Gay Marriages Should Be Denied.

Because Wolverines Comment I was responding to was also in the present

 

A black person is just as capable as a white person to vote. Any couple other than a heterosexual couple is not capable of procreating. Very easily distinguished.

 

From a moral standpoint, that is the combined moral and cultural traditions of most every society since recorded history, gay marriage is just as righteous as any ceremony invovling beastiality.

 

Concepts of righteousness belong in the religious domain not in the secular world. If people want to exclude others from their religious order on the basis of their sexuality etc. that's up to them. There are plenty of other orders, religious and non-religious, that will accept them but access to the law belongs to everybody not just people who think and believe a certain way.

None of this has anything to do with "ceremonies", this has everything to do with the rights afforded by a secular, legal contract and for the gazillionth time, animals cannot consent to legal contracts.

 

Religion isn't what American laws should be based upon.

And if we were to honor religion as strictly in all things as you and others suggest, a LOT of people on Wall Street would be up for severe punishment about now.

Of course religion is restrictive; and there are many within it, that make no real sense whatsoever (not in today's context, especially).

 

Those states didn't think so, so shouldn't it have stayed the same?

Infertile heterosexual couples can't procreate...... like homosexuals..... oh wait, you just invoked procreation again!

How predictable.

 

I just posted your direct quote dixon.
here it is again..........

everyone can see who is full of (*)(*)(*)(*) around here.

 

I'm saving the "permalink" of that quote.

 

Like platonic couples, like closely related couples, like any couple made up of any two consenting adults. Why the special treatment for homosexual couples?

 

nobody is advocating for special treatment for gays. We know it's one of your favorite strawmen though.

 

Fabricated quote

Actual quote

Where are you getting lost? Or just too dishonest to admit your dishonesty.

 

everyone can see who is full of (*)(*)(*)(*) dixon. Thanks for pointing it out again . Why you think it makes you look better, by posting the proof your a liar, is hilarious though.

 

No, you just keep repeating that you have.

 

You have no valid argument against laws being changed to allow homosexuals to marry. Most anyone who can read, would understand why I say that.

The things you say here, are just amusing noise which bounces around in this forum; an amusing catalyst for generating activity or entertainment. Even so, you have no real argument against gay marriage.

 

Please provide proof that every heterosexual couple can procreate. If you cannot, you can throw your argument out the window.

 

While you are amused, my arguments prevent you from marrying your boyfriend in 44 states in the REAL world.

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."

 

Doesnt even have an effect upon my argument, let alone throw it out the window. And nowhere in Australia can you marry someone of the same sex, for the same reason.

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

 

nope, I've shown over and over that I have.

 

This non-issue will continue to generate pointless arguments until we abolish marriage as a legal institution. I dont see why it should be the job of government to regulate personal relationships in this way. Marriage as a cultural tradition does not need this interference.

 

Because children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, higher rates of juvenile delinquincy, higher rates of drug addiction, higher rates of teenage pregnancies and higher drop out rates. Many of them end up on government assistnce.

 

My statement

Your so called "proof"

You just showed it can be easy to determine the INABILITY to procreate. Still impossible to determine the ABILITY to procreate with any accuracy. Many a couple have tried for years to procreate without success and medical science is not able to determine why it is they havent procreated.

 

I just do not understand why anyone cares if the gov't recognizes SS marriage. It would have little if any bearing on anybody elses lives except for those who are a part of the family unit.

 

I have a problem with government using tax breaks and governmental entitlements to encourage behavior that provides no benefit to society other than helping those who engage in such behavior feel better about themselves.

 

which is entirely irrelevant to the post you quoted and responded to. govn't limiting marriage to heterosexuals, hasn't had an effect on single mothers.