Pennsylvania gay marriage ban struck down-

Right? People who will NEVER procreate, ever, in their lives are still allowed to marry.

 

Why willfully admit to everyone here that you are an idiot? Aren't you embarrassed?

Your side lost, get over it. Personally I hope the government in the near future forces bigots to be forcefully arranged into gay marriages. Because I don't like you and I think you would deserve it, loser .

 

Sooooo predictable! Now your back to procreation. Foe the last few days you have been whining about how allowing gays to marry is unconstitutional because it would exclude others- mothers and daughters of all things- from marriage. I challenged you to come up with a single case where anyone was stupid enough to even present that argument in a court. Of course you failed miserably.

Now your back to procreation, which in fact has been used as an argument against marriage equality. Yes, at one time this argument was viable, it no longer is. There have been numerous cases where it has been shot down. Here is just one:

YOU do not get to decide what is constitutional or legal. Don't you get tired of making an ass of yourself?

 

http://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/web...=en_US&tpr=111

 

Thanks for demonstrating the extent of your delusions.

 

Not sure of your point. Every single reason stated above would apply equally to any two consenting adults. And of course, procreation isn't the purpose of marriage as it is intended to inhibit procreation outside of marriage.
And from the excerpt,
"Rather, the history of the marriage laws in the Commonwealth demonstrates that "it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of marriage."
Julie and Hillary Goodridge were split up within a year and a half of being married.

 

His point was to show the stupidity of your post, obviously.

 

If procreation isn't needed for marriage, why do u keep bringing it up?

 

The attempt to defend the indefensible always cracks me up.

Makes me think of Sisyphus.

 

\
How many more times are you going to regurgitate that same bovine excrement about all consenting adults? You can't even decide what your position is on procreation and marriage. It keeps changing! And so what it they split up? What the hell does that have to do with anything?

 

I never left it.

 

Whats so difficult for you to understand? Extending marriage to homosexual couples removes procreation from the debate and makes marriage about fostering the formation of stable homes. Nothing wrong with excluding the single mother and grandmother from marriage limited to heterosexual couples. They don't have sex with each other and even if they did, procreation would never occur.
On the other hand, excluding them from marriage intended to foster the formation of stable homes has no justification. They are just as capable of forming a stable home as two gay guys. It is the extending of marriage to gay couples that creates the discrimination against the single mother and grandmother. Discrimination under US constitutional law is judged by its relation to the governmental purpose it is intended to serve. Gay marriage changes that purpose and so changes the basis upon which it is judged.

 

???? Because it is the basis of marriages limitation to men and women. Some basic US constitutional law for you. ANY discrimination in the law must at a minimum be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. Limiting marriage to men and women is rationally related to serving the legitimate governmental interest in REDUCING the number of children born to single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers.
"Procreation isn't needed" in order for a woman to take birth control pills, BUT STILL, the potential of procreation is why she takes the birth control pills. Societies, cultures, religions and law haven't forbid sexual relations between men and women who are not married for thousands of years to promote procreation. Quite the opposite. It is to stop it from occurring.

 

But permitting marriages in which both partners do not procreate together, in NO WAY diminishes the number of marriages in which they do. You yourself admit that you're just dandy with opposite-sex marriages when the possibility of procration is known to be impossible at the time of marriage. You do not oppose elderly people from marrying, or sterile people from marrying. Why do you then claim that if SOME marriages promote procreation, SOME others that do not are fine and some are not fine? You have not made a cogent argument. Care to try again?

 

And here we go again. We must discriminate against gays, because if we do not, then we are increasing discrimination!. Wierd, man. Procreation was never part of this debate. Stable homes was never an issue either. The issue was equal treatment under the law. An issue you evade with every post.

 

No, its been consistent throughout. You people merely alternate between which strawman you want to attack.

 

The only concern is unconstitutional discrimination. Nothing wrong with discrimination in and of itself. Marriage by design is intended to discriminate between the married and unmarried.

 

That would be true in the case of the single mother and grandmother soooo not sure of your point in relation to gay marriage.

 

You didn't comprehend what you just read. There is no discrimination against gays.

I embrace it by pointing out that equal protection under the laws would involve treating the single mother and grandmother the same as the lesbian lovers. YOU are the one who evades it.

 

What do single mothers and grandmothers having anything to do with gay marriage?

 

And while your god's definition of marriage also excludes the gays, that fact really has no place in judgments regarding constitutional law.

 

No, I don't suppose you have. It's always lurking nearby

You claim to be rational, logical and consistent regarding procreation. I contend that you’re none of the above. Here are some choice quotes from you:

No mention of course that children of married same sex couples also benefit from marriage. Here you are clearly basing the right to marry on procreation

Here again you’re saying that there was no rational basis for restricting marriage to people of the same race because they reproduce like straight people, but there is a rational basis for excluding gay people from marriage because they do not reproduce. .

Here you’re still saying that procreation provides a rational basis for excluding gays from marriage, but for a slightly more bizarre reason. However, you never did explain how it reduces the number of children born to single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. It seems to lack any logic whatsoever unless you believe that marital and child bearing choices of straight people would be influenced by gay marriage.

You’re saying that gays should not be able to marry, not because they can’t reproduce but because there is no chance of their accidently reproducing and creating a child outside of marriage. Maybe you can discuss how that reason would pass a rational basis review

Of course, there is no mention of the fact that there are an unknown number of children already being cared for by gay people who are not married-in many cases because they cannot marry-and those children are being deprived of the stability and benefits of having two married parents. You and all who are opposed to gay marriage and who claims that they are concerned for the welfare of children are liars. No matter how many times you profess your concern for the wellbeing of children, it remains crystal clear that the only thing that your interested in is justifying your bigotry

Now all of a sudden, you’re agreeing that with a judge who is saying that procreation is irrelevant and not a reason to exclude gays. So is it or is it not!??

 

Prohibiting gays from marrying is unconstitutional discrimination. Read ANY of the court decisions.

 

This was your claim

No, so far its only gays who think the world must adapt to meet their demands. Most anyone else excluded from marriage wouldnt even question their exclusion.

As I pointed out- the Lovings did.

You only complain when homosexuals 'question their exclusion'

 

No, it's not discrimination. Marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman. If gays want to marry somebody of the opposite sex (which is very rare), they still can do it.