"Supreme Court should act on gay marriage"

'

So then, why not REQUIRE all heterosexuals to marry as soon as they reach puberty in order to ensure that NO children are born outside of marriage. And while we're at it, lets outlaw divorce of any couple who has children.

 

Well what they used to do instead, was make it a crime for a man to engage in sexual relations with a woman who is not his wife. From the US Supreme court-

They did in the olden days require the young couple seeking marriage to drop their drawers so the local officials could check for pubic hair and the potential of procreation that puberty brings.

But more freedom is always better than less freedom so those laws have fallen to the wayside. Now government only encourages couples to marry. And gays were never required to be married in order to engage in sexual relations.

 

You say that with a straight face and then rally AGAINST freedom. Typical conjob.

 

Than There is no concern about same sex couples getting married.

I have no problem encouraging heterosexual couples to marry.

 

And thus ban on same sex marriage should fall to the wayside because more freedom is better. If I can choose the person to marry without the limit of sex than that means more freedom.

 

You make yourself look the fool. There is no appeal to tradition. I don't point to the thousands of years of history to advocate that it should stay that way and instead point to the thousands of years of history to show that in fact that is the way it is.
The only fallacy here is that marriage has been limited to heterosexual couples for thousands of years to exclude gays, to "disparage and injure" gays. Or, that this became the intent when gays demanded the right to marriage and the states and courts said no.

 

And it doesn't matter what YOU think, come June SSM will be legal whether you want it to or not. You can keep spouting off your rhetoric, but when SSM is legal you are pissing in the wind. Hope you don't get to wet there bub

 

Well then, should we go back to the "olden days" ? It would make sense if your so concerned about procreation and out of wedlock children

 

No, I don't object to the switch from requiring heterosexual couples to enter a marriage to exercise the constitutional right of procreation and founding a family, to simply encouraging it instead. Persuasion by government is always better than mandates. BUT I DO object to government encouraging both heterosexual and homosexual couples to marry, for no other reason than helping the homosexuals feel equal to heterosexual couples.

And I don't object to just picking an age of consent, several years beyond puberty, instead of checking for pubic hair.

And neither I or the government are worried about procreation. Heterosexual couples procreate even more without marriage.

 

You mean "gay marriage" will be legal. The issue has been defined as whether "gay" couples have a constitutional right to marriage.

 

So they will ask your orentation upon applying for a marriage license? I believe it's being referred to as SSM because it is not exclusive to homosexual couples. But of course you already knew that and are simply arguing semantics.

 

Same sex marriage and gay marriage are synonymous with each other. Are word games all you have left, no wonder your side loses the argument so much.

 

And we will find that they do!

 

That is so freakin enlightened of you.



[/QUOTE]Persuasion by government is always better than mandates. BUT I DO object to government encouraging both heterosexual and homosexual couples to marry, for no other reason than helping the homosexuals feel equal to heterosexual couples..[/QUOTE]
y
Homosexuals feel just fine about themselves. I have to wonder how you feel about yourself. I have to wonder why to have such a need to hate. Hate is pathology and indicative of self loathing.

.[/QUOTE]And I don't object to just picking an age of consent, several years beyond puberty, instead of checking for pubic hair. .[/QUOTE]

Again....sooooo enlightened of you

And neither I or the government are worried about procreation. Heterosexual couples procreate even more without marriage.[/QUOTE]

WTF??? We're done here ....again. You bore me.

 

Paternity in no way limits marriage to opposite sex couples.

Keep trying. You keep trumpeting this semantics argument that has nothing to do with couples being able to marry.

Those same couples can utilize artificial insemination and know for a fact that the father isn't the husband yet are still legally married.

Keep trying.

 

I call BS:

 

Until it changes.

 

What is it? 23 states with their marriage statutes declared to be unconstitutional by Federal courts since June 2013? Most all of those states with courts who had addressed the issue under state Constitutional equal protection law, that for all intents and purposes is nearly identical to federal Constitutional equal protection law, and determined that traditional marriage does not violate constitutional equal protection law.

Those state courts recognized that THEIR marriage laws limitations to men and women was rationally related to serving the states legitimate interest in improving the wellbeing of children that only heterosexual couples produce. Now we have these federal courts coming in telling these states that they didn't enact their laws limiting marriage to men and women to include all those who become moms and dads together, but instead did so, all as a nefarious plot to exclude homosexuals. To "disparage and injure" homosexuals, motivated by an animus towards homosexuals. State courts determined that THEIR state marriage laws were limited to men and women because they procreate and the federal courts declare that they did so to keep out those nasty homosexuals. Assigning to the states motives they never had.

That sound of rushing air over your head is my argument.

 

Correct, but their arguments that it must change are still based upon facts that don't exist.

 

???? Its the paternity statute that is limited to opposite sex couples. JUST as its the traditional marriage laws that are limited to opposite sex couples. BOTH, for the same reason. I never claimed "Paternity .... limits marriage to opposite sex couples". Paternity is only an issue among heterosexual couples. Gay (men) couples don't produce children and when one of a lesbian couple gives birth, we know the mothers lesbian lover is NOT the father.

 

It does. Women in there teens to 40 are going to procreate, whether they are married or not. One only needs to look at the black population in the US. They have LOWER rates of marriage than whites while maintaining HIGHER rates of birth, while whites have HIGHER rates of marriage and LOWER rates of birth.

 

What? There is no reason to keep marriage between a man and a woman?

You've fumbled and stuttered trying to make up reasons that don't apply for over a year. One reason you mention is false, the other isn't really related to the subject.

 

relevance?

 

None of which is an argument to limit marriage to opposite sex couples.

So your not really making a point here.

You're just rehashing the same tired and failed argument over and over.

 

Sure there is. Only couples made up of men and women have the potential of procreation. If the concern is the well being of children that only heterosexual couplings produce, the limitation makes perfect sense.
NOW lets see you make sense out of limiting marriage to heterosexual and homosexual couples because they are the only couples who have sex. Connect the distinction to the governmental purpose that is intended to be served.