse, or a 7 year old kid? Why does 'consent' override a "right to marry who you love" based on that interpretation of 'equal rights'?

 

Prior to Loving V Virginia, a white man could no more marry a black woman in all 50 states than a black man could marry a white women. A black woman could no more marry a white man than a white woman could a black man.

Everyone could marry, just not into different races. As it stands in 37 states, everyone can marry, just not to persons of the same-sex.

 

if you can locate your nads, admit that you are a troll. Admit that when your arguments get blown to bits, you fall back on the pathetic debate tactic of equivocation.

 

Same-sex couples aren't denied marriage licenses because they are homosexual - they are denied in most states because they are of the same-sex. It's a gender issue.

 

identical argument was tried and thrown out by the supreme court for interracial marriage.

 

So does a person, with split personality disorder, have a legal right to marry one of their other personalities?

 

Male and female are sexes. You want the government to enforce sexism in it's marital laws, and that is unconstitutional.

Marriage is for two consenting adults; it doesn't involve animals or children, who cannot consent. You don't seem to really have a point here to refute.