Should liars, murderers, adulterers etc....be allowed to marry?

Is this an argument for gay marriage? Cause it really sounds like it.

"we let idiots, drunk people, chistians and adulterers marry. Why not gays?"
 
FN FS2000 said:
We have over 300,000,000. Do we need any more?
Click to expand...

???? They will procreate, with or without marriage. A father doesnt encourage his young, sexually active daughter to pick one partner and marry, because he doesnt think she can procreate without being married. He does so because he knows she can procreate just fine with or without marriage.

When a child is born, only two people in the world are obligated by law to provide and care for the child. The woman who gave birth to the child and the man who fathered the child. Heterosexual couples are encouraged to marry so that when procreation does occur, it is more likely to occur into a home with both the mother and father present to provide and care for that child, because the most frequent alternative is a child born to a single mother on her own, and the only other person in the world obligated to support the child, the father, is either absent or unknown.
 
Yurt said:
so infertile women and men should not be allowed to marry?
Click to expand...

Its very difficult and expensive to identify the ability to procreate with any accuracy. It easy to detrmine the presence of a man and a woman. We cant know which couples will procreate. We do know that all who do will exclusively be heterosexual couples.

Did someone say you were an attorney? From a Constitutional perspective

In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm
 
Last edited:
from a constitutional perspective, you're violating the 14th amendment by denying them equal rights.

you can't claim they cannot get married simply because they can't reproduce. they can adopt. just like heterocouples who can't reproduce. that is most nonsensical reasoning i've ever heard.
 
Yurt said:
from a constitutional perspective, you're violating the 14th amendment by denying them equal rights.
Click to expand...

Using that rather simplistic understanding of constitutional law, denying the unmarried, the benefits given to the married is denying them equal rights.

Yurt said:
you can't claim they cannot get married simply because they can't reproduce. they can adopt. just like heterocouples who can't reproduce. that is most nonsensical reasoning i've ever heard.
Click to expand...

It is the same reasoning why you cant marry your boyfriend in 44 states. Maybe nonsensical in your world. Determinative in the real world.
 
dixon76710 said:
Using that rather simplistic understanding of constitutional law, denying the unmarried, the benefits given to the married is denying them equal rights.



It is the same reasoning why you cant marry your boyfriend in 44 states. Maybe nonsensical in your world. Determinative in the real world.
Click to expand...

it is so simplistic than numerous courts agree with me.

lol
 
Yurt said:
it is so simplistic than numerous courts agree with me.

lol
Click to expand...

A mere fraction of the overwhelming majority of courts who agree with me.

heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

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.
http://www.findlaw.com/

The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=316&invol=535

i]t 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. . . .

t 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.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=434&invol=374

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.....

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....

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage

http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.\SAC\KY\1973\19731109_0040029.KY.htm/qx
 
Yurt said:
from a constitutional perspective, you're violating the 14th amendment by denying them equal rights.

you can't claim they cannot get married simply because they can't reproduce. they can adopt. just like heterocouples who can't reproduce. that is most nonsensical reasoning i've ever heard.
Click to expand...

Every....yes, thats every, homogayman can marry any women he wants to ....he is not denied equal rights......thats what marriage is...

Even male PETA members can't marry their pet orangutans.....unless its a female... lol
 
It always makes me laugh when people trot out the "if men marry men soon they'll want to marry sheep." argument. The anti-gay crowd seems almost naturally drawn to it for some unknown reason, it's a strange syllogism that makes no sense.
 
Yurt said:
they are being denied the right to marry the person they want. we have that right, but they do not.
stop being obtuse bravo.
Click to expand...

I, as a heterosexual am also precluded from marrying someone of the same sex. I as a 52 yr old divorcee, much to set in my ways to marry my girlfriend, have no interest in marrying someone of the oppostie sex, like homosexuals who also have no interest in marrying someone of the opposite sex. No more a denial of homosexuals rights than it is a denial of mine.
 
dumbest argument ever. you won't marry a homosexual because you CHOOSE not to. they cannot chose to marry the person they love, despite that the relationship is legal.
 
Disillusioned said:
It always makes me laugh when people trot out the "if men marry men soon they'll want to marry sheep." argument. The anti-gay crowd seems almost naturally drawn to it for some unknown reason, it's a strange syllogism that makes no sense.
Click to expand...

What happens when sheep marry sheep?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top