Marriage discrimination struck down in Arkansas.

[Mothonis]

1.People don't need to get married to reproduce

2.Even if we were to agree that Homosexual marriage doesn't contribute to society it isn't harming it either therefore no reason to deny it.

3.Last I check we have a over population problem homosexuality helps that problem.

1. Gay couples don't need state recognized marriages to engage in life long loving relationships.

2. If homosexual marriages don't contribute to society to the same degree as heterosexual marriages that is a rational reason not to give it the same status.

3. The fertility rate in the US is well below that needed to sustain the population. Arkansas is just slightly below that needed to sustain the population.

OBJECTION

1.Denying them marriage would deny them equal rights,therfore they need it.

2.Marriage ia commitment to one another not a vow to further society.

3.Any rational person knows we are over populated and consume to many resources as a result.

[Heywood]

1. Gay couples don't need state recognized marriages to engage in life long loving relationships.

2. If homosexual marriages don't contribute to society to the same degree as heterosexual marriages that is a rational reason not to give it the same status.

3. The fertility rate in the US is well below that needed to sustain the population. Arkansas is just slightly below that needed to sustain the population.

OBJECTION

1.Denying them marriage would deny them equal rights,therfore they need it.

2.Marriage ia commitment to one another not a vow to further society.

3.Any rational person knows we are over populated and consume to many resources as a result.

1. Nobody is denied the right to marry a person of opposite sex. Nobody is being disenfranchised.

2. Societies give special status to those institutions they hold value....there is nothing morally wrong with doing so.

3. Arkansas is not overpopulated.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Ohh, so you're just being an anal retentive douchebag over the wording of the ruling!

---

Man, you really need to grow the fuck up. :rolleyes:

You need to learn how to comprehend the written language. I never said I had a problem with the wording of the ruling. I never even said I had a problem with the result of the ruling. I said I have a problem with judges making rulings under false pretenses. The judge claimed their was no rational reason to exclude the minority....which I showed in my first post in this thread to be false.

---

[Mothonis]

OBJECTION

1.Denying them marriage would deny them equal rights,therfore they need it.

2.Marriage ia commitment to one another not a vow to further society.

3.Any rational person knows we are over populated and consume to many resources as a result.

1. Nobody is denied the right to marry a person of opposite sex. Nobody is being disenfranchised.

2. Societies give special status to those institutions they hold value....there is nothing morally wrong with doing so.

3. Arkansas is not overpopulated.

OBJECTION

1.Are you serious! Only alowing people to marry the oposite sex is dicrimination against homosexuals.

2.Irrelevant,Because Vowing to further society isn't a requirement to get married.The only vows you make is to each other.

3.Yes it is,and if not having less people would help considering how much we pollute and consume.

[Bad Writer]

A homosexual relationship is of equal value to a heterosexual one because the value of either is predicated on their love and commitment to one another, and granting marriage to both ensures legal protections and rights that unmarried couples do not enjoy. Any argument contrary to this is an exercise in bigotry.

[Esquilax]

Your argument is essentially this:

Homosexual marriages are equal to heterosexual marriage because in this day and age procreation is not a purpose of marriage.

You are the one making the special pleading. You are citing this day and age as an exemption without justifying it.

We exist within the present day. It's a bit odd, being asked to justify the necessities of existing within our current world.

Our population...our society...depends on heterosexual unions.

Which is a pointless claim to make, as saying this A: doesn't reduce the number of non-hetero people that exist, B: seems to be arguing for a world of bare essentials where nothing not required can ever be recognized, and C: misses the point that it's reproduction that society depends on, not specifically hetero unions. There's nothing in the husband/wife set specifically that sustains society, and you know that.

This day and age is not an exemption. Our population....our society...does not depend on homosexual unions. It never has and I don't see how it ever will.

Still a pointless claim, and now you tack on an argument from personal incredulity.

Homosexual unions are not equivalent to heterosexual unions(unless there is a God who determines such)

What was it you were saying about assertions without justification earlier?

and that is a rational reason for the people of Arkansas to vote not to give it the same status. The judge's argument was wrong.

Premises invalid, and hence the conclusion doesn't follow. Next!

1. Gay couples don't need state recognized marriages to engage in life long loving relationships.

If marriage is so vestigial, and one doesn't require it for a relationship to work, then why do you care who gets to do it?

2. If homosexual marriages don't contribute to society to the same degree as heterosexual marriages that is a rational reason not to give it the same status.

By that logic we should start subtracting marriage rights from heterosexual marriages that don't yield children. Or is it that you don't actually care about this nonsense "contribution above all" argument?

3. The fertility rate in the US is well below that needed to sustain the population. Arkansas is just slightly below that needed to sustain the population.

Ever heard of surrogacy? IVF treatment? Or hell, just the fact that we have plenty of kids in need of adoption? Why is it that you think the pathway to more children is to try your hardest to make sure there's less stable families in the world?

1. Nobody is denied the right to marry a person of opposite sex. Nobody is being disenfranchised.

A transparent, sophistic dodge. Stop being dishonest, if you can.

2. Societies give special status to those institutions they hold value....there is nothing morally wrong with doing so.

Would you be saying the same if equal value is given to homosexual marriages? Because that's the way things are turning out.

More importantly, why would a theist be arguing for moral relativism?

[Chas]

According to your bible, yes.

According to your NAZI doctrine...jews should be killed.

"your NAZI doctrine"? Godwin's Law, Blowme.

[Ryantology]

1. Gay couples don't need state recognized marriages to engage in life long loving relationships.

They do need state recognition to enjoy the same privileges straight couples enjoy.

2. If homosexual marriages don't contribute to society to the same degree as heterosexual marriages that is a rational reason not to give it the same status.

Then, that is a rational reason to deny this status to a huge swathe of straight couples, as well. But, that doesn't happen.

3. The fertility rate in the US is well below that needed to sustain the population. Arkansas is just slightly below that needed to sustain the population.

Which you can no doubt demonstrate by showing us proof that the population has been in a steady and sustained decline for a significant period of time.

Not that it is at all relevant to the argument, of course, but I just want to see you back this claim up.

[Losty]

God has nothing to do with it. Sexuality is perfectly natural, in both its homosexual and heterosexual forms. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not polar opposites like night and day whereby both cannot exist together.

It doesn't matter that they can co-exist. The judge decided there is no rational basis to ban gay marriage. I'm afraid he is just plain wrong because a good case can be made that heterosexual unions provide more value to a society/population. If heterosexual unions are more valuable to a society/population then the state may want to incentivize heterosexual unions over other unions.

It seems to me that more homosexual unions would be a benefit to society. Homosexual couples are more likely to adopt than heterosexuals and their children are at a statistical advantage for success in many areas, especially education. Evening out the balance a little would mean less orphans and more intelligent future voters.
In a world that seems to be over populated already, I see no reason to place more value on heterosexual unions.
Also, allowing same sex marriage will neither increase the number of homosexuals, nor decrease the number of heterosexuals.

[Ryantology]

Homosexual couples are more likely to adopt than heterosexuals and their children are at a statistical advantage for success in many areas, especially education. Evening out the balance a little would mean less orphans and more intelligent future voters.

There are 153 million orphaned children in this world, and for some reason, Christians are obsessed with making more children.