Drawing a Line In the Sand

Everything. Matrimiony, root of the word Mater, MOTHER.

Nope.

 

You aren't making real sense. Procreation isn't primarily relevant to what's being discussed here.

In any case, there is no good reason to deny homosexual people the right to legal marriage.

 

"The lady doth protest too much, me thinks"

10-15 years ago you people were defining yourselves by your departure from the norm.

Then Andrew Sullivan writes a book, "Virtually Normal", now all of a sudden, all the gays insist that they are normal and insist that we all aknowledge that fact.

 

Well, its relevant to why you cant marry your boyfriend in 44 states.

 

What are you talking about? You aren't making sense.

 

Which words didnt you understand?

 

Which of your words stated something worth noting? Please specify.

 

.................

 

Procreation is not a requirement of marriage, nor benefit from the legal benefits, it is an irrelevant point.

Please do not quite me when posting such nonsense.

 

No one claimed it was required. Step away from the strawman, if you can.

Actually, most often it is the marriage that creates the obligation of the father to provide for both the mother of the child and the children she bears.
And you may think it is irrelevant, but the supreme court has stated that in fact

 

Your argument against homosexuals being allowed to marry legally, is just plain weak. You persist, but so will the necessary resistance to your poor premises.

 

Heterosexuals are not normal. Heterosexuals, globally, all have the mental disorder of a phobia. Homosexuals are normal.

 

Neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals are abnormal; though there are some people in each group who do sport certain neuroses as human beings.

 

Its beeen very successful in the courts. Thats why you cant marry your boyfriend in 44 states.

 

Whatever gets you through your day.

 

So, we don't have homophobia until we disagree with homosexuals. Got it.

Lot's of problems with global diagnosis on the inhabitants of a planet.

 

I'm not sure what you mean; can you expound upon the above a little more?

 

Again, irrelevant. Procreation is not required for marriage. No one is required to procreate to be married.

That applies to heterosexuals and homosexuals.

 

That is correct.

 

Nobody claimed that procreation is required. Step away from the strawman if you can. Only thing irrelevant here is this constantly repeated argument of yours.

 

I am not the one using procreation as an argument you are.

Procreation is irrelevant.

Move on to your next argument.

 

Nevertheless, you infer (so strongly and persistently) that marriage is predicated upon the same, by continually referring to "procreation" in your posts.

Even so, as I and others have said numerous times (as we have determined we must), procreation as a requisite for marriage, essentially doesn't exist in American law.

You may indeed be saying something else (as you interpret things), but I will say things similar to the above... as much as I must/wish, to keep things as clear as I believe they need to be.

Got it?

 

Some people cannot or will not move on from that; it's obvious.

Still, I don't mind typing "irrelevant" every time he/she uses that word in one of these arguments.

 

Like I said, nothing new. The procreation argument is a good example of something that we shouldn't lend unmerited legitimacy by responding to it - especially when it's coming from one particular person spamming every thread with it.

'tis better to ignore.

 

Well, you best ignore it because it is what keeps you all from marrying your boyfriends in 44 states. A reality I dont think most of you can deal with, so you imagine your alternate reality.