• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court halts Calif. gay marriages pending appeal

Um, it's the 21st century. There are lots and lots of ways for gay couples to have kids. Being gay does not make you not maternal/paternal. I know, it ruins your argument based on your bad assumption, but there it is.

Yeah but none of them are instrinsic, nor are they pressumptive. Both are legal standards.


Tim-
 
Yeah but none of them are instrinsic, nor are they pressumptive. Both are legal standards.


Tim-

We can, based on the evidence I presented presume that ~1/4 of gay couples will already have children, and we can presume, based on the evidence provided, that many more want children, and since almost all people have medical help in having children, it will be just as intrinsic as strait couples.
 
And my age has something to do with this debate how?

Oh, yeah right, nothing.

Well, you haven't offered up a legal argument that opposes me, only an emotional one, so what do you expect?

Tim-
 
Well, you haven't offered up a legal argument that opposes me, only an emotional one, so what do you expect?

Tim-

And you have offered up no data, and no evidence to back your argument. Glass houses and stuff.
 
Well, you haven't offered up a legal argument that opposes me, only an emotional one, so what do you expect?

Tim-

The fact that it violates the 14th amendment, isn't enough for you?
 
We can, based on the evidence I presented presume that ~1/4 of gay couples will already have children, and we can presume, based on the evidence provided, that many more want children, and since almost all people have medical help in having children, it will be just as intrinsic as strait couples.

but they can't have them in the same way that heterosexuals do. So there is no pressumption. Also, they cannot have them in the same way that heterosexuals are wanting of them, in the "pro" creative axiom. There is no mutual intrinsic "wanting" for them. How could there be?


Tim-
 
And you have offered up no data, and no evidence to back your argument. Glass houses and stuff.

That's the beauty. There's no need to "offer-up" data. It is what it is. That's kinda the defintiion of instrinsic.


Tim-
 
The fact that it violates the 14th amendment, isn't enough for you?

It doesn't violate the 14th. That's the point. Gays lose no matter what. If marriage isn't fundamental, they lose, if it is, then it has only ever been for one group of people; at least in terms of societies posterity. Something worth protecting, no? Even givning special recognition too? :)



Tim-
 
Last edited:
Well, you haven't offered up a legal argument that opposes me, only an emotional one, so what do you expect?

Tim-

Walker's ruling had plenty of legal argument that is more than adequate to rebut anything that you have posted.

Still looking for anything in your postings that hint at being based on the law, which, I think, is what defines a legal argument. I found some lenghty posts, but nothing that actually smacked of being legal.

BTW, I'm in agreement with Star and I bet the average of our ages would meet any standard that you might like to set.
 
It doesn't violate the 14th. That's the point. Gays lose no matter what. If marriage isn't fundamental, they lose, if it is, then it has only ever been for one group of people; at least in terms of societies posterity. Something worht protecting, no? Even gvning special recognition too? :)



Tim-

It does, right now LGBT people don't have the same protection under the law, and violates the 14th amendment.
 
but they can't have them in the same way that heterosexuals do. So there is no pressumption. Also, they cannot have them in the same way that heterosexuals are wanting of them, in the "pro" creative axiom. There is no mutual intrinsic "wanting" for them. How could there be?


Tim-

This has to be one of the funniest things I have ever read. Gays are not heterosexual. Brilliant!

"Procreate" means to beget or bring forth offspring(Procreate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary), which is exactly what gays are, and can do.
 
Walker's ruling had plenty of legal argument that is more than adequate to rebut anything that you have posted.

Still looking for anything in your postings that hint at being based on the law, which, I think, is what defines a legal argument. I found some lenghty posts, but nothing that actually smacked of being legal.

BTW, I'm in agreement with Star and I bet the average of our ages would meet any standard that you might like to set.

Perhaps, but you haven't heard my argument before. Legal precedent is set on the fundamental strenght of the argument. My argument is strong, and I know it. If you wish to dissent, then do so. Don't moan to me about whether it is based on legal precedent. Let's put it this way, there is nil, zero, nadda, legal precedent that opposes my argument.

How's that wannabe scholar? :)


Tim-
 
Last edited:
It does, right now LGBT people don't have the same protection under the law, and violates the 14th amendment.

They have no right to protection. That's the argument I'm making, YS.


Tim-
 
This has to be one of the funniest things I have ever read. Gays are not heterosexual. Brilliant!

You obviously have a low threshold of humor. ;-)

If you think this post was funny, read the whole thread. You'll be in stiches.
 
This has to be one of the funniest things I have ever read. Gays are not heterosexual. Brilliant!

"Procreate" means to beget or bring forth offspring(Procreate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary), which is exactly what gays are, and can do.

Not with each other they can't? So why recognize the union of two "homosexuals" if two homosexuals can't reproduce equal to that of heterosexuals? Gays can also marry those of the opposite sex. Are we parsing meanings now. Redress? Is it convientent to do so for you?



Tim-
 
Not with each other they can't? So why recognize the union of two "homosexuals" if two homosexuals can't reproduce equal to that of heterosexuals? Gays can also marry those of the opposite sex. Are we parsing meanings now. Redress? Is it convientent to do so for you?



Tim-

You where the one to bring up the definition of procreate, not me. I just actually showed what it was. The fact that your arguments entirely forget we are in the 21st century, with all sorts of technology which makes having a child fairly easy is not my problem, it's the problem with your arguments.
 
You where the one to bring up the definition of procreate, not me. I just actually showed what it was. The fact that your arguments entirely forget we are in the 21st century, with all sorts of technology which makes having a child fairly easy is not my problem, it's the problem with your arguments.

No, there is no "pro" in the procreation of a homosexual union. None at all. Not instrinsically, there isn't, nor is there a pressumption of such.


Tim-
 
Ok, so I have to go to bed, it's way past my bedtime.. Have at er.. If someone says something substantive I'll respond in the morning, if not, then the courts will decide.


Peace!


Tim-
 
Perhaps, but you haven't heard my argument before. Legal precedent is set on the fundamental strenght of the argument. My argument is strong, and I know it. If you wish to dessent, then do so. Don't moan to me about whether it is based on legal precedent. Let's put it this way, there is nil, zero, nadda, legal precedent that opposes my argument.

How's that wannabe scholar? :)


Tim-

And there we have it. Your argument is "strong" because you really belive it. And because you really belive it, it is a "legal" argument. Wow!

In Walker's ruling there is lots of analysis that is based on legal precedent and it directly contradicts what you have been saying.

I'm going to have to suggest that you take that Zyprexa and try again tomorrow.
 
No, there is no "pro" in the procreation of a homosexual union. None at all. Not instrinsically, there isn't, nor is there a pressumption of such.


Tim-

I suppose that might be true if the "pro" in "procreate" meant something other than it does. Since it doesn't, you are once again wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom