Bigred1995;694510 wrote:Wow! Let me see if I understand you correctly! Heterosexual couples that for one reason or another that cannot reproduce SHOULD NOT be allowed to marry because, "It is in society's interests to recognize unions that can both conceive children..."? So the elderly should not be allowed to marry and couples with medical issues just to name a couple should not be allowed to marry? You didn't put much thought into that post did you?

Definitely- in fact, people who can't or don't conceive children together (key word for the hair-splitters on this thread) should be rounded up and put into indoctrination camps. Seriously though, I stand by the "in society's interests" thing; conversely I never said or implied that non-child conceivers be forbidden from marrying.

One blog from Heritage(!) that articulates pretty closely what my thoughts are on the issue:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/23/time-for-a-real-defense-of-doma/

Marriage is the cornerstone in an archway of values that form the constitution of the family and the foundation of civil society. To its advocates as an institution with a pre-political meaning, it is not an entity created by the state but rather one recognized by the state. It is not about one family, but the coming together of two families, whose role in begetting and bearing children make them not merely part of a community but the creators of community. The community they create is not time-bound, but existing across generations. For the sake of its history and its future, authors write books about roots and Web sites offer tools to research genealogies.
Of all the reasons why the Obama Administration’s haphazard approach to DOMA is bad, none is more distressing than the belief, asserted breezily in Attorney General Holder’s statement today, that the argument for marriage as a path to &#8220rocreational responsibility” can be “disavowed” and ignored by the courts. The implications of such a statement for public policy are staggering. More than a package of government benefits is at stake. More than a line item on passport applications is at issue. What is at stake is the whole task of society to ensure that as many children as possible are raised by their mothers and fathers.

The consequences of failure are staggering, and the contemporary United States, like so many other Western nations, is seeing those consequences firsthand. The effects of broken families are statistically significant across category after category – youth crime, child poverty, educational attainment, and adult mental health in the next generation. For taxpayers, the costs of family dissolution and, increasingly, the failure of families to form are distressingly high and growing. It would be irrational not to privilege marriage for the sake of these concerns.

All of the above is well and good, and I don't disagree that stable families aren't needed because of the reasons mentioned.

However...Gay marriage is NO THREAT WHATSOEVER to accomplishing the goals of stable families. I'd argue, in fact, that they would help contribute to it rather than the opposite.

The breakdown of traditional marriage and people having children out of wedlock (which has a direct link to poverty, juvenile crime, etc.) is in no way, shape or form related to the issue of gay marriage. Those problems have their own unique set of causes, and need to be addressed accordingly.

Even bringing this up in the context of gay marriage is a red herring. The government can, in fact, promote all of the values being lamented and include gay families without any problem -- other than that created in the minds of those who oppose it.

Writerbuckeye;694674 wrote:...
However...Gay marriage is NO THREAT WHATSOEVER to accomplishing the goals of stable families....

...nor is requiring State permission for heterosexuals. Equality can be reached immediately by dropping the requirement to gain State permission to become married.

jhay78;694631 wrote:Seriously though, I stand by the "in society's interests" thing ...

So individuals' rights ought to be determined by what is in "society's [best] interests?"

I can think of a few leaders who felt that way. Given your leanings, I doubt you'd like being compared to them.

Con_Alma;694685 wrote:...nor is requiring State permission for heterosexuals. Equality can be reached immediately by dropping the requirement to gain State permission to become married.

This is the ultimate goal.

The more imminent legislation, that of legalizing State-sanctioned same-sex marriages, is a step in that direction, as the definition of 'marriage' is becoming less and less exclusive from a legislative standpoint (which is as it should be).

jhay78;694631 wrote:Definitely- in fact, people who can't or don't conceive children together (key word for the hair-splitters on this thread) should be rounded up and put into indoctrination camps. Seriously though, I stand by the "in society's interests" thing; conversely I never said or implied that non-child conceivers be forbidden from marrying.

One blog from Heritage(!) that articulates pretty closely what my thoughts are on the issue:

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/02/23/time-for-a-real-defense-of-doma/

If "society's interests" are our main concerns then we should implement the following protocol!
If you're female, you must be at least 25 years of age to marry! Statistics show that divorce rates for ages under 20 are 27.6% and for ages 20 to 24 they are 36.6% for women. Males are only allow to marry if they are under 20 and older than 29! Statistics show that the divorce rate for men under the age of 20 is only 11.7% but 38.8% ages 20 to 24 & 22.3% for ages 25 to 29. Divorce rates for ages 30 to 34 is 8.5% for women and 11.6% for men. The Rate for ages between 35 to 39 is even better at 5.1% for women & 6.5% for men! Limiting the age at which individuals can marry based on these statistics will benefit society greatly!

We should also implement a limit one marriage per person. Statistics show that that The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%; the divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%; and the divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73% It should also be made that any couple that gets a divorce should be forced to undergo an operation to prevent those individuals from reproducing! After all we can't have illegitimate children running around!

We should also force the married couples to concieve as soon as possible because,

According to discovery channel, couples with children have a slightly lower rate of divorce than childless couples.

Sociologists believe that childlessness is also a common cause of divorce. The absence of children leads to loneliness and weariness and even in the United States, at least 66 per cent of all divorced couples are childless.

This should be a good start in reforming society! Once these items are in place we can work on limiting the blacks and Latinos from marriage and reproducing, because we all know the effect they have on society!

[/sarcasm]

source:http://www.divorcerate.org/

Writerbuckeye;694674 wrote:All of the above is well and good, and I don't disagree that stable families aren't needed because of the reasons mentioned.

However...Gay marriage is NO THREAT WHATSOEVER to accomplishing the goals of stable families. I'd argue, in fact, that they would help contribute to it rather than the opposite.

I'll agree to disagree on that. We simply don't know the long-term effects of turning 5000+ years of human marital history and 200+ years of American marital history upside down. I still would argue that a father and a mother provide the best environment for a child's emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Thus the special treatment of their union being recognized by the state.

Back to DOMA, I haven't seen one post on here that defend's Obama's decision. DOMA leaves same-sex union recognition up to the states; thus one state cannot be forced to recognize another union done by another state. One state wants it- fine- nobody's stopping you. One state doesn't -fine.

O-Trap;694734 wrote:So individuals' rights ought to be determined by what is in "society's [best] interests?"

I can think of a few leaders who felt that way. Given your leanings, I doubt you'd like being compared to them.

This is the ultimate goal.

The more imminent legislation, that of legalizing State-sanctioned same-sex marriages, is a step in that direction, as the definition of 'marriage' is becoming less and less exclusive from a legislative standpoint (which is as it should be

No, rights are inalienable, given by God, and recognized by the State (at least according to our founding documents). And if we want to bring God into the discussion: one man, one woman.

jhay78;694981 wrote:No, rights are inalienable, given by God, and recognized by the State (at least according to our founding documents). And if we want to bring God into the discussion: one man, one woman.

Um ... no. Not all rights are "God-given." The Bible never ordains our right to vote, a speedy trial, an attorney, bear arms, a free press, or even free speech. Point out to me, if you would, where "God" is mentioned in any portion of the U. S. Constitution (you know, that document that grants us our "rights" as citizens). You cannot, because there is no mention of any providential ordination of rights in that document. Instead, it is a man-made, man-written document which ascribes the basic rights to U. S. citizens. Men determined those rights, because men founded this country, and men determined what rights should, and should not, be made available to the citizens.

As Christians, our rights as citizens of heaven are determined by God. As citizens of a given country, our rights are determined by the governing documents and the bodies that wield them that have been instituted in that respective country.

This country's current documentation prohibits the making or upholding of laws that discriminate against a protected class. Currently, gender is a protected class. If the State allows Mary, a consenting adult of sound mind, to form a legal union with another consenting adult of sound mine, but prohibits me from that same union based on my gender alone (as is currently the case), that is gender discrimination, and is thus unconstitutional.

jhay78;694981 wrote:I'll agree to disagree on that. We simply don't know the long-term effects of turning 5000+ years of human marital history and 200+ years of American marital history upside down. I still would argue that a father and a mother provide the best environment for a child's emotional, psychological, and social well-being. Thus the special treatment of their union being recognized by the state.

Back to DOMA, I haven't seen one post on here that defend's Obama's decision. DOMA leaves same-sex union recognition up to the states; thus one state cannot be forced to recognize another union done by another state. One state wants it- fine- nobody's stopping you. One state doesn't -fine.

I think you've too quickly dismissed the idea that you should be equally advocating against the state recognizing the union forged by infertile couples or couples who intend not to have children. This unequivocally flows for your position and if we're to take your state position seriously, that you really oppose homosexual union recognition because of societal interests in ensuring optimal child rearing and not merely a thinly veiled device to disguise your disapproval of homosexuality then it seems you ought to take up this parallel cause.

And, you incorrectly state that the history of marriage is in favor of the type of nuclear family you propose. In light of that, it seems as if it may not be the case that one mother, one father would be ideal for child rearing. It was not until the 17th and 18th centuries that the nuclear family became prevalent in Europe and it was not until the industrial revolution that it became a viable vehicle for child rearing. In fact, if we're to accept your socialistic view on the state's interest in familial regulation, we might imagine family units that would be much more optimal for child rearing than nuclear families. In fact, extended families or polygamous marriages could easily be imagined to be more beneficial to child rearing.

Polygamous marriages would allow more desirable males to procreate with more females and create more reproductively fit children. Also, it would allow for a greater division of labor within the home allowing children to receive more attention, etc.

Or, we might even take it further if we're to take your position that units most beneficial to child rearing are what we should pursue rather than allow free individuals to engage in whatever free arrangements they might desire...It might be more desirable if we didn't even let biological parents raise their children at all. As capitalists we agree that there are some people who are more talented at certain things than others and this includes parents. In fact, we can all agree that we walk through Wal-Mart we've seen people who we might prematurely judge as probably unfit to make the best parents. As a consequence, if you're going to have this socialist view towards the state's interest in child rearing, why not put the cards on the table and pursue policies that would actually, surely improve the raising of our children....having the state take children away from unfit parents and provide a job for our best and brightest child rearers to raise our children under the employment of the state so as to ensure the best possible outcomes for our children.

There are many potential ways in which we might maximize the potential of future generations that would greatly improve upon the nuclear family and the nuclear family does not have the overwhelming historical support that suggest.

BoatShoes;695032 wrote:... if we're to take your state position seriously ...

You're a braver man than I.

BoatShoes;695032 wrote:... that you really oppose homosexual union recognition because of societal interests in ensuring optimal child rearing and not merely a thinly veiled device to disguise your disapproval of homosexuality then it seems you ought to take up this parallel cause.

Logically, this is correct. You cannot have it both ways.

BoatShoes;695032 wrote:It was not until the 17th and 18th centuries that the nuclear family became prevalent in Europe and it was not until the industrial revolution that it became a viable vehicle for child rearing.

Indeed. For centuries, it was the job of the mother, almost exclusively, to raise the children in poorer homes, and it was the job of servants to raise the children in wealthier homes.

One could even make a case that up until the '50s or '60s, it was primarily the mother's responsibility to raise a child for the most part.

BoatShoes;695032 wrote:In fact, if we're to accept your socialistic view on the state's interest in familial regulation, we might imagine family units that would be much more optimal for child rearing than nuclear families. In fact, extended families or polygamous marriages could easily be imagined to be more beneficial to child rearing.

You said what I alluded to with the "socialistic" comment. You're right, though. The notion that laws are to be made for "the greater good" instead of protecting the rights of the individual is fundamentaly socialistic.

And for what it's worth, while I don't condone polygamous unions, I think they should be legal, so long as the government has its claws in marriage at all. But that's another topic for another time.

BoatShoes;695032 wrote:Polygamous marriages would allow more desirable males to procreate with more females and create more reproductively fit children. Also, it would allow for a greater division of labor within the home allowing children to receive more attention, etc.

Judas priest, does this ever sound creepy.

BoatShoes;695032 wrote:Or, we might even take it further if we're to take your position that units most beneficial to child rearing are what we should pursue rather than allow free individuals to engage in whatever free arrangements they might desire...It might be more desirable if we didn't even let biological parents raise their children at all. As capitalists we agree that there are some people who are more talented at certain things than others and this includes parents. In fact, we can all agree that we walk through Wal-Mart we've seen people who we might prematurely judge as probably unfit to make the best parents. As a consequence, if you're going to have this socialist view towards the state's interest in child rearing, why not put the cards on the table and pursue policies that would actually, surely improve the raising of our children....having the state take children away from unfit parents and provide a job for our best and brightest child rearers to raise our children under the employment of the state so as to ensure the best possible outcomes for our children.

There are many potential ways in which we might maximize the potential of future generations that would greatly improve upon the nuclear family and the nuclear family does not have the overwhelming historical support that suggest.

BoatShoes;695032 wrote:I think you've too quickly dismissed the idea that you should be equally advocating against the state recognizing the union forged by infertile couples or couples who intend not to have children. This unequivocally flows for your position and if we're to take your state position seriously, ....

...the same way homosexuals should be paralleling the the idea that heterosexuals have been too long strong armed by the State to gain permission or authority in order to become married. To gain equality gays and lesbians should be seeking to end the Sate intrusion into relationships.

BGFalcons82;694571 wrote:You're gonna have to explain that one, dwc. If there are 2 gay men trying to conceive, which one has the egg? If there are 2 lesbian women trying to conceive, which one has the sperm?

I think WB understood exactly what I was pointing out. I was responding to another poster's inaccurate statement that only a "mother and father can conceive" alluding that gays can't be mothers and fathers. Think outside the box.

BGFalcons82;694616 wrote:OK. It's worded strangely, but I see it now. However, if these people are having heterosexual sex, then, by definition, they aren't gay. They might be bi-sexual at that point, but that's not what he said.

Again, it is not worded strangely, you just need to think outside the box. I was responding to another post in which the poster was implying that gays can't conceive when they can.

Also, you don't have to have sex to conceive, why do people think this? Having sex is one way (and the most common) to conceive, but artificial insemenation is another way. Gays and lesbians can conceive and can be mothers and fathers. That's all I was saying.

dwccrew;695227 wrote:I think WB understood exactly what I was pointing out. I was responding to another poster's inaccurate statement that only a "mother and father can conceive" alluding that gays can't be mothers and fathers. Think outside the box.



Again, it is not worded strangely, you just need to think outside the box. I was responding to another post in which the poster was implying that gays can't conceive when they can.

Also, you don't have to have sex to conceive, why do people think this? Having sex is one way (and the most common) to conceive, but artificial insemenation is another way. Gays and lesbians can conceive and can be mothers and fathers. That's all I was saying.

Okay. I lulz'd.

Writerbuckeye;695243 wrote:Okay. I lulz'd.

Hahaha, I didn't even intend it to be that way.

O-Trap;695018 wrote:Um ... no. Not all rights are "God-given." The Bible never ordains our right to vote, a speedy trial, an attorney, bear arms, a free press, or even free speech. Point out to me, if you would, where "God" is mentioned in any portion of the U. S. Constitution (you know, that document that grants us our "rights" as citizens). You cannot, because there is no mention of any providential ordination of rights in that document. Instead, it is a man-made, man-written document which ascribes the basic rights to U. S. citizens. Men determined those rights, because men founded this country, and men determined what rights should, and should not, be made available to the citizens.

As Christians, our rights as citizens of heaven are determined by God. As citizens of a given country, our rights are determined by the governing documents and the bodies that wield them that have been instituted in that respective country.

This country's current documentation prohibits the making or upholding of laws that discriminate against a protected class. Currently, gender is a protected class. If the State allows Mary, a consenting adult of sound mind, to form a legal union with another consenting adult of sound mine, but prohibits me from that same union based on my gender alone (as is currently the case), that is gender discrimination, and is thus unconstitutional.

You're right. I was alluding to the Declaration of Independence- not all rights are God-given, but inalienable ones are. I would argue that gays still enjoy life, liberty, and can still pursue happiness without the state recognizing their unions.

As for "society's interests", I think you're taking that too far (I marked down Feb 28th, 2011- the day my comments and "socialist" were used in the same sentence three times). Male-female marriages were not invented by a writ of Congress to further society's interests- they existed before our Constitution and government were founded.

I'm not sure if gender is being discriminated here, either. Men and women both can get married- just not in a same-sex union. So it's not the gender being discriminated against. It would be the sexual orientation, which is not protected under the Constitution or the Civil Rights Act. So I don't see the problem with leaving the issue up to the states, as DOMA does.

jhay78;695908 wrote:You're right. I was alluding to the Declaration of Independence- not all rights are God-given, but inalienable ones are. I would argue that gays still enjoy life, liberty, and can still pursue happiness without the state recognizing their unions.

I would be inclined to say some do. However, judging from the discontentment and the feeling of being slighted that is expressed by many, it seems that many do not. Those have less to do with actual rights and more to do with perceived rights though. One may be happy if one does not feel his rights being infringed. In my example, I am unable to marry the same person as my female coworker based solely on my gender. Thus, I am technically being discriminated against. I just don't mind, because it's not a right I would excercise anyway.

Compare it to the right to bear arms. If I don't plan on ever owning a gun, then even though my right is permitted/prohibited, I won't mind as much, because it won't change what rights I exercise.

jhay78;695908 wrote:As for "society's interests", I think you're taking that too far (I marked down Feb 28th, 2011- the day my comments and "socialist" were used in the same sentence three times).

I intentionally never mentioned the word in my own post because I knew that using such a word can distract from the actual point being discussed. I hate that.

jhay78;695908 wrote:Male-female marriages were not invented by a writ of Congress to further society's interests- they existed before our Constitution and government were founded.

From a LEGAL standpoint, this isn't true. Well, okay, as a British citizen, yes, we could have married, but even then, it's just an appeal to authority, because the reasoning there was the same.

Marriages, in all ways other than legal, did indeed exist for U. S. citizens prior to the U. S. Constitution. Legally recognized marriages, though, did not.

jhay78;695908 wrote:I'm not sure if gender is being discriminated here, either. Men and women both can get married- just not in a same-sex union. So it's not the gender being discriminated against. It would be the sexual orientation, which is not protected under the Constitution or the Civil Rights Act. So I don't see the problem with leaving the issue up to the states, as DOMA does.

Indeed everyone is allowed to marry. However, if applied to race, it would certainly be considered discrimination. "Whites and blacks both can get married- just not in a mixed-race union." Same applies. If a woman has a legal right to marry Fred, and I do not, and the reason is only that I am a man, then it is gender discrimination, because a man's right is being withheld while a woman's is being permitted solely on the basis of gender.

Suggesting that it is orientation-based asserts that the law should be based on what is desired, and not necessarily what is equal. Currently, FairwoodKing and I both have the right to marry women, because we are both men. That's all the freedom I'll be using. FairwoodKing (if he wants a legally recognized marriage at all) wants to marry a man. Our rights, legally speaking, are the same. They are felt differently, but they are defined identically.

However, Fab4Runner and I do not both have te right to marry women, because we are not both men. Men and women are equal under the law, and equal under the Bill of Rights, it stands to reason that we should have equal rights under the law, and that includes who we may marry. The only way to do this is to legally recognize same-sex unions. Legal unions are, as far as the government is concerned, legal agreements. My ability to form a legal agreement with someone else should not be based on that person's, or my own, gender.

For what it's worth, since it does pertain to a protected class, I do think it's a federal issue. I do typically side with States having the majority of the right to make their individual laws, but when it comes to a current state of affairs that violates a federal document, I think it's a federal issue.

password;701256 wrote:

Ugh ... I love people who oversimplify, because sometimes it's because they're just simple-minded people, and they end up being rather entertaining, but MAN can they be frustrating at the same time.