If gay marriage is legal...let's get rid of ALL legal marriage....

[Skylar]

"Interest" means something of benefit to the state. The state has an interest in producing future citizens. That is the purpose of state-sponsoship of marriage.
Your statement uses "interest" to mean involvement.

And yet they allow the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Interest" means something of benefit to the state. The state has an interest in producing future citizens. That is the purpose of state-sponsoship of marriage.
Your statement uses "interest" to mean involvement.

And yet they allow the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You've already demonstrated you are incapable of understanding this argument. No need to repeat your failure and demonstrate your incompetence/

 

[The Rabbi]

1) Move goal posts. Infer general from specific case.
2) Slippery slope fallacy
3) Confusion between state having an interest and state acting.
You're just not doing very well here, are you? Every response is a logical fallacy, a factual error, a mere assertion that what you think is the truth.Try dealing with the argument. Oh, but you can't. Because there are only two arguments for "gay marriage" and both have been debunked.

1) I didn't infer a general from a specific case. That's what you were doing when you started mentioning government agencies not involved in the initial discussion.
2) Mentioning a possible result isn't slippery slope. I'd have to insist that there was a definite result. Much the way you do when you claim same-sex marriage would cause harm to society or other people's marriages.
3) I haven't confused having an interest and acting. I don't recall saying anything about the state acting. That was your position when you insisted the government should reverse its recognition of same-sex marriages.

I think I'm doing quite well. You apparently don't know logic as well as you think you do. I have seen nothing that proves same-sex marriage causes harm to society, children or heterosexual marriages. Maybe if you could go through it one more time?

Of course you think you're doing well. Because you're stupid. You dont understand the meanings of words you use, much less ones I use.

So you take a specific case, marital property, and infer a general interest in the orderly dispersal of property. T he state has no specific interest in the orderly dispersal of property and that could be accomplished a hundred ways instead of marriage. In fact it is.
You did not mention a possible result. You asserted anarchy can ensue. That is absurd on its face, of course. Anarchy will not ensue without marriage. You implied this was a possibility. It is not.
Straw man fallacy as well. I never wrote the state produces citizens. The state has an interest in producing citizens. If you dont understand the difference between those two statements get an adult to help you.

As usual you're getting really boring. You obviously don't have a clue what logic is, so claim your "win" and run along, son.

Translation: I cannot refute what you've written because I dont really get it.
It's OK. Half of Americas are below average in intelligence. You've got company.

 

[The Rabbi]

Argument #2. Again.

Ah. Your 'secret arguments'. Again. Which you can't articulate, can't use, can't even describe.

Or as we like to call it, your 'tell'.

You havent been following this very closely, eh?
I laid out what Argument #1 and Arguiment #2 are.

Oh, I've been following the conversation. If you had arguments, you'd present them. Instead, you give us excuses for why you can't.

They are the only arguments for gay marriage. And they are both fallacious.

Says who? They're clearly compelling enough to win virtually every case in federal court case on the matter and convince the majority of Americans that gay marriage should be legal.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Wrong.
Argument #2.
Gay marriage has made inroads not because it was approved on a ballot. Indeed, the majority of referenda on gay marriage saw traditional marriage upheld. It won because activist judges, some of them gay themselves, overturned the will of the people.

And you fall back on your 'secret argument' schtick. Where you insist that a particular claim has been debunked. But you can't say how, where, or even describe your argument in anyway.

Keep running.

You're really really stupid, arent you?
I laid out what "Argument 1" and Argument 2 are explicitly in a post. I even pointed it out to you previously.

 

[Skylar]

Ah. Your 'secret arguments'. Again. Which you can't articulate, can't use, can't even describe.

Or as we like to call it, your 'tell'.

You havent been following this very closely, eh?
I laid out what Argument #1 and Arguiment #2 are.

Oh, I've been following the conversation. If you had arguments, you'd present them. Instead, you give us excuses for why you can't.

They are the only arguments for gay marriage. And they are both fallacious.

Says who? They're clearly compelling enough to win virtually every case in federal court case on the matter and convince the majority of Americans that gay marriage should be legal.

Show us. Don't tell us.

Wrong.
Argument #2.
Gay marriage has made inroads not because it was approved on a ballot. Indeed, the majority of referenda on gay marriage saw traditional marriage upheld. It won because activist judges, some of them gay themselves, overturned the will of the people.

And you fall back on your 'secret argument' schtick. Where you insist that a particular claim has been debunked. But you can't say how, where, or even describe your argument in anyway.

Keep running.

You're really really stupid, arent you?
I laid out what "Argument 1" and Argument 2 are explicitly in a post. I even pointed it out to you previously.

And you've in no way refuted or even addressed any aspect of either argument. Nor can you.

Infertile people and the childless clearly demonstrate that there is a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation. And you have nothing to refute this fact.

No one is required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married or stay married. Thus, the standard you're using to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one. You have nothing to refute this fact either.

And with virtually every federal court ruling to address the topic coming down on the side of gay marriage, its clear that the arguments of your ilk aren't particularly compelling. And you have nothing to refute this either.

So you ignore all three. As if by ignoring them, they somehow cease to exist. If only reality worked that way.

Keep running. It amuses me.

 

[Skylar]

"Interest" means something of benefit to the state. The state has an interest in producing future citizens. That is the purpose of state-sponsoship of marriage.
Your statement uses "interest" to mean involvement.

And yet they allow the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You've already demonstrated you are incapable of understanding this argument. No need to repeat your failure and demonstrate your incompetence/

Why look. Yet another secret argument. On that you can't articulate, describe, or even locate.

If this 'secret argument' schtick is all you have left.......then you're already done. That's why its your tell.

As I said, run along. You've clearly not prepared to discuss this topic. Else your arguments could actually be stated, rather than vaguely alluded to.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Interest" means something of benefit to the state. The state has an interest in producing future citizens. That is the purpose of state-sponsoship of marriage.
Your statement uses "interest" to mean involvement.

And yet they allow the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You've already demonstrated you are incapable of understanding this argument. No need to repeat your failure and demonstrate your incompetence/

Why look. Yet another secret argument. On that you can't articulate, describe, or even locate.

If this 'secret argument' schtick is all you have left.......then you're already done. That's why its your tell.

As I said, run along. You've clearly not prepared to discuss this topic. Else your arguments could actually be stated, rather than vaguely alluded to.

It's no secret, Einstein. I have not posted any "secret arguments" here. All the arguments are open and patent. You continuously demonstrate an inability to understand them, much less refute them. And the more you post, the more you demonstrate that fact.
I cant help you here. Perhaps remedial something or other. I dunno.

 

[Skylar]

"Interest" means something of benefit to the state. The state has an interest in producing future citizens. That is the purpose of state-sponsoship of marriage.
Your statement uses "interest" to mean involvement.

And yet they allow the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You've already demonstrated you are incapable of understanding this argument. No need to repeat your failure and demonstrate your incompetence/

Why look. Yet another secret argument. On that you can't articulate, describe, or even locate.

If this 'secret argument' schtick is all you have left.......then you're already done. That's why its your tell.

As I said, run along. You've clearly not prepared to discuss this topic. Else your arguments could actually be stated, rather than vaguely alluded to.

It's no secret, Einstein. I have not posted any "secret arguments" here. All the arguments are open and patent. You continuously demonstrate an inability to understand them, much less refute them. And the more you post, the more you demonstrate that fact.
I cant help you here. Perhaps remedial something or other. I dunno.

If you had a counter argument, you would have offered it. Instead, its just more excuses why you can't. And still can't. Watch, I'll demonstrate yet again. I'll shred your silly arguments. And you'll vaguely allude to a secret argument that you can't articulate, can't cite, can't locate and can't produce

Every State allows the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Interest" means something of benefit to the state. The state has an interest in producing future citizens. That is the purpose of state-sponsoship of marriage.
Your statement uses "interest" to mean involvement.

And yet they allow the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You've already demonstrated you are incapable of understanding this argument. No need to repeat your failure and demonstrate your incompetence/

Why look. Yet another secret argument. On that you can't articulate, describe, or even locate.

If this 'secret argument' schtick is all you have left.......then you're already done. That's why its your tell.

As I said, run along. You've clearly not prepared to discuss this topic. Else your arguments could actually be stated, rather than vaguely alluded to.

It's no secret, Einstein. I have not posted any "secret arguments" here. All the arguments are open and patent. You continuously demonstrate an inability to understand them, much less refute them. And the more you post, the more you demonstrate that fact.
I cant help you here. Perhaps remedial something or other. I dunno.

If you had a counter argument, you would have offered it. Instead, its just more excuses why you can't. And still can't. Watch, I'll demonstrate yet again. I'll shred your silly arguments. And you'll vaguely allude to a secret argument that you can't articulate, can't cite, can't locate and can't produce

Every State allows the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You keep posting arguments I demolished the last time you \posted them. You already have shown you cannot understand the argument and therefore post nonsense that actually strengthens my contention, not refute it. But you don tunderstand that either. How can I argue with someone who has no idea what the argument is and shows it ever time?

 

[bendog]

And yet they allow the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You've already demonstrated you are incapable of understanding this argument. No need to repeat your failure and demonstrate your incompetence/

Why look. Yet another secret argument. On that you can't articulate, describe, or even locate.

If this 'secret argument' schtick is all you have left.......then you're already done. That's why its your tell.

As I said, run along. You've clearly not prepared to discuss this topic. Else your arguments could actually be stated, rather than vaguely alluded to.

It's no secret, Einstein. I have not posted any "secret arguments" here. All the arguments are open and patent. You continuously demonstrate an inability to understand them, much less refute them. And the more you post, the more you demonstrate that fact.
I cant help you here. Perhaps remedial something or other. I dunno.

If you had a counter argument, you would have offered it. Instead, its just more excuses why you can't. And still can't. Watch, I'll demonstrate yet again. I'll shred your silly arguments. And you'll vaguely allude to a secret argument that you can't articulate, can't cite, can't locate and can't produce

Every State allows the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You keep posting arguments I demolished the last time you \posted them. You already have shown you cannot understand the argument and therefore post nonsense that actually strengthens my contention, not refute it. But you don tunderstand that either. How can I argue with someone who has no idea what the argument is and shows it ever time?

The only thing you've demolished is logic, common sense and rational comparison. LOL

 

[The Rabbi]

You've already demonstrated you are incapable of understanding this argument. No need to repeat your failure and demonstrate your incompetence/

Why look. Yet another secret argument. On that you can't articulate, describe, or even locate.

If this 'secret argument' schtick is all you have left.......then you're already done. That's why its your tell.

As I said, run along. You've clearly not prepared to discuss this topic. Else your arguments could actually be stated, rather than vaguely alluded to.

It's no secret, Einstein. I have not posted any "secret arguments" here. All the arguments are open and patent. You continuously demonstrate an inability to understand them, much less refute them. And the more you post, the more you demonstrate that fact.
I cant help you here. Perhaps remedial something or other. I dunno.

If you had a counter argument, you would have offered it. Instead, its just more excuses why you can't. And still can't. Watch, I'll demonstrate yet again. I'll shred your silly arguments. And you'll vaguely allude to a secret argument that you can't articulate, can't cite, can't locate and can't produce

Every State allows the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You keep posting arguments I demolished the last time you \posted them. You already have shown you cannot understand the argument and therefore post nonsense that actually strengthens my contention, not refute it. But you don tunderstand that either. How can I argue with someone who has no idea what the argument is and shows it ever time?

The only thing you've demolished is logic, common sense and rational comparison. LOL

That's because you're stupid.
You understand the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry is not a refutation of anything, right?

 

[Seawytch]

Why look. Yet another secret argument. On that you can't articulate, describe, or even locate.

If this 'secret argument' schtick is all you have left.......then you're already done. That's why its your tell.

As I said, run along. You've clearly not prepared to discuss this topic. Else your arguments could actually be stated, rather than vaguely alluded to.

It's no secret, Einstein. I have not posted any "secret arguments" here. All the arguments are open and patent. You continuously demonstrate an inability to understand them, much less refute them. And the more you post, the more you demonstrate that fact.
I cant help you here. Perhaps remedial something or other. I dunno.

If you had a counter argument, you would have offered it. Instead, its just more excuses why you can't. And still can't. Watch, I'll demonstrate yet again. I'll shred your silly arguments. And you'll vaguely allude to a secret argument that you can't articulate, can't cite, can't locate and can't produce

Every State allows the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You keep posting arguments I demolished the last time you \posted them. You already have shown you cannot understand the argument and therefore post nonsense that actually strengthens my contention, not refute it. But you don tunderstand that either. How can I argue with someone who has no idea what the argument is and shows it ever time?

The only thing you've demolished is logic, common sense and rational comparison. LOL

That's because you're stupid.
You understand the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry is not a refutation of anything, right?

You understand that the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry means you cannot deny it to gay couples based on an inability to procreate with each other, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

It's no secret, Einstein. I have not posted any "secret arguments" here. All the arguments are open and patent. You continuously demonstrate an inability to understand them, much less refute them. And the more you post, the more you demonstrate that fact.
I cant help you here. Perhaps remedial something or other. I dunno.

If you had a counter argument, you would have offered it. Instead, its just more excuses why you can't. And still can't. Watch, I'll demonstrate yet again. I'll shred your silly arguments. And you'll vaguely allude to a secret argument that you can't articulate, can't cite, can't locate and can't produce

Every State allows the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You keep posting arguments I demolished the last time you \posted them. You already have shown you cannot understand the argument and therefore post nonsense that actually strengthens my contention, not refute it. But you don tunderstand that either. How can I argue with someone who has no idea what the argument is and shows it ever time?

The only thing you've demolished is logic, common sense and rational comparison. LOL

That's because you're stupid.
You understand the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry is not a refutation of anything, right?

You understand that the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry means you cannot deny it to gay couples based on an inability to procreate with each other, right?

True. That isnt the basis for denying it to gay couples.
This has been explained over and over.
The vast najority of hetero couples can and will reproduce. T he fact that some will not is irrelevant.
Every gay couple cannot reproduce. There is therefore no reason for the state to favor that relationship.
Thanks for letting me clarify that yet again for the 50th time. Maybe it will be clear now.

 

[bendog]

Hmm, Elton John has two children who share his DNA.

 

[Skylar]

If you had a counter argument, you would have offered it. Instead, its just more excuses why you can't. And still can't. Watch, I'll demonstrate yet again. I'll shred your silly arguments. And you'll vaguely allude to a secret argument that you can't articulate, can't cite, can't locate and can't produce

Every State allows the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You keep posting arguments I demolished the last time you \posted them. You already have shown you cannot understand the argument and therefore post nonsense that actually strengthens my contention, not refute it. But you don tunderstand that either. How can I argue with someone who has no idea what the argument is and shows it ever time?

The only thing you've demolished is logic, common sense and rational comparison. LOL

That's because you're stupid.
You understand the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry is not a refutation of anything, right?

You understand that the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry means you cannot deny it to gay couples based on an inability to procreate with each other, right?

True. That isnt the basis for denying it to gay couples.
This has been explained over and over.
The vast najority of hetero couples can and will reproduce. T he fact that some will not is irrelevant.

Actually its quite relevant. As it establishes, incontrovertibly, that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

And of course, no one is required to be able have children in order to get married or stay married.

Why then would we exclude gays because they don't meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?
Every gay couple cannot reproduce. There is therefore no reason for the state to favor that relationship.
Thanks for letting me clarify that yet again for the 50th time. Maybe it will be clear now.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Rabbi]

Hmm, Elton John has two children who share his DNA.

Thank you, capt iirelevant

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep posting arguments I demolished the last time you \posted them. You already have shown you cannot understand the argument and therefore post nonsense that actually strengthens my contention, not refute it. But you don tunderstand that either. How can I argue with someone who has no idea what the argument is and shows it ever time?

The only thing you've demolished is logic, common sense and rational comparison. LOL

That's because you're stupid.
You understand the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry is not a refutation of anything, right?

You understand that the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry means you cannot deny it to gay couples based on an inability to procreate with each other, right?

True. That isnt the basis for denying it to gay couples.
This has been explained over and over.
The vast najority of hetero couples can and will reproduce. T he fact that some will not is irrelevant.

Actually its quite relevant. As it establishes, incontrovertibly, that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them.

And of course, no one is required to be able have children in order to get married or stay married.

Why then would we exclude gays because they don't meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?
Every gay couple cannot reproduce. There is therefore no reason for the state to favor that relationship.
Thanks for letting me clarify that yet again for the 50th time. Maybe it will be clear now.

[/QUOTE]
Wrong.
The basis is that most couples can and do have children. The fact that some dont is irrelevant. How many times would you like me to repeat this so you understand it?

 

[Seawytch]

If you had a counter argument, you would have offered it. Instead, its just more excuses why you can't. And still can't. Watch, I'll demonstrate yet again. I'll shred your silly arguments. And you'll vaguely allude to a secret argument that you can't articulate, can't cite, can't locate and can't produce

Every State allows the infertile to marry or remain married. As they allow the marriages of those who choose not to have children to remain valid. Demonstrating incontrovertibly that there's a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children. Nor does any state require anyone to have children or be able to have children in order to be married.

You have no logical or rational counter for these simple facts Which is why you always run into your 'secret argument' schtick, insisting that these facts have been debunked.....somewhere. By someone. Somehow.

But can never tell us where, who and how. Its your tell. Your white flag. And the surest sign that you've reached the end of your claims.

Run along.

You keep posting arguments I demolished the last time you \posted them. You already have shown you cannot understand the argument and therefore post nonsense that actually strengthens my contention, not refute it. But you don tunderstand that either. How can I argue with someone who has no idea what the argument is and shows it ever time?

The only thing you've demolished is logic, common sense and rational comparison. LOL

That's because you're stupid.
You understand the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry is not a refutation of anything, right?

You understand that the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry means you cannot deny it to gay couples based on an inability to procreate with each other, right?

True. That isnt the basis for denying it to gay couples.
This has been explained over and over.
The vast najority of hetero couples can and will reproduce. T he fact that some will not is irrelevant.
Every gay couple cannot reproduce. There is therefore no reason for the state to favor that relationship.
Thanks for letting me clarify that yet again for the 50th time. Maybe it will be clear now.

So....you wish to apply a standard to gay couples that is not applied to straight couples...and then claim that you're not discriminating? It is to laugh.

Gay couples DO reproduce. (Five times myself)

 

[The Rabbi]

You keep posting arguments I demolished the last time you \posted them. You already have shown you cannot understand the argument and therefore post nonsense that actually strengthens my contention, not refute it. But you don tunderstand that either. How can I argue with someone who has no idea what the argument is and shows it ever time?

The only thing you've demolished is logic, common sense and rational comparison. LOL

That's because you're stupid.
You understand the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry is not a refutation of anything, right?

You understand that the fact that the state allows infertile couples to marry means you cannot deny it to gay couples based on an inability to procreate with each other, right?

True. That isnt the basis for denying it to gay couples.
This has been explained over and over.
The vast najority of hetero couples can and will reproduce. T he fact that some will not is irrelevant.
Every gay couple cannot reproduce. There is therefore no reason for the state to favor that relationship.
Thanks for letting me clarify that yet again for the 50th time. Maybe it will be clear now.

So....you wish to apply a standard to gay couples that is not applied to straight couples...and then claim that you're not discriminating? It is to laugh.

Gay couples DO reproduce. (Five times myself)

Gay couples cannot reproduce. You need a lesson in biology I think.
It is not a standard applied to individual couples. It is a standard applied on a general basis. Doubtless the disctintion eludes you.

 

[konradv]

Every gay couple cannot reproduce. There is therefore no reason for the state to favor that relationship.

The state isn't favoring them, just allowing them. Since procreation isn't a prerequisite for marriage, you can't use it as an excuse to deny same-sex marriage.