Procreation and marriage

Incorrect, as usual, there are over 1,500 animal species that are known to practice same-sex coupling, including bears, gorillas, flamingos, owls, salmon and many others. Same-sex coupling is different than same-sex behavior which is displayed in most animal species.

Same-sex behavior = acts of dominance, lack of opposite sex member
Same-sex coupling = a partnership bond, regardless of opposite sex members

Some animals partner with a member of the same-sex for life.

 

Spot on there.

Dixon: "Nahnahnahnahhhhnotlisteningggggg"

 

Yeah, homosexual BEHAVIOR is in nature, like I said. Homosexuality is purely a human invention

 

Gays cannot marry because they do not procreate like fertile couples.

Elderly and infertile couples are still allowed to marry.

Yet, procreation is not a requirement of marriage, but we will still deny an entire group the right to marry because they can't procreate.

But only if the group is homosexual, we will just ignore the other groups that don't procreate.

Makes sense.

 

You should have added "Oh snap" to the end of that.

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Correct. Heterosexual couples, sexual couple of the opposite sex, are included because they have the potential to procreate while couples of the same sex, regardless of their sexuality is precluded because it is a physical impossibility for them to ever procreate. Its overinclusive. Bright lines drawn in the law for ease of administration. Makes perfect sense if your goal is to encourage all couples who will procreate, to marry.By encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry they encourage all that conceivably can procreate to marry.

And you still have the GLARING problem with your argument in that extending marriage to homosexuals will make it EVEN MORE overinclusive. Your argument does nothing to support your arguments advocating gay marriage.

 

And essentially irrelevant point. Procreation excludes NO ONE from legal marriage and benefits. (And certainly, you cannot prove me wrong.)

 

Yet heterosexual couples who are unable to procreate are not excluded from your excluded from your argument.

Oh snap.

You just contradicted yourself.

 

Correct, it is the potential of procreation that includes the heterosexuals. It doesnt exclude homosexual couples any more than it does ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS other than a heterosexual couple. Nothing special about those who happen to be homosexual..... well other than them whinning the loudest.

 

Your own argument defeats itself.

Couples who can't or won't procreate marry.

Therefore homosexual couples who can't or won't procreate have the same right to marriage.

You keep parroting the same broke argument.

 

There we go. He's finally come out and said it.

Look at that, miracles happen.

 

You're correct. Terms like "straight", "bi", "gay" etc only really came into being around the time of Freud.

 

I swear there's two people using this account, that.. or it's the multiple personality disorder that others have suggested you have.

You've quoted in other topics people, court opinions stating that denying same-sex marriage is constitutional because the state has an interest in furthering procreation to ensure the survival of the species. YOU DON'T QUOTE THINGS YOU DON'T AGREE WITH TO FURTHER YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

You're quite anomaly. I can't say I've met/debated anyone quite like you.. Ever.

 

What are you defining "homosexuality" in humans as?

Animals pair-bond with members of their own sex. Humans pair bond with members of their own sex.

And the argument from nature is irrelevant anyway. You're not saying anything relevant to either humans, gay people or marriage. Marriage itself is a "unnatural" human invention so the "point" on your behalf is moot.

 

What does Section 1 have to do with states creating rights for same-sex couples?

Nothing there makes legalising SSM unconstitutional.

 

And if anyone was in doubt that Dixon is a raving maniac...

Versus

 

And there is the neurosis indicated in such a person who would CONTINUALLY submit such an argument.

I bet that ANY "procreation-argument-guy" (PAG) won't admit that.

PAG will surely avoid that truth.

PAG has an agenda, which apparently prohibits him from admitting the truth.

 

Thats because you dont comprehend equal protection under the law and what it means. The requirements of equal protection make it "unconstitutional to reward people with benefits because they perform certain sexual acts" alone. Must have SOME legitimate governmental interest that is served in the case of couples who perform these sexual acts, not served in the case of couples who do not engage in these sexual acts. YOU couldnt possibly understand.

 

Because it keeps winning in courts across the country. I couldnt care less what a bunch of uneducated homosexuals here thought about my arguments.

 

Ive admitted it rereatedly. Some kind of delusion johnny? And posted these two court precedents that admit it and point out its irrelevancy. And a year later, your still here, pretending Ive never made the arument Ive made 100 times. You have no response to provide to it, so insteead you pretend it isnt there. All emotion, hormones and dishonesty. Its what you are, what you do.

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, 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


Quote:
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.’”...


Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....

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....

 

Beautiful demonstration of your inability to comprehend the english language. Notice if you can, the complete absence of any reference to "increasing procreation" wirthin my words.

 

If the idea of "promoting" procreation by awarding marriage rights to heterosexuals is not to encourage i.e. increase the number doing it, then what could possibly be the reason?

ANY encouragement of a particular act is tatamount to an effort to increase the incidence thereof. It's simple logic.

 

You even quoted from the 1971 court case the judge stating procreation as a government interest includes promoting the survival of the species. That means a focus on increasing/maintaining numbers (same thing really).

Yet he really didn't explain how SSM would negatively impact that aim. And nor have you.

 

Read my post and notice if you can, the complete absence of a single reference to "promoting" procreation. So full of it, Effortlessly dashing from one line of (*)(*)(*)(*) to another

Why the only reason Ive given 100 times, the well being of the children that do result from pocreation, of course. Your so busy crafting strawmen, you dont even know what arguments have been made. Youve been to busy avoiding them while you busy yourself slaying the strawmen youve set up. So typically gay of you.