Gay Marriages Should Be Denied.

Fair and correct questions!

 

I'm not a "fool" or "clueless"... and no you should not be using ad hominem in order to make your points.

 

The law allows for such an action but it isn't enforced.

So you really do not see the link showing that these people are benefiting simply because of a class that they belong to while another class cannot receive the same benefits?

Would you be against civil unions then?

It doesn't really matter, your side is losing (significantly in the younger groups). Hate and discrimination never win out in the end.
One day people that wanted to discriminate will be viewed the same as those bigots in the past. What two people do that does not effect you should not bother you, but some people think they have the right to force their beliefs on everyone else.

I just pray that the republicans can stop pushing the issue or they will continue to erode their base as the 55+ demographic dies out. I am fearful of a completely controlling democrat party.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

 

This video explains why gay marriage should never be legal.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSfFa44p96o]Ban Gay Marriage![/ame]

Nothing more to say here.

 

People like that young man are making up more and more of America's population; thank goodness!!

 

Yes, by design the law treats the married different than the unmarried

 

What I am saying is why you cant marry your boyfriend in 44 states. And its obvious that it matters to you greatly.

 

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

 

... is essentially irrelevant.

 

Its why you cant marry your boyfriend in 44 states.

 

That will change. And your argument adds up to virtually nothing. It makes some noise here in the forum, but the courts will (some already have) eventually shoot down the foolishness you keep spouting.

 

no, it isn't. the ability to procreate has nothing to do with who can marry. that's why people who CAN'T procreate can still marry.

 

I never said anything about the "ability to procreate" I'll wait here while you slay that strawman.

 

Ok, then a woman can never have "Patrimony", because it comes from Pater, that means father, so is something that involves a father.

 

Yes, just as matrimony involves a mother. Only a man can father a child and only a woman can give birth to his child

 

And there we go, you say one thing and cite another.

Are self-contradictions the basis of your arguments?

 

Its a difference between the potential of procreation and a requirement of procreation, you and others cant seem to wrap your heads around.

A woman seeking a prescription for birth control pills doesnt have to prove an intent and ability to engage in heterosexual relations. Doesnt have to prove the physical ability of procreating. Many women have taken birth control pills for years, only to find out later they never even had the physical ability to procreate. Yet still, the potential of procreation remains the reason that the dr prescribes her birth control pills. Yes, it is merely presumed.

And the impossibility of procreation is why the Dr wont prescribe some gay guy birth control pills no matter how much semen his boyfriend pumps him full of. Sure, it might help the gay couple in their charade to ape a heterosexual couple, but there really wouldnt be any point in actually encouraging such a thing.

 

.... and yet there are infertile heterosexual couples.

Imagine that.

Do you have a useful argument, or are you simply going to continue contradicting yourself?

 

Just as there are infertile women taking birth control pills, your point? Its as if you dont even read what you choose to respond to. Or are you just not comprehending?

 

He knows that already; but he enjoys making the noise he makes within the argument. But like a noise-rejection filter in a radio circuit... people hear dixon's argument, and relegate it to the ground in relatively little time.

 

You're the one scattering the hay, by throwing out that noise (procreation) in most posts you make. You IMPLY something very strongly, even if you do not "say" what you've denied saying.

 

People and things who make the kind of STUPID noises you make, are being defeated ethically and politically; slowly but surely.

 

No, I can assure you, my arguments, the same arguments made in the dozens of court cases Ive cited, are the very arguments that justify the continued limitation of marriage in 44 states to a man and a woman as the only combination that can lead to procreation. This is not my opinion but instead historical fact. You people can keep repeating over and over and over again that procreation is irrelevant, when in the real world of 44 states, it continues to be very relevant and the reason why you cant marry your boyfriend in 44 states.

 

Politics has nothing to do with ethics. And it is when ethics are discarded, that you become successful.