Why does marriage exist?

only in some assbackwards alternate reality is equal rights bad for the constitution.

 

"Gay marriage" is UNEQUAL rights by definition.

 

nonsense. extending marriage to same sex couples is equal rights.

 

dixon, an infertile man and woman cannot create a family....ergo by YOUR argument, should not be allowed to marry each other. Yet you claim you don't oppose infertile men and women marrying.

You cannot resolve your contradictory position.

 

Another of dixon's arguments that falls apart under specific example-

By that same rationale, if a state had an anti-miscegenation law against inter-racial marriage....extending it to "inter-racial marriage" would be "UNEQUAL rights".

 

No, extending marriage to all couples would be "equal rights". "Gay marriage" extended to gays is unequal by definition.

 

No, interracial marriage rights were extended to all people of any race. Not just the blacks. "Gay Marriage" is like extending marriage to only interracial couples with an African American.

 

nonsense. extending marriage to same sex couples is equal rights.

is there a push for grandma/mother or polygamy to get married? of course not. it's a seperate issue that needs to be addressed in court if those groups wish to be married.

- - - Updated - - -

nope. it's simply removing the gender restriction. all that happened when interracial marriage was legalized was removing the race restriction.

 

Nope, encouraging heterosexual couples to marry reduces the # of single mothers on their own. Encouraging any other type of couple does not.

 

has nothing to do with who can marry. procreation is irrelevant. you don't even need to have sex in order to marry.

 

Youll always have the silly ideas bouncing around in your head.

 

outdated court decisions don't help you. they don't even have any effect on my statement..........

 

??? Outdated? How so? The institution and it's limitation to husband and wife is 1000s of years old. It's now limited to husbands and wives for the same reason it was so limited 1000s of years ago.

 

no it isn't, and no limitation to a man and woman existed prior to the 1970's. procreation has nothing to do with who can marry.

nope

 

BC Rome preceeds the 1970s

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."

So does 1872 California

"Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage... "

as well the "territorial days" in Minnesota

"Minn.St. c. 517, which governs "marriage," employs that term as one of common usage, meaning the state of union between persons of the opposite sex./1/ It is unrealistic to think that the original drafts-men of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense."
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

It just wasnt until the 1970s that some gays started to redefine the word marriage. And the courts replied

"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis..."

 

No they weren't, dixon....several states had laws against inter-racial marriage that "court decisions" upheld until the Loving case.

The EXACT SAME rationale you use today.

 

AND THEN "interracial marriage rights were extended to all people of any race. Not just the blacks." Like I said. Come back when you have something relevant.

 

totally irrelevant to US law.

no limitation exists there

prior to this, no limitation existed in the law, or in any court decision.

 

The word "marriage" limited the institution to a man and woman, before and after the court decision.

 

nope. no such limitation existed anywhere in any US law or court decision prior to the 1970s

 

Every single law that contained the word "marriage".

 

nope. no such limitation existed anywhere in any US law or court decision prior to the 1970s

 

The courts disagree.

 

no they don't. and nothing you quoted even relates to my statement......."no such limitation existed anywhere in any US law or court decision prior to the 1970s"

 

Only because youve convinced yourself that homosexual couples procreate.