Openly gay New York Democrats oppose plan to open Chick-fil-A restaurants along I-90

Has nothing to do with a marriage contract.
I see why you didn’t post anything — it doesn’t exist.

 

Contract is a part of marriage law.
There is no such thing as contract without law (rules, regulations etc)

 

Ok. Quote the relevant section of marriage law that specifically places gender requirements only on heterosexuals.

Or you can just admit you lied — whichever.

BTW Presumption of paternity is always a separate statute and not part of marriage contracts.

 

That section has been quoted numerous times.
Your cherry-picking (whatever fits an agenda) tactics has been noticed.
False equivalence fallacy.

Does man automatically presumed a father while married - YES.
Does lesbian woman or homosexual man presumed a father while married - NO.
No more questions.

 

Which has to do with child birth per another legal another statute. Not the marriage contract.

You do make a good point showing how same sex couples are treated the same as elderly and infertile heterosexual couples are however. Thus, not a special right.

I agree

 

It is false equivalence, since marriage is and even that covers a life time.
You artificially have picked one particular period of life in heterosexual couple and trying to compare it with all homosexuals.
That shows that you do not have anything to defend special rights for homosexuals.
Don't you see all your arguments are based on fallacies?

 

Marriage does not cover “a lifetime” it is a civil union that begins on an agreed date between the two participants.

You don’t even understand what marriage is so discussing this is pointless

You calling everything a fallacy is sheer projection

 

You are using false equivalency fallacy to prove your point.
That means your arguments are not valid.

 

You are just displaying you have no idea what a false equivalency is. I am making a parallel between two similar groups that share the same rights.

You arguments haven’t been valid yet

This has started being a boring back and forth with you spouting a lie and me calling it out and then you just jump to the next lie that has already been addressed.

You have lost the public opinion debate
The legal debate
And now you just scream terms you do not comprehend

Cheers

 

You are taking small fraction of similarities between two groups, ignoring fundamental difference.
That is false equivalency fallacy, i.e. you have lost everything.

 

No one claimed otherwise. You can let go of the strawman now.

 

Yes you did .. you have been saying how SSM discriminates against closely related .. now you are in denial of this claim.

 

No, the inclusion of same sex marriage eliminates the only justification they had for excluding the closely related. Cant argue that marriage has nothing to do with procreation and so couples of the same sex must be included, and then prohibit the closely related from marrying because they might procreate with unfavorable genetic effects, or because the Old Testament prohibits it. .

 

No .. this is wrong - but good explanation of your reasoning.

You are saying SSM elimintes the "incest Taboo" by detaching children from marriage.

How does SSM - "detatch" children from marriage - when children are not "attached" to begin with - nor should they be.

One does not need children to get married .. in fact - in the old days it was preferred that folks wait until after marriage to procreate.

Marriage and children are already "detached" - as two people .. regardless of gender, do not need kids to get married .. and this has never been the case.

 

I'll wait here while you busy yourself running down that strawman.

 

It is not a strawman .. it is your argument. These are your words - "the inclusion of same sex marriage eliminates the only justification they had for excluding the closely related. Cant argue that marriage has nothing to do with procreation and so couples of the same sex must be included, and then prohibit the closely related from marrying because they might procreate with unfavorable genetic effects, or because the Old Testament prohibits it".

You are saying SSM elimintes the "incest Taboo" by detaching children from marriage. Whether you realize it or not

The justification for eliminating closely related was the incest taboo.

 

Which clearly IS NOT the same as "SSM elimintes the "incest Taboo" by detaching children from marriage"

The incest taboo remains in the form of 49 states that make it a crime to engage in incestuous relationships. And its the courts arguments that claim "marriage has nothing to do with procreation", nothing about detaching children from marriage. All 50 states have statutes similar to-

Sec. 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;

A fundamental connection of children to marriage as old as human civilization itself. From BC Roman 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")....

Matrimony, Latin root of the word Mater, MOTHER. Men and women joining together to become fathers and mothers to their children.

"matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."

 

Why you posted that stuff about paternety - I have no idea as it has nothign to do with the question at hand - which is what the heck you mean by excluding marriage of the closely related.

It is not a strawman .. it is your argument. These are your words - "the inclusion of same sex marriage eliminates the only justification they had for excluding the closely related. Cant argue that marriage has nothing to do with procreation and so couples of the same sex must be included, and then prohibit the closely related from marrying because they might procreate with unfavorable genetic effects, or because the Old Testament prohibits it".

If you are not talking about incest - what do you mean by "excluding marriage of the closely related" ?

How is "marriage of the closely related" not incest ?

 

You didnt ask a question and I posted it to demonstrate the attachment of children to marriage in 50 states.

Incest is sexual relations. No one is suggesting that closely related people engage in sexual relations. Thats your go to strawman.

in·cest
/ˈinˌsest/

noun

1. sexual relations between people classed as being too closely related to marry each other.
   • the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.

 

The reason closely related people are not allowed to marry is because of the incest Taboo = genetic abnormalities - .. that is just a fact .. regardless of whether or not you said it.

 

Correct, so their argument is that since marriage has nothing to do with procreation, excluding the homosexuals is unconstitutional. And yet they insist on excluding the adult mother and grandmother from marrying because they might procreate. Demonstrates that the first part was a fiction created to reach the result they wanted regarding homosexuals.
Traditional marriage WAS never limited to men and women in order to "disparage and injure" homosexuals. It was always so limited to include all with the potential of procreation

 

Has nothing to so with folks of same gender being allowed to marry

 

We were talking about YOUR "incest taboo". But of course thats why you seek to change the topic.

 

I did not invent the incest taboo.. and you were the one that brought up marrage between relations - so it is your topic I am addressing.

Sorry to burst your bubble mate .. but the reason brother and sister are not allowed to marry - is because of the incest taboo.

 

The incest taboo is in the 49 state laws that make it a crime to engage in sexual relations. We were talking about marriage. And the judicial fiction that traditional marriage has nothing to do with procreation, so the exclusion of same sex couples is unconstitutional, and yet, closely related couples are prohibited from marriage because they might procreate. EVEN if they are two brothers in their 90s. Its absurd. Special treatment for homosexuals because they are so special.