How society benefits from banning same-sex marriage

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by manifold, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. WorldWatcher
    Online

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,207
    Thanks Received:
    1,334
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +2,053

    Actually "correct" is a misnomer, that may be your definition. The legal definition under Civil Law is dependent on geography. In some states your definition is the legal definition. In other states (and some other countries) its two consenting, non-related adults. In some other countries it is "a man" and "multiple women".


    >>>>
     
  2. Vidi
    Offline

    Vidi CDZ prohibited

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,869
    Thanks Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Ratings:
    +343
    for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God - Romans 3:23 (New International Version)

    We are all flawed human beings. Calling ourselves Christian does not instantly nor ever make us perfect. Do not judge the message by its messenger.
     
  3. hwyangel
    Offline

    hwyangel Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +8

    My point exactly. You can not come to any rational comparisons of same gender to opposite gender without completely disregarding pro-creation. Basically it's saying that young pregnant women getting married is unimportant, that a child having two parents (regardless of whether it "works out") is unimportant, and that child rights as according to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child -is also unimportant. But yet you expect the same sympathy toward your relationships and rights or we are called all sorts of names.
     
  4. WorldWatcher
    Online

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,207
    Thanks Received:
    1,334
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +2,053
    I disagree, under our legal system's principle of equal treatment under the law embodied in the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution, comparisons for equal treatment under the law are made on like situated groups. If a group feels that it is being wronged by the government, then under the 1st Amendment's grievance clause, an action can be brought against the government where the government then has a requirement to show a compelling government interest in the differentiation of actions.

    In this case, like situated groups would be law abiding, non-related, tax paying, US Citizen, consenting, infertile, adults in a same-sex relationship as compared to law abiding, non-related, tax paying, US Citizen, consenting, infertile, adults in a different-sex relationship. One group (in most states) is allowed Civil Marriage while the other group is denied Civil Marriage. Even in the case where Same-sex Civil Marriage, the federal government then refuses (under DOMA) to recognize that Civil Marriage entered into under State Law. An unprecedented step taken by the Federal government which for over 200 years had recognized as valid all Civil Marriages that were legal under State law.

    The laws pertaining to Civil Marriage in this country are silent on the couples fertility and/or the ability to procreate (which is one word BTW and not hyphenated). So ya there is a logical argument that procreation is not a requirement of Civil Marriage.

    No it's not.

    Which is an argument in support of Same-sex Civil Marriage and Same-sex Adoption. In states where those are illegal, the government is denying the child two parents because it prevents one member of the family unit of assuming that role of a parent (in a legal sense). In all states, a child born into a situation where the parents are legally Civilly Married - the participants in that Civil Marriage are by default the parents of that child (independent of gender of the spouses). When an adoption occurs, that individual becomes the parent of that child.

    Such laws then prevent that family from having two parents.

    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/pdf/crc.pdf

    Above is the link to the UNCORC which you seem to hang your hat on.

    There are numerous references throughout the document that refer to "parents", but not in one place does it refer to the gender of the parents.

    If you are of the opinion that the UNCORC defines "parents" as (a) the egg/sperm donor, and/or (b) required to be of opposite genders - you are mistaken. Parents and legal guardians, as used in this document is a gender neutral concept and is fixed by the applicable laws of the country.

    BTW - did you know that the United States is not a signatory of the UNCORC? My understanding is that the main opposition to the treaty comes from social conservatives that opposes the influence the treaty would have on United States sovereignty.

    I believe that all families should be treated equally under the law whether they be man + woman, man + man, woman + woman, man + woman + child(ren), man + man + child(ren), or woman + woman + child(ren). (Just for clarification, when I say "+child(ren)" that means Parent/Child and NOT sex partner relationship. I know most people would inherently recognize that from context, but someone would try to snip it out of context for an unintended meaning.)

    Do you wish for equal treatment and respect under the law for all those family units (i.e. relationships) or do you want selected ones treated differently then other selected ones?

    BTW - I can only speak for myself, but I don't get into name calling.


    >>>>
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012
  5. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    156,662
    Thanks Received:
    14,095
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +44,474
    Hwyangel writes mistakenly, "You can not come to any rational comparisons of same gender to opposite gender without completely disregarding pro-creation." This is a diversion that detracts from the issue of consenting adults.
     
  6. hwyangel
    Offline

    hwyangel Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +8
    In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance.
    Convention on the Rights of the Child

    Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, BEFORE as well as after birth".

    In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a PRIMARY consideration.

    pri·mar·y (pr m r , -m -r ) adj. Being or standing first in a list, series, or sequence.

    The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
    Parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

    States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child's best interests.
     
  7. High_Gravity
    Offline

    High_Gravity Belligerent Drunk Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    40,159
    Thanks Received:
    6,894
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Richmond VA
    Ratings:
    +7,740
    More hot lesbian sex? :dunno:
     
  8. hwyangel
    Offline

    hwyangel Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2012
    Messages:
    86
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +8
  9. WorldWatcher
    Online

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,207
    Thanks Received:
    1,334
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +2,053

    Which all has nothing do to do with Same-sex Civil Marriage as having children is not a requirement of Civil Marriage. As a matter of fact infertile people are allowed to Civilly Marry everywhere in this country.


    >>>>
     
  10. WorldWatcher
    Online

    WorldWatcher Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    7,207
    Thanks Received:
    1,334
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    VA
    Ratings:
    +2,053

    1. Correct, a child has two biological parents (a sperm donor and an egg donor). However that does not mean, from a legal perspective, that the sperm donor and/or the egg donor are in a legal sense the "parents" under the law. "Parents" under civil law embodies those who have a legal responsibility for the child. A couple that has a child born within a Civil Marriage are the Parents, it matters not if the parents are of the same gender or not. When a child is adopted, the new adults become the parents of the child.

    2. Secondly the United States has not signed the UNCORC treaty. Why you might ask? Because social conservatives see them encroachment upon United States sovereignty.

    3. There is no requirement anywhere in the United States to be a parent to be able to enter into Civil Marriage or to even prove that you are fertile for that matter. As a matter of fact people that know they are infertile are still allowed to Civilly Marry.


    >>>>
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2012

Share This Page