'No differences' between children of same-sex and opposite-sex parents

That's because that's what it is.

 

May I call your attention to post #424? Deal with it Sparky!

 

Feel free to quote my post here, where I did any such thing, to show us you don't just make this (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go along.

- - - Updated - - -

Already dealt with. Waiting for you to quote my lie.

 

One of your lies-the one that I believe that your referring to is , from post #412

Your claim that you "dealt with my post 424 is another lie. You did not touch it. You had NOTHING to say about it until this just NOW. Anyone paying attention knows that both are lies. My post 424 shall forever stand as documentation of your many contradictions and bizarre assertions and ideas that you are woefully unable to defend in any sort of rational, factual or honest way. Please don't bother me again until you have something of substance to contribute. Good day Sir.

 

"Actually, you didn't cite any such problems. You just labeled it bizarre"

Its the truth. You haven't cited any such problems. Labels such as "bizarre" doesnt identify any problems.

Yes, I dealt with it AFTER you posted is and did not do so before you posted it.

 

Again Dixon with his grandmother and granddaughter. Dixon equates treating a gay couple exactly the same as any straight couple as "Inequality for the benefit of the gays". Because in Dixon's world- equal treatment means inequal treatment.

Fact is that prior to Obergefell it was illegal for a grandson to marry his infertile 70 year old grandmother. Once again- the state didn't care about procreation, or the potential of procreation, or 'encouraging' responsible procreation.

Yes- the grandson living with the grandmother is exactly situated as the granddaughter with the grandmother.

Dixon prior to Obergefell was okay with the grandson and grandmother being denied marriage. He still is.

But now he demands that those who support the rights of a consenting gay couple to marry explain why he opposes a granddaughter marrying her grandmother.

The reason for bans on incestuous marriage are not changed by Obergefell.

The only thing that has changed is the bizarre rational used by those who would deny marriage to homosexuals.

IF Dixon can't explain why he is- or is not opposed to a grandmother marrying her grandson- or granddaughter- that live together- that is Dixon's problem.

He can either suddenly support such marriages- or he can continue to oppose such marriages(while apparently not able to figure out any reason to oppose such marriages).

But that is his problem- no one elses.

 

As Justice Kennedy observed- denying marriage to a gay couple who are raising children is harmful to their children.

Why do the opponents of 'gay marriage' wish to harm the children of gay couples?

 

Children raised by both their married biological parent do BETTER than those who are not. And it has nothing to do with the fact that they are almost always a heterosexual couple. Sexual orientation is irrelevant.

 

Nobody wishes to harm them. Its just that denying marriage to a ANY couple who are raising children is just as harmful to their children. If you want a preference for children of "gay couples", you should have some justification for doing so.

 

You know, I actually think that you believe that you did , and that is perhaps the saddest thing about all of this. For the record, here is one thing that you have repeatedly avoided addressing:

"

I did however, notice that you stopped ranting about procreation since I first posted that.

Another major thing that you have had no rational response to is the documented facts that children of same sex couples do as well as any other children AND then when the parents are discriminated against in any way, it is detrimental to the children. YOU have never once so much as acknowledged that leave alone refuted it.

YET, you advocate the denial of the right to marry for same sex unrelated couples, in effect holding them hostage, until such time that we embrace something that no body wants, no one is advocating for, that likely would result in long term negative consequences, and that is simply not going to happen in our lifetime if ever.

This is what check mate looks like Sparky. Game Over!!

Now deal with these issues or go back into hiding.

 

Actually the ban on incestuous marriages is based upon the potential of procreation. Same as what you label as a the bizarre rational used by those who would deny marriage to homosexuals. The complete absence of any potential for procreation.

 

Just like your "mother and grandmother down the street" Is it that you now think that opposite sex incestuous couples should be banned from marriage but same sex incestuous couples should be allowed to marry? While same sex couples who are not related should be banned from marriage? A lot of " inequality by design" to borrow a phrase from you. You just keep getting in deeper and deeper Sparky

 

Nope.

Nope. You haven't ben paying attention. You craft so many strawmen that you cant distinguish between my actual views and those views you've merely assigned to me.

 

Not a straw man Sparky. I didn't claim that was your position. I asked you if it was. Just a question which I notice that you have not answered just like all the other questions that you avoid.

After all, your the guy who thinks that grandmother and her daughter need to marry and same sex unrelated couples do not.A position that you have in fact clearly taken but refuse to explain. If you really believe that, there is not telling what other strange ideas you have.

AND YOU ARE STILL IMPROPERLY EDITING MY POSTS!

 

Well, first I wasn't referring to your questions as strawmen and secondly, what part of "NOPE" didn't you understand? Perhaps if I shorten my answer to NO, your confusion might clear up.

 

Not confused at all. It's quite clear to me that you are being dishonest, evasive and refusing to deal with the issues that I have been hammering you with. Any idiot can se that.

 

Really? Because you specifically want to deny marriage to gay couples who have and are raising children.

So now the children being raised by gay couples are no longer being harmed by being prevented from marrying. The harm that Justice Kennedy has noted has been eliminated.

You want to change that- you want to reverse that- knowing that children will be harmed.

How are you not intentionally and knowingly attempting actions which you know will harm children?

 

No- "the ban on incestuous marriages is based upon the potential of procreation"

As I have pointed out to you dozens of times, Wisconsin's prevents the incestuous marriage of all siblings- but allows the incestuous marriage of first cousins- as long as the first cousins prove that they cannot procreate.

Wisconsin is fine with incestuous marriage for first cousins who cannot procreate- but prohibits all marriage of siblings, whether they can procreate or not- whether there is a potential for procreation or not.

As I said-

The reason for bans on incestuous marriage are not changed by Obergefell.

The only thing that has changed is the bizarre rational used by those who would deny marriage to homosexuals.

 

He will not have a rational or coherent answerer. He want's to hold same sex couples hostage until his mother and grandmother can marry. Something that no body wants and will never happen. He hates gays and does not give a hoot about the kids.

 

Most people that make decisions based on an agenda and not logic usually do NOT give a rats bum about other people or how other people are affected by The outcome of those decisions.

 

It's okay. it's over. same sex couples can marry. any compliant about it is equally useful as any complaint that black people can vote.

 

You asked two questions. Ive answered them both with NO! What part don't you understand?

 

You are making my point for me. It was the potential of procreation that motivates the ban on closely related couples.

 

You are demonstrating once again that your 'points' are detached from reality.


Dixon claim: It was the potential of procreation that motivates the ban on closely related couples.

And as I pointed out that is clearly false.

Couple #1- Bob and Shirley- brother and sister- banned from marriage in Wisconsin regardless of whether they have any potential for procreation or not.

Couple #2 Bob and Joan- first cousins- allowed to marry in Wisconsin only after they demonstrate that they have no potential for procreation.

Two couples- one can marry- one cannot- the couple that cannot marry cannot marry regardless of any potential for procreation.

Wisconsin laws don't forbid siblings from marrying because they have the potential for procreation- IF that was the case they would just treat siblings exactly the same way as they treat first cousins.

Hence the potential for procreation is not the motivation.

 

You have some strange ideas about what constitutes an answer . But then again you have strange ideas about a lot of thing. I've got you so cornered that all you can do is delude yourself into think that you're making sense.