This is a ridiculous argument. Gay marriages will not hinder society having marriages that produce healthy productive members any more than elderly marriage or marriages without children do. Gay couples can however offer a loving home for children through adoption and can produce productive members of society through the marvels of modern medical science just as some straight couples choose to do.
You’ve heard of Chesterton’s ‘democracy of the dead’? Yep, that’s what all our laws are, frankly. Tradition, codified, laid down over the years. So, please, if your argument is that each generation has to re-invent the wheel, well, I can think of several areas I’d like to start over.
Again, where is the argument for gay relationships to be accorded the status of marriage? I keep hearing ‘equal rights’, but I’ve yet to hear how gay relationships are equal in any way to marriage. It can’t be gender, because that’s at the very heart of the different relationship. Is it the lucky number two? Bigamists and polygamists don’t think that number special. In what manner, exactly, are the relationships at all the same?
No. I didn’t say gay marriage will hinder society. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’ve said that marriage is a unique relationship that society can and should value. I’ve also said, essentially, that gay relationships are not the same, by definition.
I have no problem with tradition that works. I have problems with tradition that harms.
Other than gender, how are they different? Do you really only see a baby-making enterprise when you see a heterosexual couple? Is that all that marriage is good for to you? If so, I pity you. Love apparently has nothing to do with it. A desire to spend the rest of your life with the person you love apparently has nothing to do with it. Wanting the government to enforce your choice of who can speak for you when you can’t speak for yourself apparently has nothing to do with it. Preserving your spouse’s right to see you if you end up in the hospital, to determine how you’re laid to rest, when that happens, to continue ownership of those things you owned together in life…those apparently have nothing to do with it.
And yes, these are emotional arguments, because the subject is an emotional subject. This is people’s LIVES here, not some abstract point of constitutional law.
You left out a number of things, especially love.
Citizens want this right and there’s no evidence that anyone, including society itself, would be harmed by it.
Seems to me that would be enough for any person who loves liberty.
Constitutional rights are based on “emotional appeal”? Really?
Plenty of married couples cannot have children, and some don’t even have sex. Are you demanding that those marriages cease to be recognized?
Okay, that’s a bit more of an argument, and more to the point. Start with your first line. Government enforcement? That’s a…novel…expression, but, okay. Still, it’s only partially correct. The missing piece is this: government, i.e., we, society, benefit from this relationship. Ideally, it provides a stable, healthy relationship in which offspring are the natural and expected result. Both sides benefit from marriage…enforcement. You can skip all the “fall in love” because shur 'nuff, if’n I’d said that, someone would have accused me of denying gays the ability to likewise “fall in love.” Love isn’t in the law as a requirement of marriage. As to the rest of the argument, can you not see what you’ve done? You’ve equated a marginally similar relationship to marriage and, presto change-o, demanded that the merest appearance of similiarity be accorded identical treatment under law. That’s my dispute. Two different things cannot be the same.
Nope, never said it, and again, as noted above and in a previous post, please don’t put words in my mouth. Gay people are at the end of the day, people. Like 'em, love 'em, lump 'em. The question is, what is marriage?
Actually, the foundation of civilization is agriculture.
‘They were wrong’. This is really a matter of opinion, the standards of the day. Gay marriage isn’t a matter of right or wrong it is a matter of prevailing standards and new opinions about how to organize society. The comparison of the issue of gay marriage to slavery, women’s rights or child labor is well, hokey at best.
That’s up to you, and certainly in 1000 years someone will think you were a backward unenlightened soul.
Whatever helps your righteous indignation find purchase.
A voluntary unification of property and mutual designation by two people that each grants the other the exclusive right to make certain decisions under certain circumstances.
Does it have to be more complicated that that?
Other than the children (and frankly, that’s not exactly impossible, with adoption and surrogacy), I see no difference whatsoever between straight marriage and gay marriage. I don’t understand what you’re seeing, personally. The idea that gay marriage never involves children is simply wrong, laughably so, actually. I probably, at this time in my life, know more gay men and lesbians couples who have children than I do who don’t.
How, specifically, does allowing gays to get married ‘devalue’ heterosexual marriage?
:rolleyes: Ok then family is its pillars or cornerstone or whatever architectural metaphor you prefer.
Actually a completely useless exercise, and one that shows no knowledge of Supreme Court history. The Court doesn’t get too out of step with the public at large. It prods, rather than drags. It avoids huge showdowns with the elected branches, because it knows it would lose.
If your nine Roy Moore’s were on the Court today - guess what; we would have 19 Supreme Court Justices in the extremely near future. Take a look at the Switch in Time. If you combine a far right wing court with a far right wing Congress and far right wing President, then, it seems, people are getting the Court they would want, and, absent such a Court, would be in the position to amend the constitution anyway.
Not everyone in the country was ready for interracial marriage laws to be voided before Loving, but enough were to make the Court’s decision acceptable and enforceable. Not everyone was ready for legalized abortion before Roe, but the Court realized it was close enough, and the decision stuck. The most ahead of the mainstream you can see the Court being is probably with Brown (on issues that raise significant risks of public opposition, and ignoring civil war related issues for the moment). Brown angered certain states sufficiently they refused to enforce it. Absent federal government support, Brown would have been meaningless. Just as the Marshall Court’s decisions regarding Native Americans were (“John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!”). But the Eisenhower administration did not send the 101st Airborne into Montgomery to support the concept of the Supreme Court’s role alone. Had he opposed the policy, I doubt strongly he would have committed federal troops.
A Court that goes off the rails and moves too far away from public and elected opinion is a Court that destroys its own power. And generally speaking Supreme Court Justices aren’t stupid enough to do that. Judicial Review only works when sparingly used. Nothing has fundamentally changed to make a ban on SSM any more of a violation of Equal Protection now than it was 40 years ago. But a court willing to consider it such in 1969 would have been a court without authority pretty soon. The country has changed, and so have the opportunities for equality through the courts.
Generally in this country our marriage statutes are based around the support of couples raising a family. Straight couples who remain childless take advantage of those statutes and society has felt that it is acceptable that they do so, but the basic impetus for the support for marriage has been based around the legitimacy and care of children.
BTW, as per your examples above, how do you feel about two sisters moving in together to raise their children getting married? Should two sisters have the right to be married? Should we remove barriers to marriage among siblings? Hell, I don’t even know, is there a barrier to marriage between siblings?
Reverse reasoning. You’ve tried to identify differences *for the purpose of *defining them not to be equal. Those differences you claim to have found are all somewhere between hypocritical and ridiculous on their faces, though. Even as rationalizations, they aren’t even plausible.
mswas, do you seriously suggest that slavery, child labor, and denial of women’s rights might come back into fashion someday?
What harm? Because society does not grant an unequal relationship the status of marriage? You’re turning the world upside down.
Do stop reading into my words more than is there. No, funnily enough, I don’t see couples as a ‘baby-making enterprise’, or as some have called them, ‘breeders’. I see a couple. I have no idea of their circumstances. For all I know, they’re Martians preparing for an invasion. You know, pod people.
As to gender, why, by golly, he’s almost got it! Yes! Isn’t that what distinguishes gay people from straight people? If, however, gender were the sole issue, there’d be no issue. There’s more to it than that. Go back to the argument core. Marriage provides a necessary benefit to society. That’s why it’s promoted and protected. (Yes, yes, for pity’s sake, I know how much it’s been devalued over the last forty years, but that’s not being advanced as a gay-marriage argument, so forget it.) Marriage is a unique relationship, distinct from any other. It bears protection.
As to love and emotional ties, they’re essential to us as individual humans. They’re not supposed to be the basis of our laws. Reason is, isn’t it?
Then why is not acceptable that gay couples take advantage of them too?
In your very own argument, you make the case that the “acceptability” of marriage, even using only societal standards rather than legal ones, is not dependent upon childrearing. So what’s left to discuss of that claimed “difference”?
Non-whites weren’t denied rights until relatively recently. Until then, everyone denied each others rights, regardless of race.
Which is no reason for marriage to exist. Love does not need a state institution to recognise it.
I love you.