"I Don't Have A Problem With Gay People..."

Gosh, dixon, you're awfully good at spitting out quotes from sources. Now, do you want to answer my question? How do YOU reconcile the anomalies?

 

your analogy makes no sense I don't hate children I just think they should not get married. Is that being hypocrtical?. The definition of marriage is universally accepted as the union between one man and one woman. To allow gays to get married is to change the very definition of the word.

 

Comprehension problems???

FACT: Procreation is not required for a civil marriage license.

Thus, your argument is meaningless.

 

so what? who does it hurt? the dictionary???? In fact, the practical definition of marriage has been changing for centuries. When I started high school, it was illegal in many states in the south for a black person to marry a white person. The definition of marriage in many parts of America used to be the union of a man and a woman of the same race. That changed, and the world didn't stop spinning on its axis.

 

Then instead of changing the definition why not come up with another word. It is not the same type of relationship, a coloured whether black, brown, yellow, or red person, and a white person of the opposite sex getting married is the same type of relationship. Two people of the same sex coming in union is a different type of a relationship, use a different word. If hetrosexual people called marriage 'green' would gays and lesbians then want to use that term as well. I believe same sex relationships to be fundamentally wrong and against the order of society.

 

It is very much the same type of relationship. Two people who love one another and who want to join their fortunes and their futures together... maybe start a family... Why not reserve the word "matrimony" for heterosexual marriages? And you know, of course, that your personal beliefs on this issue are of zero relevance.

 

My personal beliefs are of zero relevance, that is the most absurd comment to make on a forum. That is exactly what people do is put forward their personal beliefs, you are stating your position and I mine. The relationships are not the same otherwise their would be no discussion about it at all. So obviously the relationships are different. One is hetrosexual, and the other homosexual. I pointed out the differnce straight away. Tell me should a sister and a brother be allowed to ge married?, even if they really love each other and promise to stay in a committed relationship. Also same sex relations can be detrimental to the children if they decide to have any.

 

No, it is not. Polygamy is still practiced in many places outside the USA. The definition of marriage in several countries and in a half-dozen states in the USA includes same-sex couples. It is not universal by any means.

The meanings of words evolve as societies evolve. What are the core attributes of marriage? Generally speaking, it's an economic, social and sometimes religious uniting of people who wish to share their lives together to a degree that is far more intimate and intertwined than is typically found in any other kind of relationship. Same-sex couples marrying has no effect on that whatsoever.

Why invent a new word when the existing one works just fine to cover the legal aspects?

One was a race-based restriction, the other is a gender-based restriction. How does eliminating one restriction not redefine marriage, while the other does? The legal definition of marriage used to include restrictions that were race based. Getting rid of that restriction amounted to "redefining" marriage as a legal institution. I fail to see a relevant difference from a legal standpoint.

People's relationships, regardless of the combination of sexes involved, are not identical from relationship to relationship. The law considers similar situations to be deserving of equality, ignoring the irrelevant differences that make every relationship unique.

I do not see anything that makes opposite-sex relationships and same-sex relationships fundamentally different, and definitely not in a way that matters from a legal standpoint.

People who make absurd arguments very often wind up being ignored.

Well, now the truth comes out. Your other arguments are just a shield behind which you hide a prejudice against same-sex couples. There is little point of anyone trying to have a rational discussion with you on the topic if you're going to insist that your beliefs must trump those of others. What you believe isn't relevant - it's what you can show to be true and persuade others to consider true.

It's absurd that you think your beliefs matter more than those anyone else holds or facts of law

Equivocation. "Personal beliefs" aren't something that can be argued. Opinions of fact are. Your personal beliefs are irrelevant. Only your opinions of fact are relevant, because facts can be proved or disproved, or their truth can be shown to at least be doubtful. Personal beliefs aren't falsifiable and don't have to conform to reason and logic. They are a poor substitute for critical analysis of the facts.

On the contrary, the discussion is generated by the fact that people disagree about whether or not the relationships are equivalent in any way that matters to the law.

What you presume to be obvious doesn't appear that way to others. What you consider relevant doesn't have to be automatically accepted as such by others. You need to persuade us of the relevance. So far you haven't accomplished that.

So what? Why does that matter?

That doesn't do anything to tell us whether the difference is relevant though.

Are related persons similarly situated to unrelated persons with regard to marriage? Is the fact of them being closely related relevant to the question of marriage? What is YOUR position on this? Mine is that the law views closely related persons as dissimilarly situated to unrelated persons. Whether or not it should is certainly open to debate. I'm not fully persuaded that the fact of close relationship is relevant to marriage.

There is no credible research to support such an outrageous claim. Sounds like just more prejudice on your part.

 

And you didnt even bother to read them. YOUR views are a function of ideology, the real world is of little relevance to you. HAD you read the text, you would have seen that two of the quotes DIRECTLY addressed what YOU perceive as anomalies


In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...
And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....


Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment

 

Only because you are blinded by ideology. Marriage between a man and a woman frequently involves a long list of parental rights and obligations that don't exist in a same sex marriage.

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

 

The fundamental feature of marriage has been the same from the dawn of civilization. men and women becoming husbands and wives and fathers and mothers to their children. Laws against interracial marriage was a reflection of our racism at the time, not our concept of marriage.

 

If by "marriage" you mean a legal concept then the dawn of civilisation is a bit early. It is a fact that it takes a man and a woman to reproduce. How the offspring are brought up depends on the social context. There are and have been many variations on how human children are reared which goes to the point that one man and one woman rearing children is just another model and not something that has always been and always will be.

 

The ownership of the woman by her husband as her master, as a sex slave and home laborer?

 

So you advocate polygamy, because that's the only most common arrangement throughout human societies.

 

Fine - change the design and the problem is solved.

But you could do that regardless of marriage. Furthermore, such encouragement, if about children, does not limit homosexuals from getting married since the issue is about children, not the union.

So why are not advocating such marriage rights for all people?

 

It's simple bigotry.

 

Had I meant "Legal" marriage I would have said "Legal" marriage. Long before the law was applied marriage was apart of tradition, culture and religion

Had I meant "one" man and "one" woman, I would have said so. And polygamy is multiple marriages, each and every one of them between a man and a woman

 

I just told you why. ONLY the father is obligated by law to support the child a woman gives birth to. The idea is to have two people obligated by law to provide and care for the child in the home, not just a gay lover with no obligation to the child.

 

That's quite certain, but I need to ask to be sure. I'm still waiting for him to answer to confirm my suspicions.

 

But your "belief" has nothing to do with my rights as an American citizen.

My marriage is just the same as yours. There is no difference to the government, as witnessed in the states where it is already legal.

Your bigotry has nothing to do with my equal rights.

 

The poster was correct... no difference. A brother and sister marriage would be different. That is currently illegal.

And all current studies show no difference in children raised by same sex couples.

Your arguments are not supported by facts.

 

Civil marriage does not now and never has required that a couple reproduce.

Your comment is irrelavent (again).

 

But it is a 'religious' thing with dixon; he/she will continue to PUSH "procreation" as the primary 'qualifier' for legal marriage. It's ludicrous, but it is that person's belief.

I've learned to ignore it, for the most part.

 

Guess I'll do the same. Sure beats repeating myself!!!

 

Amen!!