Sounds to me a lot like "the next best thing." Given the choice, the parent would have preferred using their own genetic material. And, while the child will likely grow to love that parent - given the choice - she would probably prefer to share both love and heredity.It isn't about settling for the next best thing or lower because there is no proof that bio parents are the best thing to begin with.
And, as long as opposite sex couples are allowed to use other people's biology to create their children, even before the conception, then you can't say that the children are being forced to accept the next best thing. They would not have existed to begin with without that couple going through the process of getting other cells, besides their own, to make the child.
What insistence?? I believe you were the one that started the discussion on procreation. I could be wrong, but I don't think I've made a single "procreation is a valid state interest" claim - I certainly haven't "insisted" it. For the most part, I've tried to stay neutral w/r to a particular state interest.And despite your insistence otherwise, there is no valid state interest in procreation occurring for married couples as a reason for only allowing opposite sex couples to marry. If this were true, then there is absolutely no way the federal government or those 5 states could legally recognize those marriages in which the opposite sex couples are only legally recognized if they cannot procreate with each other. They would be completely against the purpose of procreation and legally so.
So what? Neither does Heredity, a Professional Relationship, or a Platonic Friendship.Sex in no way affects a person's ability to fulfill any of the obligations/responsibilities of the legal marriage contract. I have said this many times.
Again, your reasoning makes no sense. Policy need not perfectly align with a state interest, and almost never does. I have said this many times.There is no obligation to have children with each other or be able to have children with each other in any marriage contract so it cannot truly be a consideration in who should be allowed to marry.
Where is marriage given over to the government in the constitution I'm confused?
Sounds to me a lot like "the next best thing." Given the choice, the parent would have preferred using their own genetic material. And, while the child will likely grow to love that parent - given the choice - she would probably prefer to share both love and heredity.
it's not. The founder's certainly didn't need government's permission to get married. But government usurped the power with the Marriage License.
I have no problem with government getting out of the marriage business.
So what? Neither does Heredity, a Professional Relationship, or a Platonic Friendship.
Again, your reasoning makes no sense. Policy need not perfectly align with a state interest, and almost never does. I have said this many times.
More examples of such reasoning:
- There is no obligation to demonstrate that you have achieved sufficient maturity to vote at 18, therefore maturity cannot truly be a consideration in who should be allowed to vote. Open it up to all.
- There is no obligation to demonstrate that you are unable to afford a higher tax rate simply because your level of income is low for a given year, therefore income cannot truly be a consideration as to what your tax rate should be. Do away with progressive taxes.
What insistence?? I believe you were the one that started the discussion on procreation. I could be wrong, but I don't think I've made a single "procreation is a valid state interest" claim - I certainly haven't "insisted" it. For the most part, I've tried to stay neutral w/r to a particular state interest.
That sort of sentiment is fairly rare, according to the data. The vast majority of adoptees express interest in learning about their genetic heritage and/or birth parents. The number who express a desire to be found by their birth parents is as high as 95%+. The proportion of birth mothers who want to be reunited with their son/daughter may also be in that range.No, I'm betting that the child wouldn't care one way or another as long as he/she has loving, good parents.
Well, again - it's a "next best thing." Ideally they'd wish they could use their own genetic material without the chance of passing some unwanted condition.Plus, some parents could use their own genetic material but would prefer not to because of the large possibility that their genetic material could pass some unwanted condition that could cause major concerns or even be fatal.
That sort of sentiment is fairly rare, according to the data. The vast majority of adoptees express interest in learning about their genetic heritage and/or birth parents. The number who express a desire to be found by their birth parents is as high as 95%+. The proportion of birth mothers who want to be reunited with their son/daughter may also be in that range.
Powerful stuff.
Well, again - it's a "next best thing." Ideally they'd wish they could use their own genetic material without the chance of passing some unwanted condition.
What power does it have to "give back"? You can get married without a marriage license in 2012, same as in 1770. To my knowledge, we no longer have laws that criminalize private marriages.I would say it's the proper solution, but good luck on that front. Government rarely gives back power it's stolen.
What power does it have to "give back"? You can get married without a marriage license in 2012, same as in 1770. To my knowledge, we no longer have laws that criminalize private marriages.
Now, there are legal benefits that you can obtain by asking the state to recognize your marriage - but you could probably get the same basic legal protections with a non-marital relationship contract. It's just not as convenient. So where's the power grab?
What power does it have to "give back"? You can get married without a marriage license in 2012, same as in 1770. To my knowledge, we no longer have laws that criminalize private marriages.
Now, there are legal benefits that you can obtain by asking the state to recognize your marriage - but you could probably get the same basic legal protections with a non-marital relationship contract. It's just not as convenient. So where's the power grab?
Nothing, really. That was the point. When it comes to marriage your view seems to be that heredity, sex, whether the pair are just friends, whether they barely know each other at all... none of that really matters in your view, correct? Because none of these factors affect a person's ability to fulfill their obligations:What the hell does heredity have to do with marriage?
Sex in no way affects a person's ability to fulfill any of the obligations/responsibilities of the legal marriage contract. I have said this many times.
Side Bulletin: Ninth Circuit declined to re-hear CA Prop 8...so pretty soon, either legal recognition of marriages resumes (without discriminating against gays and lesbians), or it goes to the USSC.
Gay marriages are recognized already, there are just stays that are keeping the state from allowing new gay marriages.
Nothing, really. That was the point. When it comes to marriage your view seems to be that heredity, sex, whether the pair are just friends, whether they barely know each other at all... none of that really matters in your view, correct? Because none of these factors affect a person's ability to fulfill their obligations:
I'm just trying to understand your position better. Limiting the scope to pairs of individuals, is there any relationship (other than kids or others who lack the intellectual maturity to enter into such a relationship) where you draw the line and say "we shouldn't allow those two to get married"?
If so, why? What's the state interest?
The foundation of marriage is not love. It's a civil contract treated specially by the governments to encourage stability in the family environment. In many cutures marriage came first, romantic love somewhere down the road if you were "lucky".
The foundation of marriage is not love. It's a civil contract treated specially by governments to encourage stability in the family environment. In many cutures marriage came first, romantic love somewhere down the road if you were "lucky".
The foundation of marriage is not love. It's a civil contract treated specially by governments to encourage stability in the family environment. In many cutures marriage came first, romantic love somewhere down the road if you were "lucky".
I'm fully aware marriage is a legal contract...however, it's rare people get married for the contract. Gay people aren't requesting the right to get married for ****s and giggles...they're capable of love just as heterosexuals are and want to bind it by contract too.
CriticalThought said:I'm not sure how that is incompatible with same sex couples marrying given that same sex couples have kids and those kids could also benefit from the stability.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?