Pennsylvania gay marriage ban struck down-

You can call a pig a horse, but it will still be a pig. That is because it is what it is regardless of what you call it. However, artificial (not naturally occurring of their own accord) human constructs like marriage mean what we humans say it means.

- - - Updated - - -

We do not use christian tradition to legislate in this country. To the contrary, it is forbidden.

 

Probably so. But it is much easier to perceive something that is likely and very difficult to perceive that which is an impossibility.

 

Marriage, by definition, is a union between a man and a woman. If a homosexual chooses to marries a person of the opposite sex, they are allowed to. Thus, it isn't discrimination.

 

Not anymore. That has changed. Or have you not been paying attention??

 

Quoting the law to justify law is a circular arguement.

 

And quoting a religious document to justify changing (or not changing) a law is irrelevant and Unconstitutional. The definition of marriage has changed. It will continue to do so until soon, the totality of the US will have legal same sex marriage. Don't like it, don't marry a dude, and your problems will be solved.

 

They are your interpretation of the Supreme Court's decisions

In this case about legislation regarding forced sterilization of male prisoners, makes a statement about the rights of prisoners to marriage and procreation- rights by the way mentioned in other cases- it does not define procreation as mandatory for marriage, or that the potential of procreation is mandatory.

This is a rather interesting case.- from the same case

(a) Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, e. g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 , and the statutory classification involved here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required. Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312 , 314. Pp. 383-387.

"Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Id., at 12, quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). [434 U.S. 374, 384]
Although Loving arose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals. Long ago, in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (188, the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id., at 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress," id., at 211. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, id., at 399, and in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, supra, marriage was described as "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race," 316 U.S., at 541 .
More recent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions." Id., at 486.
See also id., at 495 (Goldberg, J., concurring); id., at 502-503 (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment).
Cases subsequent to Griswold and Loving have routinely categorized the decision to marry as among the personal decisions protected by the right of privacy. See generally Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 598 -600, and nn. 23-26 (1977). For [434 U.S. 374, 385] example, last Term in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), we declared:

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions `relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 -542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, [262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)].'" Id., at 684-685, quoting Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152 -153 (1973).
And I love this part:

And, although it is true that the applicant will incur support obligations to any children born during the contemplated marriage, preventing the marriage may only result in the children being born out of wedlock, as in fact occurred in appellee's case. Since the support obligation is the same whether the child is born in or out of wedlock, the net result of preventing the marriage is simply more illegitimate children.

This was a Wisconsin law which required those with past due child support payments to get court approval before marrying. As the court pointed out- the law didn't prevent people from having children- the result was simply more illegitimate children. That didn't further any state's interest.

And this is a good precedent for why gay marriage should be legal- leaving it illegal- like in this case- simply results in 'more illegitimate children'- in the words of the court- and that is not in the states interest.

Of course we can go instead to the cases of Lawrence v Texas and Scalia's dissent

[W]hat justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution'? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry," Scalia wrote at the time.

 

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.(here definition)
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

I just provided it. Scalia needs to study up on Supreme Court Precedent and stop relying upon his personal morality.

- - - Updated - - -

No, those were all quotes not interpretations.

 

That was Scalia's quote.

He is a Justice of the Supreme Court.

You aren't.

 

Your terminology is somewhat vague, since some posters are calling parents of both sexes heterosexual regardless of orientation.

Then what is your gripe here? When same-sex couples raise children, I think one of them being the biological parent is more common than neither of them (and the child is adopted by both). But I don't think the study says that adopted children raised by two parents have any particular problems. Often enough, the child is well along in years, even an adolescent, before learning he's adopted in the first place.

In any case, it would help for you to be more careful in your distinctions. That raft of studies (with new ones coming out all the time) say that children raised by same-sex couples do no worse in any way than children raised by opposite-sex couples who are both the biological parents. And this is carefully contrasted to children raised by a biological parent who subsequently remarried. All too often, the non-biological parent in such relationships is abusive - "he's not my kid". This seems at best very uncommon among same-sex couples. Now, as time goes by we may find more and more instances of cases where same-sex couples divorce, the biological parent retains custody of the children, and subsequently remarries. And we may find that the new partner, who was not a party to the initial decision to raise children, is abusive as often as is the case with heterosexual couples after remarriage. Wouldn't surprise me, since people are people.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is, you are using shifting definitions and contorting your positions repeatedly to dodge clear refutations. The result is very confusing.

You SEEM to be arguing against same-sex marriage, but you have not yet produced a single coherent argument in support. Procreation was refuted, mistreatment of children was refuted, discrimination against irrelevant situations was refuted. Can you pick one and state it clearly?

 

Does that MEAN anything, or is it just word salad? I'm going to guess here, that NOW you are trying to argue that the condition of marriage is ipso facto discrimination against the condition of being single. Is that it? Are you saying that we can't let gays get married, because doing so would discriminate against unmarried heterosexuals? If not, what ARE you saying?

 

no it wasn't.

 

Being permitted to marry the person you love is exactly the same as being prohibited from marrying the person you love. Sam for the life of him can't see any difference at all.

 

substitute homosexual with black and opposite sex to same race.

- - - Updated - - -

no it isn't, as has been demonstrated numerous times now.

same argument didn't work against interracial marriage either.

 

Even when interracial marriage was illegal, there was no law that stated that non whites couldn't get married. It doesn't make any sense to compare gay marriage with interracial marriage. 2 different things.

 

identical argument. "blacks aren't discriminated against. they are free to marry anyone of the same race, just like whites" it's idiotic. and it's why it keeps failing in court.

why do you care if same sex couples can marry? it has exactly zero effect on you, or anyone else other than the two people getting married.

 

Not so fast:
(1) Health Care coverage for significant other costs me money and raises health care rates for everyone. Like it or not, health care costs are much higher for the gay demographic.
(2) It distracts us from dealing with the REAL problem with marriage in our society: Over half of babies are currently being born out of wedlock. 72% of blacks are now born out of wedlock. If we don't do something about this, we are all going to end up with all of America looking like Detroit, Compton, and Oakland.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/almost-half-of-first-babies-in-us-born-to-unwed-mothers/

 

you're assuming they aren't covered already. which is an assumption you can't support.

this is irrelevant to same sex marriage.


so, like I said, it has exactly zero effect on you, or anyone else other than the two people getting married.

 

And yet the gay supporters continue to make such comparisons. Sad. I do get a chuckle from those who believe in the gay rights myth. They get so twisted out of shape trying to explain themselves.

 

Explain what the myth is?

 

Yeah, had it been someone elses quote, I would have instead said that they need to study up

 

What part don't you understand and Ill try to explain it in a way that even you could understand

 

Ones orientation is irrelevant to their status as a biological parent. Whether a biological father is a heterosexual or homosexual, he is still the biological father, so there shouldn't be any confusion.

Anyone could adopt a child so I don't know what you think that does for your arguments for gay marriage. The grandmother down the street, raising her grandchildren together with their mother has adopted them.
And biological parents aren't preferred because there aren't "any particular problems" with their children and they are instead preferred because their children do BETTER (not "no worse") than children without one or both of their biological parents.

.

Actually, most children with homosexual couples are from a prior heterosexual relationship of one member of the couple. "he's not my kid" with the added dimension of the child being a product of their current lovers lust for someone of a different sex.

 

None of this has any relevance or is an argument against same sex marriage.