Gay pedophilia accepted by Gay Activist Groups

I have to correct you- it's 12 states now.

 

Nooooo I would include the one word you took the time to edit out in order to pretend you actually had a point. They are the "ONLY couples that have the potential of procreation"

 

No one claimed there was a requirement of procreation and no one claimed it was limited to heterosexual couples everywhere. Which is precisely why you want to go there now, constantly slaying the arguments nobody has made. If you can locate your nads, take a shot at what I actually state.

 

That doesn't change much at all, because the answer would still be yes...you are just saying no other couple can answer yes.

So marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples because they are the ONLY couples that have the potential of procreation?

 

Here is what you said:

No one claimed they are "inseperable". Merely that the potential of procreation of the classification of heterosexual couples, is why marriage is limited to heterosexual couples.[/I]

But marriage is not limited to heterosexual couples.

Not in over 10 states and in many countries around the world.

And that is because marriage does not require the potential of procreation- and never has.

So I pointed out exactly why your statement was factually wrong.

Now do you have the nads to admit it?

 

Completely changes the meaning. From your strawman where couples have to have the potential of procreation in order to marry, to my assertion that couples have to have both a man and woman included in order to marry.

 

which is false.

 

Nooooo if marriage is limited to heterosexual couples in even one state, the statement is factually correct. Step away from the irrelevancy if you can.

 

nope. the fact that in even one state it ISN'T limited, your statement is factually incorrect.

 

Here's my definitive proof that marriage is, at least as it currently stands in the western world, not about procreation: my grandmother got married last year. She was over 80, barren, and the husband was also getting on in the years and about as virile as a neutered panda. The government made no requirement or recommendation that they have children, nor did they even bother to check. As such, marriage is not about procreation in the USA, otherwise they would have made a point to make it about procreation.

 

I'll wager that most pedophilia by far is of a heterosexual nature..

 

Exactly, and as I said before, that is a tautology. You are arguing that only heterosexual couples can marry because couples have to have both a man and a woman to marry. That is no different than saying only a man and a woman can marry because only a man and a woman can marry. In short--no argument.

 

Whether it's homosexual statutory rapist Harvey B. Milk or pianist Wladius Valentino Liberace, gay/lesbian groups side with gays & lesbians no matter what wrong gay/lesbian does. Anyhow, won't be commenting here very much anymore because the topic repeats, but here's more from Huffington Post which is an apologist for gays & lesbians who commit sex abuse http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/22/kaitlynashley-hunt-anonymous-lesbian_n_3318291.html.

It‘s no surprise that Judy Peck Shepard, ex cop Greg Joseph Miraglia, Laramie Project and Big Island Chronicle‘s Tiffany Camille Edwards Hunt see nothing wrong with Florida lesbian Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt committing sex abuse on a 14 year old girl in a public bathroom & are against this lesbian going to jail for what she did to this teenage girl. Gay/lesbian groups are predictable and side with gays or in this case a lesbian no matter what wrong the lesbian does. What's sad are the kids who are rallying for Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt sexually abusing a 14 year old girl and again Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt admitted to having sex with an underage girl in a public bathroom.

There's no excuse for what Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt did and she must go to prison for this. 14 year old girl is the victim here because as Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt's the adult, Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt has no right to be having sex with a 14 year old girl. It's evil to use kids to rally behind a person who again has sex with an underage girl in a public restroom because again, the bathroom isn't the place for having sex-when people can't see anything wrong with this indecent exposure, then there's something wrong with the people. Most likely, adults urged kids to rally for Kaitlyn Ashley Hunt & that is wrong-using children for propaganda. & harassing the victim’s parents because they reported this crime is wrong.

 

That is because it is only governments limitation of marriage to a man and a woman that is about procreation.

 

Nope, its saying only a man and a woman can marry because only a man and a woman have the potential of procreation. AND IT IS CLEARLY NOT SAYING only a man and a woman can marry because all men and women have the potential of procreation.

 

defending murderers is wrong. lying about people committing a crime is wrong

- - - Updated - - -

nope. procreation has nothing to do with who can marry

 

If a man and a woman have no potential of procreation they can still marry, so the potential of procreation has nothing to do with who can marry.

Is it true that only a man and a woman can procreate? Yes. Is it true that only a couple can procreate? Yes. If you can argue that only heterosexual couples can marry because only heterosexual couples have the potential to procreate, and can argue that only couples can marry because only couples have the potential to procreate. So what if gay couples can't procreate? They are still couples, and most couples can. Its the same as you saying "so what if sterile couples can't procreate. Most heterosexual couples can."

I'm using your same logic. The only way you can reject my only couples have the potential of procreation argument is if you reject yours.

 

Silly fool logic. It has everything to do with marriages limitation to men and women.
Women take birth control because of the potential of procreation. The fact that my ex wife took birth control pills for 5 years, only to find out in her second marriage she never had the ability to procreate, doesnt somehow magically eliminate the fact that the potential of procreation is why women take birth control pills. The fact that some individual couples do not have the potential of procreation, doesnt magically eliminate the fact that men and women are encouraged to marry because of the potential of procreation.

 

That women take birth control pills is irrelevant to who can marry. Sure men and women are encouraged to marry for that reason, among others. But men and women who cannot procreate can still legally get married, so obviously that isn't relevant either.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is my new argument, based on dixon's logic. Only couples have the potential of procreation. Therefore, only couples can marry.

 

I think what you are trying to say is that the potential of procreation of the INDIVIDUAL couple is irrelevant. No one has claimed otherwise. BUT STILL, the classification of all heterosexual couples is used because they are the only couples with the potential of procreation.

 

The potential of procreation is irrelevant period. What you are saying is only heterosexual couples have the potential to procreate, so only heterosexual couples (even the ones that don't have that potential) can procreate. But I could just as easily say only couples (as opposed to individuals) have the potential to procreate, so only couples (including the ones that don't have that potential) can procreate.

There is not reason to use your classification over mine. Regardless, such classifications are silly. The law applies to individuals. But all I am trying to prove to you is even if I grant your silly classification logic, your argument fails.

 

I thought the thread was about gay pedophilia and not marriage?

 

Welcome to a typical thread hijack by dixon.

 

Columbine brought marriage into the debate. Like the marriage debate where heterosexuals are limited to marrying someone of the opposite sex, but the gays think an exception to that requirement needs to be made for gays. In this debate heterosexuals have to stay away from the 14 yr olds, gays think an exception to that prohibition needs to be made for gays.

 

Sure there is. Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples has a rational relation to serving the governmental interest in improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couplings produce. Whereas limiting marriage to sexual couples, both heterosexual and homosexual couples has no rational relation to the new stated governmental interest in fostering the formation of stable homes. Any two people can join together to form a stable home