Judges chide Indiana & Wisconsin state lawyers over gay marriage bans

[Atomic Playboy]

How does arguing that same sex marriage will increase out-of-wedlock births make any sense? Do you think a new cottage industry of "babies for sale" will arise to give gay couples children or something and therefore, increase the out-of-wedlock birth rate?

Gay marriage could be permanently banned in every state tomorrow and out-of-wedlock births would still increase and likely at the same rate. The legalization of gay marriage will have no impact on the OOW birth rate.

The bigger problem is not out of wedlock conception or out of wedlock births, it's children being raised by single parents. Increasing the percentage of society who is legally allowed to marry couldn't possibly result in an increase of children being raised by single mothers/fathers. It's so illogical that it makes no sense to argue against it. You might as well suggest lowering the drinking age to 8 to combat alcoholism. It's completely absurd.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Because allowing same-sex marriage says LOUDLY that marriage has nothing to do with having children.

How does saying that marriage has nothing to do with having children encourage more children to be raised in wedlock?

Gay people raise children.

 

[nehalem256]

Gay people raise children.

Only a man and a woman can create a child.

The bigger problem is not out of wedlock conception or out of wedlock births, it's children being raised by single parents. Increasing the percentage of society who is legally allowed to marry couldn't possibly result in an increase of children being raised by single mothers/fathers. It's so illogical that it makes no sense to argue against it.

Sure it could. Unless you are saying that significant alterations to the definition of marriage will not impact peoples views on marriage.

You might as well suggest lowering the drinking age to 8 to combat alcoholism. It's completely absurd.

Perhaps if you allow parents to introduce alcohol to children at a young age in a controlled manner the children will grow up to view alcohol differently than if their first experiences are binge drinking with their peers.

Seems like a perfectly rational argument.

 

[Anubis]

Because allowing same-sex marriage says LOUDLY that marriage has nothing to do with having children.

umm marriage does have NOTHING to do with having children

thousands of people get married who do not and will not ever have children

 

[nehalem256]

umm marriage does have NOTHING to do with having children

thousands of people get married who do not and will not ever have children

So why do we prohibit incestuous marriage?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Only a man and a woman can create a child.

Only a sperm and egg can create a child; with the advent of sperm and egg donors and surrogates a man and woman never even have to meet each other for their DNA to combine and grow into a living human being. Only a colossal idiot would suggest that the biological parentage of a child is more important than the people who end up raising the child. And since we know for a fact that gay people raise children, does their inability to marry negatively impact the child they are raising?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

So how exactly are you disagreeing with me?

Where we disagree is that gay marriage is a foregone conclusion and will be legalized. You don't seem to accept that.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The bigger problem is not out of wedlock conception or out of wedlock births, it's children being raised by single parents. Increasing the percentage of society who is legally allowed to marry couldn't possibly result in an increase of children being raised by single mothers/fathers. It's so illogical that it makes no sense to argue against it. You might as well suggest lowering the drinking age to 8 to combat alcoholism. It's completely absurd.

Agreed.

 

[nehalem256]

Only a sperm and egg can create a child; with the advent of sperm and egg donors and surrogates a man and woman never even have to meet each other for their DNA to combine and grow into a living human being.

Sounds like an argument for regulating those things now doesn't it.

Only a colossal idiot would suggest that the biological parentage of a child is more important than the people who end up raising the child.

Wrong. That is actually a deeply contentious debate. Nature vs. Nurture.

And since we know for a fact that gay people raise children, does their inability to marry negatively impact the child they are raising?

I don't think even gay people have been that argument.

Marriage is about society in general. Not individual couples.

 

[nehalem256]

Where we disagree is that gay marriage is a foregone conclusion and will be legalized. You don't seem to accept that.

That has to be one of the worst arguments for gay marriage ever.

"Gay marriage is inevitable therefore gay marriage!"

 

[IndyColtsFan]

That has to be one of the worst arguments for gay marriage ever.

"Gay marriage is inevitable therefore gay marriage!"

Are you really this dense? Who is arguing for or against gay marriage? Not me.

Whether you like it or not, there is no argument -- gay marriage will happen and that's a fact regardless if you like it or not. Indiana and Wisconsin will just be the latest to lose their battles. Quit making preposterous arguments.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Marriage is about society in general. Not individual couples.

I'm sorry, but what? You're always going on about how shameful it is that children are born to single mothers and we need more marriage to fix that... Are you now suggesting that the benefit in marriage is not to the children those relationships produce, but society as a whole? And if so, how? "Only 20% of our population is married. We really need to shore up these numbers or we'll be the laughing stock of the Western Hemisphere!" If marriage isn't about the children, stop bringing them up in your arguments against gay marriage. If marriage is about the children, why is it only about the children raised by straight couples and not those raised by gay couples?

 

[SlowSpyder]

That has to be one of the worst arguments for gay marriage ever.

"Gay marriage is inevitable therefore gay marriage!"

I have yet to hear one argument that I feel makes any kind of real point against gay marriage. What is it that you feel can't be overlooked that makes it ok to not grant equal rights to people who are different than you... what is your main argument against it?

 

[nehalem256]

I'm sorry, but what? You're always going on about how shameful it is that children are born to single mothers and we need more marriage to fix that... Are you now suggesting that the benefit in marriage is not to the children those relationships produce, but society as a whole? And if so, how? "Only 20% of our population is married. We really need to shore up these numbers or we'll be the laughing stock of the Western Hemisphere!" If marriage isn't about the children, stop bringing them up in your arguments against gay marriage. If marriage is about the children, why is it only about the children raised by straight couples and not those raised by gay couples?

Marriage is to prevent a couple from having children out of wedlock.

A gay couple cannot have a child out of wedlock. Biology already takes care of it.

I have yet to hear one argument that I feel makes any kind of real point against gay marriage. What is it that you feel can't be overlooked that makes it ok to not grant equal rights to people who are different than you... what is your main argument against it?

Gay people currently do have equal rights. The right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

Just because they are not interested in making use of the same right I have does not mean they get a new one.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Just because they are not interested in making use of the same right I have does not mean they get a new one.

Hey, look at the bright side -- you're getting a new right too. Nothing is stopping you from marrying a member of the same sex now.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Gay people currently do have equal rights. The right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

Just because they are not interested in making use of the same right I have does not mean they get a new one.

But what is the argument against gays marrying each other?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Marriage is to prevent a couple from having children out of wedlock.

A gay couple cannot have a child out of wedlock. Biology already takes care of it.

Marriage is not just about having a child out of wedlock; that's an absurd reduction of the function of marriage to what you wish it would be (since using the actual function of marriage as it exists in society completely undermines every other point you attempt to make). But let's pull that thread anyway; what is the benefit to having a child in wedlock as opposed to out of wedlock in our current society? Do you only get to claim the child as a dependent if you're married? Is paternity/maternity only determined through marriage? Could you get out of child support by never marrying? Does the child have limited rights if it's legally a bastard? What benefit currently exists for children born to married parents that does not exist for children born to unmarried parents?

 

[nehalem256]

Hey, look at the bright side -- you're getting a new right too. Nothing is stopping you from marrying a member of the same sex now.

If its about a new right then it basically throws out the entire argument for same-sex marriage.

But what is the argument against gays marrying each other?

Because it serves no societal purpose.

 

[nehalem256]

Marriage is not just about having a child out of wedlock; that's an absurd reduction of the function of marriage to what you wish it would be (since using the actual function of marriage as it exists in society completely undermines every other point you attempt to make).

No that is basically why marriage exists. Marriage exists so that society can control procreation.

But let's pull that thread anyway; what is the benefit to having a child in wedlock as opposed to out of wedlock in our current society? Do you only get to claim the child as a dependent if you're married? Is paternity/maternity only determined through marriage? Could you get out of child support by never marrying? Does the child have limited rights if it's legally a bastard? What benefit currently exists for children born to married parents that does not exist for children born to unmarried parents?

So your argument is there isn't any purpose for marriage. Sounds like an argument against same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

No that is basically why marriage exists. Marriage exists so that society can control procreation.

So your argument is there isn't any purpose for marriage. Sounds like an argument against same-sex and opposite-sex marriage.

And it's proven an entirely ineffective method of controlling procreation, as you've mentioned yourself. So if marriage can't control reproduction, does it have any other useful parts that are beneficial to society? It helps determine next-of-kin information, and the promotion of stable relationships, even without children, helps maintain social stability. I'd argue that's a net gain for society and a reason to promote marriage beyond simply reproduction or the raising of children. Add in the fact that married couples frequently raise children (something gay couples can do as well), and I'd say the benefits of marriage far outstrip scrapping the institution entirely. But one thing's clear; we're heading to the point of either legalizing gay marriage or removing all marriage, and I can tell you which way most people are leaning. The days of "heterosexual only" marriage are ending.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If its about a new right then it basically throws out the entire argument for same-sex marriage.

You're the one arguing that gay people are getting a new right, as if it is just restricted to them.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Because it serves no societal purpose.

What was the societal gain from my mom marrying her husband (her second marriage, his third) later in life? No children between the two of them, she was well in her 50's, he is a few years older than her. Why can they marry, with essentially zero net benefit to society from their partnership, but two men in love cannot?

Also, when did 'societal benefit' become the measuring stick for civil rights? I have a right to wear tighty whities or boxer briefs, or even go commando. I have that right, what is the benefit to society?

If you say you are for a small non-infringing government, liberty, freedom, etc., and you are against gay marriage, you are either a hypocrite or very simple minded.

 

[nehalem256]

You're the one arguing that gay people are getting a new right, as if it is just restricted to them.

I didn't say it was restricted to them.

What was the societal gain from my mom marrying her husband (her second marriage, his third) later in life? No children between the two of them, she was well in her 50's, he is a few years older than her. Why can they marry, with essentially zero net benefit to society from their partnership, but two men in love cannot?

Their being able to marry is an accident.

Also, when did 'societal benefit' become the measuring stick for civil rights? I have a right to wear tighty whities or boxer briefs, or even go commando. I have that right, what is the benefit to society?

Does society provide you with special government benefits depending on your choice of underwear?

If you say you are for a small non-infringing government, liberty, freedom, etc., and you are against gay marriage, you are either a hypocrite or very simple minded.

Wrong. If you are truly for a small non-infringing government you would be opposite to all state recognized marriage including gay marriage.

Creating laws to get the government involved in people's relationships is pretty much the polar opposite of small government.

 

[nehalem256]

And it's proven an entirely ineffective method of controlling procreation, as you've mentioned yourself. So if marriage can't control reproduction, does it have any other useful parts that are beneficial to society?

It actually proved highly effective for 100s or 1000s of years.

It helps determine next-of-kin information, and the promotion of stable relationships, even without children, helps maintain social stability.

Well if you are going to go on modern relationships then marriage does a pretty shitty job of promoting stable relationships.

And in fact the whole promotion of same-sex marriage depends largely on turning the idea of marriage into purely a way to grab government benefits.

Add in the fact that married couples frequently raise children (something gay couples can do as well), and I'd say the benefits of marriage far outstrip scrapping the institution entirely. But one thing's clear; we're heading to the point of either legalizing gay marriage or removing all marriage, and I can tell you which way most people are leaning. The days of "heterosexual only" marriage are ending.

I would say we are heading toward turning marriage into nothing more than a meaningless institution to grab government benefits. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/two-a-men-feature-gay-719668

 

[dawheat]

Does society provide you with special government benefits depending on your choice of underwear?

What benefits do I get for being married? I'd pay way less taxes if both my wife and I would be able to file separately at single rates.

I never quite understood why the act of procreation is linked by so many to marriage. The primary societal benefit is not the act of procreation but the raising of the child. As many have stated, there are numerous methods to have a child without directly procreating, hetero or not.

Frankly with the divorce rate what it is, I have trouble giving much credence to sanctity of marriage arguments.