[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[Quag]

The basic "tenant" of evolution is typically one deprived of a background in the humanities.
The basic tenet of evolution is a tautology -- it cannot be falsified, but isn't worth a damn as a truth.
The topic of this thread is "same-sex marriage," not the morality of homosexuality.
Welcome to DP.

Thanx for showing, yet again you have absolutely no clue w3hat evolution is

 

[dixon01767]

Marriage was never in the history of the United States declared to be related to procreation.

The quoted courts would disagree.

 

[dixon01767]

Publicly available sperm banks and surrogacy didn't widely exist at the time of the Skinner decision. The fact that you don't need to be married to procreate is also obvious, especially teens. Obviously, they do exist now and marriage is completely unrelated to procreation. The fact that LGBT people exist isn't a threat to the survival of the species because the earth is overpopulated. Many people are also choosing not to have kids because of the economic situation.

Again from the Supreme Court of the US

Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.

 

[dixon01767]

Incest is not permitted, so banning 2 closely related people from marrying is expected.

Because it "is expected" isnt a constitutional justification

 

[dixon01767]

To quote Dixon

Post menopausal women have been allowed to marry proving that it is not a prerequisite for marriage ......

No one claimed it was a prerequisite for marriage. Grasping for refuge in your njext strawman?

 

[Quag]

No one claimed it was a prerequisite for marriage. Grasping for refuge in your njext strawman?

No strawman was made.
If procreation is not a prerequisite then not being able to have children cannot be a reason to deny marraige.
Thus any comment on the matter irrelevant. So why do you keep mentioining it?

 

[roguenuke]

Unless the basic tenant of evolution -- "survival of the fittest" -- is proven wrong on it's face, homosexuality must be wrong since it doesn't promote reproduction of the species.

It can in fact promote survival of certain families to be more likely to reach reproductive age and therefore pass on their genes.

And no, the existence of homosexuality does not prove "survival of the fittest" wrong at all.

 

[roguenuke]

Again from the Supreme Court of the US

Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.

Which is no longer applicable, since no state can legally prevent sexual relations outside of marriage any longer. So then either their ruling is now null and void, and interracial couples should open to being restricted from marriage, or there was in fact another reason to allow interracial couples from getting married.

 

[roguenuke]

The quoted courts would disagree.

Your interpretation of those past decisions (which have since had other decisions from the courts that contradicted them) disagree. The courts have already changed those decisions that you quoted.

 

[roguenuke]

Oops. Thanks for the correction and the welcome.

Didn't think the argument I was presenting had anything to do with morality. Evolution doesn't care about your morality.

Evolution doesn't really care about anything. It is not (as far as we know) sentient. There are things that make it through evolution for reasons other than procreation/survival of the fittest reasons.

 

[dixon01767]

No strawman was made.
If procreation is not a prerequisite then not being able to have children cannot be a reason to deny marraige.

No one claimned it was. You kicked the **** outta that strawman. You da man!

 

[Quag]

No one claimned it was. You kicked the **** outta that strawman. You da man!

No strawman was made
Why do you keep mentioning procreation when it is irrelevant to whether people can get married?

 

[dixon01767]

Your interpretation of those past decisions.......

I didnt interpret them. I quoted them.

 

[roguenuke]

I didnt interpret them. I quoted them.

And interpreted them, since you drew a conclusion off those, that was pointed out as outdated and did not take into account other rulings that contradicted the idea that marriage is for procreation.

 

[dixon01767]

And interpreted them, since you drew a conclusion off those, that was pointed out as outdated and did not take into account other rulings that contradicted the idea that marriage is for procreation.

All irrelevant to my point.

 

[roguenuke]

All irrelevant to my point.

Very relevant, since you tried to use past interpretations by courts of our marriage laws to frame your argument for why the law currently may see marriage as being mainly or completely about procreation. Such rulings are outdated given more recent rulings and laws adopted by our society. Rulings regarding birth control and control over a woman's reproductive body, sexual relationships outside of marriage, same sex marriage itself, along with laws in several states (I believe 5-6) that allow certain couples to marry only if they are unlikely or completely unable to reproduce.

 

[dixon01767]

Very relevant, since you tried to use past interpretations by courts of our marriage laws to frame your argument for why the law currently.........

No I did not. I was specifically responding to the post

Marriage was never in the history of the United States declared to be related to procreation.

And the specific history would be when those decisions were written or any time earlier.

 

[roguenuke]

No I did not. I was specifically responding to the post

And the specific history would be when those decisions were written or any time earlier.

Some of those first cousin laws existed even then. And none of them specifically said in those decisions that marriage was exclusively about or even mainly about procreation.

So basically you are holding onto the barest little interpretation there to hold onto an argument that relates marriage to procreation. Since the topic is about current laws, then it doesn't matter even if they did relate it to procreation in the past. This is now, not the past.

 

[CLAX1911]

The quoted courts would disagree.

Please show me a list of Court declarations linking marriage to procreation

 

[Lisa]

Because it "is expected" isnt a constitutional justification

Why should an incestuous couple be permitted to marry when incest is banned? First, it needs to be legal before it can marry. They would have never asked the constitutional question of LGBT marriage if the Lawerence v. Texas decision of gay sex wasn't first decided.

Why do I need to explain this obvious situation to you?

 

[Lisa]

Again from the Supreme Court of the US

Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.

There is no law requiring people to be married before they have sex. That would be an example of state enforcement of a religious belief, and as such unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

 

[dixon01767]

Some of those first cousin laws existed even then. And none of them specifically said in those decisions that marriage was exclusively about or even mainly about procreation.
.

I never even said it was about procreation, let alone exclusively, and was simply disputing the claim that it was not "related to procreation". All the quoted cases demonstrate a very strong relation between the two. Not suprising as it had always been so. From ancient BC Roman law.

"matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."[131]
Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia

Also from BC Roman law

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")....

Similiar to laws currwently on the books in every state like Texas'


Sec. 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if:

(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the child is born during the marriage;

Even today marriage obligates a man to provide and care for any child she gives birth to.

 

[dixon01767]

Please show me a list of Court declarations linking marriage to procreation

I think the ones already provided are more than sufficient.

 

[dixon01767]

There is no law requiring people to be married before they have sex. .

There was when that court case was writen in 1978.

 

[CLAX1911]

I think the ones already provided are more than sufficient.

Which post number?