Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).
now let's look at Skinner v. Oklahoma
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.
the question is legally whether Loving has anything to do with same gender "marriage"
this is irreverent
No it isn't. The argument has been raised that marriage is about procreation, so if a married couple opts to not have children, should they allowed to stay married?
Quote:
only 1 would be the mother the other is not.
Wrong again. One of them would be the BIOLOGICAL mother with the other woman being the step-mother or the god-mother, possibly both. Still a mother in that regard. You're wrong, yet again.
Quote:
adoption is also irreverent to Loving you fool and in the other case once again only 1 would be the father.
Incorrect. See the statement about the mother above and replace the word mother with father. One BIOLOGICAL father yes, but a second father - a step father (like Joseph was to Jesus) is still a father. Wrong yet again.
Quote:
so Loving is still irrelevant to 2 members of the same sex marrying.
Love is very relevant. I know plenty of straight couples who love each other, but don't want kids. Again I ask you - should these couples be allowed to stay married since they won't be popping out little hellions or loveable bundles of joy anytime soon?
There's nothing wrong with HATING and being INTOLERANT of bigotry.
Are you so dense you can't even grasp that concept?
If someone lashes out against David Duke and his opinions, they are being hateful and "intolerant" of his opinions. Guess what? It's MORALLY RIGHT to be disgusted by his opinions, just as it is MORALLY RIGHT to be disgusted by your opinions, and those of people of "faith" who use their bibles, korans and torahs to oppress others.
No it isn't. The argument has been raised that marriage is about procreation, so if a married couple opts to not have children, should they allowed to stay married?
Wrong again. One of them would be the BIOLOGICAL mother with the other woman being the step-mother or the god-mother, possibly both. Still a mother in that regard. You're wrong, yet again.
Incorrect. See the statement about the mother above and replace the word mother with father. One BIOLOGICAL father yes, but a second father - a step father (like Joseph was to Jesus) is still a father. Wrong yet again.
Love is very relevant. I know plenty of straight couples who love each other, but don't want kids. Again I ask you - should these couples be allowed to stay married since they won't be popping out little hellions or loveable bundles of joy anytime soon?
you ignorance is showing again Loving was a court case
Loving = Loving v. Virginia
every thing you above is irrelevant to the COURT CASE Loving v. Virginia which is what I was talking about.
Loving v. Virginia
now let's look at Skinner v. Oklahoma
so are you a liar or a ignoramus?
Neither.
Nothing in the legal rationale from Loving v Virgina that stuck down interracial marriage bans as unconstitutional had anything whatsoever to do with procreation. To claim that the court relied on ability or duty or even likelihood of procreating in marriage as a legal argument underpinning the decision is a flat-out lie (or perhaps just horrendous reading comprehension skills).
Loving v. Virginia
now let's look at Skinner v. Oklahoma
so are you a liar or a ignoramus?
The armchair lawyer strikes again!
You're embarassing yourself more than usual here.
Skinner was about forced sterilization. Hence why it talks about procreation being a civil right. Marriage AND procreation... two indpendent concepts being declared civil rights.
Nothing in the legal rationale from Loving v Virgina that stuck down interracial marriage bans as unconstitutional had anything whatsoever to do with procreation. To claim that the court relied on ability or duty or even likelihood of procreating in marriage as a legal argument underpinning the decision is a flat-out lie (or perhaps just horrendous reading comprehension skills).
You are NEVER going to be converted, so no harm, no foul.
You are quite happy wallowing in your suffocating ignorance.
Sometimes, it takes a major event (like Dick Cheney having a gay daughter) for people of your less than enlightened opinion to see the error of their ways.
If I wasn't entirely certain you wouldn't beat, ostracize or torture your own gay child, I'd wish a gay child on you so you too could see the light.
No, I want to go to Heaven.
You are talking about negatives and misfortune directed at others.
Why so sad and angry?
Because I give my opinion, followed by facts, I am lambasted, insulted,
my intelligence questioned, and then you broadcast personal misfortune
and hatefulness in my direction.
There is certainly much ill will coming my way from a certain viewpoint.
That's funny how you accuse me of showing ignorance when you're the one bathing in it. Ironic.
What does Loving v. Virginia have to do with this? I know it's the case that allowed interracial marriage, but that's about it.
What does that have to with same sex marriage?
because people for "abomination marriages" have been using that to argue legally that there's a right to marry a member of the same sex from that case.
despite the fact it's linked to procreation.
learn to follow a argument or don't post it makes you look foolish.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
