- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 12,605
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
There is no part of same sex marriage being banned that furthers any state interest.
But, if they are trying to say, for the sake of argument, that procreation is the state's interest in marriage, then they would have to show how they are furthering that state interest by not allowing same sex couples to legally marry but also how that state interest is still furthered by allowing opposite sex couples who cannot have children to enter into marriage. The reason that they would need to address this with such an argument, particularly the federal government and certain states, is because it shows a blatant bias against only those of the same sex not being allowed to marry due to procreation but no regard for those of the opposite sex who are allowed to marry despite not being able to procreate.
I have addressed this several times in the past, but here it is again. There are certain states that allow first cousins to legally marry only if they cannot procreate with each other. They have to show proof that they are infertile or that the woman is over a certain age in order to be able to enter into a legal marriage. These are all recognized as legal marriages by the federal government. This alone shows that the federal government and at least some states cannot claim that procreation is the main state interest in marriage for them and that is why they are banning same sex marriage because they are legally saying the opposite for certain opposite sex couples.
Maybe when it comes to selling Big Macs, but not when it comes to marriage.It won't be that hard to argue that the state has no role in trying to enforce gender roles. Arguing that non whites should not be allowed to marry whites is not really any different than arguing men can't marry men or women can't marry women. Sex is just as immutable as race.
Children have a right to be raised by both natural parents - that's what should be encouraged by the state. This idea that parents are completely interchangeable - that it doesn't matter who the parents are so long as they're married it's all the same, is kind of ridiculous.The state interest in having procreation is only that children are more likely to be raised by both parents if procreation happens within a marriage, instead of just a not-so-committed relationship. So that still goes back to the state's interest being married couples raising children, not actually making the children. And same sex couples are just as able to raise children as opposite sex couples are.
Again, it's unrealistic to assume - for any such law - that benefits granted will act in the state interest 100%. We have age limits imposed that restrict the right to vote. The state interest is that we want people to be intellectually mature enough to vote - yet, there are many 17-year-olds more mature than others in their 20's. There are 16 year olds who are better equipped intellectually to vote than some 50 year olds ever will be. Shall we test every citizen to ensure the state interest is met before we allow them to vote? Is the state showing a "blatant bias" for stupid 50 year olds or immature 20-year olds?Then you're not thinking in the way the law works. The state cannot discriminate against one group, same sex couples, for the only reason that keeps them from being just like most opposite sex couples, the ability to procreate with each other, while ignoring the fact that there are many opposite sex couples who cannot procreate with each other (and in some cases are not legally allowed to be able to) who are legally recognized as married. This will be a major argument against any argument made to support same sex marriage bans that are based in procreation. It points out, quite rightly, that the law is not being applied to two similar groups, same sex couples and those opposite sex couples who cannot procreate together, in the same way. That is what equality is all about.
Children have a right to be raised by both natural parents - that's what should be encouraged by the state. This idea that parents are completely interchangeable - that it doesn't matter who the parents are so long as they're married it's all the same, is kind of ridiculous.
Again, it's unrealistic to assume - for any such law - that benefits granted will act in the state interest 100%. We have age limits imposed that restrict the right to vote. The state interest is that we want people to be intellectually mature enough to vote - yet, there are many 17-year-olds more mature than others in their 20's. There are 16 year olds who are better equipped intellectually to vote than some 50 year olds ever will be. Shall we test every citizen to ensure the state interest is met before we allow them to vote? Is the state showing a "blatant bias" for stupid 50 year olds or immature 20-year olds?
Children have a right to be raised by both natural parents - that's what should be encouraged by the state. This idea that parents are completely interchangeable - that it doesn't matter who the parents are so long as they're married it's all the same, is kind of ridiculous.
Children have a right to be raised by both natural parents - that's what should be encouraged by the state. This idea that parents are completely interchangeable - that it doesn't matter who the parents are so long as they're married it's all the same, is kind of ridiculous.
Children have a right to be raised by both natural parents - that's what should be encouraged by the state. This idea that parents are completely interchangeable - that it doesn't matter who the parents are so long as they're married it's all the same, is kind of ridiculous.
Again, it's unrealistic to assume - for any such law - that benefits granted will act in the state interest 100%. We have age limits imposed that restrict the right to vote. The state interest is that we want people to be intellectually mature enough to vote - yet, there are many 17-year-olds more mature than others in their 20's. There are 16 year olds who are better equipped intellectually to vote than some 50 year olds ever will be. Shall we test every citizen to ensure the state interest is met before we allow them to vote? Is the state showing a "blatant bias" for stupid 50 year olds or immature 20-year olds?
Maybe when it comes to selling Big Macs, but not when it comes to marriage.
Wrong. Jump to conclusions much?So we should ban divorce and single-parent households, right?
Your opinion says its ridiculous. Meanwhile, actual research shows the opposite. It shows that children of same-sex couples do just fine. You have to do better than saying "it's ridiculous." I personally think allowing children to go to church is ridiculous. Should we ban that? Or would I have to somehow prove that going to church harms children?
It's called an analogy.Red herring. No state interest is served by banning same-sex marriage.
Yes, I've heard the laundry-list of exceptions ad naseum. So what?Many kids are raised in one parent homes and they turn out just fine.. and many kids are raised by two parents and end up screwed up. Just because mom and dad are in the home, doesn't mean its a loving home. How many kids live in two parent homes where they witness domestic violence daily?
Again, jumping to conclusions. You all are great at that. When did I say that a child is ALWAYS best served being raised by their natural parents? Obviously, if the child's parents don't wish to raise it, then the child is better off elsewhere. Nonetheless, a child has a right to be raised by both natural parents. Whenever possible, that is the best situation for the child.You are wrong. Your entire view is based on an assumption and an overly broad one.
If there wasn't over 40 years of science showing that children can be raised by same sex couples then you might have a point, but you come across as a person in complete denial when you ignore all that and make over generalized claims that are supported by nothing but your personal opinion.
When are you going to accept it? You want to believe that a child is always best served being raised by their natural parents. It isn't a matter of what is true, it is only a matter of what you want to believe. And when you choose to believe what you want to believe over what is true, you are delusional.
When did I say that a child is ALWAYS best served being raised by their natural parents? Obviously, if the child's parents don't wish to raise it, then the child is better off elsewhere. Nonetheless, a child has a right to be raised by both natural parents. Whenever possible, that is the best situation for the child.
I'm guessing that last clause will go down also, it seems to be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution.
Glad to see some more movement on this.
You contradict yourself in the same paragragh.
If the natural parents are not the best to raise the child (for a situation), then you cannot say that the best situation for the child is to be raised by the natural parents.
By your reasoning, there must be no right to marry, either - given that one person can choose to divorce the other?No children don't have that right, not with the laws we have now in place. Children can be put up for adoption by their parents. Children can be taken from their parents by the state to be put up for adoption when the parents are deemed unfit. No single parent is required to either stay married to or get married to the other biological parent of a child. Parents can choose how much they contribute to the raising of any child, including absolutely none. Opposite sex couples who are infertile or unable to have children between them are completely allowed to use either a surrogate mother, a donated egg, or donated sperm to have children and the biological parent will have little to no rights to that child.
It relates perfectly to your argument. Laws that grant remove/privilges are generally imperfect - your claims of "blatant bias" simply aren't credible. Given that you think "procreation alone is not really a state interest to begin with" - it would seem to make more sense to drop all the talk of childless heterosexual couples and apply the "similarly situated" argument to marriage in general.You are not making any case here. Nothing you said relates to my argument. The argument is that people in similar situations, in accordance with a particular law, have to be treated the equally under the law. The only way the state can justify not treating those people the same is by proving that by not treating them equally they are furthering some state interest.
Whenever possible, that is the best situation for the child.You contradict yourself in the same paragragh.
If the natural parents are not the best to raise the child (for a situation), then you cannot say that the best situation for the child is to be raised by the natural parents.
Whenever possible, that is the best situation for the child.
Yes, I've heard the laundry-list of exceptions ad naseum. So what?
Ah, I see the confusion. Yes,I seriously doubt that anyone interpreting "possible" so strictly would agree with the statement. Given extreme cases where the parents are negligent, abusive, etc. -- of course you wouldn't want to force the child upon them.No it isn't, because sometimes the natural parents AREN'T the best situation for the child even though it's possible for them to raise the child.
I said "so what" because I don't find it terribly relevant. These sorts of things can occur in any relationship. All else being equal, it's better for a child to be raised by its natural parents. No, of course that's not always possible - in such cases a child may be forced to settle for the next best thing... or the third best thing, or the fourth...What do you mean "so what?" You think it's better for a child to live with two parents who are incapable of showing each other love? I was raised in a broken home...not just once, but several times. I watched my mom get beat like she was a man by damn near every boyfriend/husband she had. Trust me when I say: kids would rather come from a broken home than live in one.
As I said, living together or not, gay or straight, kids need love, stability and security.....and, they need their parents to respect each other (living together or not).
I said "so what" because I don't find it terribly relevant. These sorts of things can occur in any relationship. All else being equal, it's better for a child to be raised by its natural parents. No, of course that's not always possible - in such cases a child may be forced to settle for the next best thing... or the third best thing, or the fourth...
By your reasoning, there must be no right to marry, either - given that one person can choose to divorce the other?
It relates perfectly to your argument. Laws that grant remove/privilges are generally imperfect - your claims of "blatant bias" simply aren't credible. Given that you think "procreation alone is not really a state interest to begin with" - it would seem to make more sense to drop all the talk of childless heterosexual couples and apply the "similarly situated" argument to marriage in general.
I said "so what" because I don't find it terribly relevant. These sorts of things can occur in any relationship. All else being equal, it's better for a child to be raised by its natural parents. No, of course that's not always possible - in such cases a child may be forced to settle for the next best thing... or the third best thing, or the fourth...
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?