Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?

Do you really think I give a (*)(*)(*)(*) whether a man of your character believes me or not? And Ive never practiced law so really cant claim to be a lawyer. I have a degree in economics as well but certainly wouldn't claim to be an economist.

 

Never quite understood the use of "ban" in this context. Like saying cat owners are "ban"ned from getting dog licenses for their cat.

 

LOL....a man of my character?

A faithfully married husband and doting father? I can see why that would offend some.

- - - Updated - - -

If my wife and I were banned from getting a marriage license because we were the wrong race, religion or gender- I would consider that quite different from not being able to get a dog license.

But I guess being married changes that perspective on the differences between a dog license and a marriage license.

 

His argument doesn't include a requirement of procreation. The absence of one has no impact upon his argument.

 

And once again we all wonder what new arguments Dixon will come up with about what marriage is and why that must mean homosexuals can't be married.

 

Check the stats in America. Procreation continues on, with or without marriage. The unmarried women are having children at a slightly HIGHER rate than married women. If maintaining population is your concern we should probably discourage marriage.......... Or on second thought is your concern that more people will engage in homosexual sex and fewer people will engage in heterosexual sex?

 

Guns can hurt people. Two people of the same sex getting married cannot. There is no "common good" gained by denying this right.

 

Heterosexual couples are encouraged to procreate to reduce the number of single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. THE most common alternative to being born to a married mother and father. A "common good" not present in the case of two people of the same sex. The interest of marriage arent served by excluding people it is served by including those with the potential of procreation.

 

You're assuming expectation necessarily confers an obligation, which is clearly not the case.

Actually since, as I've already shown, your "point" is a non sequitur, there's nothing to miss.

No doubt it appears that way to those who are, willfully or otherwise, disgracefully ignorant of certain fundamental aspects of human nature.

You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Pure projection, obviously.

What makes them worthless is that in the best case scenario, they are uselessly shallow abstractions from the reality in which the child lives. The reader of the study can't look the child in the eye, observe his body language, or ask him or her uncomfortable questions, or observe parent/child interactions behind closed doors. All this being the case, such studies are most charitably characterized as an imbecile's delight.

Yeah, really.

Homosexual parents don't meet that qualification, however adroitly they may delude themselves and others to the contrary. You're welcome.

Nevertheless, anyone presuming to fill the role of parent to a child must play the role of either mother or father, and no child can have two of either. This being the case, in every "gay marriage" there will be at least one adult who cannot, even in the shallowest sense, be considered a parent to the child.

I don't know who the hell you think you're kidding.

Not quite correct, but the error is of no great moment here.

I'm afraid any connection between the premise and the conclusion is wholly obscure.

Actually it's nothing like that, since homosexuals have obviously never been the least bit interested in the right to marry, only in the right to pretend to be married while insisting that society pretend there is no pretense.

 

So says that liberal. Most of your PC philosophy is using social pressure to force people to conform.

- - - Updated - - -

We are not in a fertility crisis.

 

The common good is a younger population with more working tax payers. The SCOTUS has already said that the government can take your land to increase tax revenue. What makes you think that they cant prohibit you from marrying the same sex?

 

*sigh*

For the last time (hopefully), procreation/children are not valid arguments against same-sex marriage. You have a problem with homosexuals? Fine. But at least try to form a legitimate argument that an 8 year old can't slap down with some very basic logic. Even ignoring this, these statements below are still just bad...

Encouraging heterosexual couples to procreate won't reduce the number of single mothers. Encouraging women to only procreate with an established significant-other might, but that's an entirely different issue, and is still completely irrelevant with respect to marriage. People can procreated regardless of marriage status, and people can marry regardless of procreation potential.

A gay couple can't biologically have kids, we know. Not only is this utterly irrelevant in regard to marriage, there's a couple other things wrong with your line of reasoning. First, gay couples can contribute to the "common good" in other ways, for example (which as has already been pointed out and explained), adoption. Second, not everything must contribute to a "common good". As long as it isn't detrimental, then have at it - and same-sex marriages are in no way detrimental to anyone.

This sentence is gibberish, please reword.

And the "interest of marriage"?? What is that even supposed to mean? "Marriage" is an abstract concept and has no "interests". Only those who wish to get married have interests, and those interests are of no concern to anyone else.

 

Hell, they think the "potential of procreation" confers a requirement of procreation.

 

I'm not quite sure of your point. Are you trying to say that denying same-sex marriage is of interest to the government in that the government will collect more taxes from them due to the fact that they will be ineligible for those respective tax breaks?

If not, please reword. If so, that's just adding a second form of discrimination to the one that already exists. Way to go.

- - - Updated - - -

What you seem unable to grasp, is that it doesn't matter. It is utterly irrelevant either way.

 

Perfectly valid in all cases on the subject from 1970-2004, and in several cases since then.

Lets see the logic einstrein.

That was a slip of the keyboard. I meant to say encouraging marriage No one is suggesting encouraging procreation and instead government encourages MARRIAGE.

No, its the only issue. The other was nothing more than a mistake.

No one has claimed otherwise and in fact ive pointed out dozens of times that marriage INHIBITS procreation. Single women procreate at the an even higher rate than married women.

Any two people could do that. Does nothing for your argument for "gay marriage"

A marriage between the single mother and grandmother would be in no way detrimental to anyone. Again, does nothing for your arguments for "gay marriage"

"The interest of marriage arent served by excluding people it is served by including those with the potential of procreation"

what dont you understand?

The governmental interest in reducing the number of single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alcohol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS droupouts and criminal conviction as an adult when compared to children born to single mothers.

No one is speaking to individuals interests in marrying and we are only talking about governments interest in licensing and regulation of marriage, of course.

 

No I'm saying that a youthful working taxpaying population is in the common good. The SCOTUS has already ruled that the government may take your property to increase tax revenue. Why can't they use the same reasoning to prohibit you from marrying the same sex? The Constitution gives one far more explicit right to their property than it does to marry. Yet that has been trampled for the justification of increasing tax revenue. What makes you think the same justification cant be used to increase the birth rate?

 

Marriage is an individual right.

Just as States were told that they could not prohibit marriage of an inmate in prison, or a man who owes child support based upon some nebulous claim of 'for the common' good, preventing homosexuals from marrying- when it would not reduce the number of children raised by single mothers is so weak- no State has even attempted to defend its law with that argument.

 

You ignore what the Supreme Court says about marriage to bring in your arguments about what the Supreme Court has said about other issues.

Prohibiting same gender couples from marriage is not related to fertility rates.

If we are going to speculate on the United States entirely ignoring the Constitution, then we can speculate that instead that the U.S. may make fertile couples legally required to have 3 or more children, or face jail time.

Anything is possible if you just want to play "Well if this happens, then we can ignore the Constitution"

 

As I mentioned to Dixon, either case is completely irrelevant.

You've "claimed" so, yet have failed in "showing" so.

And what natural aspects might those be? How about that homosexuality is, at least in a large part, genetic and a matter in which one has no choice? Or that humans fall in love and really have no control over those with whom they fall in love?

Talk about projection.

Are you able to form an argument that isn't comprised of contemptible nonsense pulled from your ass? The reader of the study has no need to do those actions. That was the job of the researchers who performed the study, who then publish their results for everyone to read. FFS.

Abject bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Your vile bigotry is deplorable. There are many healthy children being raised by loving gay parents in stable homes all over the country. Though I guess you can't notice if you're constantly staring into your ass looking for more nonsensical crap to throw at others. Do you use a mirror, or are you just that flexible?

It is incredibly difficult and rare for me to find something offensive. Congratulations, you've succeeded.

Well, it looks like you're wrong again, since it's happening all over the country, and with increasing frequency. I hope just the thought of a happy family consisting of a same-sex married couple raising one or more healthy children offends the ever-living (*)(*)(*)(*) out of you. It's only going to get more common, and I will rejoice that it makes you and your "kind" ill.

 

According to the SCOTUS you are now legally required to buy insurance so why not?

 

Irrelevant nonsense. It's always been an illogical and fallacious argument. That it may have been used as justification in the past is nothing more than an example of illogical and fallacious arguments. Regardless, that argument no longer holds up in courts today, which is the only important factor.

You can't be serious? It has already bee spelled out for you. Multiple times by myself, as well as other posters.

You are being completely contradictory, and I am dumb-founded that you cannot grasp this. You are claiming otherwise, by constantly making arguments against same-sex marriage with a premise based on procreation or children. But then you agree that procreation is not relevant to marriage. Then in the next post you'll use the same procreation/children argument again - and 'round and 'round we go.

You cannot argue against same-sex marriage using procreation as a premise, then claim procreation is irrelevant to marriage. That is contradictory and illogical.

Of course it does, which I've already explained why in detail.

You're missing the point, again. It doesn't have to do anything for my argument (though I'll disagree that it doesn't). I was refuting your argument.

It was a result of bad grammar. After re-reading it a few times, I got it. In any case, it is you trying to exclude people (namely homosexuals), not me. Procreation is 100% irrelevant.

Just as irrelevant as the last 50 times you've said it.

 

Ok, I'll agree with that. And same-sex marriage would have no affect on this one way or the other.

Eminent domain requires a rational and reasonable reason which would be of benefit to the public/environment/etc. They can't seize your property for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles. As such, there exists no comparable reason to allow one to twist logic in order to apply the same principle to marriage. The courts seem to agree.

Whether or not gays can marry has absolutely no affect on birth rates. None. Zero. I have no idea how you could logically think otherwise.


You're really reaching here.

 

LIKE I SAID, "encourage procreation" was a slip of the keyboard, you can let it go. Procreaion is why marriage has been limited, from the begining of human civilization until 1996, to a man and woman. Only heterosexual couples procreate. Procreation is irrelevant to individual marriages. Two different subjects. And I never said "procreation is not relevant to marriage". You said that, attributed it to me, so you could knock it down.

 

Your attempt to slyly hand-wave this away by attributing it to a misunderstanding isn't going to work. This has been the pillar of your argument against same-sex marriage for this entire thread, so trying to put it all on that one incident is meaningless.

 

Trying to nail Dixon down to exactly what the purpose of marriage is, and why same gender couples should be excluded is like nailing down an eel.

I have started two threads where he has an opportunity to lay out his position fully, but so far......that appears to be too dangerous for him.