Gay Marriages Should Be Denied.

Gay marriages should be prohibited.

Make your BEST arguments against homosexual people being married with benefits EQUAL to those in heterosexual marriages.

If you can back your views with facts, that would be best.

 

Gay marriages arent prohibited. The government simply does not endorse or recognize them. Two guys boning each other in the butt doesnt give rise to any governmental concern.

 

While you are certainly absolutely correct, if I may present, in a respectful manner, an alternative viewpoint.

I think adults should live their life as they see fit with zero interference form the government. If two adult men or adult two women wish to be married to each other, I don't think it is the concern of anyone other than them.

 

I got nothin' on this issue.

 

Make it more interesting, request non-religious argument against gay marriage.

Ironically, the religious arguments make more sense than the supposed non-religious arguments.

 

And how about when they decide to dissolve that marriage? Is the government to avoid interfering in the dissolution as well?

 

To the extent of the same as any other marriage.

 

Biology and the constitution.


Quote:
heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple



Quote:
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.


Quote:
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation


Quote:
i]t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.


Quote:
In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.....

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....

And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....


Quote:
Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment


Quote:
In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.


Quote:
"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

And Genesis is a historical reference, not a religious one.

 

??? You are talking about all marriages. No "other" marriages to compare them to.
How about when they decide to dissolve that marriage? Is the government to avoid interfering in the dissolution as well?

 

Children are not a requirement of marriage.

Try again.

 

No where in any of the 8 quotes will you find a reliance upon a requirement of procreation in any argument. And two of the quotes directly address your argument that relies upon the absence of a requirement of procreation.

 

We have already done this.

You cite procreation as being associated with marriage, then turn around and say procreation has nothing to do with marriage.

What is your argument?

 

As opposed to a requirement of marriage like you all allege.

NEVER said procreation has nothing to do with marriage. MARRIAGE DOES NOT REQUIRE PROCREATION, NOR DOES PROCREATION REQUIRE MARRIAGE.
And my argument is succinctly stated in the 8 quotes. Got anything relevant to what YOU decised to respond to?.......I didnt think so.

 

So, procreation is not a requirement to marriage.

But can be associated with it. Like drinking wine, watching movies, and tube socks.

Your argument means absolutely nothing, unless procreation is required, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Gay marriage, abortion, drugs, prostitution, and locking homophobic idiots in the trunk of your car till they cry like little girls...should all be legal

 

Man alive Dixon!......you are like a moth to a flame with these anti gay threads.

Who caused you so much pain over gays getting married? Where does all this come from?.....nobody is that concerned about who can get married or not...

 

No, its a little more closely "associated" than that.

 

Irrelevant. Many married couples do not have children. Children is not a requirement.

What other arguments do you have?

 

So what then?

 

Like I said, none of my arguments rely upon a requirement of procreation, soooo not sure what you are babbling on about now. Yes the marriage laws are overinclusive. Whats your point? Does nothing for your argument, seeking to make it even more overinclusive by including homosexuals.

Quote:
In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....


Quote:
Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment

 

I pointed out to you literally weeks ago, that your tendency to INCLUDE the aspect of "procreation", would cause most of your arguments to be associated CLOSELY with the same. That being the case, I and most other people participating here have rightly determined that "procreation" IS a major (but ineffective) component of all of your argument.

Do you think that EVERYONE is just dismissing "procreation" as being irrelevant, because they can't talk about or handle it? In fact, it has already been discussed and understood that scores of gay relationships lead to adoptions or babies being born.

With you, it is like all the other people are talking about 'food'... but you keep bringing up 'politics'. Yes, those two things can be associated, but I guarantee you that if I'm discussing a Big Mac, I'm not going to use that to win an argument over OWS.

Procreation is a possible factor in many relationships; but it doesn't need to be mentioned in a discussion on "Gay Marriage" as much as you tend to mention it.

So, everyone is correct to ask you show where your excessive mentioning of "procreation" makes sense, or is 'relevant' at all.

 

I find it amusing you say one thing and cite another.

 

It IS a bit of a show, isn't it? I must admit, I have secretly enjoyed watching dixon dance around the incessant mention of "procreation".

 

Separate civil rights from the financial benefit of marriage. Eliminate child tax deduction, married filing jointly tax deductions, healthcare benefits for married couples and inheritance laws for married couples outside of a will.

If gay people still want to get married, marry away. Until then, perhaps I am being discriminated against financially for being single?

 

How about we don't change a fraking thing... and we let gay people marry anyway?

I say "eliminate" the bigoted stupidity!