Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause (Part II)

  • Thread starter Thread starter secular_freedom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
secular_freedom said:
Please cite any relevant legal authority for the proposition that a couple must have the ability to procreate and raise kids before they can get married.
Click to expand...
Are you doing this on purpose? I never said this.
You are confusing several claims.
Click to expand...
a) Most people marry in order to procreate.
b) The only purpose for marriage is to procreate.
c) Procreation is a requirement for marriage.
Click to expand...
What you don’t seem to be understanding is that a) and b) are irrelevant to this discussion, and that c) is false.
Click to expand...
Nope, never said that either.
It’s simply common knowledge that many opposite sex couples can marry even if they can’t procreate.
Click to expand...
This discussion asks whether they should be allowed.
I’m here to debate, that’s all. Why are you here? Are you here to convince newbies like me I’m wrong, or are you looking for a reason to abandon your support of prop 8? I’m happy to help you with the latter.
Click to expand...
But, why are you here to debate? You don’t answer anyone’s points, you ignore reality, and you keep posting the same thing over and over.

But, thank you. You’ve convinced me that you are not interested in actually understanding Catholic teaching in this area, so it is fruitless to continue the discussion with you.
 
PaulinVA said:
Are you doing this on purpose? I never said this.
Click to expand...
You claimed it was “assumed” by “legal authority” that a heterosexual couple has the ability to procreate and raise kids, and that “making children is intrinsic to a heterosexual marriage.” What do you mean by “assumed by legal authority?” What do you mean if not that it is a legal requirement for a couple to be able to procreate before they can get married?

If this isn’t what you mean, then how is procreation even relevant to the issue of same-sex marriage?
PaulinVA said:
Nope, never said that either.
Click to expand...
If you’re not claiming that procreation is a requirement for marriage,then why focus on procreation? How are you building an argument against same-sex marriage using procreation? So far, nothing you wrote challenged ANY of the premises of this argument.
  1. Many opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z (procreation, ability the raise kids, whatever).
  1. Hence, the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage.
  2. If the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage, then same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, Z.
  3. Hence, same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, and Z.
PaulinVA said:
This discussion asks whether they should be allowed.
Click to expand...
More precisely, this discussion asks whether prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause (see title of opening thread).
PaulinVA said:
But, why are you here to debate? You don’t answer anyone’s points, you ignore reality, and you keep posting the same thing over and over.
Click to expand...
I’m here to debate because I enjoy debate, and because I believe people hold to ignorant views that need to be abandoned. I do answer people’s points, I don’t ignore reality, and I’ll keep posting the same thing over and over again if my arguments remain unrebutted.
PaulinVA said:
But, thank you. You’ve convinced me that you are not interested in actually understanding Catholic teaching in this area, so it is fruitless to continue the discussion with you.
Click to expand...
Good day then.
 
gardenswithkids said:
*** They keep pushing points that were previously already decided by law. And once they win those, they will push for yet more.***

They successfully challenged laws like anti-sodomy laws. Aniti-sodomy laws were not just moral laws but also public health laws! Sodomy harms the digestive track and contributes significantly to the spread of HIV. **They challenged anti-sodomy laws on the grounds of privacy, then they moved onto wanting *public ***approval of sodomy in marriage.

Almost all prosecutions for sodomy were against gays. It was becoming clear that enforcement of this law was highly selective, highly intrusive, and highly discriminatory. And it became clear that other sex-in-public laws (against any form of sex or exposure) could take care of anyone (not just gays) who were caught having sex in a public place. So the laws were dropped from the books.

And now 40% of heteros have anal sex, so the practice seems to be fairly popular among straights, too. And we sure can’t outlaw that!
Click to expand...
 
PaulinVA said:
You’ve convinced me that you are not interested in actually understanding Catholic teaching in this area, so it is fruitless to continue the discussion with you.
Click to expand...
Actually, on this thread very little “Catholic teaching” has been presented, because the thread is about a secular case in a secular court. What does Catholic teaching have to do with the 14th Amendment?
 
secular_freedom said:
Try again. Nothing you wrote challenges either the validity or soundness of my argument
  1. Many opposite-sex couples are able to marry even though they can’t do X, Y, and Z (procreation, ability the raise kids, whatever).
  1. Hence, the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage.
  2. If the ability to do X, Y, Z is not a requirement for marriage, then same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, Z.
  3. Hence, same-sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry just because they can’t do X, Y, and Z.
Click to expand...
So if there is a person who has a pilots license who is not able to fly then that gives everyone who can’t fly the right to demand a pilot’s license?
 
gardenswithkids said:
*** As long as we continue to dialog with him, he wins***. As a parent, I have learned that a child who doesn’t like my decision will try to continue debating. Continuing to debate keeps open the possibility that they might get what they want. My children try to wear me down and change my mind. Militant homosexuals want to were us down and get us to give in. They keep pushing points that were previously already decided by law. And once they win those, they will push for yet more.

They successfully challenged laws like anti-sodomy laws. Aniti-sodomy laws were not just moral laws but also public health laws! Sodomy harms the digestive track and contributes significantly to the spread of HIV. **They challenged anti-sodomy laws on the grounds of privacy, then they moved onto wanting *public ***approval of sodomy in marriage.

The majority of people who contribute to society by raising children and working hard to provide for their families don’t have much time to engage in public debates. Continuing to discuss childish demands past a certain point creates more problems. My own children require a great deal of my time and attention. Debating previously settled societal matters distracts parents and responsible adults from taking care of their own families. We don’t have time for this debate and all the debates that will follow if they get their way on this. Society should not have to continually engage in dialog and debates with people who won’t accept our answers until they get what they want.
Click to expand...
That would explain the broken record routine. 😃
 
rossum said:
I cannot speak for the ecclesiastical authorities, but the legal authorities do not make that assumption. Fertility tests are not required to marry, and infertile people are able to contract a legal marriage.

Right now procreation is the major reason for marriage, but not the only one. There are other reasons. A woman who has had a hysterectomy can get married and her reasons will not include procreation. I agree that procreation is a major reason, but it is not the only reason.

So you can see no reason for an infertile man to get married?

rossum
Click to expand...
There is a difference between an individual and categorical ability to procreate. While specific individuals may not be able to have children, most in the tried and true formula have the ability. The male and female combination is a happy compromise and a way at drawing the line of testing even though it is not perfect. Keep in mind that we often use age as a determinate of qualification when in reality it is a very poor indicator of maturity. But it’s simplicity as a measure compensates for lack of resolution. Like wise sex is a very simple if not high resolution test for ability to start a family. (not saying this is the only criteria but just speaking to the fertility aspect)

There are many reasons a couple may want to get married, but the number for which society is motivated to license marriage are fewer. Outside the moral issues, I have no reason to care if two adults living next door are married or not. However if they are raising a child, that child needs a father and mother and the institution of marriage helps facilitate the mother and father remaining in the childs life and results in the child better able to adapt to society. That is what I (and the rest of society) have an interest in. It is this aspect of raising children that raises the status of the couple to somethin that we want to make legaly binding with the licensing process.
 
larkin31 said:
Actually, on this thread very little “Catholic teaching” has been presented, because the thread is about a secular case in a secular court. What does Catholic teaching have to do with the 14th Amendment?
Click to expand...
It has a lot to do with the first and tenth ammendement which hold just as much weight as the 14th.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top