Working on my traditional marriage argument.

Right there in black and white, "two closely related people of the same sex". Two closely related people of the opposite sex as in your example, WOULD NOT BE "two closely related people of the same sex" producing a child.

 

Youll keep making a fool of yourself with nothing other than stupid questions and no relevant point to make.

 

I notice you continue to do that all the time.

Are you ever going to PROVE to us your neighbors down the street want to be married to one another or are you just going to continue throwing out that lying piece of anecdotal garbage?

 

??? How on earth do you think I could do that? They are my neighbors, not a website. And they are irrelevant to my point. Merely an application of that point.

"But if marriage is made available to gay couples, there is no longer any justification for excluding closely related couples and so should be made available to them and any two consenting adults who desire to be married."

If any of you people have a justification for excluding two closely related people of the same sex, STEP ON UP and put it into words if you can. I think this is all just your way of avoiding the topic of discussion while still responding in the discussion.
So far we just have this silly claim that "two closely related people of the same sex" can produce genetically defective kids.

 

If you cannot prove what you are saying then it is nothing more than opinion, something we all have which is no more valid than anyone else's.

People here have given plenty of excellent arguments and reasons for why gay men and women should be allowed to marry their partner of choosing, even if they are the same sex, yet all you can respond with is essentially, "Incest!".

 

Nonsense, the existence of my neighbors is irrelevant to my point.

 

Tell me is English your first language, because from the evidence it would seem not, either that or your ability to construct a coherent sentence relating to your point is lacking.

Two closely related people of the same sex have absolutely no possibility of producing damaged offspring because of closely related genetic material. Soooooo not sure of your point.

As already stated if you had qualified that statement by adding "together" between "offspring" and "because" then your comment would be correct, it stands incorrect as you wrote it. Had you even bothered to included punctuation it may have made the comment slightly more correct, you didn't and it isn't.

 

You are the only one having trouble with the written word. Two closely related people of the OPPOSTE SEX producing offspring, as in your example IS NOT Two closely related people of the same sex producing offspring.

 

Of course it is

 

Let's do a replay of this:
1) You use a dictionary to imply that there is only one acceptable (narrow) definition for the term "marriage".
2) I point out that you are committing a logical fallacy known as an "appeal to tradition".
3) You reply with something aking to (insert childish whining) "You did it first..."

I have two possible responses:
1) Even if I had previously made an appeal to tradition, what you've just done is called a "tu quoque" fallacy.
2) Could you please quote whatever I said that you believe is an appeal to tradition?

 

...............

 

I see...
You believe that marriage should be defined by the gender of the individuals involved because you believe that gay sex is "a perversion" and because of potential procreation, but you don't believe that sex is a part of marriage...

Not sure I've ever encountered such a flawed argument.

 

????No, marriage has been traditionally limited to men and women because only men and women having sex has the potential of procreation.

 

So you're saying that marriage, sex and procreation are linked... Yet you say that your repeated comments about a mother and daughter who allegedly live on your street are about marriage, but not about sex...

Seriously, make up your mind.

 

I was referring to traditional marriage. The creation of gay marriage is based upon the judicial declaration that marriage is unrelated to procreation. You want to eliminate that tradition while insisting on the traditional relation to a sexual relation be maintained.

 

Ok, let's pretend you didn't just slip back into "appeal to tradition" fallacies...
Did people traditionally believe you had to be married in order to conceive a child?
If not, and they acknowledged that people could have children regardless of their marital status, then they did not believe that marriage and procreation were directly interrelated.

 

No more so than you did.

Wasnt to long ago that the law required it.

 

This has already been shown to be false.

Really?
Please illustrate the court case in which someone was convicted for having a child outside of wedlock through consensual sex.

While you're at it, please illustrate why you seem to believe that any couple getting married aren't "starting and maintaining a family" unless they are having kids.

 

Demonstrated to be true

The crime was sexual relations outside of marriage. Procreation would frequently be the result.

 

Hello, hello earth to Dixon, anyone there?

Care to address the following, in response to the above, or will you continue to evade.

 

I was quoting the court citing the definition.

 

So you're saying that sex - and procreation - can exist outside of marriage?! I guess that proves that procreation is not directly relevent to marriage...

 

Proves no such thing. And not sure of your point without your explanation as to why sexual relations are relevant.

 

People can have sex without procreating.
People can have sex without marriage.
People can procreate without being married.
People can get married and never procreate.

If procreation and marriage were inexorably linked, none of the above would be true.

 

Potential or procreation is irrelevant to who can marry