What Rights (If Any) Should Be Awarded To Homosexual Couples? Part 3

Silly. Neither I nor Jeff are the defendant or the government. Whats this, about 5 responses to the question, but not yet a answer. Typical.

 

Ridiculous, you said:

I'm merely pointing out that as far as the law is concerned he doesn't.

Maybe you think he needs it in order to convince you but unless you happen to be a Federal judge I really don't see why he should care. Especially as it's obvious your mind is already firmly made up.

 

LOLOL!!!! Sooo you people have the answer, but you dont have to share it with me. Whatever gets you through your day sunshine.

 

LOLOL!! He already advanced "similarity of situation". It's already been established across at least three Federal trials. If you want to keep ignoring that little factoid then have at it moonbeam!

 

I don't think it's a red herring. Clever dodge, though. Maybe a slippery slope, and I'm not a fan of those, but it seems to apply here. On what basis do you deny siblings the right to marry? Or a son and his mother?

Not my question. What was the State interest designed to be served through marriage benefits?

You're ignoring the fact that there exists a public purpose for the State to not only allow marriage, but to subsidize it. That isn't simply trying to make people happy. It is trying to provide for the needs of children.

But this is what you're suggesting. Because some couples who cannot/did not procreate were not excluded, all couples who cannot/will not procreate must be included. The State can only regulate marriage if they do so by perfectly meeting the interest.
And on what do you base your no harm belief? A few thousand kids raised by homosexuals? You don't know the future implications of same-sex marriage. I think they're pretty scary, as much for homosexuals as anyone, honestly.

Well, that sounds simple, if not just a little idealistic. Only that isn't how paternity works. It's determined by nature, not by how two people want to configure it.

Wrong! It will not equally serve the public purpose, the State interest. It may very well make a substantial difference in both of their lives.

Right, and I think giving children both a father and mother is a rather compelling State interest.

Are you willing to acknowledge that children benefit by having both a father and mother? Do you think more children without their biological parents is a good thing?

Speaking of dogmatic idealogues...
Even if I were to accept this, that wouldn't make our circumstances, our behavior, or its impact on society equal.

 

You might have to clarify this for me.

Are you asking what sexual proclivity has to do with government interests and stable homes?

Long story short, sexuality tends to be part of the same types of romantic relationships homosexuals and heterosexuals create. People tend not to want the types of financial and legal bonds implied with marriage unless they are trying to support this type of long-term romantic relationship. So the sexuality itself is not exactly an interest being supported, but sexuality is often an essential part of the relationship that the government is trying to support. Homosexuals can't create this relationship with members of the opposite sex because sexuality is often an important element of this relationship, but they can do so with the same sex.

This type of long-term, romantic relationship among heterosexuals and homosexuals is beneficial to both the individuals and society in terms of forming stable homes, fighting promiscuity and STD's, and reducing dependance on the state where your spouse acts as your first defense against financial and physical hardship. The nature of such a relationship is supported with the financial and legal bonds created in marriage. Marriage also simplifies and enables the legalities for joint custody of children the couple raises.... important for both homosexual couples and heterosexual couples who wish to raise children as part of their romantically involved relationship.

 

It has been established that the factors entered to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, their gender and sexual orientation, do not pass a rational basis related to a compelling governmental interest.

With regard to siblings and parents/offspring: it has not been established that the factor entered to deny such couples the right to marry, the closeness of their existing relationship, does not pass a rational basis related to a compelling governmental interest.

I have never claimed to deny them the right to establish their position but the obstacle facing them is completely different from the obstacle facing SS couples. The only time SSM would be precedent would be in the case of couples who were not only related but also of the same sex. Absent that, claims can be made regardless of whether or not SSM is recognised.

Depends on the benefit. SS survivor benefits can help couples in old age and keep them from pulling at the public purse. Immigration benefits can help unit couples from far away. I know you are alluding to dependent benefits but, often, these don't come into play unless there are actual dependents and they can be biological, surrogate or adopted too.

And you're ignoring the fact that SS couples raise children too.

.

Bolded for emphasis.

If you wait for the future of anything it has a habit of never arriving. People are innocent until proven guilty.

Well then take it to court and show how failing to recognise couples who's kids would never have had a mother and father in the first place goes any way toward furthering that aim.

Yes but you're not willing to acknowledge that many kids would never have that anyway, that's the point. Also studies show that kids being raised by same sex couples do just as well so that's a good thing too. It doesn't have to be either or, up and down, black and white.

Would you rather they were aborted if they can't meet that ideal?

You are entitled to your opinion. The law doesn't have to agree.

 

???? Doesnt answer the question. The existance of discrimination doesnt justify more discrimination. You still need SOME rational relation between the governmental interest, the formation of stable homes, and the distinction, couples with sexual proclivity. "similarity of situation" doesnt describe the relation between sexual proclivity and the formation of stable households.

 

There is no direct relationship between the formation of stable homes and sexual proclivity, but sexuality does indeed tend to be part of romantic, long-term relationships which are the foundations of stable households. Sexuality, alone, has nothing to do with stable homes. Only in the context of a long-term committed relationship that almost always involves sexual interest does it play part in creating stable homes.

 

????? You could have just said "fighting promiscuity and STD's", as that was the only portion relevant to sexual proclivity.

There we have it. Discrimination to reduce the number of single mothers on their own and increase the numbers of children with the benefit of both their mother and father present in the home to provide and care for them together, is unconstitutional and intolerable, but discrimination to reduce STDs is perfectly acceptable to you people. Turns the 1000s of year old institution into nothing more than a 21st century safer sex governmental program.

 

Certainly a benefit, but not the only benefit. I listed several other benefits. You might say this is the only benefit to society that is directly related to sexuality, but that's not to say there are no in-direct benefits.

First, of course, we have to understand sexuality tends to be a prominent PART of a long term relationships. And any benefit society gets from these long-term romantic relationships that tend to have sexuality as an element can also be considered. I already listed several benefits for promoting this form of long-term romantic relationship, for which sexuality is an element, which includes supporting environments where homosexuals also raise children.

 

Consider also that heterosexual couples can retain the benefits of marriage regardless of their intentions, ability or suitableness to have children. I understand your concern is the POTENTIAL, and that we want to encourage people to be married BEFORE the child is born. But having homosexuals marry neither harms that, nor does it work against any of the other purposes of marriage.

Even married couples that have had their children taken from them can retain their marriage. While concerns for children certainly are part of marriage, they are apparently not considered essential to it.

 

Not a one of them with any realtion whatsoever to sexual proclivity. Marriage, limited to sexual couples because only sexual couple spread STDs and can be promiscuous. While marriage limited to heterosexual couples, the only couples creating children in need of stable homes, cant be tolerated. Discrimination is justifiable in your mind,to promote stable homes, in order to reduce the spread of STDs, while discrimination to promote stable households to promote the well being of children is some how unconscionable. BS, you just dont have a problem with discrimination that doesnt have any effect upon homosexuials. Homosexuals are big participants in the spread of STDs while they physically cant participate in procreation without involving a third or even fourth person in the process. Thats why you dont have a problem with marriage being transformed into a safer sex program.

 

Interesting opinion. Seems unlikely though. A law that says children must stay with their parents would work better. And a DNA test is a pretty conclusive way to establish paternity.

Most laws regarding married couples seem to be about recognizing that a married couple are acting as one entity and respecting that their income, property, identity, and legacy are jointly owned by both. The laws seem to be less about forcing their children to stay with them than about recognizing the couple as a single entity when most of our laws expect to treat them as individuals. They seem to be about accommodating and supporting the life decision of a couple to live as one, in sickness and health, for richer and poorer, until death do they part.

Sure there is some cost in accommodating that choice, as there is in accommodating tax free churches or wheel chair accessibility to public buildings. As a society we have decided to accommodate them.​

 

I'm sorry that your marriage sucked and apparently provided none of the other benefits I speak of, hence your divorce. Given that, I can understand how you might blinded and unable to see the other benefits of long-term relationships that you were unable to develop. I'll do my best to enlighten you.

Within the context of a long-term romantic relationship (which almost always involves sexuality), one might expect the following benefits and behaviors:

1. General happiness and wellbeing of the individuals, supporting their mental health.

Benefit to society: Happier, mentally healthy individuals = more productive individuals, less prone to a variety of behaviors and mental disorders that create an expense for society.

2. The individuals will care for each other emotionally, financially and physically.

Benefit to society: individuals that are more financially secure are less likely to become dependent on the state for support. Individuals that have a spouse to care for them require less assistance from medical professionals, reducing the cost of healthcare for everyone, and improving the odds that the individual will get better, faster. Individuals that have more emotional support are less prone to mental disorders and destructive behaviors that are a cost to society.

3. The loving, committed relationship offers a stable home for children.

Benefit to society: Homosexuals can bring children into their family either from a prior relationship with the opposite sex, artificial insemination, or adoption. Creating a stable home for children that the homosexual already had, in addition to offering more stable homes for potentially adopted children are benefits to society.


And there may be other benefits as well, but those are the most prominent. These reasons may explain why even axe murderer, child molesting individuals who have had their children taken from them by the state can even marry. Either society sees value in these other benefits to allow them to do so, or marriage is seen as a fundamental right that exists without purpose beyond the pursuit of happiness. One of the two, and neither reason would exclude homosexuals.

 

Thats because heterosexual couples end up procreating regardles of their intentions or suitableness to have children. It frequently just happens. But when it does, it is always, exclusively the heterosexual couples who end up procreating. And while we dont know which of the heterosexual couples have the ability to procreate, we do know that the non sexual and homosexual couples will never procreate, and closely related couples of the opposite sex should not procreate.

 

Your desparation and lack of a rational argument is showing.

 

Not always and certainly NOT REQUIRED BY LAW.

Procreation is a factor pertaining to marriage, but certainly is not the aspect of marriage which legally justifies PROHIBITING homosexual couples from marrying.

 

The point was, even after losing the children, they get to keep the marriage and rights afforded to it. Sure, they could reproduce again, and have the child taken away again.... but why would we be affording that kind of relationship with rights that the child will obviously not benefit from?

And while homosexuals don't procreate directly within their own relationship, they raise children just the same.

 

Desperation is all one can be brought to when trying to speak logic with you. Not my fault you ignored the rational argument, twice, and still don't recognize the benefits that loving, long-term, romantic relationships bring to society and to the couples themselves.

Either you disagree with the benefits that I put forward, or you don't understand them... you've never addressed them directly, so I can't know for certain. You always jut avoid them. I'm left only to assume you don't understand them, given that you've never experienced them within your own relationships. Feel free to enlighten me otherwise.

 

Not so. According to your argument, they would be similarly situated, and in some cases identical. But my question was more a personal one. Would you allow such couples to marry? If no, why not?

Surely there was a State interest in marriage long before SS and immigration law. This had nothing to do with establishing paternity or keeping children with their parents?

Not at all. I'm just acknowledging that SS couples can't create children. Therefore, SS marriage doesn't help keep children with their biological parents or establish paternity.

In fairness, that's a bit of a copout. The question of establishing paternity and parental rights are enormous and complicated. And, more importantly, bound to lead to circumstances where no one wins, but children are certain to lose. Moreover, as I mentioned, the implications for homosexual parents are downright frightening. The real consequences are going to take decades to fully emerge, but what we've seen already is troubling.

But that's not really what we're talking about here. That's more of an adoption issue. And if homosexuals were only going to adopt children, you would have a valid point. We both know that isn't what's going to happen. We're going to marginalize parents, turning fathers into sperm donors, and mothers into surrogates, both being irrelevant in their children's lives. And this is the real issue for me.
Look, despite what you may think because of my stance on this, and accusations to the contrary, I'm not "anti-gay", so please hear me out on this. I'm all for people being treated equally under the law. But some values are simply more important than equality. SS marriage is going to deprive more children of a relationship with their mothers and/or fathers. I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree with that. This is a gross injustice to the child, and should only be done if it's unavoidable, and certainly not encouraged. And I think that's where you and I differ on this. A child has rights as well. Among them, is the right to a relationship with his parents, those who created him. Marriage ought to serve as a means for the State to protect those rights, not as one to take them away in order to indulge the pursuits of adults.
I realize I'm not likely to change many minds here, but you strike me as being both thoughtful and sincere and I hope you will seriously consider what I'm saying.

 

Your starting to make me believe in the slippery slope.

 

Ive not ignored them and have SPECIFICALLY, DIRECTLY pointed out that none of them are specific to couples with sexual proclivity EXCEPT for the claim that mrriage reduces the spread of STDs.

 

Still, at this point, you can and/or SHOULD be able to see where most homosexual people (and those who advocate for their equal rights and happiness would oppose or not relate to your logic.

Legally, your views are resting upon shaky-ground... and that is in now manner difficult to fathom. You emphasis has primarily been upon "procreation", and at least most people discussing that with you here have indicated (in one fashion or another) that such emphasis is significantly-less germane to the issue of homosexual marriage... than you have ultimately conceded.

If you have not willfully ignored the importance of what I've just pointed out above, then you have remained IGNORANT of the same for who knows what reasons. That is the clearest and most simple fact concerning the things you have repeatedly expressed within this forum about homosexuality and homosexual marriage.

 

I simply wanted to get your bigotry on record, and succeeded. You defined "gay culture" in terms of only the negatives you find useful in demonizing gay people.

Such behavior isn't driven by reason. It's driven by psychological factors that can be traced back to the continued marginalization of gay people, both legally and socially. Sure, you can find examples (like George Michael) whose fame and fortune you might think ought to be a sufficient remedy to counteract the pursuit of such behavior, but that doesn't make it so. It should also be pointed out that there are people who act on impulses, and who pursue compulsive, detrimental behaviors - people who are gay, straight, and everything in-between. The mistake - and it's a huge one that most anti-gay people make - is the assumption that all same-sex orientation and behavior associated with it qualifies as the same thing - as a mere fetish or compulsion. It's insulting to same-sex couples in healthy relationships who aren't pursuing practices detrimental to their health or disruptive to society. That your argument consists of making precisely that association in an effort to tar all gay people is very telling.

That's very clearly not your real aim, though. The thrust of your arguments is not advocacy in favor of children having a father and mother. Instead, the aim is to advocate such an arrangement as the only legally or socially valid one. I cannot agree with that - and especially not when it's used to advocate against same-sex couples and their families.

And you perpetuating the suffering of gay people and their families through your anti-gay advocacy is something I find nauseating. I don't see that you have any relevant point to make here.

Not taking your bait.

Cordial condescension doesn't merit a cordial response. I have no obligation to be nice to someone who is being so very insulting, regardless of how much they smile at me or couch their insults in pretty language.