Anti LGBT Mindset: Why are YOU against gay rights? READ MOD WARNING IN OP BEFORE POST

????? Actually it is the inclusion of gay marriage that renders prohibitions against closely related couples unconstitutionally discriminatory. You havent even yet begun to comprehend my argument.

????? Actually, when they prohibited discrimination against blacks they also prohibited discrimination against hispanics. Gay marriage is like prohibiting discrimination against blacks while allowing it to continue against hispanics, while claiming your fighting for equal rights when clearly it is UNequal rights by design, for the benefit of the blacks.

 

They directly address your arguments and dismiss them. As they are invalid.

lol, no. You just cant comprehend basic constitutional law.

 

Either he thinks we all just fell off the turnip truck, or he is trying to make himself believe him.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it doesn't.

Your argument has been debunked.

 

BS. And no one is claiming straight parents are better than homosexuals. It is BIOLOGICAL parents that are better on average than the average of all other possible arrangements. Gay parents just being one of many different options.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope, they dismiss my facts and dont even address my arguments.

- - - Updated - - -

Ask your mommy what your butt is for.

 

That is a lie there are studies that show gay parents are better here is the proof.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/635/abstract

Unsupported claim.

 

Your facts are unsubstantiated, and your argument is stupid.

It's for lots of things.

 

Nobody should trust your word, I caught you in a lie and I've proven it.

 

My facts are substantiated in dozens of court cases. For instance the SUPREME court of the US.

"i]t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .
t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society... And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

- - - Updated - - -

LOLOLOLOL! you havent proven a thing here.

 

Nope. They require a compelling interest because the constitution does. It's all in the rulings you don't understand.

Nope. The interest must be served by the denial, not the inclusion.

.

Nope. Procreation is entirely irrelevant. If there was a requirement for the ability to procreate this argument would have some merit. There isn't so it doesn't.

same sex marriage has no relevance to plural marriage. They are 2 separate legal issues.

 

No they weren't.

I said there were studies that show gay parents are better than straight parents you said their wasn't, I posted a link to one proving you lied.

I'll do it again.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/635/abstract

 

You cant even comprehend your own source. They arent comparing to children with their biological parents or straight parents.

 

It doesn't. The issue of closely related couples is an entirely separate legal question, totally unrelated to same sex marriage.

Then take your argument to court and fight for your right to marry your brother. It's entirely irrelevant to same sex marriage, and it's not an argument against same sex marriage.

 

You said there weren't any studies saying gay parents were better parents.

I don't really care what the study says, it's existence proves you lied.

 

Red herring. No relevance to same sex marriage.

Red herring. No relevance to same sex marriage.

 

Your study doesnt show that einstein.

- - - Updated - - -

Obviously not, but your sure quick to make up some (*)(*)(*)(*) about what it says.

 

it's not my study, I'm not a scientist.

But even if you read it, I don't trust anything you say. You lie a lot.

 

You said it didn't exist.

Your points are bull(*)(*)(*)(*), your position is illogical. I'm just here to discredit you. Seems all I have to do is give you some rope. There is hardly any sport in it.

Where are the people with legitimate arguments against ssm, this one is too easy.

 

It doesnt. Your cited study doesnt say what you allege.

 

Nope. They directly address your arguments.

 

It does

"Conclusions
Australian children with same-sex attracted parents score higher than population samples on a number of parent-reported measures of child health."

So you lied again.

 

As numerous people have pointed out numerous times, zablocki in no way supports your argument. It was a child support case.

 

And they are, but that's not what they want. What they want is to play house with someone of the same sex, pretend to be married and force the rest of us to validate said pretense under color of law.

 

He's been using that same case ever since I can remember, conflating the right to procreate with procreation being essential to marriage

 

Hey, some people are persistent in their delusions.

 

So what are you going to do when SSM is legalized? Are you going to pout?