Gay Marriages Should Be Denied.

Correct, "PROCREATION"!!! Not the "ability to procreate". Not the "requirement of procreation", but instead the potential of procreation.

 

No so much that, but an outright dismissal of your asinine argument.

Infertile couples are physically unable to produce offspring, which is very different from a couple utilizing birth control. yet, much like a homosexual couple.

Your arguments of procreation are completely irrelevant. If procreation is not the basis of your argument, stop using it. For the sake of your image I would suggest that you stop contradicting yourself in every post.

 

Repaeting the claim, over and over again doesnt make it so. My arguments are relevant and continue to limit marriage to heterosexuals in 44 states. Your arguments have succeeded in 6 states. By definition my arguments have more than 7 times the relevance of yours.

 

of course you did. you said "marriage is limited to heterosexuals because they can procreate" I then point out that this is a false statement, and you whine and cry strawman.


you don't fool anyone

 

your bigotry is showing dixon.

 

Gay marriage is all about MONEY, not about civil rights. Read my prior posts; inheritance, healthcare, tax rates. END OF DISCUSSION until the gay population puts financial gain out of the equation.

 

Things are changing, regardless.

 

No, it is primarily about rights. Many are denied marriage, because they wish to marry the person most compatible with them.

Gay people will in due time, have the equal right to marry the person that's best for them as human beings.

Financial gain is granted to many couples; granting that to gay people who legally tie the knot, makes enough sense to allow them the same benefits as any other couple.

 

Why are infertile couples allowed to marry then, when they have ZERO potential of EVER procreating?

 

Because its easy to determine the presence of a man and a woman, and impossible to determine the ability to procreate with any accuracy

 

So now youve reduced yourself to fabricating quotes. Typical

 

it is impossible for a woman who has had a hysterectomy(sp?)to procreate. so, you claim it's impossible to determine is false.

 

lol, fabricating? you've been parroting the same nonsense in dozens of threads for months.


it isn't any truer now, than when you first said it.

 

Are you incapable of restraining yourself from using fallacies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

Ability to procreate, not the inability. A distinction narrower than the broad side of a barn, so therefore beyond your ability to perceive

 

So then quote the post of mine you are supposed to be taking the quote from. Show us you are not, as always, full of (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

????? Not appealing to the popularity among the people and am instead pointing to the state laws as they currently exist.

 

and still irrelevant to who can marry or not. I proved your statement incorrect. but as always, you will keep digging your hole, deeper and deeper.

 

everyone knows who's full of (*)(*)(*)(*) around here dixon.............

 

You are appealing to the popularity of X number of states.

That is not an argument.

Just because something may be a majority does not make it right.

You yet again say one thing and cite another.

 

dixon is stuck on WHAT IS; he's not interested in where things are headed (or certainly should be). It's a bit like someone showing up to a discussion on the protection of animal rights, and constantly complaining that the laws don't protect them in "X" way(s)... on-and-on-and-on; people wonder why he's sitting in that one corner, humming that opinion like a mantra.

Others realize that (present law) is deficient (obvious/given), but he keeps citing where the present laws ARE (wasting time and mental energy at the meeting), instead of working toward where the laws SHOULD be (in order to change them), he just keeps saying what everyone already knows. They all look at him, and begin to wonder why he showed up for the discussion at all.

In any case, efforts and progress are being made to CHANGE things toward granting MORE rights to people that should certainly have them; despite where the laws are at this time. Few people who are reasonable think/believe that homosexuals should not have equal rights/protection and benefits under U.S. law. And those who just continue to state the way things are (or have been), aren't helping society one iota.

 

No, you have not yet even comprehended my statement. Detecting the INABILITY is frequently very easy. 90 yr old grandma, it aint gonna happen. I said it was impossible to accurately determine the ABILITY to procreate. Distinvction narrower than the broad side of a barn, so likely invisible to you.

 

His argument is indistinguishable from the arguments of those opposing equal civil rights.

"Well....... a majority of states don't allow blacks to vote..... so thats just the way it is."

 

See, told you you fabricated the quote above.