Marriage isn't a human right

none of those say same sex couples can't marry because they can't procreate, nor does it say you have to have the ability, intention or potential to procreate in order to marry.

so, like I said, every case dealing with the issue.

 

It's the most realistic and basic definition of human rights - it's something that everyone in the world can agree with - a starving person in Africa doesn't have the time or the luxury to be 'worried' about being denied the right to marry a man.

The only human rights that exist, are what is necessary for survival or what prevent aggressive harm against an innocent person - even free speech isn't a 'human right', just a Constitutional right - decided on by law (though imprisoning or executing a person for expressing speech the state disagrees with would likely be a violation of human rights)

It's incorrect, since marriage isn't required for survival and is a service provided by the state.

 

You mean its your definition. The rest of the world doesn't view human rights as limited to those rights necessary for life.

 

Actually that's precisely what they say in reference to same sex couples and NO ONE has claimed "you have to have the ability, intention or potential to procreate in order to marry". That's your favorite strawman. You only have to be a man and a woman.

 

It's 'mine', but it's based on common sense (ex. most people would say 'murder is wrong') - human rights aren't something that people can just 'decide' on, or write into law - they exist in nature.

The only human rights I can say exist in nature, or in all cultures (including those without America's constitution) is a right to basic means of survival - everything else is a privileged, or a legal right (not a universal right)

That's their problem - if someone thinks it's "their right" to buy beer with welfare beanies, then they're wrong too.

Most of what Americans whine about being 'their rights' are luxuries that most of the world could only dream about, let alone have the audacity to claim they're 'entitled' to just because they exist

 

at one time they said you also had to be the same race....

 

Nope. Not one says that, and without the requirement your argument is invalidated as a reason to deny same sex couples from marriage. And of course you don't have to be a man and a woman.

 

If it's not a right to begin with, they can deny it for any reason - if a state randomly decided to only allow midgets to marry, there's no reason they couldn't do that, since marriage is not a right, it's a prvilidge

That'd be like saying if a parent gives their kid's teacher a present, that she's 'obligated' to give one to every teacher in the school just for the sake of 'equality' - equality my rear end

 

What court cases? Do you have a decision from the highest court in the land that talks of marriage existing for procreation?

 

sure there is, your discriminating against midgets in that case, you can ban it for all adults or none

 

Skinner v Oklahoma

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL

Baker v Nelson

 

Cousins? Two brothers? A mother and daughter?

When you say "all or none", you're really just saying "gays or none"

It's a gift from the state, so anyone who doesn't like it is free to move to another state that wants to give it to them. This whole argument is dumb, because it's not really about 'equality' - it's really just about "what gays want, and think they're 'entitled' to just because they want it"

 

Here in America we have a right to equal protection of the law which includes privileges in the law. In order to pass constitutional scrutiny, the state at a minimum would have to show that limiting marriage to midgets is rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. I cant imagine any such interest that is only served in the case of midgets. The governmental interest in reducing the number of single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers is only served in the case of heterosexual couples.

 

People are free to discriminate. The government and the law is not.

 

Race has no rational relation to the governmental interest in reducing the # of single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Children of interracial couples benefit from marriage just as much as children of same race couples. And purifying the white race isn't a legitimate governmental interest.

 

Is marriage between citizens in this Republic (unalienable rights to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness) which is a civil contract (with divorce also between a civil separation of property, etc.) a 'right' ?

If one votes purely as a 'citizen' and bases their vote on the founding documents, then marriage or the union of 2 citizens irregardless of sexual orientation is a civil 'right.'

If one bases their vote on religious scriptures & tradition, then they most likely will be against the marriage union of every and any 2 same-sex citizens....

 

No, it should be entirely up to the state do decide it - if they passed a law allowing midgets to marry only - then people in the state could move to another state, or vote politicians in who would change the law.

Having a legal document in your drawer with the word 'married' on it isn't going to make an absent or deadbeat father magically want to come back and parent his kid.

The sole purpose of a marriage contract is tax benefits, visitation rights, etc - other than that it's just a piece of paper - and having one isn't suddenly going to make a miserable parent 'better'.

So they're not a right, therefore it should ideally be up to the state to decide them.

If you're saying marriage is a 'right', then the 'gay rights movement' is right, and you couldn't discriminate against gays (or brothers and sisters, or anything else which is 'icky') - this is why it's best that marriage not be considered a right, just a privilege granted by states.

 

Marriage used to be a union producing children with a financial commitment so that the pregnant woman would not be left destitute shud the male leave the relationship.

Biblically, powerful men such as Abraham, David, Solomon not only had many wives but also concubines--what was the purpose of concubines?! Except the NT scriptures saying "1 man and 1 woman' in marriage, there was no sanctifying polygamy as such in the NT.

But today, many hetero couples dont want children for several reasons (the $$$ to raise them, the problem with disciplining children in this modern society, impacting female body shape, etc.), and so reproduction cant be used as a reason for allowing hetero but not homo marriage.

As far as the unnaturalness of the sexual act of 2 of the same sex; these days, modern hetero couples practice homosexual acts (oral, anal) and so there ends up being no difference in that regards.

Consider all of the above: and so, if 2 of the same sex were bonded and committed to each other, desiring to spend their lives together (possibly adopting parentless children) , and living what society considers a 'moral life' and keeping the laws of society, would a loving and graceful God so allow and even 'bless?' Knowing it is not a matter of perverted lust but out of 'love,' which is the fulfillment of the Law of God........

 

Obviously, there was a 'culture' change between marriage polygamy & concubines and the divorce option in the OT, and 1 man/1 woman marriage and no divorce but w/exception in the NT .

So can we project that 2000 yrs later to today and change the practices of committed unions to modernize it to this culture?

Also, in the NT, per Paul, if a man or woman divorces w/o the reason of adultery on their spouse's part and then remarries, they are committing adultery. Today that would be over 50% of the ppl out there! Living in sin their whole lives?! I dont see the love & grace of God in that...it smacks of the culture of his time. and Paul admits in some places saying that it is his 'beliefs' on certain issues.

 

Well... since you didn't set your post up correctly so that I have to break it apart to answer it... I almost wasn't going to answer it. But I will because you're attempting to make "raising" the revenue stream to be just as valid as creating one. Clearly it is not.

But we are not paying for them to cultivate the revenue stream. That is not what provides the long-term primary benefit for society. I'll show why in a minute. Keep reading.

It is not marriage that we are referencing here. Again... homosexuals can get married any time that they so choose and anywhere they want to. What they cannot have are the BENEFITS that are provided through that marriage. We provide the benefits to entice people to reproduce more. Is there a component of also providing a stable environment in which the child can grow up. Perhaps, however mathematically that benefit alone does not make sense. I'll show you why in just a second.

Again... It is not about the benefit from the cultivation of the child or revenue stream. Let's, again, look at two couples. Hetero Couple and Homo Couple. Both couples take out $200,000 and put in $100,000. Homo couple adopts a child. Hetero Couple produces a child. Homo couple dies leaving a net negative on society by taking more out than they put in... but they did a great job in raising their kid. He's an Investment Banker pulling in $10,000,000 a year for 20 years. That's a total of $200,000,000 over the course of his lifetime. Looking at taxes he's putting in a good 40 or 50% to the government on every dollar. So he's giving $100,000,000 to society. Sounds great right? I'll ignore the fact that this is a minute % of adopted kids that would give this much back to society.

Now you have Hetero Couple, they produce a child and the child becomes a burger flipper at mcdonalds his whole life. He makes $8.00 an hour 40 hours a week for 20 years. That's $332,800 over the course of his life. He never makes enough to actually pay taxes so he doesn't give anything back to the system. HOWEVER, the burger flipper gets married and has 3 kids. He's produced 3 more revenue streams for society. They produce 2 apiece and theirs produce more and so on and so forth. You're talking about, theoretically, a revenue stream that was worth hundreds of trillions of dollars and last thousands of years. The original revenue stream that was CREATED by the original couple is worth FAR more than the $100,000,000 provided by the best of the best cultivation that the homosexual parents could ever do.

Again... we are NOT paying for people to raise the children. We want the REAL benefit to society. That is the CREATION of the revenue stream. Once the revenue stream is created, the rest will take care of itself... to be quite honest, cultivating the revenue stream is not even really necessary to accomplish the benefit for society.

- - - Updated - - -

They are not reproducing. The lesbian and the guy whose sperm she used reproduced. Two homosexuals, in and of themselves, can not, in any way, shape or form reproduce. That's the problem. They are incapable of reproduction in and of themselves.

 

The states decided by writing into their constitutions that their government must not deny people the equal protection of the law.

No it wont. But the marriage will identify the father and the law will obligate him to provide and care for both the mother and the child. Without the marriage, the father is frequently unknown or not identified. And even if he is identified, he has no obligation to support the mother of his children.

The right is to equal protection of the law. Equal protection doesn't mean everyone regardless of income has to be able to get food stamps and doesn't mean every couple regardless of their age, familial relationship or relative sexes of the couple has to be able to be married.
Its a simple rule. At a minimum, any discrimination in the law must be rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interests. Limiting food stamps to poor people and excluding rich people is rationally related to alleviating the effects of poverty among poor people. NOT animus towards rich people. Limiting marriage to heterosexual couples and excluding all other couples is rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest in improving the well being of children that only heterosexual couples produce. NOT animus towards homosexuals.

 

According to that logic, when the republicans get back in power it'll be our prerogative to change it to only a man and a woman. Right?

 

Get your panties out of a wad Sarah.

You misunderstand the point. I wasn't saying you shouldn't get anything because you didn't procreate. I was saying that I am a capitalist. I do not believe ANYBODY should receive subsidies or benefits. They are detrimental to society and institute a welfare and entitlement mentality.

With that being said... marriage benefits do not care if you worked for 45 years or never worked at all. It certainly doesn't matter if you worked in child welfare and protective services or served in the military (thank you by the way). I don't feel you should get anything because I don't feel that anybody should get any benefits. With all of that being said, I understand that if we are going to provide benefits to promote procreation then its impossible to check every couple every year to see if they are willing and able to have children. It's simply not a feasible undertaking. So it is worth it to pay couples such as yourself who have either not be able or not been willing to produce a child as long as we receive the benefits from the rest of the heterosexual couples. At least that's the logic. However, homosexuals do not hold that potential, so it is NOT worth it, for us to provide benefits to homosexual married couples. They're simply acting as parasites economically speaking.

 

A guy yesterday in the VFW was asked why he was against gay marriage and he instantly answered, because its just Fn ridiculous thats why, he said why isnt it enough to give them all the benes and the tax deductions and insurance and SS and all the rest and just leave other 97% of us alone. He said because they just want to break our balls.

 

Because they don't get "all the bennies" without being MARRIED .....dahhhhhhhhhhhhh