Consenting adults

You didnt say anything about whose place it was. YOU SAID
"No, the taxes were never collected".
But of course, with a complete void of integrity, you can deny your own words recorded in the forum.

 

First, procreation is irrelevant. You just don't get it.

Second, single parenthood is not the cause of all these ills, it is simply one of the symptoms of a larger economic problem. You have it backwards.

Third, nothing needs to be in the government interest to be legal. The government serves us, not the other way around.

Fourth, your evasion and distortion remains as dishonest as ever.

 

and like I said, I'll go with what the law actually is and what the courts actually say instead of the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you make up.

 

I didn't deny my words.

I have no interest in this personal attack game you play. Seems you do it when I have won the argument.

I accept your concession, glad you understand that you were wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Does he expect anybody to buy his crap.

 

Then why does every state have statutes similar to this?

Its because husbands and wives are presumed to have exclusive sexual relations and when women and men have sex, children are frequently the result, PROCREATION, and that man is legally responsible to provide and care for that child. Because he is the father.

If procreation is irrelevant, why would the Supreme Court of the US say-

?

Men and women becoming husbands and wives, fathers and mothers to their children. PROCREATION. The nuclear family. The foundation of modern civilization.

Marriage has been around for thousands of years, OBVIOUSLY inexorably intertwined with the process of procreation. From BC Roman Law, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her." Matrimony, Latin root of the word Mater, MOTHER. Women become mothers, PROCREATION, and only men are morally and legally responsible for them doing so. When exactly did this institution that had everything to do with procreation become an institution that has nothing to do with procreation? When the court declared "procreation is irrelevant"? That's a dangerous precedent to set, to give courts such powers. What if they want to decide that who gives birth to a child and who fathers that child is now irrelevant to who has parental rights to a child? That limiting parental rights to the women who give birth and the men who caused them to do so is all just a nefarious plot to "disparage and injure" homosexuals by excluding them from creating parental rights? After all its the same biological process of procreation, maternity and paternity that creates those parental rights, that also defines matrimony as between a man and a woman. That same biological process that precludes homosexual couples from participating.

Geez, really unfortunate you couldn't be bothered to string together a few words and identify that "larger economic problem"

Its a basic maxim of Constitutional Equal protection law that applies at a minimum to ANY discrimination in the law.

For instance restricting marriage on the basis of race is rationally related to the governmental interest in purifying the white race. BUT, purifying the white race isn't a LEGITIMATE governmental interest.

 

I do it when your latter statements, directly contradict your prior statements, and you simply deny making your prior statements, and when quotes of the statements clearly show that's not the case, you try and deny they mean what they say.

 

To handle cases of disputed paternity. These date from before the days of DNA testing. They have nothing to do with who can marry, they provide a default for fatherhood absent any better evidence. Today, DNA evidence overrides these defaults. As you have been told many times before.

Usually he is. So what? Today, we can prove beyond any doubt whether he is or not. Marriage or no.

<omit irrelevant nonsense>

You already did. When money is very tight, you tend to get crime, broken homes, single parents, high incidence of disease, gangs, and so on. These are part of the whole poverty package.

Not exactly. After all, "to discriminate" means "to distinguish differences", and life requires this. So laws must explicity list the sorts of discrimination they address. In practice, this means treating people differently for reasons not relevant to the difference in treatment. Racial discrimination is fine if a doctor is diagnosing a disease much more common in one race than other. It's not fine if the reason for discrimination has nothing to do with the discrimination itself.

Seriously? Back to square one. The government doesn't HAVE any interest in "purifying the white race", but some people used that as an excuse for racial bigotry. The government actually has a standard, and it is NOT "in the interests of government". The standard is whether a practice represents a clear and present danger to other members of society. Government has an interest in preventing or punishing such dangers.

Since same-sex marriage represents no danger of any kind to anybody under any circumstances, government (the legal system's) position is that it must be permitted. In America, we are not in the business of depriving people of their rights when exercising those rights benefits everyone and harms nobody. So to establish a LEGITIMATE government interest, you MUST be able to (1) determine that someone is harmed; and (2) have the harmed person bring suit (since he's the only one with standing). And in fact, same-sex couples ARE directly harmed by marriage bans. It's in the government's interest to eliminate the harm.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

Not sure of your point, because you are making mine for me. And they date from the dawn of civilization. Paternity identifies the father. The only participant, other than the woman who gave birth in the process of procreation.
Marriages limitation to men and women date from the dawn of civilization, DNA testing for Paternity date from the 1980s. The development of DNA testing doesn't transform the intent of marriages limitation to men and women. It has no effect upon it whatsoever. Its a demonstration of it. Only men are genetically tested for paternity, and never lesbian lovers. NOT because they are lesbians, but instead because they are a woman. Only a man is obligated by law upon the birth of a child by a woman and only women give birth. Not some nefarious attempt to exclude homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals. Its the biology of procreation.

Aaaaand that's why heterosexual couples are encouraged to marry because children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty than children born to their married mother and father. That was the first friggin factor I named. POVERTY. Again, you are making my point.

EXACTLY. Cornell Law has more credibility than the random thoughts that bounce around in your head. Notice how all your arguments are based solely upon your personal thoughts.

Actually, that was the very interest and purpose the states had in enacting laws against interracial marriage. And the courts held this was NOT a LEGITIMATE governmental interest.

 

4 Appellate court decisions and around 25 federal district and state-court decisions have more credibility than the random thoughts that bounce around in yours. It's laughable that you'll still be here arguing even after that sweeping SCOTUS ruling comes in, while hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples will be marrying. Such a productive use of one's time

 

OK, we're in agreement here. Biology works the way it works. Marriage has nothing to do with biology. So let's just drop the biology and move along, OK?

You tried to argue that same sex marriage somehow contributes to poverty. It does not. So let's drop that red herring and try to stick to the point.

Except of course that what you cite is irrelevant. I could quote Einstein on physics, and have just as much to do with civil rights.

No. Bans on inter-racial marriage were abolished because they violated the constitutional rights of the citizens. Exactly why laws against same-sex marriage are being abolished. I think we should agree that the government acts to protect the civil rights of all citizens. So we agree here, that bigotry is NOT in the interests of the society. Not even yours.

 

I didn't do that, I am not interested in arguing with you whether I did or not. You have abandoned your argument to attack me.

As far as I am concerned you have conceded.

I don't care about your personal evaluation of me.

 

Has everything to do with it as I have demonstrated with the historical record. Your generic denials void of even a shred of substance are meaningless.

- - - Updated - - -

Twice here in the last couple of days. You are just dishonest too admit it.

 

liar!!

 

I believe that when the courts have addressed this particular line of reasoning, they have generally agreed that this is a valid interest, and perhaps even one of the many purposes of marriage; however the under-inclusiveness and over-inclusiveness has lead the courts to believe that this is not the soul purpose of marriage. SCOTUS has even specifically laid out other purposes. It's also worth pointing out (as the 9th circuit did) that in the history of marriage, very few states considered infertility to be cause for divorce in the days before no-fault divorce. An odd curiosity when the soul purpose of marriage is strictly to do with establishing paternity. Or laws that enabled close relatives to marry if they could establish that they are infertile. As the 7th circuit put it:

Heck, even the conservative justices agree that once the moral objection to homosexuality is removed as a basis for discrimination, there is nothing left

Anyway, you can keep making your argument all you want, it's just a red herring. Nobody's disagreeing with you except for the supposition that it is the soul purpose for marriage.

 

Dixon is in wonderland. Up means down, mushrooms make you bigger. Paternity is of the utmost importance with marriage, yesterday it was matrimony which means motherhood.

 

No, merely pointed out that the latin root of matrimony is Mater, mother. AND NEVER claimed "matrimony" is "is of the utmost importance with marriage". You just made that up because while you want to respond, you cant formulate a rational response to what I have actually stated and instead simply make up some (*)(*)(*)(*), attribute the (*)(*)(*)(*) to me, and then respond to your own (*)(*)(*)(*) instead.

 

I never claimed it was the sole purpose of marriage. It is the primary reason why civilization has for thousands of years licensed and regulated marriage.

??? Because the law made it a crime for a man and woman to engage in sexual relations or cohabitate with each other unless they are married. Really no justification for prohibiting cousins from engaging in sex and cohabitating, when procreation is an impossibility.

 

Nah, just shows they aren't above using disingenuous, slippery slope arguments.

 

Well, they certainly have more authority when it comes to legal precedent, but it wont be the first time all the courts are wrong.
And its not just random thoughts of mine. Its the recorded history of marriage.

 

Heh, well I'll at least give you props for shunning slippery slope arguments. They might be regretting that decision now, since their argument has been quoted again and again and again by lower courts as one of the reasons they should rule as they are. So it's more than a slippery slope, it has become a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

You often act as such. Your arguments around justifying the limitation in marriage constantly revolve around this issue, which only logically makes sense if you also believe that it is the sole reason. If you have given up any pretense of it being the sole reason, and that there can (and are) other reasons that the courts and society have considered sufficient, then this argument is finished. And most certainly the government, society and the courts have recognized other purposes, particularly in the history of marriage in the USA, which is really all that is relevant. The only possible remaining issue is if there is sufficient reason to be AGAINST same sex marriage, once we get past the question of whether they can satisfy the same sufficient purposes for which it is granted to others... and I don't think I've ever heard you make an argument as to why to be against is.

Then why enact marriage at all if there is no need to establish paternity among those for whom procreation is an impossibility. Add this to the stack of evidence that there are other sufficient purposes.

 

Scalia, the father of gay marriage.

 

It is the SOLE reason for the limitation to men and women. All closely related couples are excluded just as all couples of the same sex are excluded for the same reason, the potential of procreation. Even though not all closely related couples have the willingness or ability to procreate, ALL are excluded because of the potential of procreation and the potential of genetic defects.

 

Interesting....both my wife and myself have been surgically altered to prevent reproduction. Does this mean we should not be happily in love?

 

???Nope. Grasping for strawmen already?