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

I was making a parallexample of how the legal definition might differ from the standard definition. Incest is normally defined as sexual relations between two individuals who share a common blood bond within two to three steps of each other. However, legally incest can be defined as, in some states, being related within that two or three steps legally, even if there is no shared blood, such as step siblings. Step siblings would not normally be seen as incest.

So while marrying a horse would not normally be beastiality, as you pointed out, the law can define it as such, as they did with incest. And since it is law we are discussing, the distinction is important.

 

Incorrect. The husband is able to contest that obligation if he can show he is actually not the father. While the law will assume he is barring any other evidence, which is proper since more often that not such will be the case, it is not the end all be all. Additionally, this shows that the law is not equating biological standing in it's obligation of children. The law would obligate a man to care for children not his if he can't show such, or fails to do so within a given time. Additionally obligation is given to those who are not the biological parents all the time. Adoption is the biggest example, although not the only one. Therefore, parental obligation is not a valid argument as to not allowing same sex couples from getting married.

 

That is truly sick.

 

I was referring to the real world in the present using currently available technologies. Producing a sperm cell isn't producing a child

 

Ahh, now you want to use the current year as the point of reference.
Does that mean you are done with ancient Roman law and laws that have been deemed unconstitutional from 20+ years ago to make your “points”?

Reproduction is not relevant to marriage and you screwing your dog is not relevant to the thread.

 

Poor Dog, I hope the Dog bites off his junk.

 

Natural or laboratory manufactured, human life will still be the result of uniting a female ova with a male sperm.

I never said it did, nor did I introduce it into the discussion.

Some ancient written words where couples of the same sex were recognized as being married is all I was asking for, not modern writings where such known relations from long ago are now being called marriages.

 

But the DNA can still come from two individuals of the same gender.

Nor did I.

God luck on that. Everything is modern writings on ancient writings. Not that I expect you to accept anything. But here try this:
http://theweek.com/articles/475141/how-marriage-changed-over-centuries
Walker, Dalton (17 July 2007). "Going Far From Home to Feel at Home" – via www.nytimes.com.
Lahey, Kathleen A., Kevin Alderson. Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political.Insomniac Press, 2000. ISBN 1-894663-63-2 / 978-1894663632

But as I have said before, most people who are of the opinion that marriage can only be one man/one woman will claim that anything that doesn't fit their view is "known relations from long ago ... now being called marriages"

 

Now its not relevant. The point that flies over your head is that marriages limitation to men and women, as it existed from the dawn of civilization, up to the 1990s, was based upon the biology that only women give birth and only men cause them to do so.

No body but you is suggesting one have sex with a dog. I was referring to alternate methods of reproduction used by some same sex couples to produce a child. Any sex is totally unnecessary and unrelated to the reproduction process

 

Whats sick about my sperm being used for in-vitro fertilization and implanted into a surrogate mother so my dog and I can produce a child in the same way a gay couple does?

 

They called them "male-bonding ceremonies" and "spiritual brotherhoods" because they were NOT marriages.

 

But for the strawmen, they really wouldn't have anything to discuss

 

Not that you would understand, but you haven't contradicted a thing Ive said so cant imagine what you think Ive gotten incorrect.

 

Your chasing strawmen again.

 

Already been court cases where the sperm donor is held liable for child support while the lesbian lover of the mother had no obligation whatsoever.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/index.html

 

Blows a hole in you theory that

Special rules for the homosexuals, because they are just so special.

 

Meaning? Do we really want to start creating humans in a lab?

And marriage is not a requirement of a legal partnership.

As I've said before, I have no problem recognizing a partnership between two persons regardless of their sex, but see no rational need or reasoning to call a partnership between two persons of the same sex a marriage.

 

Special rules would be gay people not paying taxes, you know, like churches don’t.

This is false and I have already shown you numerious examples of men being married hundreds of centuries ago.

False, Nero - the emporor - had elaborate marriage ceremonies across Rome and Greece. I guess we are back on irrelivant ancient law (which you still cannot get correct).


This thread is a cluster and not one of you that are against homosexuals can’t point to a single reason why they should be barred from marriage. So far we have:
they can’t reproduce, which is irrelivant;
marriage has always man woman due to biology, which is false;
and Dixon wining about something between him and his dog, which is gross.

Are these really the arguments that y’all have convinced yourself are superior to the 14th amendment?

 

Gay people tried to obtain civil unions and religious groups prevented it. Why is the word marriage specifically off limits?

 

I repeat" sick, a human and a dog ?

Two humans that care for each other is not the same as illegal bestiality.

 

It is not up to you and does not in any way affect you or your Marriage..

And you do not get to define Marriage outside of what directly concerns You, and your Marriage.

 

In fact, if anyone could prove that somehow, same sex Marriages in any way affected Heterosexual Marriages, or reduced Rights of Heterosexuals in any way,
I would agree on those grounds.

However, most Heterosexuals are merely saying: "Damn crazy Homosexuals, how dare they think they should have Marriages and the same Rights, just like Us "Normal" Heterosexuals ?

 

Non profit organizations don't pay taxes in the US. Taxing non profit churches would be special rules for churches. Not taxing them is treating them like all other non profits.

Those are quotes from YOUR source

I saw a guy marry a horse once. Nero makes a fine poster boy for the gays though.

 

Heterosexuals were also prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex AND homosexuals were free to marry someone of the opposite sex. Same rights.

 

No one but YOU is suggesting bestiality. I was suggesting producing a child using the exact same methods as many gay couples use to produce a child. The homosexual lover and the dog have no involvement in the process.