10 Reasons Gay Marriage is Unamerican and Wrong

[PLC1]

For what PURPOSE? What benefit to society? Why in the hell would government PROMOTE homosexuals entering in to such relationships?

Because people who are in stable relationships are more likely to be contributing members of society? Because they are less likely to be promiscuous and spreading the diseases caused by such a lifestyle? Just be be fair to all? Pick one. I think any one of the above will work.

Unless, of course, you're going to try to argue that homosexuality is a choice.

 

[numinus]

I'm gone a few days, and come back to find you're still arguing the same old flawed points. Not only that, but now, I'm reading things like this:

Your entire flawed argument stems from your basic ignorance of the political philosophy on which the american government is based. The nature of law and civil liberties under this type of representative democracy is explained clearly in john locke's 2nd treatise of civil government. It would be quite pointless to proceed unless you demonstrate at least a rudimentary comprehension of these ideas.

Reminding me of Winston and his would be lover, fulfilling their obligation to the state. That is an interesting perspective indeed.

and this little gem:



Now, you're going to argue that artificial insemination is unethical, unless the sperm of the husband is used.

Correct. Rights of the child, remember? That wasn't so hard, was it?

What if the husband has no sperm?

Then the marriage he entered into is FUNDAMENTALLY DEFECTIVE. A fundamentally defective marriage is NULL AND VOID. This is quite different from divorce, which is a valid marriage that was dissolved. In the former, there WAS NO MARRIAGE in the first place - since some form or substance of the law was NOT fullfilled.

I guess the woman has to dump him or give up her rights to motherhood.

She can choose to do that,too. Obviously.

And then this one raises some questions:



This, and other things you have posted, lead us to believe you think of procreation as the raising of children, not just the conception of them. If that is so, then homosexual couples most certainly can take part in procreation.

All rational beings are both PART of creation and are agents of the CREATION PROCESS. In this broad sense, EVERYONE takes part in pro-creation.

That doesn't change the fundamental purpose of conjugal union.

But where you got this idea is a real mystery:

I am not at all surprised that you are plainly ignorant of this.

That sounds kind of scientific and based on statistics, but it is really just hokum. Otherwise, by extension, if straight, black hair is genetic, then x percent of the population must have it, and that percent would have to occur everywhere. Since there is a far greater percentage of people in China with straight, black hair than there are in most of the rest of the world, then it must not be a genetic trait.

Sorry, but your logic doesn't work. Anyway, you haven't proven that it doesn't occur uniformly.

LMAO. You judge science by the way it sounds???

I said - NORMAL STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION. I leave it you to look that up.

If you are trying to determine the statistical occurence of some genetic trait WITHIN a certain population, shouldn't you be sampling members of a population from the SAME ethnic stock?

For instance, if you are determining the statistical occurence of blackness and straightness in hair for the chinese population, you couldn't very well point to the occurence of curly blonds in europe and still expect your sample to conform with statistical prediction, now, could you?

Unless, of course, you attribute the 'gay gene' to a particular ethnicity.

Do yourself a favor and get a clue.

There are experiments, however, that suggest that homosexuality is genetic.

Here is another one.

There is something wrong with the address of your sources.

 

[numinus]

Procreation is only one aspect of marriage. The aspect of marriage that involves the state however is property.

That too. Property relations are governed by family relations, are they not?

I repeat it because infertility is only one of many grounds for dissolution. Historically - state recognized marriage was in western society was limited to upper classes where property and titles were a concern. Common law marriage was for the rest.

You mean the state does not recognize the family relations that proceed from common law marriage? You disappoint me.

I'm not sure what your point is. If procreation should be the only or major concern for conferring special rights on a couple then yes because it is the only thing which seperates a homosexual couple from a heterosexual couple unless they already have children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment

"Grounds for a marriage being voidable or void ab initio vary in different legal jurisdictions, but are typically limited to fraud, bigamy, and mental incompetence including the following:

1. Either spouse was already married to someone else at the time of the marriage in question;
2. Either spouse was too young to be married, or too young without required court or parental consent. (In some cases, such a marriage is still valid if it continues well beyond the younger spouse's reaching marriageable age.)
3. Either spouse was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the marriage;
4. Either spouse was mentally incompetent at the time of the marriage;
5. If the consent to the marriage was based on fraud or force;
6. Either spouse was physically incapable to be married (typically, chronically unable to have sexual intercourse) at the time of the marriage;
7. The marriage is prohibited by law due to the relationship between the parties. This is the "prohibited degree of consanguinity", or blood relationship between the parties. The most common legal relationship is 2nd cousins; the legality of such relationship between 1st cousins varies around the world.
8. Prisoners sentenced to a term of life imprisonment may not marry.
9. Concealment (e.g. one of the parties concealed a drug addiction, prior criminal record or having a sexually transmitted disease)

The guilty party -- the one with responsibility for having caused the defect in the marriage -- is ordinarily disentitled to request a declaration of nullity. The victimized spouse may ordinarily apply for innocent spouse relief. The fact that a marriage was a nullity ordinarily does not prevent an innocent spouse from collecting the financial benefits of marriage, such as the rights to community property, spousal support, child support, and equitable contribution to attorney fees for litigation expenses."

Even when the marriage is void, the right to motherhood and the rights of children are still PARAMOUNT.

Maybe. Maybe not if they opted for surgical infertility.

Do you really think that this is within the contemplation or purpose of the marital instituion? It is quite a stretch of imagination, don't you think?

 

[numinus]

What is the point of marriage at all?

Right to motherhood, rights of children and family relations.

Why does the government regulate it at all?

Right to motherhood, rights of childrean and family relations.

If you argue that gay marriage is OK but the government is under no obligation to leglislate it, the logic behind that argument usually can work for normal marriage too.

No.

Because the right to motherhood, rights of children and family relations EXIST.

 

[Coyote]

That too. Property relations are governed by family relations, are they not?

Not necessarily. They can be governed by blood family relations and by legally recognized (ie marriage) family relations. Without the legal recognition of some sort of "marriage" I believe that blood family trumps most other partnerships in court (even in the presence of a will).

You mean the state does not recognize the family relations that proceed from common law marriage? You disappoint me.

That's not what I said. I said that the historically, the state did not involve itself legally unless there was property or titles involved. I said nothing about recognition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment

"Grounds for a marriage being voidable or void ab initio vary in different legal jurisdictions, but are typically limited to fraud, bigamy, and mental incompetence including the following:

1. Either spouse was already married to someone else at the time of the marriage in question;
2. Either spouse was too young to be married, or too young without required court or parental consent. (In some cases, such a marriage is still valid if it continues well beyond the younger spouse's reaching marriageable age.)
3. Either spouse was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the marriage;
4. Either spouse was mentally incompetent at the time of the marriage;
5. If the consent to the marriage was based on fraud or force;
6. Either spouse was physically incapable to be married (typically, chronically unable to have sexual intercourse) at the time of the marriage;
7. The marriage is prohibited by law due to the relationship between the parties. This is the "prohibited degree of consanguinity", or blood relationship between the parties. The most common legal relationship is 2nd cousins; the legality of such relationship between 1st cousins varies around the world.
8. Prisoners sentenced to a term of life imprisonment may not marry.
9. Concealment (e.g. one of the parties concealed a drug addiction, prior criminal record or having a sexually transmitted disease)

The guilty party -- the one with responsibility for having caused the defect in the marriage -- is ordinarily disentitled to request a declaration of nullity. The victimized spouse may ordinarily apply for innocent spouse relief. The fact that a marriage was a nullity ordinarily does not prevent an innocent spouse from collecting the financial benefits of marriage, such as the rights to community property, spousal support, child support, and equitable contribution to attorney fees for litigation expenses."

Even when the marriage is void, the right to motherhood and the rights of children are still PARAMOUNT.

I don't totally understand your point.....

You're basing this on grounds for anullment which predominately involve the ability to procreate or the integrity of the partners' character. But grounds for anullment don't necessarily constitute a rationale for justification for marriage in the first place.

Do you really think that this is within the contemplation or purpose of the marital instituion? It is quite a stretch of imagination, don't you think?

It's just a point. At one time bigamy was the accepted cultural standard in many societies. Now it's unthinkable in many of those same societies.

I look at at it as a civil rights issue. The concept of family and of marriage has changed. At this point we have a group of people, who (if one assumes that there is a biological basis for at least some degree of sexual orientation) are discriminated against. They are denied the legal protections and spousal rights of shared property, pensions, family medical rights to be with their spouse in a hospital situation. In this sense - it is no different from old laws that used to deny marriage to interracial couples.

You don't have to call it "marriage" - but other cultures have had terms for recognized same sex unions that conferred certain rights and responsibilities. Why shouldn't we do as much? The reasons for denying it could just as easily be applied to certain subsets of heterosexual couples.

 

[jb_1430]

In this sense - it is no different from old laws that used to deny marriage to interracial couples.

And those laws were held to be unconstitutional because a man and woman of any combinations of race can procreate, therefore there was no valid reason to exclude interracial couples, other than discrimination.

 

[Coyote]

And those laws were held to be unconstitutional because a man and woman of any combinations of race can procreate, therefore there was no valid reason to exclude interracial couples, other than discrimination.

They were ruled unconstitutional because they were discrimminatory on the basis of race. Not on the basis of procreation.

Unless you can show me a source saying otherwise?

 

[numinus]

Not necessarily. They can be governed by blood family relations and by legally recognized (ie marriage) family relations. Without the legal recognition of some sort of "marriage" I believe that blood family trumps most other partnerships in court (even in the presence of a will).

Correct. Hence the necessity to attach legal impetus to blood relations, no? As I said - family relations is one of the purpose of the marital institution.

That's not what I said. I said that the historically, the state did not involve itself legally unless there was property or titles involved. I said nothing about recognition.

Exactly. The state need not involve itself unless there are questions of estate - hence family relations. That has been my point all along.

I don't totally understand your point.....

You're basing this on grounds for anullment which predominately involve the ability to procreate or the integrity of the partners' character. But grounds for anullment don't necessarily constitute a rationale for justification for marriage in the first place.

The above conditions describe a VOID OR FUNDAMENTALLY DEFECTIVE MARRIAGE - the inability to reproduce being one of the conditions. It follows that reproduction within the union is a PURPOSE of the marital institution. Without it, the marriage is deemed null.

It's just a point. At one time bigamy was the accepted cultural standard in many societies. Now it's unthinkable in many of those same societies.

Polygamy would still result in family relations, however tangled that family relation might be. While the form of marriage changed, the substance did not.

I look at at it as a civil rights issue. The concept of family and of marriage has changed. At this point we have a group of people, who (if one assumes that there is a biological basis for at least some degree of sexual orientation) are discriminated against.

There is no discrimination. The concept of equal rights pertains to the RIGHTS AN INDIVIDUAL HAS OVER ANOTHER THAT THE LATTER DOES NOT HAVE OVER THE FORMER.

They are denied the legal protections and spousal rights of shared property, pensions, family medical rights to be with their spouse in a hospital situation.

These are not rights that arise from the marital institution but from an individual's consent. I need not marry another to convey these rights over me to another - only my consent.

In this sense - it is no different from old laws that used to deny marriage to interracial couples.

Im sorry but denying inter-racial marriages is a form of eugenics - a social apparatus designed to maintain ethnic homogeneity.

That is not among the purpose of marriage I am talking about. Therefore, your analogy fails.

Remember, not all social innovations are necessarily good.

You don't have to call it "marriage" - but other cultures have had terms for recognized same sex unions that conferred certain rights and responsibilities. Why shouldn't we do as much? The reasons for denying it could just as easily be applied to certain subsets of heterosexual couples.

If you confer rights to an individual over your person or affairs - such as special power of attorney, then such an agreement is within the protection of the law. What you may not do, is call it SOMETHING IT IS NOT -with the intent of attaching implicitly the responsibilities and privileges that does not serve any common good nor purpose.

 

[PLC1]

Your entire flawed argument stems from your basic ignorance of the political philosophy on which the american government is based. The nature of law and civil liberties under this type of representative democracy is explained clearly in john locke's 2nd treatise of civil government. It would be quite pointless to proceed unless you demonstrate at least a rudimentary comprehension of these ideas.



Correct. Rights of the child, remember? That wasn't so hard, was it?



Then the marriage he entered into is FUNDAMENTALLY DEFECTIVE. A fundamentally defective marriage is NULL AND VOID. This is quite different from divorce, which is a valid marriage that was dissolved. In the former, there WAS NO MARRIAGE in the first place - since some form or substance of the law was NOT fullfilled.



She can choose to do that,too. Obviously.



All rational beings are both PART of creation and are agents of the CREATION PROCESS. In this broad sense, EVERYONE takes part in pro-creation.

That doesn't change the fundamental purpose of conjugal union.



I am not at all surprised that you are plainly ignorant of this.



LMAO. You judge science by the way it sounds???

I said - NORMAL STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION. I leave it you to look that up.

If you are trying to determine the statistical occurence of some genetic trait WITHIN a certain population, shouldn't you be sampling members of a population from the SAME ethnic stock?

For instance, if you are determining the statistical occurence of blackness and straightness in hair for the chinese population, you couldn't very well point to the occurence of curly blonds in europe and still expect your sample to conform with statistical prediction, now, could you?

Unless, of course, you attribute the 'gay gene' to a particular ethnicity.

Do yourself a favor and get a clue.



There is something wrong with the address of your sources.

While there is not point in yet again refuting the same old argumnts, there are some points here that deserve to be answered:

Then the marriage he entered into is FUNDAMENTALLY DEFECTIVE. A fundamentally defective marriage is NULL AND VOID.

A marriage in which one partner is sterile is null and void? That is not so, not even in all caps and bolded. One purpose of marriage is to raise children. The other parts have to do with property.
You have made that statement before, but never backed it up. I expect that is because there is no way to back it up. See if you can prove me wrong.

LMAO. You judge science by the way it sounds???

Read my post again. That is the exact opposite of what I said. your point about normal distribution is irrelevant and immaterial. Making the statement in scientific sounding language does not make it relevant.

There is something wrong with the address of your sources.

Well, when I clicked on them again, the worked. Here is a quote from the second one:

Scientists say they have shown how male homosexuality could be passed from generation to generation.

Nature encourages mothers to pass on a "gay trait" to their male offspring by boosting their fertility, the Italian University of Padova team believes.

Not that it matters to you, since you believe that sterile heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry either. Most of the world would take the research about homosexuality as evidence that it is not a choice, and that discouraging it is ineffective, and that therefore, there is no reason to ban gay marriage.

I am not at all surprised that you are plainly ignorant of this.

Once again, when you descend into personal insults, the game is essentially over. Check.

 

[9sublime]

Right to motherhood, rights of children and family relations.

You are yet to explain to me how marriage actually is neccessary for providing these rights - rather than just telling me this is the case.

 

[Coyote]

dupe post

 

[Coyote]

Correct. Hence the necessity to attach legal impetus to blood relations, no? As I said - family relations is one of the purpose of the marital institution.

Exactly. The state need not involve itself unless there are questions of estate - hence family relations. That has been my point all along.

Except - here's where theory departs from practice. Family relations can and do occur in same sex couples. Either through adoption, or through children from a previous relationship. Estates are involved. Marriage - or a legally recognized union is one way of creating a family relationship that is something other then blood, and protecting the rights of the individuals involved.

The above conditions describe a VOID OR FUNDAMENTALLY DEFECTIVE MARRIAGE - the inability to reproduce being one of the conditions. It follows that reproduction within the union is a PURPOSE of the marital institution. Without it, the marriage is deemed null.

A purpose - not The purpose. That means there are many other purposes as well and it also means there are many marriages where only some of the purposes are met.

Polygamy would still result in family relations, however tangled that family relation might be. While the form of marriage changed, the substance did not.

Again, so could same-sex marriage, as I mentioned above.

There is no discrimination. The concept of equal rights pertains to the RIGHTS AN INDIVIDUAL HAS OVER ANOTHER THAT THE LATTER DOES NOT HAVE OVER THE FORMER.

I disagree. The state confers special rights and privledges to heterosexual individuals desiring to marry the consenting partner of their choice through the institution of marriage that it will not grant to homosexual individuals.

These are not rights that arise from the marital institution but from an individual's consent. I need not marry another to convey these rights over me to another - only my consent.

That may be valid in theory, but it does not work that way in practice.

Im sorry but denying inter-racial marriages is a form of eugenics - a social apparatus designed to maintain ethnic homogeneity.

That is not among the purpose of marriage I am talking about. Therefore, your analogy fails.

Remember, not all social innovations are necessarily good.

I agree. But it is also a way of defining "marriage" that was done and "justified" at one point in history and it's proponents were just as vehement in their righteousness.

If you confer rights to an individual over your person or affairs - such as special power of attorney, then such an agreement is within the protection of the law. What you may not do, is call it SOMETHING IT IS NOT -with the intent of attaching implicitly the responsibilities and privileges that does not serve any common good nor purpose.

This confering of "rights" that you mention has limitations in practice and the real world of law. This is evident in the many times those "rights" have been overuled by the power of blood relations.

So don't call it a marriage - call it a civil union. But give them the same rights and special benefits you would give committed consenting adult heterosexual couples.

And does it not serve any common good? Marriage promotes stability in a society. If a couple wishes to have, raise, or adopt children - it's usually better done under a marriage or some kind of union that clearly outlines responsibilities, obligations and rights in the event of a dissolution.

And does it serve a purpose? At the very least, it provides a form of stability and reasonable humanitarian expectations to two partners - the ability to inherit/share pensions, medical benefits, visit a dying partner in the hospital (without being blocked by hostile blood relatives) - all of which is automatically assumed for heterosexual couples through the institution of marriage. If it serves a humanatarian good, plus a common good and does no apparent harm - why not?

What exactly is bad about that?

 

[numinus]

While there is not point in yet again refuting the same old argumnts, there are some points here that deserve to be answered:



A marriage in which one partner is sterile is null and void? That is not so, not even in all caps and bolded. One purpose of marriage is to raise children. The other parts have to do with property.
You have made that statement before, but never backed it up. I expect that is because there is no way to back it up. See if you can prove me wrong.

From wiki:

"Grounds for a marriage being voidable or void ab initio vary in different legal jurisdictions, but are typically limited to fraud, bigamy, and mental incompetence including the following:

1. Either spouse was already married to someone else at the time of the marriage in question;
2. Either spouse was too young to be married, or too young without required court or parental consent. (In some cases, such a marriage is still valid if it continues well beyond the younger spouse's reaching marriageable age.)
3. Either spouse was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the marriage;
4. Either spouse was mentally incompetent at the time of the marriage;
5. If the consent to the marriage was based on fraud or force;
6. Either spouse was physically incapable to be married (typically, chronically unable to have sexual intercourse) at the time of the marriage;
7. The marriage is prohibited by law due to the relationship between the parties. This is the "prohibited degree of consanguinity", or blood relationship between the parties. The most common legal relationship is 2nd cousins; the legality of such relationship between 1st cousins varies around the world.
8. Prisoners sentenced to a term of life imprisonment may not marry.
9. Concealment (e.g. one of the parties concealed a drug addiction, prior criminal record or having a sexually transmitted disease)

The guilty party -- the one with responsibility for having caused the defect in the marriage -- is ordinarily disentitled to request a declaration of nullity. The victimized spouse may ordinarily apply for innocent spouse relief. The fact that a marriage was a nullity ordinarily does not prevent an innocent spouse from collecting the financial benefits of marriage, such as the rights to community property, spousal support, child support, and equitable contribution to attorney fees for litigation expenses."

VOID - do you understand this word? Legally, it means there was NO MARRIAGE in the first place. Sterility is a ground for VOIDING A MARRIAGE, which means THERE IS NO MARRIAGE IF SUCH A CONDITION EXISTS.

You really need to get a clue!

Read my post again. That is the exact opposite of what I said. your point about normal distribution is irrelevant and immaterial. Making the statement in scientific sounding language does not make it relevant.

LOL. Stop talking about things you don't have competence on.

Hair color is a function a particular ethnic stock. Now, if you are suggesting that a 'gay gene' occurs within a particular ethnic stock, then your analogy holds. Otherwise, you are merely demonstrating to the rest of us how entirely clueless you are.

Well, when I clicked on them again, the worked. Here is a quote from the second one:

A news report? Please!

Not that it matters to you, since you believe that sterile heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry either. Most of the world would take the research about homosexuality as evidence that it is not a choice, and that discouraging it is ineffective, and that therefore, there is no reason to ban gay marriage.

No. The occurence of your 'gay gene' is statistically insignificant, even if one assumes they are proveable to begin with. Not all people practicing homosexuality necessarily have this alleged gene.

And even if all homosexual phenomena are based on some genetic trait, then by all means - indulge to your heart's content. Just because you particularly enjoy it doesn't mean you may call it something that it isn't.

Really! Talking to you is a tedious chore indeed!

Once again, when you descend into personal insults, the game is essentially over. Check.

Is it my fault that you find your general ignorance on the matter insulting?

 

[numinus]

You are yet to explain to me how marriage actually is neccessary for providing these rights - rather than just telling me this is the case.

Marriage does not provide these rights - they exist as a necessary part of the human condition.

Everything I said is based on the universal declaration of human rights and the rights of children. The operation of these rights can also be seen in marital laws and the whole marital institution.

 

[numinus]

Except - here's where theory departs from practice. Family relations can and do occur in same sex couples. Either through adoption, or through children from a previous relationship. Estates are involved. Marriage - or a legally recognized union is one way of creating a family relationship that is something other then blood, and protecting the rights of the individuals involved.

Certainly not. There is no reason for anyone not to will their estate to anyone they wish.

A will is open to contest in all marriages. You should know better.

A purpose - not The purpose. That means there are many other purposes as well and it also means there are many marriages where only some of the purposes are met.

Not so. It is a NECESSARY purpose such that the marriage is voidable on this ground ALONE.

Again, so could same-sex marriage, as I mentioned above.

Irrelevant. Adoption exists to uphold the RIGHTS OF A CHILD, not the right of an individual to marry. Citing adoption to validate same-sex marriage therefore, is a clear non-sequitur.

I disagree. The state confers special rights and privledges to heterosexual individuals desiring to marry the consenting partner of their choice through the institution of marriage that it will not grant to homosexual individuals.

The state, nor its various appendages cannot confer rights that are not present in the human condition to begin with. Civil rights are those rights that you RETAIN from the state of nature (or from your absolute liberty) as a consequence of living in civil society.

That may be valid in theory, but it does not work that way in practice.

So, this problem is about getting a good lawyer, not about inventing a law based on an invented right.

I agree. But it is also a way of defining "marriage" that was done and "justified" at one point in history and it's proponents were just as vehement in their righteousness.

Correct. That is why I was asking for the purpose of same-sex marriage to society. If it is about an agreement between consenting adults, then there is no need to make a law out of it. Surely, such an agreement is binding between the parties involved. If such an agreement involves another person not party to the agreement, then the state needs to intervene.

This confering of "rights" that you mention has limitations in practice and the real world of law. This is evident in the many times those "rights" have been overuled by the power of blood relations.

Of course that happens in marriage and a law that legalizes same-sex marriage wouldn't change this fact.

So don't call it a marriage - call it a civil union. But give them the same rights and special benefits you would give committed consenting adult heterosexual couples.

Such as?

A

nd does it not serve any common good? Marriage promotes stability in a society. If a couple wishes to have, raise, or adopt children - it's usually better done under a marriage or some kind of union that clearly outlines responsibilities, obligations and rights in the event of a dissolution.

Why do you argue adoption in relation to the prospective parents but NEVER about the child???

A couple 'wishing' to adopt a child DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO IT.

ADOPTION IS ABOUT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD - AS IS THE CHILD'S RIGHT.

And does it serve a purpose? At the very least, it provides a form of stability and reasonable humanitarian expectations to two partners

Stability for whom?

Certainly NOT for the adopted child. That is a determination for the state to make and on the basis of EACH individual child in question.

If you want stability for the homo-sexual couple, then there are a lot of psychiatrists out there.

- the ability to inherit/share pensions, medical benefits, visit a dying partner in the hospital (without being blocked by hostile blood relatives) - all of which is automatically assumed for heterosexual couples through the institution of marriage.

The only things assumed in the marital institution are the right to motherhood, the rights of children and family relations.

Everything else is subject to consent as may be manifested in a pre-nuptial agreement of some sort.

If it serves a humanatarian good, plus a common good and does no apparent harm - why not?

That's the point. IT DOES NOT SERVE HUMANITY ANY GOOD.

What exactly is bad about that?

You can recognize the limitations of conjugal union by the number of parties, the degrees of consanguinity, the age of the intending parties, the species of the intending parties, the disclosure of pre-existing personal conditions, etc. etc.

Why the hell can't you recognize its limitation according to GENDER, hmmm?