AA group sent packing or church would be forced to host homosexual events

WTF are you talking about? The point was to establish that the intent behind regulation of marriage is the promotion of procreation. Just because some politically correct judges have rejected that argument lately doesn't change the FACT that the intent behind the regulation of marriage is the promotion of procreation.

 

Which you have failed to do.

Why?

Because reality doesn't favor your argument. If marriages sole purpose was to bolster procreation the. Elderly couples wouldn't be able to marry and neither would infertile couples.

Your entire premis is unfounded.

Not to mention you can't even post a relevant court case that isn't three decades old. A case that's lrecedent has done not a single thing to stop gay marriage bans from being ruled unconstitutional, even when your exact procreation argument is used in court against it.

 

You have to be acting purposefully obtuse... nobody is this dense.

If I'm trying to show the intent behind marriage benefits, then the earlier the case I use, the better. But here are some more cases.

Similarly to the first case I provided in 1982 9th Circuit Adams v Howerton the court noted that “homosexual marriages never produce offspring."

In 1993 Baer v Ludwin Judge Heen stated his belief that the purpose of the marriage law is “to promote and protect propagation.”

In the Vermont same-sex marriage case Baker v Vermont, the state argued that its marriage law protected the state’s interest in “furthering the link between procreation and child rearing.” The state can “send a public message that procreation and child rearing are intertwined.”

In Goodrich v Dept of Public Health the court recognized procreation as a valid state interest that justified the state’s marriage law. The court said, “Recognizing that procreation is marriage’s central purpose, it is rational for the Legislature to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples who, theoretically, are capable of procreation.” The court dismissed this concern noting that same-sex couples cannot have children on their own and are less likely to have children. Also, the court pointed out that, even with the availability of assisted reproductive technology, the majority of children are still born as a result of natural conception.

Justice Cordy argued that the state interests in marriage are not irrational, noting that marriage has always been understood as the appropriate. context for procreation and child rearing because sexual intercourse between men and women can result in conception, but other sexual relationships cannot. He recognized that marriage has successfully advanced this interest throughout time and the relevant social science research comparing children raised by same-sex couples is small, methodologically flawed, and tentative. Thus, the state could rationally decide that it is not ready to redefine marriage. He noted that adoption does not defeat the state’s interest because a child available for adoption has already lost the optimal family setting. He also rejected the court’s contention that the state’s refusal to ban certain types of family forms means that it cannot favor one type, observing that if marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples, marriage can continue to offer the message that procreation should take place in marriage.

Standhardt v Superior Court in Arizona 2003 has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the stable environment traditionally associated with marriage, and that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is rationally related to that interest. Essentially, the State asserts that by legally sanctioning a heterosexual relationship through marriage, thereby imposing both obligations and benefits on the couple and inserting the State in the relationship, the State communicates to parents and prospective parents that their long-term, committed relationships are uniquely important as a public concern. The court accepted this argument. It also rejected the concerns regarding sterile opposite-sex couples and assisted reproduction because 1) the state cannot inquire into the procreative capacity of opposite-sex couples without implicating privacy concerns and 2) assisted reproduction and adoption make it unclear which couples will not have children. In response to the argument that same-sex couples have children, the court noted that same-sex couples cannot procreate and even when they have children “sanctioning same-sex marriages would do little to advance the State’s interest in ensuring responsible procreation within committed, long-term relationships.”

And in Louisiana in 2014 that upheld the same-sex marriage ban the Federal Judge justified doing so on the grounds that the state has a legitimate interest in procreation.

To assert procreation is not the intent of marriage benefits is a blatant lie.

 

You still fail to grasp the reality here.

The intent of marriage is to create a stable family unit, which benefits society greatly. Protecting that family unit and fostering monogamy and a safe environment for children is what marriage is all about.

Heres the kicker...a couple doesn't need to be able to procreate to marry.

Gay couples can and do have children of their own. Whether through adoption, surrogacy, or artificial insemination. They have and raise children just like heterosexuals couples.

This is why they are directly in need of marriage to protect their families and children. So the things your listing here...are all also reasons homosexuals need marriage.

Procreation is one of the many reasons for marriage, one does not have to be able to procreate in order to marry however. Otherwise elderly or infertile couples would not be able to marry.

So what don't you grasp?

 

Of course we can't by law "require" people to procreate, don't be absurd. But what we as a society and a species can do and should do through or laws is encourage, promote, support and sanction people doing so and we do that through legal marriage. We set the stage for them to do so in a heterosexual marriage and then hope they do so.

 

Except that homosexuals have families, have children, and need all the same protections.