- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,082
- 47,245
- 2,180
- Thread starter
- #261
You seem to have clipped out (why am I not surprised) the point that there are no laws that don't exclude reasons for not applying laws to all. None of these exclusions are considered the denial of ones civil rights.
Because "no laws", "that don't", "for not" creates a triple and makes no sense.
What is never excluded, and the part that you conveniently clipped out is that the person just didn't want to comply.
What are you talking about?
A person denied a Civil Marriage license because of the gender composition of the couple isn't just "don't want to comply" they are barred by law. A different sex couple that must prove they are infertile (yes there are laws to this effect) can't just choose "not to comply" and get a Civil Marriage license anyway - they are barred from getting such a license.
But it is silly
I agree with you. Stating that procreation is a standard that applied to same-sex couples and then not apply that same standard to different-sex couples is silly. Well I think it's hypocritical, but I'll agree to your word. It it's not a standard for one, then it shouldn't be a standard for the other. If is to be a standard, apply it to both.
>>>>
Fertility tests aren't 100% accurate, and they didn't exist until quite recently. The marriage always were written long before anything like a fertility test was even imagined. I see little reason to change them simply because some petulant homos believe they are entitled to be treated like normal people.