interesting on-campus findings by former homosexuals

Precisely. Marriage was a system for first class citizens to take ownership of second class citizens to bare their children, often through arranged marriages. In this system, the men were often allowed (or at least turned a blind eye to) to sleep around with other women, prostitutes and the like, who's children they didn't have to concern themselves with, while their wife (property) was expected to be "faithful".

It was a system of OWNERSHIP that is dramatically different from the legal and cultural significances we have today. There would be no need or want for two of the same sex, two of equal social status, to marry under that cultural significance, and it's rather ridiculous to discuss marriage today as if it hasn't changed dramatically in highly relevant ways. Marriage today is entrenched in our culture and legal systems, it is something that our children look up to to emulate without a perception of "ownership", and is relevant regardless of gender. How you think this comparison to the past is relevant is beyond me, unless you are proposing we bring elements of the past back... laws against adultery, for example. Or how about something new like concerning yourselves with the child molesters who can marry axe murderers, and any other stripe of person who can't or shouldn't be reproducing. This application of the law is biased, and it has been ruled as such, nothing more to it.

 

Yep and since only a woman could bare a man a child, men married only women. NOT because they are not lesbians but instead because they have the potential of procreation.

 

No they are not. When the sperm donor surrenders all parental rights AND the married spouse voluntarily assumes all parental responsibilities, THEN they are both the legal parents. THAT is when a lesbian spouse becomes a parent. The quoted above portion of the California statute would have no application in the case of two people of the same sex. First, because no man will ever give birth and becuase all lesbians are impotent. A husband with erectile dysfunnction is not presumed to be the father and neither is a lesbian with no dick to get erect.

- - - Updated - - -

Equality under the law would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage. NOT "gay marriage"

 

The sperm donor surrendering all parental rights and the lesbian spouse voluntarily assuming all parental responsibilities, creates the parental obligation. Not the birth of the child or the marriage.

 

Correct. Your a little slow but catch on eventually. Its easy to detect the presence of a man and a woman. Impossible to detect the presence of the ability to procreate with any accurracy. Thats why only a man and a woman is required.

 

So then your argument that procreation is a requirement for marriage is a moot point. You have been refuted multiple times and even admit here that it is not a prerequisite for marriage, so why continue to bring it up as if it is somehow relevant when it so clearly is not?

 

and you've been repeatedly refuted.

- - - Updated - - -

not in any state. sex is not a requirement of marriage anywhere in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

repeatedly proven false.

 

directly refuted

 

refuted

- - - Updated - - -

but a man and woman isn't required.

 

To have a baby????

When did they change that rule?

 

you should try reading the thread. this way you can avoid making stupid comments.

 

Certainly not an argument I have EVER made. I'll wait here while you chase that strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

You should brush up on the biological requirements of procreation this way you can avoid making stupid comments

 

Great, so then you must have no problem with gay marriage since procreation is not a requirement for marriage.

Unless you have some other reason outside of the procreation argument for being against gay marriage?

 

Marriage is limited to heterosexual couples because only heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation. If you want to extend marriage to "gay" couples, youve lost any justification you had from resricting any two consenting adults who wish to marry. Cant have such special treatment for gays, without some justification for doing so. The loudness of their demands doesnt justify ignoring basic Equal Protection guaranteed by the constitution.

 

we're talking about marriage, and how procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

- - - Updated - - -

marriage isn't limited to heterosexuals. procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

strawman

 

Like I said-I have pointed to several court cases that say otherwise- and of course that is logical in any marriage law that treats all genders legally equally.

- - - Updated - - -

Save me the faux outrage about equality.

You are against anything that makes marriage more 'equal'

In the 1960's, marriage laws became more equal when the bans against inter-racial marriage were eliminated.

Now, marriage laws are becoming more equal because bans against same gender marriages are being eliminated.

IF you want marriage to become 'more equal' by expanding marriage to include other couples- then argue for that.

But you are for less equality- for the groups you cry crocodile tears for- and for same gender couples.

Stop with this false and hypocritical argument that same gender marriage is 'discriminatory' when same gender marriage expands the universe of potential marriages, not decreases it.

 

No you havent. Youve pointed to court cases where the sperm donor surrendered all parental rights and spouses of the mother who voluntarily assumed all parental obligations. The portion of the statute I referred to contains neither.

Thats because RACE has no rational relation to the governmental interest in the wellbeing of children. Whereas the sex of the parties that make up the couple does so

 

nope. he directly refute this

procreation remains irrelevant to who can marry.

 

What silliness. I copied and pasted the statute. Just what is it you think has been refuted.

 

Like I said-I have pointed to several court cases that say otherwise- and of course that is logical in any marriage law that treats all genders legally equally.

- - - Updated - - -


Quote Originally Posted by dixon76710 View Post
N
Equality under the law would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage. NOT "gay marriage"
Save me the faux outrage about equality.

You are against anything that makes marriage more 'equal'

In the 1960's, marriage laws became more equal when the bans against inter-racial marriage were eliminated.

Now, marriage laws are becoming more equal because bans against same gender marriages are being eliminated.

IF you want marriage to become 'more equal' by expanding marriage to include other couples- then argue for that.

But you are for less equality- for the groups you cry crocodile tears for- and for same gender couples.

Stop with this false and hypocritical argument that same gender marriage is 'discriminatory' when same gender marriage expands the universe of potential marriages, not decreases it.

 

Not a one of them. YOU relied on a report from the state legislature stating what they SHOULD do. The portion of the paternity statute dealing with sperm donors and artificial insemination can be applied equally in the case of heterosexual or homosexual couples. The portion of the statute I quoted has no application in the case of same sex couples.

 

Like I said-I have pointed to several court cases that say otherwise- and of course that is logical in any marriage law that treats all genders legally equally.

- - - Updated - - -


Quote Originally Posted by dixon76710 View Post
N
Equality under the law would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage. NOT "gay marriage"
Save me the faux outrage about equality.

You are against anything that makes marriage more 'equal'

In the 1960's, marriage laws became more equal when the bans against inter-racial marriage were eliminated.

Now, marriage laws are becoming more equal because bans against same gender marriages are being eliminated.

IF you want marriage to become 'more equal' by expanding marriage to include other couples- then argue for that.

But you are for less equality- for the groups you cry crocodile tears for- and for same gender couples.

Stop with this false and hypocritical argument that same gender marriage is 'discriminatory' when same gender marriage expands the universe of potential marriages, not decreases it.

 

your argument

 

Nope. She is the presumed father because-

Elisa actively consented to, and participated in, the artificial insemination of her partner with the understanding that the resulting child or children would be raised by Emily and her as coparents, and they did act as coparents for a substantial period of time. Elisa received the twins into her home and held them out to the world as her natural children. She gave the twins and the child to whom she had given birth the same surname, which was formed by joining her surname to her partner's. The twins were half siblings to the child to whom Elisa had given birth. She breast fed all three children, claimed all three children as her dependents on her tax returns, and told a prospective employer that she had triplets. Even at the hearing before the superior court, Elisa candidly testified that she considered herself to be the twins' mother….

"One who consents to the production of a child cannot create a temporary relation to be assumed and disclaimed at will, but the arrangement must be of such character as to impose an obligation of supporting those for whose existence he is directly responsible."….


Elisa B was held to be the presumed parent because-

(d) (S)He receives the child into his home and openly holds out the
child as his natural child.

AND NOT under

7540. Except as provided in Section 7541, the child of a wife
cohabiting with her husband, who is not impotent or sterile, is
conclusively presumed to be a child of the marriage.

which has no applicability in the case of two people of the same sex becuase there isnt a husband and a wife. And because lesbians are impotent.

 

Did you not just admit that procreation is not a prerequisite for who can marry? Even the POTENTIAL for procreation is not a prerequisite. You have no case here.