A thinly-veiled ad hominem in the form of generalizations?
The alleged “rational basis” you’ve identified is decisively refuted by the following facts: (1) opposite-sex couples are not required to “form” the next generation in order to obtain marriage licenses (so why impose that standard on same-sex couples, unless you endorse blatant hypocrisy?); (2) many same-sex couples do “form” the next generation (so if you actually believed the alleged “rational basis” you’ve identified, you would support marriage equality).“equality” presupposes rational bases for establishing that equality. There is no rational basis for equating male-female households with male-male and female-female households, since the State is interested in formation of the next generation, as contained in American households, not in the personal feelings of one person for another person, which is already allowed constitutionally and has no reason for being institutionalized.
The rational basis for the exclusive institution of sexually complementary relationships has been expounded abundantly on CAF, including with many secular arguments. Do a search.
You are correct: secularists can hold homophobic, irrational beliefs as well – my mistake.Wrong (and irrational).
Lots of people with no religious beliefs strongly oppose the institutionalizing of romantic feelings by those of the same gender. Many of those people, and many of us on CAF, have not only homosexual friends but homosexual relatives.Imagine.
Who said it was phobia or hatred?
The actions, behavior and statements of marriage equality opponents.
The burden of proof is upon you. I see plenty of rhetoric with your replies here lately.
to repeat: There is no such thing as same-sex marriage
I see a lot of ‘begging the question’ but no rational argument. Not sure I’ve ever heard an argument start with an ‘IF’ either.
You seem to have misunderstood the argument altogether. I can see why it does not make sense.
Nope, just waiting for a rational argument.
Yeah, well it’s “homophobia” only in your colorful imagination, spencelo. Good luck with that.
Actually there is in a number of states. I suggest that you get caught up with current events.
I gave you one, but you refused to interact with it, which confirms my initial suspicion that the reason why you haven’t heard of any for marriage equality is because you’ve buried your head in the sand.
Ad hominem statements are very popular yet irrational argument from the pro same-sex marriage side, also.
If a state legislates the existence of a unicorn, it doesn’t not mean there is in fact a unicorn. You can not give a ration reason that there is such a thing as same-sex marriage.
no, you want me to agree that there is a unicorn. I will not because that would be irrational.
[bolding mine, Stephen.
]My argument was about marriage equality - not unicorns. Of course, since you have your head buried in the sand, it’s convenient for you to pretend otherwise.
Marriage is an organic part of human nature where children are raised. Of course raising children presupposes that children have a very good chance of being created by the participants. This is why same sex unions and pedophile unions are not marriage. Due to the high probability of defective offspring incestous unions are taboo.
My post #429 went unanswered, but feel free to either (a) pretend it doesn’t exist or (b) dismiss it without a response. Responding to substance can be difficult, and both (a) and (b) seem to be your best alternatives.[bolding mine, Stephen.
Yes there is a difference between being able and being required to act. In this case opposite sex couples are able, and same sex couples are not.
Indeed, you seem to have a certain expertise in that department, despite substantive arguments being provided on this and many threads.
Except: (1) not all opposite-sex couples are able (and yet they are allowed to marry, so why the double standard?) and (2) procreative ability has never been a requirement for a marriage license (so why impose it on homosexuals?).
Indeed.