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.
maybe a constitutional amendment is needed to define marriage as a man and a woman.
What, another biases and discrimatory law like the defense of straight marraige only act? What reason is there to limit it to just a man and a woman? Forget the bible, forget procreation, they are moot points now.
What, another biases and discrimatory law like the defense of straight marraige only act? What reason is there to limit it to just a man and a woman? Forget the bible, forget procreation, they are moot points now.
Because its normal and procreation sustains cultures.
What part of "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." is unclear to you?
Homosexuals are persons. They live in states. States have legal protections called marriage. States can not deny homosexual persons equal protections of (marriage) laws.
Pedophiles are persons too, yet because of their deviant behavior their "rights" are restricted.
The 14TH Amendment was to guarantee citizenship to former slaves, not to legitimize deviant behavior.
Neither do 80-year-olds. Should they be forbidden to marry as well?
The traditional marriage model is based on nature's design for sexual reproduction.
That is, one male and one female.
The sexes exist, and exist in roughly equal numbers, because sexual reproduction exists and is always between one man and one woman.
If we choose to discard nature's model, we should replace it with something that makes sense in all cases.
The problem with selectively arguing against the traditional model (one man and one woman) while simultaneously arguing in favor of features of the old model (two unrelated parties) is that there is no reason to do so except to assert one is equivalent to the other when there is no credible and specific reason to do so.
If the standard that is to consistently define all marriages is only that it must be between no more or less than two individuals and that they must be consenting unrelated adults, then the question becomes why only two and for what specific reason must these two individuals be unrelated?
Two is the number of partners required for a traditional marriage between a man and a woman and is based on nature's design for sexual reproduction and the traditional family unit.
Since sexual reproduction is to be tossed out with the traditional marriage model, why would we limit the number of partners to the number needed for sexual reproduction?
If we are to argue that sexual reproduction is not a requirement for marriage, why would close relatives still be prohibited from marrying?
What standard facilitates a union between members of the same sex yet excludes one between multiple partners or close relatives?
If two brothers can wed, why can't a brother and a sister?
Should the law apply to them differently because of their sexuality?
If the potential for birth defects is the reason for prohibiting a heterosexual marriage between close relatives, should people with known genetic defects be allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex?
Should a homosexual with a known genetic defect be allowed to marry a member of his or her own sex while a heterosexual with the same defect is not allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex?
Why is two the only correct number for a homosexual/bisexual union?
Can't a heterosexual man marry two bisexual women?
The traditional marriage model is based on nature's design for sexual reproduction.
Ok, but how traditional are we talking here?
That is, one male and one female.
Traditionally, that may have also excluded people of different races and even different faiths depending on whichever faith happened to rule the country making the marriage laws in question.
The sexes exist, and exist in roughly equal numbers, because sexual reproduction exists and is always between one man and one woman.
Ok, didn't realize that was being question, but continue.
If we choose to discard nature's model, we should replace it with something that makes sense in all cases.
Huh? You seem to be demanding some kind of consistency just because or else you get to claim hypocrisy. I beg to differ. Your metric, or goalpost if you will, seems rather arbitrary.
The problem with selectively arguing against the traditional model (one man and one woman) while simultaneously arguing in favor of features of the old model (two unrelated parties) is that there is no reason to do so except to assert one is equivalent to the other when there is no credible and specific reason to do so
Nobody's arguing against the traditional model, they simply want to see it expanded to include gay people. This isn't that complicated.
If the standard that is to consistently define all marriages is only that it must be between no more or less than two individuals and that they must be consenting unrelated adults, then the question becomes why only two and for what specific reason must these two individuals be unrelated?
Because more than two could mean bigamy, which means a fraud has been perpetrated against someone involved. Say we just opened up marriage completely. What's to stop me from marrying two women, neither one knowing I'm married to the other? That's bigamy, that's fraud, that is and should remain illegal.
Two is the number of partners required for a traditional marriage between a man and a woman and is based on nature's design for sexual reproduction and the traditional family unit.
Ok
Since sexual reproduction is to be tossed out with the traditional marriage model, why would we limit the number of partners to the number needed for sexual reproduction?
I thought I just explained why. Bigamy, fraud.
If we are to argue that sexual reproduction is not a requirement for marriage, why would close relatives still be prohibited from marrying?
Besides the cultural taboo against incest? Besides the fact that an incestuous relationship as adults could be the result of one party being molested while underage (a crime)? I can already anticipate a couple of counter-arguments, so I'll continue. The taboo against homosexuality both A) is not the same as the taboo against incest (nobody is arguing that incest should be legal, on the flip side, nobody is arguing that homosexuality itself should be illegal, the debate is over gay marriage, not homosexuality itself) and B) In spite of what people on the right claim, granting equal rights to gays in no way destroys families, or damages the basic principles of the family unit; you can't make that claim when it comes to the normalization of incest, which could completely and utterly upset the family dynamic regardless of the sexuality of the family members involved.
What standard facilitates a union between members of the same sex yet excludes one between multiple partners or close relatives?
I explained above.
If two brothers can wed, why can't a brother and a sister?
They can't.
Should the law apply to them differently because of their sexuality?
Huh?
If the potential for birth defects is the reason for prohibiting a heterosexual marriage between close relatives, should people with known genetic defects be allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex?
Then you would have to screen people for known genetic defects that could be passed on. The problems with narrowing the gene pool are already well documented.
Should a homosexual with a known genetic defect be allowed to marry a member of his or her own sex while a heterosexual with the same defect is not allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex?
Defects shouldn't prevent people from being married whether gay or straight.
Why is two the only correct number for a homosexual/bisexual union?
I already explained this. Bigamy, fraud.
Can't a heterosexual man marry two bisexual women?
What if one of the women doesn't know about it? It's bigamy, a fraud, the woman who doesn't know (or maybe they both don't know) are victims of a crime.
SC ruled the states have right to allow homosexual marriage or not...course that was a lie and they are just letting tyrants run over the people's will.The country continues to crack apart and fall apart at the seams.
That is incorrect. The Supreme Court has not addressed that issue directly. In fact, in its recent California Prop 8 decission, the court did not rule SSM constitutional or unconstitutional, it ruled the parties brining suit has no standing before the court.
Quote:
...It is like a court not ruling whether your neighbor's dog bit you...because the case was brought by your cousin vinny and not you.
The Court has allowed the status quo while other cases are making there way up the circut court system.
Pedophiles are persons too, yet because of their deviant behavior their "rights" are restricted.
The 14TH Amendment was to guarantee citizenship to former slaves, not to legitimize deviant behavior.
Your limited understanding of what the 14th amendment is...is astounding.
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.
