Gay Marriages Should Be Denied.

Marriage has verylittle to do with procreation, and gay people CAN procreate justas efficiently (more even in some cases) then many heterosexual couples when one partner is infertile or cannot carry a pregnancy to term.

The same procedures (in vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers, sperm donors) are available to gay people and heterosexual couples or single.

Adoption and fostering, as well as children born from a previous heterosexual relationship are also ways that gay couples become parents and contribute to society by raising children.

In fact, you can be assured that if a gain couple decides to raise a child, it is because they REALLY want a child. It is obvious that an "unexpected pregnancy" will not bring an unwanted child into this world or lead to an abortion!

and, anyway, your argument doesn't hold water unless you are also ready to limit marriage to people who are in their child bearing years!

 

I very much welcome same-sex marriages in the U.S. (I'm heterosexual) since they lead to a decrease in reproductive capacity for objective reasons (expensive / difficult / problem), and hence the population of America will be reduced, fewer will be born of Native Americans, and therefore will diminish America's influence on other countries and that will eventually lead to the collapse of the U.S. (remember the Roman Empire, which disintegrated in part because of sexual immorality)

 

More people in a nation, doesn't guarantee that nation will be necessarily 'thriving' or 'healthy'. Overpopulation and lack of critical resources to reasonably sustain life, is a problem in more than a few places.

Abject greed and overall disregard for the well-being of this nation's masses, is a REAL threat to our survival. Gay people being gay, is no threat to a nation like America.

 

look sweetie - I don't know if you have some limitations on capacity or what - but if a woman is past child bearing age, she is not able to procreate - regardless of who she marries.

so let me ask you again .....

does this mean that older women should also not be allowed to marry?

 

Any two people can procreate using your logic. Any two people can raise a child. What possible justification could there be for such special treatment for gays? Being gay doesnt uniquely qualify two people to raise children. Being the biological parents does.

 

No. Is it the "N" that you dont understand or is it the "o"? If you ask ten more times and I answer ten more times "NO", will you have any better understanding? I dont think so. So whats the point. Especially since your only reason in asking was to give you something to respond with to my question you cant answer.

 

you are inconsistent.

if gay couples shouldn't marry because they can't procreate ...

why should anyone else who can't procreate be allowed to marry?

 

Gays marry all the time. The question is whether government should encourage, license and regulate the activity. We dont know which couples will procreate, but we do know that all couples who do, will exclusively be among the heterosexual couples. Government encourages all heterosexual couples to marry because they are the only ones who do procreate.
My ex wife was prescribed by her Dr birth control pills for 6 years. 3 years later she found out she has never had the ability to procreate.
Could the Dr have done extensive examinations and testing on all patients seeking birth control pills to ensure the capacity for procreation? Yes. Does this mean that he therefore must? No. Does it mean that BC arent prescribed to heterosexual women because of the potential of procreation? No.
Sure, governent could go to extraordinary lengths and expense, subjecting every couple to medical examinations to confirm the ability to procreate. But the constitution doesnt dictate that they therefore must.

Ive posted these exerpts from 2 cases that DIRECTLY address this often repeated argument. No one has EVER had a comment in response. Address the law as it is, since you cant address my statements.

Quote:
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.’”...
But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....

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....


Quote:
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

 

A male couple cannot procreate therefore they are not equal to a male/female couple. All procreation is heterosexual. Society does not owe anything to homosexual or infertile couples. The fact is society grants marriage licenses to all Man/Woman couples. Infertility is often reversed or misidentified. It is is society's best interest to support ALL male/female couplings.

All procreation is heterosexual as you just proved. A male (for instance) cannot fertilize another male...same with 2 females. You didn't know this?

I am not OK with gays adopting. I had a gay friend who adopted a young South American youth (30 years ago). That boy is now gay. I'm not sure I am objective on this.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. You need to clarify.

Marriage is between a man and woman regardless of someone's opinion of 'child bearing years.'

 

I see....So now you would create an age limit on procreation for women? I thought women had the right to privacy when it comes to their own bodies. Apparently that only applies in the killing of their offspring, not the creation of offspring.

 

No, I did!

http://www.politicalforum.com/gay-l...sexuality-chosen-behavior-15.html#post4624835

 

so effectively, what you are saying is that governments should not encourage, license and regulate the activity of couples who cannot reproduce - bit should make exceptions in the case of straight people.

by your argument - older couples who marry when there is clearly no likelihood ever of producing children should be denied the same legal benefits associated with marriage. If my birth certificate shows that I am unlikely to ever produce another child -I should surely be denied the right to marry. No matter how much I might want a baby - it aint gonna happen and no one would believe it likely to happen.

Also - If someone who has had a hysterectomy marries - she is in the same boat WRT procreation.

Ifthe purpose of marriage is procreation - boyth she and I would be entering into that contract knowingly unable to meet the criteria of ability to procreate.

shouldn't that make our marriages null and void?


how about people who use contraception? they are clearly not engaging in "going forth and multiplying"

do you think that women who are married might have their chin tattooed (as happens in some cultures) to indicate that they are married and thus prevent the supply of contraceptives to these women?

come to think of it - the men as well - how about a great mig "M" for married tattooed on the forehead of all married people?

WRT what is "traditionally" linked to marriage - "traditionally" we didn't marroy outside of our tribe, race or social class, "traditionally" we had dowries and women were given in marriage by theirfathers without their consent.

the world has changed.

move on.

 

Supreme courts dont do evidence, they do law. Legislators make factual determinations.

 

legal decisions are based on the facts as they are known at the time of the decision, and on precedent.

if new evidence is presented to court, a decision can be overturned, and on a wider social issue which denies equal rights to a specific group, your Supreme Court can rule a law as unconstitutional.

in a just world where human rights are valued, the legal status of gay marriage should be regarded as similar to the legal status of inter racial marriage, that is - it is like any other marriage - between two adults who have chosen to marry their partner

it would make sense that denying gays the right to marry, and the same benefits conferred by marriage, would be regarded as unconstitutional

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

 

Well, first, that logic would apply to ANY "two adults who have chosen to marry their partner" so youll need some justification for special treatment when the two adults happen to be gay. And secondly, a heterosexual, interracial couple procreates just like same race couples. Children of interracial couples benefit just as much from the benefits of both their mother and father present to provide and care for them. Racial classifications have no rational relation to the intended governmental purpose of improving the well being of children. And only has a rational relation to the intended governmental purpose of purifying the white race. Improving the well being of children is a legitimate, governmental interest. Purifying the white race is not.

 

1. No ones rights are violated by legalized gay marriage.

2. Heterosexuals do not have the sole right to the institution of marriage, that's a ridiculous concept.

3. We are, right to the supreme court to settle the whole ordeal.

 

Amen to that!!

 

it would apply to any two adults who choose to marry their partner - gay or not.

and ffs - marriage is NOT about having kids - OK?

otherwise marriages between older adults would also not be legally recognised!

 

You claimed nobody had commented, care to address my points? And why didn't you bring this up the first time you saw the post?

Under question it is up to the court to determine if those determinations are in fact factual otherwise nobody would have redress to anything a legislature decides.

 

Government does license and regulate heterosexual relationships because of the potential of procreation. They dont license and regulate platonic, closely related and gay couples because there is no potential of procreation. Nothing to distinguish the gay couples from any two consenting adults who might choose to marry, that would justify special treatment for gay couples.

 

I did address your post the first time. And your post was full of many different misconceptions and erroneous assertions. I commented upon the most relevant ones.
The laws are overincliusive. No oned denies this. And the two exerpts demonstrate this overinclusiveness is irrelevant as far as constitutionality is concerned, and yet it is the core of your argument.
Bright lines drawn in the law. Statutes are full of them. Mere administrative convenience is usually sufficient to render such discrimination constitutional. The federal case law relied upon for this assertion in the Washington S Ct decision was a case where SS benefits went to children who were previously dependent upon the support of a deceassed. Biological children were simply presumed to have been dependent on their deceased parents support before their death but non biological children had to present evidence to the court show this prior dependence.
Sure, some biological kids who werent actually dependent on their deceased parent support, end up receiving benefits. The law is overinclusive. Government could require ALL dependent children to present evidence of actual dependency and eliminate this overinclusiveness. But the mere administrative inconvenience of doing so is sufficient to justify not doing so.

Sure, government could require every couple seeking marriage to show evidence of their physical capacity to procreate and assurances that they will do so, without offending the constitution. I doesnt follow that they therefore must do so to avoid offending the constitution. And the idea is to encourage heterosexuals to marry before procreation occurs. Onerous requirements would only discourage couples from participating. Most births are unplanned pregnancies. For many couples, encouragement to marry that would have been effective prior to procreation, might not be effective after procreation has occured.

 

Actually you didn't you just said something along the lines of "where does it mention infertile couples" about three times as I remember before you finally got it.

Well instead of just being Mr. La-di-da perhaps you'd like to point them out piecemeal because similar arguments have been very successful in Prop 8 and a recent DOMA case in a Mass. Federal Court.

In this instance bright lines just aren't enough. Because of Romer v. Evans it has been established that people have a right to seek redress where laws are fashioned to specifically impede them (which is a lot different from the matter of oversight you detail above). The government must find a compelling and necessary reason to maintain the discrimination. Does "mere administrative convenience" sound compelling and necessary to you because it sure as heck doesn't to me?

 

Nope. 6 states with "gay marriage" continue to prohibit closely related couples from marrying and annuling platonic marriages for a failure to consummate the relationship. California case only found exclusion of "gay" couples from marriage to be a violation of the constitution.

 

Absurd

CLEARLY is intended to discriminate against gays, while-

CLEARLY is not and is instead a recognition that

Marriage isnt limited to heterosexual couples, because they are not homosexual but instead because they have the potential of procreatioon.
And marriages 1000s of years old limitation to heterosexual couples as the only couples who can procreate isnt transformed into disrimination against homosexuals by them being the loudest critics of the limitation. If it was instead the 100s of 1000s of single mothers and grandmothers raising children together who were demanding marriage rights, efforts to maintain the limitation to heterosexual couples wouldnt be motivated out of an intent to
"specifically impede" mothers and grandmothers who raise children together any more than the current efforts to maintain the limitation in face of the gays onslaught against the institution of marriage is intended to "specifically impede" homosexuals.

 

What's absurd is that after several years you still don't get it. DOMAs, constitutional amendments and anything else that is specifically enacted to deny certain groups access to contracts or services that are otherwise offered to other substantially "similarly situated" groups must display a compelling and necessary reason to do so.

Why is it necessary to deny gays access to the marriage contract?

What compelling purpose is served by the denial?