Marriage discrimination struck down in Arkansas.

[Ryantology]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09...98379.html

"This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality," [Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris] Piazza wrote. "The exclusion of a minority for no rational reason is a dangerous precedent."

You're god damn right it is.

Roll on, fabulanche.

[Heywood]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09...98379.html

"This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality," [Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris] Piazza wrote. "The exclusion of a minority for no rational reason is a dangerous precedent."

You're god damn right it is.

Roll on, fabulanche.

The rationale reason would be that heterosexual unions generally offer more value to society then homosexual unions. A simple thought experiment is all that is needed to prove the point. Imagine if everyone in a society became homosexual. Such an event would be catastrophic on society. Now imagine if everyone in society became heterosexual. Society wouldn't miss a beat.

Since heterosexual unions generally provide more value to society, the state has reasons to incent such unions over less valuable ones.

[Silver]

The rationale reason would be that heterosexual unions generally offer more value to society then homosexual unions.

False. Homosexual unions offer just as much value to society as any heterosexual marriage. So fuck you for devaluing perfectly legitimate homosexual unions that are based on no less love than heterosexual unions.

Imagine if everyone in a society became homosexual.

That is quite the imagination you have, and it is just that. An over imaginative thought that has no basis in reality. Everyone is not going to suddenly become gay, because studies show that the homosexual population has consistently remained around ten percent of the world's entire population.

[Heywood]

The rationale reason would be that heterosexual unions generally offer more value to society then homosexual unions.

False. Homosexual unions offer just as much value to society as any heterosexual marriage. So fuck you for devaluing perfectly legitimate homosexual unions that are based on no less love than heterosexual unions.

Unless you believe God created all sexual orientations equal there is no reason to believe nature would just make them all equal. Nature doesn't care if one orientation adds more value to a population than another. You've simply decided they are because in this respect you wish nature to be egalitarian.

FWIW, George and Martha Washington's marriage wasn't sanctioned by any state. Government should be out of the marriage business completely.

[Silver]

Unless you believe God created all sexual orientations equal there is no reason to believe nature would just make them all equal. Nature doesn't care if one orientation adds more value to a population than another. You've simply decided they are because in this respect you wish nature to be egalitarian.

You are falsely assuming that unions are only valuable if they contribute to the continuation of the species via procreation.

Nature, after all, seems perfectly fine with both the heterosexual and homosexual orientation, for even animals display propensities for both orientations within nature.

Only theists seem to have a problem with homosexuality. Therefore, the abnormality lies with theists and not with nature.

[Heywood]

Unless you believe God created all sexual orientations equal there is no reason to believe nature would just make them all equal. Nature doesn't care if one orientation adds more value to a population than another. You've simply decided they are because in this respect you wish nature to be egalitarian.

You are falsely assuming that unions are only valuable if they contribute to the continuation of the species via procreation.

There are more configurations of a scale that are out of balance than are balanced. Likewise there are more ways two sexual orientations can be unequal than equal. Unless you believe in a God who happened to make two sexual orientations equal.....its not likely that they are.

[Silver]

Unless you believe in a God who happened to make two sexual orientations equal.....its not likely that they are.

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.

[Heywood]

Unless you believe in a God who happened to make two sexual orientations equal.....its not likely that they are.

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.

[Silver]

It doesn't matter that they can co-exist.

Only to you, because you are of the notion that anything which disagrees with your skewed worldview must be abhorrent. The only abhorrence is your inability to see past your god-covered bigotry.

The judge decided there is no rational basis to ban gay marriage. I'm afraid he is just plain wrong

It is a good thing you are not a judge, then. Not that you would last long with your views, anyway.

because a good case can be made that heterosexual unions provide more value to a society/population.

False assertion with no evidence to support it.

[SteelCurtain]

What, exactly is the benefit to society that same sex couples cannot provide?