Homosexual Marriage

[Raastee]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 I didnt ask you to point to a post that best represents these legal arguments, expecting you to do so but instead to demonstrate that you could not. I knew you wouldnt dissapoint me.

wrong, try again.
scroll up to catch up.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo MY point is that there is no "traditional" marriage between men and women but rather various types of marriage for various reasons.

Care to point to ANY tradition that is not between men and women

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 ??? I didnt claim it was a legal argument.

I know, htat's what I've been saying, there is no legal argument. Therefore you don't have a legal argument. You have an appeal to tradition or is your point that marriage is for procreation? Which has already been busted.

Ive already addressed your silly assertion that there is no legal argument for limiting marriage to heterosexuals. You couldnt even formulate a response. And making the same argument again and again, as if it has not already been addressed is the fallacious argumentation. And creating an argument based upon tradition for heterosexual marriage, and attributing it to me is a straw man.[/QUOTE]
Actually I responded here Homosexual Marriage
But it looks like I need to re-respond.

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes...

The DOMA is not, I repeat not, a legal argument. It is legislation. In fact the DOMA is simply a way to prevent the The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. In other words, states don't have to recognise marriages from other states, more specifically same sex marriages. Nothing more.

There also is no violation of the state due process clause. DOMA bears a reasonable relationship to legitimate state interests—procreation and child-rearing...

This is a legal argument dealing with DOMA and not gay marriage.

That is, the legislature was entitled to believe that providing that only opposite-sex couples may marry will encourage procreation and child-rearing in a "traditional" nuclear family where children tend to thrive....

Here again, there is no legal argument but rather, legislation.

Under a federal constitutional analysis, for a fundamental right to exist it must be "objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ . . . and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ such that ‘neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed.’" Washington v. Glucksberg,...

This is not a legal argument about gay marriage.

Fundamental liberty interests include the right to marry, to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of one’s children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, to bodily integrity, and to abortion....

Nor is this a legal argument against gay marriage. The website that you lifted these from as "legal arguments" is bullsh!tting you.

Courts in other jurisdictions recently faced with the issue have concluded that there is no tradition of same-sex marriage and no fundamental right to marriage that includes same-sex marriage....

Ahh... so you use the other paragraphs to set the table for this one. But, this is not a legal argument either. These arguments are against same sex marriage via appeal to tradition and no fundamental right to same sex marriage. It doesn't note however that the same argument can be used against traditional marriage. There exists no language in our Constitution that grants the right for opposite sex marriage.

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..... http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/co.../759341opn.pdf

Nearly all STATE Supreme Court decisions. Except for the states that allow it... and there are more to come. The SCOTUS has not heard a gay marriage case yet.

Quote:

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Here is the opening for the link you provided: "This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race-the right to have offspring." It is NOT about gay marriage.

Quote: Again, the state's vital concern in the prevention of crime and the mental health of its citizens does not empower the Legislature to deprive 'individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring'... The right to marry is as fundamental as the right to send one's child to a particular school or the right to have offspring. Indeed, 'We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.' Skinner v. Oklahoma, supra, 316 U.S. at page 541, 62 S.Ct. at page 1113. Legislation infringing such rights must be based upon more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws. Perez v. Lippold (Cal. 1948)

Again, unfortunately for you, this is not a case about gay marriage nor is it a legal argument against gay marriage.

Quote: the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, id., at 399, and in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, supra, marriage was described as "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race,"... "While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions `relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education,... It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.... 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.... FindLaw | Cases and Codes

You're quoting the same things. None of them a legal argument or even a case about gay marriage.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 The government already "accept gay people as equal to nongay people". They are free to get married to someone of the opposite sex and have all the children they want with equal protection for their family, just like heterosexuals. Gay advocates insist that we treat homosexual COUPLES as equal to heterosexual couples when quite clearly, a heterosexual couple has the potential of procreation when the homosexual couple has none. Equal protection requires the government to treat different people in the same situation equally. Does not require the government to treat people in different situations the same.

Once again, this argument fails because not all heterosexual marriages are intent on or capable of procreation and yet they are still granted the rights and benefits.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Because the advocates of gay marriage only advocate for marriage for sexual couples and deny it for the millions of families currently raising children in a home headed by two related people. They want marriage for heterosexual and homosexual couples while denying it to non sexual couples, SEEMINGLY based upon nothing more than the fact that these others dont rub genitals. Now if Ive missed an argument on some other basis feel free to point it out to me.

You are mistaken, two related people can marry if they choose to do so, the fact you are avoiding is that those "related people" do not choose to marry.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Here we go with the fabricated quotes and straw men arguments. I never made a "1 man and 1 woman" argument.

I know, I'm just noting that you and your ilk no longer use the specific argument of "1 man and 1 woman" as traditional marriage. That's all. I'm not building a strawman or misquoting you, I'm simply acknowledging the absence of that argument and that because you are not making it, you must agree that it is not valid. Unless you'd like to make the argument that 1 man and 1 woman is a tradition in marriage.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Care to point to ANY tradition that is not between men and women

That's not what I said. You're reading comprehension is as lacking as your logic.

I said there is no "traditional" marriage between men and women. Meaning there are various types of marriages between men and women.

[Raastee]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Fabricating quotes and arguments Ive never made, and claiming them to be "defeated", only shows how pathetically desparate you are to defend a position you cant even begin to defend.

Anyone that bothers knows your position. Scroll up to catch up.
But with you we know the same click and paste crushed positions.
But go ahead. LoL

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo That's not what I said. You're reading comprehension is as lacking as your logic. I said there is no "traditional" marriage between men and women. Meaning there are various types of marriages between men and women.

???I made no assertions as to what you have said. Looking for the next strawman? Nooooow tie this fact that there are different traditions of marriage between men and women into the gay marriage debate, if you can.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo I know, I'm just noting that you and your ilk no longer use the specific argument of "1 man and 1 woman" as traditional marriage. .

??? Im not sure which "ilk" I am but its not an argument I have ever used. Searching for the next strawman? But as far as "tradition" in the US, it is between one man and one woman. (and no, the mormons dont change this fact)

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: Raastee Anyone that bothers knows your position. Scroll up to catch up. But with you we know the same click and paste crushed positions. But go ahead. LoL

I might suggest you scroll up to where the writer of the post has already agreed with my assertion.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo I know.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 ???I made no assertions as to what you have said. Looking for the next strawman? Nooooow tie this fact that there are different traditions of marriage between men and women into the gay marriage debate, if you can.

Then you simply misunderstood what I said and needed me to clarify. I have done so.

I don't need to tie that into gay marriage because it has nothing to do with gay marriage it has to do with debunking the argument that marriage between a man and a women is traditional. It is not.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Then you simply misunderstood what I said and needed me to clarify. I have done so. I don't need to tie that into gay marriage because it has nothing to do with gay marriage it has to do with debunking the argument that marriage between a man and a women is traditional. It is not.

OK then were back to my request. Care to point to ANY culture or point in history where "marriage between a man and a women is (NOT) traditional" because a man with 30 wives doesnt have A marriage, he has 30 of them.

[Raastee]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 I might suggest you scroll up to where the writer of the post has already agreed with my assertion.

Still waiting for the proof that gay folks should not be equal under the law....waiting. waiting waiting.
All I have got from you is your position about "got to be pregnant" or "genital" which has been destroyed.

[Raastee]

Still waiting for the test results too.
If you are honest take the test, and please do not claim it is not a given....those Doctors know more than you.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: Raastee Still waiting for the proof that gay folks should not be equal under the law....waiting. waiting waiting.

?????"'Gay folks" are equal under the law. Gay couples are not equal under the law because there is no potential of procreation that is present in heterosexual couples.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Because the advocates of gay marriage only advocate for marriage for sexual couples and deny it for the millions of families currently raising children in a home headed by two related people. They want marriage for heterosexual and homosexual couples while denying it to non sexual couples, SEEMINGLY based upon nothing more than the fact that these others dont rub genitals. Now if Ive missed an argument on some other basis feel free to point it out to me.

A very good piece of misrepresntation on your side. These so called millions can make their own effort for representation if they actually exist at all.. Again, try to focus, this is about gay marriage. not about some obscure make believe people that you can imagine.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Actually I responded here Homosexual Marriage But it looks like I need to re-respond.

Thats your response to post #11290. I didnt post the legal arguments until post #11296.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo The DOMA is not, I repeat not, a legal argument. It is legislation. In fact the DOMA is simply a way to prevent the The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. In other words, states don't have to recognise marriages from other states, more specifically same sex marriages. Nothing more.

Any "legal" argument is based upon legislation, including a Constitution or court precedent. I dont think you would know a legal argument if it slapped you upside the head. And I didnt copy and paste text from the DOMA statute, I posted the Court decision presenting legal arguments upholding the constitutionality of DOMA.
AAAAAAnd since they are upholding the Constitutionality of Washington State's DOMA legislation, not the federal, you only demonstrate you really dont even have a clue as to what you are reading, let alone the capeability to judge if it is a valid legal argument. And as far as the federal DOMA legislation, its biggest impact is that it limits all federal benefits of marriage to marriages between a man and a woman.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Nor is this a legal argument against gay marriage. The website that you lifted these from as "legal arguments" is bullsh!tting you.

It is the Washington States Supreme Court Website and its a court decision that acts as legal precedence. You really dont have a clue.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/co.../759341opn.pdf

[Steve Johnson]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Please explain how marriage will be destroyed? Will Heterosexuals no longer be able to marry? Will the benefits that heterosexual marriage have change? What will change other than gay people will be able to recieve the same benefits as nongay people?

The answer is obvious: marriage is between man and woman NOT man and man or man and beast.
Can you not see that by changing marriage to mean anything your whims and caprices desire you have destroyed the meaning?

Quote by: NoJingoLingo How are gay people, not people? I believe our Declaration of Independence quite clearly states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. " Are gay people excluded? No, then they are part of ALL ARE EQUAL. Does the government derive it's power from gay people as well as straight people?

This attempt by you to twist the Declaration is devoid of wisdom and is tragic. Since everybody is equal, why can't we all hand out prescription drugs?

Medical doctors can do so because they have passed certain criteria.
To qualify for marriage you need two genders: man and woman.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo This is incorrect. 90 year old people NEVER procreate therefore (uh oh, logic again) according to you they should be denied the right to marry. Any married couple that does not produce offspring should have their marriage revoked. Anyone who does not desire or plan to have offspring should be denied the right to marry. Your logic (or lack thereof) is flawed.

Another comment lacking in wisdom. Marriage is between man and woman. It does not matter what age the couple are when they marry. Furthermore, government is not scrutinising each individual case. It is taking a general view. What matters is that it is man and woman. Once you change this you will not have marriage but a substitute; a pseudo-union; a perversion of what marriage is.
Secondly although a 90 year old couple may not procreate, heterosexual marriages on average do procreate. Gay relationships NEVER do.
It is because that ON AVERAGE hetero marriages procreate that government strolled into it, and decided to encourage procreation within a marriage setting.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo What about heterosexual anal sex? Outlaw it? How about masterbation? Outlaw it? How about oral sex? Outlaw it?

Are you high? We are talking of the intrinsic ability of spermatazoa to fertilise ova no matter whether it is from gays or heteros. This leads me to the hypothesis that all men can have close romantic relationships with the opposite sex but in the gay condition emotional imbalances fool one into believing that one is intransigently gay.

How about people who are sterile? No marriage for them too? Again, your lack of logic is flagrant.
[/QUOTE]
Like I said above, marriage ON AVERAGE gives procreation. The government is looking at the general viewpoint. It is not saying that every marriage procreates.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo According to who's notion of normal, yours? Every man has the potential to understand be normal and grasp logic and reason. You must not be normal.

Seriously are you high? How can you question whether spermatazoa fertilising ova is normal?

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Who decided that sperm has only one function? Got a link to that info?

Brigadiers of buggery will not change the fact that a spermatozoon is a gamete.

[Raastee]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 ?????"'Gay folks" are equal under the law. Gay couples are not equal under the law because there is no potential of procreation that is present in heterosexual couples.

LoL Tell that to the federal court!? and those states that honor equal rights. Scroll up to catch up. LOL.