Openly gay New York Democrats oppose plan to open Chick-fil-A restaurants along I-90

Post the law

 

Like you are doing. I agree

 

The discussion is about a legal contractural agreement. Refusing to discuss the legal positions and instead of relying on personal unfounded religious beliefs goes against debating it in good faith.

 

It has been posted many times, you just refuse to read it.

 

???? Ive not relied upon any religious beliefs. Im the one advocating getting rid of the old testament prohibitions against the closely related marrying still within our laws.

 

That is a lie
Post the law that gave rights only to homosexuals

Your refusal is simply a pathetic concession.

 

And I have wished you luck in that endeavor
Laws should stand on their own merit.

 

Did not you pay attention to the messages posted earlier about marriage laws.
There is a still reference to the genders, but that reference is only about heterosexual couples.
You are saying that gender requirements have been removed.
That is an outright lie.
It is not hard brain exercise to conclude that if you provide benefits to a new group (in our case homosexual couples) without changing actual law for heterosexual couples it means law has been changed to accommodate demands of homosexuals only.

Your call for refusal actually means you either do not have critical thinking or you refuse to see the obvious.

 

Your concession that you lied about laws being extended only to homosexuals is accepted.

Your narrative is fraudulent and contemptible.

 

It is the introduction of gay marriage that makes the exclusion of the closely related unconstitutional.

 

Then use that for your legal argument.
Good luck

 

No it doesn't - not that you have made any attemp to support your claim - but - that one can choose one's mate from either gender - has no bearing on whether incest is best ... two different subjects - on which the populace differs - and thus as per the founding principle and that of a Constitutional republic . the constitutionality of one does not negate or support the constitutionality of the other .. simply on the basis of differening public opinion.

and now - you know "The Rest of the Story"

 

Nope. Marriage limited to the opposite sex because only the opposite sex has the potential of procreation, legitimately excludes closely related couples because of the potential of unfavorable genetic effects of procreation between closely related couples. Marriage now declared by judicial fiat to be unrelated to procreation, made the exclusion of same sex couples unconstitutional, just as it makes the exclusion of closely related couples unconstitutional.
ANY discrimination must at a minimum be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. As of yet no one has presented any new legitimate governmental interest that is served by excluding the closely related.

 

Your opinion is based on fallacy so it is your admission that you cannot even support your own lies and fantasies

 

Same sex couples have nothing to do with "Procreation" among husband and wife .. nor the genetic effects from inbreeding .. as Same sex couples - as you seem to not realize - can not breed ... but even if they could - it still would have nothing to do with shagging one's sister.

 

There is no reason to further embarrass yourself. Your prior concession went far enough

 

No one claimed otherwise and of course I realize.

No one has suggested anyone shag their sister. 49 states have criminal laws that prohibit doing so and no one has suggested those criminal laws be changed. I sense, you are grasping about for your next strawman to slay.

 

Why then were you relating ssm to incest ? claiming some constitutional relation of which you have failed to specify nor defend. .

 

Do you have to offer anything beside fallacies?
No.
I accept your surrender.

 

That is a fallacy.
No one is relating ssm and incest.
If sex, procreation and gender are removed from marriage (according to homosexuals) it is nothing but collection of benefits.
All government benefits should be awarded equally according to 14th amendment of U.S. Constitution.
It did not happen, so people should understand that gay marriage is nothing but special privilege for gays without any kind of justification.

 

they should not have public benefits then.
What is a reason to provide public benefits to people engaged in strictly private activity?

 

Perhaps I misread .. - and the rest I agree with - no justification for privilege for any married folks - any more than a single person

 

There has to be a basis of logic to have a conversation, you do not use logic or even definitions so conversation is impossible.

Ignoring simple questions and repeating the same regurgitated remarks leaves nothing to surrender to.

Feel free to back up your claim and post the law that is expressly for homosexuals.

 

What are some of the privileges of marriage that even could be extended to individuals?

 

Benefits - not privileges so much .. was another persons word. Certain Tax breaks/loopholes are an example.