Translation: Doing that would affect heterosexual couples, and the point of the law is the persecution of homosexuals and pandering to bigoted heterosexuals, some of whom are infertile and would be unhappy that a law designed to torment their enemies is affecting them.
In what way does preventing marriage contracts between homosexual people promote
?
One hopes that Terr will return to post cogent facts to defend his stance, but he can’t.
DOMA is an attempt to marginalize the gay minority of this country. It is legalized bigotry, and is something we as a nations should be ashamed of.
If you want to get that micro, yes. Or you can just say “any two or more carbon-based life forms”. That would be very macro. So some balance line was drawn.
Why would individual religious institutions control civil marriage?
A law designed to persecute a specific group was passed; there was no “balance line”. The law is an exercise in pure malice.
Oh yes…the slippery slope, come back when those other carbon-based life forms can legally enter a contract.
Interesting. Why should one mutually infertile couple be prevented from sharing insurance benefits, social security benefits, and suchlike when another mutually infertile couple can enjoy the legal condition of “marriage”?
Personally, I do not think it is any of the government’s business whether a married couple has sex at all, much less to ban couples who are unable or unwilling to have children from being married.
Yes. It also persecutes non-human carbon based life forms.
Unless you can show any other carbon based life form that can legally enter a contract this is 100% false.
Last I checked, non-human carbon based life forms were not allowed to enter into any contracts, so specifically denying them a marriage contract is a bit of overkill.
:rolleyes: Ah, yes; the good old bit where homosexuality and bestiality are equated. I supposed you’ll try equating it to pedophilia next.
And no, it isn’t “persecution” since animals are neither capable of nor interested in marriage.
I also don’t think it is the government’s business if the “marriage” is more than two people, or if they are related to each other outside of marriage. But the government decided to draw the line there. You want it drawn somewhere else. But once you want the line, you have accepted the idea of the line. Haggling where it is drawn is just details.
No it isn’t. It’s a question of bigotry, or not being bigoted. By your logic there’s no difference between arresting someone for murder and arresting them for having black skin, because once you accept the right of the government to arrest people “it’s just details” who gets arrested.
Is it bigotry to limit it to two people? Or, in some states, forbidding it to cousins?
Bull. We do not have any working models for polygamy in Western jurisdictions, so that is a null argument.
The degree of relative consanguinity varies in different states, some states allow first cousins to marry, others require a closer relationship for the relationship to be considered incest.
I fully support banning same-sex marriages of too close relatives in jurisdictions where opposite-sex marriages are subject to the same restrictions. I am not an unreasonable man, I just ask for logical consistency in the law.
Nice that the line was drawn due to a particular christian view?
For no apparent secular reason except for an asinine claim that men will get hitched to goats?
Thank you for proving my original point.
Mormons would disagree. And until recently, there were no “working models for homosexual marriages”.
Kinda arbitrary isn’t it?
Until recently there were no “working models for romantic love based marriages” Does that mean we should go back to women being chattel?
Here was my response:
"Creating a better environment for bringing up children that are the result of the marriage. Homosexual marriages cannot naturally produce children. "
I don’t see anything religious in that response. Or Christian (I am not Christian anyway). Or anything about goats…