If I am sterilized, and I want to marry my mother and two sisters, how does that affect your same sex marriage? Why would you be bigoted and deny me that right?
After all, the prohibition on incest is for genetic reasons (like all marriages produce children, phew). Can a father marry his son on the grounds that there is truly no legitimate state reason for prohibiting the incest now?
People still try this inane argument?
[QUOTE=L. Sprague de Camp]
“You don’t like the Goths?”
“No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!”
“Persecution?” Padway raised his eyebrows.
“Religious persecution. We won’t stand for it forever.”
“I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased.”
“That’s just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested as if they owned the country. If that isn’t persecution, I’d like to know what is!”
*–Lest Darkness Fall *
[/QUOTE]
So not only are you denying them marriage rights, but also contract rights. That’s double discrimination for the animals. My dog is perfectly capable of contracting with me for a marriage. He just tapped his paw twice, meaning “Yes.”
To say that he isn’t shows the same type of outdated bigoted thinking that used to hold that blacks couldn’t enter into contracts.
Doesn’t affect me at all. I honestly don’t believe it is in the interest of the state what any two adults do (or don’t do) in private, so long as no abuse is involved.
But as there are far more responsible adults who happen to be romantically attracted to members of their own sex than there are adults seeking consensual incestual relations, I think we need to concentrate on the larger constituancy, and smaller interest groups can do their own lobbying.
Except the research has no religious perspective. Is your position that religious websites may only reference religious research?
If I were, indeed, asserting that argument. Unfortunately, that’s not my argument. I was asked about the state’s interest in preserving traditional marriage. I’ve given it. I’ve not explained the efficacy of that argument, only that this is the state’s interest.
You obviously missed the explanation of “compelling state interest” earlier in the thread.
The Cliff’s Notes version: showing the existence of a compelling state interest requires actual facts, not just lawmakers’ opinions. Laws that restrict rights require a showing of a compelling state interest, not just a garden-variety state interest. This standard is set for the obvious and compelling reason that there would be no rights in any meaningful sense if opinion-based “state interest” were sufficient to curtail them.
Oh. Tu quoque. Very well played.
For a minute there I thought you were serious.
Evidence please.
You didn’t need to label the statement “allowing interracial marriage does not alter the institution itself” – we can tell that it’s stupid and ridiculous all by ourselves.
Obviously, the change from “two people of the same race and opposite sexes may marry” to “two people of opposite sexes may marry” is an alteration to the institution itself.
Really. This is not that tough. The state may NOT have a compelling interest. Everyone agrees with that. But the state has ASSUMED that it does have a compelling interest and has acted accordingly. The questions is… “What is the state’s interest?” I’ve given it. Whether or not it has merit.
Then you get the point. Good for you.
The quote I gave that you dismissed.
Er, you obviously need to read the explanation again. By definition, a “compelling state interest” is distinguished from a generic “state interest” in that the former cannot rest upon mere assumptions.
Of course. One cannot be rational and a doma supporter.
Goodness sakes! REally? Please try to read my responses more closely.
Provide the source and link of this. I couldn’t get away with plucking a quote from an unnamed/unattributed source and calling it evidence. Evidence must provide the source and context of the quoted portion. but I’ll note that all your compatriots let it slide.
How about instead of comparing black people to dogs, we stick to the issue at hand, which is the secular purpose of the Defence of Marriage act. You can bring up the issue of informed consent or any other red herrings, slippery slopes and strawmen in another thread if you wish. In return, I promise not to conflate arguments against same-sex marriage with arguments against racial miscegenation.
A brief summary of the law is that same sex marriages enacted by one state are not required to be recognised by another state. Someone brought up that the government has decided that:
P1: Heterosexual marriage is the best situation in which to raise children.
P2: Homosexuals cannot biologically have children.
C1: Heterosexual marriages should be encouraged.
While the conclusion just about follows from the premises, it is a red herring because it does not address the specific question of this thread: namely, “what is the secular purpose of DOMA”. Not to mention that premise one is demonstrably wrong and premise two is technically wrong (in the technical sense that “gays can get married, just not to each other har har”).
As far as I can tell throughout the thread, there has been no demonstration that discouraging homosexuals from marriage (which may be a side effect of DOMA) will have any effect on children whatsoever, other than making it more difficult for homosexual couples to adopt children. The one semi-coherent objection to repealing DOMA is that it would be unfair on incestuous couples whose marriages are also not recognised in other states. However, it would be a two wrongs fallacy to claim that homosexual marriage should not be permitted because other types of marriage are discriminated against.
This whole notion that the government has “recognized that marriage between a man and a woman is the best possible construction to provide for the best possible environment for children,” is so much bullshit it makes my head spin. Look around ferchrissakes. There are millions upon millions of people in this country who were raised by a married man and woman who turned out to be completely fucked up individuals. How is that ideal? If the government is that interested in the ideal environment for children, then they should interview each and every prospective parent to sure they’re not complete idiots first. Unfortunately, that isn’t possible.
And besides, if it’s irrelevant whether or not a couple has children - even with the sterling stamp of approval from the government - then what effing difference does it make what the the genders of that couple are?
I’m with Der Trish on this one. This law is bigotry pure and simple.
I don’t disagree, but also fail to see how it is distinguishable from any other arbitrary line that the government draws. For example, a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence can never own a gun. So, if I slapped my wife 25 years ago, then no gun for me. If I walked up to a complete stranger on the street 2 weeks ago and punched him for no reason, I can still own a gun and get a carry permit. Or why can’t I buy booze at age 20 yrs. 364 days, but only ONE day later, I can?
Is there a compelling state interest in this distinctions? You can always look at the line that is drawn and say that it should be here instead of there. But that will hold true for any line. Unless you want to open marriage, gun ownership, and booze over to absolutely everyone and anyone, some line has to be drawn and there will be an argument as to why persons on that side of the line are being discriminated against.