Gays have the same rights as straight people

Then you have to explain why we have marriage. Don't you think it is stupid to claim that marriage is a welfare for sexual couples?

 

Its not arbitrary. Only men and women can procreate. What would be arbitrary would be limiting this new instituton of marriage, intended to foster the formation of stable households, to heterosexual and homosexual couples. Any two people can form a stable household. Other than the potential of procreation and the need for stable homes for the product of that procreation, sex has nothing to do with the need or ability to form a stable household.

 

This same argument has already failed. It was used against interracial marriage.

 

Because tax break and other benefit are tools to regulate relationship between man and woman.
Yea, may be we should reduce amount of benefits in order to reduce gay's envy.

 

marriage predates christianity.

 

When that particular argument has failed? I guess never.
Ban on interracial marriage was correctly abolished because it violated purpose of marriage.
Same sex union has nothing to do with marriage, so there is no violation of any kind.

 

I dont think they would include the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage.

 

It failed because purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the well being of children is such an interest.

 

Yes it does. Why should heterosexual couples and homosexual couples get tax breaks that non sexual partners do not? Does it have something to do with orgasms?

 

No. These are privileges, which the Fourteenth Amendment upholds, and bestows them equally and to the fullest extent possible upon all citizens within the United States. After all, the word 'abridge' in terms of rights and privileges denotes curtail, meaning reduce or diminish. The equal protection clause reaffirms this language. Henceforth, it is reasonable for governments to delegate marriage back to its private sector role as a social union, nothing more, nothing less. If the state is to regulate kinship, it should only do so to perform civil unions.

 

Yes, you explain to me why?? How are they any different that two committed adults?

 

So couples who can not, will not, or are past child bearing age have no business getting a marriage license.

 

That would entail bestowing them to both the married and unmarried.

 

Yes it would. I have no problem with governments doing so.

 

Its difficult to determine the ability to procreate with any certainty. Its easy to determine the presence of a man and woman. We dont know which couples will procreate. We do know that all who do will be exclusively heterosexual couples. Thus the encouragement for all heterosexual couples to marry.

 

There are many couples for which it is easy to tell. Couples past the child bearing stage, couples in which the female is disabled and cannot bear children, couples where one party or the other has already had surgical sterilization....

These we could easily eliminate.

 

Sooooo lets hear your theory? What compelling interest is served by limiting marriage to sexual couples? What compelling interest is served by excluding the mother and grandmother down the street, raising their children and grandchildren together for nearly a decade, if the "goals of the state" is to foster the formation of stable households?

 

No, children born to single mothers with absent or unknown fathers dont do as well as children born to their married mother and father. And if that isnt possible, homosexual couples are not some how more qualified to care for children than any two consenting adults. Certainly nothing could justify such a preference for gay parents to raise children.

 

Bright lines drawn in the law. The law is full of them. Usually not selected for their precision but instead their ease in identification. And from a constitutional perspective.

 

this is incoherant

 

same sex marriage was not prohibbited until the early 1970's