Quote Originally Posted by BigJulie View Post
Yes, which is why I don't agree that ****sexual couples can "feel" that their marriage is the same as a heterosexual marriage and therefore claim it is a a right.
I agree. Marriage equality should not be based on feelings, but on objective reality.

I gave you research which shows that they are not the same and for many reasons.
You gave me propaganda from a religious website that disagrees with the scientific consensus.

No, offspring...
Wait, what? Now "offspring" = "religion"?

I think you've totally lost the plot. You were trying to substantiate your claim that marriage is rooted in religion. So far you've established that one of the English words derived from a compound Latin word involving "mother".

which is why years ago, you weren't really considered "married" until it was consumated.
Consummation ≠ childbearing. Your argument is all over the place.

In which "marriage" is derived.
That's not what your source says. Your source said that "marriage" comes from the Latin marītāre, and "matrimony" derives from the Latin mātrimōnium.

Exceptions to the rule do not make the rule.
They're not exceptions to any rule. They're examples that demonstrate that the rule doesn't exist.

Infertile couples may not stay infertile.


Vasectomies can be reversed.
And hysterectomies?

The fact of the matter is, the rule (not the exception) of marriage is that offspring are a very distinct possibility. In fact, I think we could say statistically that married couples are 92% more likely to have children than a ****sexual couple (based on infertility rates). Which means that if a heterosexual couple gets married, their chances of having a child is 92% while the ****sexual couple is 0%.
That's really not how statistics work. And it's all beside the point, because the government has no interest in whether a couple has children or not.

The reality in M***. is that more children were harmed by not receiving adoption services than were benefited by gay marriage---if that is your argument.
What? Children are harmed because they're not being placed in homes with stable, loving parents—because the Catholic Charities decided that discriminating against same-sex couples is more important than providing homes for children.

Easily solved by a "civil union."
Separate is (still) not equal.

But if you accept the premise (of the reality of the 1000+ rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples under federal law), why are you not working to make these "civil unions" happen?

First it has to be established that it is a civil right.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly established that marriage is a civil right. The U.S. is also a signatory to the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, which establishes that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family".

As noted, this is a behavioral issue.
You have "noted", but you have not established, that attractional orientation is a behavioral issue. Meanwhile, in reality, ****sexuality remains neither more nor less a behavioral issue than heterosexuality.

Show me something older than the Bible that establishes relationships called "marriage" and we shall talk. I showed you my proof that marriage came from religion...show me your proof that it does not.
You did nothing of the sort. You showed me that one of the English words for marriage ("matrimony") has Latin roots in a word for "mother". Not a word about religion was provided, as "proof" or otherwise.

This (still) remains your claim, your responsibility to support.

Yes, there actually has been a requirement in past ages for a marriage to reproduce to be considered authentic...or at least attempt to reproduce....this is why someone can get their marriage annulled if it has never been consumated.
Consummation ≠ childbearing.

Yes, marriages have been annulled because of a couple's infertility. Are you arguing that that's a good thing?

And so is your opinion an "insufficient basis for civil law."
Indeed. The First and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Cons***ution, on the other hand, are excellent bases on which to establish civil law.

I showed you the research regarding the differences in ****sexual relationships to heterosexual relationships.
No, not really.

I see a huge difference in these relationships.
Correction: you imagine a huge difference in these relationships.

Do you know any same-sex couples?

In fact, if a man or woman can see a difference when choosing a partner, then we as society should not be condemned for seeing a difference as well. If they do not see a difference when choosing a partner, then there is no reason to call themselves ****sexual.
That's...utterly inane. If you can tell the difference between men and women, you're not gay. I don't even know where to start.

Well, at least you acknowledge that the "law" is what is established by the cons***ution rather than thinking it comes out of thin air as you seem to keep arguing.
If you'd been reading my words, rather than projecting onto me whatever it is you imagine, you might have noticed that my argument from the very beginning has been based in civil law, as established by We The People, in Cons***utional Republic of the U.S. of A.

P.S. I noticed you skipped over the idea that the state has already defined marriage between one man and one woman when it came to polygamy. Are you now going to argue that polygamy is a "right" as well?
It's a red herring, and I'm not biting.