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

procreation is irrelevant. it's not a requirement of marriage, so your use of it as a means to deny homosexuals the right to marry doesn't make any sense, and is invalid.

 

Doesnt make any sense and is invalid to two gay guys furiously pounding each other in the butt. Under the law, not ony is it relevant, it is fundamental to marriage.

 

You should be ignored. And considering I've consumed a large amount of your irrational animus directed at homosexual people... I'm putting you on ignore.

One thing is certain right now: Homosexuality makes a LOT more "sense" than the BS you've been spewing about homosexual people.

Get MENTAL HELP. Your HOMOPHOBIA is creeping up and overtaking your worldview.

 

Thats about 20 times youve made that promise. Let hope you can actually follow through this time.

 

Please notify me when you find a homosexual pairing that has procreated.

 

It's more than a little disingenuous to suggest that the State interest in marriage is just stable, happy homes, and has nothing to do with the children that will result. The interest is clearly tied to the assumption that married couples will procreate.

For the same reason the wealthy can't collect welfare benefits. Though I could likely make the case that they pay more taxes, and that there would be some extraneous benefit to allowing that, it does not serve the purpose of the program; that is, the State interest. Futhermore, many of the "in kind" benefits can be attained through current contract law.

I've already explained that. I don't think the State should be encouraging homosexual parenting arrangements. It's homosexuals and their supporters who are hung up on the word. It is they who will accept nothing less than marriage.

 

I have no interest in tracking when ever strangers become parents, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation. And less interest in satisfying your interest in being informed about the details of other peoples lives. Your request is unreasonable. (and creepy)

 

You've not answered the question. Why would the State care whether I simply cohabitate with a woman as opposed to marrying her? Why would they offer me a subsidy to commit to her? This is essentially what they do. Why?

I've not suggested that. And I think you're a bit confused by what's meant by a State interest. It is in fact, the interest of the people, as it's done at their behest. They're essentially one and the same.​

 

Did I say "become parents?" I said procreate. Strange that you would find that creepy. For those who appreciate science, a homosexual pairing procreating would be quite a phenomenon, and dare I say, fascinating.

 

It would be if I'd said that but I didn't. A happy and healthy two person family is a benefit to the state in and of itself. For children to further benefit from that is indeed desirable but it not required even if it is to be encouraged.

Not so, that's the choice for each couple to make for themselves. If the benefit is extended to those that can't/won't procreate it has to be extended to those that are similarly or identically situated.

But the situation we are dealing with is closer to saying only wealthy Catholics can collect benefits whereas wealthy Jews can't. If no individual in the class can collect the benefit then nobody is being discriminated against by being denied access to the benefit.

Except you're making up the "state interest". Children are not a requirement of the marriage contract. The contract serves as an umbrella to help in the raising of children if they occur but it also serves to confer right of kinship, community property rights, medical proxy and mutual financial responsibility all of which can be seen as a "state interest" depending on the individual's perspective of their own marriage. Not every couple will take advantage of every aspect or benefit but each can be tailored to the needs of the individual couple.

Well, aside from the additional hassle and far greater expense incurred for no apparent rational reason at all, try telling that to an immigration official.

I know, I got that, it's just that I don't particularly care. You are free to join any kind of religious society or private club and expect everyone else within the fold to abide by that code. What you can't do is expect your opinion to over-ride everybody else's unless someone is forcing you to marry a person of the same sex against your wishes and bring up kids together.

Why should your equals expect anything less than equal rights?

 

Well, you haven't offered anything else. If a happy, healthy, 2 person family was the only goal, it would have been open to any two people who wanted to be a family. There would have been no reason to exclude any two people at all. So, what interest were they trying to serve? Why would the State want me to commit to a woman for life? Because they think it'll make me happy? Healthy? Based on what? Oh, and if it helps the kids, that's just a side benefit?

Well, the question then becomes, does the State have the obligation to pursue, by any and all means, regardless of cost, a perfect implementation of the policy? That is, in order to ensure that only the specified State interest is served, must they exclude from marriage any couple who fail to demonstrate the ability and commitment to having children? And, consequently revoke it from those who fail to procreate? The State can only create a policy if it's perfectly implemented?

Wrong again. It is wealth that is the factor being considered, not religion. Just as in marriage, it is the potential for procreation that is being considered, not sexual proclivity.

I'm not making it up. All of these other interests could essentially be served by contract law. And as they largely benefit the individuals involved rather than society as a whole, there is simply no compelling State interest that would justify the cost of subsidizing such arrangements.

It isn't just my opinion. Again, it goes back to the State interest. It benefits society when children have their mother and father.

Because in this instance, we're not equals. It would not be equally serving the State interest.

 

I thought you were interested in spawning taxpayers. But seriously, stay out of other people's bedrooms. It's creepy.​

 

If you insist, I can suggest a reason why the people benefit from your marriage. When you commit to a lifetime partnership, to support each other in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, it means you (as a couple) will place less stress on the shared resources which would otherwise have to bale you (as an individual) out in the sickness and poverty times.

But I'm not saying that's why our government allows and accommodates the practice. We do so because huge numbers of people want to be treated as one couple rather than two individuals. Likely the majority of people. There doesn't seem to be much harm or undue hassle in it and most folks really want it. That's the same reason we established national parks, public education, and allow corporations. The same reason we have national holidays, day light savings time, and an endangered species list. The state, which serves our interest, facilitates our preference by providing accommodations in taxation, inheritance, and identity laws that make it easier for couples who choose to live as one to operate in a system that otherwise treats folks individually.
​

Behest? Pretty sure I never saw a plan to hasten overpopulation discussed among the people, must less it's implementation commanded. In fact, I've never been to a wedding where the couple announced they were marrying to respond to the popular behest of producing more taxpayers.

Sure folks want to marry. And it's obvious we as a people want to accommodate folks living as married couples. But I see no reason to assume that we silently and collectively have some unwritten eugenic objective in doing so. Even less reason to use that hypothetical goal as an excuse to deny one couple the right we're extending to another.​

 

That's the exact same argument Dixon makes on here and the Heritage Council do corporately. Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow (whatever that means) of the Family Research Counsel, also entered it in argument at the recent Maryland legislative hearings. "Any two people" are entitled to petition the court for relief as to similarity of situation. I understand Mr. Red and Ms. Herring have already filed briefs?

The only interest they can serve is the public recognition of a private contract equally available to all who are similarly situated and can consent to enter it. If they're trying to serve other interests then they're not doing their job properly, they are being unnecessarily intrusive.

Research indicates a good marriage makes for happier people. The life commitment is not a mandatory requirement, you may alter your vows to reflect this. That said many people would prefer, if at all possible, to commit to a partner for life. Also it's you who petitions the state to recognise your contract. You could have a non-binding ceremonial "wedding" and not apply for a license. That way you can be treated as single and maybe formalize some arrangements through a private contract, like you expect gays to do. If you do voluntarily agree to be bound by the terms of the contract, the license serves as an ongoing record of that. If you can propose to enter into a contract which the government subsequently recognises, what right do you believe you posses that would deny others in a similar or identical situation that same recognition?

As glib as you make it sound, basically yes.

If it were even a "policy" (which I contend it's not) that would be impractical and also undesirable. I don't think anyone on the marriage equality side actually wants infertile heterosexual couples barred from marriage even if one could advance a technical argument as to why they should be (arguing that the "state interest" in marriage is pro-creation). That said, in the same way you believe they should not be barred because, essentially, it does no harm to let them, we feel the same way about same sex couples. Additionally, many same-sex couples are raising kids (as are infertile heterosexuals) so to deny them, child-related, financial benefits impacts the kids primarily and for what?

Again you're the one who claims it's "a policy", not me. As far as I'm concerned the only policy of the state should be the recognition of a new legal family of consenting and similarly situated individuals. After that it's up to the parties concerned to decide how their families will be configurated.

My point was that they all belong to a class of wealthy, similarly situated persons. They don't need the benefits because it will make no difference to their lives. Legal recognition of a family unit makes a huge difference in the day-to-day running of any couples' lives: straight or gay, rich or poor, it's relevance is still palpable.

Exactly, because in this instance dividing these people into groups based on their religion (as a proxy for gender) is pointless as it would not be related to any legitimate governmental purpose. Dividing the very rich from the poor for the purpose of allocating governmental benefits is rationally related to serving a legitimate governmental purpose.

By you maybe but not by the most recent Federal trials relating to DOMA, Prop 8 and bankruptcy provision.

It is the state which must show a compelling and necessary state interest in denying petitioners access to a governmental contract the applications for which they are similarly situated; not the other way around.

No I'm sure others share it just not Justices Walker, White, Tauro and the 9th circuit Prop 8 appeals panel.

It benefits society when children have parents who love them. Heaven knows I wish more heterosexual couples would commit and stay together for the sake of their kids but I don't think gays should be used as a scapegoat any more than I think being a dogmatic idealogue is going to result in more kids being cared for in the manner which, quite frankly, they deserve to be.

I thought it was self evident that all men are created equal?

"Serving the state interest?" Wow!

 

If you want special treatment for those with sexual proclivity, youll need some rational justification for such special treatment. All discrimination must meet constitutional requirements. Not just discrimination you perceive as being directed at homosexuals.

 

Justification: Similar situation to others who are entitled to the right.

 

Only heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation. They are not similarly situated. And if you want to extend marriage to all couples with sexual proclivity, youll need SOME rational relation between the governmental interest, the formation of stable homes, and the distinction, couples with sexual proclivity. Any suggestions? i DIDNT THINK SO.

 

Heterosexual couples are not required to procreate as before, during, or any time after. Most rights have more to do with the function of the couple's relationship, which has its own benefits to society, with other rights that apply when a child is born. Homosexuals are similarly situated with regard to the structure and motivations for their relationship, implying they should have the same rights that are established for heterosexuals regardless of child rearing. Homosexuals have and adopt children, just like heterosexuals, and they can provide similar homes to what heterosexuals would provide. Similarly situated.

 

They are similarly situated to the majority of heterosexual couples (those that can procreate together) and IDENTICALLY situated to the remainder (those that can't).

All aspects of the administration of the contract that could apply to an infertile heterosexual couple can apply to a same-sex couple in EXACTLY the same way.

Of course they're similarly situated and the courts are starting to acknowledge that.

 

Was it hard to write that much, without ever answering the simple question?
You still need SOME rational relation between the governmental interest, the formation of stable homes, and the distinction, couples with sexual proclivity. Any suggestions?

 

Backwards. Once similarity of situation is established, the defendants need to show a rational basis to deny not the plaintiffs a rational basis to advance.

 

Nonsense. The goverment isn't simply allowing and accomodating marriage. They are actively encouraging it, at substanial cost. And if, as you argue, the majority of people prefer to be treated as a couple, there would be no reason to subsidize it at all. The real answer is: Because it keeps children together with their parents. It also helps to establish paternity.

You brought up this business about spawning taxpayers; I've not argued that.

 

LOLOL!!! Nobody is a defenant here. Fascinating, the mental gymnastics you people will go to in order to make sense of your world.

 

Bollocks, the defendant is the government when challenged by a plaintiff seeking relief in gaining access to a governmental contract so denied.

Fascinating the lack of mental awareness you people exhibit in interpreting the procedure of your own legal system.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!