Children will win the fight for same sex marriage and adoption by gays!

The separation of sexuality from procreation entails its freedom from heterosexuality and its emergence as an individual attribute, something individuals can develop, enjoy, change or project as part of their changing definition of the self. Sexuality becomes plastic because the self itself has broken the bounds of traditional institutional expectations and it is now free to constitute and reconstitute itself in a series of narratives answering to nothing else but the growing freedom of individuals to develop their potential.
http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/work/GIDDENS.TXT

 

Again, the hope is that more children in need of adoption can now find stable homes.

 

Nooooo, my argument contains no claim that "the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children" and contains no claim that the "right to marry" can "be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."
Why dont you try and take a shot at addressing MY arguments, instead of so much time devoted to telling me what my arguments are.

 

Making marriage available to any two consenting adults, would have done that. Extending marriage only to include the gay couples, is intended to win more respect and dignity for gays. More children being raised by a single parent and grandparent, than there are children being raised by a gay couple.

 

Strawman

 

And again...the entire time...you have been told that procreation is not required for marriage.

And once again the Obergefell decision directly addressed your argument...by saying that no indeed marriage means just as much to those who cannot or will not procreate, and in no way does that inability of unwillingness to procreate restrict them from the institution of marriage.

You're argument lost, painfully so on every level. Just as I and many others told you it would from the beginning.

 

Yes, which seems odd as Ive never claimed that procreation is required. Crafting your next strawman?

 

omitting the rest of his post changes the context and is incredibly dishonest. But it's what you do.

 

Yes, yes. Sure you haven't. Just like you haven't brought up paternity a thousand times.

All those arguments lost last friday.

 

The strawman lost. That was by design. Strawmen arguments are always lame arguments so they can be easily knocked down.

 

Ive brought up both paternity and procreation. LIKE I SAID I never claimed procreation is required.

 

Trying to back away from your argument doesn't change the fact that it lost.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope you just danced around it calling procreation the entire reason for marriage, and that paternity proved that marriages purpose was procreation.

And that argument lost painfully.

 

Only thing Im backing away from is the strawman you try to assign to me.
Anyway, rational discussion isnt possible here when you believe what I post isnt what I mean, and so full of yourself that you believe you are more qualified than I, to know what I mean.

 

Dixon nobody is fooled by this game you like to play. Nobody.

 

How will this sort of ongoing divisiveness be good for the country, or the children?

- See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...d-map-marriage-resisters#sthash.v8kgma43.dpuf

 

The only game is Osiris strawman.

This would be appropriate time for either of you two to simply copy and paste ANY post of mine where I
"claimed that procreation is required" for marriage. Instead of making the accusation 100 more times, complete with commentary, without simply quoting these comments of mine.

 

Dixon nobody is fooled by this game you like to play. Nobody.

 

It is the courts who have created this divisiveness.

 

But that doesn't even TRY to address the question you were asked. You realize that, right?

 

You've states over and over that procreation is the reason for marriage.

Well as has been told to you and now reaffirmed by the court...no it isn't.

 

YOUR strawman is that procreation is REQUIRED for marriage. Not that it is the reason for marriage. <Rule 3>

A Supreme Court decision today, doesn't change the 1000s of years of history that came before it. From this day forward, marriage has nothing to do with procreation in the law.

 

Your argument has always been that heterosexuals are allowed to marry because they are the couples that procreate.

You played semantics arguments all over the board, but when it comes down to it the only thing you have been saying is that procreation is the reason for marriage. Which was always a false statement, and that very argument was presented to the supreme court and lost. The SCOTUS very plainly repeated what everyone else has been telling you. That marriage doesn't revolve around procreation.

 

Also from this day backwards, as far into the past as you care to look. Nothing has changed.

 

There were 1000s of years of slavery until there wasn't.

From this day forth it's irrelevant.

 

As has been explained to you over and over again, in order for your procreation argument to be valid a requirement would have to be in place.

it never had anything to do with procreation in the law.