Not meaningful within the context of marriage rights for ALL Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
(You should know this, by now.)
Printable View
Not meaningful within the context of marriage rights for ALL Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
(You should know this, by now.)
No, marriage for all heterosexual couples regardless of procreative ability is a special right that's being unjustly withheld from a group identically situated to old, barren and sterile heterosexual couples.Quote:
Originally Posted by kreo
This wasn't presented at the trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
Re:
Quote:
What other arguments which were presented at the trail did the judge "summarily" dismiss?
Youve obviously never read the case. Revealing that it doesnt as much as cause you even a moment of hesitation to proclaim as fact, about something you know nothing about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colombine
Quote:
Proponents’ procreation argument, distilled to its essence, is as follows: the state has an interest in encouraging sexual activity between people of the opposite sex to occur in stable marriages because such sexual activity may lead to pregnancy and children, and the state has an interest in encouraging parents to raise children in stable households. Tr 3050:17-3051:10. The state therefore, the argument goes, has an interest in encouraging all opposite-sex sexual activity, whether responsible or irresponsible, procreative or otherwise, to occur within a stable marriage, as this encourages the development of a social norm that opposite-sex sexual activity should occur within marriage. Tr
3053:10-24. Entrenchment of this norm increases the probability that procreation will occur within a marital union. Because samesex couples’ sexual activity does not lead to procreation, according to proponents the state has no interest in encouraging their sexual activity to occur within a stable marriage.
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/0...2292-ORDER.pdf
Whether it takes 2 or 20 years... DOMA will either be done away with or revised in such a manner that it does NOT arbitrarily discriminate against 'homosexual' people (as it does now).
It may take a Constitutional Amendment to get the legal effect I just shared, but it WILL happen.
Identical in that they rub genitals, just like a real mom and dad. Absent the potential of procreation, rubbing genitals really has no relevance to the formation of stable households.Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilMay
No more arbitrary in the case of the single mother and grandmother down the street, raising their children /grandchildren for nearly a decade, than it is two gay guys. Get over your gayness. It really has no relevance here. No justification for special treatment for the gays. Your eagerness to ape heterosexuals in marriage has no relevance either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny-C
Right right, continue to ignore the fact that gay couples raising children need and are deserving of the same rights as married heterosexuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710
You have no argument so you attempt to dehumanize the situation and marginalize the fact that homosexuals are raising children are in the same situation as heterosexuals.
Noooo, I just also recognize that couples made up of any two consenting adults "raising children need and are deserving of the same rights as married" homosexual couples would. You cant allocate governmental entitlements to couples because they happen to be "gay", without some legitimate purpose for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Osiris Faction
Elderly, sterile and barren couples do not have the potential for procreation. As I said - identical.Quote:
Originally Posted by dixon76710