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

Actually it means in 44 states you cant marry someone of the same sex. Pretending wont make it go away.

 

States used to claim that interracial marriage was a afront to god and that it should be illegal.....doesn't make it true just because states hads laws against it.

 

Actually, nowhere in all 50 states is procreation a requirement. Which is what makes your argument meaningless

 

My argument doesnt involve a requirement of procreation and none of the dozens of court cases upholding the constituionality of heterosexual marriage involved a requirement of marriage. Your point is meaningless in courts of law. I couldnt care less what you thought was meaningless. Especially with your fascination with irrelevancy.

 

Your dog can't sign a legal contract, so good luck with that one...

The point is that just because an outside womb or semen is employed does not take away the fact that two people of the same-sex have come together to create a life that would not exist otherwise. They ARE procreating, creating life where there would otherwise be none.

And you're right - any two consenting non-related adults CAN come together under 'marriage equality' - that's any combination of the two genders. There is no requirement by the state that married individuals must have sexual intercourse. No agency or department that "annuls" anything...

 

The judges who have ruled that procreation is the reason marriage is reasonably withheld to same-sex couples have issued hypocritical ruling based on the fact that sterile opposite-sex couples can still legally marry. That's why in the federal cases you're seeing rulings for SSM...

 

Revealing how you go straight to that which is irrelevant,

well, actually it is three or four people coming together to create a life AND it would apply to ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS, so you still have no justification for special treatment because they happen to be gay. Got anything relevant to the topic of discussion? Rights "awarded to homosexual couples". I didnt think so.

Actually in 44 states its limited to heterosexual couples. But you keep pretending if it helps you get through the day.

 

The question of basic eligibility to be able to consent to marriage is completely relevant to the subject of marriage Dixon.

Yes, any two consenting adults. Any combination of male or female. Sexual or non-sexual. All of these are permitted in the six states that allow SSM... No special treatment that I can see.

??? What are you talking about?

I know it's limited to opposite sex couples in 44 states. That's the problem. That's got nothing to do however with the fact that marriage equality - equality for any combination of genders in marriage - does not deny non-sexual couples of any configuration of marrying. The real hypocrisy is allowing sterile couples but not same-sex couples.

 

Where did you come to the amazing, contorted conclusion of a 'small handfull.' In your dreams maybe. I politely suggest you stick to facts and forget fairytales.

 

Oook, but we were speaking of procreation, not marriage.

No, they still annul marriages for a failure to consummate the relationship. Like the title of the thread, its rights "awarded to homesexuals". All four states with gay marriage mandated by court decisions, only awarded the rights of marriage to homosexuals. The right was based upon animus towards homosexuals. Special rights for homosexuals

 

???

This whole debate across multiple threads is centred around SSM... Don't play dumb. We're discussing the (ir)relevance of procreation in relation to marriage. You made a faulty comparison by bringing animals into it.

You just won't ditch your faulty premise will you? You've been told time after time after time after time.. that the state does not seek or impose annulment on non-sexual marriages. So the fact that it is possible for the couple and the couple ONLY to seek an annulment based on the absence of sexual activity means it has absolutely ZERO effect on the availability or incidence of platonic marriages. They are a reality all over the US, in all 50 states, and are in no way "illegal". There's no requirement, just a "way out" for the parties involved so to speak...

So drop that, and instead address the blatant hypocrisy and appeal to emotion behind the courts allowing sterile couples but not same sex couples the right to marry.

 

Obviously after a year, you do not yet, even comprehend my argument, the same argument made in the dozen cases I have cited. A requirement of procreation, isnt even an element of any aspect of our argument. To be quite honest, I cant even follow your fool logic that leads you to believe it is. Marriage isnt limited to heterosexual couples because all heterosexual couples procreate. It is instead because heterosexual couples are the only couples who procreate. Would you conclude that my ex wife did not take birth control pills for 4 years of heterosexual relations, because of the potential of procreation, when she found out a couple years later that she never had the physical capeability to procreate? Or will my analogy, only further confuse you?

Noooo, your losing about 40 to 4. Hard to say accurately. Most of these cases never get passed the lowest courts where they are dismissed, without any widely published opinions. Your argument was made to the Minn. suprerme court, then appealed to the Supreme court of the US, and they dismissed it as not even presenting a federal question. No US constitutional issue.

 

The post I was responding to was centered around the capacity to procreate.

 

..And it's relation to marriage silly

 

Then you admit it is a viewpoint fundamentally based upon gender/sexuality discrimination! The constitutionality of allowing ALL opposite-sex couples, regardless of procreative ability, the right to marriage, while simultaneously presenting procreative ability as the SOLE reason for limiting it to opposite-sex couples - is something that should be rightly called into question given the Equal Protection clause. I would say it almost certainly violates the Constitution, seeing as procreative ability has always been cited in the court cases - despite the fact that the institution of marriage is limited by gender instead of said ability. Same sex couples are after all identically situated to sterile opposite sex couples. If there is no reason to limit marriage to opposite sex couples other than procreative ability, then you must either allow same-sex marriage or exclude all those who are incapable of procreation. Simple.

 

Youve only argued for extending it to homosexual couples. Like the 4 state court cases that mandated it be extended to include homosexual couples. Or the most recent Cal. federal case

 

You two dont have a clue about Constitutional law. You just want marriage for gays.

 

You haven't been able to present a case as to why homosexuals should not be extended the right of marriage.

Your argument based on procreation defeats itself.

Everything else has been a diversion attempt.

 

Actually, since there is no requirement to BE gay, it's about removing the gender-based discrimination so anyone can marry a member of their own sex. Since you think "gays" are invented anyway, and the mindset in mutable, it is definitely something that should in your view have the potential serve everyone...

Of course the reality is that marriage is the sole preserve of heterosexuals in 44 states, and so it is denied to homosexuals - meaning that one can marry who they love whereas the other cannot. It's still about making LGBT people equal to straight people in terms of their relationships, not "special".

 

Actually, I and the dozen court cases Ive cited ALL presented the case. As a gay man you have difficulty accepting this reality

 

Nope. Specifically to gays because the animus is supposedly directed toward gays. Not gender discrimination but instead declared to be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. You havent read any of the court case exerpts Ive provided, have you.

 

I know what the judges in those cases ruled. Do I agree? Absolutely not. Has the judicial system only ever ruled against SSM rights? Nope. You'll find the most up to date ones favour it.

Seriously, you cited a case based on a now-scrapped 1950's law requiring marriage before procreation. Talk about faulty premises...

It is in reality both a generalisation and a form of hypocritical discrimination based on the genders of the participants, due to the nature of the arguments put forth.

Marriage should NOT be limited to opposite-sex couples because they are the only ones who can reproduce - this is a grossly unfair/unconstitutional generalisation. If it's going to be limited at all it should be limited to couples who can reproduce because they are the only ones who can reproduce. Otherwise the equal protection clause may aswell be thrown out the window.