Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage?

Our human constructs reflect our inherent biology

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;....

at this point we are unable to change the biology of procreation.

 

Even so, the above is largely irrelevant where this topic is concerned.

 

Your post might make sense if the issue was the initial state recognizance of marriage. However, that is not the issue. The issue is the religious right wishing to use the government to enforce the will of their supposed faith. Creating a division, between marriage now, heterosexuality marriage, and the growing movement for allowing homosexual marriage.

The movement for homosexual marriage is largely based on the premise on two consenting adults, regardless of gender, should enjoy the same legal benefits and protections are heterosexual couples. Allowing homosexual marriage would allow marriage for any two consenting adults.

So unless you are going somewhere with splitting hairs, I regard the point moot.

 

No, the topic is "Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage?". and isnt it revealing when they are provided to you, you scamper back to arguing against the religious arguments.

What nonsense. They want "gay marriage", not marriage for any two consenting adults. Its right there in your chosen title for the thread. Its in every court decision that has extended marriage to "gays" exclusively.

 

You mean in the case of a gay marriage, it WOULD BECOME irrelevant. For heterosexual marriage, it is fundamental to this topic. Which of course is precisely why youve declared it to be irrelevant. Thats what you do here.

 

You are ignoring the obvious for justification of splitting hairs.

 

The thread title, half a dozen of court cases and law in the 6 states with "gay marriage" is all obvious and ignored by you. What is it that Ive ignored?

 

The obvious? The core of the argument is a contract between consenting adults.

If you want to split hairs, start a new thread and don't derail mine.

 

Riiiiight, as long as they are "gay" so they can participate in your longed for "gay marriage"

 

Answers to your question are derailing your thread in your view. You didnt want to hear them.

Biology and the US Constitution.

 

I will take you seriously if you can cite a law requiring children as a part of marriage. I know quite a few couples who are married without children, nor any plans to have children. You make an irrelevant argument.

There are nearly seven billion people on the earth, in fact, too many people. Allowing gay marriage is not going to encourage more people to be gay to such an extent that the current seven billion person population will cease to exist or even be remotely threatened. You make an irrelevant argument.

Any other arguments that may be based on reality instead of far fetched worries?

 

Plenty. Plenty over here

http://www.politicalforum.com/russi...ad-homosexuals-croatian-pm-im-ashamed-17.html

http://www.politicalforum.com/russi...als-croatian-pm-im-ashamed-9.html#post4043154

http://www.politicalforum.com/russi...als-croatian-pm-im-ashamed-6.html#post4040955


And you are NOT curious.

 

from your link.............

 

can you provide the post number where he said "only homosexuals"? This is another failed argument you are fond of making. nobody here is advocating that marriage should ONLY be extended to homosexuals.

 

already refuted. presumption of paternity is not binding, and has no relevance to the topic.

 

OF , you have no idea how right you are I've been married to the same amazing and beautiful red-head for some 30 years now , and I'll be the first to tell ya that they's a whole lot about women & marriage that I don't understand .

But , come on , what has marriage to do with capitalization ?

 

On one hand, if your nonsense about homosexuality being choice were factual, then it would be time for the Federal Govt to mandate that more people chose to be homosexuals, since we have too many people now and need to moderate the population growth.

On the other hand, it appears that the current number of homosexuals is not actually enough, since we have over 300 million people.

On the gripping hand, to equate a choice between consenting adults to crimes against children is idiotic, foolish, bigoted and totally ignorant!!!

 

Right there is the title of the thread, "gay marriage"

 

Re read my quotes and arguments. They dont involve a requirement of procreation so Im not sure what your point even is.

Moronic logic. Majority of births in the US are unplanned. Government has just as much interest in the well being of their children as the children that result from planned pregnancies.

You kicked the shiite outta that strawman.

Biology and the Constitution, not worries.

 

so that's a no.

 

Since neither biology or the Constitution prohibit gay marriage, a subset of consenting adults, what is your legal argument? I'm trying to follow you but I am unable to. Help me understand your position. You repeatedly acknowledge that marriage legally has nothing to do with procreation, but keep melding the two concepts together. Succinctly make your point, because so far it is lost on me. Help me understand what you are saying.

 

Correct, I cant provide "A" post # as the title appears above all posts.

 

If the courts language is beyond your capability to comprehend, I wont be able to help you. And it is the law

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY.
(a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;....

that melds the two concepts together.