- 900
- Posts
- 13
- Years
- Seen Jul 22, 2016
Tradition:
Tradition is the poorest excuse for prohibiting same-sex couple from getting married. In fact, US Constitutional law has repeatedly rejected "tradition" as a basis for denying any citizen his or her rights. It was tradition to keep slaves. That was rejected. It was tradition to not consider women persons under the law. That was rejected. So many of society's oldest traditions have been rejected because they cause actual harm to people. And also, there are some cultures which in fact accept same-sex unions traditionally (yes, even in this day and age), so who then gets to decide whose traditions take precedent?
Marriage is a right:
This argument is far from correct. The U.S. Supreme court on multiple occasions stated that marriage is a fundamental human right and that it is protected via the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. To quote Loving vs Virginia (1967): "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." In Zablocki v Redhail (1978): "Justice Marshall wrote for the majority in a 5-3-1 court holding. Affirming the judgment of the District Court, Marshall concurred with the District Court's reading of marriage being a fundamental right, relying on Loving v. Virginia (1967) and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). -- Source Wikipedia." These are but two examples. There are others, each of which holds that marriage is in fact a civil right. A person's belief that it isn't is irrelevant under the law. So your assertion would be false given legal precedent.
Constitutionality:
Already addressed above. Marriage is protected via the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.
The economic problem:
States are prohibited from denying marriage to any couple who does not wish to, or is incapable of, having children. There never has been a requirement for any couple to have children after getting married. Your assertion to the contrary is false. As an example, marriage is permitted between two people if one or both is incarcerated in a prison. Such a marriage is unlikely to produce any offspring, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held in Turner v. Safley (1987) that a regulation that prohibited inmates from marrying without the permission of the warden, found that it was "not...reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives" and "impermissibly burdened" their right to marry.
Producing Children:
As I stated above, there is no law on the books which prohibits a couple from getting married if they choose not to, or are incapable of having a child. And if there perhaps is such a law, it is unenforceable due to U.S. Supreme Court rulings. As an example, there are states which still have on the books that prohibit same sex couples from engaging in sexual activity. These anti-sodomy statutes are unenforceable, however, due to a 2003 ruling by the U.S. Supreme court ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas. No state can deny to any couple marriage if they are incapable of having children or have no desire to have any. There are in fact many such marriages as evidenced by the ever decreasing birthrates among married couples.
What about artificial insemination? What about the children?
Already addressed in above points. Having children is not required for marriage. Never has been, and I expect never will be.
You compared homosexuality to what?
I'm not even going to address this above point because it's an argument that is so full of facilities that logically it makes no sense whatsoever. The above is an example of fear-mongering, and talking-points used by marriage equality opponents and have been debunked time and time again. Fact: being gay is not a choice. Neither is being straight, or being bisexual, or being transgendered. Your assertion that people who are gay choose to be gay is not only blatantly false, it's also extremely insulting. I'd cite many professional papers done by professional groups such as the American Psychological Association but I suspect you'd reject every single one of them.
Gay marriage is not necessary:
It could equally be stated that heterosexual marriage is not necessary either, for the exact same reasons you stated.
The slippery slope argument:
The absurdity of the above argument can be explained thusly: "Man walks up to woman on the street and says: 'I'd like to have a child, let's get married.' Woman things for a minutes, appraising this male's suitability as a father and then says: 'okay.'
Love plays a huge role in determining whether a couple will get married. In fact, I'd consider it to be the controlling factor. A couple does not get married because they wish to have children. They get married because they love each other and because they wish to share their lives together and to make a life long commitment to each other. Sometimes the result of this union is a child, and sometimes it is a childless union. Both are valid because in the end, it is the love between these two individuals that defines their relationship.
Tradition is the poorest excuse for prohibiting same-sex couple from getting married. In fact, US Constitutional law has repeatedly rejected "tradition" as a basis for denying any citizen his or her rights. It was tradition to keep slaves. That was rejected. It was tradition to not consider women persons under the law. That was rejected. So many of society's oldest traditions have been rejected because they cause actual harm to people. And also, there are some cultures which in fact accept same-sex unions traditionally (yes, even in this day and age), so who then gets to decide whose traditions take precedent?
Marriage is a right:
This argument is far from correct. The U.S. Supreme court on multiple occasions stated that marriage is a fundamental human right and that it is protected via the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment. To quote Loving vs Virginia (1967): "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." In Zablocki v Redhail (1978): "Justice Marshall wrote for the majority in a 5-3-1 court holding. Affirming the judgment of the District Court, Marshall concurred with the District Court's reading of marriage being a fundamental right, relying on Loving v. Virginia (1967) and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). -- Source Wikipedia." These are but two examples. There are others, each of which holds that marriage is in fact a civil right. A person's belief that it isn't is irrelevant under the law. So your assertion would be false given legal precedent.
Constitutionality:
Already addressed above. Marriage is protected via the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th amendment.
The economic problem:
States are prohibited from denying marriage to any couple who does not wish to, or is incapable of, having children. There never has been a requirement for any couple to have children after getting married. Your assertion to the contrary is false. As an example, marriage is permitted between two people if one or both is incarcerated in a prison. Such a marriage is unlikely to produce any offspring, but the U.S. Supreme Court has held in Turner v. Safley (1987) that a regulation that prohibited inmates from marrying without the permission of the warden, found that it was "not...reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives" and "impermissibly burdened" their right to marry.
Producing Children:
As I stated above, there is no law on the books which prohibits a couple from getting married if they choose not to, or are incapable of having a child. And if there perhaps is such a law, it is unenforceable due to U.S. Supreme Court rulings. As an example, there are states which still have on the books that prohibit same sex couples from engaging in sexual activity. These anti-sodomy statutes are unenforceable, however, due to a 2003 ruling by the U.S. Supreme court ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas. No state can deny to any couple marriage if they are incapable of having children or have no desire to have any. There are in fact many such marriages as evidenced by the ever decreasing birthrates among married couples.
What about artificial insemination? What about the children?
Already addressed in above points. Having children is not required for marriage. Never has been, and I expect never will be.
You compared homosexuality to what?
I'm not even going to address this above point because it's an argument that is so full of facilities that logically it makes no sense whatsoever. The above is an example of fear-mongering, and talking-points used by marriage equality opponents and have been debunked time and time again. Fact: being gay is not a choice. Neither is being straight, or being bisexual, or being transgendered. Your assertion that people who are gay choose to be gay is not only blatantly false, it's also extremely insulting. I'd cite many professional papers done by professional groups such as the American Psychological Association but I suspect you'd reject every single one of them.
Gay marriage is not necessary:
It could equally be stated that heterosexual marriage is not necessary either, for the exact same reasons you stated.
The slippery slope argument:
The absurdity of the above argument can be explained thusly: "Man walks up to woman on the street and says: 'I'd like to have a child, let's get married.' Woman things for a minutes, appraising this male's suitability as a father and then says: 'okay.'
Love plays a huge role in determining whether a couple will get married. In fact, I'd consider it to be the controlling factor. A couple does not get married because they wish to have children. They get married because they love each other and because they wish to share their lives together and to make a life long commitment to each other. Sometimes the result of this union is a child, and sometimes it is a childless union. Both are valid because in the end, it is the love between these two individuals that defines their relationship.
Last edited:
