Sorry, your argument on procreation is still bunk.
And if gender can apply as has already been established by SCOTUS, then the argument that marriage discriminates by gender/sexuality may easily stand.
Your silly logic has been addressed repeatedly by the courts.
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....
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
Over inclusiveness is fine. Guess gays should be able to marry.Quote:
fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness;
Look at that, there is no reason a couple should have to prove the ability or willingness to procreate. You just proved that nicely for me. So homosexuals need neither prove ability nor willingness to procreate.Quote:
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
You keep destroying your own argument.
Keep up the good work.
Youve been arguing for a month that marriage limited to heterosexuals is unconstitutional because its over inclusive, including sterile couples that cant procreate.
dixon, you haven't convinced most people here, that what you are saying is relevant. But you EXPECT them to comprehend points that don't really matter. Really, your arguments are terrible man. Come on... you mention "procreation", as if it makes your argument in a way that negates the valid points of others. All the while, I and virtually everyone else KNOWS that what you're claiming or alluding to where procreation is concerned... is barely relevant.Quote:
You evidently dont yet comprehend my and the courts arguments....
It's hilarious, and pathetic, when you are getting your ass handed to you in these debates, you have to resort to this sort of bigotry.Quote:
Not marriage and butt sex with your boyfriend.
how many times do you need to be told, that not everyone who disagrees with you, is a homosexual?