Interesting Question: Can You Be A Strong Conservative And Support Gay Marriage?

[Bigdog]

There is no fertility test for marriage. If there was, a lot of heterosexuals would not be able to marry.

The ONLY fertility test for marriage is that it be male and female.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

No he did not. He's been clear it is a man and a woman. The fertility test is your strawman. Stop lying, it's not helping you're weak ineffectual argument.

It's not a lie. Go back & look - Bigdog was the first to argue that there was a "fertility test." I said there wasn't - you & I seem to agree on that, but Bigdog was definitely the one who was arguing it.

I have lied about nothing.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

The ONLY fertility test for marriage is that it be male and female.

See, TD? It wasn't me.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

There you go again with that lie; are you trying to say a LOT of heterosexual couples can't have kids? Proof?

Elderly marriages increased by 21% last year.

And who cares? Even if it's just a few - would you restrict those?

 

[Truth Detector]

Yes - many heterosexuals who marry cannot procreate. You keep ignoring that.

That is a lie; it is a very small population who find one of the partners cannot have children. But, when they cannot, there are other avenues to create a family and raise healthy happy children.

Many are handicapped or have other health issues; many do not have the ability to have children;
there are many marriages among the elderly and those who are past childbearing age.

That's a lie and you cannot provide any factual statistics that support this absurd claim. Many elderly marriages? You make up your bullshit as you go don't you?

Your entire argument would restrict these people from marriage.

Wrong; you've already forgotten the argument bloviating strawmen. My argument is that marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman and for the purpose of procreating. It's factual, supported by historic fact and it is incontrovertible that children need a father and a mother, best if they are the two who made them. That too is unarguable.

Your arguments involve strawmen in order to support and agenda that makes a mockery of the institution for specious false purposes that cannot be supported by facts. It is an attempt to further erode our society and us down to third world shit hole status.

 

[Truth Detector]

So, would you mandate adoption or artificial insemination for heterosexual married couples who cannot procreate?

More strawmen; there is no mandate. Marriage isn't a requirement for anyone and it certainly shouldn't be government sanctioned.

You keep pretending that hetero couples know they lack fertility before they get married. That's a straw man lie. Most don't find out until after marriage. That doesn't invalidate their marriage or the intent behind it.


Liberals seem to love mandating shit through intrusive government.

 

[Truth Detector]

It's not a lie. Go back & look - Bigdog was the first to argue that there was a "fertility test." I said there wasn't - you & I seem to agree on that, but Bigdog was definitely the one who was arguing it.

I have lied about nothing.

He has been clear that it is about a man and a woman. Fertility is presumed. But I get your desperate flailing, you've yet to make a coherent argument about why gats need to use the institution of marriage.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

More strawmen; there is no mandate. Marriage isn't a requirement for anyone and it certainly shouldn't be government sanctioned.

You keep pretending that hetero couples know they lack fertility before they get married. That's a straw man lie. Most don't find out until after marriage. That doesn't invalidate their marriage or the intent behind it.


Liberals seem to love mandating shit through intrusive government.

1) Would you deny that many - who have health issues, or are past childbearing age - know BEFORE they get married?
2) Again - for those that do know before marriage, would you then restrict their ability to marry, because they cannot procreate and know that they cannot procreate?

You should know that this is what you are arguing. By making procreation the main factor for consideration of marriage, you would naturally advocate restricting marriage for those who cannot procreate and know that ahead of time.

 

[Truth Detector]

See, TD? It wasn't me.

What part of MALE and FEMALE do you have trouble comprehending? But then, it's not a comprehension with you, but rather, an honesty thing which you seem to lack.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

He has been clear that it is about a man and a woman. Fertility is presumed. But I get your desperate flailing, you've yet to make a coherent argument about why gats need to use the institution of marriage.

Can you show me where the "fertility test" for marriage is detailed?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

What part of MALE and FEMALE do you have trouble comprehending? But then, it's not a comprehension with you, but rather, an honesty thing which you seem to lack.

He said there was a "fertility test." That is a strawman, and a fabrication.

There is no "fertility test" for marriage.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

This is getting boring. A lot of old people get married. A lot of people who are handicapped or have health issues that prevent procreation get married.

I don't care if you don't think it's "a lot." You either would or wouldn't restrict marriages for these people if you think "fertility" and "procreation" are the qualifiers.

And yet I'm the dishonest one, somehow.

 

[Truth Detector]

Elderly marriages increased by 21% last year.

A meaningless statistic and a dishonest attempt trying to use it. What is the purpose of elderly individuals getting married?

And who cares? Even if it's just a few - would you restrict those?

This is not about restricting anything, it is about a dishonest agenda to redefine marriage and what it means.

Again, why do gays need to get married?

 

[Truth Detector]

1) Would you deny that many - who have health issues, or are past childbearing age - know BEFORE they get married?

2) Again - for those that do know before marriage, would you then restrict their ability to marry, because they cannot procreate and know that they cannot procreate?

You're argument is based on a straw man. I know you want to demand we argue your carefully constructed strawmen, but that's illogical.

Are you denying that marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreating and raising families for centuries?

You should know that this is what you are arguing.

No it isn't; that is your strawman.

By making procreation the main factor for consideration of marriage, you would naturally advocate restricting marriage for those who cannot procreate and know that ahead of time.

Wrong again; it is not about restricting anything, but rather, advocating Societal mores that promote a healthy society.

Your argument is based on several lies; (1) that marriage can be whatever you say it to be; (2) in parallel to #1, that children do not need a mother and a father; and (3) that there is a "right" to marriage.

Again, why do gays need to be married? What is the purpose? You've yet to answer this question or be honest.

 

[Truth Detector]

Can you show me where the "fertility test" for marriage is detailed?

Can you show me where "fertility test" was ever a part of the definition of marriage? I know you want to dishonestly argue strawmen while avoiding answering the question as to why gays need the institution of marriage.

It's the same dishonesty that refuses to acknowledge the age old definition and purpose behind marriage.

 

[Truth Detector]

He said there was a "fertility test." That is a strawman, and a fabrication.

There is no "fertility test" for marriage.

He stated clearly the test was a man a d a woman. You're desperate flailing and strawmen aside, why do cats need the institution of marriage?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

You're argument is based on a straw man. I know you want to demand we argue your carefully constructed strawmen, but that's illogical.

Are you denying that marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreating and raising families for centuries?



No it isn't; that is your strawman.



Wrong again; it is not about restricting anything, but rather, advocating Societal mores that promote a healthy society.

Your argument is based on several lies; (1) that marriage can be whatever you say it to be; (2) in parallel to #1, that children do not need a mother and a father; and (3) that there is a "right" to marriage.

Again, why do gays need to be married? What is the purpose? You've yet to answer this question or be honest.

What kind of "purpose" do you demand that marriages have?

You brought up the lack of purpose for elderly marriages. Do you honestly thing that the only reason that people get married is to have kids & be parents?

People get married for a wide variety of reasons, all of which distill down to wanting to formalize their union in some way. Who are you & I to judge ANY of those reasons? Again - if you think the ONLY purpose of marriage is to have kids and parent...would you deny marriages to the elderly? Would you deny marriages to others who cannot have children for whatever reason?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

He stated clearly the test was a man a d a woman. You're desperate flailing and strawmen aside, why do cats need the institution of marriage?

What "fertility test" is he referring to?

Do marriages today have a "fertility test" that couples need to pass?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Can you show me where "fertility test" was ever a part of the definition of marriage? I know you want to dishonestly argue strawmen while avoiding answering the question as to why gays need the institution of marriage.

It's the same dishonesty that refuses to acknowledge the age old definition and purpose behind marriage.

Oh, my lord - you say I'm lying about a "fertility test." I DO NOT THINK THERE IS A FERTILITY TEST. That's what Bigdog, who you're defending, is claiming.

Here is my position: there is NO fertility test for marriage. Do you agree w/ me, or w/ Bigdog, who says that there is?

If you agree with me, I'll await your many posts calling Bigdog a liar. I have not lied about a thing.

 

[Truth Detector]

This is getting boring. A lot of old people get married. A lot of people who are handicapped or have health issues that prevent procreation get married.

Your dishonesty and strawmen are most certainly boring. But expected given your history on this forum.

I don't care if you don't think it's "a lot."

You don't care about facts.

You either would or wouldn't restrict marriages for these people if you think "fertility" and "procreation" are the qualifiers.

You're trapped inside your own strawman arguments you construct. That forces your dishonest avoidance of any questions posed to you. Those are the traditional role and purpose of marriage prior to government intervention, and, what is the reason gays need the institution of marriage.

The honest answer to these questions destroy your strawmen.

And yet I'm the dishonest one, somehow.

Poor Thing1; the sky is again falling when you cannot promote strawman claims and false narratives.