# Should gay people be allowed to spawn? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2010, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gay-people-be-allowed-to-spawn/550413 "2010-08-16T14:01:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 37
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gay-people-be-allowed-to-spawn/550413/37 "2010-08-16T15:50:55Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > > [@Bricker](#): > > > > My view of what the Constitution requires? A law that purported to forbid homosexuals from reproducing is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment. > > And since there is no text to that effect, you see why textualist/originalist arguments may be pursuasive, but are not all encompassing with regards to Constitutional theory and interpretation. > > Welcome to the dark side. I hear there are cookies somewhere. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Care to expound? Surely you don’t think the founders of the 14th Amendment intended it to cover homosexuals having the right to become parents. Is it procedural due process? If the law included a hearing, attorney, etc.? Fine then? > > What about the will of the people? Isn’t procreative ability, morality, and tradition enough of a rational basis for the legislation to survive? Apparently I’m not allowed to mention things like caselaw, so I’m not sure how I can expound. My conclusion is required by case law. If this question were being presented tabula rasa, in 1869, let’s say, then my answer would potentially be different, and would turn on just how the law actually prevented the conception of babies by homosexuals. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-gay-people-be-allowed-to-spawn/550413)._