Christian bakery wins 'gay cake' ruling from UK supreme court

How does allowing same sex marriage encourage and support a nuclear family and procreation of children, tell me how it does it. We pass laws to do something not to not do something.

 

If doesn’t, it does however promote economic stability, has been shown to improve financial and psychological security, promotes monogamy, and a whole host of others. It’s seems to be doing quite a bit.

Your argument so far is that marriage is for promoting nuclear families and homosexuals cannot have a nuclear family so we should ban it — but you ignore the many other positives and benifits that come with legal marriage.

Marriage is also extended to elderly heterosexuals, infertile heterosexuals, and heterosexuals that do not want children or have had numerous other marriages.

So why are homosexuals held to a higher standard in your view?

 

nothing changed. the 14th amendment precludes banning same sex couples from marriage. This was settled in obergefell v hodges.

this canard has been addressed and refuted. marriage doesn't encourage or support homo or heterosexuality. Marriage is a civil right, and what you perceive as a vital interest is irrelevant to civil rights of US citizens.

 

Well one it has been deemed a right by several courts.
The right to enter into a legal contract, nothing changed in the constitution although much does need to be changed, what changed is that people realized there is no reason to exclude homosexuals. There is no line in the constitution saying all men are free (except those nasty gays).

I don’t think we should support or encourage any sexual activity. We should have child credits not give them to two adults that are going to do the same regardless.

As to why we should “support and encourage homosexuals to marry” the answer is simple.
There are no negatives to doing so - only positives.

 

There is no reason to include them and certainly no reason to encourage and promote homosexuality, there is every reason to encourage and promote heterosexuality and those unions. As I said the former Solicitor General and now sitting Justice in her testimony before Congress said there is such Constitution right. Even Justice Kennedy just two years before had written in United States v. Windsor that states rightly possess the "historic and essential authority to define the marital relation."

And if you read the court decision that made it so it is a stretch and leap in logic which the SCOTUS should have stayed out of and left to the states. It is not for a court to decide what is marriage.

 

Something changed as even with Kennedy as I noted above. And no you have not refuted a thing I have said when in fact I have thoroughly refuted your attempts. It is the institution we use to ensure the survival of our species and the children needed to do so and the families in which they need to be raised.

 

no, nothing changed. See obergefell v hodges. The 14th amendment precludes same sex marriage bans.

demonstrably false.

no, it isn't. which is why you can't find any such intention or wording in any marriage statute in any state. why do you pretend procreation would somehow cease of marriage were eliminated?

 

How does allowing same sex marriage diminish the encouragement and support of opposite sex marriage? How does allowing same sex marriage hinder such?

 

marriage does not encourage anything. There doesn't have to be a reason to include them. marriage is a right. and as such, the 14th amendment precludes you from excluding same sex couples from marriage.

irrelevant. Obergefell v hodges.

 

I have listed several reasons to not ban them. Let’s take outside economic activity:
Married couples are more likely to be homeowners and participate in their local communities.
Why should we exclude 4-8% of the population from this?

Do you believe allowing same sex couples to marry causes more gay people?

Do you believe by allowing only opposite sex unions you will case more “heterosexuality”?

Irrelivant.

Marriage is an interstate event effecting taxes, social security, survivorship, health insurance, child custody and a multitude of other federal and civil entanglements. It’s should not be left up to the states, there needs to be a national definition. Furthermore, no rationale has ever been shown why same sex couples should be barred from signing a legal document.

You have shifted it from being about nuclear families, which is not necessarily a married couple and are now saying it promotes heterosexuality. Which is absurd.

This is why your arguments lost in just about every court they went through — it makes no sense.

 

Not being married doesn prevent anyone from buying a house .

Don't ask silly questions.

Salient. The opinions of two Justices.

Specious use if the interstate commerce clause has always been a ploy of the SCOTUS when they could find no contstituional basis for their rulings.

I have always held both which is perfectly logical. The nuclear family IS about heterosexual unions.

They make perfect sense what doesn't is changing what IS marriage.

 

That is its purpose, those unions were hope will become a nuclear family and marriage laws treated everyone equally.

 

I didnt say it did. How does it help encourage and promote heterosexual marriage?

 

I didn’t say it did. I said it increases financial security along a couple to purchase and afford a home.

They are your statements that you cannot defend — I agree they are silly, as is your position. How does marriage encourage heterosexuality? How does banning same sex marriage encourage heterosexuality?

Irrelivant according to the opinions of hundreds of judges and most importantly SCOTUS.

You love to mark evidence as false but then post nothing to back it up.

Which is no way benefited by banning same sex unions.

Marriage has changed numerous times. It’s not some holy unchanged definition. It’s a legal agreement.

Divorce damages marriage.
As does adultery. Yet very few people are pushing to ban them

But gays being allowed to sign the same document!
That’s where the line is drawn...

It’s an absurd argument.

Even if you had pushed this back to the state level you may have bought 5 years — maybe ten — before it was legal everywhere except Mississippi and Alabama.

 

Interesting that you bolded those words. Given the divorce and remarriage rate even prior to the legalization of SSM, quite the number of children were produced outside the current unions their parents currently have. Yet no issues with a child being part of two nuclear families. And you seem to be dismissive of both adoption and artificial insemination, even though they are as commonly used, if not more so, for heterosexuals than homosexuals. Are you dismissing both of these options, or are you simply holding a double standard?

We see the result of children who are raised by single parents, and it is not good. But not all single parents are that way because of divorce or never marrying. Widow(er)s are also a common source of single parents. And yes we have plenty of single parents that do quite well raising their children. and we have heterosexual couples who are abusive and/or neglectful of their children.

And there lies your biggest conceptual error. Parents, regardless of gender, are needed. Studies have shown that children raised in households with two parents of the same gender are no better or worse off then those of opposite parents. The need for both a female and a male within the household is a long held myth with no basis in reality. A secure stable home is more important than the gender or even the number of parents in the home.

 

Strawman. That was not the question asked. Read and try again.

Even with your misguided definition of nuclear families, how would allowing SSM harm the nuclear family? Assuming that homosexuals never have kids, how is allowing them to marry legally going to prevent kids from being born into non-nuclear families any more so than they were before?

Since legal marriage is not about sex or children, homosexuality and heterosexuality are irrelevant to it. There is no requirement to have sex when you are legally married. I can marry my best friend of my sex and form a stable productive household, which is the societal goal, is it not?

 

A legal institution of any type should never be defined in the terms of gender, orientation, race, religion, etc. These things should never appear in any type of law.

If one of my parents remarries, any child the step parent has now is established as being legally related to me.
If a person adopts a child, any natural children they already have will be legally related to the adopted child.
These are examples of, but not the limit to, legal relationships that could exist prior to marriage. While some states do not bother with the non-blood relationships, others make such non blood related, but legally related, people unable to marry under incest laws.

 

Kagan's opinion is irrelavant to what SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled upon.

 

What about SSM or homosexuality encourages this?

 

Moving the goalposts. That has nothing to do with whether or not marriage has any value.

 

By asking this question you imply that having SSM legal will diminish heterosexual marriage.

Let me ask you this. Is marriage only for those who can establish "nuclear families" as you are defining them?

 

Is this written somewhere?

Oh I see, so some states will not allow step siblings to marry. I think this is what you're saying.

 

Are you saying that Same Sex Marriage is to blame for this?

 

It's the whole point of the 14th Amendment....

Not limited to siblings, but yes, step relations, adoption relations, and the like. How far that goes legally varies by state. Some wouldn't allow say aunt and nephew even if the relationship is only legal. And just to make it clear, this isn't about massive age difference. My sister in law had her first daughter a few months before her step-mother had her first child with the SIL's dad. She quite enjoyed taking the two on walks in the stroller and when asked if they were twins, pointing out that one was her daughter and the other her brother. So relationship does not automatically have an age difference.

 

But not allowing relatives (blood or step) to marry DOES fall under those categories?