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

Thing1 said:
You didn't answer my question, and the bolded ignores it. Many heterosexuals who marry CANNOT procreate, for a variety of reasons.

Would you restrict their marriages?
Click to expand...

I did answer it. But when you're argument is based on lies, you ignore it and don't like it. It is not a question of whether one will procreate, but that they can.


You also refuse to acknowledge the historical purpose of the institution of marriage and answer my question; why do gays need a Government sanctioned piece of paper to prove their love?
 
Truth Detector said:
I did answer it. But when you're argument is based on lies, you ignore it and don't like it. It is not a question of whether one will procreate, but that they can.


You also refuse to acknowledge the historical purpose of the institution of marriage and answer my question; why do gays need a Government sanctioned piece of paper to prove their love?
Click to expand...

Again - many heterosexuals who marry CANNOT procreate. So, it is not a question if they "can." Many simply cannot, whether because of health, age, handicap, etc.

What do you say to those marriages if what matters is that they "can"? I am not lying about anything. Many cannot, and that is fact. Answer the question - should their marriages be restricted?
 
Thing1 said:
Again - many heterosexuals who marry CANNOT procreate. So, it is not a question if they "can." Many simply cannot, whether because of health, age, handicap, etc.

What do you say to those marriages if what matters is that they "can"? I am not lying about anything. Many cannot, and that is fact. Answer the question - should their marriages be restricted?
Click to expand...

Then they can adopt. You keep dishonestly missing the point….children need a father and a mother, preferably the ones who created them.

Answer my question; why do gays need a Government sanctioned piece of paper to prove their love?
 
"You didn't answer my question, ... . Many heterosexuals who marry CANNOT procreate, for a variety of reasons.

Would you restrict their marriages?" T1 #180
Click to expand...
You don't need the validation T1.
Your point is well made whether or not it is answered.

And your well-made point is:
OF COURSE it doesn't depend on that. The procreation excuse is merely a red herring, a failed attempt at justifying imposing their will on one of the numerous minorities they despise.

Well done. Your point is well made.
 
Truth Detector said:
Then they can adopt. You keep dishonestly missing the point….children need a father and a mother, preferably the ones who created them.

Answer my question; why do gays need a Government sanctioned piece of paper to prove their love?
Click to expand...

That's a goalpost shift. It went from being able to procreate as a requirement, to just being able to adopt.

It's not about proving love. It's about having property rights & other official ties, and being able to exist in society on the same level as everyone else. It's about liberty.
 
Thing1 said:
It's not about proving love. It's about having property rights & other official ties, and being able to exist in society on the same level as everyone else. It's about liberty.
Click to expand...

You don't need marriage for that, do you, little Thingy?
 
Thing1 said:
Again - many heterosexuals who marry CANNOT procreate. So, it is not a question if they "can." Many simply cannot, whether because of health, age, handicap, etc.

What do you say to those marriages if what matters is that they "can"? I am not lying about anything. Many cannot, and that is fact. Answer the question - should their marriages be restricted?
Click to expand...

When marriage was created, there was really only way to tell if a couple might be fertile ... and that was the couple being male and female. Fruitless or barren marriages were an awkward disappointment, and often failed.

So, to answer your question, ... the only fertility test for marriage is that it be male and female.
 
Bigdog said:
When marriage was created, there was really only way to tell if a couple might be fertile ... and that was the couple being male and female. Fruitless or barren marriages were an awkward disappointment, and often failed.

So, to answer your question, ... the only fertility test for marriage is that it be male and female.
Click to expand...

But again, you're ignoring the fact that many heterosexuals who get married cannot have children, for one reason or another.

Would you restrict those marriages because of that?
 
Legion said:
Word meanings seem hard for him to comprehend, don't they, Bigdog?
Click to expand...

Yes, ... he is unable to comprehend that it is Big Brother intervening to change the language definitions by gov't decree.
 
Thing1 said:
But again, you're ignoring the fact that many heterosexuals who get married cannot have children, for one reason or another.

Would you restrict those marriages because of that?
Click to expand...

The only fertility test for marriage is that it be male and female. Comprende?
 
Bigdog said:
Yes, ... he is unable to comprehend that it is Big Brother intervening to change the language definitions by gov't decree.
Click to expand...

Just tell him this: I have little to no patience with liars or the willfully ignorant. Both are choices that cretinous and foolish people make. We are all ignorant of certain things, but to remain willfully so is inexcusable.

:rofl2:
 
Thing1 said:
But again - many marriages between a male & female are NOT fertile - they CANNOT procreate.

And again - would you restrict those marriages?
Click to expand...

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

Which word do you not understand?
 
Thing1 said:
But again - many marriages between a male & female are NOT fertile - they CANNOT procreate. And again - would you restrict those marriages?
Click to expand...

Why should the government have any say in marriage, little Thingy?

Thing1 said:
It's not about proving love. It's about having property rights & other official ties, and being able to exist in society on the same level as everyone else. It's about liberty.
Click to expand...

Aren't property rights, other official ties, and being able to exist in society on the same level as everyone else covered by contract law and/or civil unions, little Thingy?
 
Bigdog said:
"The only fertility test for marriage is that it be male and female. "

Which word do you not understand?
Click to expand...

I understand all of them. It seems like you don't understand the word "fertility." If there is a "fertility test" (and that's a completely fabricated idea), then many heterosexual couples do not pass it. Even though their marriage is a man & woman, they are NOT able to procreate, for one reason or another.

I understand that this is inconvenient for the argument you're trying to make, but it is what it is. That's why there is no "fertility test" for marriages, and if there was, we would be restricting many heterosexuals from getting married.
 
Thing1 said:
I understand all of them. It seems like you don't understand the word "fertility." If there is a "fertility test" (and that's a completely fabricated idea), then many heterosexual couples do not pass it. Even though their marriage is a man & woman, they are NOT able to procreate, for one reason or another.

I understand that this is inconvenient for the argument you're trying to make, but it is what it is. That's why there is no "fertility test" for marriages, and if there was, we would be restricting many heterosexuals from getting married.
Click to expand...

The only fertility test for marriage is that it be male and female.
 
Thing1 said:
That's a goalpost shift. It went from being able to procreate as a requirement, to just being able to adopt.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. It's a FACT that healthy parenting involves a devoted mom and a dad.

Thing1 said:
It's not about proving love. It's about having property rights & other official ties, and being able to exist in society on the same level as everyone else. It's about liberty.
Click to expand...

You don't need marriage for that. A Contract is all you need. The arguments made were about love.
 
Thing1 said:
But again, you're ignoring the fact that many heterosexuals who get married cannot have children, for one reason or another.

Would you restrict those marriages because of that?
Click to expand...

I'm amused that your argument PRESUMES they knew they couldn't have children when they were married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top