A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

No, they are short posts, and you go to the effort of trimming them to give a false meaning to my posts. In other words, you use deception, some would say you are a liar.

 

I leave out the irrelevant parts. You claimed the peer reviewed study from Australia was debunked. You got called on that, and you have been furiously dodging ever since. Either admit you made a silly comment, or provide the peer reviewed study that debunked it. Then we can move on to whatever you are obsessing about.

 

Lol, that’s all

 

You’re entire argument is same sex unions do not result in children (even though they do) and that is the reason those unions should be banned. When you cannot apply that metric to other classes your argument dissolves.

Which is why you are refusing to answer a simple question.

 

The fact is - same sex unions do not, can not, result in producing a child. That requires an opposite sex union.
While I neither promote nor deny same sex unions, I have yet to see any rational reasoning for them to be called EQUAL to a marriage. For government, and legal purposes, I see no reason to treat them differently as equality is derived simply as a result of how they are treated, not what they are called and a partnership is the only word I find applicable regardless of the component parts, MF, MM, FF, or X+Y, X+X, Y+Y.

 

Stop editing peoples posts. Be honest, stop lying.

 

Not procreating is of no concern. The only concern was heterosexual couples procreating outside of marriage, because a common result is a single mother on her own with an absent or unknown father. Not a concern when two people of the same sex get together.
I want new strawmen, not just continually trotting out the same ones again and again.

 

No body ever banned such unions. It was ONLY two people of the opposite sex who were banned from forming such "unions" with criminal laws that prohibited them from cohabitating or engaging in sexual relations without a marriage license. I saw a guy marry his horse once.

 

I delete the irrelevant parts.

 

You have never seen a human marry an animal.

 

this is not an argument against same sex marriage.

 

You would have an argument if you were advocating for child tax credits, you are arguing for infertile couples marrying as long as they are heterosexual but not if they are of the same sex. People frequently have children outside of marriage.

If you could stick with a specific argument instead of switching between incest and the potential of procreation maybe you could come up with a new strawman, but you seem happily stuck on those two.

 

No part of my post was irrelevant. The post was short and to the point. It is not up to you to censor other peoples posts.You deleted all but the first phrase so that it appeared I agreed with you when I absolutely did not. You were dishonest.

And I don't believe you. Just to be sure, I looked at some of your other posts in other OPs, none were censored by you in your responses. You repeated them verbatim, even some quite lengthy ones. You lie.

 

Everything I omitted was irrelevant. You claimed the Australian peer reviewed study was debunked. You were challenged to prove that, with your own peer reviewed study that debunked it, and you've been furiously dodging ever since.

nothing I said was dishonest.

I have not lied about anything. Retract the claim or be reported.

 

Man to marry his pet goat

Love is love.

 

Is an animal capable of consent in Brazil? If not, then no, they are not married.

Like I said, nobody has seen a human marry an animal.

 

Who are you to define the bounds of marriage? Marriage existed for millennia without a legal guarantee of two party consent.

 

marriage is a legal institution. You can have whatever ceremony you want, but it isn't a marriage unless it meets the legal definition.

 

Irrelevant. The marriage wasn't "banned". No one stopped him. No law prevented him from doing so and no penalties were accessed in punishment for him doing so. Just like the gays, no one "banned" them from marriage.

 

There never was any ban on gay marriage. Kentucky judge said it well


Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:

"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:

"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:

"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

It appears to us that appellants are prevented from marrying, not by the statutes of Kentucky or the refusal of the County Court Clerk of Jefferson County to issue them a license, but rather by their own incapability of entering into a marriage as that term is defined....
In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.

 

nope. totally destroys your point. You may have witnessed some strange ceremony, but you've never witnessed a human marry an animal.

 

Numerous states specifically banned same sex marriage. Your outdated and overturned court cases are amusingly irrelevant.

 

Please, enough of your bigotry.

US woman marries giant Ferris wheel named Bruce

 

And yet you are the one who keeps bringing up the well being of the child issue. If it isn't your claim, you are doing a piss poor job of putting forth your actual claim. And I am not the only one calling you on it.

So exactly how does encouraging two gay guys to marry do anything to prevent the reducing of the number of children in such a situation? And since we are on that topic, what is the current encouraging of heterosexuals to marry doing to reduce the number of children in such a situation?

Seems you failed to address this part of my post. You had deleted the opening quote tag, so it initially looked like it was part of your post.

 

Citing a study on single parents vs heterosexual parents does nothing to indicate why same sexed couples should not be allowed to marry. You accuse me of strawmen.