What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples #2?

Dixion, explain how incest represents the relationship marriage is based upon.

 

His advocacy for SSM alone has nothing to do with what you claim he said.

Did he actually say he believes that the people involved in your mother and daughter scenario do not deserve government support to jointly raise a child? Because we've been through all of this before, and established that no one actually said what you claimed they said. You set up the strawman convinced of a particular outcome, and apparently couldn't seem to understand that the reaction you anticipated/were fishing for never manifested itself...

I'm guessing what he said was that marriage was founded as a "romantic" institution to connect two unrelated people who wish to form a lifelong bond. Actually marriage was founded to give women protection and food/shelter, and the man someone to "own", as though property, one or MORE women, and to have them answer their beck and call in nearly every way. THAT'S how it was founded. Nothing like the "equal partnership" of today.

 

I never claimed it was. Step away from the strawmen if you can.

 

Yeah, thats why i quoted what he said about homosexuals instead.

 

You're rallying rather fervently for the ability to marry your brother.

Surely you must believe that marriage should, has, or is therefore based upon incestuous relationships? Or do you seek to change the fabric of the traditional marriage.

After such harsh words for those seeking ssm I surely wouldn't expect you do to such a thing.

 

You mean when he rightly characterised your brother-brother scenario as not being the type of relationship marriage was founded on?

That's not the same as saying "marriage was founded on same-sex relationships".

 

Its OBVIOUS you havent comprehended a thing Ive written. Extending marriage to homosexuals, renders the denial of marriage to my brother, OR ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, unconstitutional. Rights cant simply be "Awarded to Hmosexual Couples" because they happen to be homosexuals, without SOME rational justification.

 

Nooooo, my brother and I arent homosexuals.

 

I don't believe that anymore, coming from you.

 

That's irrelevant.

You seem to believe that you should be able to marry him regardless of your biological relation.

Thus you must believe that marriage is based upon incest.

 

We have provided all the rational justification needed. We are waiting for the anti gay crowd to do the same.

 

It's funny how you once said that a ruling legalising SSM would not constitutionally require/automatically legalise all other forms of marriage between consenting adult "couples". It's the complete opposite of what you're saying now...

 

Nope. EVERY SINGLE JUSTIFICATION offered in support of marriage rights "Awarded to homosexuals" was instead a justification for marriage to be awarded to any two consenting adults who desire it and none of you has offered even one justification unique to gays. In other words, rights "Awarded to homosexuals", simply because they are homosexual.

 

???? No, you simply cannot even comprehend what I have written. Seems to be a frequent problem with you. The courts awarding marriage rights to homosexuals would argue that the animus motivating the restriction to heterosexuals is only directed towards homosexuals and not these other "forms of marriage", so they would have no constituional rights to marriage. The same fiction that creates rights to marriage for homosexuals would limit it to homosexuals.

 

Any two consenting adults should be able to marry, but marriage between family members would be seen as reasonably withheld. There is no contradiction in allowing SSM but not "incestuous" marriage.

 

And marriage isn't awarded to straight people simply because they are straight?

 

You know what he'll say...

"Marriage is not awarded to people because they are straight, but because they procreate. The BEST environment to raise a child is one where both biological parents are present. Gays simply spread HIV"

 

But you're saying Constitutionally... it should open up marriage to all other "couples" such as family members. In YOUR view, what you see as the correct view, it does Constitutionally require it. You said before it renders it Unconstitutional. I made no reference to any Judge's ruling.

 

Funny how they still support adoption, huh? The best environment for a kid is not a biological mother and father at all.

They should just admit that they don't believe gays should marry because they are gay, and gays shouldn't be allowed to have children because they are gay.

 

Correct. It is instead because only straight people make babies whose wellbeing the government is concerned with. If you want to seperate the institution of marriage from procreation, youll need some justification for keeping it connected to sex. Some governmental interest that is only served in the case of sexual couples. ANY suggestions? Any two people can form stable households. Any two people can adopt children. The only connection sex has to heterosexual marriage is that it leads to procreation and children in need of stable homes.

 

No, sorry, as has been pointed out neither the ability nor willingness to procreate is required for marriage. Thus the purpose of marriage is not procreation.

Try again.

 

No, gay couples simply, biologically wont be creating any children. Yes, they rub genitals just like a real mom and dad but it isnt the rubbing of genitals gives rise to a governmental concern, and it is instead a concern that arises when heterosexual rub genitals, children are frequently the result. Children that can benefit from being born into a home with both their mother and father to provide and care for them and children that can benefit from a more stable home.

What possible governmental interest would only be served in the case of sexual couples that wouldnt also be served in the case of non sexual couples. In the case of heterosexual marriage, ONLY men and women become husbands and wives who can become mothers and fathers to their children. Two 18 yr old boys who bone each other in the butt, wanting to form a stable household together, are no differently situated than ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS who might want to form a stable household. With one exception, heterosexual couples who have the capacity to create children who can benefit from both stable homes and the benefit of the presence of both their mother and father to provide and care for them.

 

No, sorry, as the COURTS and I have repeatedly pointed out, neither is relevant to the constitutionality of marriages restriction to heterosexuals.

Try again. Court case opinions have more precedential value than the opinions of frustrated homosexuals, desparate to ape their heterosexual counterparts.