Not my claim, liar. My claim is that the UN recognizes marriage as a right, and that is true. If you can show me where the UN recognizes ONLY OSM as a right, go ahead. You won't, though. Liar. UN UDHR, Article 16, and Loving v. Virginia. No, not at all. You claim that laws make rights. You are wrong (again). Where have I made such a claim on either side? Oh, wait. That's just you making poo up to try to avoid your own unproven claims. loveual discrimination in marriage is not valid. QED. No, they do not, as you've been shown. Which minority do you think we're talking about? Marriage as it stands contains a qualification based on loveual discrimination, which is not valid. It says nothing like that. It says nothing either way. Refusing to hear a complaint is not the same as upholding the opposite view, idiot. You lied when you claimed that your quote said that OSM is the only kind of marriage. If you want to say that it does then produce the quote that says exactly that. Until then, your claim, like all your other claims, fails. f***in' liar. "That's why marriage is limited to relationships that allow for reproduction AND demand that said relationship offer a mother AND a father to any child, issue or adoptee." Right there you made exactly the claim that I said you did. Now defend it or retract it. Lying again. See above for your claim. Such a capability is not 'presumed'. Oh, I can see what you wrote, and I can throw it back at you all day long. I have no doubt that you will simply run like a bunny, away from your claim. It is amusing watching you squirm away from your own words, though. Loving v. Virginia UN UDHR Article 16 Look at that - more cites than you've been capable of giving. In progress, and irrelevant to what I claimed. Meanwhile you seem incapable of anything but lying about what I write, meaning that you can't refute the argument - so it stands. I see. You claim again that courts that rule against minority rights are correct by simply making the ruling. No lie. You have offered others' opinions, and not much of that. I have offered findings from the bodies qualified to reach them. Nope. I have documented your lies in this post. Your claim fails, again. You have offered no cites, only 'read the book'. Now, why are the authors-editors qualifed to refute the Supreme Court and the UN UDHR? They aren't. Your claim fails. Show me one lie, spanky. But first you need to clear up the claims you made (shown above) and then lied about.
|
