60 Percent Of Americans Soon Will Live In States With Marriage Equality

[guno]

 

[bodecea]

What's obvious is that same sex couplings create zero children.

The fact that my kind does, makes your delusions, and your assertions laughable.

The obvious problem with your reasoning being that marriage doesn't requuire children or the ability to have them. A full 25% of marriages never produce children.

Nor are marriages the only way to produce children. Nor are biological children the only way to have a family. One can adopt.

All of which you ignore. But there's no reason a rational person ever would.

A full 100% of same sex couplings produce children.

The law can't change biology.

You can kick and scream till the cows come home, the two demographic groups are nowhere near the same.

LOL...you got that wrong but it is amusing- and completely as irrelevant as the rest of your posts.

Meanwhile your side keeps losing.

Thanks for noticing the error.

To correct, a full 0% of same sex coupling has ever resulted in the creation of a child.

If that doesn't show that the two demographic groups are dynamically different, well, nothing will.

so?

 

[Syriusly]

The "obvious" is that procreation has never been required for civil marriage and yet you want to make it one only for gays (who can and do procreate). That makes you an anti gay bigot. Wear it proudly old fella.

What's obvious is that same sex couplings create zero children.

The fact that my kind does, makes your delusions, and your assertions laughable.

The argument that fails every time in court.

Well since the laws were legislated I can see your position. In any case there has never been any argument to have. Two women nor two men can make a baby.

I am not sure what your point is.

No one is arguing that two women or two men can have a natural child together.

No more than an infertile couple can have a natural child together.

Of the two specific demographic groups, one DOES, the other DOES NOT.

That makes the dynamics of the relationships remarkably different.

Within their specific demographic groups- neither can have children

And when it comes to procreation- that makes their relationship exactly the same.

 

[Syriusly]

What's obvious is that same sex couplings create zero children.

The fact that my kind does, makes your delusions, and your assertions laughable.

The obvious problem with your reasoning being that marriage doesn't requuire children or the ability to have them. A full 25% of marriages never produce children.

Nor are marriages the only way to produce children. Nor are biological children the only way to have a family. One can adopt.

All of which you ignore. But there's no reason a rational person ever would.

A full 100% of same sex couplings produce children.

The law can't change biology.

You can kick and scream till the cows come home, the two demographic groups are nowhere near the same.

LOL...you got that wrong but it is amusing- and completely as irrelevant as the rest of your posts.

Meanwhile your side keeps losing.

Thanks for noticing the error.

To correct, a full 0% of same sex coupling has ever resulted in the creation of a child.

If that doesn't show that the two demographic groups are dynamically different, well, nothing will.

And a full 0% of opposite gender couplings by actual infertile couples has resulted in the creation of a child.

When it comes to having children- there is no difference between a truly infertile couple and a same gender couple.

Look at the options for a truly infertile couple- sperm donation, egg implants, surrogacy- all options available to same gender couples- the first two to couples of women, the third to both women and men.

 

[Iceweasel]

And a full 0% of opposite gender couplings by actual infertile couples has resulted in the creation of a child.

Nope. There's this thing called fertility clinics. Sure, a gay gal could but your argument is better suited to rule out infertile couples than ruling in gays, no men are going to get pregnant.

 

[Syriusly]

And a full 0% of opposite gender couplings by actual infertile couples has resulted in the creation of a child.

Nope. There's this thing called fertility clinics. Sure, a gay gal could but your argument is better suited to rule out infertile couples than ruling in gays, no men are going to get pregnant.

'actual infertile couples'- what part of that is beyond your comprehension?

If a couple cannot have a biological child together- for instance a woman who has no ovaries and no frozen eggs in waiting, is no more going to give birth to a child with her DNA than a man is.

There is no requirement for couples to be fertile, to intend to have children, or intend to raise children in order to get married.

Which is why the procreation argument as to why same gender couples marriage falls apart.

 

[Iceweasel]

'actual infertile couples'- what part of that is beyond your comprehension?

If a couple cannot have a biological child together- for instance a woman who has no ovaries and no frozen eggs in waiting, is no more going to give birth to a child with her DNA than a man is.

There is no requirement for couples to be fertile, to intend to have children, or intend to raise children in order to get married.

Which is why the procreation argument as to why same gender couples marriage falls apart.

The part you are trying desperately to twist. Do you understand what a couple is? If one is infertile, then the couple is infertile. And many infertile couples have had babies. A woman can even carry someone else's child.

There's no requirement for a couple to get married and the only thing falling apart is your mind. History across cultures have had marriage for a reason. And you are apparently too stupid to understand it, even when people baby step it for you.

 

[Syriusly]

'actual infertile couples'- what part of that is beyond your comprehension?

If a couple cannot have a biological child together- for instance a woman who has no ovaries and no frozen eggs in waiting, is no more going to give birth to a child with her DNA than a man is.

There is no requirement for couples to be fertile, to intend to have children, or intend to raise children in order to get married.

Which is why the procreation argument as to why same gender couples marriage falls apart.

The part you are trying desperately to twist. Do you understand what a couple is? If one is infertile, then the couple is infertile. And many infertile couples have had babies. A woman can even carry someone else's child.

There's no requirement for a couple to get married and the only thing falling apart is your mind. History across cultures have had marriage for a reason. And you are apparently too stupid to understand it, even when people baby step it for you.

Apparently you are too stupid to even recognize your own fallacies.

An infertile couple is infertile- that means that at least one person in the couple cannot contribute genetic material to having a child together.

The options that they have- if they are truly infertile- such as a woman with no ovaries- are the same options available to lesbian couples who cannot produce children with both of their DNA.

There is no requirement for a couple to marry. And there is no requirement for couple to have children. And there is no connection between the laws governing marriage- and procreation.

 

[Iceweasel]

Apparently you are too stupid to even recognize your own fallacies.

An infertile couple is infertile- that means that at least one person in the couple cannot contribute genetic material to having a child together.

The options that they have- if they are truly infertile- such as a woman with no ovaries- are the same options available to lesbian couples who cannot produce children with both of their DNA.

There is no requirement for a couple to marry. And there is no requirement for couple to have children. And there is no connection between the laws governing marriage- and procreation.

The fallacy is all yours. Marriage has been around as long as recorded history. It isn't obvious immediately which couple is fertile or not. I've known some that tried for 10 years then suddenly it happened. Even after adoption. It's the institution that cultures have defined because most folks (unlike modern day fags) understand what happens when male and female genders pair up. They learn early that it's how the little bunnies got here, the birds, the bees, etc. No gay marriages until political pressure was induced to get government to participate in the lie that same gender unions are of equal value to a society. Some may believe it but most won't. Ever.

 

[Seawytch]

What's obvious is that same sex couplings create zero children.

The fact that my kind does, makes your delusions, and your assertions laughable.

The argument that fails every time in court.

Well since the laws were legislated I can see your position. In any case there has never been any argument to have. Two women nor two men can make a baby.

I am not sure what your point is.

No one is arguing that two women or two men can have a natural child together.

No more than an infertile couple can have a natural child together.

Of the two specific demographic groups, one DOES, the other DOES NOT.

That makes the dynamics of the relationships remarkably different.

Within their specific demographic groups- neither can have children

And when it comes to procreation- that makes their relationship exactly the same.

And it STILL has zero bearing on civil marriage. No infertile or childless by choice couple has ever been denied or had their marriage license "revoked" for not having or wanting children.

The procreation "argument" hasn't worked in court and thinking people laugh outright at it.

 

[Pop23]

And a full 0% of opposite gender couplings by actual infertile couples has resulted in the creation of a child.

Nope. There's this thing called fertility clinics. Sure, a gay gal could but your argument is better suited to rule out infertile couples than ruling in gays, no men are going to get pregnant.

'actual infertile couples'- what part of that is beyond your comprehension?

If a couple cannot have a biological child together- for instance a woman who has no ovaries and no frozen eggs in waiting, is no more going to give birth to a child with her DNA than a man is.

There is no requirement for couples to be fertile, to intend to have children, or intend to raise children in order to get married.

Which is why the procreation argument as to why same gender couples marriage falls apart.

Actual infertile opposite sex couples have had treatments that........

Make them fertile!

Oh my

Can't happen with same sex coupling now can it?

At ease, continue the squirm

 

[Pop23]

The argument that fails every time in court.

Well since the laws were legislated I can see your position. In any case there has never been any argument to have. Two women nor two men can make a baby.

I am not sure what your point is.

No one is arguing that two women or two men can have a natural child together.

No more than an infertile couple can have a natural child together.

Of the two specific demographic groups, one DOES, the other DOES NOT.

That makes the dynamics of the relationships remarkably different.

Within their specific demographic groups- neither can have children

And when it comes to procreation- that makes their relationship exactly the same.

And it STILL has zero bearing on civil marriage. No infertile or childless by choice couple has ever been denied or had their marriage license "revoked" for not having or wanting children.

The procreation "argument" hasn't worked in court and thinking people laugh outright at it.

Switch the word "thinking" with delusionsal and your closet to truth

 

[Pop23]

'actual infertile couples'- what part of that is beyond your comprehension?

If a couple cannot have a biological child together- for instance a woman who has no ovaries and no frozen eggs in waiting, is no more going to give birth to a child with her DNA than a man is.

There is no requirement for couples to be fertile, to intend to have children, or intend to raise children in order to get married.

Which is why the procreation argument as to why same gender couples marriage falls apart.

The part you are trying desperately to twist. Do you understand what a couple is? If one is infertile, then the couple is infertile. And many infertile couples have had babies. A woman can even carry someone else's child.

There's no requirement for a couple to get married and the only thing falling apart is your mind. History across cultures have had marriage for a reason. And you are apparently too stupid to understand it, even when people baby step it for you.

Apparently you are too stupid to even recognize your own fallacies.

An infertile couple is infertile- that means that at least one person in the couple cannot contribute genetic material to having a child together.

The options that they have- if they are truly infertile- such as a woman with no ovaries- are the same options available to lesbian couples who cannot produce children with both of their DNA.

There is no requirement for a couple to marry. And there is no requirement for couple to have children. And there is no connection between the laws governing marriage- and procreation.

What have you against reproductive privacy rights?

Of course, when your demographic group can't procreate within their unions, I guess reproductive privacy rights mean nothing. Sounds a bit bigoted.

 

[Pop23]

What's obvious is that same sex couplings create zero children.

The fact that my kind does, makes your delusions, and your assertions laughable.

The argument that fails every time in court.

Well since the laws were legislated I can see your position. In any case there has never been any argument to have. Two women nor two men can make a baby.

I am not sure what your point is.

No one is arguing that two women or two men can have a natural child together.

No more than an infertile couple can have a natural child together.

Of the two specific demographic groups, one DOES, the other DOES NOT.

That makes the dynamics of the relationships remarkably different.

Within their specific demographic groups- neither can have children

And when it comes to procreation- that makes their relationship exactly the same.

^^^^dumb^^^^

 

[Skylar]

Actual infertile opposite sex couples have had treatments that........

Make them fertile!

Except when it doesn't! Like in the case of women with hysterectomies, or who have had their ovaries removed. And yet no such woman has ever had her marriage invalidated or been refused a marriage license for being unable to have children.

Why? Because your imaginary standard doesn't exist. And applies to no one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pop23 said:

“Actual infertile opposite sex couples have had treatments that........
Make them fertile!”

You're ridiculous.

 

[Pop23]

Pop23 said:

“Actual infertile opposite sex couples have had treatments that........
Make them fertile!”

You're ridiculous.

No, you're delusional

Prior to treatment many actually were infertile dummy

If not, they would not seek the treatment.

OBTW

There is no treatment that makes a same sex coupling able to create a child.

 

[Skylar]

Prior to treatment many actually were infertile dummy

If not, they would not seek the treatment.

And what of those who can't seek treatment because they can't afford it.....or for whom treatment doesn't work? No straight couple has been turned away from marriage because they can't have children. Why then would we exclude gays for failing a standard that no one is held to?

 

[Seawytch]

Why then would we exclude gays for failing a standard that no one is held to?

I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

(rhymes with spigot)