Christian bakery wins 'gay cake' ruling from UK supreme court

Of course it wasn't but that doesn't mean we have legal marriage in order to promote, and encourage and sanction those heterosexual unions in which we want that procreation to occur or provide for the children who were not created in such a union.

 

this is demonstrably false as I have already shown you.

marriage is a right. rights aren't based on need or vital interest. same sex marriage bans are precluded by the constitution.

 

marriage doesn't promote anything. procreation is entirely irrelevant to marriage.

 

Disagreeing does not make the statement false.

 

Of course it does, it is where we as a society want it to happen.

 

You demonstrated no such thing and without that heterosexuality we wouldn't last very long.

Only by a flawed SCOTUS decision which changes nothing in what I said. What is the vital importance to our society and speicies that is homosexuality that we should promote and encourage it through our laws?

 

Didn't say requirement said encourage and promote, learn the difference.

 

So we need to promote “heterosexuality” by giving them tax breaks, inheritance rights, and the ability to sign a civil document?

Do you believe less people will be heterosexual without these?
Did it seem to work before? You know with divorce, quick Vegas marriage and annulments, out of wedlock births...

There is no reason to prevent a legal contract based on sexual organs.
Zero

It’s absurd

 

What if someone's definition of marriage was a relationship between more than two people?

What do you mean "legal relationship prior to marriage?"

Incest restrictions? What are these?

 

it doesn't, which is why procreation is entirely irrelevant. marriage is a legal institution, and a civil right. same sex marriage bans are precluded by the 14th amendment.

 

of course I have. It's why you can't point to any such language in any marriage law in the US. And heterosexuality is not tied to marriage, lol. It's an innate trait born into some (most) people. Just like homosexuality is in some people.

nothing is flawed about the plain wording of the constitution. the 14th amendment is perfectly clear.

it's irrelevant. We don't base rights on "vital importance to our society and species".

 

but your argument is meaningless, as procreation is entirely irrelevant to marriage. At no time, in the history of the US, was the ability or intention to procreate a requirement for marriage. thus, your argument falls apart.

 

Already refuted your statement.

 

Don have to point to language and yes that is why marriage came about, our heterosexuality which is vital to our existence and species. Without it we cease as a species, homosexuality could completely disappear with no effect.

Its clear it says nothing about homosexuality.

 

Totally relevent the attempts to pretend otherwise notwithstanding. A homosexual union will never produce a child or provide a nuclear family for one.

 

Then cite any marriage law in the US, where ability or intention to procreate is required for marriage.

It's ok, we both know you can't, and we both know your argument is nonsense.

 

of course you would need to point to the language, lol. And heterosexuality has no relevance to, and is not defendant upon marriage. It is an inherent trait in most humans.

heterosexuality exists without marriage. Lol

You do know homosexuals are "persons" right?

 

no pretending, just refuting your claims. Procreation is completely irrelevant to marriage.

I think you meant homosexual here. but as I keep pointing out, procreation is completely irrelevant. It's why geriatrics, sterile, paralyzed and homosexual couples can all get married.

 

Into nuclear families, yes a good goal for our society and species.

Will there be fewer heterosexual unions and nuclear families, yes and ID hate to take that chance.

There is no reason to promote and encourage and sanction homosexuality. There is every reason to do so for heterosexuality.

 

I have no obligation to cite things I do not claim. Quote me saying "required".

 

your argument hinges on a requirement of procreation. Without it, you lose any justification to exclude same sex couples.

 

Stating it has no value as fact makes it false. It is a subjective view therefore value is determined by the individual. It may hold no value to you and others, but it still holds value to others.

 

That is irrelevant to the legal definition. Creating a legal institution of marriage requires that it is not defined by age, gender, race, religion, etc. Setting any number limit, be it 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever, does not fall under those categories.

Legally related by blood, marriage of another (step or in law) or other legal action (adoption, etc). There are many states that make marriage among these illegal, even if there is no blood relationship.

As noted, the restrictions on incidences of incest, either actual due to blood, or by legality, such as adoption or marriage.

 

Both of these are false. Children can be produced naturally outside the union, adoption is available and for females, artificial insemination is also available. Marriage is irrellevant to procreation. For that matter marriage initially was more about wealth and power exchange than love and procreation. Marriage can completely disappear with no affect to procreation.

As to the nuclear family, children and parents are all that's required. Number of parents and genders thereof are irrellevant.

 

Why would same sex marriages result in any less nuclear families as you're defining them? All of the straight people who were going to get married would still get married. All of the people who would have kids, married or not, straight or gay, would still have kids.

There is also no reason not to. No one has ever been turned gay from straight or vice versa. As noted no one is not going to get married and have kids if they weren't going to already.