Homosexuality...does it cause harm???

Yes, that was the conclusion. The arguments are within the cited case.

 

There are marriage laws that require the couple to prove that they can not reproduce (first cousins in many states).
There are marriages that will never have any chance of producing children (death row inmates are allowed to marry).
There are marriages that will never be allowed to keep any children that are produced (convicted pedophiles can marry).

IF marriage was predominately about reproduction these people would not be allowed to marry.

 

http://www2.law.columbia.edu/facult...odridge Decision edited Fundamental Right.pdf

 

Predominately about dealing with the product of that reproduction. Reproduction continues just fine without marriage.

 

None of those arguments were Constitutional. Period. One more time, where are those "dozens" of arguments you claimed? Citing biology, procreation, etc........those are NOT Constitutional arguments.

 

Your double talk is quite hilarious. You can't claim marriage should be restricted based on procreation then point out marriage is not necessary for procreation. Dance, dance, dance.....

 

"it" was ambiguous in the question I asked. I was referring to the special treatment heterosexuals get with regard to adoption because they can marry, not to marriage itself. I have since clarified my meaning... twice for you... while you continue to dodge and argue about what I meant to say instead of answering the question.

Still doesn't answer the question. Why do heterosexual couples get special treatment with regard to adoption, giving them preference, and facilitating their adoption before, during and after the fact? You are correct that adoption itself is not limited, but the special treatment certainly is.

 

You would be the one full of double talk. Ive probably pointed out 100 times on this forum that marriage isnt to encourage procreation and in fact seems to inhibit it. Marriage is limited to heterosexuals NOT BECAUSE all heterosexuals procreate but is instead so limited because ONLY heterosexuals procreate.

 

Because the purpose of marriage is to encourage mothers and fathers to raise THEIR children together. Not somebody elses children.

 

And apparently because ONLY heterosexuals adopt, ONLY heterosexuals don't have kids, ONLY heterosexuals should benefit from the rights of marriage while raising kids, and ONLY heterosexual couples (as opposed to polygamist marriage) produce children.

 

And what does that have to with with why marriage gives special treatment to heterosexual couples who have access to marriage, giving them preferential treatment in adoption and facilitating the adoption before during and after the fact.

If "the purpose of marriage is to encourage mothers and fathers to raise THEIR children together", then why on earth does marriage give this special treatment to heterosexual couples with regard to adoption? What seems obvious to apparently everyone except for you is that marriage is about more than just this purpose you put forward.

 

Bla-bla-bla-bla...
If someone doesn't want to be around someone and not like someone for any reason - I don't think that they should be hunted down and bulled, like you are bulling me here for not wanting to be around gays and not liking them. And don't call it a "right".
You are imposing yourself upon me, calling me with bad words, dictating me the way I should be, like my post is disgusting, etc. This is the harm you are causing.
So, stop harassing me and let me live somewhere(without leaving the country), where will be no gays and no gay propaganda.

 

Life expectancy is a lie, HIV statistics are distortions, but don't let that get in your way. Keep up the hate.

 

Constitutional reasons???

What could those possibly be???

 

These homosexual bigots will harass, fu*ck your brain and troll you forever, just because you don't support them.
Thus they are forcing you to accept them.
I am for isolation from gays. It would be great for gays and for straights.
Let them create a country "Gayland", state or county and do whatever they want there. I don't want to hear their sick stuff about marriages, etc. It makes me sick.
We are all free people and entitled to live the way we want to live.

 

And all of this means nothing, simply because no one has to procreate to get a marriage license. Two 70 year olds can obviously not procreate, yet can get a license.

SO....your arguments mean NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Did they stop issuing licenses to nonfertile or elderly couples??

 

There are still pockets of bigotry towards blacks, women, the handicapped... I'm sure you can find a little hole where your type can find comfort in the cfompany of other ignorant haters. Good luck finding a spot. Try the South.

 

Our government isn't in the business of controlling reproduction through marriage licenses, nor indeed through any means. We leave such nonsense to people like Nazis and the Chinese Communists. Our government doesn't dictate who gets married according to any standard except gender. Now people are seeking to remove the gender restrictions for the sake of people who are inherently different and wish to have the same freedom to marry. Why should this not be allowed? There is no practical reason for disallowing it.

 

What preferences are those? Im not aware of any Texas adoption laws that give preferential treatment. Wouldnt be surprised if adoption agencies, with more adoptive parents than available infants up for adoption, prefer married couples. Wanting to give the child what they have lost. Their mother and father. Women, putting up their infants for adoption likely insist upon it.

 

Married couples can apply for joint custody, adopting as a couple instead of as individuals... legally binding both partners with the rights and responsibilities. Such children benefit from having both parents being responsible for them. The child is eligible for health insurance benefits from BOTH parents because they are married, with joint custody. Joint custody through marriage allows both parents to be responsible for and make decisions for the child, instead of being treated as a legal stranger. Marriage facilitates adoption, before and after the fact, financially and logistically. And why is it that heterosexual couples who have access to marriage have these special rights with regard to adoption? Why do they get the special benefit of being evaluated as a couple, with twice as much income & time for the child?

 

Afraid I dont follow your logic. By encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry, more of those that do procreate are married when they do.

 

So to can unmarried couples. They do so all the time. Unmarried homosexual couples adopt children giving both custodial rights over the child.

 

It's a checkerboard across the USA.

http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm

For married couples, it's automatic, preferential, and supplies legal rights and benefits that facilitate and support the family. Why are heterosexual couples given such special treatment?

 

Marriage has NOTHING TO DO WITH PROCREATION!!!!! How many times do I have to say this. Marriage is not a carrot to entice people. It is a legal commitment two people make when they want to spend their lives together. Some want to raise families, some don't. This goes for heterosexual and homosexual couples.