Thread: Procreation and marriage

Originally Posted by kreo

In free society regulations are imposed to divert negative events or prevent extra burden on general public. (*)

Interaction between man and woman can cause planned and unplanned pregnancy and as a result child birth. Any intellectually sound person understand that those children need to be healthy, they need upbringing and education, they also not need to be self sufficient.
Marriage allows us to achieve those goals.

Interaction between two people of the same sex have NO effect on the society because it never results in pregnancy and childbearing so no license and regulation is necessary.

In majority of cases license is not revoked due to inactivity, so it is perfectly legitimate for man and woman to get the license and not to use it.(*)

Does lawyers, doctors, plumbers lose their license after inactivity? I don't think so.

Your point doesn't address however the opposite-sex couples who are known to be incapable of procreating (where medical records exists)... The only justification for allowing that group (100% incapable of natural procreation) seems to be that it would be unfair...

It is just as unfair to deny same-sex couples, who are also 100% incapable of natural procreation with one another. When you're using procreation as the sole defining factor, you can't simply split people into "gay and straight", you must split people into "capable and incapable" else it's simply hypocritical.. And very possibly even unconstitutional if you're using procreational ability as the sole rationale...

Originally Posted by DevilMay

Your point doesn't address however the opposite-sex couples who are known to be incapable of procreating (where medical records exists)... The only justification for allowing that group (100% incapable of natural procreation) seems to be that it would be unfair...

It is just as unfair to deny same-sex couples, who are also 100% incapable of natural procreation with one another. When you're using procreation as the sole defining factor, you can't simply split people into "gay and straight", you must split people into "capable and incapable" else it's simply hypocritical.. And very possibly even unconstitutional if you're using procreational ability as the sole rationale...

No it is not unfair. What we care for? We only care about negative events i.e. children without fathers, children with genetic defects or children of underage mothers, so we are trying to regulate and license relationship between a man and a woman.
No one care about medical records, gay or straight or anything that has no relevance to the matter.
Or you are trying to say that we are in concentration camp?
May be you want to treat people like a slaves, lining them up to present Ausweispapier for any reason.

Originally Posted by kreo

No it is not unfair. What we care for? We only care about negative events i.e. children without fathers, children with genetic defects or children of underage mothers, so we are trying to regulate and license relationship between a man and a woman.
No one care about medical records, gay or straight or anything that has no relevance to the matter.
Or you are trying to say that we are in concentration camp?
May be you want to treat people like a slaves, lining them up to present Ausweispapier for any reason.

Clearly you care about keeping gender discrimination/sexuality discrimination deeply ingrained into the institution of marriage, since there is NO rational or legal justification in allowing sterile opposite-sex couples who cannot procreate to marry while at the same time denying same-sex couples who cannot procreate the same privilege.

For procreation alone to stand as a justification to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, the criteria MUST be based on procreative ability, and NEVER merely on sexuality/gender. This is almost certainly unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by DevilMay

Clearly you care about keeping gender discrimination/sexuality discrimination deeply ingrained into the institution of marriage, since there is NO rational or legal justification in allowing sterile opposite-sex couples who cannot procreate to marry while at the same time denying same-sex couples who cannot procreate the same privilege.

For procreation alone to stand as a justification to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, the criteria MUST be based on procreative ability, and NEVER merely on sexuality/gender. This is almost certainly unconstitutional.

We focus only on adverse procreation. Marriage has nothing to do with gays, straight or responsible procreation.
When government regulates driving, it does care about how many drivers on the road, or how good those drivers are, or whether people with driver license are incapable to driver because they broke their fingers.
It DOES not matter.
The purpose of regulation is to prevent negative effects as much as possible.
You, on the other hand want regulation to serve SPECIAL interest.
Sorry but we already have more then enough regulations that serve special groups.

None of that changes or explains the fact that the government does not deny sterile couples marriage rights. The law could EASILY be altered to prohibit this, so practicality is not an issue. If this was being argued in court, no amount of crying or whining about "special interests" could justify using the procreation argument against SSM while sterile couples are permitted to marry. It violates the Equal Protection clause. You KNOW this.

All your examples about doctors and drivers mean diddly squat against the blatant hypocrisy of denying marriage to one group incapable of procreation and not to another. Your examples in the federal cases (Prop 8 and DOMA) would NEVER stand against proper scrutiny. That's the reality.

Either come up with a better argument than procreation, or accept that you can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by DevilMay

None of that changes or explains the fact that the government does not deny sterile couples marriage rights. The law could EASILY be altered to prohibit this, so practicality is not an issue. If this was being argued in court, no amount of crying or whining about "special interests" could justify using the procreation argument against SSM while sterile couples are permitted to marry. It violates the Equal Protection clause. You KNOW this.

All your examples about doctors and drivers mean diddly squat against the blatant hypocrisy of denying marriage to one group incapable of procreation and not to another. Your examples in the federal cases (Prop 8 and DOMA) would NEVER stand against proper scrutiny. That's the reality.

Either come up with a better argument than procreation, or accept that you can't have it both ways.

Old song about special rights for homosexuals.

Originally Posted by kreo

Old song about special rights for homosexuals.

notice the complete absence of the words "special rights for homosexuals" in the post you quoted.

NOBODY here is asking for special rights for homosexuals. NOBODY.

Originally Posted by rahl

notice the complete absence of the words "special rights for homosexuals" in the post you quoted.

NOBODY here is asking for special rights for homosexuals. NOBODY.

Yea, sure, it has been documented in six states in U.S.

Originally Posted by kreo

Yea, sure, it has been documented in six states in U.S.

nowhere in the law in those six states will you find anything mentioning special rights for homosexuals. You don't even have to be homosexual, to marry someone of the same sex. sexuality has no relevance in who you can marry.

Originally Posted by kreo

Yea, sure, it has been documented in six states in U.S.

Stop saying stupid things; homosexuals have no more rights in ANY state that heterosexuals are excluded from. There is nothing 'special' carved out for homosexuals, that heterosexuals do not already have as a right or protection.

You should know that is indisputable (and many already do). So, what the hell are YOU talking about?