Homosexuality...does it cause harm???

You have repeatedly used procreation as the center of your argument in hopes of biology trumping common sense.

Heterosexuals are not the only ones that can procreate so your entire position is based on a completely false assertion.

 

LOLOLOLOL!!!! You (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about "controlling reproduction" while you insist they controll gay butt sex. You must be a liberterian.

 

Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can procreate. All other couples need the involvement of a third or fourth person.

 

BIG DEAL!!! IT DOESN"T MATTER!!!

The civil marriage license has no requirement for procreation. None. Never did. You don't get this. Nobody has to reproduce. No reproduction necessary.

Get it yet????

 

But marriage has nothing to do with children let alone making them. So this argument is void and irrelevant.

 

Says the frustrated lesbian. The Supreme Court says " Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race" BECAUSE, from the dawn of civilization ,"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."

 

And she says it rightly.

But you dont need to have kids to be married. No court in the world has said that. They maybe linked - but kids are not necessary to get married.

Are you seriously saying only people who have children should be allowed to get married? LOL You're a retard.

 

Well, maybe irrelevant in Australia. Very relevant here where the Constitution applies. So why do they limit marriage to heterosexual couples in Australia?

 

????? I never claimed any such thing. And none of the courts Ive cited said any such thing. Ill wait here while you busy yourself slaying the strawmen.

 

Your argument here is non-existent..

The state doesn't recognise marriage only for the sake of encouraging people to impregnate each other.

Further, there's nothing (but bigots) to stop gay couples from adopting or, in the case of lesbians, getting pregnant by other means and raising their children together.

And what of heterosexuals who choose to remain childless? Somehow, the mere potential that they could make babies together makes it OK? What if one or both happen to be infertile? Horror!

 

No, in all cases one need not have an intent or capacity to have kids in order to marry. The reason why marriage is restricted heterosexuals in countries like US and Australia is entirely due to discrimination and/or the failure of the representative system (at least where Australia is concerned, since an outright majority approve of gay marriage now yet both major political parties still oppose it.)

 

Never claimed it was. Ive repeatedly pointed out that procreation continues with or without marriage.

 

It isnt a strawman. Why, if yo0u agree marriage has nothing to do with procreation do you keep bringing it? Also why are you being blatantly hypocritical when you say "I never claimed any such thing" along side "Very relevant here where the Constitution applies." Are you schizophrenic?

 

But why do you keep saying it is a basis for special rights (ie marriage) for heterosexuals?

 

Do you really think, expressing again and again that procreation is irrelevant magically makes it so?

 

NOT because all heterosexuals procreate, NOT because heterosexuals who marry are required to procreate, but because heterosexual couples are the ONLY couples who do procreate. What dont you understand? The idea is to reduce the #s of children born to single mothers and absent or unknown fathers and increase the number of those who are born into homes with both their mother and father to provide and care for them. Encouraging any other couple than a heterosexual couple does not achieve this goal.

Only women who have sex with men use birth control pills, IUDs and diaphrams. Women who use birth control pills, IUDs and diaphrams are not required to procreate. Not all women who use birth control pills, IUDs and diaphrams even have the ability to procreate. And yet, still, the potential of procreation is why they use these birth control methods. THE POTENTIAL of procreation is why heterosexual couples have been encouraged or even required to marry for thousands of years.

 

So which is it. Do you think it is necessary for marriage or not? So far you have said both!

 

Do you think saying that it is relevant over and over will get them to include it on the marriage contract???

 

This is NOT why there is civil marriage. You may THINK this is a good reason....but it is not the reason!!!!!!!!!!

Civil marriage is a contract between two adults. It has NOTHING to do with having children, it is not an enticement to people who might have children, it is only about the committment of one couple.

Your opinion is FALSE!!!

 

But not all heterosexuals can procreate, thus your conception of a right to marriage is entirely restricted to those who can have kids!
Your entire string of sentences is completely contradictory. You are saying people have an entitlement to certain rights due to possessing particular abilities even though they might not have these abilities! You have just said not all heterosexuals pro create, so why should all of them get the right to marry if you are saying marriage should be given to heteros because "heterosexual couples are the ONLY couples who do procreate"? The fact is heterosexuals couples ARE NOT couples that can pro-create - only heterosexuals couples WITH THE ABILITY TO PROCREATE, can procreate. SEE THE HUGE OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE? Your logic specifically leads to the conclusion only people who can and will procreate can get married. If you are saiyng these factors are irrelevant, then procreation is meaningless, and thus homosexuals have as much right to get married.

 

NOT because "all heterosexuals can procreate". NOT because all heterosexuals procreate, NOT because heterosexuals who marry are required to procreate, but because heterosexual couples are the ONLY couples who do procreate. What dont you understand?

???? Government could eliminate every legal aspect and effect of marriage tomorrow. No one has any such right.

 

But you are contradicting yourself. You just said "NOT because all heterosexuals procreate" and then say "because heterosexual couples are the ONLY couples who do procreate". What you shoudl say is "because ONLY SOME heterosexuals can procreate". Thus, marriage is entitlement for ONLY SOME heterosexuals.

 

You have yet to show how procreation is relevant to a marriage license.

 

You are moving the goal posts.....again. Here is what you said:

Dixon
" Marriage is limited to heterosexuals NOT BECAUSE all heterosexuals procreate but is instead so limited because ONLY heterosexuals procreate."

That is a completely false statement because homosexuals do procreate using many of the same methods heterosexuals use.

Also, don't ever claim again procreation is not the center of your argument. You like to pretend it isn't what your position is anchored in every time someone shows you why that is not a just cause for discrimination.

 

I'd save your breath. Dixion just dances in endless circles around procreation.