"Equal Rights" is a joke

no, you don't have legal precedent. not a single state in the US, nor a single court, requires the ability or intention to procreate in order to get married. making your statement that "the govn't licenses and regulates marriage because of procreation" a flat out falsehood.

 

Of course. I think that dixon just does this as an exercise. And as I said previously, it has taught me to put that argument to rest... whenever and wherever I hear it.

 

Step away from the strawman, if you can

 

Well, some "Conservatives" are calling for the same thing. And after all, what is wrong with TRULY "equal" rights?

Generally, yes. But realistically and practically, the devil resides in the details.

So, reasonable people have been and are continuing to ask: Why not? The answer to that question is of particular interest for those who possess a homosexual-orientation; as the MOST compatible mate for them is NOT one of the opposite sex. That is a clear/simple fact.

Again, in the general sense that may be true, however looking at the real social parameters of individuals seeking to marry the love of their life... what you say doesn't account for what gay men/women would reasonably seek.

Your "god" and the beliefs surrounding your faith, are not those of everyone. And nothing you've expressed above explains why two people of the same gender cannot be legally "married".

Right now, most people know that what you claim is untrue and they are in America's courts and legislatures, endeavoring to grant the (reasonable) "equality of rights" which are typically denied Americans who happen to be 'homosexual'.

 

it's your strawman dixon. you constantly use it, and when it gets debunked, you whine and cry strawman.

 

Actually, he continues to haul in the same BURNED STRAW... for all to see, as he erects his "straw-man".

 

Nope, I have NEVER used a requirement of procreation in ANY argument of mine. Just the same strawman, you visit, again, and again, and again.

 

You'll likely never admit it clearly, but it is no secret that you DO weave the irrelevance of "procreation" into the discussion regularly. We may not "get" all you're saying due to the way things are 'parked' in your brain... but we aren't blind/stupid; we know that you mention "procreation" A LOT.

 

I fully admit it. He claims I use the REQUIREMENT of procreation which doesnt exist and has never been any part of any argument I have EVER stated. But you boys are fond of that strawman.

I know its your dishonesty that leads you back to the strawman.

 

dixon, that's enough; you should be ignored at this point. You are wasting people's time with this childish THING you keep doing.

Wrong. But don't worry about me dixon, I'll just be here refuting (as I will) the BS you keep posting; and so will many others. (Does anyone smell straw-smoke?)

Peace.

 

Your not refuting anything. Just the constant whine.

 

you have constantly claimed that the reason govn't licenses and regulates marriage is because of procreation. that argument is then destroyed by pointing out that no, in fact the govn't doesn't care one way or the other whether a couple even has the ability to procreate in order to get married.

you lose that argument, and then you whine and cry strawman. you don't fool anyone.

 

As opposed to the REQUIREMENT of procreation, that you allege, over and over and over again that I rely upon for my argument.

 

your entire argument hinges on it. otherwise, you statement that " the reason govn't licenses and regulates marriage is because of procreation" is a false statement.


See how you've been backed into a corner? the only way out for you is to whine and cry strawman, because your argument fell apart again.

 

Nope, the absence of a requirement of procreation isnt even relevant to my arguments. Which words cant you understand?

I am making a legal argument. You make an argument, fueled by hormones and emotion, having nothing to do with the real world.

 

Let's all hope you never see the inside of a court.

 

Its like you didnt even read the two court exerpts quoted.

Neither I, nor the courts use a requirement of procreation in any arguments.

 

LOL! You cannot claim that. And if "whine" means "complain", you bet I'm going to come after the meaning of the things you say; one-by-one if necessary.

You can ignore what I say, or "refute" it yourself. I know the difference between your OPINIONS and what reputable authorities on the topic of homosexuality have typically concluded.

I know that you want to be 'right', but honestly there is so much that is left to be answered, and your conclusions are certainly not airtight.

 

What's "procreation" have to do with the rights of homosexual people?

 

Its state courts applying federal law, and the second, Baker v Nelson is now US supreme court precedent, so Im not sure of your point.

Its like you didnt even read the two court exerpts showing your argument to be irrelevant.

 

Federal district courts dont shoot down supreme court precedent. The gay judge in California didnt even mention Baker v Nelson, let alone shoot it down.

 

all credibility is lost when your argument relies on labels like the above.

but anyway..............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

oops..............