I Am FOR Gay Heople Having Equal Rights.

And where did this "NEW" description come from? (It is likely homophobic BS. How is it not?)

 

If the implication of same-sex couples marrying necessarily entails the toppling of prohibitions on related marriages, then so be it. For example, I think if a mother and daughter are raising a child they SHOULD be entitled to many of the same legal benefits others enjoy to create a better household.

The difference between closely related people and same-sex couples however is the legal kinship which can provide hospital visitation, end of life decision and inheritance perks. Unlike same-sex couples, they AREN'T legal strangers. But there should be a least a domestic partnership of some kind IMO for related people.

 

And the idea that procreation needn't have anything to do with marriage isn't a new idea but a current one upheld and followed by jurisdictions that ban same-sex marriages, hence why I gave all those examples. Your premise of it being "new" was faulty.

 

From the post of mine you quoted in your response

- - - Updated - - -

Soooooo whats all this nonsense about "gay marriage"

 

Exactly! Well-stated!

- - - Updated - - -

Bottom line: There is no truly valid reason to deny homosexual couples state recognized marriage.

 

Not necessarily. The inability to procreate cant be used as a reason to deny marriage, but that doesn't mean the potential for harm through procreation can't be considered.

 

Unless I slip up and accidentally use the media terminology, I ALWAYS refer to it as "same-sex marriage". While it would primarily serve gay and bisexual people, it wouldn't be limited to them. Just like "traditional marriage" isn't denied to platonic opposite sex couples. And no, the government doesn't seek to annul them by itself.

 

Sure there is. For the same reason all couples other than a heterosexual couple are denied. The mother and grandmother down the street are denied marriage because they have no potential of procreation. Just as two gay guys have no potential of procreation. You just want special treatment for the gays because they rub genitals just like a real mom and dad while the mother and grandmother do not. Its just that nobody can explain the rational relation between rubbing genitals and the new governmental interest in encouraging the formation of stable homes.

 

Actually the courts have declared that ONLY gay or lesbian couples would want to marry someone of the same sex and that ONLY the denial of marriage to homosexuals is a violation of Constitutional rights. Arguing that marriage hasnt been limited for thousands of years to heterosexual couples in order to include all couples that could have the potential of procreation, but instead has been so limited to exclude homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals. ABSURD.

 

But there is NO POTENTIAL of such harm between the single mother and grandmother joined together to raise their children/grandchildren together. They just dont rub genitals like the homosexuals.

 

Are you sure? Doesn't the law regard a same sex marriage or domestic partner arrangement between two heterosexual men (or women) as a form of fraud? Maybe I'm permitting my view to be governed by Hollywood (see "I Now pronounce you Chuck and Larry")

 

If a gay man and lesbian get married is that considered fraud by the government? No- so why would it be in this case?

 

A few states don't even consider a marriage complete until it's consummated. All the others would dissolve a marriage for a failure to consummate the marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

Only if they didn't consummate the relationship

 

I guess in your mind, the mother and grandmother are only entitled to marriage when they are raising children together but gays are entitled with or without children because they rub genitals just like a real mom and dad while the mother and grandmother do not.

 

some kind of separate but equal institution for those wh don't rub genitals? Why? What is the relation between the distinction of sexual couples and the governmental interest in fostering the formation of stable homes?

 

Anti-gay homophobes, pretending to offer reasonable dialogue concerning equal rights for gays? Really?!

 

no court has ever ruled that.

 

no state in the US requires consumation. You've tried this argument before and you were promptly refuted.

only if one of the parties seeks action, and only if there was a reasonable expectation for sex. this is an irrelevant comment.

no state requires consumation.

 

Then if there is a real demand for such a marriage and no other known and defensable reason to block it, then they too should be allowed to marry by the same standards that heterosexual couples can today. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I'll say it until it sinks in for you. If the government has no good reason to block it, then they must allow it under the same legitimate standards under which it is currently allowed.

As for reasons it might be blocked, some suggest the risk of coersion and disproportionate balances of people that can be involved in family dynamics... I.e. something might be a little wrong if a father can consent for his 12 year old daughter to marry her brother or uncle, and force her into the situation. Certain situations like these might need I be considered and accounted for. But I repeat, if there's no good reason for government involvement, then they need to back off and be fair in the application of the law regardless of indefensible biases that can't be said to serve a legitimate state interest.

 

The above makes very good sense.

 

Constitutional rights arent allocated based upon demand, or at least they shouldnt be.

 

Such strong opinions regarding matters you know nothing about.

 

and yet no court has ever ruled that. ones sexuality has no relevance on who can marry. it simply removes the gender restriction

 

That is a court case I am quoting.

 

which does not rule what you claimed.