It was a poor argument presented to the Court and one that was easily shot down.
“I just have to show that homosexual unions NEVER produce children.”
And the other side only needs to show that couple over 65 never produce children.
The argument is states’ rights, the argument is morality, the argument is Freedom of Religion.
But at one point, if they were not in a previous same-sex relationship, they could. Or have in the past...and infertile couples have the plumbing and presently, science, to procreate with the girl bits and the boy bits.
Same-sexers don’t have the proper plumbing period...
If you’re using the procreation argument....
Ya, they don't produce children, and therefor what......we start parsing marriage? Again, why? Your statement is technically true, but it's hardly a compelling argument for parsing heterosexual marriages or for supporting homosexual marriages.
The argument is states’ rights, the argument is morality, the argument is Freedom of Religion.
And the argument is that a homosexual relationship is not the equal of a heterosexual relationship. That shoots down their whole 'marriage equality' argument (that's kind of a biggy).
It was a poor argument presented to the Court and one that was easily shot down.
...sorry, it’s really the only point that can be made in this argument...if you’re denying that proscription against homosexuality is based on a moral premise, being that the race will die out without the ability to procreate, and subsequently reducing it to a state’s right issue, you’ve lost...there is a fundamental morality in the argument that procreation is impossible with same sex unions, while there is no morality whatsoever in asserting state’s rights...if you’re rejecting the Biblical injunction against homosexuality, what remains to you to argue with? The assertion that one government trumps another? Not an issue to win hearts and minds...