Sundance Channel Developing show about a very confused person

WTFBBQ and heterosexual couples use this same method all the time. Tagg Romney used it to have baby.

You're attempting to establish a clear double standard.

Sorry just doesn't work.

 

No stranger than Women who turn themselves into real life barbie dolls like the Russian chick who spent 500,000$ on cosmetic surgery. It is whatever it is. Anybody who cares should really reevaluate their priorities.

 

Yes, one standard applied to heterosexual couples, the only couples who make babies and another standard applied to all others. As opposed to your double standard where one standard is applied to all couples who have sex, and another for all others. .......because they are the only couples who have sex? Sorry, just doesnt work. I have a rational basis for my standard, you do not.

 

Sure, your rational standard is that procreation is required for marriage. Even...though...procreation...ISN'T...REQUIRED...FOR...A...COUPLE...TO...MARRY.

 

what's up with that? I just saw a picture of her. Does she make money because of it?

 

ahh

so you chose your words poorly, ok.

 

??? No, thats just the strawman you love to chase. My position contains no requirement of procreation

 

Yet homosexual couples have children all the time

 

Your position is entirely dependant upon a requirement of procreation, which is what makes it so idiotic

 

Ohh, i'm sure she does. She's become a random subculture phenom...

 

Nope, it is the POTENTIAL of procreation, exclusively among heterosexual couples, that limits marriage to heterosexual couples.

 

No it doesn't - the fact that there are those who blatantly lack said potential and are still permitted all the lovely rights and privileges of marriage simply on account of their sex/orientation means that no such limitation exists.

 

nope. your position is entirely dependant upon a requirement of procreation. if it were the about the potential of procreation, sterile, geriatric, paralyzed and platonic couples would be banned from marrying.

 

And before you start babbling about "any perceived under-inclusiveness/over-inclusiveness", Dixon, the reality is that if a court finds that no such procreation limitation exists in the first place, it won't be "over-inclusiveness" because it was never a requirement.

 

No one claims it is a requirement. Are ya stuck on stupid?

 

Nope, are you? - If there's no "requirement" or indeed evidence that marriage is limited to heterosexual couples because they procreate as you said, then there is absolutely no justification for denying same-sex couples that right.

 

That notion is shattered by the simple fact there is no upper age limit to marriage for heterosexual couples, nor a requirement to disclose medical information that shows an inability to procreate - and therefore (according to your logic) no state interest in said relationships...

 

your argument is dependant upon a requirement. which is why it's been blown to bits.

 

Evidence??? There is an abundance of evdence. Matrimony, the freakin root of the word is Mater, MOTHER.

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

"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."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

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...

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

it is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=434&invol=374

Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition, defines marriage as follows:

"A state of being married, or being united to a person or persons of the opposite sex as husband or wife; also, the mutual relation of husband and wife; wedlock; abstractly, the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence, for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family."

The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines marriage as:

"The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the state or condition of being married; the legal relation of spouses to each other; wedlock; the formal declaration or contract by which a man and a woman join in wedlock."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines marriage as:

"The civil status, condition or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."

In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.
http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.\SAC\KY\1973\19731109_0040029.KY.htm/qx

NOW lets see YOUR evidence that marriage was limited to heterosexuals in order to exclude the homosexuals.

 

Nope, only the POTENTIAL of procreation. A requirement of procreation may be needed to avoid conflicting with your silly logic, or the logic of te gay judge in California, but not needed to avoid conflicting with the Constitution. Its impossible to determine with any accuracy, which couples are capeable of procreation. Its easy to determine which couples are made up of a man and a woman. Bright lines drawn in the law. The law is full of them. Usually selected more for their ease of identifying and not neccessarily for their precision. Its a basic principle of Constitutional law.

 

Has no impact upon my notion.

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...
And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

Constitutional law as opposed to emotions and hormones.

 

matrimony has nothing to do with marriage. Your presumption of paternity argument has already been refuted and dismissed. marriage and procreation are two seperate rights not dependant upon each other.

your argument is meaningless.

 

nope. it is entirely dependant upon a REQUIREMENT of procreation. which is why you've lost the debate.

neither procreation nor marriage are mentioned in the constitution. and why do you only refer to the gay judge in california, and dismiss every other federal judge who has tossed your arguments out on their ass?

it is entirely possible to determine which couples are INCAPABLE of procreating. rendering your argument meaningless.

you have no concept of constitutional law

 

state court decisions which are meaningless.

that isn't constitutional law. those are 30+ year old state court decisions. you have no concept of constitutional law.

 

Is this groundhog day Dixon? You must have a Notepad file which you frequently cut and paste this from, which due to some utterly bizarre delusion you seem to think hasn't already been totally dismantled and dismissed time after time after time?

I'm going to bite in the hope - and I assure you there's really not much of it - that you'll actually refrain from your constant ad-naseum reposting. One last time.

Okay, so... Presumption of Paternity. A clause which concerns cases where the state can legally presume parenthood on the part of the man who is married to a woman who either has a child or expecting one, regardless of whether or not he is on the actual birth certificate. You're claiming this is evidence that marriage is limited to heterosexual couples because of their potential to procreate, right?...

Well that straight-up makes no sense. The state PREFERS it if there is another party to look after and assume financial accountability for a child, but you may as well be using this argument against elderly and infertile heterosexual couples seeking marriage. In your twisted logic it would serve as an equally "valid" argument against the state allowing them to marry as it would a same-sex couple. Buuut of course it's not even valid in the slightest. PoP is a clause that simply deals with most cases. It's paternity law - NOT marriage law. And the fact it clearly doesn't and could NEVER for that matter apply to countless heterosexual couples - the newly wed elderly couples and those who marry knowing they are infertile - shows that it isn't evidence of any kind of limitation, it's just something that ensures less of a burden on the state WHERE APPLICABLE. Nothing more, nothing less.

The ironic thing is you're supposed to have a background in law and you're struggling in comprehending something as relatively simple as that. :/

The rest of your citations are just meaningless definitions that have no basis in law. If a legislator opt to change a legal term, that is their prerogative. If a majority vote to change the legal definition of marriage, that is their right. These arguments would have had SOME relevance while it was just courts interpreting what the word "marriage" meant but I would recommend that you update your Notepad file in light of recent events...