interesting on-campus findings by former homosexuals

Then you should specify that when you make blanket statements.

 

You need to talk to Rahl making the blanket statements.

 

Voting laws did not specifically go out of their way to exclude women, but the exclusion of women was the effect. That changed.

The notion that current marriage laws were written with "an intent to include all with the potential of procreation" is equally flawed because people without the potential of procreation are still allowed to marry. That being said, even if you were right, it's a bad law that should also be changed.

 

Specifying isn't necessary. Even before the 21st century and in states where SSM is not currently legal, claiming that the potential for procreation dictates who can marry is still inaccurate. It would be more accurate to say that "Those who tend to marry has something to do with potential for procreation". In other words, marriage is not restricted on the basis of who has such potential, but that potential is recognized in some instances in law, hence the arguable place for paternity laws, joint-custody laws, incest laws, laws that orchestrate how artificial insemination is handled, and other family oriented laws. And marriage does many things besides that, while not being seriously restricted to anybody based on a potential for procreation... except for same-sex couples of course.

 

Which nicely illustrates that it unfairly restricts same-sex couples.

 

Ill wait here while you scurry after that strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

As opposed to homosexual couples as claimed.

 

Nothing wrong with blanket statements if they are correct. For example, a correct blanket statement is that procreation is irrelevant to who can marry in all 50 states.

 

It's your argument, not a strawman

Lol, equivocation is a pathetic and desperate debate tactic

 

Hang on, you're agreeing it unfairly restricts "same sex" couples, but disagree that it unfairly restricts "homosexual" couples?

Are you aware of the meaning of the term "homosexual"?

 

Nah, just agreeing as to who it restricts

 

Nope. My argument

The strawman created in response.

You people are simply incapable of comprehending the difference between the two.

 

There is no difference between the two. You are backed into a corner because your idiotic argument has been refuted, so you are employing a pathetic debate tactic known as equivocation. You do it all the time and nobody is fooled by it

 

And why it's allowed to continue is beyond me.

 

I did say you werent able to comprehend.

 

To be fair- I haven't seen anyone who has been able to comprehend your arguments as they circle around and around.

 

And I did say your idiotic argument was refuted and you pathetically resort to equivocation when you get your ass handed to you

 

Another one unable to distinguish between

Originally Posted by dixon76710
The potential of procreation of heterosexual couples is why marriage for thousands of years has been limited to men and women.

and

Originally Posted by JeffLV
the potential for procreation dictates who can marry ...

You are the only one drawing circles to avoid addressing the actual topic.

- - - Updated - - -

But your baseless denials are meaningless. Lets see some evidence.

 

Your argument has already been refuted. I told you I am simply going to remind you of that when you repost the same debunked stupidity over and over again

 

Just keep flapping your lips, you've already lost where it counts. Marriage, for thousands of years was as much about property rights as anything else. There would be no need and want for marriage outside this context unless someone wanted to be owned, which would not be possible for equal citizens. It's not for you to to say historical purpose, not do you have cause to say it had and had only one purpose. Last of all can you convince me of the sincerity of this purpose when the prop 8 crowd could have gone after any of a number of restrictions, yet somehow found same sex couples more a problem than child molesters and axe murders.

 

Nope, you merely claim its been refuted, again and again and again. The provided court cases and historical precedent confirms my assertions. The random thoughts bouncing around in your head refute nothing. They merely continue to bounce.

 

You mean like in ancient Mesopotamia when a wife failed to produce a child, the husband was entitled to receive back his property given in exchange for his wife.

 

Nope. Your arguments are refuted. That's why same sex couples are enjoying equality, and the Supreme Court said your arguments were bull(*)(*)(*)(*) 4 months ago.

 

Right.

With the exception of promoting/supporting politicians that know what you say above is true... I'm leaning toward immediately dismissing the sophisticated homophobia and social insanity out here.

- - - Updated - - -

Are we in "ancient Mesopotamia"? No? Then forget about it.

 

No, we are in the 21st century and no longer sell women into marriage like a slave. But still,

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;

- - - Updated - - -

You havent read the case, the supreme court didnt even address my arguments.

 

The fact that only men and women are able to procreate isnt homophobia and social insanity. Its biology. The gays and there supporters merely perceive any recognition of this biological fact as homophobia. We are supposed to pretend it isnt the case in order to avoid offending the gays who are excluded by biology.