Home > IRTIC's, Marriage Redefinition, Same Sex Marriage > Intelligent Replies to Idiotic Comments

Intelligent Replies to Idiotic Comments

August 9th, 2011

“Nothing so terrible has happened in Massachusetts or Canada, so let’s just have same sex marriage.”

Marriage is the social institution that connects generations to each other. Redefining marriage changes the basic structure by which the generations relate to one another, including who counts as a parent.  We will not experience the most significant consequences of redefining marriage in the first five years. The most significant consequences may not be the most immediately obvious. It will take a full generation, a full thirty years or more, before society will feel the full impact of redefining marriage.

People  making this argument  don’t understand the full social significance of marriage.  They are ignorant of how social systems actually work.

“Nothing so terrible has happened” is truly an idiotic comment.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Marty
    August 9th, 2011 at 07:34 | #1

    When I look back up my family tree, I see men and women, mothers and fathers, as husbands and wives, as far as the eye can see. I’m not so arrogant to think I can break this chain for my own offspring — that it will not matter to them.

  2. Bob Barnes
    August 9th, 2011 at 08:25 | #2

    And again we will ask for you to provide proof to back these claims.

  3. jerryk
    August 9th, 2011 at 08:59 | #3

    Claiming that “Nothing so terrible has happened” is truly an idiotic comment is just plain clueless.
    Fact is, nothing terrible is exactly what’s going to happen in twenty to thirty years from now.
    Good parents are good parents. Good people are good people.
    That is exactly what’s going to determine if kids grow up to be good adults. They will consider whoever took good care of them to be the most important people in their live, blood or no blood. Man or woman. Straight or gay. The voice of those that are trying to hang on to the so called traditional marriage is going to get weaker and weaker as time goes on. Just like the public opinion about gay marriage. As more older people drop out of the discussion (as in get old and then die) and more young people get in (they are the next generation’s adults and leaders) traditional marriage will be the exception and marrying whoever you want will be the rule

  4. Daughter of Eve
    August 9th, 2011 at 11:46 | #4

    Me, too, Marty. It’s a legacy of love.

  5. Bob Barnes
    August 9th, 2011 at 14:46 | #5

    jerryk :
    The voice of those that are trying to hang on to the so called traditional marriage is going to get weaker and weaker as time goes on. Just like the public opinion about gay marriage. As more older people drop out of the discussion (as in get old and then die) and more young people get in (they are the next generation’s adults and leaders) traditional marriage will be the exception and marrying whoever you want will be the rule

    Jerryk, Let’s not forget that the silly superstitious stuff will give way to facts and knowledge. Remember how giving women an education was going to tear this country apart. Or how the Civil Rights Acts of the 60s was going to bring in Communism. Such silliness, I’m looking forward to future.

  6. Anna
    August 9th, 2011 at 15:51 | #6

    “traditional marriage will be the exception and marrying whoever you want will be the rule”

    Whoever you want? Thanks, jerryk for confirming that ssm is the destruction of marriage.

  7. Daughter of Eve
    August 9th, 2011 at 17:44 | #7

    The explosion of family history enthusiasts in the world is evidence that people of all walks of life want to know where they fit into the human family tree. We do honor those who bring us up in love and safety, no matter the gender of that individual. But I believe it is premature to suggest that our society will completely cease to value marriage between a man and a woman, as that is the only public institution which unites both halves of every human being’s progenitors.

    Does “marrying whomever you want” extend to siblings, between parents and children, and parties of 3 or more? If so, Family Law/Paternity Law stands to get really complicated….

  8. Sean
    August 9th, 2011 at 18:25 | #8

    What about the terrible consequences of NOT legalizing same-sex marriage: children being forced to be raised outside of wedlock, by couples they think society dislikes (or worse); violating our nation’s guarantee of equal protection for all citizens (not just straight ones); denial of the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, such as less wealth, worse health and shorter lifespans? And the belief that it is legal and just to discriminate against gay people, since the government does it?

    The real damage is being done right now, to gay and lesbian Americans, and it’s a shameful period in our history, made all the worse because of strong support from religious people.

  9. Betsy
    August 9th, 2011 at 20:46 | #9

    “The real damage is being done right now, to gay and lesbian Americans, and it’s a shameful period in our history, made all the worse because of strong support from religious people.” There it is again. Religious vs. gay. So, if a Christian realizes he is gay, will he suddenly become an atheist?

  10. John Noe
    August 9th, 2011 at 21:13 | #10

    Obviously this nincompoop has not been paying attention to the fact that SSM is already causing damage in MA. It is being taught in the schools, marriage licenses now longer say husband and wife, birth certificates altered, parental rights have been infringed upon, and the higher costs of business and health care since now our hard earned money pays for the unhealthy and deadly lifestyle of the homosexuals. I am seeing this first hand in MA. The details of what I have described are on the Massresistance website. I urge all open minded Ruth Institute supporters and other undecided independents who are on this website to see for yourself. DOE, Anne, Marty, Glen, and Leo know what they are talking about. Dr. Morse has presented the evidence.
    As far as SSM damaging the USA that can only happen if this perversion spreads to other states and it becomes federal law. It will be the federal recognition of SSM that would cause the most damage. The states began to recognize marriage because they wanted to promote responsible procreation. But the Feds took the state license and in effect used marriage as an incentive to procreate. It became a federal priority when Americia became the entitlement state. The bonehead liberals while promoting Social Security and Medicare are threatening the funding of it by supporting SSM.
    This needs to sink into your head. We all count on the entitlements when we get old. These are funded by entitlement payroll taxes on those currently working. Get it. Anne’s seven children are the ones who pay for our future entitlements. This is why the federal government gives big tax breaks and other benefits to marriage. The benefits are incentives to us to replace ourselves and allow us to retire when we get old. SSM DESTROYS THIS CONCEPT!!!!!!! You cannot justify giving incentive procreation benefits to people who through their secual actions purposely do not procreate. This is why homosexuals are not equal to us. They cannot procreate.
    It makes perfect logical sense for a society that wants the social net to then encourage responsible procreation. SSM brings no benefit to society and in fact brings harm to a society that wants the entitlement state.

  11. John Noe
    August 9th, 2011 at 21:17 | #11

    The best part of this article is that it is over time where we will see the damage of SSM. If SSM is allowed throughout the United States the full damage will take about thirty years. Then sadly it will take another thirty years to fix it.

    Look at the Netherlands and the Scandanavian countries. Thanks to SSM the birth rate is now below replacement levels while the baby boomers age. The entitilement state their is headed for a financial train wreck. Americia will suffer the same fate if we allow SSM in all fifty states and at the federal level.

  12. Daughter of Eve
    August 9th, 2011 at 22:02 | #12

    “violating our nation’s guarantee of equal protection for all citizens (not just straight ones)”

    The 14th amendment extends to all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation. That is equal protection under the law.

    “worse health and shorter lifespans?” may be more correctly attributed to high-risk same-sex sexual behavior regardless of sexual orientation;

    “the belief that it is legal and just to discriminate against gay people, since the government does it?” It would be helpful to view an actual piece of legislation that singles out homosexuals for discrimination–for example: a marriage license application that demands proof of sexual orientation.

    Religious people support marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of sexual orientation. Some who claim to be religious also support sex-segregated marriages, also regardless of sexual orientation. Legally, what does someone’s sexual orientation have to do with the boundaries drawn around the marriage union?

  13. August 10th, 2011 at 06:23 | #13

    Betsy :
    “The real damage is being done right now, to gay and lesbian Americans, and it’s a shameful period in our history, made all the worse because of strong support from religious people.” There it is again. Religious vs. gay. So, if a Christian realizes he is gay, will he suddenly become an atheist?

    Not at all. Hopefully he’ll become even more of an open-minded, tolerant man. Not all Christians agitate against “the gays,” you know, just the narrow-minded ones. Many good Christians support full civil equality — up to and including same-sex marriage. I know many such Christians, despite not being of a religious nature myself, and they are amazing and wonderful people. Folks who are more in line with the Ruth Institute and Maggie Gallagher by NO means have a monopoly on Christianity!

  14. Marty
    August 10th, 2011 at 06:38 | #14

    Once again Sean pretends that same-sex couples have children my accident. If these children are born/raised “out of wedlock”, then that is by the CHOICE of the parents. Blame them for the fate of their children, not society.

  15. Betsy
    August 10th, 2011 at 12:58 | #15

    Good point, Marty!

  16. Betsy
    August 10th, 2011 at 13:03 | #16

    Thanks, Emma. The point is, people come in all shapes and sizes, creeds, beliefs, etc. I don’t think it’s right for people to put a blanket statement on all Christians are against gays. Thanks for proving my point. I am a Christian, I have nothing against gays, some of whom are friends and relatives; however, I still think same sex marriage will be a bad thing in the long run. I fully understand the points made by SSM advocates, but long term, I do predict this being a bad thing for the institute of marriage as a whole. Eventually it will become meaningless if we start down this path. And that’s just my opinion.

  17. Sean
    August 10th, 2011 at 13:40 | #17

    “Once again Sean pretends that same-sex couples have children my accident. If these children are born/raised “out of wedlock”, then that is by the CHOICE of the parents. Blame them for the fate of their children, not society.”

    Sean has never claimed that same-sex couples have children by accident. Same-sex couples nearly always have wanted children, unlike straight couples. Still, forcing their children to be raised outside of wedlock seems unusually cruel, and lacking in reason and purpose. All children deserve to have the security of married parents.

  18. Sean
    August 10th, 2011 at 13:44 | #18

    “There it is again. Religious vs. gay. So, if a Christian realizes he is gay, will he suddenly become an atheist?”

    Huh? Betsy, most of the organized opposition to equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian citizens is financed by religious groups, especially the Catholic church. This is very much an “us v. them” phenomenon, although many pro-equality religious groups are trying to make their voices heard, so witnesses to history don’t record that religion was only a voice of prejudice and not justice.

    There are certainly gay Christians, which makes the attacks on equal marriage rights from religious organizations and people all the more bewildering.

  19. Betsy
    August 10th, 2011 at 13:53 | #19

    Did you really miss Marty’s point? The ones forcing these children to be raised out of wedlock are the parents themselves. If they don’t want children raised out of wedlock, why do they have children? I think Marty made an excellent point.

  20. Sean
    August 10th, 2011 at 15:50 | #20

    I thought it was all about the children, Betsy, you know, who’s rights come first, the adults or the children? Since same-sex couples are going to raise children together, and no one seems to question that right (it’s legal in all 50 states), why not give these kids the same advantages we give the kids raised by different-sex parents, which is the right to have married parents?

    It’s kind of like saying all kids can attend a school, but only the white kids are allowed to have books.

    It’s hard to fault same-sex couples for raising children outside of wedlock, if they’re not allowed to get married. I think that’s a bit much to ask of someone, live without raising children, since we won’t let you get married. Straight couples CAN get married and many don’t bother.

  21. Betsy
    August 10th, 2011 at 15:56 | #21

    Sean, you still don’t seem to get it. “who’s rights come first, the adults or the children?” Your answer is still the adults.

  22. Sean
    August 10th, 2011 at 15:58 | #22

    “Legally, what does someone’s sexual orientation have to do with the boundaries drawn around the marriage union?”

    The problem is that gender composition of the couple correlates to sexual orientation. So limiting marriage to different-sex couples is the same as limiting it to straight couples. It would be like saying only light-skinned people may marry:you are using a characteristic of a class that ends up favoring (or disfavoring) a class, in this case favoring white people and disfavoring black people. Even if some white people have dark skin and some black people have light skin, you have disproportionately excluded black people. And unless there is a rational public purpose to exclude black people from marriage, it’s a constitutional violation.

    That’s why saying gay people can still get married in a different-sex only marriage world doesn’t fly constitutionally: using gender requirements is just a surrogate for sexual orientation.

  23. Sean
    August 10th, 2011 at 16:07 | #23

    “Religious people support marriage between a man and a woman, regardless of sexual orientation. Some who claim to be religious also support sex-segregated marriages”

    Why not support each person’s right to marry the consenting adult of his or her choice? If you oppose different-sex marriage, don’t marry a different-sex person; if you oppose same-sex marriage, don’t marry a same-sex person. This seems like an extremely personal choice for a person, and it doesn’t make sense that perfect strangers get a say in the decision.

  24. Sean
    August 10th, 2011 at 16:13 | #24

    “I still think same sex marriage will be a bad thing in the long run. I fully understand the points made by SSM advocates, but long term, I do predict this being a bad thing for the institute of marriage as a whole.”

    And you’re ok with legal, no-fault divorce? I would think the rampant divorce rate is changing marriage and for the worse far more than same-sex marriage (which actually reinforces the notion of marriage as an institution of love, and which reduces the divorce rate, because fewer doomed-to-fail mixed orientation marriages occur.)

    The problem is, your personal feeling about the impact of same-sex marriage on marriage overall doesn’t rise to the level of short-circuiting the legal rights of gay and lesbian citizens to equal treatment under the law. You might not like what black people moving into the neighborhood does either, but you are legally powerless to stop it.

  25. Sean
    August 10th, 2011 at 16:24 | #25

    “Sean, you still don’t seem to get it. “who’s rights come first, the adults or the children?” Your answer is still the adults.”

    Yes, the selfish adults who don’t want gay couples to get married. Any person or couple who wants to have and/or raise children is going to do so, and should do so: raising kids a fundamental right of being a human being. That’s why all 50 states allow singles and gay couples, as well as straight couples, to raise children.

    You can’t fault a gay couple for raising a child outside of wedlock, if the law denies them the right to marry. But the children of same-sex couples deserve the same rights as the kids of different-sex couples, and that is the right to have the security of a family where the parents are married.

    Am I not saying it right? What part is not clear? If a couple isn’t allowed to get married, then they have no choice but to raise their children outside of wedlock. The law (made by adults) has decided that the desires of adults to stop gay couples from accessing marriage is more important than the need of children to be raised within marriage.

    Surely you aren’t suggesting that because they’re not allowed to get married, that a same-sex couple shouldn’t raise children together! Are you?

  26. Betsy
    August 10th, 2011 at 16:28 | #26

    All I’m saying is, Marty is right, THEY, the parents, are the ones making the choice to do so.

  27. Betsy
    August 10th, 2011 at 16:38 | #27

    Short-circuiting legal rights. Where do you come up with this stuff?
    I never said I was okay with legal no-fault divorce. When did that even enter the discussion?
    And I’ll tell you a little story. I know of a divorce attorney who said he and his comrades are just itching for SSM to become legal in their state because they are salivating over all the additional divorce cases they’ll get. “which reduces the divorce rate, fewer doomed-to-fail mixed orientation marriages occur.” How do you know? Where are your stats? That’s not the way these guys see it. Just because they have to fight harder to get married doesn’t mean they have a better chance to stay married. In theory, perhaps, but in reality, doubtful. I applaud your dislike of divorce, however.

  28. Daughter of Eve
    August 10th, 2011 at 17:38 | #28

    “The problem is, your personal feeling about the impact of same-sex marriage on marriage overall doesn’t rise to the level of short-circuiting the legal rights of gay and lesbian citizens to equal treatment under the law.”

    Gay and lesbian citizens already enjoy equal protection under the law, as long as the law turns a blind eye to sexual orientation in general. I assume you refer to the 14th amendment, which guarantees rights on an individual basis, as opposed to giving rights to unions. I believe your contention is with the boundaries drawn around marriage, where eligibility is based on gender, and not on sexual orientation. For example, the majority of states will not give a marriage license to a same-sex couple. But the majority of states will also refuse a marriage license to some opposite-sexed couples, as well. Doing so does not curtail the rights of these individuals to enter into state licensed matrimony. They simply have the right to choose another marriage partner, per their 14th amendment right. So, sexual orientation is a moot point. To argue otherwise is to engage in gay identity politics–which is never about true equality under the law.

  29. Leo
    August 10th, 2011 at 19:36 | #29

    @Sean

    I have elsewhere documented that same sex couples have greater average wealth and economic power than opposite sex couples, hardly the situation with blacks. Indeed, blacks can only dream of the day when their average economic situations are as good as that of the average same sex couple. I guess this prosperity relative to opposite sex couples is part of the terrible consequences arising from not redefining marriage.

    The Supreme Court has already rejected the 14th amendment argument. Sean must be confusing the Supreme Court with a short circuit court.

  30. Sean
    August 11th, 2011 at 16:12 | #30

    “All I’m saying is, Marty is right, THEY, the parents, are the ones making the choice to do so.”

    And all I’m saying is, it is unreasonable to deny children the right to married parents, and equally unreasonable to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples, and then fault them for raising children outside of marriage.

  31. Sean
    August 11th, 2011 at 16:20 | #31

    “I know of a divorce attorney who said he and his comrades are just itching for SSM to become legal in their state because they are salivating over all the additional divorce cases they’ll get.”

    So you’re already celebrating failed same-sex marriages? I bet divorce lawyers were head over heels when no-fault divorce was legalized! And we have one of the world’s highest divorce rates to prove how effective legal no-fault divorce is in separating married couples!

    “How do you know? Where are your stats?”

    I invite you to research the organization formed by the straight ex-spouses of gay people. I think common sense would indicate that if there is the option to marry someone of the same sex, then gay people would be less inclined to marry a straight person for lack of other options.

    Here’s the website URL for the Straight Spouse Network. They are strong advocates of legal same-sex marriage, so other straight people don’t end up marrying a gay person and getting divorced as they did.

    http://www.straightspouse.org/home.php

    “I applaud your dislike of divorce, however.”

    I wish you felt as strongly about banning divorce as you appear to be about same-sex marriage. It would do society a lot more good.

  32. Sean
    August 11th, 2011 at 16:39 | #32

    “I have elsewhere documented that same sex couples have greater average wealth and economic power than opposite sex couples, hardly the situation with blacks.”

    You misunderstood the point: whatever their level of health, longevity and wealth, it would be even better if they were allowed to marry. Marriage provides these benefits to those who participate in it, as confirmed by marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher.

    “Indeed, blacks can only dream of the day when their average economic situations are as good as that of the average same sex couple. I guess this prosperity relative to opposite sex couples is part of the terrible consequences arising from not redefining marriage.”

    See above. While it is questionable that gay couples are better off than straight couples, even if they are, gay couples are being denied longer lives, better health and greater wealth than their straight counterparts.

    “The Supreme Court has already rejected the 14th amendment argument. Sean must be confusing the Supreme Court with a short circuit court.”

    No it hasn’t. In 1971, in Baker v. Nelson, the US Supreme Court issued a summary decision based on a lack of a federal issue. To wit, since gay sex was illegal, and marriage presumes sexual relations, it is not possible to permit same-sex marriage.

    More recently, and more relevantly, the US Supreme Court decided Lawrence v. Texas (2003) which de-criminalized private consensual sex between adults, neutralizing any criminal statutes punishing gay sex. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his dissent, paraphrasing, “Now you can’t make same-sex marriage illegal!”

    The role of the US Supreme Court going forward is a fascinating one, especially the wisdom of taking a case to the Supreme Court by the anti-gay marriage crowd. The Court can either rule that same-sex marriage is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, based on equal treatment and due process (the two main points identified by marriage equality supporters) or the Court can say it is a constitutional right, and sweep away all remaining discriminatory statutes.

    Given these two choices, I wonder if any anti-gay marriage group would dare mount an appeal to the Supreme Court (say, if they lose the Prop 8 appeal) knowing that the best you can get is to maintain the status quo (letting each state decide) or to create disaster (have the Supreme Court impose marriage equality on ALL states)?! I wonder if there are any attorneys willing to be the guy who lost “traditional marriage” at the US Supreme Court, bringing gay marriage to all 50 states!

    A microcosmic version of this is happening in the 9th Circuit: the Prop 8 supporters want to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling, which risks having the 9th Circuit spread same-sex marriage to all states in the 9th Circuit! If they get standing, and I pray that they do, wouldn’t that be a hoot??

  33. Betsy
    August 11th, 2011 at 16:49 | #33

    I’m not celebrating failed marriages. I am not a divorce attorney.
    “then gay people would be less inclined to marry a straight person for lack of other options.” Are you a psychologist now? They marry straight people because they want so badly to be married and enjoy all the benefits thereof? Sounds like gay people marrying straight people do so for selfish reasons, clearly not taking into account the feelings of their spouses and children. Sad.

  34. Betsy
    August 11th, 2011 at 16:53 | #34

    I’m not denying anyone anything. I think it is cruel for SS couples to knowingly, willingly, purposely deny their children a mother and a father living with them.

  35. August 11th, 2011 at 17:04 | #35

    Of course, Sean could help those children by giving up the demand for same-sex procreation rights and accepting that people only have a right to reproduce with someone of the other sex, and that being allowed to reproduce is an essential right of marriage and must continue to be. Then the country could agree on Civil Unions defined as “marriage minus procreation rights” with all the other benefits and protections but not the right to conceive offspring that would remain exclusive to male-female couples and remain protected by marriage. That would help those couples that are raising kids, and help the kids, without destroying marriage.

  36. David in Houston
    August 12th, 2011 at 08:54 | #36

    John Noe :
    …SSM is already causing damage in MA. It is being taught in the schools, marriage licenses now longer say husband and wife, birth certificates altered, parental rights have been infringed upon, and the higher costs of business and health care since now our hard earned money pays for the unhealthy and deadly lifestyle of the homosexuals.
    The states began to recognize marriage because they wanted to promote responsible procreation. But the Feds took the state license and in effect used marriage as an incentive to procreate.
    You cannot justify giving incentive procreation benefits to people who through their secual actions purposely do not procreate. This is why homosexuals are not equal to us. They cannot procreate.

    So kids in school are (supposedly) taught that gay people have the right to marry each other. Shocking! I’m sure that will scar them for life. — Straight couples are still going to get married if the marriage license says Spouse #1 and Spouse #2. If that’s your best argument to promote discrimination against gay citizens, you’ll have to do better. Straight couples continue to marry in Massachusetts, regardless of what the marriage license says. — Straight employees do not financially support the health care costs between the employer and gay employees. So if a straight married couple that do not have children get health care coverage from an employer, how is that different than a gay couple doing the same?

    Procreation has NEVER been a requirement to getting married. Never. Any arguments in that regard are completely invalid. Unless you plan on banning straight senior citizens, straight couples that are barren, and straight couples that don’t ever want children. In fact, 100% of the heterosexual population has the right to marry, regardless of their procreation capabilities. Even mass-murders with life-sentences in prison have the civil right to marry. Perhaps you could explain how their marriages benefit society?

  37. Sean
    August 12th, 2011 at 17:33 | #37

    “Are you a psychologist now? They marry straight people because they want so badly to be married and enjoy all the benefits thereof? Sounds like gay people marrying straight people do so for selfish reasons, clearly not taking into account the feelings of their spouses and children. Sad.”

    No, I’m not a psychologist, but I do know loneliness, and I know how people, straight or gay, get married for the wrong reasons, or for lack of choice. If you want to create a secure relationship, hopefully for life, you may be tempted to marry a different-orientation person if you’re gay, for lack of other options. Clearly, with a national advocacy group composed of the straight ex-spouses of gay adults, the phenomenon can’t be that uncommon.

    I wouldn’t be so judgmental of gay people, Betsy, unless you’ve experienced what their lives must be like. From what I hear, the pressure to conform to straight behavior is immense, and that includes marrying. Be against equal marriage rights for gay and lesbian Americans, but don’t feel you need to treat or discuss them as less than human, or as harboring bad behaviors any worse than straight people.

  38. Sean
    August 12th, 2011 at 17:36 | #38

    “I think it is cruel for SS couples to knowingly, willingly, purposely deny their children a mother and a father living with them.”

    And I think it’s unspeakably cruel for a married straight couple with children to divorce. But how you feel and how I feel are irrelevant to the choices of other adults, aren’t they?

    Isn’t it worsening the cruelty you believe is occurring by denying the children of same-sex couples the benefits of having married parents? I’m having a hard time processing your articulated concern for the children of same-sex couples with your refusal to let their parents get married, and provide a more safe and secure environment for their kids. It’s quite inconsistent, perhaps hypocritical.

  39. Leo
    August 13th, 2011 at 18:45 | #39

    Sean incorrectly characterizes the Baker decision. The 14th amendment was raised by the plaintiffs and the court summarily dismissed the claim. If there was a 14th amendment right here, that would have trumped the state laws that Sean referred to.

    Murphy v. Ramsey defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

    What the court has said is that there is a privacy right for sexual conduct. However, Sean has elsewhere argued sex has nothing to do with marriage, so I don’t see how Lawrence v. Texas is relevant to his analysis.

    Sean’s arguments can equally be used to argue that the rich should get even more tax breaks even though they are doing well already.

    It is all special pleading for a special preference. That special preference has natural consequences. That state can rationally and morally distinguish between preferences that have different natural consequences. If same sex couples cannot produce children from their unions, the state doesn’t have to reassign children to them from other couples.

    It does seem to me questionable at best to assign children who don’t carry the gay gene to households that are not consistent with the child’s genetic make up if there are genetically compatible households available.

    It is perhaps cruel not to fund research into finding the elusive gay gene and not to fund research to make the option of gene therapy a reality.

  40. Sean
    August 15th, 2011 at 17:48 | #40

    “Sean has elsewhere argued sex has nothing to do with marriage, so I don’t see how Lawrence v. Texas is relevant to his analysis.”

    What Sean may have said with regard to sex and marriage is that you don’t have to have any in order to get or stay married. Only in religionland is “sexual coitis” a requirement of marriage. It’s not so in the regular world.

    “What the court has said is that there is a privacy right for sexual conduct.”

    Exactly. So who you’re having sex with is irrelevant to the government, and an unnecessary determination for marriage. But don’t take my word for it: read Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence, and his prediction for same-sex marriage.

    “Sean’s arguments can equally be used to argue that the rich should get even more tax breaks even though they are doing well already.”

    Uh, ok.

    “It is all special pleading for a special preference.”

    Well, no, getting the same rights as the next guy is not exactly “special pleading for a special preference.” What part of Equal rights is confusing to you?

    “That state can rationally and morally distinguish between preferences that have different natural consequences.”

    Yes, except there is no rational or moral outcome appropriate for state intervention in giving marriage licenses to straight couples, but not to gay couples. Why stop at marriage licenses, if you think the distinction matters? What about driver’s licenses? Fishing licenses? Medical licenses?

    “If same sex couples cannot produce children from their unions, the state doesn’t have to reassign children to them from other couples.”

    Except the producing children does not seem to be a state requirement of marriage. My sister and her husband never had any children, and they appear to still be legally married. Procreation is not a state goal for marriage, evidently.

    “It is perhaps cruel not to fund research into finding the elusive gay gene and not to fund research to make the option of gene therapy a reality.”

    I agree. Now that scientists suspect there’s a god gene, too, we should probably root that out.

  41. John Noe
    August 15th, 2011 at 17:59 | #41

    This post answers post #36.

    (1) The first damage of homosexual marriage in Massachusetts is the fact that it allowed the homosexual activists into the public schools. They were allowed to indoctrinate little children without the consent of the parents. Parental rights were infringed on. Parents were not alowed to opt their own children from the homosexual propaganda being shoved down their children’s throats. The FRC website has all of the details on this. The Massresistance webstite goes into detail of what was done to children by homosexual activists against the will of the parents.
    (2) The small 2-3% population got to impose its views on the marriage license. Before the selfish self centered homosexuals came along the marriage license stated husband and wife. Now thanks to the greedy gays that has been taken away from us against our will.
    (3) Straight employees and their employers were forced to subsidize and pay the extra health care costs to accomondte the homosexuals. Thanks to the homosexuals risky disease inducing sexual conduct they were a high insurance risk or uninsurable. Thanks to “equallity” laws however we all now pay the same rate. The rate for the straights and their employers was raised to cover this equallity.
    (4) Although procreation has never been a requirement to marriage the government benefits that come with it are incentives to procreate. The marriage license itself is a prividledge of the state and not a right. The state government benefits are priviledges and not rights. The only reason why the benefits exists is because of the incentive to procreate. Homosexuals cannot procreate and therfore do not deserve the incentive procreation benefits that come with marriage.

  42. John Noe
    August 15th, 2011 at 18:08 | #42

    In fact, 100% of the heterosexual population has the right to marry, regardless of their procreation capabilities. Even mass-murders with life-sentences in prison have the civil right to marry. Perhaps you could explain how their marriages benefit society?

    You are comparing individual marriages as opposed to marriage as a whole. Society as a whole benefits from man/woman marriage because the offspring pay the entitlement taxes we depend on and allow our society to continue. Of course the mass murderer in prison who marries brings no benefit to society, that is not the point. It was marriage as a whole that brought benefit to society. For every prisoner, childless, and other failed marriages there were more successfull marriages that did bring the future offspring that we all benefit from. So the procreation incentive benefits of man/woman marriage that come with the priviledge of having your marriage being recognized by the state has benefited us all and the offspring produced is testimony to that fact.

  43. Leo
    August 17th, 2011 at 22:06 | #43

    The state is treating gays and straights equally. The law is blind to orientation. You don’t have to be straight to get a marriage license. 100% of the homosexual population has the same right to marry with the same restrictions that heterosexuals face.

    It is true, however, that current marriage law is not something Sean likes. It doesn’t support his sexual preference. The state subsidizes air travel in a number of ways, e.g. the construction of airports, research into aircraft design and safety, the creation of the FAA. None of this is of much use to people who don’t want to fly or who fear flying. That, however, is not illegal discrimination against people who prefer trains or bicycles, even if trains get lesser subsidies and bicycles get little or none.

    As I have explained elsewhere today to John Howard, marriage is more than just procreation rights, though the Supreme Court did recognize procreation when it used the term of the family “springing from” the union of a man and a woman.

    Marriage is also designed to protect women as I have previously mentioned. Only women can get pregnant. Pregnancy is a considerable risk and burden; historically it entailed a serious risk of death, as well as being a blessing and an absolute necessity for the preservation of humanity. In marriage a man was expected to support a woman who committed to marriage with him regardless of whether she actually was able to become pregnant or not and after she may have passed the age of fertility in recognition of the risks she was assuming and the value of those risks to society, risks only women face. A marriage license was more than a procreation license. It was a license for licit sex, sex that the state rationally considered to be the best setting for sexual relations between men and women. It rationally therefore extended certain benefits to that type of relationship, a relationship the Supreme Court held was the foundation of morality and the goodness and progress of society.

    For profit corporations are granted certain rights by the state regardless of whether they actually earn a profit or not. The state benefits from encouraging the enterprise with its inherent risks and rewards. The enterprise of marriage as the union of a man and women is even more valuable to society than economic corporations. That enterprise is so valuable to the continuation of the species and the family that the state has declared it to be a right. I view the union of a man and a woman for life as a family as an institution that predates the state and which has natural law claims that the state should recognize.

  44. Chairm
    August 19th, 2011 at 22:34 | #44

    This comment section includes a few choice examples of pro-marriage replies to idiotic pro-SSM comments.

    Note: SSM = specious substitution for marriage.

Comments are closed.