How Does One Justify Being Anti-homosexual Rights?

Nope, not even an element of my argument. Fundamental part of your strawman. That why you return to it so frequently.

 

then your procreation argument is meaningless. unless a requirement exists, the inability of a same sex couple to procreate can not be used as a reason to deny them the basic civil right of marriage.

it's YOUR strawman, that you keep mindlessly parrotting, and I keep destroying.

 

yep, your argument relies entirely upon it.

it's YOUR strawman, which you keep mindlessly parrotting, and I keep destroying.

 

When that criticism includes a generalization, it reads as a criticism of "all gays", and that includes me personally, and I will have something to say about it.

 

What nonsense. The law is full of classifications of people. Bright lines drawn in the law. Ususally selected for their ease in identification, not neccessarily their precision. The exception does not prove the rule.
The classification of heterosexual couples is the only classification with the potential of procreation. This says nothing as to the willingness or ability of individual couples to procreate. Marriage isnt limited to heterosexual couples because they are required to procreate. iT IS SO LIMITED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONLY COUPLES WHO CAN PROCREATE.

 

what nonsense. the exception does indeed prove the rule, as federal courts have agreed.

if you use the ability to proceate as a means of excluding an entire group of people, then a requirment has to exist in order to do so. no such requirement exists, which is why your argument is idiotic.

this has been proven false countless times.

 

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit (2006)In Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rejected claims by Nebraska citizen organizations that the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage offended the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, among other provisions.[23] While Baker did not appear in the court's Fourteenth Amendment analysis, the court's opinion did note in its concluding passage:

Indeed, in Baker v. Nelson, when faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed "for want of a substantial federal question." There is good reason for this restraint.
(emphasis added in the Bruning opinion, citations omitted.)[24]

[edit] Wilson v. Ake, U.S. District Court (2005)Two Florida women who married in Massachusetts claimed that Florida's marriage statutes and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violated the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment (and implicitly the Fifth Amendment),[25] among other claims. The judge dismissed the claims against the U.S. Attorney General in part because Baker controlled: "The Supreme Court has not explicitly or implicitly overturned its holding in Baker or provided the lower courts, including this Court, with any reason to believe that the holding is invalid today."[26]

 

outdated. try the more recent federal court cases you've lost.

 

None of them have made it through the appelllate process to conclusion. Thats why your more recent federal cases have had no impact whatsoever upon the law.

 

I'm sorry that you seem to have failed 6th grade civics. perhaps you should go take a refresher course.

 

Yes it can. 44 states demonstrate this fact. And the term is overinclusive, not "meaningless"

Your little 2 or 3 sentence declarations dont destroy anything.

 

Make a relevant point if you can, then try to insult me. We want some substance. Just what aspect of civics did you want me to refresh?

 

no it can't. because procreation has nothing to do with who can or can't marry. so yes, your argument remains meaningless.

of course they do. they continue to destroy your arguments.

 

I've made it. it clearly flew right over your head. and what insult?

the US judicial process.

 

There is no reason to deny a same sex couple a marriage certificate. You're not very bright. Happy now?​

 

Here is your post in its entirety

Youll need to point to the relevant part because Im not seeing it. Just more of your typical, childish rants with nothing relevant to the topic of discussion and everything about me. I am not the topic of discussion.
And I would reply in kind, but you would run to the moderaters, and I would again be summarily banned.

 

Well, and that brings us back to where I started. These courts disagree

Your and Rahls little proclamations of your contradictory opinions really dont have any relevance in matters of constitutionality.

 

Wrong premise....Homosexuals are not being denied any rights.

 

Because being denied the equal protection under the law is obviously equality.

Sorry, any way you split it marriage has been labeled a civil right by the supreme court. Under the equal protection clause that should be available for gays as well.

 

Well, no. You are mistaken. Same sex couples are being denied the right to marry. Many of those same sex couples (surprisingly) are homosexual. So there are a quite a lot of homosexuals who are being denied the right to marry.​

 

Homosexuals can marry a person of the opposite sex just like heterosexuals. There is no civil right violation.

 

Homosexuals CAN get married all they have to do is find someone to marry them. STATE recognized marriage is reserved for heterosexual couplings and homosexuals can marry a person of the opposite sex. They just don't WANT to. WANT is not a 'right.'

 

Marriage to someone of the opposite sex was held to be a civil right.

Because

Gay marriage had never existed and was therefore completely irrelevant to the very existence and survival of the race.

 

blacks can marry a person of the same race, just like whites.

this argument has already been defeated.

 

no such distinction exists in the ruling.