The prohibition being primarily religion-based is a myth.I count tradition as an argument against it. What other, non-religious based arguments are there?
What the New York courts had to say:
First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose
to offer an inducement—in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits—to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only.
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule—some children who never know their fathers, or their S 360mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes—but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.
Plaintiffs, and amici supporting them, argue that the proposition asserted is simply untrue: that a home with two parents of different sexes has no advantage, from the point of view of raising children, over a home with two parents of the same sex. Perhaps they are right, but the Legislature could rationally think otherwise.
According to he Supreme Court, "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."
Seems like a pretty clear-cut case of Equal Protection to me...
Do I have this correct…
1. Because same sex couples can not procreate without outside aide
2. Because children need both a male and female role model within the home
According to he Supreme Court, "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man."
Seems like a pretty clear-cut case of Equal Protection to me...
We resolve this question in this case on the basis of the Supreme Court’s observation that no more than rational basis scrutiny is generally appropriate ‘‘where individuals in the group affected by a law have distinguishing characteristics relevant to interests the State has the authority to implement’’ (Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 441, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 [1985] ). Perhaps that principle would lead us to apply heightened scrutiny to sexual preference discrimination in some cases, but not where we review legislation governing marriage and family relationships. A person’s preference for the sort of sexual activity that cannot lead to the birth of children is relevant to the S 365State’s interest in fostering relationships that will serve children best. In this area, therefore, we conclude that rational basis scrutiny is appropriate.
Do I have this correct…
1. Because same sex couples can not procreate without outside aide
2. Because children need both a male and female role model within the home
Yes, the court said those were two possible rational reasons to limit marriage to only opposite-sex couples. The point is they classify those reasons as "rational", whether we as individuals would do the same is not really the point, this is from a legal standpoint.
If you read the entire thing they repeatedly say that the legislature could use other reasons to justify why same-sex marriage should be allowed. Mainly, is there a rational reason to assume the law should stand, yes, then it stands until the legislature changes it because it is not a constitutional issue.
A person’s preference for the sort of sexual activity that cannot lead to the birth of children is relevant to the State’s interest in fostering relationships that will serve children best.
Srsly? As someone who works for a Child Protective Service, maybe fewer children would be in the state's best interest.
A person’s preference for the sort of sexual activity that cannot lead to the birth of children is relevant to the State’s interest in fostering relationships that will serve children best.
Srsly? As someone who works for a Child Protective Service, maybe fewer children would be in the state's best interest.
You may feel differently when it comes time for you to retire and there are not enough people working to support your social security.
I would want more children living through deplorable conditions just so I can get a check? I am jaded. Not that jaded.
Hello everyone, I am bowing out.
So, no more walls of text to deal with...or ignore. :-)
After missing a lot of posts while at work, the time needed to make coherent replies is more than I care to spend and making quick responses back and forth is not good for my post organization and makes me grumpy.
So, I figure that I will let you guys carry on without me before I become annoyed over something silly or inadvertantly rub someone the wrong way.
|
Hello everyone, I am bowing out.
So, no more walls of text to deal with...or ignore. :-)
After missing a lot of posts while at work, the time needed to make coherent replies is more than I care to spend and making quick responses back and forth is not good for my post organization and makes me grumpy.
So, I figure that I will let you guys carry on without me before I become annoyed over something silly or inadvertantly rub someone the wrong way.
I would just like to say that I appreciate that your posts were polite and thought-out, even if I vehemently disagree with the content.
In terms of this thread however, the great questions of our time are not going to be resolved on the Paizo messageboards (for better or worse), and I myself have found that arguing on this thread is both aggravating and futile, which is why I too gave it up a day or two ago :)
Could someone please explain the sanctity of marriage concept to me. My understanding is that it is religious based which, for me, brings up the question of whether it is relevant to this discussion. Further, I still fail to see how couple A's marriage has anything to do with couple B's marriage.
Marriage is sanctified by Elvis in a black velvet cathedral in Vegas. It's a holy union between a drunken man and a drunken woman who met each other fifteen minutes ago at the craps table and will later get a divorce from the Drive-Through at McDonalds.
Very serious business. Best not to mess with it. Foundation of society and all that.
Very serious business. Best not to mess with it. Foundation of society and all that.
I get your point, Samnell. Surely there is more to it than that, though.
John Ensign, United States Senator of Nevada: Press Releases
“Marriage recognizes the ideal of a father and mother living together to raise their children,” Ensign said. “Marriage is the cornerstone on which our society was founded. For those who say that the Constitution is so sacred that we cannot or should not adopt the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would simply point out that marriage, and the sanctity of that institution, predates the American Constitution and the founding of our nation. Marriage, as a social institution, predates every other institution on which ordered society in America has relied.”
If it is so important that a child be raised by a father and mother, why is no one pushing for a ban on divorce? I came from a broken home. I was raised mostly by women. Have I been so terribly emotionally scarred that I can not function within society?
Again, if marriage is the cornerstone of our society, is divorce ripping it asunder? Should we not fix that gaping hole before worrying about the small leak of same sex couples who wish to tear this country apart by living in an open, loving relationship?
Slavery predates our Constitution too. Not everything old needs be cherished.
Why is Uganda attacking homosexualityIt mut be them damn Republicans and evangelicals.
Are not honesty and justice family values? Is it honest and just to not allow people the same rights/privilidges/whatever-you-want-to-call-them as everyone else?
|
Are not honesty and justice family values? Is it honest and just to not allow people the same rights/privilidges/whatever-you-want-to-call-them as everyone else?Why is Uganda attacking homosexualityIt must be them damn Republicans and evangelicals.
Dude, it was meant to be a joke.
Dude, it was meant to be a joke.
I am sorry. The Uganda story just has me a bit upset.
|
|
I understand. At the risk of invoking Godwin, as a historian my first thought was Nazi Germany.Dude, it was meant to be a joke.I am sorry. The Uganda story just has me a bit upset.
Comparing a country that exterminates gays to Nazi Germany doesn't count as invoking Godwin, since that's something that Nazi Germany actually did.
So you're safe there.
Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment
Marriage is inherently a unique relationship between a man and a woman.
Why?
As a matter of public policy, this state has a special interest in encouraging, supporting, and protecting this unique relationship in order to promote, among other goals, the stability and welfare of society and its children.
Since same-sex partners can not have children, how does their union undermine the stability for children? Of course this makes the huge leap of a conclusion that same-sex partners can not provide a stable environment for children. Hell, I know plenty of opposite-sex partners who failed to provide a stable environment for their children. Any other military brats out there? Can I get an 'amen'?
What are the 'other goals'?
I understand. At the risk of invoking Godwin, as a historian my first thought was Nazi Germany.
'Rounding up all the gays' certainly made my Nazi-alarm go off.
Hello everyone, I am bowing out.
So, no more walls of text to deal with...or ignore. :-)
After missing a lot of posts while at work, the time needed to make coherent replies is more than I care to spend and making quick responses back and forth is not good for my post organization and makes me grumpy.
So, I figure that I will let you guys carry on without me before I become annoyed over something silly or inadvertantly rub someone the wrong way.
I, too, am sorry that you are bowing out -- though I find myself on the other side of this argument, I have read any number of blogs, discussions, etc., on this very divisive topic, and this thread far and away has been the most polite, respectful, and thought-out discussion (with the usual exceptions, of course).
A few points; though I appreciate your (and others) well-organized points on the foundation of marriage laws, I believe you inadvertently hint at an underlying reason why they should, in fact be changed/invalidated -- namely, what's the underlying motive for creating and legally protecting marriage as an institution in the 1st place?
And by this, I suggest we try to follow more than just the letter of the law (as your posts so eloquently defended), but also its spirit. If, in fact, the intent of defining marriage as between one man and one woman and then make a bunch of legally codified "rights"(privileges, whatever) is to protect all of societies members from unjust treatment (in this case, women and children) – shouldn’t the spirit behind the creation of marriage laws be extended to all of society?
And the “rational” idea that we maintain the current definition because a relationship that is capable of producing children has more inherent reason to be protected really doesn’t wash, since a large number of heterosexual marriages are incapable of reproduction (sorry, post-menopausal ladies – no dice…), and, though that reason may have made sense in biblical times with a human population that could probably be considered an endangered species by some of today’s standards, that hardly makes sense in a 6 billion + world, threatened more by over-procreation than under.
And, as was mentioned, believe me, working in child protection for many years, I know that having heterosexual married parents is no guarantee that child will be “safe” – from anything. I’ve held for many years, now that love, not gender, is the defining quality of a successful child-rearing home.
It must be them damn Republicans and evangelicals.
"It has the blessing of many religious leaders -- Muslim and Christian...
"The Rev. Esau Omara, a senior church leader, said over the weekend that any lawmaker opposing the bill will pay for it during the next election, according to local newspaper reports."And a leading Muslim cleric, Sheikh Ramathan Shaban Mubajje, has called for gays to be rounded up and banished to an island until they die."
You might think you're kidding about Evangelicals, but...
I really did not want to focus on that Kirth. I would hope what they are proposing is repugnant to all Americans, Australians, Britons and those currently living in China (who did I leave out?) regardless of beliefs or political affiliation.
Russians... oh that was a rhetorical question. :)
Do we have Russians on these boards? Who? My grandmother was Ukrainian. I would love to chat with someone from the 'old country'.
You might think you're kidding about Evangelicals, but...
Kirth, you'd have a hard time finding Evangelicals in America going along with this so please just don't go there, ok?
I would hope what they are proposing is repugnant to all Americans, regardless of beliefs...
I would hope so, too, and I'm pretty sure almost no one on these boards would condone it. But if you think there aren't plenty of American examples, Fred Phelps sure stands out, and I'm sure John Hagee isn't too awfully upset about this, either. So, yeah, Gary, unfortunately I AM going there -- precisely because I have no problem finding examples. And when moderates personally condemn what's going on, but then at the same time turn around and give a criticism-free pass and permission for others of their faith to actively encourage it, that always seems kind of like talking out of both sides of the mouth, if you see what I mean. If you want to give Evangelicals a free pass, then let's see them fight their brethren in Uganda who are supporting this thing -- as indeed some of them are:
"In the United States, a coalition of Christian leaders released a statement Monday denouncing the bill. 'Regardless of the diverse theological views of our religious traditions regarding the morality of homosexuality, in our churches, communities and families, we seek to embrace our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as God's children, worthy of respect and love," the statement read.'"
Any organization on that coalition deserves great praise, for the reasons given, and I would indeed hold them blameless, as you recommend.
|
Granted there is a part of me that was gladdened by the idea of executing child molesters. Bt it would haveto be expanded to pedophiles of all stripes.
You do understand by that language that two teenagers having gay sex can both be put to death right? It doesn't specify that the person engaging in the act has to be over the limit for under-age.
Also they don't have to have sex with a minor to get the death sentence, they can get the death sentence for "having homosexual sex more than once."
I would hope what they are proposing is repugnant to all Americans, regardless of beliefs...I would hope so, too, and I'm pretty sure almost no one on these boards would condone it. But if you think there aren't plenty of American examples, Fred Phelps sure stands out, and I'm sure John Hagee isn't too awfully upset about this, either. So, yeah, Gary, unfortunately I AM going there -- precisely because I have no problem finding examples. And when moderates personally condemn what's going on, but then at the same time turn around and give a criticism-free pass and permission for others of their faith to actively encourage it, that always seems kind of like talking out of both sides of the mouth, if you see what I mean. If you want to give Evangelicals a free pass, then let's see them fight their brethren in Uganda who are supporting this thing -- as indeed some of them are:
"In the United States, a coalition of Christian leaders released a statement Monday denouncing the bill. 'Regardless of the diverse theological views of our religious traditions regarding the morality of homosexuality, in our churches, communities and families, we seek to embrace our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as God's children, worthy of respect and love," the statement read.'"
Any organization on that coalition deserves great praise, for the reasons given, and I would indeed hold them blameless, as you recommend.
Thank you. Before you condemned them maybe you should have given them time to respond to it.
Natural Law.I count tradition as an argument against it. What other, non-religious based arguments are there?
He did specify non-religious based arguments. If by "natural law" you don't mean the religious definition, but instead have some hazy idea of what's "natural," then homosexuals should be no problem at all, since they exist naturally.
Thank you. Before you condemned them maybe you should have given them time to respond to it.
Yeah, I mean to condemn the ones doing nothing, or supporting it, but speoke imprecisely. But there are indeed examples, so "all Americans" don't get a free pass on this thing, was the main point.
That's casting your net pretty wide.
See edit above -- homosexuality is a natural occurrance. And the standard for what people are talking about when they say "Natural Law" in caps is Biblical law: the laws applied by God to nature. Hence, a religious-based argument.
|
|
Granted there is a part of me that was gladdened by the idea of executing child molesters. Bt it would haveto be expanded to pedophiles of all stripes.You do understand by that language that two teenagers having gay sex can both be put to death right? It doesn't specify that the person engaging in the act has to be over the limit for under-age.
Also they don't have to have sex with a minor to get the death sentence, they can get the death sentence for "having homosexual sex more than once."
Yes, I understand all that. I admit it was a kneejerk reaction that resulted from my wife's uncle molesting his 11 step daughter several years ago.
Granted there is a part of me that was gladdened by the idea of executing child molesters. Bt it would haveto be expanded to pedophiles of all stripes.You do understand by that language that two teenagers having gay sex can both be put to death right? It doesn't specify that the person engaging in the act has to be over the limit for under-age.
There is a difference between predators and horny teenagers. It is the duty of a judge presiding over sexual based trials to keep punishments within the spirit of the law not the wording.
Ladies please theres no need to argue about whether it's duck season or wabbit season evrrybody knows it's:
ELMER Season!
Thank you. Before you condemned them maybe you should have given them time to respond to it.Yeah, I mean to condemn the ones doing nothing, or supporting it, but speoke imprecisely. But there are indeed examples, so "all Americans" don't get a free pass on this thing, was the main point.
Sorry Kirth, I didn't mean to be confrontational. I put up with a lot of anti-Christian rhetoric on these boards and I sometimes get a little oversensitive.
It is the duty of a judge presiding over sexual based trials to keep punishments within the spirit of the law not the wording.
Unfortunately, the judge in Georgia had no latitude: 10 years without parole was the minimum mandatory sentence; for him to go easier on the kid would have been illegal. If you claim it's meant to "protect the children," you can pass any law, no matter how draconian and no matter how outrageous, because no lawmaker will dare vote against it. And that means that, sooner or later, you run the risk of really evil, depraved predators slipping through the net because we're so busy incarcerating teenagers and people who pee in their own backyards as "sex offenders" and "pedophiles."