Face it, there is no principle that a State can prohibit marriage of any type.
No 'power to prohibit' has ever been delegated to any level of government in the USA. -- Reasonably regulate, yes. -- Prohibit, no.
Principle -as in fostering familial procreation? How about precedence...
No, -- constiutional principle on prohibitions, as I argued above.
I have no argument against 'precedence fostering familial procreation'.
You choose to conflate what activities the state can prohibit versus what activities the state chooses to recognize, accommodate and reward assuming they both are necessarily the same -balderdash!
That sentence is "balderdash" on your part. I've "conflated" nothing.
Anyone can live together and play house in whatever combination they choose;
Yep, thats part of my point.
however, society does not have to reward or recognize ALL arrangements REGARDLESS as a consequence of privacy
I never said it did..
some arrangements can not be prohibited and REGARDLESS activist judges who would impose some socialist village concept of family upon society...
??? -- That sounds like Balderdash [gibberish] to me.
Regardless, debating any supposed homosexually premised anything that legally can not even legitimately begin without a standing, the principle comprising the possibility of and the societal benefit of procreation was and has always been the rational basis premising recognition and privilege accorded marriage by society as enacted by legislation. Any incidental exceptions cited do not negate the rational basis (the principle), they test it and in doing so clearly contrast against and specifically identify the basis some attempt to deny as one very much existing and relevant e.g. Griswold v. Connecticut, where it was held premised upon a right to privacy and as such decided that individuals have the right NOT to procreate via use of contraceptives... One can clearly see that with Griswold it was the exception that demonstrated clearly the rule, the principle the rational basis of procreation exists! Regardless a legislature has not chosen to handle exceptions to the basis, e.g. those that choose to contracept, exceptionally by incorporating more rules or by changing totally the basis or doing away with ANY marital accommodation -that is their prerogative and not the courts. Yes, as evidenced in Griswold v. Connecticut, there is no supposed heterosexual right to be accommodated and rewarded by society for entering into non-procreative marriage -such marriages are exceptions incidental to the basis of procreation with such incidence being premised in the right to privacy (just as abortion is). One can conflate the right to privacy (which prohibits the State from enforcing procreation) with the privilege accorded marriage (rationally based in procreation as provided for legislatively by the State); HOWEVER, doing so in the case of homosexual couplings is simply constructing an illegitimate argument to support an illegitimate arrangement that society recognizes as procreatively devoid and as such decided long ago merits no accommodation or privilege... Yes, anyone can procreate -even homosexuals; HOWEVER, bringing a child into a procreatively devoid relationship does not a marriage make AS a supposed homosexual marriage is factually a procreative dead end and as such one NEVER possibly benefiting society with children. Children in such a case are incidental at best and not a result of any marital construct meriting reward or privilege" Again, as it applies in the case of homosexuals it is publicly known, factually accepted, and always true that a supposed homosexual marriage is a procreative dead and as such one NEVER possibly benefiting society with children. --ALL THIS, unlike the already allowed exceptions which are allowed and or necessitated ALL premised upon a privacy right negating any legislature from enforcing procreation upon a potentially procreative couple.
That's quite the little essay. What it has to do with my post above is anybodies guess.
In essence, homosexuals do not get a "free pass" under the privacy right enunciated in Griswold v. Connecticut BECAUSE homosexuals objectively can not possibly ever procreate homosexually...
Again, I've never suggested queers get a "free pass" on anything. You're arguing points not at issue.
In summary, the principle underlying marital accommodation and reward; the rational basis of procreation, is not set aside by irrational homosexual exuberance cloaked in privacy rights...
Nice rant, but it fails to rebut anything I've said on this thread.
Then you agree with everything I posted and in essence you are not arguing in support of homosexual marriage. SO, just what are you arguing?