Who has the right to decide the definition of marriage

dixon continually uses "marriage is for procreation, gays shouldn't be allowed to get married"....and continually gets tripped up on "Okay, what about infertile heterosexual couples?" and his inability to either (A) be consistant and say "No, they should be barred from marrying too" or (B) offer up a logical rationale why it's "okay" for infertible heterosexual couples to marry, despite NO chance of procreation, but "not okay" for gay couples.

He never has, never will....but will continue to try to make his "marriage is for procreation and thus not allowed for gays" argument and believe he is "winning" the debate.

BTW, even as that goes on....he's losing in the courts and in public opinion....where it REALLY matters.

- - - Updated - - -

In fact, it's totally irrelevant to dixon's antipathy to same-sex marriage....it's just an excuse (an inconsistant one, you'll note).

He simply hates gays.....he rarely even denies it.

 

We know that the ones who do will be fertile heterosexual couples. We know that the ones who won't will be gays and the infertile/post-menopausal heterosexual. The point still stands - government is only interested in denying based on procreation when it involves gays. You stated that the purpose of marriage was to encourage responsible procreation and reduce the number of absent fathers. Encouraging infertile and post menopausal heterosexual couples, when they *could* similarly limit them, has nothing to do this aim, and reveals double standards.

 

I'm against gay marriage legalization, but I don't hate gays. What's with our politically correct society? If somebody says that gay marriage is morally wrong, people call them "hateful".

I totally agree with what Bristol Palin said about this issue.

 

Gorn continually relies upon fabricated quotes he attributes to others, because he doesn't have the ability to formulate a response to what has actually been said.

My argument doesn't include a requirement of procreation so infertile couples have no effect upon my arguments.

 

And enough of this over-inclusive/under-inclusive nonsense. Gays and the infertile/post-menopausal seeking new marriage licenses are IDENTICALLY SITUATED. Thus, it is ALWAYS over-inclusive if it permits any one (or ALL) of those groups, assuming your reasoning regarding the purpose of marriage is correct.

SSM simply makes it more inclusive period. If there's still issues to be ironed out (like the mother and granddaughter down the street) at least we're on the right track.

 

Actually, the potential of procreation and possible genetic effects is why closely related couples are excluded and the impossibility of procreation is why two heterosexuals of the same sex are excluded. Has nothing to do with being gay.

 

Actually, encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry reduces the number of single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Encouraging gay couples does not.

 

If the interest in passing the anti-SSM Constitutional Amendments was to protect the interests and purpose of marriage (encouraging responsible procreation) why didn't the language of the amendments state that post-menopausal and medically infertile opposite-sex couples are constitutionally prohibited from seeking marriage licenses in the same way same-sex couples are?

Obviously there's more variables and complications involved in such a thing, but it still would have been possible to word them to that effect. It's painfully obvious the amendments were motivated simply by animus towards gays.

 

Possibility of genetic effects? Between a mother and her grandma in a platonic arrangement?

 

Actually, encouraging all fertile heterosexual couples to marry does that. Encouraging gay couples, post-menopausal and infertile couples does not. But only a prohibition for same-sex couples.

If the state were so interested in protecting that purpose and directing the resources of marriage to the "right" people, there would be evidence of a whittling down of the types of heterosexual couples who can marry. It's a point you simply cannot escape. And why SSM is winning over and over in court.

 

Is it intolerant to oppose someone's intolerance? I don't think anyone is "hateful" JUST for being against gay couples marrying in principal, that's their personal belief - but there's layers to it. For example, I oppose most abortion in principle, but I do not campaign against it, nor would I vote either for or against a woman's right to choose. You may oppose premarital sex in principal, or as a Christian, but do you campaign to have it banned? The issue many have is often the picking and choosing religious types do - that's at least worthy of dislike. Hatred is a strong word.

So I do not mind those who oppose SSM or homosexuality simply in principal - but those who take it upon themselves to cast an actual vote against my equal treatment before the law, I have a problem. For it that vote passes, and SSM is banned, they are to blame for denying me over 1,500 rights, and the social dignity marriage brings.... How could you not feel angry and upset about that?

Mary Cheney said this during the feud with her sister over SSM:

"Gina — this isn't like a disagreement over grazing fees or what to do about Iran. There isn't a lot of gray here. Either you think all families should be treated equally or you don't. Liz's position is to treat my family as second class citizens. That's not a position I can be 'lovingly tolerant' towards."

I think when you say to someone that their love can never be equal, it's like telling them that the person who likely means more than anyone in the world to them, the relationship that sustains it, will always be inferior and undeserving of equal treatment under the law.

 

Because we don't know which couples will procreate. We only know that all who do will be heterosexual couples. As well, long before government decided to latch onto marriage, society, tradition and religion condemned sexual relations between unmarried couples. Never has the law required marriage for homosexual couples to engage in sexual relations.

 

The government precludes "types" of people all the time from things requiring honesty and self-reporting. There are legal criteria that exclude certain people from donating blood. There are legal criteria that require people to disclose certain medical conditions in order to obtain a drivers license. I'd stop short of suggesting a fertility test at the alter, but actually then again why not?

The point of many legal prohibitions are to act as a deterrent regardless of practical enforceability. But the issue here is consistence and maintaining equal protection.

 

you argument is entirely dependant upon a requirement, or else you have absolutely no justification for excluding same sex couples on the basis they can't procreate. which is why your argument is so idiotic and keeps losing in court.

 

Because government isn't concerned with married couples not procreating. They are concerned with unmarried couples procreating. Heterosexual couples are going to procreate, with or without marriage.

 

Only because for you, over inclusiveness is unacceptable. Constitutional law says otherwise.

 

outdated and overturned cases don't help you, lol

and it's why you keep losing in court

 

If the government isn't concerned with married couples not procreating, why would it be concerned with removing the right of same-sex couples in the 19 US jurisdictions where it's legal?

A lack of concern in whether or not married couples are procreating means the government has no interest in defending its marriage laws against same-sex couples suing to marry. It wouldn't care, according to your logic, who marries as long as it still facilitates responsible procreation and reduces the number of absent fathers. Which it does regardless of whether or not SSM is legal.

 

Phil Robertson said that he believes homosexuality is morally wrong (also, he was asked about it, what did you expect him to do-lie about his own opinions?)

It's intolerant to demonize somebody just because they have different beliefs on a controversial moral issue.

 

You do know that marriage at one point was a contract for man to give up his daughter for food or power right?

 

Sam, what do YOU say about people who hold a different belief on the controversial moral issue of ...abortion?

 

I don't demonize pro-choice people. Post some quotes from me to prove that I supposedly did.

 

His daughter. As opposed to his son. Not sure of your point.

 

Basic Constitutional equal protection law. EVERY distinction in the law, must at a minimum be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest.

 

and barring same sex couples serves no such interest. which is why you keep losing in court.