ACLU sues for gays' benefits 1930

Indeed.

No proof offered ? Claim fails.

Incorrect. ANY pairing of a husband and a wife can co-parent a child, providing said child BOTH a mother AND a father, even if the child is not issue of the couple's blood lineage. Ditto as grandparents.

NO gay couple can provide a mother AND a father. By self definition.

Thus, heteroloveual couples provide society with a benefit that NO gay couple can ever hope to accomplish.

Do ALL heteroloveual marrieds have to have a child ? No. Society recognises both the acts and their potential. A potential that a gay pairing utterly lacks. On both biological grounds, and on parenting ability grounds.

Indeed. And, as society gains AbZero from a legal recognition of a gay pairing, it stands to reason that no such societal recognition is warrented.

This does not mean that society need make such gay pairings illegal. Society can take any of three views on an issue:

Offers societal benefits, so is societally so recognised. Offers no societal benefits, so is not societally recognised. Creates a societal harm, so is societally banned.

Gay pairings fail to provide a societal benefit, but also do not create a harm, as such. Thus, society rightly offers neither legal recognition nor legal banning.

Oh, marriage is not a civil right. As it requires that you get another to agree to marry you, it cannot be an individual right, as it is not an individual insbreastution. Thus, claims of gays demanding " civil rights " in this area are specious.

( One may imagine a single heteroloveual suing a government because they cannot get another to marry them, claiming that this is a " violation of their civil rights ". Such a claim would rightly be laughed out of any courtroom, thus proving the lack of civil right status of marriage. )

Andre