Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?

Lots of people join to raise families. You need SOME justification for special treatment for the homosexuals.

 

Doesnt even contradict my claims.

 

Marriage "equality" would involve extending marriage to all who are excluded by law, Not just the gay couples, which is SPECIAL treatment. INequality by design. Labeling it marriage equality doesnt make it so.

 

Of course there is. Your state of denial is delusional. The law doesnt obligate mothers and fathers of children because someone else would have been preferred.

 

In case you forgot 8th grade social studies, the United States operates under a Common Law system adopted from our buddies the Brits. The Constitution is not the sole law of the land.

 

So you think you know more about the law the judges and the justices, you think marriage is either wrong- or you support it as a patriarchal institution, and you don't understand DOMA.

All of which means you are going to be more and more disappointed.

 

Just one more on the list of invalid arguments. Procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Thus, any argument against gay marriage which relies on children as it's premise is fallacious.

And as a counter argument, just for (*)(*)(*)(*)s and giggles (since it is irrelevant in regard to marriage)...

Since gay couples cannot biologically have their own children, they must adopt. All studies (and common sense) show that children with two parents, regardless of their sex or sexual preference, are much better off than children with one parent, or none. So in fact, gay couples are a benefit to society.

 

Nah, more like from the womans perspective if Im going to let you impregnate me with your child, Im going to get the government involved so if you leave, Im not left alone with the financial burden of providing and caring for our child.

 

The courts haven't granted political rights in regard to marriage. Rather, they've struck down laws limiting constitutional rights which have always existed. The fact that it's taken so long to do so is unfortunate and shameful.

 

No one claimed it was a requirement. Your strawman is an invalid argument, but we know thats why you selected it.

???? Well, since the only two people in the world obligated by the birth of a child to provide and care for the child is the mother and father and without them the child has only the hope of someone stepping forward to voluntarily assume those obligations, youve just demonstated one of the main benefits of marriage between men and women. Two parents. And the most common alternative to being borrn to a married mother and father is a single mother on her own with an absent or unknown father.
Marriage to a gay lover doesnt create any obligations to children. Adoption does.

 

Wel I would argue it is not a constituional right and your not striking down the laws that limit these rights and are instead, selectively and purposefully only striking down the limitations that prevent gays from marrying while leaving the others in their place.

 

-I think Marriage was once meaningful, and at a time it had it's purpose for society. But with the money-grubbing, divorce courts, etc. Marriage has become useless. USELESS. It no more holds up the family than bath water! Who knows, maybe for gays it'll have a more moral significant impact and they'll reverse their own relationship trend. I doubt it.

-I don't "support it" as a Patriarchal institution(and in fact, how can it ever be viewed as such under Joint Housing and shared family names?). I'm just pointing out how women historically(if falsely) and presently view it as such. Marriage declared as a 'right' is an afront to these women..

-Marriage was so declared in Loving and Virginia during entirely different social circumstances. One cannot logically on good basis create an argument from a non-existent position. Loving and Virginia should have no impact on this debate.

- I understand what DOMA is(or was). A Federal Law recognizing Heterosexual Marriages. If the Courts wanted to declare all Marriages equal, they should have ruled to include gays inside DOMA's protection. Simple enough, right? But they didn't. Largely deciding it was a State Issue.

Scalia rightly feared that it would be State Judges, not citizens of the State who'd legalize Gay Marriage.

 

Lol, blame the Church. The Church wanted to sanctify it's political authority since atheists( and otherwise Followers of Faith who however didn't want to be controlled.) didn't recognize the Church's power. So the Church made a deal with the government: You make it so they have to marry, and we'll let you keep their records.

Short story on why we're here today: The church's intolerance.

 

Which part is incorrect? I think we said the same thing. AMERICAN tradition, i.e. Judeo-Christian tradition, is the only "tradition" applicable to U.S. law. It doesn't matter how people of antiquity in other parts of the world defined marriage. It only matters that U.S. law, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, polygamy is prohibited; as has been gay marriage until now.

 

Lol, you - incorrectly - label my argument a strawman, with a strawman. Anyway, since we both agree that procreation is not a requirement of marriage, then logically, you must also agree that that cannot be used as a premise for an argument against gay-marriage.

I welcome your indirect admission to using fallacious reasoning. Recognition is the first step to recovery. Now, we all just hope that you will not relapse.

Well damn, that was fast. I'll admit I didn't have high hopes, but I'm disappointed that you couldn't make it further than the very next sentence.

Ok, and? None of this has anything to do with what I said.

Children will be in need of adoption whether gay couples are there to help (or even exist) or not. Those who are unable to have their own children are more likely to adopt than those who can, and obviously homosexuals would be included in that group. Children with two parents are better off than those with one parent, or no parents, EVEN IF those parents are the same sex. In addition, a couple has a higher chance of getting an adoption approved if they are married, as it signifies stability. Thus, gay couples - and more so, married gay couples - are a benefit to society. Q.E.D.

 

Obviously you have no clue as to what a strawman is. In response to MY post you claim my argument is invalid because there is no requirement of procreation when MY argument doesnt involve a requirement of procreation.

I dont use it in my argument. You use it in your strawman.

 

Scalia REFERENCE is the best thing since sliced butter. i bet his face turns red everytime he hears about it striking down these laws.

 

You mean the "special" condition of being treated equally? Well, no you don't. You need justification to DENY people rights, not to grant them rights.

 

Here in America we treat the married as UNEQUAL to the unmarried by design. Treating people equal in regards to marriage would involve extending marriage to ANY two consenting adults, not just those who happen to be gay.

 

Actually it does.

But for you to admit it would derail your campaign.

- - - Updated - - -

Recognizing that same gender couples have the same right to marriage as heterosexual couples makes same gender couples equal when it comes to marriage.

Yes- that makes it marriage equality for same gender couples.

 

You are confused.

As the courts have repeatedly pointed out- individuals have a right to marriage- and the State needs justification to exclude individuals- including homosexuals- from marriage.

The State- and yourself have failed to come up with any rational reason to exclude same gender couples from their right of marriage.

 

While that may happen someday, we're engineering equality one step at a time. For same-sex marriage, the time has come. Claiming that it's wrong to reduce illegal discrimination because we are not eliminating illegal discrimination is frankly dumb.

 

And up is down

And war is peace.

George Orwell would be proud of you.

In Dixon's world- Treating gay couples like heterosexuals couples is unequal

- - - Updated - - -

Actually if you ever spent the time to read the decision, the judge discusses that quite clearly.

But then again, none of you ever read the court decisions.

 

But it's an interesting construction. Let's say it has been illegal for short people to shop at WalMart. Let's say short people wish to be able to shop there just like everyone else, and let's say we have some bigots against short people. To those bigots, changing the rules to allow short people to enter the store is "special treatment for short people", and we need some compelling justification for treating short people specially. The fact that we would be eliminating special treatment is invisible to the bigot. His motivation has nothing really to do with equality or special treatment, but rather with his emotional abhorrence of short people.