I don't understand why gays want to marry

Which is a law about establishing legal paternity, not one establishing the basis of marriage. The government uses marriage in many ways, but that doesn't make every use of legal marriage the basis for marriage.

 

What silliness. Birds dont wait until they lay an egg, to build their nest. Women dont wait until they become pregnant, to begin using birth control. The idea is to have the contractiual agreement in place BEFORE procreation occurs.

 

No, it is the basis of marriage.

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

But your right in that its totally irrelevant in the case of a homosexual couple. Thats why you must make it irrelevant in the case of heterosexual couples, in order to support your arguments advocating for homosexual marriage

 

Not what you stated. You said, "only when procreation occurs". We aren't talking about birds or women using birth control.

Either the government interest exists without a child being born, or only when its born. You stated that it's the latter. Now you're trying to backpedal, just as I said you would.

Face it, you screwed up. Not that I expect you to ever admit to making a mistake or to concede any point. That would require some honesty and integrity - traits not exhibited by your arguments.

 

Inherently discriminatory as I mentioned, mark my words, this will end up in front of the SCOTUS and their track record on matters of civil liberty is very consistent.

The code you linked is a state code, from Texas no less. So has no bearing on the national argument revolving around this. Either way, just a matter of time like I said before the high court strikes this discrimination down just as they have in the past.

 

Irrelevant. We aren't debating ancient Roman law, which is not controlling here.

 

The laws continue today. Theyve been the same for thousands of years. Its by definition. MATRIMONY, root of the word mater, MOTHER! Only a man makes a woman a mother by fathering her child.

 

Use of the word "marriage" does that

 

No, Im right here where I have always been. You all drag out this old tired strawman on a weekly basis.

 

Appeal to tradition.

Two can play at the dictionary game. From the New Merriam Webster dictionary:

 

There is no "strawman" here. You made a declarative statement that contradicts your position. You can't unwrite it, and you can't pretend you didn't write it. We can all read what you wrote.

 

Who defines the word marriage apart from when it is a legal term and can be altered at will?

 

The problem is that couples frequently do not make arrangements that provide for a spouse or children in the event the marriage ends in a divorce, potentially leaving millions destitute.

Marriage provides legal rights and consequences that are denied to those not married.

 

Same sex marriages meet the criteria when a surrogate or donor is used and both parents are on the birth certificate.

Same sex marriages often create legal paternity (despite not being the biological parent) and lessen the financial burden of single mothers/fathers on the state.

Sooo what's the difference from the government's point of view? It's clearly a beneficial thing both for the well-being of the child and the potential of responsibility of said child defaulting on the state.

 

You all sure are fond of telling me what Ive stated, while the forum provides a quote function for you to quote what Ive said, which you all seem to avoid.

 

Nooooo, the idea is to encourage parents to provide and care for THEIR biological children, not somebody elses children. And any two consenting adults could use a surrogate or donor. Nothing special about those couples who happen to be homosexual.

 

Exactly!!!!

 

If the effect is the same as far as the state is concerned, why should it matter?

Never said they couldn't.

Never said there was.

 

Because there is NO effect in the case of a couple made up of two people of the same sex. They cant procreate. They cant create their own children to raise.

 

Ignore, dixon. (Same old poop.)

 

They can and do raise children in a stable two-parent household with is an interest of the State. Additionally, in most cases, one of the adults is the biological parent of the child. Our marriage laws reflect this preference related to opposite-sex couples where a single parent with a child is afforded the legal institution of marriage if they want to marry. If a single person with a child is allowed to marry or re-marry then they should be allowed to marry anyone of their choice regardless of the gender of the step-parent.

Two parents are always preferrable to one parent when it comes to raising a child regardless of whether they are the biological parents or not. That is an identified interest of the state and federal government when it comes to marriage laws.

 

they just want equal rights...

if marriage was denied everyone, then it would be denied them too, but until that happens they deserve the same rights as anyone else

 

not true at all, just like heterosexuals, they can have surrogates to assist in procreation

 

interesting piece of trivia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

"The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire"

 

There are historical references to same-gender "marriage" throughout history including our own Native-American cultures.

The Suquamish tribe recognizes same-gender marriage today under tribal laws for example.