Any non-religious arguments against gay marriage?

So what? Bull's quote doesn't matter to my point. You are arguing that state constitutions do not allow gay marriage. I am saying that since the federal constitution trumps those of the states, that is an invalid argument.

That's funny. You accuse us of not understanding the constitution, then immediately demonstrate that you don't have a clue what's it's about. In fact, laws stated in the constitution are the opposite of "rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest". Rather, the whole point of the constitution is specifically to limit the powers and interests of the government, and to protect the rights of the citizens.

So no, laws do not have to be "rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental interest".

LOL, "constitutional discrimination" - the epitome of oxymoron.

 

Your logic is flawed. The presumption of paternity does not in any way suggest that procreation is inherent to marriage. It simply states what happens if it occurs. Melding them together is happening in your mind, but it is not present in the text. It simply isn't.
I am honestly asking you to clearly make your point so I can understand. If your goal is not to be understood, why are you here? If you can't help me understand, what purpose do you have in being on a forum for ideas? If you are admittedly incapable of making a cogent argument, why not take up bowling or catfishing?

 

Thats why I said they meld the concepts together and didnt say that "procreation is inherent to marriage". That I presume is your next strawman to work on.

And still, it can only occur in the case of heterosexual couples.

LOLOL!!! "Child is born". Thats procreation.

My arguments, duplicated in the cited court cases, and have been very successful in the courts. I could care less if you thought they were "cogent".

 

??? Some kind of simplistic view that the constitution doesnt allow discrimination between people? You really dont have a clue.

 

....... so bigots yelling death to the homosexuals is an argument against? lol

 

If procreation is irrelevant, don't mention it. Remove it from your argument.

If the survival of the species/race is irrelevant, don't mention it. Remove it from your argument.

What are you left with? Nothing.

 

You are logically clueless. Just because the issue of parenthood is discussed within the confines of marriage doesn't make it a condition of it. We can discuss the issue of prenuptual agreements, but it won't make it a condition of marriage. It is a potential element of it, but not an inherent condition of it. This is not an obscure distinction. This is elementary logic, grade school stuff. Why can't you see it is you that is conflating these ideas as one. It simply is stating what will happen if a circumstance appears within a marriage, not that it should or must or that it is proscribed in any way. It is simply the result of an "if".
If two gays, or infertile straights for that matter, are married, it simply means this issue won't come up. What more point to your statute can you make? It simply isn't relevant to the discussion. It's a red herring argument. I don't see anyone else using it to make their case. There is a reason for this.

 

??? I didnt say it was irrelevant. I said it wasnt a requirement. Working on the next strawman already?

 

No one claimed it was a condition. STEP AWAY from the strawmen....if you can.

 

So if it is not a requirement, then that eliminates the legal, constitutional argument, as the COTUS is simply the foundation of our laws. So that is out, by your reckoning.
How is it then relevant, without making a religious argument?

 

Ok, we agree with it not being a condition. So what point do you think you are making with your chronic posting about paternity? You post it and act as if you have made some stunning revelation. How is that statute relevant to the discussion? You refuse to lay out an argument for the connection.

 

You post a lengthy list of court cases which mention procreation and survival of the species and expect everyone to understand that those are your positions.

Then clearly state your position or move on.

 

To review for those with an abundance of emotion and hormones and little else

aaaaaand now here is where you again proclaim "marriage legally has nothing to do with procreation" and convince yourself youve made an argument.

 

?????uuuuuh yeah, especially when I directly state that they mirror my positions.

 

So for the umpteenth time, what does the paternity statute have to do with this discussion? I ask you to lay out your argument, not simply repetitiously post this inane bit of legalese. What do you think it has to do with this discussion?

 

Actually, it doesnt even impact my argument, let alone eliminate it. Like I said, my arguments dont contain a requirement of procreation.

And included were no less than TWO court cases DIRECTLY addressing this point, and its like you people didnt even read it. Or could you not comprehend it?

Correct, there is no requirement of procreation in marriage. And it has no effect whatsoever on my arguments.

 

Which words didnt you understand?

"And it is the law.... that melds the two concepts together"

 

I could have posted those two quotes to support MY position. Both say procreation is irrelevant, and neither provides any other justification for refusing gays the opportunity to marry.
Glad to see we agree.

 

I addressed that before and you refused to acknowledge it. It no more conjoins the concepts as do prenuptual agreement law conjoin them. It is an "if this, then that" proposition, and does not preclude "if not this, then that". It doesn't eliminate anything. It is self contained and indicates nothing in regard to gay marriage. Your logic is simply poor. It's bad thinking, but you can't see your way out. If you think you have made a point, you're right. The point is you have never mastered critical thought. You are reaching a completely erroneous conclusion from the statute.
I am in awe of you. Stunned.
Where is your cavalry, rushing to support your twisted logic? Have they already seen what an absurd mess your making of this?

 

Then you have just contradicted yourself by your use of ambiguous one liners.

 

I suppose there is a bit of ambiguity here.

If you are trying to say that the constitution does not forbid citizens from discriminating against each other, then you are correct, it does not. However, even if it did, it would still happen, so this point is moot.

If you are trying to say that the constitution does not forbid the government from discriminating against/between its citizens, then you are absolutely incorrect. The 14th amendment expressly forbids it.

The phrase you used, "constitutional discrimination", implies that the constitution specifically encourages or allows certain types of discrimination - which is certainly incorrect. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but that's how it reads.



I'm not at all surprised that you completely ignored all the important points of my response, and instead focused only on this. You aren't clever. It's very easy to tell when people run out of arguments (valid or not).

 

You dont have a clue. There is a vast body of law defining exactly when and in what ways government can discriminate between people. The laws are full of distinctions that discriminate between different groups of people.
Using your ignorant logic, discriminating between the married and unmarried would be unconstitutional.

 

Ah, we've been talking about completely different things.

"Discrimination" against certain groups of people who do not meet specific criteria to be eligible for various benefits or privileges, is completely different than truly discriminating against someone for an inherent right based on an aspect of who they are (e.g. race, sex, etc).

See, this whole discussion relates to discrimination based a person's sex. Therefore, the point you are trying to make above is just more irrelevant sophistic nonsense.

Try to keep up.

 

You still dont have a clue. We are talking about the same thing and "gay" isnt a "sex"

 

Don't be daft. Your buddy RPA1 keeps trying to use that argument and it gets handily shot down every time.

You people need new arguments, you literally don't have a single one left that has any validity.


EDIT: Hmm, I may be referring to discussions in this thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/203408-homosexual-marriage.html
The two are very similar and I may be getting them confused.

In any case, of course "gay" isn't a sex", but that isn't the issue. The issue is that a man cannot marry another man and a woman cannot marry another woman (all sex). Technically, a man or woman need not be gay to marry someone of the opposite sex. I'll admit that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, but it is still a logical truth.