it doesnt make up for your inability to address my arguments. Im sure there are some spelling errors you can easily find as well. The government doesn't inquire as to their intent to drive nor their intent to engage/not engage in behavior with the potential for accidents. It is simply presumed that they may.
Try making one valid point at a time, and see if people cannot address your arguments. You are making things up (most likely); I've never heard anyone or any expert make that claim. Come on.
you did? you found a law that existed prior to 1973 that outlawed same sex marriage? because that wasn't what you posted. sorry.
not a single thing you've posted has even addressed the US constitutional arguments being made. you rely only on the few STATE court cases to make your argument, but you apparently failed 6th grade civics. FEDERAL>state.
you must prove financial responsibility. that can be in the form of a bond, cash deposit, or insurance. no state requires auto insurance.
You are correct! I remember meeting that requirement when I first got my license. My dad wouldn't pay for it, so a part-time job was required in order for me to drive. Of course that was about 37 years ago, so things may have changed in VA (since the 70's).
Ahem: You're the one who introduced the analogy that marriage is like insurance because of the potential for 'accidents'. You can't blame us for your introduction of the accident analogy. Maybe you could stop (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about BS long enough to address the part you purposely omitted: Marriage is not predicated on procreation; most definitely not on procreation alone. You seem to be claiming it is by quoting, "Either it's based on the potential for procreation alone," above and then yelling "BINGO!!!" Don't bother responding with a copy and paste of the same tired crap you've spouted before.
Not the sharpest crayon. You cant even read what you quote. Thats potential of accidents in the case of autos and the potential of procreation in the case of marriage.
There is no fertility test, there is no age restriction on elderly people who are incapable of having children, and thus there is no requirement of procreation to be married. Sorry, marriage just isn't reliant of procreation.
Well, since no one has claimed that there is a requirement of marriage or that marriage is reliant of procreation, soooo I do believe you just kicked the (*)(*)(*)(*) outta that strawman, YOU DA MAN!!!!
see, this is where dixon gets backed into a corner long enough to whine and cry strawman. he will argue constantly that procreation is the reason govn't licenses and regulates marriage, then when it's pointed out to him that no, in fact procreation has nothing to do with why govn't licenses and regulates marriage, because the ability/intention to procreate is not required, he then whines and cries and says he never said that procreation is the reason.
Then your analogy fails, because the two things are not alike - as you've just shown us. Make another personal attack like the opening to the above statement, and there will be consequences. Debate me arguments, not my intelligence.
AS OPPOSED to arguing that procreation is "requirement of marriage". The strawman you people would always rather focus upon
Yes, when you compare the irrelevant aspects they are not alike. I was comparing the only relevant aspect in that both laws are overinclusive. But you dont want to discuss the relevant and would rather dive down irrelevant tangents seeking refuge.
Yep, just nonsense, bigotry, hatred, fear and ignorance, not a sound reason at all, to prevent same-sex marriage.
Virginia does NOT require proof of financial responsibility, it requires liability insurance. Insurance pays, financial responsibility (having funds) does NOT necessarily pay and even if it does it can drag on for decades. In Virginia, even billionaires MUST have liability insurance.
What are you two even going on about? Why dont you quote some of this bigotry and hatred and attach your comments to an example of the bigotry and hatred.
your argument has been that the govn't licenses and regulates marriage because of procreation. it's then pointed out that no, in fact, procreation is not the reason, since people for whom it is physically impossible to procreate are allowed to marry. you then whine and cry strawman, because it destroys your entire argument.
Because the fact that they allow people who cant procreate, has no effect upon my argument. My argument doesnt rely upon a requirement of procreation. We dont know which couples will procreate. We only know that all who do will be heterosexual couples. Thus the limitation to heterosexual couples. "Bright lines". Laws are full of them. Not neccessarily chosen for their accuracy but instead their ease in identification. Its impossible to determine which couples can procreate. Its easy to determine which couples consist of a man and a woman
