Gays have the same rights as straight people

this is a self defeating argument

 

except the ability or intention to procreate is not required, so no they do not encourage it for procreation or child rearing.

 

This is false. Both my sister and I gave birth to children, as did many other couples I know. That is procreation. Our children are now adults and working in society. Why are they any different than children of a man/woman couple???

 

Yet many same sex couples raise children. Why are those families not encouraged by the government???

 

History is not accurate in many respects. For much of history the woman was considered to be the property of the man. This was often propagaged by religious beliefs. "Women" were often "given" to the man in arrainged marriages and that practice still continues in many places today. The woman is not an equal partner in the relationship and is not afforded equality under the law. They are basically slaves of the marriage as they often don't consent to it but instead are forced into the relationship. This remains quite common in Muslim societies today and, to a lesser extent, happens even in America in certian Mormon sects and other furndamentalist Christian groups.

In a society where "all people are created equal" the old definition of a woman being the property of the man in marriage no longer applies. Once equality is established and the marriage is based upon the mutual consent of adults then it is a partnership established by contract under common law. The merging of income, assets and liabilities requires the protection of the property Rights of the Individual under contract law which is based upon common law.

If a couple joins in a partnership, such as living together and sharing income, assets and liabilities, they are considered to be married under the common law. 10 states and the District of Columbia currently recognize common law marriage while the others either never recognized common law marriage or have since banned the recognition. All states recognize the partnership though under contract law.

If we look back at the 19th Century a significant number of marriages, especially during the expansion to the Western States, were common law marriages.

 

In a society dedicated to the inalienable Rights of the Individual and affording them the Liberty to exercise those Rights it is incombant upon the government to justify any infringements upon those Liberties. While an infringement upon Liberty can be pragmatically supported based upon the Protections of the Rights of others in society when such infringement is unrelated to the protections of anyone else's Rights an infringement cannot be rationalized.

As late as 1970 there were no laws that expressly denied marriage to same-gender couples in the United States. The laws which expressly denied same-gender couples the Right to marry all originated after 1971. It is incombant upon those that are responsible for these laws to establish a rational foundation for them based upon the protections of the Rights of others in society. To date no one's Rights have been violated by allowing same-gender marriage and no such possible violations have ever been identified.

What we really have a laws that infringe upon the liberty of same-gender couples with no rational foundation because these laws are not about protecting anyone's rights but instead are solely about violating the Rights of Individuals.

The day that opponents of same-gender marriage can show that their Rights are in anyway being violated by allowing same-gender couples to marry I'll pay attention. Until then all we have is an invidious infringement upon the Rights of the Individual that serves no ligitimate purpose or interest of government.

 

Thats because there is no requirement of the potential of procreation. Only a man and woman is required. And a man and woman is required, BECAUSE only a manand woman has the potential of procreation.

 

except that a not only a man and woman have the potential for procreation.

 

Why do we need government to "allow" us to act in the first place? I thought we were free. Are we not free? Have I been sold a bill of goods on all this freedom and liberty nonsense?

 

Some people, won't likely accept that. Still, I know you are correct.

 

The Constitution protects all freedom, does it not? Are we not "endowed with certain inalienable rights"?

 

Sexual attraction has nothing to do with it. It's simple legal parity in my view.

Numerical superiority. They call it "democracy." It's really nothing but mob rule.

 

You are fond of repeating this BS. California, 1872

Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage...

Just for fun, Since youve repetaed the claim, over and over and over again, dont you think its about time you share with us this law you imagined was created in 1971.

 

???? Yes, only a man and a woman can procreate. Same with all mammal species.

 

The way I read the 14th Amendment, the arbitrary stipulation to gender in the many and various marriage statutes is materially unconstitutional.

For my part, I'll argue that government has no business even defining marriage in the first place. But if it is, IOW, if we are going to allow government into this most personal and private part of citizens' lives, then it must do so without regard to arbitrary distinctions such as gender. The civil marriage contract is just that--a contract. And the law does not stipulate any requirements other than intent, legal capacity, consideration, and the absence of duress to lawfully execute a contract.

 

Just tell me why we should allow government to regulate marriage. I think marriage belongs to the people. What say you?

 

Neither of those cases possess legal capacity. Let's try to keep the discussion within the bounds of reality, OK?

 

The tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage ARE NOT inalienable rights, any more than the tax breaks and government entitlements given to the owners of small businesses are inalienable rights.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. However, you are not entitled to arbitrarily discriminate against your fellow citizens based solely on your opinion.

 

Nothing. What's equal protection under the law got to do with it, however? Everything.

 

You dont. You only need government for the tax breaks and governmental entitlements you want.

 

So if I poke my wife in the can then we're sexual perverts? And that should be grounds for our inalienable rights to be revoked?

 

You're assuming that I want those tax breaks and entitlements. But if we are going to hand them out, then those tax breaks and entitlements must be available to all consenting adult citizens without regard to arbitrary distinctions such as gender.

 

Noooo johnny, it is YOU who cannot accept that you and your boyfriend will never be able to procreate. And a marriage wont change that fact.

 

My wife and I sodomized each other just the other night. I guess that means we no longer deserve all our rights. I must have missed that part of the Constitution where it says sexual perverts can be deprived of their rights.