Thread: Procreation and marriage

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Originally Posted by cd8ed
Again you missed the entire point, sterile couples cannot reproduce nor can elderly couple but they they are entitled to benefits simply because they belong to a certain group while excluding others. This is discriminatory...

Ive directly addressed it 21 times. They are included because they are the only GROUP that procreates. Homosexuals never procreate. Its a physical impossibility. YOU want to include the group of homosexuals for no other reason than the fact that they are homosexual. Being homosexual has no relation whatsoever to the intended governmental interest

Maybe you are getting confused with something, it is discriminatory to provide benefits to individuals (sterile and elderly heterosexual couples) simply because they belong to a certain group (heterosexuals) while making the case that gays cannot marry because they cannot procreate.

More simple:
Two opposite sex individuals can get married even though they cannot procreate because they belong to a certain group.
Two same sex individuals cannot get married even though they cannot procreate because they belong to a certain group.

Are you really having a hard time understand this? I do not know how to make it any more simple. I can understand if you do not agree with ssm or gays in general but please do not plead ignorance because you do not like the correlations being made.

People CANNOT get benefits simply because they belong to a specific group while denying those same benefits to another group. This is the very definition of discriminatory.

Originally Posted by cd8ed

Maybe you are getting confused with something, it is discriminatory to provide benefits to individuals (sterile and elderly heterosexual couples) simply because they belong to a certain group (heterosexuals) while making the case that gays cannot marry because they cannot procreate..

No, but you are still confused. Its discrimination made constitutional by the fact that only heterosexuals procreate. The discriminatory distinction is rationally related to serving the legitimate governmental interest. As opposed to the discrimination you propose with "'gay marriage". Marriage extended to homosexual couples because only homosexuals........what? ...you have to have some justification, otherwise it is unconstitutional discrimination.

Originally Posted by Colombine

Oh! So a person would potentially be eligible for ten sets of everything most people only get one of? Glad we cleared that one up.

Your point? Ten marriages, ten spouses ten of what people with one spouse have. Whats the problem?

Originally Posted by dixon76710

No, but you are still confused. Its discrimination made constitutional by the fact that only heterosexuals procreate.

If you meant constitutional in the sense "mentioned by the US constitution," well, you're wrong. The document doesn't mention marriage at all, whereas one can make a fairly strong and cogent argument that the US constitution argues for SSM on the basis of the 14th Amendment's stand on equality before the law.

The discriminatory distinction is rationally related to serving the legitimate governmental interest.

Why should the government be interested in procreation? It happens naturally, so it's not like there's an enormous impetus to codify relationships outside of archaic traditions and perhaps some legitimate interest in making certain legal issues much easier (power of attorney, for instance).

As opposed to the discrimination you propose with "'gay marriage". Marriage extended to homosexual couples because only homosexuals........what? ...you have to have some justification, otherwise it is unconstitutional discrimination.

No it isn't, because, again, sterile people aren't excluded, whereas most other contracts can make certain exclusions based on pertinent matters (job contracts based on security clearances, for instance, or people with credit risks for loans, or the like). So, you're "group argument" is flawed because you're just saying "heterosexuals/bisexuals in opposite sex relationships" rather than "only fertile people of the opposite sex may marry."

Additionally, the marriage contract basically provides a number of legal protections in a single package which can be acquired otherwise in a much more difficult matter, and most of those legal protections have little or nothing to do with procreation (spousal privilege which allows spouses to not disclose to prosecutors or police officers about matters spoken about with the spouse when they are reasonably certain about the privacy of their conversation, for instance; power of attorney for all decisions when the spouse is incapacitated; etc.), which argues strongly for a contract not based on the ability or inability of the participants to produce children (for instance, platonic friends can get married if they wanted and the government cannot do anything about it and wouldn't anyway), but for a legal contract providing numerous protections between partners.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Your point? Ten marriages, ten spouses ten of what people with one spouse have. Whats the problem?

It's not an equal application of the law.

Originally Posted by Akhlut

If you meant constitutional in the sense "mentioned by the US constitution," well, you're wrong. The document doesn't mention marriage at all, whereas one can make a fairly strong and cogent argument that the US constitution argues for SSM on the basis of the 14th Amendment's stand on equality before the law.

Constitutional as in determined by the courts to be constitutional, of course.

Originally Posted by Akhlut

Why should the government be interested in procreation?

Because when it occurs to single women, those children on average have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquiny, drug and alchihol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal convictions as an adult. All detrimental to society.

Originally Posted by Colombine

It's not an equal application of the law.

Thats ok because someone in ten marriages is not similiarly situated to someone in only on marriage.

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Has been according to YOUR source.

no it hasn't. nobody is talking about matrimony

Originally Posted by dixon76710

No, but you are still confused. Its discrimination made constitutional by the fact that only heterosexuals procreate. The discriminatory distinction is rationally related to serving the legitimate governmental interest. As opposed to the discrimination you propose with "'gay marriage". Marriage extended to homosexual couples because only homosexuals........what? ...you have to have some justification, otherwise it is unconstitutional discrimination.

notice the complete absence of anything even remotely resembling what you claim he said?

[quote]

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Constitutional as in determined by the courts to be constitutional, of course.

the courts determined it's not constitutional, actually.

Because when it occurs to single women, those children on average have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquiny, drug and alchihol abuse, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and criminal convictions as an adult. All detrimental to society.

having nothing to do with the topic.