interesting on-campus findings by former homosexuals

... is as irrelevant now, as it was when you first mentioned it.

- - - Updated - - -

You are trying to make the same point which you have failed at making, years ago.

 

And that statute is now expanded to presume parentage by any spouse of a child born during the marriage.

I have shown you the court cases.

Like I said- we just circle around and around.

 

Actually only women really can procreate. Men can't give birth at all.

Historically yes- it took a man to get a woman pregnant.

But now- all it takes is his sperm.

Men and women who cannot procreate together procreate in other ways and the courts recognize their parentage- and their marriage.

The same applies to same gender couples.

 

He's on worst than electronic-ignore; I have him on intellectual/ideological 'ignore'.

What he's saying is has not and will not justify (in the most important and valid ways) denying homosexual people EQUALITY under the law.

 

Cant have a birth without first geting pregnant. Procreation consist of the entire process that merely culminates in a birth

 

Refuted

Addressed and dissmissed your argument

- - - Updated - - -

Proreation is irrelevant to who can marry

 

Doesnt deny homosexual people equality. And it does deny equal treatment to ANY couples other than a heterosexual couple. The single mother and grandmother raising their children together arent denied marriage because they are homosexual.

 

Well that is interesting how you can manage those.

Not allowing homosexuals to get married "Doesnt deny homosexual people equality"

But if if homosexual are allowed to be married "And it does deny equal treatment to ANY couples other than a heterosexual couple"

Allowing same gender couples to be married just like my wife and I make more equal.

Just like when inter-racial couples were allowed to be married it made marriage more equal.

 

That's because interracial couples procreate just like same race couples, and purifying the white race isn't a legitimate governmental interest. Like Ive said before, "equality" under our constitution is determined by the relation of the distinction used, to the governmental interest being served. The sex of the individuals that make up the couple is rationally related to serving the governmental interest in improving the wellbeing of children that only result from heterosexual couples. The race of the couple has no relation whatsoever.

 

Well that is interesting how you can manage those.

Not allowing homosexuals to get married "Doesnt deny homosexual people equality"

But if if homosexual are allowed to be married "And it does deny equal treatment to ANY couples other than a heterosexual couple"

Allowing same gender couples to be married just like my wife and I make more equal.

Just like when inter-racial couples were allowed to be married it made marriage more equal.

 

No, it is not. That's Texas' statute. It means what it says. Only men are presumed to be fathers. And as far as California.

7540. Except as provided in Section 7541, the child of a wife
cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is
conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage.

No doubt you would claim that impotency is only applicable to men.

 

And now that marriage is gender neutral in California, that statute applies to any spouse.

I showed you the court cases.

You can continue to spout otherwise.

 

Right... You agree that it unfairly restricts "same sex couples", who are - by definition - homosexual couples...

 

procreation is irrelevant to who can marry

- - - Updated - - -

refuted

 

No, I don't agree its unfair and they are not a homosexual couple if they don't have sex with each other.

 

So if two asexuals (male and female) get married and never have sex with one another then they are not a husband and a wife?

 

These word games are getting lame. You're clearly clutching at straws.

In post #531, you agreed that the fact that marriage is not being seriously restricted to anybody based on a potential for procreation... except for same-sex couples... unfairly restricts same-sex couples "as opposed to homosexual couples..."

You now seem to be claiming that "homosexual" does not mean "same sex" - even though it is fairly evident that it does (given that "homo" means "same"...) - unless the couple have sex.

I presume you believe that a man and woman who have a sexless relationship cannot be heterosexual?

 

It's called equivocation and he does it every time he gets his ass kicked on these threads. It's pathetic

 

No, that would be you playing the word games.

I did no such thing, just more of your silly word games. Ive repeatedly stated that marriage is limited to heterosexual couples because they are the only type of couple that has the potential of procreation. I agreed that marriage restricts couples of the same sex from marriage. Not homosexual couples. Whether they are sexual or platonic. Whether they are both heterosexuals or homosexuals. they are excluded. Their sexuality is irrelevant. Contrary to the claim that homosexuals are excluded from marriage.

 

In just three states. In the others a sexual relation is simply presumed. Irrelevant to my point that they aren't a homosexual, or heterosexual couple if they aren't in a sexual relationship.

 

If its two guys nobody is going to give birth, so it doesn't apply to any gay marriages and if its two women, they are always impotent so it doesn't apply to lesbian marriages. Like I said, no doubt you would only apply the requirement of potency when a man is married to a woman. As usual your perception of equality for homosexuals is special exceptions for homosexuals.

 

Seriously? You're resorting to "I know you are, but what am I?"...?
Stay classy.

But procreation (or the potential thereof) is not a prerequisite for the ability to marry in any state or nation, correct?

You seem stuck on the notion that there is a difference between "same sex couples" and "homosexual couples", despite the fact that "homosexual" means "same sex"...
To illustrate your point, can you provide an example of a couple of the same sex that might be interested in applying for a marriage license, that you believe is not homosexual?

 

Actually, a female in a lesbian relationship can undergo IVF just like a female in a heterosexual relationship who is having difficulties conceiving...

 

Well... yeah, views like yours DO essentially end up meaning the same damned thing.

I don't see anything you share, promoting the type of EQUALITY under the law that homosexual people should certainly be able to enjoy.

 

I have already pointed out the court cases- in California when either parent in a marriage gives birth- both are presumed to be the legal parents.

No matter how you try ot parse it, its the law in California- if a couple have a child while they are married, they are both the legal parents.