How society benefits from banning same-sex marriage

[WorldWatcher]

I believe you missed the point. Women who are not married can enter the welfare state by having a child out of wedlock, and then double their entitlements by marrying another woman on welfare.

Under the Constitution, the law cannot accept a structure of three-party marriage establishing an arrangement of government-sponsored economic polygamy as a protected, superior class of marriage under any rational-basis test. Secondly, the law cannot accept any marital arrangement that establishes three classes of marriage, where the classes are defined and either rewarded or discriminated against based on the natural reproductive capacity of one sex.

Actually, the exact OPPOSITE is true.

The women would have to remain UNmarried in order to draw double benefits.

As to the rest of your statement, the law can accept anything we dictate it accepts. Thats what it means to self govern.

I'm still trying to figure out how two women can get married, seeing as the correct definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.

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".


>>>>

 

[Vidi]

Since when did the world act accordingly to what the Bible says? Never. The first law of Christianity is love,not hate.

This is true, but why do so many Christians ignore this, and spend most of their time judging and condemning others?

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.

 

[hwyangel]

An union of two consenting adults as marriage is a great definition.

Same sex couples should have the same trial and tribulation of traditionally married couples.

However, no one should think that somehow polygamy, polyandry, and polymory will somehow not be part of the issues involved with the redefinition of marriage.

I am going to answer this again...this time without the joke.

Some same traditional marriage is the LIFE LONG union of a man and woman.

With divorce rates at nearly 50%, the defintion of marriage has already been changed. The divorce rate proves that marriage has a "flexible" definition at best. But lets say we dont redefine our defintion but instead redefine our VIEW of the definition.

Redefining our VIEW of marriage to include same sex couples is simply not that big of a deal.

How about The LIFE LONG union of two consenting adults?

Again, all that matters is whether or not the "union" is consensual.Whether is nutso Mittens or the monster, Jeff Warrens, all that really matters is if its a consensual union between ADULTS.

If so, its no one elses business.

Really. The R needs to stop meddling in other people's business.

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.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can not come to any rational comparisons of same gender to opposite gender without completely disregarding pro-creation.

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.

Basically it's saying that young pregnant women getting married is unimportant,

No it's not.

that a child having two parents (regardless of whether it "works out") is unimportant,

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.

and that child rights as according to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child -is also unimportant.

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.

But yet you expect the same sympathy toward your relationships and rights or we are called all sorts of names.

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.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[hwyangel]

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.

 

[High_Gravity]

More hot lesbian sex?

 

[hwyangel]

Children can have one or more parents, but they must have two biological parents.
Parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


both /bōTH/Adjective: Used to refer to two people or things, regarded and identified together: "both his parents indulged him".

definition of both - Google Search

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Children can have one or more parents, but they must have two biological parents.
Parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


both /bōTH/Adjective: Used to refer to two people or things, regarded and identified together: "both his parents indulged him".

definition of both - Google Search

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.


>>>>

 

[oldernwiser]

Children can have one or more parents, but they must have two biological parents.
Parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


both /bōTH/Adjective: Used to refer to two people or things, regarded and identified together: "both his parents indulged him".

definition of both - Google Search

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.


>>>>

As are those whose offspring would suffer immediate and usually fatal medical problems due to parental genetic issues.

In short, procreation is just not a topic of debate in a civil marriage. There is not that much consideration of procreation in ritualistic marriages either.

 

[JoeB131]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

I can't think of a one.

I can think of why legalizing it would be good for society as a whole.

Well, for one thing, we won't have people making themselves and others miserable by trying to be something they aren't.

I've known a few people who were gay, who tried to pretend to be straight in order to placate their religious families or because it was what society expected them to do. To no surprise, th ose marriages failed and in some cases, they lived along miserable for the rest of their lives, in others, they finally found happiness in gay relationships.

But in the meantime, they made themselves, their partners and in some cases children fairly miserable in situations that never should have been to start with.

 

[JoeB131]

When it comes to (acceptable) lawful infringement on an individual's pursuit of happiness, the first hurdle for me, acceptability-wise, is that it MUST offer some benefit to society as a whole. That alone doesn't make it acceptable IMO, but the absence of any societal benefit certainly makes it unnecessary, and therefore unacceptable by default. When it comes to same-sex marriage, I can't get past this first hurdle. I've been asking people for years to give me an example, any example, of how banning same-sex marriage is good 'for the many' so to speak, and so far nobody has accepted the challenge in earnest.

So please explain, if you can, how our society would be better off if we ban same-sex marriage.

I neither want a ban on it, nor do I want a government stamp of approval. It's something the government needs to get out of altogether. It never should have BEEN involved, except for the contractual aspects of it.

But once you've accepted that there is a 'contractual" need for marriage, that the government needs to be involved in, then why should it not be open to everyone?

 

[hwyangel]

Children can have one or more parents, but they must have two biological parents.
Parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


both /bōTH/Adjective: Used to refer to two people or things, regarded and identified together: "both his parents indulged him".

definition of both - Google Search

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.

A only has two biological parents. The addition of one or more step parents or adoptive parents makes three or more parents. It does not eliminate the responsibility or relationship of the biological parent.

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.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that to some significant degree, no government —federal, state, or local—may interfere with the parent-child
relationship.
US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



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.


>>>>

Opposite gender marriage is an exception while same gender changes the concept.

Im sure DOMA will be overturned eventually, it has been predicted. I have made several points from the aids epidemic to the single mothers. The importance I suppose can only be a matter of opinion. May God have mercy on us.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Opposite gender marriage is an exception while same gender changes the concept.

If your concept is that Civil Marriage requires procreation to be valid, then I can understand how you feel that way.

If Civil Marriage is about procreation, then infertile different-sex couples that Civilly Marry are also an exception.

Previously in our history "voter" was equal to "Adult, Citizen, White, Landowning, Male". Then "voter" evolved into "Adult, Citizen, White, Male". Then "voter" evolved into "Citizen, Adult, Male". Then women won the right to vote and "voter" became "Adult, Citizen". Society treating people the same is not a bad thing.

So what is the compelling governmental reason for discriminating based on gender between infertile different-sex couples and infertile same-sex couples?

Im sure DOMA will be overturned eventually, it has been predicted.

There are two sections to DOMA, one is the federal government usurping the power of the States under the 10th Amendment to define Civil Marriage (in other words the Federal government currently picks and chooses which valid legal Civil Marriages it honors). The second section exempts States from recognizing legal Civil Marriages from other States based on gender.

The first part is likely to be "overturned" in the courts (well actually it already has, and the case is going to the SCOTUS). The second provision is likely to eventually be repealed or amended. Personally I think that will be a voluntary action by Congress. Personally I have no problem with an amended version that exempts States from having to recognize ALL Civil Marriages from other States that do not conform with that States laws. The difference is it would apply to same-sex marriages and different-sex marriages equally.

I have made several points from the aids epidemic to the single mothers. The importance I suppose can only be a matter of opinion.

Yes, I've seen the diversionary posts which have nothing to do with Same-sex Civil Marriage.

AIDS is not a disqualifying condition of Civil Marriage - for same-sex or different-sex couples. Single mothers are irrelevant issue when it pertains to Same-sex Civil Marriage. Unless of course it is viewed in the light that two lesbians who have a child and raise a child (either through sperm donation or adoption) are considered "single mothers" because they are not allowed to Civilly Marry in most States. In that case it would reduce "single mothers" but allowing them to Civilly Marry. Good Point.

May God have mercy on us.

He does.


>>>>

 

[onecut39]

There is no major benefit of same sex marriage.

I don't think that is true. Same sex marriage encourages long term, exclusive relationships and the lack of it encourages short term promiscuity and all the social and medical ramifications of that.

Then too it is simply the right thing to do, getting rid of an economic and social underclass cannot be a bad thing.

In the end it will be good for the souls of all us. You know, equal treatment under the law and all that stuff we say we believe in.

 

[onecut39]

Opposite gender marriage is an exception while same gender changes the concept.

If your concept is that Civil Marriage requires procreation to be valid, then I can understand how you feel that way.

If Civil Marriage is about procreation, then infertile different-sex couples that Civilly Marry are also an exception.

Previously in our history "voter" was equal to "Adult, Citizen, White, Landowning, Male". Then "voter" evolved into "Adult, Citizen, White, Male". Then "voter" evolved into "Citizen, Adult, Male". Then women won the right to vote and "voter" became "Adult, Citizen". Society treating people the same is not a bad thing.

So what is the compelling governmental reason for discriminating based on gender between infertile different-sex couples and infertile same-sex couples?

Im sure DOMA will be overturned eventually, it has been predicted.

There are two sections to DOMA, one is the federal government usurping the power of the States under the 10th Amendment to define Civil Marriage (in other words the Federal government currently picks and chooses which valid legal Civil Marriages it honors). The second section exempts States from recognizing legal Civil Marriages from other States based on gender.

The first part is likely to be "overturned" in the courts (well actually it already has, and the case is going to the SCOTUS). The second provision is likely to eventually be repealed or amended. Personally I think that will be a voluntary action by Congress. Personally I have no problem with an amended version that exempts States from having to recognize ALL Civil Marriages from other States that do not conform with that States laws. The difference is it would apply to same-sex marriages and different-sex marriages equally.

I have made several points from the aids epidemic to the single mothers. The importance I suppose can only be a matter of opinion.

Yes, I've seen the diversionary posts which have nothing to do with Same-sex Civil Marriage.

AIDS is not a disqualifying condition of Civil Marriage - for same-sex or different-sex couples. Single mothers are irrelevant issue when it pertains to Same-sex Civil Marriage. Unless of course it is viewed in the light that two lesbians who have a child and raise a child (either through sperm donation or adoption) are considered "single mothers" because they are not allowed to Civilly Marry in most States. In that case it would reduce "single mothers" but allowing them to Civilly Marry. Good Point.

May God have mercy on us.

He does.


>>>>

We are an odd type of country. How is it that we are supposed to be equal under the law and then allow states to discriminate on such a basic right as marriage?

Why should not a state be able to determine who is to be a slave and who not? The concept is not as different as many would make it.

 

[onecut39]

luddly what your or I think does not matter.

Yes, multiple partner marriages will be an issue, whether you think they should or not.

Anything can be an issue if people want to make it an issue. I don't believe polygamy is constitutionally prohibited, as such it can be an issue.

So far in our history is has not, except for the fringe groups, and the notable exception of the Mormons, who gave it up at least officially.

 

[onecut39]

Since when did the world act accordingly to what the Bible says? Never. The first law of Christianity is love,not hate.

Oh I don't know about that. There seem to be far too many who adhere to the principles of the Old Testament rather than the new.