Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[robvalue]

Thanks for the explanations

Long post

---

If there is not currently any law regarding intention/ability to procreate, why is this being brought up by anyone? I got married fully intending to never have children, and I won't. Or is there actually a law about this? If there is, it needs scrapping as it is fucking ludicrous. I'm in England so it may be different, but is someone going to tell me that if I announced my intention never to have children I wouldn't be allowed to marry? I find this very hard to believe. And anyhow, same sex couples can still have children via surrogates or donors. So what difference does it make? Does the law say they not only have to have children, but they must be a 100% DNA match?! How exactly was this enforced before DNA testing I wonder?

The class of people who can currently get married are adult men and adult women. It's just that some combinations within that class are being excluded for no good reason. If the law doesn't recognize this as discrimination, then it should, in my opinion. To say there is reason for them to be different genders is to say that the two people are not entering as equal parties to the marriage, that they somehow are fulfilling different roles which require specific genders. This is archaic religious nonsense and should have nothing to do with secular marriage, in my opinion. Like I said, you're discriminating against one party, whichever way round you look at it. You're not applying a rule that is the same for every individual, so it is discrimination. Or you could look at it that you are discriminating against pairs of people, for no good reason. They both individually meet the criteria to marry another person, but together they get rejected. However you cut it, it's blatantly wrong. I've not heard anything like a decent argument as to why the status quo should be kept.

I'm sure the law does not totally agree with me, but that is plain as day as far as I'm concerned. The age of the participants is not involved in any of this. Sure, we can examine if it is still a good idea to keep an age minimum. But this is not discrimination because the rule applies equally to any person who wants to get married, for their own protection. It applies to both genders. And yes, it's there for an obviously good reason. I don't understand why anyone would think otherwise, except for bogus problems with the law. Children still need protecting from making commitments they may not yet be mentally capable of making. Whether or not they can have children has nothing to do with it, or shouldn't.

Again, I'm sure the law is way more complex than I can comprehend. But to me the facts of this are really simple and the next step is straightforward. Why on Earth would removing arbitrary discrimination mean you have to re-evaluate other factors that aren't discriminatory? And even if you do, age clearly stands up to any well adjusted person, so it's done. (In the simple world in my head). I really can't see how this is a "precedent" to anything else. If someone thinks the age needs to be changed, well that's a separate issue for them to bring up. Why tag it onto this debate? It smacks of desperation to me (of any legal party bringing up this issue.)

---

By the way Anima, I'm not debating your opinion here. I don't even know what your opinion is. I'm asking for clarification about what you are saying the law is, and my outrage if it is as you say it.

If you want to share your opinion, please do If you are against it I'll happily debate your reasons.