Why can't we have a childless gay marriage?

BS aside.....any two individuals can come up with a binding contract of any kind as long as both parties are consensual and it is fair for both.

 

Race aside.....marriage is between one man and one women. Race is a happenstance of birth. Gayness is an action or behavior.

 

And what other action or behavior PRECLUDES two American citizens of age from getting married? Hell, we let murderers on death row marry.
We let people who have no intention of having kids marry. We let people marry and divorce in 24 hrs.

No - not buying actions or behaviors as a reason not to let gay people marry.

 

And those contracts are not recognized by the US government when it comes to taxes, immigration status, military and Social Security benefits, and immunities. You fail.

 

Throughout history and across cultures many forms of marriage have occurred and been sanctioned by society. Monogamous and polygamous marriages, same sex and opposite sex marriages, interracial and intraracial marriages, even incestous marriages. There is no one type of marriage. We can say one is more practiced than the others, but that does not make the others less legitimate, any more than most people being right handed males left handed people less legitimate.

No, "gayness" is not an action or behavior. Homosexuality is about whom one is attracted to, nothing more and nothing less. Whether one acts upon this attraction or not then moves into the realm of actions and behaviors. Straightness, to use your vernacular, is also an action or behavior. So such an argument does nothing to enforce why same sex couple should not enjoy the same legal results from a legal institution that is not the religious one of the same name and is by law supposed to be accessible to all able to legally consent.

 

I could really give a flip. The problem I have is you sick people think it is sanctified as is the bonds between a man and a women. The Marriage between a man and a women is the building block of a society.....have you ever heard of "family?" I know you have, you just wish to re define it in a very twisted way. Perhaps you are one that likes the idea we can all be gender neutral and what happens happens. So a child happens once in a great while.....the government can take care of him. You have always been free to booger the man of your dreams. You just seem to want "family" to give you it's "seal of approval". Pointing out the flaws in marriage between a man and a women does nothing to bolster your desires. It just means our culture has to pay more attention as to how we develope and train the character of our children.

 

and some are attracted to farm animals....whatever suits them right? Perversion....there is no such thing, right? No black, no white whatever gets you thru the night. I know your game.

 

Oohhhh! I see....it is not just homosexual love, it is about government. You pass.

 

It doesn't matter same-sex couples can get married now. You can think what you wish. Even the Republican president said it settled.

And to my knowledge there has never been a law against single people adopting children outside of Utah. Typically that's left up to the agency that is adopting the child out. It should remain there. They're better equipped to decide which parents are fit or not over a bloated government that has so many leaks that it's hardly able to sustain itself.

 

Well it's always been about government. They involved themselves in marriage so they are subject to the Supreme Court on the issue.

I'd be happy if all the states just decided there will be no more marriage recognized by them. But I'm not sure that'll ever happen.

 

I suspect that is because most children with a male and female parent in their life, have their biological mother and father in their life.

 

I don't have a problem with government improving the well being of children that only heterosexual couples produce. Children born into homes with both their mother and father tend to have lower rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, HS dropouts, teen pregnancy, alcohol and drug abuse and criminal conviction as an adult. On the other hand, I have a big problem with government using the same discriminatory marriage laws to win respect and dignity for homosexuals.

 

so all the sudden you're a big government liberal? Government is the only answer. Bulshit.

children born into single parent homes are 100% a problem strictly of heterosexuals.

go on 4chan and cry about it then.

 

I never said it was the only answer. They aren't even that effective as demonstrated by the increasing # of children born to single parents.

CORRECT, that's why encouraging only heterosexual couples to marry has a rational relation to the goal of fewer children born to single parents. Encouraging homosexual couples to marry has no such benefit.

 

which is irrelevant. rights are granted based on their benefit. they can only be restricted, if a benefit can be shown by the restriction. that's why you lost in court.

 

So are you suggesting government involvement in marriage has messed it up? And that it has made things harder for children?

The disincentive to get married is created by the government because of their involvement.

We can look at family courts and the way marriages are dissolved and the legal aspects of this and see why it's a bad deal. All of these things are created by government.

So being against it is pointless.

 

Born into these homes or raised in them, because it occurs to me that more children are born into two parents homes and then raised in single parents homes. Of course I have yet to see the study that actually compare two same sex parent raised kids with two opposite sex parent raised kids. I have, to date, only seen the ones comparing two parent homes to single moms who are lesbians. So, got any support of opposite sex over same sex parents where they actually compare two parent homes with two parent homes? And since you brought up being born into a certain situation is better, got anything that shows that children with both biological parents do better than a two parent, bio and step, home? Or bio vs adopted?

 

Not true. First off, it can as easily be the problem of bisexuals. Secondly it can also be the problem of a homosexual, of either gender or even both, trying hard to prove their straight because of the pressure and harassment they receive.

 

Since marriage is not restricted to procreation/child rearing, this is a strawman at best. Otherwise we would not allllow those who cannot, or are best not to, reproduce, to get married. After all, if marriage is about encouraging bio parents to stay together to raise children, then why let two 70+ year olds get married? We're not talking about remaining married after the children are raised, but getting married to each other for the first time.

 

Then we must get rid of all adoption for everyone.

 

First technically you are correct it can affect bisexuals. Second that is true also. So let me rephrase that. Single parent homes are 99.9% a heterosexual problem

 

Noooo, they won because the courts bought the absurd argument that marriages limitation to men and women was all just a nefarious plot to disparage and injure homosexuals, which would require a benefit in their exclusion to withstand the requirements of the Constitution. Marriages limitation to men and women had nothing to do with homosexuality. Men and women were encouraged to marry because couples made up of men and women frequently produce children.

 

Or homosexuals and bisexuals who are more concerned with starting a family than they are with achieving sexual gratification. I don't know many gay people but of the gay men I know, mostly in their 50s or 60s, most have an ex wife and children.

 

Nope. You lost because the bans violated the 14th amendment, because the state couldn't demonstrate a compelling inter st being served bans, which is required by the constitution.


.

Which isn't a valid argument to ban same sex couples from marriage.

 

That is from the era where they were either hiding who they were from the world by being in a marriage with kids, or trying desperately to convert themselves into heterosexuals, depending on what thoughts were running through their heads. Mind you that is a generalization and there were some other reasons floating about. And of course that is not to say that they didn't love their children or even their wives in some cases. Via another thread it was noted that one did not necessarily need to have a sexual attraction to a person to be romantically attracted to them. So love could have been there, but love is not always enough to hold a marriage together.