Most gay couples probably aren't getting married even now that it's legal

Golly.. if restating your baseless position in ANY way provided a basis for it... THAT would be SUCH a great point.

Sadly, for your third concession... it doesn't.

Your Re-Re-Concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted.

 

lol, lets try a different approach. How about proving to me that "nature" is actually some conscious being and that it has some set of "rules" or "laws" by which man is governed. A simple text of "natures" marriage law would suffice.

you understand I just demonstrated that you lied right?

 

Sure... let's try a little experiment.

You seek out the highest structure above 60' upon the precipice of which you can stand.

Upon acquiring that position... hold your arms out from your side and begin flapping them up and down as hard and as fast as you can... to simulate the flapping of birds wings.

Take one step beyond that precipice.

Now... in short order you will begin experiencing a host of natural laws... which govern you without regard to your feelings of those laws.

Now laws are a function of order... Order is a function of reason... Reason is a function of consciousness.

Now that conscious reasoning serves to inform you of the new order... by which you're governed.

See how that works?

 

this is the predicted response I was waiting for. gravity is an observable force. "natural law", is a purely philosophical human construct. You can't observe "natural law" or provide a list of "rights" or "definitions" that it wrote.

no, as it's incoherent.

Perhaps you can actually answer my challenge now? I'll include the portion you dishonestly deleted..............

you didn't seem to learn from the demonstration I gave you earlier, that people can go back and see what the original quote was.

 

WHAT? A Re-re-re-Concession?

You should know... that once your failure to sustain your point(s); which is to say your concession to the standing point(s), has been noted and accepted, you're not required to prostrate yourself to the victor, but... its very sweet of you to do so.

Your Re-re-re-Concession is duly noted and Summarily Accepted.

 

you understand that it's a matter of public record now that I demonstrated that you lied right?

if you wish to continue trolling, I am more than happy to report you.

 

He's jerkin' your chain ...attempting to get you an infraction.....a notable style of posting by a few.....

 

Let me clear... I see you stating that you 'feel' very strongly that you did something which never occurred.

What actually happened, is that you advanced a baseless assertion, were called on, at which point you re-stated the baseless assertion as a means of showing a basis; which was noted as a failure on your point.

 

except here in the real world, I showed you how and why you are wrong. You decided to dishonestly omit the parts of my post which did so, and then claim victory.

Would you like to attempt the challenge posed?

 

Nope, a person in most states can't marry their 1st cousin because the state doesn't consider cousins marrying and/or procreating to be an economic benefit; even if cousin relations are "legal" in a state, that doesn't mean the state is in any way required to incentivize their relationship with legal marriage benefits.

 

LOL! Anyone need anything else?

 

I said this all along. It was cat string theory. They only thought they wanted it because someone else didn't want it to happen. So the entire fight was knee-jerk and reactionary. And largely perpetuated by straight white progressives who just needed something to feel angry about. Being offended on someone else's behalf.

 

What are the implications if everyone was allowed to marry a close blood relative compared to two gay guys marrying?

 

actually the reason they can't marry is because of the possibility of defective offspring. If they can demonstrate they can't procreate most states allow them to marry. The state receiving an economic benefit is of no relevance in any way shape or form to who can or can't marry.

- - - Updated - - -

Can you show me where I can observe this "natural law" and it's definitions you said it wrote about marriage?

would you like to answer my challenge? or are you content being defeated?

 

It's the only reason we offer marriage benefits to begin with - we don't offer them to people just because "the people exist". If they didn't benefit the state in some way the state never would have drafted marriage benefits to begin with and would've just left it as a cultural institution only.

 

It's a pretty easy issue, ask yourself this?

Why did states start offering privilidges to 2 people for being in committed physical relationships? Why did the state start offering benefits to incentivize these relationships, instead of just staying out of people's sex lives?

Answer this and you'll see why marriage definitely was about procreation and the relationship benefiting the economy.

 

Let me ask... what color is the sky in your world, there?

What you did was to reject the very core of human understanding.... going as far to demand that 'natural laws cannot be observed', and that soundly reasoned conclusions cannot be drawn from that empirical process.

And it is through that, that we can know to a certainty, that you are applying a perversion of human reasoning, common to the mental disorder typically presenting sexual deviancy; OKA: Relativism.

Which means that of the two of us, you're the one that has been exposed as advancing deceit, as a fraudulent means to influence the ignorant.

 

There should be no special benefits for being in a relationship.

Yes, it did, by recognizing the cultural and social tradition of marriage as a legal institution. As did the states.

 

You are clearly in a tizzy over other folks enjoying equal rights.

You may wish to relocate to an Islamic theocracy where it won't disturb you.

The progress that has now been achieved throughout most of Christendom is irreversible.

 

Really, you did everything but answer my question. So I'll give you another opportunity. Simple question - what is the value of state marriage? Why do we need government's "blessing" on marriage? Why do we need all the benefits accordant thereto? And given the fact that our government's sole obligation to we the people under the Constitution is to preserve and protect our liberty, how does state marriage serve that end?

 

There is no stipulation to love in any marriage statute, nor is there any requirement to procreate or have sex. What the hell are you talking about? Nor is there any statute the references your made-up requirement to "benefit the economy."

 

A rare instance where we agree completely.

 

There's no requirement to be married in order to procreate or have sex either, therefore no natural right is violated. Gays had relationships and even had their own weddings long before the state granted them marriage benefits, so no "right" was violated. State sponsorship of a relationship is not a right for anyone.

That's the reason states give out marriage benefits - marriages (typically) are likely to lead to procreation which benefits the economy.

 

Agree completely. So much for "limited government," eh?

- - - Updated - - -

Whether they are happy or not is irrelevant.

 

I am not a member if the "homo-cult." What I am demanding is that my government stick to doing its solemn obligation to the people: Preserve and protect my liberty, and provide for the general welfare. Period. Anything more is tyranny. You have yet to demonstrate how state marriage meets this end.