Accepting this premise hypothetically for purposes of argument, why should opposite-gender couples who aren’t producing children naturally (and there are lots of such couples) get the benefits of marriage when same-gender couples don’t?
ISTM that basing arguments against same-sex marriage on marital fecundity is a losing proposition. There’s no logical reason to presume that all heterosexual couples will be fecund, or to grant special “fecundity recognition” to non-fecund heterosexual couples any more than to homosexual couples.
Except procreation was never a proscribed mandated reason for marriage. It is never even addressed legally, other than the benefits you get if you have kids, which isn’t a mandate on having them.
Well, this would at least be consistant. Idiotic and improbably difficult to enforce. But consistant.
Nope.
From the time of Ezra, (at least), the Jewish people ruled that exogamous marriage, (between one of their people and any other people), was proscribed. They never made any effort to declare that a Nubian, an Egyptian, or a Chaldean living in Jerusalem could not marry a Greek who lived there. There was no general proscription against exogamous marriage, only a particular rule regarding their own tribe.
Isn’t the most fundamental argument most people have against gay marriage (in the west at least) that marriage is “supposed” to be between a man and a woman, and that The Bible says so? I’m guessing it doesn’t mention interracial marriage though.
Correct me if I’m wrong - I haven’t paid much attention to anti-gay marriage arguments or The Bible.
Mind you, I’m not arguing for the applicability of these verses to interracial marriage in general, just pointing out that they have been invoked in that context by people opposed to interracial marriage.
When the government treats two groups differently one is burdened. It does not matter, for EP analysis, whether that burden is a criminal penalty or something else.
That’s the - to my mind specious - argument the SSM people and to my mind many incorrect courts, rely on. Taking the dicta of Loving that marriage (as it was then understood to be always between a man and a woman) is a fundamental right and spinning it into saying marriage, as same sex couples and others now define it, is a fundamental right. It ain’t the same. Others, the majority of this board, certainly, disagree with me. I can live with that.
The problem with this argument is that it assumes the choice issue is significant. It is not. I can choose to burn a flag in protest or not; my speech is still protected. I can confess to a crime or not; my right to refuse self-incrimination is still protected. Choice has always been a red herring troll on the issue.
The real issue of choice is just: choosing what person to marry. This choice—so-called “fundamental” choice by SCOTUS—is what is being denied. Whether someone chooses to be gay or not is of no relevance whatsoever.
Huh? I assume you mean “hospital visitation, adoption” and not “housing, employment and school bullying”. Hospital visitation is a non-issue. Everyone nowadays, gay, straight, bi or undetermined, should have a durable power of attorney for health care. I am not aware of any such properly executed document being invalidated on account of homosexuality. If anyone knows of such a case, please inform. Otherwise, I’ll consider that to be red herring.
I have nothing against gays adopting children because children need good parents. If the gays can be good parents, why not allow it?
That’s a separate and wholly unrelated issue. One doesn’t automatically lead to the other.
No offense but this line of reasoning drives me up the wall. A woman can become pregnant in a number of ways other than by “modern medical technology” (and why is it important even if it does involve modern medicine?) - maybe she had a one-night stand, maybe she had a long-term relationship with a guy which ended and she’s met the woman of her dreams, maybe she got raped and wants to keep the child, maybe her and her partner want kids so they find a surrogate father…regardless, she’s now pregnant and will soon be contributing to that next generation of human beings. Why on earth deny them the right to get married, have societal recognition of their family/relationship (no more and no less than any other couple)?
Or what if they decide to adopt? What is the reason for not fully supporting that family? Why do my straight friends who couldn’t conceive get to be married and adopt a child but my gay friends are treated differently?
Two guys have similar options - surrogate mom, adoption, child from a previous relationship. A straight couple in the exact same circumstances can be married.
If you’re going to say that only couples which produce biological offspring “naturally” can be married then why shouldn’t that rule be applied to straight couples as well?
It was never expressly proscribed because, as my high school geometry teacher used to say, it was intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer. IMHO. YMMV.
[QUOTE=zamboniracer]
One friend of mine puts the argument this way: marriage between a man and a woman is a benefit to society as a whole because it produces and raises the next generation of people. SSM, generally speaking doesn’t. As such, marriage between a man and a woman is entitled to the legal benefits and state support of marriage, while SSM shouldn’t be
[/quote]
Okay, I’m confused. Gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry, because they won’t be raising kids. But they should be allowed to adopt. Which means they would be raising kids. So… why can’t gays get married, again?
Of course marriages between straights didn’t have to produce offspring in order to be called valid marriages. Bob & Emily Hartley of the old Bob Newhart Show are an example of such a couple. It would be absurd, IMHO, for the government to police a requirement that a couple have children in order to be considered married.
I also find it absurd that two guys who live together and love each other want me, as society, to recognize their relationship as a marriage. Me, as society, isn’t getting anything out of this deal. Bob & Emily at least had the potential of producing and raising the next generation. Two gay guys don’t.
Because one doesn’t have anything to do with the other, silly. Gays can raise kids, they just can’t produce any themselves. They don’t have to be married to raise kids, obviously. It is more important that kids be raised in a loving environment by people that care about them. Certainly gays can do that, so why not allow them to adopt, because we have children, and therefore society as a whole, that would benefit.
Nope. There are clear denunciations of “foreign wives” (the closest thing to interracial marriage that was possible given the populations of men and women who were within accessible range of each other) in the Old Testament. That’s about as “traditional” as it gets.
On the other hand, the book of Ruth specifically supports such a marriage, given conversion. Not only is it allowed, Ruth was a direct ancestor of King David, so it was blessed.
Many of the prohibitions that did exist involved not marrying enemies, which is a different story.
