Procreation and marriage

Yes, because the government does not wish to place a stamp of approval on incestuous relationships. No matter how you look at it, the effect would be to encourage the type of relationships that produce kids with defective genetics and which often involve abuse to some degree. It is "reasonably withheld".

 

Just like awarding "special rights" to sterile people without reason would be unconstitutional. By your logic.

Your method discriminates by class (gender, sexuality) rather than by the actual purpose you propose marriage fulfills (ensuring biological parents are accountable for their offspring). THAT would be unconstitutional - you're awarding "special rights" to certain people for no other reason than the fact they're heterosexual.

 

They are exactly 100% similarly situated.
Kinship does not provide equivalent benefits.
Learn the material before making uneducated conclusions.

 

Sterile people have nothing to do either with marriage or with purpose of marriage.
You have failed to provide the reason why special rights reserved for married couples should be extended to homosexuals.
When you find one let me know.

 

Yet the law readily allows for them to marry despite "having nothing to do with marriage"...

As long as that remains the case it is hypocritical and discriminatory to deny SSM on the basis of procreation.

One? How about several...

1) Their health - increased promotion of monogamy to curtail HIV/STD rates. Studies have even linked bans on SSM to increased HIV infection due to negative/condescending rhetoric from anti-gay campaigners and politicians, and the resultant self-depreciating behaviour.
2) Their happiness - "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
3) The well-being of their children - (*)the government has the power to create more stable households for child-rearing.

 

And then there's simply..

"It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket"

 

No they're not. Not even close. One is denied on the basis of their gender/sexuality, the other is denied because of a common-sense unavoidable link to incest and the legitimisation thereof. One is based on romantic love and pair-bonding, the other, well.. Not.

 

Find a law that describes what rights are denied and present it to the public.
Also please find me a law that regulates common sense, love and pair bonding.
Let me know if you have any success.

 

There's no law that literally spells it out, but each law (such as the prohibition of incest, bestiality and pedophilia) has a reasoning behind it.

 

Already been spelled out. The same reason sterile couples can marry.

 

Your logic is flawed.
Sterile couples can marry because they belong to certain group. Regulation and licensing of opposite sex couples has nothing to do with their sterility.
Sterility of individual couple as well as ability of individual couple to procreate has nothing to do with marriage institution.
Please provide an example of regulation of licensing that target concrete individuals but not a group of people.
Please also provide an example of regulation that has been changed because some of the individuals have certain characteristics that have no relevance to the regulation.

 

Ok, if there is no law then your failed.
You have not been able to present any evidence that incest has any relevance to a marriage.
Remember you want to remove a link between marriage and procreation. If link is removed incest, bestiality or pedophilia has no relevance to marriage.

 

Stopped reading there.

"Because they belong to a certain group" doesn't mean anything. It's designating and dividing by gender/sexuality, and in doing so giving rights to those who have nothing to do with marriage, by your logic.

You still haven't explained how sterile couples are any different to homosexual couples.

 

Nice self-defeating logic.

NOWHERE it is written into the law that procreational ability is required for a marriage license to be granted, thus "your failed"... =P

 

It is B.S.from your side, because procreation requirement is IRRELEVANT.
You have not been able to provide any evidence why "procreation requirement" has anything to do with marriage.
Marriage regulates interaction between man and woman and it has one and only one legitimate identifiable purpose. It is to automatically provide responsible father and mother for the children that may appear as a result of heterosexual relationship.
"Requirement to procreate" is a fiction invented by homosexual community to justify their demands for special rights.

 

This isn't a math equation. Nobody is asking for special rights. They're asking for EQUAL rights

 

Why should marriage be limited to opposite sex partners if:
Children are not a requirement
Reproduction is not a requirement
Religion is not a requirement
Monogamy is not a requirement
Love is not a requirement
Consummation is not a requirement

The definition of a marriage in most places is now the union of a man and a woman or the union of two members of the same sex so you cannot even use "that's just what marriage is". Marriage is a LEGAL CONTRACT, you are stating that same sex partners do not have the right to enter into a legally binding contract for... what reason?

Since you are so "logical" please; Why should marriage be limited to opposite sex individuals?

 

cute, but my statement is still untouched. nobody is asking for special rights. they're asking for EQUAL rights.

 

Sure, but be there is one very important requirement that distinguish marriage from other union. That requirement is that man become a father and woman become a mother IN CASE OF PROCREATION.

That requirement makes marriage unique, so it need to be regulated and licensed. All other types of unions do not require regulations.
However if you want to be really equal, you have to either restructure marriage to make it available to two consenting adults or eliminate marriage as social institution.

 

If you do not understand what equal means, you probably need another book.
Sure, I want to be equal with senior citizens and receive my social security before official retirement. Does it mean I am asking for equal rights? No I am asking for special right, because senior citizens have special rights.