Virginia Gay marriage Ban Unconstitutional

The limitation of marriage to men and women has everything to do with the potential of procreation that only couples made up of men and women posses. Marriage has nothing to do with "The ability to procreate" of an individual couple.

 

The limitation to men and women is wriitten into the law, not the reasons you "personally" chose to marry. I know a woman who married a man more than twice her age to gain access to his wealth. Why she "personally" married has nothing to do with why government licenses and regulates the relationship.

- - - Updated - - -

The majority is also restricted to marrying someone of the opposite sex.

 

Nor should it. Marriage is up to the two people who wish to get married. The reasons are none of the state's business.

This again? Go read a court decision. ANY court decision.

- - - Updated - - -

Baloney. Marriage exists because so many people have always wanted to make lifelong personal emotional commitments. DROP the procreation canard, it's not fooling anyone anymore.

 

You are the only one going on about why YOU "personally" got married. Im the one who said it is irrelevant.

 

I was only illustrating the inanity of your excuses. They are simply wrong.

 

Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry

 

Your personal reasons why you got married are irrelevant to why government licenses and regulates the relationships

 

Why does the government issue licenses to people who declare no intention of marrying, those who have have undergone hysterectomies or irreversible surgery to ensure they can never have kids, post-menopausal women, the naturally infertile?

Think individually, don't give me that "we don't know which couples will reproduce, only that those who do will be heterosexual couples nonsense". WHY does the government issue licenses to the aforementioned couples when they have nothing to do with the purported sole-aim of reducing the number of absent fathers?

It is within the state's theoretical power to impose an upper age limit, to ban the infertile and post-menopausal, to have couples signal that they intend to procreate before being bestowed a host of legal rights and benefits.

 

Your delusions carry less weight than my personal experienes. They are a perfect illustration of why you are wrong.

 

Its the historical record, not my delusions.

 

Assuming you meant to say no intention of procreating, because most pregnancies are to women, fathered by men, both who had no intention of procreating. Government has just as much interest in the well being of children from unplanned pregnancies as they do children from planned pregnancies. I suspect a large portion of single mothers who give birth today, had not "intention" of procreating. And of course, there really is no issue with unplanned in vitro fertilization, or adoption. And if a married gay man causes an unplanned pregnancy or a married lesbian has an unplanned pregnancy, their spouse has no legal relation or obligation to the child. Isnt all of this self evident? Wasn't to many decades ago that it was against the law for a man to have sex with a woman that wasn't his wife. Or the Lovings in Loving V Virginia arrested for living together as husband and wife without a valid marriage. Prohibiting a man and woman from living together because they don't intend to procreate, would only lead to people lying about their intentions in order to get the marriage license required to live together.

Because its impossible to identify with any accuracy, the ability of a couple to procreate. Many a couple trying for years to get pregnant, are told by medical science they do not know why they haven't procreated. I know a couple who adopted two children after trying for 10 years to have a baby, only to have a third child from an unplanned pregnancy. And as above, in the past, government couldn't prohibit a man and woman from living together because they cant procreate.
And, before government decided to glom onto marriage as a good thing, thousands of years culture, tradition, societal norms and religion condemned sexual relations between men and women that were not married. What business would government have in preventing people from fulfilling these societal norms.

???? Do you dispute the assertion?

 

Repeatedly refuted.

None of which is in any way a valid justification to exclude same sex couples.

Of course, because it's patently false.

 

String together a few words and make your argument, if you can.

 

yeah, because Gorn Captain is championing marriage equality for traditional Mormons and Muslims, and for people who love their siblings - oh wait.

So since you don't support their kinds of marriages, that means Gorn Captain is a flaming racist who supports Jim Crow, right? Come on dude.

- - - Updated - - -

not entirely. Procreation is the basis on which we deny marital rights to siblings, even if they're infertile.

 

I've refuted every argument you've ever made. Just reminding you when you mindlessly repeat the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

- - - Updated - - -

The major factor in sibling marriage is the possibility of coercion. Detrimental genetic birth defects only take place in repeated inbreeding,

 

Possibility of coercion? ^_- you mean to suggest that coercion is only possible in marriage between siblings, first, and that secondly the possibility of coercion in -a form- of marriage is grounds for banning all marriages of that type?

Dude that's crazy. That's like saying this one guy became gay because he was raped as a child, so we should band gay marriage. !?!?!? There's a logical disconnect.

 

One giant strawman

 

You have the silly thoughts bouncing around in your head, I have evidence.


The justification often given for the incest taboo is the impact of inbreeding on the children of incestuous sex. Children whose biological parents have a close genetic relationship have a greatly increased risk of congenital disorders, death and disability at least in part due to genetic diseases caused by the inbreeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

Of course, in your mind, no amount of evidence can refute the silly ideas bouncing around in your head. Thats what elevates it to a delusion.

 

You're not smart enough to realize you didn't contradict anything I said, and it's hilarious

 

I DIRECTLY contradicted BOTH of your assertion. "The justification often given for the incest taboo is the impact of inbreeding on the children of incestuous sex.". Lets see even ONE published source claiming it is instead because of coercion.

 

You're not smart enlightenment to realize you did to contradict anything I said, and it's hilarious.

 

You're not smart enough to construct a sentence. The wikipedia page contradicts both your assertions.

 

"The major factor in sibling marriage is the possibility of coercion."

Not really. You're going to provide a better explanation than 'nut uh!'

 

No it doesn't.

 

Your post was a strawman. I never made the arguments you suggested.