Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

??? I tolerate you people almost every day here. What are you going on about? Or for you, does "tolerance" of others require agreeing with their views?

 

It was a state supreme court quote directly contradicting your assertion.

I was responding to the quoted post, not the thread.

 

An outdated and overturned case doesn't have any relevance to my post.

No relevance to the thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Repeatedly refuted

- - - Updated - - -

Every state which bans same sex marriage.

 

It was clearly aimed at Mormons, and clearly intended to eliminate (or at least drive underground) some of their religious practices.

Since it's your strawman and it's already demolished, what else have you got? Extolling the many virtues (and tradition and history etc.) of opposite-sex marriage is beside the point. We keep asking for a GOOD REASON to prohibit same-sex marriage, and you keep providing good reasons for opposite-sex marriage! YES YES YES YES nobody disputes that there are many excellent reasons for opposite-sex marriage MOST of which ALSO apply to same-sex marriage.

C'mon, dixon, WAKE UP! If I claim that 3+3=6, arguing that 2+2=4 is NOT a counter argument. Fire up those neurons and THINK!

 

Plain English. "Equal application of the law". Banning same sex couples violates this. It's why you keep getting your ass handed to you in court

 

big·ot·ry
ˈbigətrē/
noun
bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

That you do not tolerate need I remind

 

This is clearly discrimination against sex. He doesn't seem to realize, telling a woman that she can't marry a woman only because of her sex yet a man can is absolutely discriminatory based on sex alone. I imagine that will be the angle that is used in court.

 

Here's California's

7540. Except as provided in Section 7541, the child of a wife
cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is
conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage.

7611. A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if he
meets the conditions provided in Chapter 1 (commencing with Section
7540) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 7570) of Part 2 or in any
of the following subdivisions:
(a) He and the child's natural mother are or have been married to
each other and the child is born during the marriage,
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=07001-08000&file=7540-7541

Do we need the other 48? They are all similar. All use the terms "man", and "mother" to refer exclusively to men and women in marriage. NOT to discriminate against homosexuals but merely recognizing the biological fact that only women give birth and only a man is responsible for her doing so.

 

Yes it is. Discrimination in the law that recognizes that only women give birth and only men are responsible for them doing so, isn't unconstitutional discrimination.

 

Giving birth has nothing to do with marriage.

 

Was that a round about answer of yes, to my question?

 

And in California, the same statues obligate both spouses of a same sex marriage as legal parents.

 

Matrimony, latin root of the word Mater, MOTHER. A woman becomes a mother when she gives birth. Generally by engaging in sexual relations with the child's father. Has everything to do with the institution of marriage. Everything to do with the institutions limitation to men and women. EVEN THOUGH it frequently has absolutely nothing to do with an individuals couples marriage.
My ex wife took birth control pills for years, only to find out in her second marriage that she never had the ability to procreate. STILL "giving birth" has everything to do with why women take birth control pills. Even though it had nothing to do with my ex wife doing so.

 

Your questions weren't relevant. You are intolerant to the opinions of others.

See your own statement of that below

this isn't about disagreement, that is one thing. You have basically said your opinion will not change regardless of proof and evidence.

Let's examine these words.

You see I would change my end of the conversation should I see evidence of the other end. See, I am open minded, yet skeptical. My end of the conversation may change, it has before. it may not be likely, but I didn't remove any likelihood should you be proven wrong.

You claimed your argument wouldn't change. You confessed to bigotry. There is no argument here. Now if you were mistaken than I would consider that. But based on your behavior here I am confident that my assessment is accurate.

You have basically stated you don't care what anybody says, you are committed to your prejudice and nothing can remove it. You are upset because this removes your validity from the conversation. These words will haunt you. I will make sure of it. You have admitted to your bias and you made it clear that out is there to stay. Thus your statements are tainted, and should be treated with little regard.

 

No, the statute is limited to men and mothers. And Lesbian lovers are always "impotent" and men never give birth. There are other statutes regarding artificial insemination agreements that obligates whoever makes the agreement. Married or not.

 

Ah. So tolerance for you doesn't require that I agree with their views but I need to keep my disagreement to myself. Im stating that as a declarative statement because I know if I asked the question if it was true, you wouldn't answer.

 

Nope. In every state where same sex marriage is legal, both spouses are obligated as legal parents to any child,born in the marriage.

 

I understand you are tangled up in idiomology so much so that you can't see the absolute absurdity of this post. It's probably a symptom of your bigotry.

Just in case you forgot:

Marriage in modern English hasnothing to do with child birth. If all you can do is referenced some centuries old dead language and say that a woman can only be married if she is a mother, the totality of your argument is completely dismantled and you are desperately grasping at straws to support your prejudice.

It's no use you have confessed to your prejudice, your words are tainted. Andthis isn't an accusation, it's your words.

 

No, you can voice your disagreement. That isn't what you did with these words:

You nullified any other person's disagreement and decided your opinion is the only universal truth. We have examined these words already but because I enjoy watching you sputter and back peddle I will examine them again. you said your side of the conversation wouldn't change regardless of evidence proof so on. You are obstinate in your opinion and prejudiced against the opinions of others. That is the definition of bigotry.

Well I answered it. So backpeddle in...3...2...1... Go.

 

Lets stick with what Ive actually said. In response to

I replied

These bizarre interpretations of yours of what you think I "basically said", only lead you astray. What "proof" are you even referring to?

 

The PRESENT DAY paternity statutes in 50 states prove the absurdity of that last statement.

 

???? That is precisely what I did with those words. "My end of the conversation wouldnt change" because my disagreement with gay marriage doesn't change.

 

I did say "IF I ASKED THE QUESTION". I did not. If I had you wouldn't have answered. You demonstrated my point so no need to backtrack from it.

 

And I just showed you that it was entirely, explicity,and exclusively the intent to discriminate against Mormons. Your claim is simply false. As usual.

I do not believe you are as stupid as you claim to be. EVERY ONE of your so-called arguments against same-sex marriage turns out to be a defense of opposite-sex marriages. But nobody opposes opposite-sex marriage, so you are again missing the point. Don't you EVER get tired of that? Don't you understand that supporting X isn't an argument against Y? To oppose Y, you CANNOT keep saying "well, X is good". Please pretened you are mentally competent for once, OK?

- - - Updated - - -

We understand. Facts don't matter to you. Laws don't matter to you. Common decency doesn't matter to you. What a wonderful person you think we must expect you are!@

 

Backpedal, backpedal. You SAID that facts and evidence could not change your mind. You have demonstrated through hundreds of posts that this is the case. Nobody doubts that your bigotry is impervious to facts. You couldn't have made it clearer if you tried.