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

Predictably, any connection between this and anything I said is completely obscure. That aside, America's founding principles implicitly include sanity, whereas you are an advocate for its opposite.

 

So you're going to pull the traditional, "You're not a real American," card on anyone who does not believe as you do.
I was hoping conservatives had given up that stupidity.

 

I'm curious, what do you find sane about owning another human being as property?

 

Again, your interpretation of what is sanity is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) since SSM is quit sane. Maybe you should visit some other gay-hating country since you hate America. Especially since most of America now either doesn't care or is supporting SSM.

 

Well we aren't.

 

No, I merely note that no one who champions glaring insanity can possibly be a real American.

Happy to be able to set your mind at ease, and you're welcome.

Well I guess that's one way of looking at it.

This, of course, is the sort of lunacy Americans of sound mind can expect to encounter when they engage apologists for perversion, who will not hesitate to accuse the former of what those apologists are guilty of themselves; and it's a damn shame so many feel obligated to cede to them the benefit of the doubt on this point when in fact there is no doubt.

 

You're right. There is no doubt. Gay American citizens deserve the same right to privacy of their sexual lives as do hetrosexual Americans.

Since the civil contract of marriage has nothing to do with how the couple will be performing in bed, gay Americans deserve the same right of legal protection and privilege as do
hetrosexual Americans. And as raising children is not a sexual act, your definition of homosexuality being a "perversion" has no bearing on an American Citizen's rights regarding adoption.

Bottom line. Gay Americans are American Citizens first in the eyes of the law. Your weak attempts to marginalize them are transparent.

 

Which of course is entirely irrelevant, not just to everything I said but to the thread topic as well; but as a proponent of insanity, what have you got in your arsenal that doesn't involve misdirection?

Non sequitur, obviously, since there is no way to isolate children from the effects of perverted sexual activities of their parents, hetero or otherwise.

 

Kind of pathetic watching them sooooooo desperately trying to ape heterosexual couples.

 

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;

Has no application in the context of two people of the same sex. Even if they do rub genitals just like a real mom and dad.

 

Paternity statute not a marriage one, and the same legal effect happens for same sex couples. Any child born in the marriage obligates both spouses as legal parents.

 

Paternity, established by MARRIAGE. As old as the institution itself. From BC Roman MARRIAGE law.

"Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

 

Paternity statute, not a marriage one.

BC roman law has nothing to do with US law.

 

Like I said, it originates from the Uniform MARRIAGE act. Your personal declaration that its not a marriage law is meaningless. And makes you look the fool with "MARRIAGE" right there in the statute.

 

Paternity, not marriage statute. Governs PATERNITY not marriage.

 

Governs one of the primary effects of marriage. You have some silly notion that only laws that determine who can marry, are marriage laws.

 

Governs paternity not marriage. Sorry

 

Governns both, thats why you see both "paternity" and "marriage" in the statute. And then there is the fact that it is the law, REGARDLESS of what kind of law you want to call it. Making your point meaningless.

 

Has no effect on marriage. Has effect on paternity. Which is why it's not a marriage law.

my point is you are incorrect. It's a paternity statute. And when you try to use it in arguments against same sex marriage it's beyond retarded.

 

Of course it does. Establishes the paternity of men who are married to the mother.

 

Doesn't effect the marriage. It governs paternity.

 

This is really kind of silly. Babbling about some ridiculous statutory loophole instead of focusing on it.

 

Its not a statutory loophole and whether you call it a marriage law or paternity law is irrelevant to MY point.

 

Your point is irrelevant to the discussion. It always has been. Since this is the only note you seem to be able to play, you have lost your position. Insisting upon arguing as though you have a relevant point isn't really doing any good.

 

Well, the discussion is

The above statute is based upon the presumption that the married couple exclusively engage in sexual relations with each other.