interesting on-campus findings by former homosexuals

No such prohibition existed prior. That is never going to stop being true

 

"avoid trying to apply logic"?!

Ok, you're position is wrong because... flapjacks.

Without logic, all positions become so subjective as to be irreconcilable; which negates the purpose of communication in this forum.

 

So you're unable to support your position about "ancient times", and all support I provide for my position "is BS" because you don't want to believe anything that might force you to reconsider your position's validity...

Stay classy.

 

I supported my position. To which you had no response.

 

All your points have related to ancient civilizations, and I've pointed out time and again that argumentum ad antiquitatem is simply not a valid foundation for an argument. How is this not a response to your position?

 

Because I am not making an argumentum ad antiquitatem. The assertion denied isn't that that marriage should remain limited to a man and a woman because it has been so limited for thousands of years to men and women. The assertion you deny is that

 

Potential of procreation is irrelevant to who can marry, and marriage hasn't been limited to heterosexuals for thousands of years

 

Your baseless denials without any evidence are meaningless. All you need is just one written example in recorded history, 2000 BC through the 20th century, giving ANY different justification for the legal limitation to men and women. Or just even one example of a same sex marriage in the US prior to the 21st century.

 

Nope. All I need is to point out no prohibitions existed in the US prior to the early 1970s, and that procreation remains irrelevant to who can marry

 

The courts and historical record disagree.

 

No they don't.

 

You're totally missing the point that even if this was the case, asserting that this is a valid (if singular) justification for continuing to prevent gay marriage is an assertion of argumentum ad antiquitatem.

 

Im not asserting that it is. You can let go of the strawman if you can.

 

So, if the status of gay marriage in the past is not justification for policy in the future... What relevance does it have to the current gay marriage debate?

 

All these court cases creating gay marriage are based upon the claim that marriage has been limited to a man and a woman in order to exclude homosexuals, not an intent to include all with the potential of procreation.

 

Which is true

 

Dozens of court cases and the historical record say otherwise. But you will always have the conflicting thoughts bouncing around in your head to rely upon.

 

No the don't

Nah, I'll just continue to remind you of reality. You like to detach yourself often

 

Doesn't matter what historical cases say.

We have modern cases which have expanded the equality of marriage.

And that is a good thing.

 

It does when the claim being refuted is that the potential of procreation has nothing to do with who can marry. They directly contradict that assertion.

 

No- because modern court cases directly refute that.

As does the law in the states where same gender marriage is legal.

Potential of procreation has nothing to do with who can marry.

 

No they don't

 

Baseless denials. Lets see some substance. Cite a relevant link or something. At least string together a few words and make your argument.

 

I've already refuted your argument. I will continue to remind you whenever you bring it up

 

I, OF COURSE! am referring to states where marriage is limited to a man and a woman, and all states prior to the 21st century.