Thread: Gay Marriage - a possible solution for all sides

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Nothing there to support your assertion. Thats why you probaly didnt simply copy and paste a few sentences that support your assertion. Hoping people wouldnt click on the link to see that it doesnt in any way support your assertion. Heres just the first listed from Alaska



Not a thing about "gay", "gay marriage" or even any mention of ones sexuality. It just isnt of any concern. Marriage isnt limited to heterosexuals because they are not gay. Its limited to heterosexuals because they have the capacity to procreate.

See . . .you're back at your "procreation" argument. . .
The argument you "poopooed" a minute ago because it doesn't take marriage to procreate. . .when I pointed out that gay couple can use the same techniques to procreate than heterosexual couples who are unable to have children on their own. . .

You are such a funny person. . .going in circle, and abandonning your own arguments as soon as they are proven invalide, but bringing them up again as "the final answer" a few minutes later!

Oh well. . .sorry, but you just don't make sense to me!
The only thing I get from your muddled and circular arguments are that you are narrow minded, totally homophobic and against gay marriage!

Okay, that's you're right! I have no problem with that. . .:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Sadanie

See . . .you're back at your "procreation" argument. . .
The argument you "poopooed" a minute ago because it doesn't take marriage to procreate. . .when I pointed out that gay couple can use the same techniques to procreate than heterosexual couples who are unable to have children on their own. . .:

You should simply copy and paste my comments instead of referring to them. Even you might see the absurdity of your arguments. If you think Ive contradicted myself, instead of again and again making the same ignorant argument all over again, just.....copy and paste. You even are provided with a quote function if you wish. These repeated comparisons of one of my quotes, to your characterization of yet some other post of mine is silly when you could simply instead place them side by side.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

If you think Ive contradicted myself, instead of again and again making the same ignorant argument all over again, just.....copy and paste.

I don't think she's arguing that you've contradicted yourself, but rather, that you are making the same ignorant (your choice of words, but I'm happy to use it) argument again and again.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Nothing there to support your assertion. Thats why you probaly didnt simply copy and paste a few sentences that support your assertion. Hoping people wouldnt click on the link to see that it doesnt in any way support your assertion. Heres just the first listed from Alaska



Not a thing about "gay", "gay marriage" or even any mention of ones sexuality. It just isnt of any concern. Marriage isnt limited to heterosexuals because they are not gay. Its limited to heterosexuals because they have the capacity to procreate.

Common sense dictates that the amendments passed by many states with the clause "between one man and one woman" are meant to exclude gay marriage. Georgia, et al, goes even farther by adding "No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage." People don't even have to click the link to know that these amendments are anti-gay so your attempt to make Fidei Defensor look foolish backfired.

You really need to get off the 'procreation' kick because since it doesn't pertain to all heterosexual marriages, it makes no since to apply it to gay marriage.

Originally Posted by Porras

I don't think she's arguing that you've contradicted yourself, but rather, that you are making the same ignorant (your choice of words, but I'm happy to use it) argument again and again.

Were you expecting different arguments at different times in response to the same arguments?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Common sense dictates that the amendments passed by many states with the clause "between one man and one woman" are meant to exclude gay marriage.

Nonsense, it was intended to maintain the limitation to heterosexuals. No more intended to keep out homosexuals than this 1000s of year old BC law was intended to keep out homosexuals.

"Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

Its biology that precludes gays from the equation.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

You really need to get off the 'procreation' kick because since it doesn't pertain to all heterosexual marriages, it makes no since to apply it to gay marriage.

Nooo, for instance

Art. 185. Presumption of paternity of husband

The husband of the mother is presumed to be the father of a child born during the marriage or within three hundred days from the date of the termination of the marriage.

applies to every single mariage in your state. You could even make gay marriage legal in your state and biology would still preclude it from applying to a same sex couples.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Nonsense, it was intended to maintain the limitation to heterosexuals. No more intended to keep out homosexuals than this 1000s of year old BC law was intended to keep out homosexuals.

"Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

Its biology that precludes gays from the equation.

Surely you jest! I know you've got to be intelligent enough to understand that those amendments to the states' constitutions was in direct response to the gay marriage controversy. If, for some reason, I have misjudged you and you aren't intelligent enough to understand it, then please, listen to those of us who DO understand it and learn.

Nooo, for instance



applies to every single mariage in your state. You could even make gay marriage legal in your state and biology would still preclude it from applying to a same sex couples.

Paternity is totally irrelevant in many marriages and definitely wouldn't pertain to any marriage I may enter into. Since that has already been established, your obsession with paternity is total nonsense and I suggest you find another argument.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

As to your belief that paternity and procreation are irrelevant to marriage and that therefore my arguments regarding paternity and procreation are "nonsense"


And as far as your belief that your personal inability to procreate or need to establish the paternity of a child of yours somehow proves that paternity and procreation are irrelevant to marriage,

Again, dixon, I'm asking you to try to use common sense. If paternity was relevant to all heterosexual marriages, then women who have gone through menopause whether surgically or naturally, men who have had vasectomies and women or men who suffer from infertility could not marry. I'm not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand.

BTW, have you conceded the fact that states' amendments regarding marriage were written in a direct attempt to exclude gay marriage?

Originally Posted by dixon76710

You should simply copy and paste my comments instead of referring to them. Even you might see the absurdity of your arguments. If you think Ive contradicted myself, instead of again and again making the same ignorant argument all over again, just.....copy and paste. You even are provided with a quote function if you wish. These repeated comparisons of one of my quotes, to your characterization of yet some other post of mine is silly when you could simply instead place them side by side.

Why don't you let me the judge of how I wish to write my posts?

Can you do that? Or should I tell you how I would like YOU to write your posts!

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Common sense dictates that the amendments passed by many states with the clause "between one man and one woman" are meant to exclude gay marriage. Georgia, et al, goes even farther by adding "No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage." People don't even have to click the link to know that these amendments are anti-gay so your attempt to make Fidei Defensor look foolish backfired.

............

Except those amendments aren't what you like to call "anti gay."

They are simply pro-marriage, and there's nothing at all wrong with that no matter what your opinion is about homosexual behaviour

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Except those amendments aren't what you like to call "anti gay."

They are simply pro-marriage, and there's nothing at all wrong with that no matter what your opinion is about homosexual behaviour

Come on, Captain! Those marriage amendments weren't even thought of until the subject of gay marriage came up and I guarantee you that the huge majority of those who voted for the amendment in Louisiana alone did so because they were anti-gay marriage, not necessarily "pro-marriage".

Originally Posted by Captain Trips

Except those amendments aren't what you like to call "anti gay."

They are simply pro-marriage, and there's nothing at all wrong with that no matter what your opinion is about homosexual behaviour

If they are so pro-marriage... where's all of the anti-divorce amendments?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Come on, Captain! Those marriage amendments weren't even thought of until the subject of gay marriage came up and I guarantee you that the huge majority of those who voted for the amendment in Louisiana alone did so because they were anti-gay marriage, not necessarily "pro-marriage".

When it becomes so obvious that a culture is getting into degenerate behaviours to the point of promotion and celebration, these kinds of push backs are to be expected.

Expect to see them in the future when group "marriages" are being 'debated,' or when underage sex and 'marriage' is being debated, or when barnyard "marriage" is being debated.

These things can never happen ?

Really ?

If you'd have asked someone 20 or 30 years ago if Americans would be "debating gay marriage," in the near future, you'd have been told the same thing - "Oh, don't be ridiculous, people aren't that foolish." - is what you'd have heard, or something very similar.

These amandments are simply for marriage as it has always been known, and against redefining it for a small group of people who really do not need to have a word redefined just for them. It is a ridiculous demand that has more behind it than just "equal rights."

If it was "equal rights" they wanted, it would be equal rights they would be trying to get, rather than demanding a redefinition of the Biblical definition of the word marriage.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

If they are so pro-marriage... where's all of the anti-divorce amendments?

That is a damn good question.