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

Both are correct

Thank you for proving the point

It was about insuring children that may come from the heterosexual activity would have a secure nuclear family. We see the results of children being procreated outside of marriage and it is not good.

Mothers and fathers are required for the nuclear family and each having their own vital roles in the lives of the children.

 

Same cannot provides mother and a father.

There is no reason TO encourage and support and sanction homosexuality as we do heterosexual unions through marriage.

 

No it doesn't as I have clearly stated.

 

I

yes it does, as I have clearly pointed out. If there is no requirement of procreation, then you can't claim marriage is for procreation, and the nuclear family. It is an entirely invalid argument. It's why geriatric couples, paralyzed couples, infertile couples, and same sex couples can all marry. The constitution precludes them from being banned, since marriage is a civil right.

 

marriage does not encourage anything. it is a civil right. the US constitution precludes you from banning same sex couples. Sorry.

 

IF you want to require people to have children go ahead, I've said nothing of the sort and that you can't understand the difference between promote and encourage is not my problem. And all but the same sex couples can provide a nuclear family and still present that to their families and as I said requiring people to have children is your idea not mine. The fact remains it is in the interest of our society to encourage and support heterosexuality and the nuclear family there is nothing in our interest in encouraging and supporting homosexuality. You've yet to express a logical reason why we as a society and as a species should do so.

 

Sure it does, that's why we have it.

 

Do you mean IS defined or is NOT defined?

No, I don't mean the blood/family stuff, I mean what do you mean by "legal relationship prior to marriage?"

 

if you want to claim marriage is for encouraging the nuclear family, so only heterosexuals can participate, then that would require a law requiring that in order to marry, you had to have the ability and intention to procreate. It's not my fault you don't think through the arguments you make.

same sex couples can and do provide a nuclear family.

you can't encourage heterosexuality or homosexuality, any more than you can encourage blue eyes.

because the constitution won't let you ban same sex couples. simple.

 

nope. It is a legal institution, and a civil right. It creates a legal kinship, where none existed before the marriage. the constitution precludes you from banning same sex couples. sorry.

 

It's a societal institution we embolden in our laws. "Legal kinship" does not require marriage nor does the Constitution recognize this "Legal kinship".

Justice Kagan in 2009: 'There Is No Federal Constitutional Right to Same-Sex Marriage'
https://www.weeklystandard.com/mark...ral-constitutional-right-to-same-sex-marriage

 

No it wouldn't go learn the difference between requiring and encouraging.

Nope, they cannot provide a mother and a father.

You can most certainly encourage behavior.

See above.

 

Which means that the meaning of marriage has nothing to do with the business contract behind it.

 

Obergefell v hodges. Same sex marriage is a constitutional right.

 

if you wanted to try and ban same sex couples, on the basis they can't procreate, yes, there absolutely has to be a requirement. Lol

don't need a mother and father

which isn't heterosexuality or homosexuality.

refuted above

 

No one is talking about "banning same sex couples" and no no requirement required when the goal is to encourage and promote.

It is best when a child has a mother and a father and what we encourage and promote. We should not promote and encourage bringing children into the world without a mother and a father.

See above

 

Meaning and value are two separate things. The meaning of marriage in a religious aspect or even a social aspect, has nothing to do with the meaning of marriage in the legal aspect. As to whether any of those meanings have value or not will be up to the individual and within the context of the aspect of marriage they are placing that amount of value upon.

 

How does allowing same sex marriage “promote bringing children into the world without a mother and father”? You said it yourself, they cannot procreate. That’s more of an argument against same sex couples adopting the abandoned children of heterosexuals than it is of them signing a contract.

 

Even the legal aspect is outdated. It treats married couples as if one goes out to provide while the other stays home.

 

It doesn't. I don't support same sex marriage.

 

marriage doesn't encourage or promote anything. It's a legal institution. And yes, if you want to try and exclude same sex couples from marriage, on the basis that they can't procreate, you would have to have a requirement of procreation in order to marry.

no it isn't. it is best when there are 2 loving parents. The gender of the parent is irrelevant.

marriage does nothing to encourage or discourage this.

refuted above.

 

And nobody is saying you have to support it. We are just saying you have no legal/constitutional grounds to ban it.

 

It is vital value to our society and species to promote and encourage heterosexual unions, marriage and in part we do that with marriage laws.

 

I misworded that sorry
Should have said:
How does allowing same sex marriage not “promote bringing children into the world without a mother and father”? You said it yourself, they cannot procreate.

Meaning, how does allowing same sex marriage prevent or reduce heterosexuals from marrying or having kids?

 

According to our former Solicitor General under the Obama administration and now sitting Justice of the Supreme Court there was none. What changed in the Constitution?
Again why is it in our vital interest as a society and a species to support and encourage homosexuality?