Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

Haven't conflated anything and you have yet to a show a vital and necessary reason our species should encourage and support and legally sanction homosexuality. There is certainly no constitutional requirement we do so either.

 

You weren't the one making the argument that it was vital to survival of the species.

 

That's your conflation right there. You are putting together the need of procreation of the species, indeed a vital and necessary action for the survival of the species, with the legal institution of marriage. Simply put, legal marriage is NOT the encouraging, supporting or sanctioning of any sexuality. Only in isolating any one type would such actions be happening. The other conflation that you are making is the allowing of something with the encouraging, supporting, or sanctioning of said thing or action. In law, you need a reason to deny something, especially on the basis of a protected status. IOW, to deny same sex marriage is the active action, not the allowing of it.

 

No it's called basic biology and we use the institution of marriage to encourage and support it with legal sanctions. It's not about denying it's about encouraging.

 

Marriage is not required for biology to work. Biology needs no encouragement. It works without marriage. You keep failing to address this basic point of biology. There is no social need for marriage within the context of procreation, because marriage does nothing to encourage procreation, nor does a lack of marriage hinder procreation. Therefore, logically, marriage has another purpose for existing as a legal institution. And since procreation is neither it's purpose or a requirement by law for marriage, then it cannot, per the Constitution, be limited by sex or sexuality. To limit it as such is indeed about denying not encouraging.

 

Why do you keep making these inane comments such as marriage is not require for biology to work when that has never been a premise of my argument. And no you stating that does not change the fact we are a heterosexual species so encouraging and supporting and legally sanctioning it to do so is in the best interest of our species and society.

 

You are the one bringing up in a thread about marriage. Why even bother, unless you are trying to use it as an argument to prevent SSM? Otherwise, it's as noted before, a goal post shift.

And no we are not a heterosexual species. There is no such things as a heterosexual species, or a bisexual species, or a homosexual species. We have a naturally occurring portion of the species that is homosexual, and a natural portion that is bisexual. Their existence does nothing to harm the survival of the species. Prove otherwise.

If you want something that is worth encouraging, supporting and legally sanctioning (at least in the context of it doesn't get made illegal), then it is the freedom to do as one wishes with whom one wishes, assuming the consent of the other(s). When you have that kind of freedom then the species is assured.

 

Do you understand the difference between prevent and not encourage? And yes we are a heterosexual species it is how we propagate and how we raise our offspring under the best arraignment for those offspring. And no that does not require we encourage, support and sanction homosexuality.

 

Ah! So you do support SSM being legally allowed. My mistake.

In order for there to be a heterosexual species, then there has to be a homosexual species and maybe even a bisexual species. Could you please provide some examples of such?

 

Why should we be “encouraging” elderly and infertile heterosexuals to marry then?

You have avoided this question almost half a dozen times now, says something about how fragile your narrative is...

 

Because they can still form nuclear families and are still parts of nuclear families and I have answered for years YOU are the one who has avoided questions not me. What is vital and necessary to our species that requires we encourage and support and legally sanction homosexuality.

 

Still your mistake.

No there doesn't.

What is vital and necessary to our species that requires we encourage and support and legally sanction homosexuality?

 

So now it doesn’t have anything to do with reproduction but rather nuclear families...

There is a ton of sources showing that children from same sex couples do just as well as those from opposite sex families.

So you believe a heterosexual couple could that will never have children should be allowed to marry only because of their sex while a homosexual couple shouldn’t be allowed to even if they have children but “children” are your excuse.

This is why y’all keep losing in court.

 

So now you misrepresent what I have said and there are tons of studies which show children do best with a mother and a father in their lives and under the same roof. You have yet to show what I have asked.....oh well didn't think you could.

 

biased sources pushing an agenda.

 

Ah yes, “anything I don’t agree with is biased”.

Sounds like a severe case of cognitive dissonance

 

I am not misrepresenting anything.

You have jumped to procreation to now a “nuclear family”. If marriage is about procreation then it should exclude all couples unable to procreate including the elderly and the infertile. If it is about nuclear families you must unequivocally prove that a male / female couple is the only way to have a positive outcome for child rearing. I would argue a very wealthy homosexual couple where both parents are active in a child’s life would likely produce a much better outcome than a crackhead mother and imprisoned father yet you want the latter couple to be able to wed because they have the correct genitalia.

Stop acting like you care about children or society.

What question have I avoided?

 

There was no jump they are intertwined as I have stated. Stop making things up. Your refusal to respond to my inquiry continues proofing you can't answer. My points stand, have a nice day.

 

this is a strawman. Nobody is arguing homosexuality is vital or necessary. We are pointing out you can't deny a right based on sexual orientation or the gender of the couple.

14th amendment

 

Agree to disagree.

 

procreation is completely irrelevant to the civil right of marriage. 14th amendment precludes the government from banning same sex marriage, just like it precludes banning interracial marriages.

 

Well, there isn't really anything to disagree with in my post. It is a matter of settled law that the 14th amendment precludes the government from banning same sex couples.

 

Nothing involving the U.S. Constitution is "settled law".

 

of course it is

 

What makes you say that?