can someone explain to me why Gay marriage is an issue?

We're talking about the nature of the relationships themselves... You know, the bit that marriage concerns. Identically situated in term of procreative ability. No procreation without outside help.

 

no need to dream. It's all here in black and white. Your argument is destroyed. It's actually self defeating, all I and others have done was point it out.

 

It wouldn't be if the people pushing for it would just drop it.

 

People won't "drop it" because many see it as the civil rights struggle of today. Most Americans know gay people as their friends, relatives or colleagues and wouldn't like to see them denied the benefits they enjoy. It isn't going to go away because people see a NEED to change the law. And the harder opponents push back, the greater galvanised the cause.

The exact same could be said for opponents: it wouldn't be an issue if people against it would just drop their opposition.

 

But we oppose to special rights for gays.
Opposition to special rights is kind of opposition to dictatorship.

 

You really believe that altering the legal definition of marriage from "a man and a woman" to "two persons" creates "special rights"...?? Despite the fact you're removing gender-based discrimination and making it accessible to any combination of the sexes?

We're just revisiting old ground here. If it "special rights" why are heterosexuals granted them? What's that... to regulate their offspring?

Then why are sterile couples offered something that going by your logic would not involve them? The only answer you have involves gender discrimination and violates the equal protection clause.

 

The only problem is that, no one has been able to show where exactly we have gender based discrimination.
If marriage laws target opposite sex couples, where have you found gender based discrimination?
Sorry but you are trying to force people to believe in blatant nonsense.
Sterile couples have NOTHING to do with marriage for the simple reason that NO ONE KNOWs 100% which couple will be sterile.

As ANY law, marriage regulation applies to PROSPECTIVE couples, not to retrospective.
And since no one knows for sure what kind of couples will be formed in future, marriage law separates opposite sex couple form ANY other couples, since only heterosexual couples need to be regulated and licensed.

 

Gay marraige is a political issue because politicians hold power over those wishing to marry by either giving a thumbs up or down. Of course, this only is in relation to financial perks that they dish out to those who marry. Why government is involved at all in marriage is the question. Should married people be given perks over those who are single? It is really insane if you think about it. Of course, they seem to like to have their dirty little fingers in pretty much everything, don't they? So run along now and petition them to see if you can marry and pay your $100 fine to get that little peice of paper saying you are married.

 

I'm sorry, but no, the law could be easily altered to reflect your stated purpose of marriage. It could be limited based on procreative ability like you claim marriage is. But it isn't, and resultantly a couple who are NO DIFFERENT to a gay couple are allowed to marry even though "they have nothing to do with marriage". You even admitted the hypocrisy in your own argument by acknowledging this. Sterile opposite sex couples can marry for no other reason than their sexuality/gender combination. This OBLITERATES the argument your putting forward. Don't you get it ?!

The fact it's NOT limited based on procreative ability legally means there's no basis to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

 

In other words, special rights for known sterile/barren couples prior to getting married (where medical records exist) for no other reason than their heterosexuality/gender combination and which don't make sense to the purpose of marriage...

 

And, by the way, I'm not proposing breaking up marriages once women hit the menopause and haven't had kids, or a medical discovery later on in the marriage... But when if prior to getting married there is KNOWLEGE of a natural inability to procreate, and they still marry, going by your logic those marriages should be invalidated.

 

Government has no obligation to take into account all possibilities irrelevant to the purpose of regulation.
Purpose of marriage not a procreation itself but licensing of heterosexual relationship, because product of such relationship affect whole society.

 

Yep, that is why marriage is limited to man and woman, because no one know what couples will be formed in future.
And since we can't predict future we cover whole group that potentially might affect the society.

 

lol, wow. Gay marriage compared to a dictatorship?

 

Not ALL heterosexual relationships do. That's a simple, undisputable fact that drives a stake right though the heart of your argument. Generally, no, it's not a concern, but if you allow one group who have nothing to regulate and not another, there's a problem.

 

Sure it does. Encouraging ALL heterosexuals to marry increases the number of children born to their married, mother and father present in the home to provide and care for their children and fewer chldren born to the alternative of one or none of their parents present in the home. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who physically have the capacity to procreate.

Encouraging homesxuuals to marry would NEVER increases the number of children born to their married, mother and father present in the home to provide and care for their children and fewer chldren born to the alternative of one or none of their parents present in the home.

 

Encouraging sterile couples to marry will NEVER increase the number of children born to their biological mothe and father. Again, the point stands. Again, you appear to be generalising based on sexuality and gender. You're dividing based on a person's orientation rather than on the reason you claim marriage serves. A same sex couple has the exact same potential for procreation as a sterile one, yet one can attain 1000's more rights than the other FOR NO REASON AT ALL!

"Because heterosexual reproduce" is not a good enough reason for allowing the taxpayer to fit the bill for this group based on that reason - especially when gay people who are IDENTICALLY SITUATED have to fit that bill and be simultaneously denied those rights.

 

Doesnt even scratch the surface of his argument. Instead of repeating the claim, again and again and again, using the thoughts bouncing around in your head as evidence, back up tour BS!....for a change.

 

Yeah, thats why I instead said "Encouraging ALL heterosexuals to marry increases the number of children born to their married, mother and father present in the home to provide and care for their children and fewer chldren born to the alternative of one or none of their parents present in the home."

 

seeing as how over 50% of marriages end in divorce, it looks as if your "justification" for allowing only heterosexuals to marry has failed.

 

No, it still increases the number of children born to their married, mother and father present in the home to provide and care for their children and fewer chldren born to the alternative of one or none of their parents present in the home. A divorce when a kid is two years old doesnt change the fact of the home he was born into.

 

no it doesn't, since over 50% of marriage end in divorce.

 

Ahhh, the 1971 decision that you admitted was based on a now-defunct law requiring marriage for procreation in 50's Oklahoma.

The Griswold rationale concerns privacy and this judgement goes so far as to invoke the word "offensive". As in it would be "offensive" to construct the law in a rational, consistent fashion that does not favour those who have, in effect, "nothing to regulate". It is the DUTY of the law to be free from passion - and in invoking a word like "offensive", the judge has revealed his apparent inability to do so.

Marriage is ALL about "government interference". The people are asking the government/state to get involved in their lives in exchange for certain rights. The government therefore reserves the right to select who should have a license for anything based on numerous criteria, provided its Constitutional of course.

But take a look a Driver's licenses, they can be withheld based on numerous factors, medical conditions ect.. Obviously the purpose there is safety, but since marriage is something which according to the anti-SSM crowd has a stated purpose (regulation of offspring and parental accountability), anything which has nothing to do with that purpose could be reasonably excluded. Yet the government has instead used a particular gender configuration and hence heterosexuality to qualify people for it to the exclusion of others, and therein lies the problem - not ALL heterosexuals procreate. Many enter marriage identically situated to same sex couples.

The fact that marriage licenses aren't, in fact, limited by procreational ability means that there is no legal, lawful basis to exclude same sex couples from it. Unless the law is altered to reflect this. Bringing up "history" is a way of admitting there is nothing within the law itself to maintain this kind of discrimination.

A more relevant and up to date case but a faulty conclusion nevertheless.

That's the court's opinion in this particular case but what it comes down to is actually admitting that rights are granted by "over-inclusiveness" for no other reason than the fact that sterile/barren couples happen to be in a heterosexual configuration. Such seemingly minor details mean EVERYTHING when it concerns the advantage of 1000's of rights over an identically situated configuration. It's a huge detail that's being conveniently swept under the rug.

 

An overstatement which has the impact of awarding a group (sterile/barren couples) 1000's of rights for no reason other than their heterosexuality. So you may aswell admit since there is no criteria for procreation that marriage amounts to special rights for heterosexuals for no other reason than being heterosexual.