Its a policy choice, not a necessity. And may children are born to heterosexual couples who did not marry.
And May children are born to heterosexual couples who did not marry ? WTH does that mean ? Can you translate please ???
More children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home and fewer children in the most common alternative, a single mother on her own with an absent or unknown father. Children with higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, HS dropouts and criminal conviction as an adult.
and as the courts pointed out, that is not a legitimate legal reason to exclude same sex couples from marriage, as opposite sex couples that were incapable of procreating could marry. Can't let one group marry and not the other. the constitution precludes it.
Noooo, they ruled that this was not the reason states limited marriage to men and women. They make the absurd claim that marriages limitation to men and women is nothing other than a nefarious plot to exclude homosexuals.
that wasn't the reason state limited marriage to men and women. which was true. state specifically did so to exclude homosexuals. but the courts ruled that you can't exclude same sex couples on the basis of their inability to procreate, as procreation is irrelevant. bans on same sex marriage violate the 14th amendment.
And children in the homes of married same sex couples have many of the same benefits - dual incomes, the support of two individuals rather than one. What you are saying supports the reasons for same sex marriage where children are involved. But again, the presence of children was never a condition of marriage. Heterosexual couples were never revisited after marriage to ensure children were a goal or ever were considered. No, there was never a check-box on a marriage application asking about children.
No group should have special laws created to protect them against discrimination. This simply leads to even more laws because the next group will want protection too and on we go. Everyone has rights but they should not force everyone to accept their lifeworld. Should gays be allowed to marry? Sure. Should priests be forced to wed them? No. Live your life and let others live theirs.
Over 30,000 same sex marriages and less than a half dozen of these cases you wail about ... .002% of all same sex marriages have resulted in lawsuits. That isn't a "problem". It's a statistical non-event.
Yes, two gay guys adopt a kid, he already has two parents, two incomes. Marriage doesn't bring that about. The most common alternative to being born to a married mother and father is being born to a single mother on her own with an absent or even unknown father. ON THE OTHER HAND the most common alternative to being born to a gay couple, is being born to their married mother and father. Gay couple with a child requires removing one or both of the biological parents from the home. NONE of the benefits of encouraging heterosexual couples to marry are realized by encouraging homosexual couples to marry.
irrelevant. same sex couples don't have to demonstrate a benefit in order to marry. The government must demonstrate a benefit by their exclusion. It's how rights and constitutional law works.
Cant imagine what you are wailing on about now. I asked a simple question. Was that an answer of yes or no?
BS. There are tax benefits and SS benefits. Military benefits. The ability to move from one state to the next and remain married all while retaining economic benefits that in turn benefit the children of said married gay couples. ANY benefits which apply to married heterosexual couples with children now apply to sam sex couples with children. Same advantages to the children. No difference.
No one claimed they did. And your strawmen are always irrelevant. - - - Updated - - - I was speaking of societal benefits. NOT benefits to individuals.
Both apply to same sex marriage as much as heterosexual marriage - can't help it if your bigotry blinds you to that fact.
False. State marriage includes a support contract. That is of direct benefit to the state, as the state would be responsible for support without such a contract. This covers the spouse and the children. As for the rest of your stuff about children, let's remember that the issues of children NEVER figure into whether two people may get married. AND, let's remember that there is NO DIFFERENCE between same sex marriage and hetero marriage that relates to children. Remember that married couples divorce and remarry, inherit kids from relatives, use IVF facilities, adopt orphans, etc. - all perfectly legitimate methods of acquiring children that are just as available to same sex couples as to heteros. Plus, a married couple need not have children at all - the marriage is still a benefit to the state and is considered fully equal with all other marriages. Day after day you try to confuse the issue with kids. But, you have NO ARGUMENT against same sex marriage that is based in any way on children.
Those benefits come from two incomes. Why wouldn't two incomes coming from people of the same sex not benefit children?
Being that priests get away with sexual assault all the time I really doubt they'll be forced to marry gay people any time soon. No one is making churches do anything related to LGBT people...
Since marriage about societal benefits apparently, is divorce for the benefit of society too? Because straight couples sure love divorce.
I'm pointing out your argument is both moronic and completely invalid. which is why you lost in court. and you once again dishonestly edit out my post.............
Of course not. If the caterer you turn to does not want to cater you, find another caterer. In the end it will be his loss. No one should be forced to anything. Ever. - - - Updated - - - Good, good.
Nope. Marriage limited to heterosexual couples, the only couples with the potential of procreation is perfectly constitutional. My argument has been sustained repeatedly by the courts. ON THE OTHER HAND, marriage limited to heterosexual couples, "simply because the majority of the voters don’t like homosexuality" is what is unconstitutional.
