Federal Judge says arguments against Gay Marriage are bull

[rightwinger]

Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people' - The Week

In his ruling, District Judge John G. Heyburn II shredded the state's argument that a gay marriage ban was necessary from a biological standpoint because "traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state's long-term economic stability." Heyburn pulled no punches in labeling that claim "disingenuous."

These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. […] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The war has been over for a while but the windup chattering teeth still have to hop around a bit longer.

 

[rightwinger]

Is there any question why gay mariage bans are being shot down?

How does the state demonstrate any vested interest in blocking gay marriage?

 

[Staidhup]

Their day to face judgement will come, its just not my position or responsibility to do so. As for the courts overturning the will of the people as to the sanctity of marriage, your surprised?

 

[deltex1]

Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people' - The Week

In his ruling, District Judge John G. Heyburn II shredded the state's argument that a gay marriage ban was necessary from a biological standpoint because "traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state's long-term economic stability." Heyburn pulled no punches in labeling that claim "disingenuous."

These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. […] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering.

When a person with a dick can call himself a woman, all things can be disingenuous.

 

[deltex1]

The war has been over for a while but the windup chattering teeth still have to hop around a bit longer.

The war for benefits...that's all it is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The war has been over for a while but the windup chattering teeth still have to hop around a bit longer.

The war for benefits...that's all it is.

Actually it's for Equality Before The Law, an American Value, but you wouldn't know what that is so instead you believe nonsense.

 

[g5000]

Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people' - The Week

In his ruling, District Judge John G. Heyburn II shredded the state's argument that a gay marriage ban was necessary from a biological standpoint because "traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state's long-term economic stability." Heyburn pulled no punches in labeling that claim "disingenuous."

These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. […] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering.

It's very simple.

If heterosexual married people aren't allowed to file joint income tax forms and collect Social Security survivor benefits...


...they will stop fucking. The human race will die out.



If gay married people are allowed to file joint income tax forms and collect Social Security survivor benefits...


...you will feel a sudden urge to have butt sex with other men.


You see, government gifts cause sex to happen. If the government gives gifts for being straight, you have straight sex. If the government gives gifts for being gay, you have gay sex.

It's all in the manual.

 

[Peach]

Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people' - The Week

In his ruling, District Judge John G. Heyburn II shredded the state's argument that a gay marriage ban was necessary from a biological standpoint because "traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state's long-term economic stability." Heyburn pulled no punches in labeling that claim "disingenuous."

These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. […] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering.

Kentucky is the latest, have ANY been upheld?

 

[guno]

Their day to face judgement will come, its just not my position or responsibility to do so. As for the courts overturning the will of the people as to the sanctity of marriage, your surprised?

Just the other way around cletus it's the pasty face old bitter bible thumpers who are going the way of the dinosaur .

 

[OriginalShroom]

Is there any question why gay mariage bans are being shot down?

How does the state demonstrate any vested interest in blocking gay marriage?

Why does the State still have any vested interest in blocking multiple partner marriages?

Why does the State have any interest at all in any kind of marriage of any kind?

 

[deltex1]

The war has been over for a while but the windup chattering teeth still have to hop around a bit longer.

The war for benefits...that's all it is.

Actually it's for Equality Before The Law, an American Value, but you wouldn't know what that is so instead you believe nonsense.

Equal benefits...you can't argue equal outcomes...no matter how hard you imagine.

 

[rightwinger]

Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people' - The Week

In his ruling, District Judge John G. Heyburn II shredded the state's argument that a gay marriage ban was necessary from a biological standpoint because "traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state's long-term economic stability." Heyburn pulled no punches in labeling that claim "disingenuous."

These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. […] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering.

Kentucky is the latest, have ANY been upheld?

Why should they be?

The state has no justification to ban it other than the God hates fags crowd

 

[rightwinger]

Is there any question why gay mariage bans are being shot down?

How does the state demonstrate any vested interest in blocking gay marriage?

Why does the State still have any vested interest in blocking multiple partner marriages?

Why does the State have any interest at all in any kind of marriage of any kind?

Other than bigamy is a crime?

Homosexuality is not

 

[Peach]

Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people' - The Week

In his ruling, District Judge John G. Heyburn II shredded the state's argument that a gay marriage ban was necessary from a biological standpoint because "traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state's long-term economic stability." Heyburn pulled no punches in labeling that claim "disingenuous."

These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. […] The state's attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in "ensuring humanity's continued existence" are at best illogical and even bewildering.

Kentucky is the latest, have ANY been upheld?

Why should they be?

The state has no justification to ban it other than the God hates fags crowd

Just a question, my own beliefs respect the liberty of consenting adults.

 

[Kosh]

AS always the racist far left Obama drones are pushing another agenda that has nothing to do with "rights".

"Marriage" is not a "right".

Get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

 

[hazlnut]

Their day to face judgement will come, its just not my position or responsibility to do so. As for the courts overturning the will of the people as to the sanctity of marriage, your surprised?

The "will of the people"???


Well, by extension, the courts themselves, being appointed by elected officials, ARE the will of the people.


Also, appeal to majority is a logical fallacy.

 

[hazlnut]

AS always the racist far left Obama drones are pushing another agenda that has nothing to do with "rights".

"Marriage" is not a "right".

The conservative Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Get the government out of the business of "Marriage".

Marriage involves property. Government's main functions are all related to property and property rights.

That Libertardian talking point is beyond stupid.

 

[brandonisi]

Another unsurprising ruling with more of the same to come. Eventually, probably very soon, we're going to get contradicting rulings from circuit courts and the SCOTUS will have to take up the matter again. That's when same sex marriage will (hopefully) be legalized on a federal level. All this time and money being wasted fighting off something so inevitable is getting old. There's not a single valid reason against same sex marriage.

 

[rightwinger]

There is no argument a state can make as to why it is necessary to ban gay marriage