Not all people are infertile. A man and a woman, in principle, can procreate. You continue to deny science to accept perversion.
Yes it was. See below. Yup, it was legally defined as one man and one woman at that time, which is what I said.
What false equivalency? Procreation, in principle, was part of marriage laws when marriage was legally defined as a man and a woman. Under the redefinition of the term, it is no longer a part of marriage laws. Procreation, in actuality, has never been part of marriage laws.
Nope, my statement was correct. Gays have always had the right to marry, even back then. Nothing has ever barred a gay person from entering into a man/woman relationship (aka, a "marriage"). The traditional definition of marriage, not the redefinition. This is what I am referring to. It is not a misdirection. It is simply going by the traditional definition of marriage. Gays have never been barred from marrying.
My point exactly. Nope, the fact is completely relevant. One can't possibly adopt a child in the first place without the prior existence of a man/woman relationship that procreated said child. Our very existence as individuals (and our continued survival as a species) always comes back to the cornerstone that is known as a man/woman relationship (aka, a marriage). This is logic. This is science. You are denying these things to accept perversion. Correct, but as I outlined above, it would not be possible (even in principle) for this single person to adopt a child without the prior existence of a man/woman relationship that procreated said child. This always comes back to that same cornerstone... There is no way to escape this.
which has nothing to do with procreation. Never, at any time in the history of the US, was the ability or intention to procreate ever a requirement for marriage.
Science has nothing to do with a civil contract. Try again. Your logic isn’t sound as you have to ignore facts to come to the conclusion you want. A same sex couple is no different than an infertile heterosexual couple.
Which is entirely irrelevant to marriage. Procreation occurs within and without marriage. There has never, at any time in the US, EVER been a requirement for the ability or intention to procreate in order to marry. It's why you can't cite a single law supporting your claim.
It is the basis for the reasoning behind the definition that is being referenced in the civil contract. Facts are not proofs, nor are they universal truths. Learn what a fact is. Yes they are. The proof of identity tells us this. Man/man does NOT equal man/woman.
In marriage in this country, legally they do. You can stomp your feet all day long, doesn't change the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
No it isn’t, marriage was originally recognized in law as a way to prevent whites and blacks from marrying. Science has nothing to do with a civil document. Nothing you have posted is fact. In what way is an infertile heterosexual couple different from a homosexual couple? Never said it does — I said their unions are the same.
But infertile people are. A man and a female sheep could in the same exact principle procreate. You ran away from that point the last time. We will see what you do this time.
That only supports procreation itself, not why procreation is the one and only basis, or an immutable component of marriage. Expand on that, please. The statement in and of itself means nothing. No, procreation has never been a part of the legal definition. You are asserting that simply by limiting legal marriage to male/female that it is an implication, but you have yet to support that. Your in principle argument is an assertion, not support. Which still doesn't support procreation as being part of the legal definition. That the legal definition of marriage being limited to man/woman means procreation is part of the legal definition of marriage. You've not proven that. And for something to be part of the law, it has to be part of it in actuality, not principle. The words used are the only standard by which the law can be applied. There is not, and never has been, a legal requirement for procreation, sex or even love, in order to obtain a legal marriage. The problem for you being is that there has never been any one singular universal definition of marriage, unless you are going to isolate a given time and culture. The definition has varied greatly throughout the human experience. Mono and poly, same sex and opposite sex, for love and not for love, living and ghost, the list goes on. It is because you were not explicit about using only your one supposedly "traditional" definition. After all, traditional definition among the pagans include same sex marriage. Which may or may not have been the result of a marriage. Since those who are adopting are not the ones procreating, the status of their sex is irrelevant. They are not the procreators. They are adopting the results of a procreation. Our survival as a species depends not upon marriage, but upon procreation. We can survive quite well without marriage ever being a part of our species. It happens in nature all the time. Please explain how procreation would never happen if marriage didn't exist, if you think differently. The problem is that no one is saying that procreation can happen naturally (although we are getting closer to being able to do it artificially) outside of a male/female pairing. But they don't have to be married to procreate, and they don't have to procreate to be married. That is why procreation is a fully separate thing from marriage. You have yet to show how marriage is dependant upon procreation, "in principle" or otherwise, outside of a given religious or cultural context, which is by no means universal.
Science has to do with the reasoning behind the definition being used in the civil contract, not the civil contract itself nor the politics surrounding it. ...because you aren't accepting it as fact. Nothing you have posted is fact either. They are male and female, as opposed to male and male or female and female. Males and females, in principle, can procreate. No other union has the ability to procreate, not even in principle. No they aren't.
Correct. Infertile people are definitely infertile, by definition. But not all people are infertile. You can't argue as if all people are infertile. That's another one of those darn fallacies that keep getting in your way. This one is known as a compositional error fallacy. ARF. RAAA. I already answered it numerous times. ARF. RAAA.
Your definition of marriage necessarily excludes them until you dishonestly shift they goal posts The hypocrisy is palpable. You make repeated appeals to nature and to tradition. If you're going to squawk about fallacies instead of argue then you should probably not use fallacies in your argument. meaningless acronyms are not arguments. No you didn't you said other species don't have males and females which is the stupidest thing you have ever posted. Female animals are female. Couldn't you just ran away and hid behind your BAAA and CRAAA BA-A-A barnyard noises.
A civil financial contract has nothing to do with the potential of reproduction. Just because you state it is “fact”, does not make it so. “In principle” is not relevant to the law. Infertile heterosexuals cannot procreate (in reality or in principle) yet they can marry. This fact disproves that marriage has anything to do with the potential of procreation. Except they are. Explain how they are different
