Questions For Those Who Believe Homosexuality Is A Chosen Behavior

Sure there is. It is easy to determine the presence of a man and a woman. It is impossible to determine the ability to procreate. We dont know which couples will procreate, but we do know that all couples who do procreate, will be heterosexual couples. Thus governments encouragement of all heterosexual couples to marry.

 

And I meant "reek", not "wreak".

 

You are the champion of irrelevancy

 

Sometimes first cousins are allowed to marry as long as they prove they can't procreate so not sure of your point here.

 

You aren't making sense and certainly aren't adding anything germane to the topic.

 

Another one of those marriage laws, designed around the procreation that occurs among heterosexual couples, that has no applicability to same sex couples. The only reason cousins arent allowed to marry is because of the potential effects of inbreeding.

 

Nonsense if government "licenses and regulates" marriage because of the potential of procreation it does not need to concern itself with couples who cannot procreate (that's the whole crux of your argument). In this instance they can just say "go away, there won't be any babies so we're really not interested in getting involved".

Your argument centres around there being "no need" to license and regulate gay couples because there is no potential of procreation yet they are in exactly the same situation as the cousin couple.

It also flies in the face of your contention that "we don't know which couples will procreate" because in this case we clearly do.

We can't stop the couple from having sex but beyond that what benefit is served by "licensing and regulating" provably sterile first cousin marriages that wouldn't be equally served by doing the same for same sex couples?

 

I wouldnt disagree in the case of cousins who cant procreate. Thats government accomodating tradition, culture and religion that prohibits sexual relations outside of marriage. There has never been any such moral restrictions upon two people of the same sex.
What was it in my post you responded to that was "nonsense".

 

The implied notion that the idea the government "licenses and regulates" marriage on the basis of who can marry based on the potential of procreation and then goes on to "license and regulate" certain couples who can't procreate and doesn't "license and regulate" certain others.

But I think the whole "license and regulate" thing is actually a smoke screen the telling point is this:

No they're not accommodating those notions, they're dictating them especially when they go out of their way to craft and implement laws that specifically target one group but do not apply to another group who are in the exact same situation based merely and exclusively on gender (because those cousins couldn't marry if they were same sex could they?).

Is it government's place to enact these restrictions on individuals when there is no incidence of "provable harm" and all other points are equal with respect to family law?

 

Homosexuals do in fact procreate. Is there actually a rational basis for your prejudice?

 

No, 50 years ago they were dictating them when sex between a man and a woman outside of marriage was illegal. Heterosexual couples werent encouraged to marry, they were required, if they were going to engage in sexual relations.

 

Why yes there is.

Is there actually a rational basis for your prejudice?

 

Except that most bans and constitutional amendments regarding SSM have happened in the last 30 years or so and they have nothing whatsoever to do with dispassionately licensing and regulating marriage due to procreation and everything to do with one large group trying to legislate their morality onto another much smaller one. Just be honest about it and stop dancing around the issue.

In the long term this won't be a success because the government needs to show a compelling interest in order to maintain a discrimination and as long as one group of the infertile can marry there really is nothing else; all things being equal with respect to family law.

 

We were speaking of the bans against closely related couples marrying which predates the new gay marriage we have in 6 states.

 

But I am saying that in certain states known infertile couples are permitted to marry but only if they are heterosexual. There is no adequate justification for extending this "accommodation" to one group and not to another.

Appeals to:

Are going to find themselves on very shaky ground if they are found to be the only reason a government contract is offered to one group and denied to an identically situated other.

 

Amen to that!

 

I doubt youll like this justification either but, administrative convenience is sufficient to justify the imperfectness of the fit between the classification and the purpose of the laws. Its easy to determine the presence of a male and female, it is impossible to determine with any accuracy the capability to procreate. Just because government could limit marriage to heterosexual couples who have both the capacity and willingness to procreate, doesnt imply that they must do so.

 

There should be no limits on homosexuals concerning marriage.

I realize that some people WANT those restrictions, but they are not and never truly have been justified.

 

I've seen both of these rulings (countless times) before, here's my problem with them:

The finding illustrates what "does not fail" a rational basis review but it does very little to outline what that rational basis actually is.

The nearest it gets is this:

"Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation"

And while the legislature is entitled to believe anything it likes such as "the moon is made of green cheese" they need to show some substantive evidence in support of that belief when challenged under the basis of compelling state interest by a disaffected group.

How can limiting marriage to the opposite sex "further" procreation?

Are the opposite sex going to stop procreating if gays can marry?

If gays can't marry, are some going to forfeit their partners, move in with the opposite sex and have babies instead?

Some people may believe any or all of the above but the evidence seems to show otherwise.

I'm sure that finding a law "does not fail" a rational basis does not mean that it's entitled to stand even when it has been shown to be supported by completely irrational claims.

And to this:

The bit that bothers me about this is the "abstract symmetry" part. Is this a court ruling or a metaphysical pronouncement?

That aside, as far as the equal application of the law (the compelling interest) a gay couple is identically suited to certain heterosexual couplings which in my estimation makes their symmetry not abstract but concrete.

The spectre waiting in the wings is the notion that male/female relationships are somehow different or superior whether or not children are involved. Different they may be but does that preclude gay couples from finding the unique dynamic in their own relationships which cannot be replicated by other means and have that protected under law?

What compelling governmental purpose is fulfilled by not affording such protections to homosexual couples? What message does the government have to "rationally" project in so doing?

You have offered rulings which appear to be pre-determined and squirming to fit their own criteria. They may be law (except the parts examined and overturned by Prop eight) but that doesn't mean they're good law.

 

They are subject to the same limits as everybody else. There are no limits applied only to homosexuals. But they want exceptions to those limits because they are gay.

 

The case was offered in response to your often, repeated refrain, "infertile couples are permitted to marry". Of course thats precisely why you want to dash off to another topic. Typical.

 

It's the exact same topic, these cases deal with the juxtaposition of infertile couples who are permitted to marry by way of plaintiff's claim that as such they should be also.


That aside, as far as the equal application of the law (the compelling interest) a gay couple is identically suited to certain heterosexual couplings which in my estimation makes their symmetry not abstract but concrete.

 

And notice how nowhere in your post are these "infertile couples" evan as much as even mentioned

 

"That aside, as far as the equal application of the law (the compelling interest) a gay couple is identically suited to certain heterosexual couplings which in my estimation makes their symmetry not abstract but concrete."

I don't know how much easier I can make it for you: certain heterosexual couplings that are identically situated to homosexual couples are infertile couples (because neither produces babies without outside help). Couples that aren't identically situated but are similarly situated are fertile couples (because they do produce babies without outside help).

 

Yeah, still arguing they are treated differently, even though nobody denies they are treated differently