What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples #2?

nope. they've given equal rights to homosexuals.

 

No. Same-sex-marriage is an EQUAL right, not a "special" right.

 

Well, you have to understand that when you acquire equal rights with certain category of people that already have special rights, you get special rights as well.

It is a same as if generally healthy person would demand equal rights with disabled people. After getting equal rights with disabled population that person obtains special rights.

 

clearly not, as I have repeatedly refuted your incoherant ramblings.

this is where your argument is self defeating. category B is IDENTICALY situated to certain members of category A, yet they are denied the rights category A has. Once group B has the same rights as group A, they are EQUAL.

this really is not hard to understand.

 

Exactly. He's imposing categories based on gender/sexuality which is unconstitutional.

 

That is why I am saying that you have lost your mind, or never had one.
If you disregard biology you can also say man and woman are in IDENTICAL situation because they have sex with each other.
But nine month after sex woman will have child, while man might even forget that he had sex with that woman.

 

Of course laws of nature are not constitutional.

 

XFD

The Constitutition is the highest authority on matters relating to law, not the "laws" of nature.

 

And nature is the highest authority regarding procreaion. Still requires a man and a woman, thus marriages limitation to a man and a woman.

 

which is why I said "clearly not, I have repeatedly refuted your incoherant ramblings".

this is incoherant babble.

sex results in procreation a minute fraction of the time. try and find something coherant and relevant to say please.

 

procreation has nothing to do with the limitation of marriage to a man and a woman. it's not even a consideration.

 

Nope because there's no requirement in law that ability to procreate even so much as comes into it. Try again.

 

Determinative, thousands of years ago

As it continues today.

 

___Yep.___

 

That has almost nothing to do with 2012. (Come on; be reasonable.)

No, it doesn't continue (as you suggest).

 

Those aren't legal terms, just the origins of the word. And this isn't about semantics, it's about equal rights under the law.

 

These are matters you know nothing about.

 

Equal rights under the law would entail treating the married the same as the unmarried.

 

An assumption of paternity....does nothing for your argument.

Heterosexuals adopt, are those children then presumed to be the couples biological children?

Heterosexuals utilize artificial insemination, are those children then presumed to be the couples biological children?

No?

Then your point..has no bearing in this conversation.

 

See if your mommy or daddy can explain the meaning of "conception"

 

An assumption of paternity does nothing to prove that procreation is the basis of marriage.

Seeing as a couple need prove neither ability nor willingness to procreate in order to marry.

Procreation has no bearing on those who can marry. Same sex marriage in six states already disproves your point.

 

It perfectly demonstrates my argument.

 

dixon, the matters you keep speaking of... are almost always irrelevant. You need to start the proper thread to talk about the things you repeatedly do.

I know enough of all of this, to know that you aren't saying things that are truly relevant.