SCOTUS protects marriage equality

[AProudLefty]

When did you become a plural? How many deaf people are you?

Still mocking them.

Do better.

 

[ZenMode]

Nothing was avoided.
Your avoidance of my differentiation between "marriage" and "civil union" is likewise noted.

Separate but equal isn't legal. That's called discrimination.

 

[AProudLefty]

Are you really claiming that same-sex marriage exists where it doesn't?

Answering a question with a silly question.

Do better.

 

[AProudLefty]

You tried to pretend to be a VICTIM! Have you stopped crying like a baby yet?

 

[ZenMode]

Am I supposed to illogically consider separate things to be the same thing?

Again, there is no requirement to procreate to get married, therefore it is not a factor in allowing two people to enter into a legal agreement.

So, there is no reason for states to consider genitals to legally recognize a relationship.

 

[AProudLefty]

FTFY.

You said you're a Christian.

Do better.

 

[Yakuda]

procreation isn't a requirement for marriage. By your foolish standards, a female who has gone through menopause and sterile men, or men who have had a vasectomy, would be disallowed from marrying someone of the opposite sex.

You're right it's not a requirement but an expected outcome. To have to decide who is fertile and who isn't would place an undue burden on the state and no law should do that. The best way to ensure a people have and support children is by encouraging the only pairing at brings about children.

 

[AProudLefty]

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[gfm7175]

procreation isn't a requirement for marriage.

The theoretical possibility of procreation IS a requirement, however. The union between a man and a woman is, biologically speaking, the ONLY union in which procreation is even theoretically possible. It takes both a male AND a female in order to procreate.

By your foolish standards, a female who has gone through menopause and sterile men, or men who have had a vasectomy, would be disallowed from marrying someone of the opposite sex.

Yet ANOTHER person who has absolutely NO CLUE what the words in principle mean. Or maybe it's that you DO understand, yet you wish to be dishonest anyway... Either way...

"used to indicate that although something is possible in theory, it may not happen in actuality."

 

[AProudLefty]

You didn't HAVE to outright say it... Your posts already make it very clear that you are NOT one.

That makes zero sense.

Your brother @IBDaMann claimed that I said I was an engineer.

 

[gfm7175]

Separate but equal isn't legal. That's called discrimination.

Nobody (other than themselves) is stopping them from marrying. There is NO discrimination. The law is being applied equally.

 

[AProudLefty]

Nobody (other than themselves) is stopping them from marrying. There is NO discrimination. The law is being applied equally.

I thought that SSM is impossible? Make up your mind.

 

[gfm7175]

Again, there is no requirement to procreate to get married, therefore it is not a factor in allowing two people to enter into a legal agreement.

Again, there IS a requirement that procreation be theoretically possible in order for a marriage to occur. Nobody (other than the man himself) is stopping himself from becoming married.

It seems like you're actually desiring something else. LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ supremacy, perhaps?

So, there is no reason for states to consider genitals to legally recognize a relationship.

See above.

 

[gfm7175]

Separate but equal isn't legal. That's called discrimination.

You're not making any sense. Now you're just chanting.

 

[gfm7175]

What is that supposed to mean?

It's a marriage certificate. I thought that was blatantly obvious, but apparently you never got that far in your deaf studies...

 

[gfm7175]

I thought that SSM is impossible? Make up your mind.

Speak English.

 

[ZenMode]

You're right it's not a requirement but an expected outcome. To have to decide who is fertile and who isn't would place an undue burden on the state and no law should do that. The best way to ensure a people have and support children is by encouraging the only pairing at brings about children.

Right... not a requirement... encouraging.

So, given that it's not a requirement, there's no reason to limit the legal recognition of a relationship based on procreation.

 

[ZenMode]

The theoretical possibility of procreation IS a requirement, however. The union between a man and a woman is, biologically speaking, the ONLY union in which procreation is even theoretically possible. It takes both a male AND a female in order to procreate.

Yet ANOTHER person who has absolutely NO CLUE what the words in principle mean. Or maybe it's that you DO understand, yet you wish to be dishonest anyway... Either way...

"used to indicate that although something is possible in theory, it may not happen in actuality."

Right.. procreation is not a requirement for the state to recognize the legal agreement between two adults.

So, since it is not a requirement, it sex should not be a factor in the legal agreement.

 

[AProudLefty]

Speak English.

You don't know what SSM stands for ? It stands for same sex marriage.

 

[gfm7175]

Right.. procreation is not a requirement for the state to recognize the legal agreement between two adults.

So, since it is not a requirement, it sex should not be a factor in the legal agreement.

I'll take this as clear indication that you wish to be dishonest anyway. Let me know when you're ready to hold an honest discussion.

Until then, I reject your advocation for LGBTQLMNOPALPHABETSOUP+ supremacy.