If procreation and marraige are mutual....

I find this to be one of the most amusing anti-gay rights arguments to date, in fact, the religious arguments make more sense.

If procreation and marriage are mutual/assumed/related in a sense that homosexuals cannot match, then why is procreation not a requirement of marriage?

Please do not answer the question with a question, answer the question directly and concisely.

 

LOL!! Religious arguments surely DO make more sense; but they have gaping HOLES in them as well.

Good question.

And I'd like to see MANY people answer that question... especially if they are anti-homosexual thinkers.

 

It is a simple question.

Lets see if I receive a direct answer.

No one is able to answer it directly here, simply citing marriages between immediate family members. Which doesn't even remotely address the question, just a red herring used by those who choose to deny basic civil rights to social minorities.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/219065-explaining-same-sex-marriage-pt-2-a.html

 

Biology and the constitution.


Quote:
heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple



Quote:
We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.


Quote:
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation


Quote:
i]t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.


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.’”...

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.....

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

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


Quote:
In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.


Quote:
"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

And here is where you declare procreation is irrelevant to marriage and then we can all wonder what was even the point in you asking.

 

That fails to answer the question:

If procreation and marriage are mutual/assumed/related in a sense that homosexuals cannot match, then why is procreation not a requirement of marriage?

 

Sure it does.

Quote:
heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple

 

No, it doesn't. Not even remotely.

If procreation and marriage are mutual/assumed/related in a sense that homosexuals cannot match, then why is procreation not a requirement of marriage?

Please answer the question.

 

Maybe you are having a hard time understanding the question:

I put the question in bold... Why is it not a REQUIREMENT for married individuals not to produce offspring?

There are many infertile couples, couples that have no intention of having children, elderly couples, ect... Why can they get married?

Maybe it is because it would be discriminatory to give benefits to one class (child bearer) while denying it to another class (non child bearer).
This would also apply to homosexuals as some adopt, some have children from previous relationships, some have a surrogate, and some have no desire... Are you really having that much problem seeing the fallacy of your argument?

 

No, youre just nt understanding the answer. Heterosexuals arent encouraged to marry because all heterosexuals procreate but instead because they are the only couples who can procreate. Government doesnt encourage all owners of automobiles to be operated on the street to have auto insuance because they are required to have an auto accident or they have the intent to do so, but instead because they have the potential.

And then there is the fact that over half the births in the US were unplanned. Born to couples who had no intent to procreate. Government has just as much interest in the well being of children resulting from unplanned pregnancies as they do the children of planned pregnancies. And again, of course, 100% of the unplanned pregnancies resulted from strictly heterosexual couplings.

 

Dropping a fertilized egg into a nest, isnt a requirement for two birds to build a nest. But, the potential of them doing so remains the purpose in them building the nest.

 

No, youre just nt understanding the answer. Heterosexuals arent encouraged to marry because all heterosexuals procreate but instead because they are the only couples who can procreate. Government doesnt encourage all owners of automobiles to be operated on the street to have auto insuance because they are required to have an auto accident or they have the intent to do so, but instead because they have the potential.

And then there is the fact that over half the births in the US were unplanned. Born to couples who had no intent to procreate. Government has just as much interest in the well being of children resulting from unplanned pregnancies as they do the children of planned pregnancies. And again, of course, 100% of the unplanned pregnancies resulted from strictly heterosexual couplings.

 

This fails to answer the question.

It also conveniently excludes infertile couples.

 

Government cant know which couples will procreate, they do know that all who do will be exclusively heterosexual couples. Thus, the limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples.

 

So then procreation is irrelevant.

Are we going to talk in circles again?

You: "Procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Gays can't marry because they can't procreate."
Everyone else: "lol wut?"

 

???? Remains very relevant in that it is why you cant marry your boyfriend in 44 states.

 

I don't have nor would I desire a boyfriend. I prefer pursuing light eyed women with black hair. Musicians are a major plus.

Your argument fails to properly address the question.

 

Actually, my argument has repeatedly held up in a court of law the constitutionality of marriage limited to a man and a woman, when challenged by your same arguments. The fact that not all married heterosexuals procreate, has no impact upon my argument at all.

 

An appeal to authority.

Fails to answer a direct and pointed question;

If procreation and marriage are mutual/assumed/related in a sense that homosexuals cannot match, then why is procreation not a requirement of marriage?

 

I would think the requirement is not there becuase it would discriminate agianst people that did not or could not have children. Funny I bet if we think REAL hard we can think of other groups of people who are discriminated agianst.








(p.s. my distaste for the unfair laws of the United States does not mean I support or promote the homosexual life style. I still consider it a sin but all sin is equal and can be forgiven)

(p.p.s. Sodas Rule)

 

Answered repeatedly.

 

No even remotely. However I appreciate your efforts.

 

Your opinion is irrelevant. My answer has upheld the constitutionality of marriage, limited to a man and a woman in dozens of cases all across the country.

 

Not only forgiven but actually promoted and encouraged with tax breaks and governmental entitlements????? Is that why my brother and I couldnt marry, because we are not sinning with each other?

 

Yet DOMA is working it's way up to SCOTUS with a significant chance of at least part of the law being struck down (the part that prevents federal benefits being extended to same sex marriages where legal). Obviously no one (that I'm aware of) is going to suggest that all states be forced to recognise the same sex marriages of other states (which is a provision of the Respect for Marriage Act which should replace DOMA).

Don't fool yourself into thinking DOMA isn't anything but doomed. It was a peice of panic legislation passed at a time of fear and misunderstanding with regards to gay people. How times have changed (in just 15 short years!). Now six states plus DC have legalised it, and a majority of Americans appear to be in favour, it's time for congress to reflect the will of the people.

 

Dixon, you say that ONLY heterosexual couples can procreate. This is simply not true. Children all over America are part of "same-sex" households, either through adoption, previous marriages/relationships, surrogacy, and so on and so forth. The reality is that these families exist, regardless of whether you think it's not the best way to raise a child. There are kids in those situations all over America. DOMA punishes their families while furthering no legitimate state interest.

If you say "procreation"; then regardless of how hard it would be to tell, the contract should state that this union is reserved solely for those who intend to have children. It should state that infertile couples are exempt straight off the bat, since like gays there is NO chance that they could procreate naturally. This will likely be on medical records so it would be relatively easy to enforce.

But the fact is that no where in law is it written that procreation is required for marriage. All different types of families exist in the US, despite idealism, and the number one state interest should be care of children, not focusing on increasing the population by denying marriage to same sex couples (which makes sense how?)