Why Not Incestuous Marriage?

I said encouraging ALL heterosexual couples to marry does so. The fact that encouraging "a" particuliar couple that doesnt have the capacity to procreate, doesnt do so, doesnt negate this fact. We dont know which couples will procreate, we only know that all who do will be heterosexual couples.

 

Demonstrably false. Homosexual couples procreate all the time

 

You show me ONE homosexual couple that's procreated in and of themselves. In the HISTORY OF MANKIND... just show me one that's done it without help from a member of the opposite sex.

The fact that you're incapable of acknowledging the INHERENT difference of a "healthy" heterosexual couple being capable of procreating in and of themselves and a "healthy" homosexual couple being incapable of doing so highlights the dishonesty of your argument.

 

Actually, its a physical impossibility. But thanks for the beautiful demonstration of the complete break from reality involved in the arguments for gay marriage.

 

Hell, he cant even come up with a single same sex marriage in the US from 1776 through the 1970s, and yet he claims no law prohibited same sex marriage before the 1970s.

 

wow lol

 

No that would not be PC here unless you consider America is now a Muslim controlled country under Sharia law?

 

Why not?

It is not about heterosexuality. You said it was about procreating and children. Heterosexuality is merely a means to an end for procreation.

You seem to be saying it is not really about children at all, but about heterosexual sex.

We know for sure the sterile ones will not.

 

Moving the goalposts with "in and of themselves". They procreate the same way millions of heterosexual couples do. By artificial means.

Can't ban one on the grounds of inability to procreate and allow another who also can't.

That's why you keep losing in court.

- - - Updated - - -

Demonstrably false. They Procreate all the time in the same manner millions of heterosexual couples do. Via artificial means.

- - - Updated - - -

A same sex marriage existing has nothing to do with it being prohibited.

 

We're not moving the goalposts. You're attempting to manipulate the point because you KNOW that they are INHERENTLY different. But you're too dishonest to admit it.

Because homosexuals are INCAPABLE of procreating in and of themselves.

Since you want to be dishonest I'll ask you specifically.

Name ONE homosexual couple that has procreated without the assistance of someone outside of their couple... just name ONE in the HISTORY of mankind.

I assure you I can provide evidence of several heterosexual couples who have done so.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong, the point is that at least one individual in the homosexual relationship has ABSOLUTELY ZERO involvement in the creation of the child. So we're paying one of them to sit on their ass and do nothing. That's patently absurd.

And how do you suggest we figure out if they're sterile?

 

It's moving the goalposts. You had to add the qualifiernof in and of themselves, which you still haven't learned completely destroys your artument that marriage is restricted or should be restricted to heterosexuals because of procreation.

The constitution does not allow you to exclude one couple because they can't procreate but allow another who also can't procreate.

That's why you keep losing in court.

 

Then you can't alow heterosexual couples to marry who procreate in the exact same way.

Fertility test.

 

Again you're wrong. We are paying heterosexuals because they have the potential for procreation in and of themselves. Homosexuals do NOT have the potential for procreation in and of themselves. So the ONLY way for them to procreate is for one of them to go outside of their marriage and get assistance from a third party. As such their MARRIAGE is not creating ANY children whatsoever.

If you can show me where marriage or procreation is ever mentioned in the constitution then by all means go ahead.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/03/federal-judge-upholds-louisiana-gay-marriage-ban/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...BlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories

And from the 6th Circuit Appellate court: “I’d have thought the best way to get respect and dignity is through the democratic process,” he said, expressing a view that, in practice, would most likely deliver a victory to the states seeking to keep bans on same-sex marriage.

That's the judge that will be the deciding vote.

Get ready. It's going to the Supreme Court. And when it does and the Supreme Court votes in favor of State Rights I'm going to laugh you right off of the forum.

 

Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry. It's already been explained to you how the one lower level case you won has zero chance on appeal and why the supreme court is not going to overturn every appellate decision to date.

If they were going to they would have taken any of the 5 cases that went before them. They declined which is legally the same as hearing the case and upholding the lower court ruling.

So like I said, it's why you keep losing in court.

 

Seeing as how the ONLY argument you have anymore is an appeal to authority...

I'm going to enjoy watching you squirm and cry after the Supreme Court rejects gay marriage. I'm going to laugh you off of the board lol

 

It's how US law works.

The supreme court had 5 chances to reject it. They instead upheld it.

 

The Only authority I appeal to in our Constitutional arguments regarding this issue is Article 4, Section 2, and Article 6, simply because our Founding Fathers said so.

 

The supreme court can't declare a law unconstitutional unless they have an issue of constitutionality brought before them.

Ignorance is not an excuse for (*)(*)(*)(*)-poor logic.

 

That is true of every sterile couple as well. Yet you make exceptions for them. That tells me it is really about the type of sex, not whether or not a child can be created from the union.

Court appointed medical tests. It's not always that hard to determine.

 

5 cases have come across their desk which they could have heard, but chose to leave the lower courts ruling stand.

 

Do you have the same contempt for the heterosexuals who use in vitro fertilization?

 

As usual you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Public support for same sex marriage has steadily increased for years. The latest polls show majority support for same sex marriage. Those arguing against it are getting desperate because they know they are losing.

 

I think they're taking advantage of marriage benefits. Absolutely.

- - - Updated - - -

Great then let's take a vote!

But you folks don't want to take votes. You want judicial activism because while you come on here and claim you have support of the populace, you know in a vote you'd get beat like you stole something.

 

True. If you completely ignore reality.