Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it isn't. The argument has been raised that marriage is about procreation, so if a married couple opts to not have children, should they allowed to stay married?
Children, it's the single most significant reason why governments and societies all over the world support and endorse marriage.
It's so simple, men and women having sex will make babies, there are billions of examples of this, including you.
If a man and woman engage in sex, they will eventually make a baby, even if they are not intending to do so. Two gay men, or two lesbians will never make a baby, we do not assume otherwise, and we do not assume they will spontaneously adopt baby, even if they did not intend to do so.
We encourage men and women to get married, because we do not want a country filled with single parent bastards, who then burden the social welfare system.
There are going to be a very small minority of men and women who are both sterile, whose marriage will be without children, unless they adopt. But this is a very small minority.
We just assume all men and women will make babies, we cannot look at a couple and tell if they are sterile, so we just assume they are fertile. However, we know for a fact that two men can never make a baby.
what are you talking about any man can't marry another man not just a gay man.
If a consenting couple, no matter what the makeup of said couple is (as long as they are of legal consenting age), cannot get married, then the law does not apply equally.
This applies for homosexual marriage, incest marriage, and poly marriage.
what are you talking about any man can't marry another man not just a gay man.
and a gay man can marry any woman
Just like a black could marry a black and a white could marry a white under interracial marriage bans. Virginia argued that constituted equal treatment to the Supreme Court (they also argued the law was applied equally since it punished blacks and white equally). The Supreme Court soundly rejected that argument.
It's unconstitutional discrimination no matter how you look at it. If you don't consider sexual orientation, then it's simple sex based discrimination. You're discriminating as to who can avail themselves to the law on the basis of sex - purely and simply. If you consider sexual orientation and that gay people couple together and straight people couple together, then you're discriminating as to who can avail themselves to the law on the basis of sexual orientation. It's effective, real, harmful discrimination against homosexuals.
I'll ask you this. If New York rewrote its civil marriage laws today so that marriage was defined as between either two men or two women, would you argue that such a law does not violate the Constitution? Would it not be anti-heterosexual discrimination even though a straight man could marry any man and a straight women could marry any women?
If a consenting couple, no matter what the makeup of said couple is (as long as they are of legal consenting age), cannot get married, then the law does not apply equally.
This applies for homosexual marriage, incest marriage, and poly marriage.
is there any form of indecency your not in favor of.
If the whole country was as sick as you we most likely would have legalized bestiality with in your life time.
If a consenting couple, no matter what the makeup of said couple is (as long as they are of legal consenting age), cannot get married, then the law does not apply equally.
This applies for homosexual marriage, incest marriage, and poly marriage.
I disagree with what's in your parentheses. That too is unequal application of the law (I'd argue perfectly legal and Constitutional unequal application of the law though).
is there any form of indecency your not in favor of.
If the whole country was as sick as you we most likely would have legalized bestiality with in your life time.
Where are you coming from with this attack? The poster simply pointed out that gay marriage bans interracial marriage bans and incest marriage bans and pedophile/child marriage bans are all unequal application of the law. That's what we call a fact.
Just like a black could marry a black and a white could marry a white under interracial marriage bans. Virginia argued that constituted equal treatment to the Supreme Court (they also argued the law was applied equally since it punished blacks and white equally). The Supreme Court soundly rejected that argument.
in regards to Loving there were 2 separate tracts of marriage one for black and one for whites, therefore it violated the "Equal Protection Clause".
in this case there is only one tract that "gays" have full access to so it is 100% OK with the Equal Protection Clause.
Quote:
It's unconstitutional discrimination no matter how you look at it. If you don't consider sexual orientation, then it's simple sex based discrimination. You're discriminating as to who can avail themselves to the law on the basis of sex - purely and simply. If you consider sexual orientation and that gay people couple together and straight people couple together, then you're discriminating as to who can avail themselves to the law on the basis of sexual orientation. It's effective, real, harmful discrimination against homosexuals.
please from now on argue that your in favor of 2 men marrying because you "think" it discriminates against "straight" men and woman.
I'm curious if you also think that rape laws discriminate against men?
Quote:
I'll ask you this. If New York rewrote its civil marriage laws today so that marriage was defined as between either two men or two women, would you argue that such a law does not violate the Constitution? Would it not be anti-heterosexual discrimination even though a straight man could marry any man and a straight women could marry any women?
it would be unconstitutional because it would also have 2 separate tracts of marriage.
men with other men
women with other woman
so this would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
this wouldn't be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause
men with woman
because there's one tract for everyone.
Just like a black could marry a black and a white could marry a white under interracial marriage bans. Virginia argued that constituted equal treatment to the Supreme Court (they also argued the law was applied equally since it punished blacks and white equally). The Supreme Court soundly rejected that argument.
You are trying to compare apples and oranges, this is not about people's bigotry over skin color. Skin color makes no difference at all to whether or a man and woman can make a baby. It is not discrimination when we acknowledge the scientific fact that two men can never make a baby together.
When we have laws against a man marrying another man, or marrying a child, a sibling, a parent, or laws against polygamy, they have nothing to do with bigotry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
It's unconstitutional discrimination no matter how you look at it.
The Constitution does not bother entering into marriage, any laws dealing with marriage are purely matters left to each of the 50 sovereign states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33
If you don't consider sexual orientation, then it's simple sex based discrimination. You're discriminating as to who can avail themselves to the law on the basis of sex - purely and simply. If you consider sexual orientation and that gay people couple together and straight people couple together, then you're discriminating as to who can avail themselves to the law on the basis of sexual orientation. It's effective, real, harmful discrimination against homosexuals.
Government is an extension of the people in our society, it's the people who see the importance of married couples raising the best, next generation of children possible, for a healthy nation.
Children, it's the single most significant reason why governments and societies all over the world support and endorse marriage.
It's so simple, men and women having sex will make babies, there are billions of examples of this, including you.
If a man and woman engage in sex, they will eventually make a baby, even if they are not intending to do so. Two gay men, or two lesbians will never make a baby, we do not assume otherwise, and we do not assume they will spontaneously adopt baby, even if they did not intend to do so.
We encourage men and women to get married, because we do not want a country filled with single parent bastards, who then burden the social welfare system.
There are going to be a very small minority of men and women who are both sterile, whose marriage will be without children, unless they adopt. But this is a very small minority.
We just assume all men and women will make babies, we cannot look at a couple and tell if they are sterile, so we just assume they are fertile. However, we know for a fact that two men can never make a baby.
According to stats I just googled, 10 - 15% of couples are infertile. While that is a minority of couples, there are still more infertile couples than gay couples. Gay people only make up 4% of the pop according to most studies and not all of them are going to want to marry. Statistically, most couples who won't be having kids biologically are heterosexuals. Why are they allowed to get married, then? Why do they apparently get a pass? If getting married is really all about procreation, we should all have to get tested before marriage to ensure we are fertile, right?
please explain to me why the only form of debauchery you seem to be against is bestiality.
because if all of society was as sick as you that would be the next barrier to break by the next generation.
Excuse me? I and gay lovers are in favor of pedophilia? What a vicious and disgusting lie. Shame on you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
