Gay people's opinion should not be taken into account in the marriage debate

​

 

Hmm, hard to define. I will say this. It is fun in select clubs. Also to watch.

Which is why i asked. Why the legality. When homosexuals can go out at the weekends. A few pills mixed with loud techno and good times for all.

 

this makes absolutely no sense

 

your state court arguments have been losing in federal court. your continued reliance on them, as if they apply on a national level is astounding.

 

your entire argument depends on it

 

Baloney. You used the phrases in question, so you should have no problem whatsoever defining for us what you meant by them. You are very obviously dodging. Put up or shut up.

You are making some ridiculous assumptions. The ONLY think homosexuals as a group have in common is an orientation toward the same gender. The idea that we would all enjoy taking drugs, loud techno music and orgies is misinformed at best. And that's putting it nicely.

As for why the legality, the same reasons as for heterosexual couples.

 

flat out false. relationship between two men can and does create a new neighbor.
relationship between a man and women who are incapable or unwilling to procreate does not affect society in any way, nor does it create a new neighbor.

this is where your argument is demolished.

 

Of course i am 'dodging'

the term dirty sex is obvious. And we must know different homosexuals. Not all are obsessed with legal marriage. Some do want just the fun stuff .

 

this is incoherant. try again in english

 

I thought that you know that two men cannot procreate.

 

Actually it does have relevance to your arguments. You are simply dodging the point because you have absolutely no response to such (*)(*)(*)(*)ing evidence. Sterile couples can marry. Therefore, your argument is dead in the water.

And have you read these decisions? Are you aware that one of them adds no credence to your position that procreation is a requirement of marriage?

The court is simply saying that even if a condition of procreation were imposed on marriage, that condition would not be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court is not saying that procreation is a requirement of marriage.

 

of course they can. they adopt or use surrogates(like millions of heterosexual couples)all the time.

 

If you do not know that two men cannot procreate you will not be able to understand anything.

 

Yes. That is the very essence of your argument. Stop backpedaling.

 

I was talking about new one, the one they have adapted already has been counted.
Try again.

 

Nope, a state could set a maximum age of 80 for marriage with one line of law. Same as they're doing to set a male female criteria now. No testing is needed (people are already required to prove their age when applying for a marriage license).

But back to square one: a marriage license requires the couple assert consent to marry, assert they are acting of their own free will, to demonstrate they are of minimum age to marry, and be certified as not currently married to another person. Don't see why infertile couples of any gender should be exempt from those requirements.​

 

Really? You have? Please explain what fallacy you are speaking of. Because people tend to claim "logical fallacy" whenever they are cornered.

What?

You continue to be incoherent.

 

And it also required to be a man and a woman, in majority of states. Not sure what is your point.

 

No, it isn't. But at least you admit that you are dodging.

Explain what you meant by "dirty sex" and "moral muck". No more dodging. You can engage with us in an honest discussion, or I can take from your comments that you're just a trolling bigot unworthy of my time. Which one is it going to be?

Strawman. At no point have I argued that all homosexuals desire legal marriage. In fact, quite the opposite was implied in my statement that the ONLY thing homosexuals as a group have in common is their same-sex orientation. Apart from that, we're a diverse group with many different opinions.

No one here is denying that there are homosexuals who would indeed be interested in orgies, drugs and techno music. Can you admit that there are heterosexuals who have those same interests?

Can you likewise admit that there are some homosexuals that are in committed monogamous relationships?

As for being "obsessed" with marriage, I see no foundation for that characterization. It seems you are just here to bait, not debate.

 

They can and do.

but procreation is irrelevant.

 

Dude!

I am not your enemy. I had great times which i won't posts here. But i can't see the point of this war for legal marriage when historically it has been denied for thousands of years.

But if this is your crusade, I wish you good luck.

 

what does this even mean?

two sterile heterosexual who also can not procreate, adopt a child. they are IDENTICALLY situated to same sex couples.

this is why your argument is self defeating.

 

The goal of licensing and regulation is not procreation but to avoid irresponsible procreation as much as possible.
E.g. when state issues driver license it does not require to drive, but the purpose of license is to make driving as safe as possible.
If you think that purpose of driver license is to promote driving you do not understand basic thing and everything is incoherent for you.

 

The point is you said the requirement that they be a man and woman existed because there was no reason to regulate issuing a license to other couples. I just listed four other restrictions that are not dependent on gender.​

 

The goal of licensing and regulation is not procreation but to avoid irresponsible procreation as much as possible.
E.g. when state issues driver license it does not require to drive, but the purpose of license is to make driving as safe as possible.
If you think that purpose of driver license is to promote driving you do not understand basic thing and everything is incoherent for you.