I already told you I don’t respect your opinion. Why should I? The things you are saying are ludicrous. Gays are not indoctrinating children and they are not trying to destroy marriage between heterosexuals. To even treat it as a possibility (as you did) indicates bias against gays because it’s such a baseless claim and has such a long history as an anti-gay smear.
It’s true. Deal with it. What other people do in their marriage has no effect on yours.
Because it isn’t true, and isn’t an important factor in deciding whether or not gays should be able to receive the legal protections that go along with marriage.
You actually mean you issue blanket denials and refuse to look at evidence you arie pretending isn’t there and/or demand that I bring evidence back from the future.
Gays are demanding the change, it is on them to prove it will cause no harm.
Change in and of itself does not imply harm. Anti-SSM activists are arguing that harm will be done. They must prove that claim. What data is that to suggest that SSM will harm straight marriage? None.
That’s not how it works. You’re demanding to deny them the same rights you have. It’s up to you to come up with a reason to deny them those rights. We treat people equally in America, and if you want to withhold rights from someone you need a reason.
There is no reason ever put forward to deny gay marriage that isn’t based in bigotry.
If you think you have a logical reason, that isn’t bigoted, please, by all means, try to explain it.
I’ll leave the equal rights argument to the lawyers, but it’s been established that homosexuals can and do have children so there is no reason to discriminate against them on that basis.
If the government has an interest in children and marriage** is the vehicle used to provide parents and children with benefits and rights, then I’m baffled why you wouldn’t want children raised by gay parents to have those same protections.
**Note: I’m humouring your premise that marriage is for children, for the sake of argument, but that has not been established with any facts or evidence.
And David42, because I’m sure this is about to come up again, there is no such thing as “heterosexual reproduction.” There’s just reproduction. Gays have been reproducing the same way straight people do since time began, and straight couples also use surrogates and other means.
To be fair, the hair thing wasn’t really on point. It was the question of whether preemptory dismissals due to hair styling or dying were just rationalizations to avoid a Batson violation. I just was amused by the hypothetical and tried to find any equal protection cases I could that dealt with dying one’s hair.
But on the quoted point, you’re wrong. If the courts applied strict scrutiny to laws banning gay marriage, they would be struck down faster than an oak tree in Paul Bunyan’s way. I see now way in hell that there would be any other alternative. Lets say some state passed a law saying, “Black people can’t marry each other.”, or “People who weren’t born in this country can’t marry each other.” Do you really think any court would hesitate in finding those laws blatantly unconstitutional? If sexual orientation were put under strict scrutiny, the same thing would happen to laws saying gay people can’t marry each other.
Not to the point of pretending the *Romer *ruling doesn’t exist: Banning SSM doesn’t even meet the rational basis standard. A specious reason is inadequate. It is not necessary to get into levels of scrutiny at all.
If a judge or an adoption agency hears or sees evidence along the lines of “we want a child to prove we are good parents so we can secure our rights as a gay family” they should be more critical than when the evidence points to “we love this child and even if we’re not perfect we think we’re his best option.” If similar evidence is shown when a straight couple uses a child as a pawn for another purpose, it happens to them. Don’t you want gays treated the same as straights? Or is your argument “gays are perfect and should automatically be apoproved for adoption regardless of any evidence, because they are gay?”
Sorry, I meant you do not respect my right to an opinion if you deliberately misconstrue my opinion as fact. You can disapprove of my opinion all you want, but its you who looks bad when its clear you manipulate what I say.
And a shack is a Ford factory. gotcha.
Wow. the level of ludicrous is amazing. It is absolutely true, and it is a reason for different standards.
Why do you keep bringing up child-rearing and adoption, David?
And what Marley said is absolutely true. I have many gay and lesbian friends with children, both biological and adopted. The statement that “gay people cannot have children” is demonstrably false.
Got a bit of a twist in what I said there. While unexpected children is a major difference between gays and straights, I never said that such a narrow reason is the whole thing. The government interest in encouraging procreation is the thing, and your personal unhappiness or happiness does not really matter. Happiness never comes form laws. its idiotic to think government can legislate happiness, thats something you have to decide to be regarless of circumstance.
You can be easily fooled into thinking so if you do not understand equal protection. You’re using “Joey has a lollipop, I am entitled to one too,” as your analysis and that is not correct.
Perhaps you are confused by what I say because you do not understand logic and good reasoning or law but instead believe propaganda.
Do you not understand that I mean two gays having gay sex cannot ever conceive? That is what I mean, not that they can’t adopt or get children by other means.
I think that if it gets to the Supreme Court, a ban on SSM probably would meet the rational basis standard. It would probably even meet the Romer standard, which calls itself rational basis but isn’t, really. It wouldn’t meet intermediate or strict scrutiny.
Look, it is really very simple: If our birth rate continues to fall and falls low enough, and the chinese for instance continue to increase their population at a significantly higher rate, we will not be able to fight them off if they decide America is a new part of China and invade us.
It is a legitimate government interest to encourage procreation.
Actually, they’s what they used to be asking for: tolerance, respect. Then they wanted acceptance. And that was all right and proper. But now they are asking everyone to embrace a fantasy in which A + A = A + B, in which A and B have very real differences, particularly as it regards child rearing. Which, like it or not, is very tightly related to families and the traditional way them have been raised in our society.
I think this is flatly wrong. That is exactly what they are trying to do. They are trying to destroy the one we have and replace it with the concept that there is nothing special about the situation in which a married man and a woman raise a family. They are trying to strip that relationship, which is rooted in nature, of its specialness.
So you support restricting marriage to only those people who are able to naturally conceive children together? That is what logically follows from this argument. If you don’t support that, then you must have some other reason for wanting to restrict marriage from gay people. What might that reason be?
If you mean there is no other kind of reproduction than heterosexual and it is redundant I agree. Biology prevents gays from procreating as gays. Gay sex never results in procreation. It’s reproduction we have an interest in protecting, not mere sex for the sake of sex.
