There is no such thing as “homosexual marriage.” There is only marriage. Two adults who enter a contract to support each other, and who are then treated in many legal matters as a single entity.
The gender of the participants in any other contract is irrelevant. Why is it such an issue for a marriage contract?
Maybe, maybe not. The thing the “slippery-slopers” always ignore is that we ought to be evaluating the harm and benefit of each situation based on their individual merits, rather than the fallacious shorthand that says “That thing we’re not used to is bad, therefore this thing that we’re not used to is too.”
It’s been posted elsewhere here that that changing the definition of a marriage to allow for other than a man and a woman might allow for it to be other than two people. That is, if we allow polygamous unions, laws can become much more complicated, such as divorce laws (does one partner leaving sunder the union(s) of the others?), and the property disbursement and child custody rulings.
Disclaimer: I’m not speaking in defense of DOMA, I’m just trying to answer the question in the OP. I can’t recall which thread I’m quoting, but a quick search on “divorce polygamy” shows me relvant posts in these threads:
[ul]
[li]Rational basis for not recognizing polygamy[/li][li]Moral/religious issues aside, what’s illegal about polygamy?[/li][/ul]
It also looks like we’ve done this before (if you want some more reading):
[ul]
[li]My mom, divorced 3 times, thinks gay marriage will “ruin” marriage.[/li][li]What’s behind the “Threat to Traditional Marriage” argument?[/li][/ul]
Unlike laws against same sex marriage, those two positions have actual arguments for them. Genetics & a general lack of consenting adults in the case of incest, and a combination of the complex new laws required and its common association with the persecution of women in the case of polygamy. Now, one can provide counterarguments in support of allowing incestuous or polygamous marriages, but the point is the people who support laws forbidding them have actual rational arguments to support their positions that need to be addressed.
But the laws against same sex marriages are pure bigotry, with no remotely reasonable arguments for why they should exist,. The people who push such laws have been asked to provide such reasons, both here on the SDMB and in court, and have failed miserably.
(Have marriages changed in the past twenty-five years? I don’t remember anything in our vows about children, nor in the paperwork we signed for the state.)
You have not given one iota of evidence on why marriage of natural born children should have additional protections over others.
Why should we actively discourage non-reproducing or adoptive families. What is so special about those who can reproduce that the law should allow them to attend to their ill spouse but that it is to the states advantage to deny the ability of a same sex couple.
The relationship still happens, the sex still happens. Why limit their ability to combine resources or confer the power of attorney across state lines?
I actually don’t think DOMA is intrinsically a religious-based law, so much as one that most religious folks could easily get behind.
Regardless of how religious a person is, there has historically been a discomfort among straights about homosexuality for a variety of reasons — some, but not all of them tied to what their pastor says on Sunday. The idea of interracial marriage used to make people feel weird too (I’m sure it still does for many), but I don’t think we view that marriage restriction as being borne out of religious doctrine.
So the purpose is to produce a better environment for children that result form the marriage.
And children can not result from a homosexual marriage
So the purpose is to create an environment that cannot exist? :dubious:
Following the same logic displayed upthread, if the incestual couple is two adults who are proven to be infertile, why is it forbidden? Or what if it is grandmother and granddaughter that get “married”? You can go as micro as you want…
Because the state needs population to propagate itself.
[
](http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/05/weekinreview/ideas-trends-small-steps-toward-acceptance-renew-debate-on-gay-marriage.html)
That does not fit with the original arguments for the law.
And gay couples that are already gay and already living together limits this how?
Okay. I will join you at the barricades when anyone suggests banning heterosexual marriage.
They cannot naturally produce children. State’s support for marriage encourages and promotes heterosexual couples to formalize their relationships to, as I said, create a stable environment to bring up children that are the natural result of such a marriage (again, if you start arguing about “what about infertile couples” - micro/macro).
Now explain to me in the light of the above why the state should encourage and promote homosexual marriages.
Well, do you have an answer to these questions? Since, according to you, the only reason to restrict a marriage is to protect children, and since children can not result from such marriages, then why exactly do you have a problem with them?
What is your rational non-religious reason?
More cites from the time showing the religious connection
[
Of course Bush would be on the religious side.
-
If you say “according to you” try to be accurate quoting my opinion. You were not.
-
I don’t. Do you have a problem with incestuous marriages or marriages of more than two people?
:rolleyes: There is no “micro/macro”, there is only bigoted/not bigoted. The law has nothing whatsoever to do with children or with anything other than persecuting homosexuals out of bigotry and pandering to bigots. And this remains true no matter how fervently you shove off any questions by handwaving about “micro/macro”. It’s very convenient how “micro/macro” translates to “it’s OK if it hurts homosexuals, but bad if it hurts straights”.
So infertile straight couples, who make up ~15% of the populace, are allowed to marry because that is a micro consideration.
While infertile gay couples who make up ~1% of the population are not allowed to marry because that is a macro consideration.
This makes no bloody sense at all. Why is marriage for the largest single infertile coupling demographic permissible, but marriage for the smallest demographic not permissible?
In the light of the above, explain why the state should encourage and promote heterosexual marriages where the woman is past the age of menopause?
If we are seriously about preventing waste of state resources by the marriage of infertile pairings, then wouldn’t it make more sense to start with the biggest segment of that set: infertile heterosexuals.
Because I find it unnecessary to push my beliefs on others through the force of law.
Because I see no valid reason to restrict long time lovers from their final moments of life.
Because married people tend to be healthier and live longer lives.
Because I want retired couples to know that when their spouse dies they are allow to continue living in their home, one that they helped build without forcing them to go through probate.
Because I want loved ones to be the ones to make health decisions for those they love, not the state when they can not make them for themselves.
Because it hurts them to not be able to commit to one another in a way that is recognized by the rest of society.
Because I don’t believe in punishing people for my own beliefs.
I could go on, but those should be enough seeing as you have nothing.