Children will win the fight for same sex marriage and adoption by gays!

Oh sure. Cause....it couldn't possibly be that the data is correct. Has to be an issue of bias. Right?

You asked for data after I posed a personal example of my observation on the issue. So now the data is wrong.

I get it. Been here, done that (to death).

 

That's it??!! That is your entire response?

You are going to ignore the fact that what you presented is outdated, is derived from inadequate methodology ( survey vs. empirical study) and was written by a highly questionable organization with a clear bias?

You are going to totally ignore the other points that I made such as questioning whether or not it even makes sense to be considering this type of date ?? OK I guess that's all you got. Game over

 

This is their agenda. No reasonable person can look at this and believe that their "studies " on gay relationships or anything else related to homosexuality is objective or honest. In fact, their positions on everything are as far to the right as you can get:

Do these sound like reasonable people?

 

I am disgusted with the Family Research Council and those who buy into their hatful equine excrement

Where are these studies you fracking ass hats? Bring them on so that we can pick them apart.!

 

Actually, I am the one who keeps pointing out that sexual orientation is irrelevant to marriage laws. You wont find even a mention of sexual orientation in any marriage law in any state at any point in its history. Most gay men I know in their 40s and 50s, used to be married.
You cant even comprehend my argument

[

 

So you know a lot of gay men?? Hummmm

Your right, I can't comprehend your argument because it's, well........Incomprehensible

So you're not even going to deal with the hypocrisy that I called you on are you? As expected.

Of course you realize that it is idiotic to claim that bans on same sex marriage are not directed at homosexuals.? You really can't e serious with that one. I do find you so amusing.

 

You mean the hypocrisy of the strawman you assigned to me.

 

You make NO SENSE

You have repeatedly taken the position that gays should not be allowed to marry, and/or we need not let them marry because the do not PROCREATE Do you deny that?

You then said that PROCREATON IS IRRELEVANT to the case of the imaginary mother and grandmother who you think should be allowed to marry,

Where the hell is the straw-man?

 

No, YOU are the one, along with all the gays and their advocates who insist that gay couples of the same sex must be allowed to marry. I am the one who advocates marriage limited to unrelated men and women in a heterosexual relationship. THE only human relationship that perpetuates the human species. Not for two platonic friends of any sex, sexual orientation or familial relationship who want to join together to build a stable home together. Not for two closely related adults of any sex or sexual orientation who want to join together to build a stable home together, and NOT for any two people of the same sex, regardless of their sexual orientation, regardless of their familial relationship or regardless of whether they are in a sexual relationship or not. Because out of ALL these different combinations of two consenting adults, there is only ONE that has the potential of procreation. Men and women in a heterosexual relationship. EVEN if one or both of them might be gay. And not for closely related couples because of the potential of procreation.
And I am the one who advocates that if out of all these different combinations of two people, we extend marriage to just one more of them, gay couples, there is no longer any justification for excluding the others. Procreation BECOMES irrelevant to marriage with gay marriage. I AM NOT claiming procreation is irrelevant in traditional marriage, it becomes irrelevant because the courts entire argument is based upon the claim that procreation is irrelevant in traditional marriage which leaves only animus towards homosexuals as the motive of the limitation of marriage to men and women. Which makes it an unconstitutional limitation.
Its much to complicated for you to ever understand.

 

Will someone here please help me unscramble this convoluted word salad. ? Did he just deny that he is against same sex marriage but then say "I am the one who advocates marriage limited to unrelated men and women in a heterosexual relationship." ?

 

Perpetuation of the human species is not a prerequisite in order to marry, so it's entirely irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

And we keep pointing out that nobody is trying to restrict those others. But that isn't relevant to whether same sex couples can marry. It's a separate legal question.

It's always been irrelevant. It's never been a requirement.

No court has ever made any such argument.

Lol, I always laugh when you pretend to be more intelligent than your betters.

 

No one claimed it was. You can let go of the strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope.......

 

Odd. You have been bleating for months about reproduction, and about same sex marraige being wrong because gay couples can't have children, and about assumptions of paternity "defining" marriage, and on and on. Reproduction has been at the heart of your blathering since the start. But when others notice, suddenly this becomes a staw man! One would almost suspect you of being, you know, dishonest.

 

You understand that isn't a Strawman right? its the foundation of your argument that same swx couples can't marry.

 

Nope, has always been one of your favorite strawman. Marriage INHIBITS procreation. Single heterosexual couples procreate just fine.

 

I said it was NOT a "prerequisite in order to marry". Limiting marriage to men and women because only men and women have the potential of procreation, does not make procreation a prerequisite of marriage.

 

Funny how married people are procreating just fine.

 

Marriage inhibits procreation outside of marriage. One only needs to look at the black population in the US. Blacks have a lower rate of marriage when compared to whites, and yet they have a HIGHER birthrate than whites. Results being that most black children are born to single mothers with higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult.

 

No, marriage as an institution has nothing to do with that. Two people getting married does not make someone else that is single reluctant to get pregnant.

It is change in societal norms that has to do with that little tidbit you posted.

And all of that has absolutely NOTHING to do with SSM or adoption which is the topic of THIS thread. Anymore offtopic, strawmen arguments you want to make in regards to this thread?

 

You understand nobody is fooled by this game you like to play right?

 

Without the prerequisite you have no legal argument for limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, because they have the potential to procreate.

 

My argument involves no prerequisite of procreation. Dont confuse YOUR strawman for my argument

- - - Updated - - -

It has everything to do with that.

 

As pointed out it doesn't. Societal norms have to do with that. Two people marrying now doesn't hinder or prevent someone single from getting pregnant.

 

It's completely dependent upon it. Without one you have no justification for excluding same sex couples on the basis they can't procreate(even though they can and do)

You understand nobody is fooled by this game right?