Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Esquilax]

It is not impossible if the law is changed by the states themselves.  The states may tailor the law to include and exclude various parties based on rational scrutiny.  It becomes very difficult if nearly impossible when a fundamental right is established for marriage.  Now any exclusions must be based on strict scrutiny.  Furthermore the argument of the petitioners is that marriage is not procreation based. As I posted earlier a nonprocreation based definiton does allow for same sex marriage.  But it also remove limitation on the number of partners that can join, the age of the participants, and the social status of those partners (brother marrying sister, father marrying daughter).

Nonsense; marriage is already not procreative in this country, without removing any of the other limitations you've listed. Surely you're aware that sterile couples, older couples, or couples with no intention to procreate are also allowed to get married, and have been since the get-go? In fact, there is no clause or additional stipulation that one is obligated to have children anywhere in state marriage licenses; what you're proposing here is a slippery slope that we can already determine to be flatly false, because the concept you're saying will be removed with the addition of gay marriage never existed within the current model of marriage at all. You're proposing that there's a brake currently in place against a number of factors, when it's the work of but a moment to show that this brake does not exist.

The general argument of the petitioners is that any limitation on marriage is pointless discrimination.  Thus, they would argue that any of the marriages you consider "blatantly absurd" are just a result of your pointless discrimination.

I haven't much more than skimmed the argument of the petitioners, but if that's indeed what they argued then in turn I would argue that they were being overly broad and simplistic, and that it's more rational to consider limitations on a case by case basis, and determine whether they should stand or fall based on the factual benefits or detriments they may have, which the anti-gay marriage side cannot cogently provide.

 

While the respondents argue that some discrimination is required for marriage and that the terms of that discrimination should be based on biological facts. (As expressed in my previous post a procreation centric definition of marriage limits the participants to 2, of the opposite sex, of at least pubescent age).

However, your procreation centric definition of marriage contains no limits to the participant's fertility, nor does it contain even a hint of language toward that end. You are proscribing an attitude toward marriage that is directly contradicted by how it functions in practice. And if you want to talk about biological facts, I'd remind you that monogamy is not present anywhere in our makeup.