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

[Seawytch]

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.

Equal application of the law eludes you. Here's what happened when another RW nut job tried to make your argument in front of the SCOTUS:

[Laughter.]

What About the Children Prop 8 and Procreation - The New Yorker

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Gay couples can and do. Both can even.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

You're missing this.
The state allows any marriage at all. No one gets arrested for having a gay marriage.
The state sanctions some marriages by issuing licenses. Those are the ones the state has an interest in fostering, for reasons I've laid out.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Equal application of the law eludes you. Here's what happened when another RW nut job tried to make your argument in front of the SCOTUS:

[Laughter.]

What About the Children Prop 8 and Procreation - The New Yorker

Yeaj that missed the point and the lawyer is incompetent.
I love watching you twist over this one. The argument cannot be refuted.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Gay couples can and do. Both can even.

Nope. Not unless biology has been altered in some way.

 

[konradv]

You're missing this.
The state allows any marriage at all. No one gets arrested for having a gay marriage.
The state sanctions some marriages by issuing licenses. Those are the ones the state has an interest in fostering, for reasons I've laid out.

But the state sanctions marriages without regard to whether children are wanted or even possible. Therefore, your reasons for the state denying same-sex marriage is blatant discrimination.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Equal application of the law eludes you. Here's what happened when another RW nut job tried to make your argument in front of the SCOTUS:

[Laughter.]

What About the Children Prop 8 and Procreation - The New Yorker

Yeaj that missed the point and the lawyer is incompetent.
I love watching you twist over this one. The argument cannot be refuted.

It already has been. That you cannot accept that it has been thoroughly refuted isn't our problem.

The SCOTUS actually laughed at your argument.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Gay couples can and do. Both can even.

Nope. Not unless biology has been altered in some way.

They do...just not with each other...and that could change

BBC News HEALTH Eggs fertilised without sperm

We procreate the same way millions of STR8 couples do...through science.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Equal application of the law eludes you. Here's what happened when another RW nut job tried to make your argument in front of the SCOTUS:

[Laughter.]

What About the Children Prop 8 and Procreation - The New Yorker

Yeaj that missed the point and the lawyer is incompetent.
I love watching you twist over this one. The argument cannot be refuted.

It already has been. That you cannot accept that it has been thoroughly refuted isn't our problem.

The SCOTUS actually laughed at your argument.

We all laugh.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're missing this.
The state allows any marriage at all. No one gets arrested for having a gay marriage.
The state sanctions some marriages by issuing licenses. Those are the ones the state has an interest in fostering, for reasons I've laid out.

But the state sanctions marriages without regard to whether children are wanted or even possible. Therefore, your reasons for the state denying same-sex marriage is blatant discrimination.

Poor thing You're just hopeless, arent you?
It doesnt matter whether children are wanted or possible. It matters what is generally true.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Equal application of the law eludes you. Here's what happened when another RW nut job tried to make your argument in front of the SCOTUS:

[Laughter.]

What About the Children Prop 8 and Procreation - The New Yorker

Yeaj that missed the point and the lawyer is incompetent.
I love watching you twist over this one. The argument cannot be refuted.

It already has been. That you cannot accept that it has been thoroughly refuted isn't our problem.

The SCOTUS actually laughed at your argument.

I said, he was incompetent. Of course they laughed at an incompetent lawyer.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Gay couples can and do. Both can even.

Nope. Not unless biology has been altered in some way.

They do...just not with each other...and that could change

BBC News HEALTH Eggs fertilised without sperm

We procreate the same way millions of STR8 couples do...through science.

Thankls for showing you were lying and I was correct.
Gay couples cannot reproduce. Therefore the state has no interest in fostering those relationships.
QED.

 

[konradv]

Poor thing You're just hopeless, arent you? It doesnt matter whether children are wanted or possible. It matters what is generally true.

Did you just invent that theory of law or do you have an actual cite? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

 

[The Rabbi]

Poor thing You're just hopeless, arent you? It doesnt matter whether children are wanted or possible. It matters what is generally true.

Did you just invent that theory of law or do you have an actual cite? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Actual law?? HAHAHA! What a sap! You're really desperately clutching for anything, arent you?

 

[konradv]

Did you just invent that theory of law or do you have an actual cite? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Actual law?? HAHAHA! What a sap! You're really desperately clutching for anything, arent you?

I'll accept that I've been a sap for believing you'd ever come up with something worthwhile. FYI, I'm talking precedent. That's what counts, NOT your theories. So far you haven't given us any reason to believe there's a difference between heterosexual couples that can't have children and same-sex couples.

 

[The Rabbi]

Did you just invent that theory of law or do you have an actual cite? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Actual law?? HAHAHA! What a sap! You're really desperately clutching for anything, arent you?

I'll accept that I've been a sap for believing you'd ever come up with something worthwhile. FYI, I'm talking precedent. That's what counts, NOT your theories. So far you haven't given us any reason to believe there's a difference between heterosexual couples that can't have children and same-sex couples.

I told you what the state interest is. That it isnt enshrined in law is not surprising. Few bedrock legal theories are. That you are reduced to asking for a legal cite is evidence you cannot refute the argument. But at least your're starting to understand it.
Meanwhile the arguments for homo marriage remail: 1 and 2. Both refuted.

 

[konradv]

I told you what the state interest is. That it isnt enshrined in law is not surprising. Few bedrock legal theories are. That you are reduced to asking for a legal cite is evidence you cannot refute the argument. But at least your're starting to understand it. Meanwhile the arguments for homo marriage remail: 1 and 2. Both refuted.

I'm asking for a cite because your arguments don't make sense. Saying most bedrock legals theories aren't codified is just bullshit. We have all sorts of sources from Roman Law through the Magna Carta up to SC interpretations of the Constitution. You're just talking in circles and making less sense at every turn. You still haven't provided us with cogent reasons or legal precedents for your views, so once again I say PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

 

[The Rabbi]

I told you what the state interest is. That it isnt enshrined in law is not surprising. Few bedrock legal theories are. That you are reduced to asking for a legal cite is evidence you cannot refute the argument. But at least your're starting to understand it. Meanwhile the arguments for homo marriage remail: 1 and 2. Both refuted.

I'm asking for a cite because your arguments don't make sense. Saying most bedrock legals theories aren't codified is just bullshit. We have all sorts of sources from Roman Law through the Magna Carta up to SC interpretations of the Constitution. You're just talking in circles and making less sense at every turn. You still haven't provided us with cogent reasons or legal precedents for your views, so once again I say PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Next you'll ask me where it is in the Constittution (Article X). After that it will be where does George Washington talk about it. Then something else.
Face it, you cannot refute the argument.

 

[konradv]

Next you'll ask me where it is in the Constittution (Article X). After that it will be where does George Washington talk about it. Then something else. Face it, you cannot refute the argument.

In this case the 10th amendment was over-ruled by the 14th, Equal protection Clause. I've refuted your every contention over, and and over and over..., and yet you still strive to show us your ignorance of basic legal principles!

 

[The Rabbi]

Next you'll ask me where it is in the Constittution (Article X). After that it will be where does George Washington talk about it. Then something else. Face it, you cannot refute the argument.

In this case the 10th amendment was over-ruled by the 14th, Equal protection Clause. I've refuted your every contention over, and and over and over..., and yet you still strive to show us your ignorance of basic legal principles!

The 10thA was never over ruled by the 14th. That's an absurd statement.
You have refuted nothing. You have thrown smoke, you have called names, you have deflected, you have made unwarranted assertions and you have repeated the same two, and only two, arguments for gay marriage over and over. Just lke you did here in this post.