There is no shortage of homes for children in this country. That is evidenced by the thousands of American couples that spend thousands of dollars every year to adopt children from overseas.
You are proposing a solution to a problem that does not exist.
Most of those children are in foster care temporarily or while awaiting adoption.
Given that homosexuals are only prohibited from adopting in only 5 or so states, clearly the problem you claim exists would not be solved by your proposal.
i never said it would solve it, but it would obviously help the problem, you even said yourself marriage encourages couples to settle down and have kids, since gay people can not procreate with each other the likely hood is that they would adopt.
No, actually it would not help at all. The evidence to date suggests it actually hurts. Remember those second and third order effects we spoke of previously?
In MA, one of those effects was to remove the organization with the greatest success in placing hard to place children in loving homes from that business. catholic Charities was forced to stop providing its services because the state insisted they place children with same sex couples. The children lost because your side won.
theres over 100,000 children without homes throughout america, A Religious group denying gay couples adoption is 1 against the law and 2 counter productive to their cause, those children needed and wanted families the catholic charity was preventing that.
No, the state was preventing the charity from doing its job in line with its religious beliefs. Catholic Charities was happy to continue to do as it had always done, your side denied them that opportunity and the children lost.
no the law states you cannot discriminate on sexual orientation, this was a charity not a religious group meaning under the law they are not allowed to discriminate, the gay couples wanted to adopt those kids, the charity stopped them the children lost because the charity was bigoted.
also this is one case, if the charity did their job properly those children would of went to those gay couples and continued working
nnjhansen, yeap the children lost due to the inflexibility of the evil catholic church. The church never apologized for the crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. They do not have any credibility.
@nnjhansen, I am an advocate for LGBT civil rights, and I don't wish for the Church to violate its religious beliefs. I'm sure that many others like me feel the same way.
Since you have refused numerous times to state what 'civil right' you are being denied, where that right comes from and where it is enumerated, forgive me if I question you.
You are a pathetic bigot, you've been argued on every subject and come up with nothing, your a sad man filled with hate who spends so much time to deny somebody else of their happiness by commenting on youtube videos like these, you look for any reason to be against it, even when it clearly benefits the families and children involved. Gay marriage will be legal just like inter racial marriage became legal, deal with it.
If your happiness is contingent on a piece of paper from the county clerk, it is you who is pathetic.
There is nothing similar between this and interracial marriage. Interracial couples can satisfy society's interest in marriage a same sex couple cannot.
Let me know when you win one, so far you are 0 for 31.
The Happiness is legal protections, peace of mind, being able to marry the person you love, and it will happen, the liberal generation has already proven their support for LGBT because they know gay people, and didnt vote on fear.
Interacial marriages took so long to acheive because of fear and ignorance, the same goes with gay marriage, history is on our side, its only a matter of time :) 1 by 1 they old republicans drop off and new voter for the LGBT arrives and that gap shrinks.
Gay marriage IS very similar to interracial marriage, in that it was UNHEARD of 50 years ago. Interracial marriage was NEVER put to a "peoples veto" like the 31 states that have banned gay marriage. Interracial marriage was argued to the US supreme Court, and passed, just as gay marriage soon will. State legislators and its high courts ALL legalized gay marriage because it is unconstitutional not to. The Federal level will end all this "mob rules" B.S.
Very few states had anti-miscegenation laws 50 years ago. Interracial marriage was not illegal in most of the country and had never been so in many states.
The US Supreme Court has already dismissed as meritless a constitutional challenge exactly like the current cases.
When the very first same-sex couple courageously applied for a marriage liscense (I think in 1967), there was no law against it either. The point is, we are in a world where cultural evolution and constant change always happens. Loving, committed, same sex couples will eventually have the legal, fundamental right to marry. Despite all the close losses to popular vote, the tide is slowly changing. For example, prop 22 in 2000, won 61% to 39%. That was only 9 years ago!
nnjhansen, what would you think if the people in whatever jurisdiction approved of gay marriage? In Spain over 70% of the population approves of gay marriage, what do you think of that? The majority in Canada thinks the same, what are your thoughts on that?
nnjhansen, until the late sixties interracial couples could not legally marry. You keep defining marriage in terms of gender. It is in terms of adults that love each other, gender is irrelevant.
Sex is NOT irrelevant as it is fundamental to the animating purpose of the institution. As the NY Court of Appeals so succinctly put it in 2006,
"Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth, the Legislature's decision to focus on opposite-sex couples is understandable."
The ban on interracial marriage was neither uniform across the country nor fundamental to the purpose of marriage.
No, it simply means that the state can place conditions and restrictions on marriage that are reasonably related to the state's legitimate interest in the institution.
nnjhansen, if the Catholic Church was so high and mighty it would take the higher ground and continue to place children to loving couples. Even Bill Oreilly said it is better for the children to be placed in loving homosexual homes than to remain unadopted. Please state you true opinions. Stop stating the laws around the country or the Catholic Church as a cover. I am calling you on it.
if the ability to procreate with the partner is the only thing gay couples cannot do to receive a marriage license, then it seems an awful shame to deny them all those federal protections because of that, better to be safe then sorry, you said these protections can be settled without marriage, but we already know seperate but equal is not equal
Those goodies are in return for something. The state set requirements to obtain those goodies. You want the requirements but do not want to meet the requirements for them. In effect you believe you are entitled to them.
the REAL benefit to society is the parents raising those kids to become something, weither they be gay or straight, raising is more important then procreating, if they meet the requirement to raising a child, then they should be given the legal protections to protect that child and their family.
"Where are these kids?" now your just being ridiculous, go down to your local orphanage home and see the kids for yourself, all these kids need homes. i encourage you to visit "Depfox" channel here on youtube.
@nnjhansen American couples go overseas because the process in America is broken and more expensive than alternatives. They want to be a parent and love a child NOW, not 10 years later when they are less positioned to do so. The DCF is America is corrupt and broken. Children in the DCF in America are in a TERRIBLE situation.
Infertile couples = No procreation health problems known
straight couples = No procreation health problems known
Gay couples = No procreation health problems known
Incestuous couples = illegal because of health problems
-
if incest becomes legal for marriage, that means all incestuous couples are now legal, they can marry and have kids legally now, meaning the health issues that come from their procreation are dangerous.
Allow incest couples (not marriage) in it self will produce a large number of children will the negative effects of incest, like you said, same sex incest couples are more or less in the same boat for marriage, but theres a reason the couples are illegal and thats why their far from marriage. you can't suddenly let same sex incest couples marry and not let straight incest couples marry because again thats not equal
if incestuous marriage was allowed under the reasoning of same sex couples then that would mean ALL incestuous couples would have to be allowed marriage, meaning unhealthy procreation WOULD happen, which is the reason the incest couples are currently illegal, not the marriage
You have severed the link between procreation and marriage. You cannot decide to bring it back when it is convenient to you. You cannot claim that procreation is at issue for incestuous couples but not for same sex couples. What if one partner was sterile? Isn't that your argument when the requirement is made as to exclude same sex couples?
except, that if you allow ALL incestuous couples to marry, there *WILL* be negative effects, the reason why the couples are illegal to begin with. Procreation is not the issue with gays because it is not required to be married nor does it have negative effects by allowing them to marry (or procreate), incest on the other hand does.
lol you know you lost, thats why it took you so long to reply, a link between marriage and procreation, their is none, incest is illegal for a good reason - PROCREATION, the couples are illegal the marriage goes without saying
If you argue against one restriction on marriage because it does not apply to sterile, elderly, or same sex couples, the same exceptions have to apply to the other restrictions. Same sex, elderly, and sterile incestuous couples do not present the problem you have used to justify the ban on incest. You have lost this argument and badly.
Incest is illegally because of procreation, so i continue to stand by my point that their is no link between marriage and procreation, the procreation is illegal because the couples are.
incest cannot be allowed legal on the same reasoning as same sex couples because with incest, both hetero and homo couples come into play, allowing incest would allow the hetero couples to marry and procreate, coming back to the issue of health.
You are trying to equate illegal acts such as incest with a gay couple, its like saying "if we let straight marriage legal, then pedophiles might want to get married as well, alls we have to do is change the law for the age of sex"
I hate to break this to you but it was not too long ago that sodomy was illegal as well.
In fact the absurd argument used by the Court in Lawrence to overturn sodomy laws could very easily be used to overturn incest laws. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." and other such nonsense.
@nnjhansen so when you agree with the law , the law is just and true and valid and when you disagree with a law, it's "other such nonsense". We're all sorry you don't like the "new" marriage, but as you've said in so many other of your troll posts on the Internet, it's "majority rule", and this change is coming, whether you like it or not.
You have failed to show how the change you propose is an improvement.
Society's interest in marriage is "that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth," Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 32 (N.Y. 2006) Faith and Race play no role in this. The sex of the participants is fundamental.
When and where was interfaith marriage illegal in the US? When did the Church support anti-miscegenation laws?
nnjhansen, same-gender marriage improves our society in the following ways:
1) It encourages gay couples to engage in committed and sacred bonds with each other and open their doors to the possibility of families, making them equal and everyone else also equal.
2) It strengthens the bonds between gay couples by offering the same rights, benefits and protections as other married couples.
3) It protects children of gay parents the same as children of other parents.
As I mentioned previously, you are simply wrong historically. In 1820, the only racial pairing that was prohibited was white to black or American Indian.
Thatl restriction was lifted was because the purpose of that restriction was not related to the state's primary interest in marriage but to an illegitimate state interest and it was not equally applied.
The sexual restriction is fundamental to the state's legitimate interest. There is no comparison.
The Bible is not at issue here. The franchise and wedding vows are not at issue. The issue is civil marriage. The issue is the definition of marriage which at its most fundamental level for the history of this nation has been the union of one man and one woman. No other union is as consequential to society and recognition of any other union serves no societal purpose.
Actually a white person was not allowed to marry either a black person or an American Indian, any other racial combination was permitted. That law was repealed in 1883. Would it make you feel better if we went back to the 1883 definition, fine.
I'll even go all the way to the year 2000.
Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, the law as it stood until this year was equal by any definition.
You want a strongner nations you improve the morale of its citizens by treating them all equal. Yours is a symantic argument with deeper consequences.
Stop going in circles with that pathetic argument, you know perfectly well how their being treated unequally, (without mentioning the lack of federal benefits that come with civil unions) the ability to marry the PERSON they love, in a consensual loving relationship.
How does the reasoning of a straight marriage not also apply to incest?
Civil marriage is the means by which society attempts to regulate procreation. It sets conditions for marriage that encourage the environment society believes is ideal for creating and raising children. Incest and polygamy are undesirable for the health implications regarding the former and the environment created by the latter. Same sex couples are incapable of creating children, therefore the institution does not apply to them.
The state does not know they are infertile though does it?
The requirements do not include a fertility test. Those tests are expensive in both dollars and intrusiveness and present constitutional privacy concerns. There is no cost associated with determining that two people meet the basic minimum requirements for human reproduction, one man and one woman.
so whats the big deal, to let gays marry, if the purpose relating to the requirment doesn't have to be met, seems like a flawed contract, especially since families have been a little updated since the contract was created, if this is the only simple flaw that is preventing gay couples from getting all those federal benefits for their families, don't you think it seems a little stupid not to allow it?
as you said the whole point of marriage is encourage procreation and raising children for a societal benefit, wouldnt this encourage the gay community to help raise children for a societal benefit also, if the only limit on the contract is procreation seems abit silly, especially since their are loop holes for infertile couples
The big deal is that you have completely divorced the institution from the purpose.
Why have any requirements at all for any license?
Doing away with a reasonable requirement that is fundamental to the purpose of an institution that has benefited society for centuries because a small group of people wants goodies from the state is what I would call stupid.
"The big deal is that you have completely divorced the institution from the purpose."
but we havn't, you said yourself, its a part of the purpose, but its not THE purpose, the end purpose is to have raised children as the next generation for societies benefit, which gay people can do, procreation isnt the main purpose.
Gay couples are beneficial to the raising of children, if not the kids would have gone from foster home to foster home, pediatricians agree gay marriage is beneficial for kids.
Whether procreation is the main purpose or not (and many courts have acknowledged it is) it is still a purpose and one that same sex couples are, on their face, incapable of satisfying.
Every pediatrician thinks so? Are they the experts on a child's well being?
but that was my whole point, if procreation alone IS the main purpose then its flawed, because the main purpose is to raise those children for the rest of their lives, not just to simply create them.
Allowing gay marriages benefits everyone, it benefits the kids within the gay families, it encourages the gay community to settle down and reduce STD's being spread, in brings in revenue to the country for all the marriages conducted, it helps raise kids as the next generation
"The key question in our view is whether the recognition of same-sex marriage would promote all of the same state interests that opposite-sex marriage does, including the interest in marital procreation. If it would not, then limiting the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples is rational and acceptable.." Morrison v Sadler, 821 NE2d 15 [Ind 2005]"
The homosexual community should do all those things regardless of a marriage license.
the change that is being asked for is menial, because it does not effect the institution, it only helps others benefit from it, and get the legal protections for their familes
"because a small group of people wants goodies from the state"
no, its because they want the same legal protections on a federal law, encase things do go wrong. vistation hospital rights, next of kin, custody rights, adoption, all would be secure with marriage.
there have been many cases where same sex couples partners have been denied hospital visitation rights even with all the correct paper work, because a Civil Union was not recognized in another state, they were simply legal strangers, or cases when only the biological mother of a lesbian couple was allowed to see their child because of a civil union
but its not radically redefining anything, if we removed "procreation" as a purpose for marriage it would not effect anything in the slightest, because those married couples would still procreate or adopt on their own terms.
Of course it is. Throughout the history of this nation marriage has changed but throughout all those changes one thing has remained constant. It has always been the union of man and woman. Changing that is very radical.
but its not changing it, its adding to it, you said the only hang up is the ability to procreate, if we remove the requirement of procreation this does not effect anyone at all, and allows all the gay families to receive the federal legal protections
@nnjhansen There is nothing radical about change. It seems radical to you because you are out of touch with other people's views, and want to dominate with your own.
Marriage is recognized globally, its much easier to allow gay couples to marry so the all the same benefits that go to straight couples apply to everyone, on a federal level.
So we are back to you just want goodies from the state? The fact that you are incapable of giving the state what it expects in return is irrelevant to you?
its not "goodies" from the state, its legal protections for their family, how can you consider that a "goodie" even if it was just a "goodie" its a goodie that straight people get freely without having to ask for it, even with the couples that never plan on having kids, it means their "incapable of giving the state what it expects"
@nnjhansen But you said people getting married had to benefit the state, and they had to meet the requirements! Infertile heterosexual couples couldn't do that any more than a homosexual couple could. Hypocrisy all around! Fertility testing should be MANDATORY based on your assertions. Don't insult us with fallacy arguments about monetary costs. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Hmm i thought tradition was "time honored" or "something that is handed down" if its changed over time why can you hand pick a tradition you like and claim it as the only one that's legal?
yep, and the younger generation will change those laws , did you not see twitter yesterday, an entire younger generation hugely supporting the #VoteNoOn1 hash tag making it a trending topic all day, its only a matter of time :)
Of course you are assuming that voter attitudes remain static as they age. That is generally not the rule but if it makes you sleep better at night...
FWIW, if the people decide freely to redefine marriage that is their call. It would be nice if they articulated why they would do this and acknowledge the potential consequences of doing so but, alas there is no requirement for that.
Divorcing an institution from its purpose can result in any number of consequences. Remove the link between marriage and procreation and any reasonable justification for retaining the prohibition on polygamous and incestuous marriages become tenuous at best.
can's and if's slipper slope argument, the other things you mentioned have other laws prohibiting them, sorry but gay marriage doesnt open those doors, "Removing the link between marriage and procreation" does nothing, because the link between raising families and marriage is still their, how the child was created is irrelevant.
Since you asking for a projection into the future, possibilities are all that can be discussed.
Here is a test, take the arguments used to support redefining marriage to allow for same sex marriage and explain how they are not applicable to redefining marriage to allow for polygamy or incest.
When you can do that, you will at least be intellectually honest.
Incest is outlawed for the effects of their procreation,
Polygamy cannot be a marriage, a marriage is about equality, with a third party it cant be, e.g. when a partner is on their death bed using a machine to breath which of the two decides if their gonna pull the plug, Marriage was designed for two on legal terms and would require new laws, their are no male roles as are their no female roles, to say that today would be considered sexist, so why does it matter if the two are the same gender
You are arguing against incest and polygamy, not countering the arguments used to support same sex marriage but...
I thought marriage wasn't about procreation? The problems of incestuous procreation can be mitigated in the same manner the proponents of same sex marriage claim the impossibility of same sex procreation can be; artificial insemination, adoption. Those problems do not exist at all with same sex incestuous couples, do they?
You are proposing changing the law, is 1 the limit?
Slipperly slope again, because gay marriage already exists in many other countries/states, Nobody has yet to propose incestuous marriage or polygamy, they have done in the past before the gay marriage battle started, they were denied then and they will be denied now, allowing gay marriage does not suddenly open the doors for other types of marriages you would still have fight the laws that exist against it now, the same could be said for straight marriage, (continued)
pretty good actually, hypothetically speaking its only an old groans heart beat away from the republic base dying off, each year another generation of 18 year olds will be able to vote, while an older generation of republicans have gone, each year it has and will continue to become a closer vote, your losing :)
Again, you are assuming (against available evidence) that voting behavior does not change with age. If everyone maintained heir college age voting habits, no conservative would ever win an election.
voting on issues like healthcare will change because society changes, voting on issues about people they know (gay people) will never changed, people who believe in equality now will still believe in equality 50 years from now, Gay marriage will be legal in the future with the new generation of liberals.
This has been flagged as spam show
thousands of real profiles real Latino women **rockmycity.info**
annajuikjuikol 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Think about your marriage and get a trusted women **rockmycity.info**
ftgyhtdryfgyrtytr 1 year ago
lets make it simple:
kids needs homes
Gay marriage encourages adoption
Gay marriages would help protect those families
Gay couples raising those children are giving a societal benefit.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
There is no shortage of homes for children in this country. That is evidenced by the thousands of American couples that spend thousands of dollars every year to adopt children from overseas.
You are proposing a solution to a problem that does not exist.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
their are thousands are kids in every state that need a home you a despicable human being if you think they just dont exist
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Most of those children are in foster care temporarily or while awaiting adoption.
Given that homosexuals are only prohibited from adopting in only 5 or so states, clearly the problem you claim exists would not be solved by your proposal.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
i never said it would solve it, but it would obviously help the problem, you even said yourself marriage encourages couples to settle down and have kids, since gay people can not procreate with each other the likely hood is that they would adopt.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
No, actually it would not help at all. The evidence to date suggests it actually hurts. Remember those second and third order effects we spoke of previously?
In MA, one of those effects was to remove the organization with the greatest success in placing hard to place children in loving homes from that business. catholic Charities was forced to stop providing its services because the state insisted they place children with same sex couples. The children lost because your side won.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
theres over 100,000 children without homes throughout america, A Religious group denying gay couples adoption is 1 against the law and 2 counter productive to their cause, those children needed and wanted families the catholic charity was preventing that.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
No, the state was preventing the charity from doing its job in line with its religious beliefs. Catholic Charities was happy to continue to do as it had always done, your side denied them that opportunity and the children lost.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
no the law states you cannot discriminate on sexual orientation, this was a charity not a religious group meaning under the law they are not allowed to discriminate, the gay couples wanted to adopt those kids, the charity stopped them the children lost because the charity was bigoted.
also this is one case, if the charity did their job properly those children would of went to those gay couples and continued working
BenJEMean 2 years ago
nnjhansen, yeap the children lost due to the inflexibility of the evil catholic church. The church never apologized for the crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. They do not have any credibility.
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
The Church has apologized for the Inquisition and (wrongly IMHO) for the Crusades.
The children lost because the homosexual activists put their political agenda first and insisted the Church violate its religious beliefs.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen, I am an advocate for LGBT civil rights, and I don't wish for the Church to violate its religious beliefs. I'm sure that many others like me feel the same way.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
Since you have refused numerous times to state what 'civil right' you are being denied, where that right comes from and where it is enumerated, forgive me if I question you.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen, I think I have answered this numerous times, and I anticipate that you are going to fundamentally disagree with me on this question.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
I beg to differ, you have never answered my questions despite being asked numerous times.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
You are a pathetic bigot, you've been argued on every subject and come up with nothing, your a sad man filled with hate who spends so much time to deny somebody else of their happiness by commenting on youtube videos like these, you look for any reason to be against it, even when it clearly benefits the families and children involved. Gay marriage will be legal just like inter racial marriage became legal, deal with it.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
If your happiness is contingent on a piece of paper from the county clerk, it is you who is pathetic.
There is nothing similar between this and interracial marriage. Interracial couples can satisfy society's interest in marriage a same sex couple cannot.
Let me know when you win one, so far you are 0 for 31.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The Happiness is legal protections, peace of mind, being able to marry the person you love, and it will happen, the liberal generation has already proven their support for LGBT because they know gay people, and didnt vote on fear.
Interacial marriages took so long to acheive because of fear and ignorance, the same goes with gay marriage, history is on our side, its only a matter of time :) 1 by 1 they old republicans drop off and new voter for the LGBT arrives and that gap shrinks.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
You have failed in31 of 31 attempts but whatever allows you to sleep at night.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
yep and what was the percentage gap on the first compared to the 31st? :)....any day now =]
BenJEMean 2 years ago
nnjhansen, "you have failed in 31/31 attempts..." doesn't meant that it is right.
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
Actually, in our system of government it does make it right. The people are sovereign and they most directly express their will at the ballot box.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Gay marriage IS very similar to interracial marriage, in that it was UNHEARD of 50 years ago. Interracial marriage was NEVER put to a "peoples veto" like the 31 states that have banned gay marriage. Interracial marriage was argued to the US supreme Court, and passed, just as gay marriage soon will. State legislators and its high courts ALL legalized gay marriage because it is unconstitutional not to. The Federal level will end all this "mob rules" B.S.
beegbolt 2 years ago
Very few states had anti-miscegenation laws 50 years ago. Interracial marriage was not illegal in most of the country and had never been so in many states.
The US Supreme Court has already dismissed as meritless a constitutional challenge exactly like the current cases.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
When the very first same-sex couple courageously applied for a marriage liscense (I think in 1967), there was no law against it either. The point is, we are in a world where cultural evolution and constant change always happens. Loving, committed, same sex couples will eventually have the legal, fundamental right to marry. Despite all the close losses to popular vote, the tide is slowly changing. For example, prop 22 in 2000, won 61% to 39%. That was only 9 years ago!
beegbolt 2 years ago
If a loophole existed in the law it was only because the idea that marriage was anything other than a man and a woman had never occurred to anyone.
If the people decide that they wish to redefine marriage that is their call.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, what would you think if the people in whatever jurisdiction approved of gay marriage? In Spain over 70% of the population approves of gay marriage, what do you think of that? The majority in Canada thinks the same, what are your thoughts on that?
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
nnjhansen, until the late sixties interracial couples could not legally marry. You keep defining marriage in terms of gender. It is in terms of adults that love each other, gender is irrelevant.
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
Sex is NOT irrelevant as it is fundamental to the animating purpose of the institution. As the NY Court of Appeals so succinctly put it in 2006,
"Since marriage was instituted to address the fact that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth, the Legislature's decision to focus on opposite-sex couples is understandable."
The ban on interracial marriage was neither uniform across the country nor fundamental to the purpose of marriage.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
About the whole pregnancy and childbirth thing: does this mean infertile couples and the elderly should not be married?
prolefeedprocessor 2 years ago
No, it simply means that the state can place conditions and restrictions on marriage that are reasonably related to the state's legitimate interest in the institution.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, if the Catholic Church was so high and mighty it would take the higher ground and continue to place children to loving couples. Even Bill Oreilly said it is better for the children to be placed in loving homosexual homes than to remain unadopted. Please state you true opinions. Stop stating the laws around the country or the Catholic Church as a cover. I am calling you on it.
jimbobubbadj 2 years ago
@nnjhansen I'm glad. I don't think the Catholic church should have anything to do with the welfare of children.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
if the ability to procreate with the partner is the only thing gay couples cannot do to receive a marriage license, then it seems an awful shame to deny them all those federal protections because of that, better to be safe then sorry, you said these protections can be settled without marriage, but we already know seperate but equal is not equal
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Those goodies are in return for something. The state set requirements to obtain those goodies. You want the requirements but do not want to meet the requirements for them. In effect you believe you are entitled to them.
Pathetic.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
im sorry but how exactly does procreation benefit society when their are already to many kids without homes right now?
BenJEMean 2 years ago
the REAL benefit to society is the parents raising those kids to become something, weither they be gay or straight, raising is more important then procreating, if they meet the requirement to raising a child, then they should be given the legal protections to protect that child and their family.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Comment removed
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Raising is impossible without creating. The state has an interest in both.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Where are these kids? Why is it that so many American couples travel overseas to adopt?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"Where are these kids?" now your just being ridiculous, go down to your local orphanage home and see the kids for yourself, all these kids need homes. i encourage you to visit "Depfox" channel here on youtube.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Local orphanage? Are you serious?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen American couples go overseas because the process in America is broken and more expensive than alternatives. They want to be a parent and love a child NOW, not 10 years later when they are less positioned to do so. The DCF is America is corrupt and broken. Children in the DCF in America are in a TERRIBLE situation.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
so tell me, how would you deny incestuous marriages? because they check all the boxes so far for straight marriage.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Infertile couples = No procreation health problems known
straight couples = No procreation health problems known
Gay couples = No procreation health problems known
Incestuous couples = illegal because of health problems
-
if incest becomes legal for marriage, that means all incestuous couples are now legal, they can marry and have kids legally now, meaning the health issues that come from their procreation are dangerous.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Allow incest couples (not marriage) in it self will produce a large number of children will the negative effects of incest, like you said, same sex incest couples are more or less in the same boat for marriage, but theres a reason the couples are illegal and thats why their far from marriage. you can't suddenly let same sex incest couples marry and not let straight incest couples marry because again thats not equal
BenJEMean 2 years ago
if incestuous marriage was allowed under the reasoning of same sex couples then that would mean ALL incestuous couples would have to be allowed marriage, meaning unhealthy procreation WOULD happen, which is the reason the incest couples are currently illegal, not the marriage
BenJEMean 2 years ago
You have severed the link between procreation and marriage. You cannot decide to bring it back when it is convenient to you. You cannot claim that procreation is at issue for incestuous couples but not for same sex couples. What if one partner was sterile? Isn't that your argument when the requirement is made as to exclude same sex couples?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
except, that if you allow ALL incestuous couples to marry, there *WILL* be negative effects, the reason why the couples are illegal to begin with. Procreation is not the issue with gays because it is not required to be married nor does it have negative effects by allowing them to marry (or procreate), incest on the other hand does.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
So you now acknowledge a link between marriage and procreation? Case closed. Have a good day,
nnjhansen 2 years ago
lol you know you lost, thats why it took you so long to reply, a link between marriage and procreation, their is none, incest is illegal for a good reason - PROCREATION, the couples are illegal the marriage goes without saying
BenJEMean 2 years ago
If you argue against one restriction on marriage because it does not apply to sterile, elderly, or same sex couples, the same exceptions have to apply to the other restrictions. Same sex, elderly, and sterile incestuous couples do not present the problem you have used to justify the ban on incest. You have lost this argument and badly.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Nope :)
Incest is illegally because of the procreation regardless of marriage.
if the couple is illegally to begin with because of societal health reasons.
then how can the same reasoning be uses against another couple (gays) who do not have the procreation health issues.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
What you are saying is that the state can set requirements only to avoid harm but not to promote the positive.
That is utter nonsense.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
No im saying certain things are illegal for good reasons, trying to make them legal based off the reasoning on another group is not gonna work.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Let me know when you have untied yourself from your logical knot.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Incest is illegally because of procreation, so i continue to stand by my point that their is no link between marriage and procreation, the procreation is illegal because the couples are.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
incest cannot be allowed legal on the same reasoning as same sex couples because with incest, both hetero and homo couples come into play, allowing incest would allow the hetero couples to marry and procreate, coming back to the issue of health.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
You are trying to equate illegal acts such as incest with a gay couple, its like saying "if we let straight marriage legal, then pedophiles might want to get married as well, alls we have to do is change the law for the age of sex"
BenJEMean 2 years ago
I hate to break this to you but it was not too long ago that sodomy was illegal as well.
In fact the absurd argument used by the Court in Lawrence to overturn sodomy laws could very easily be used to overturn incest laws. "At the heart of liberty is the right to define ones own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." and other such nonsense.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen so when you agree with the law , the law is just and true and valid and when you disagree with a law, it's "other such nonsense". We're all sorry you don't like the "new" marriage, but as you've said in so many other of your troll posts on the Internet, it's "majority rule", and this change is coming, whether you like it or not.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
"Lets not have straight marriage, the gays might want it"
BenJEMean 2 years ago
You have failed to show how the change you propose is an improvement.
Society's interest in marriage is "that sexual contact between a man and a woman naturally can result in pregnancy and childbirth," Hernandez v. Robles, 855 N.E.2d 1, 32 (N.Y. 2006) Faith and Race play no role in this. The sex of the participants is fundamental.
When and where was interfaith marriage illegal in the US? When did the Church support anti-miscegenation laws?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
nnjhansen, same-gender marriage improves our society in the following ways:
1) It encourages gay couples to engage in committed and sacred bonds with each other and open their doors to the possibility of families, making them equal and everyone else also equal.
2) It strengthens the bonds between gay couples by offering the same rights, benefits and protections as other married couples.
3) It protects children of gay parents the same as children of other parents.
SeanChapin1 2 years ago
1) How does society benefit from a committed same sex couple? I understand the participants may benefit but not society as a whole.
2) How does society benefit from strengthened bonds between two people of the same sex?
3) What protections to children are you referring to?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Protection of for the children of gay families, the societal benefit is the same as Straight married couples, the children they raise.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
you are my hero! I have a gay cousin and step aunt. and my step dad is so low that he is voteing yes. AGAINST HIS SISTER...no heart
guitarkis49 2 years ago
As I mentioned previously, you are simply wrong historically. In 1820, the only racial pairing that was prohibited was white to black or American Indian.
Thatl restriction was lifted was because the purpose of that restriction was not related to the state's primary interest in marriage but to an illegitimate state interest and it was not equally applied.
The sexual restriction is fundamental to the state's legitimate interest. There is no comparison.
So you are OK with incest? Why only two?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The Bible is not at issue here. The franchise and wedding vows are not at issue. The issue is civil marriage. The issue is the definition of marriage which at its most fundamental level for the history of this nation has been the union of one man and one woman. No other union is as consequential to society and recognition of any other union serves no societal purpose.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Actually a white person was not allowed to marry either a black person or an American Indian, any other racial combination was permitted. That law was repealed in 1883. Would it make you feel better if we went back to the 1883 definition, fine.
I'll even go all the way to the year 2000.
Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, the law as it stood until this year was equal by any definition.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
You want a strongner nations you improve the morale of its citizens by treating them all equal. Yours is a symantic argument with deeper consequences.
korisx 2 years ago
All citizens are treated equally. There, morale improved.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
All citizens are not treated equally. The majority is not the whole.
korisx 2 years ago
In what ways are some being treated unequally?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Stop going in circles with that pathetic argument, you know perfectly well how their being treated unequally, (without mentioning the lack of federal benefits that come with civil unions) the ability to marry the PERSON they love, in a consensual loving relationship.
How does the reasoning of a straight marriage not also apply to incest?
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Everyone is being treated equally.
Civil unions are irrelevant.
Civil marriage is the means by which society attempts to regulate procreation. It sets conditions for marriage that encourage the environment society believes is ideal for creating and raising children. Incest and polygamy are undesirable for the health implications regarding the former and the environment created by the latter. Same sex couples are incapable of creating children, therefore the institution does not apply to them.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"infertile couples are incapable of creating children, therefore the institution does not apply to them"
BenJEMean 2 years ago
The state does not know they are infertile though does it?
The requirements do not include a fertility test. Those tests are expensive in both dollars and intrusiveness and present constitutional privacy concerns. There is no cost associated with determining that two people meet the basic minimum requirements for human reproduction, one man and one woman.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
but what if that couple already know they are infertile?
do we give them a marriage license?
BenJEMean 2 years ago
There is no requirement to disclose that information. So the state still does not know.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
but what if they tell them,
do we give them a marriage license?
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Of course, they meet the requirements.
Do we give a drivers license to someone who says he will not drive?
The requirements are not a guarantee that the purpose will be satisfied. There is no reason they have to be.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"There is no reason they have to be"
so whats the big deal, to let gays marry, if the purpose relating to the requirment doesn't have to be met, seems like a flawed contract, especially since families have been a little updated since the contract was created, if this is the only simple flaw that is preventing gay couples from getting all those federal benefits for their families, don't you think it seems a little stupid not to allow it?
BenJEMean 2 years ago
as you said the whole point of marriage is encourage procreation and raising children for a societal benefit, wouldnt this encourage the gay community to help raise children for a societal benefit also, if the only limit on the contract is procreation seems abit silly, especially since their are loop holes for infertile couples
BenJEMean 2 years ago
You are assuming society believes that would be beneficial to the raising of children.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The big deal is that you have completely divorced the institution from the purpose.
Why have any requirements at all for any license?
Doing away with a reasonable requirement that is fundamental to the purpose of an institution that has benefited society for centuries because a small group of people wants goodies from the state is what I would call stupid.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
"The big deal is that you have completely divorced the institution from the purpose."
but we havn't, you said yourself, its a part of the purpose, but its not THE purpose, the end purpose is to have raised children as the next generation for societies benefit, which gay people can do, procreation isnt the main purpose.
Gay couples are beneficial to the raising of children, if not the kids would have gone from foster home to foster home, pediatricians agree gay marriage is beneficial for kids.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Whether procreation is the main purpose or not (and many courts have acknowledged it is) it is still a purpose and one that same sex couples are, on their face, incapable of satisfying.
Every pediatrician thinks so? Are they the experts on a child's well being?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
but that was my whole point, if procreation alone IS the main purpose then its flawed, because the main purpose is to raise those children for the rest of their lives, not just to simply create them.
Allowing gay marriages benefits everyone, it benefits the kids within the gay families, it encourages the gay community to settle down and reduce STD's being spread, in brings in revenue to the country for all the marriages conducted, it helps raise kids as the next generation
BenJEMean 2 years ago
The Indiana Court of Appeals put it this way,
"The key question in our view is whether the recognition of same-sex marriage would promote all of the same state interests that opposite-sex marriage does, including the interest in marital procreation. If it would not, then limiting the institution of marriage to opposite-sex couples is rational and acceptable.." Morrison v Sadler, 821 NE2d 15 [Ind 2005]"
The homosexual community should do all those things regardless of a marriage license.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
the change that is being asked for is menial, because it does not effect the institution, it only helps others benefit from it, and get the legal protections for their familes
"because a small group of people wants goodies from the state"
no, its because they want the same legal protections on a federal law, encase things do go wrong. vistation hospital rights, next of kin, custody rights, adoption, all would be secure with marriage.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
They can have the same benefits. All they have to do is meet the same requirements.
Your examples are nonsense. Hospital visitation is a hospital policy. Would a Catholic hospital have to recognize a same sex marriage?
Next of kin, custody, etc... can all be handled without marriage.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
there have been many cases where same sex couples partners have been denied hospital visitation rights even with all the correct paper work, because a Civil Union was not recognized in another state, they were simply legal strangers, or cases when only the biological mother of a lesbian couple was allowed to see their child because of a civil union
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Then you should focus on changing that hospital's policy and not trying to radically redefine one of societies most basic institutions.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
but its not radically redefining anything, if we removed "procreation" as a purpose for marriage it would not effect anything in the slightest, because those married couples would still procreate or adopt on their own terms.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Of course it is. Throughout the history of this nation marriage has changed but throughout all those changes one thing has remained constant. It has always been the union of man and woman. Changing that is very radical.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
but its not changing it, its adding to it, you said the only hang up is the ability to procreate, if we remove the requirement of procreation this does not effect anyone at all, and allows all the gay families to receive the federal legal protections
BenJEMean 2 years ago
@nnjhansen There is nothing radical about change. It seems radical to you because you are out of touch with other people's views, and want to dominate with your own.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
@nnjhansen there's nothing radical about adapting to change in our society. Only the fearful bandy about the word "radical".
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
Marriage is recognized globally, its much easier to allow gay couples to marry so the all the same benefits that go to straight couples apply to everyone, on a federal level.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
So we are back to you just want goodies from the state? The fact that you are incapable of giving the state what it expects in return is irrelevant to you?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
its not "goodies" from the state, its legal protections for their family, how can you consider that a "goodie" even if it was just a "goodie" its a goodie that straight people get freely without having to ask for it, even with the couples that never plan on having kids, it means their "incapable of giving the state what it expects"
BenJEMean 2 years ago
@nnjhansen But you said people getting married had to benefit the state, and they had to meet the requirements! Infertile heterosexual couples couldn't do that any more than a homosexual couple could. Hypocrisy all around! Fertility testing should be MANDATORY based on your assertions. Don't insult us with fallacy arguments about monetary costs. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
In your country, gay relationships are seen as second class citizenships.
korisx 2 years ago
Relationships are not seen as citizenships at all.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
They are when you put their rights up to vote apparently.
Can you name a situation where citizens rights that weren't gay were ever put up to vote??
korisx 2 years ago
@nnjhansen Your belief that all citizens are treated equally is pretty naive.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
How about "traditional" in the sense of how it has been defined under the law of Maine since the state was admitted to the Union?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Hmm i thought tradition was "time honored" or "something that is handed down" if its changed over time why can you hand pick a tradition you like and claim it as the only one that's legal?
BenJEMean 2 years ago
It is legal because the people want it to be legal. That is how things work in this country. The people are sovereign and get to make the laws.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
yep, and the younger generation will change those laws , did you not see twitter yesterday, an entire younger generation hugely supporting the #VoteNoOn1 hash tag making it a trending topic all day, its only a matter of time :)
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Of course you are assuming that voter attitudes remain static as they age. That is generally not the rule but if it makes you sleep better at night...
FWIW, if the people decide freely to redefine marriage that is their call. It would be nice if they articulated why they would do this and acknowledge the potential consequences of doing so but, alas there is no requirement for that.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
please name 1 consequence
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Divorcing an institution from its purpose can result in any number of consequences. Remove the link between marriage and procreation and any reasonable justification for retaining the prohibition on polygamous and incestuous marriages become tenuous at best.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
can's and if's slipper slope argument, the other things you mentioned have other laws prohibiting them, sorry but gay marriage doesnt open those doors, "Removing the link between marriage and procreation" does nothing, because the link between raising families and marriage is still their, how the child was created is irrelevant.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Since you asking for a projection into the future, possibilities are all that can be discussed.
Here is a test, take the arguments used to support redefining marriage to allow for same sex marriage and explain how they are not applicable to redefining marriage to allow for polygamy or incest.
When you can do that, you will at least be intellectually honest.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Incest is outlawed for the effects of their procreation,
Polygamy cannot be a marriage, a marriage is about equality, with a third party it cant be, e.g. when a partner is on their death bed using a machine to breath which of the two decides if their gonna pull the plug, Marriage was designed for two on legal terms and would require new laws, their are no male roles as are their no female roles, to say that today would be considered sexist, so why does it matter if the two are the same gender
BenJEMean 2 years ago
You are arguing against incest and polygamy, not countering the arguments used to support same sex marriage but...
I thought marriage wasn't about procreation? The problems of incestuous procreation can be mitigated in the same manner the proponents of same sex marriage claim the impossibility of same sex procreation can be; artificial insemination, adoption. Those problems do not exist at all with same sex incestuous couples, do they?
You are proposing changing the law, is 1 the limit?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Slipperly slope again, because gay marriage already exists in many other countries/states, Nobody has yet to propose incestuous marriage or polygamy, they have done in the past before the gay marriage battle started, they were denied then and they will be denied now, allowing gay marriage does not suddenly open the doors for other types of marriages you would still have fight the laws that exist against it now, the same could be said for straight marriage, (continued)
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Actually there are multiple suits in Canada arguing for both polygamy and incestuous marriage on the same basis as same sex marriage was granted.
You have still failed to state how your arguments do not apply to those two situations.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
the same reasoning that you asking me to state can be applied to straight couples, its a straw man
BenJEMean 2 years ago
No they cannot because the fundamental linkage between marriage and procreation remains intact.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
you can NOT name 1 single consequence that *will* happen when gay marriage is passed, thats why your side will fail
BenJEMean 2 years ago
My side is 31-0. How is your side doing?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
pretty good actually, hypothetically speaking its only an old groans heart beat away from the republic base dying off, each year another generation of 18 year olds will be able to vote, while an older generation of republicans have gone, each year it has and will continue to become a closer vote, your losing :)
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Did you check the votes by prescient? all of the colleges that voted came out to 70-80% in favor :D
BenJEMean 2 years ago
Again, you are assuming (against available evidence) that voting behavior does not change with age. If everyone maintained heir college age voting habits, no conservative would ever win an election.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
voting on issues like healthcare will change because society changes, voting on issues about people they know (gay people) will never changed, people who believe in equality now will still believe in equality 50 years from now, Gay marriage will be legal in the future with the new generation of liberals.
BenJEMean 2 years ago
It lost by 6%, not 60%. That isn't a landslide victory.
korisx 2 years ago
In case people can't tell the above was sarcasm.
orangegoblin82 2 years ago
I have always liked the definition of the word "family" that consists of "man and women married to each other and their relatives"
Everyone else is just hanging out apparently.
orangegoblin82 2 years ago