my solution to the gay marriage argument

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok I cant be quiet any longer.

Re: State interest: The legitimate state interest here is the continuance of a stable population base in the United States. As such, the union of a heterosexual union is the most likely way this is going to happen. No its not the only way so please dont throw that strawman out there.

Re: Marriage

The state isnt creating marriage. You can get married in a church that will do and you can call yourself married all you want, you can tell everyone that your same sex partner is your husband. What the state is doing is a recognizing a particular form of marriage that it believes is most beneficial to state interests. As such, it provides a variety of benefits to that institution. There are people going ZOMG its discrimination, but the government already discriminates in a number of ways, one of which springs to mind is certain programs that benefit minority business owners.

Also, the family is the basic social unit of our society and the government has interest in promoting the form of that we have discovered to be the most effective over thousands of years.

Re: Subsidizing marriage:

Its funny how there are so many posters who are quick to point out the economic effects of subsidies when the discussion is about other things, but as soon as we start takling about marriage, its suddenly as if the causal link doesnt exist anymore. Dont be willfully blind in this regard. Sure many people will still have children.

Anyhow, not sure if I will respond to any replies as I've dicussed this ad nauseum on this forum before and I'm not too keen on rehashing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you respond to this: The state has a legitimate state interest in a stable population. The best way to do that is through single-race unions. Bi-racial couples and their children have a difficult time in society (leading to instability) so the state has an interest in decreasing the likelihood of biracial children by only allowing same race marriages.

Would you support same race marriage laws? Why/Why Not?

[/ QUOTE ]


No I wouldnt because there is very little data (other than anecdotal) to support the assertion that bi-racial children have a hard time in society. And race has 0 effect on the simple ability to have a children. OTOH, we have tons of data that document that positive effect of having a heterosexual family structure.

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What an utterly arbitrary assessment of legitimate state interest.

I want the state to insure the success of the next generation, a task uniquely suited to hetrosexuals. I can think of few interests greater. Your argument is ever so much easier if you ignore this crucial difference (or alibi it) and it's clear many on your side insist on that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its rather arbitrary of you to assume only heterosexuals can insure the success of the next generation.

Second- does everyone agree the role of the state is to promote procreation? It happens pretty well without government intervention.

Can we just skip around all your little games and just call a spade a spade. You're biased against gays and don't want to mind your own business. You actively want to deny them benefits because of your bigotry. Then we can move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

The modern liberal substitute for intellectual argument, labeling. Just trot out bigot or homophobe or .... and you win! No need to think or engage.

I cede to your superior technique.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And as for my personal values. Well, I hate to point it out, but my personal values coincide with those values that our nation was founded upon. As time went along, we forgot what those values were.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't want the govt to leave people alone as you claimed, but want your values enforced by the govt. Got it.

And nice tangent on the spending issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, you're just way off base.

I believe our government should make laws based on the beliefs on which it was founded.

I do NOT believe it should be handing out MONEY based on those beliefs.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And as for my personal values. Well, I hate to point it out, but my personal values coincide with those values that our nation was founded upon. As time went along, we forgot what those values were.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you don't want the govt to leave people alone as you claimed, but want your values enforced by the govt. Got it.

And nice tangent on the spending issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, you're just way off base.

I believe our government should make laws based on the beliefs on which it was founded.

I do NOT believe it should be handing out MONEY based on those beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is doing just that by giving special tax credits to some but not others. Which is what this entire thread has been about. Are you even reading anything here?

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]

Its rather arbitrary of you to assume only heterosexuals can insure the success of the next generation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lol'd -- A+++++++++++++++ excellent poster, would read again.

Apparently, this guy has perfected asexual reproduction.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok I cant be quiet any longer.

Re: State interest: The legitimate state interest here is the continuance of a stable population base in the United States. As such, the union of a heterosexual union is the most likely way this is going to happen. No its not the only way so please dont throw that strawman out there.

Re: Marriage

The state isnt creating marriage. You can get married in a church that will do and you can call yourself married all you want, you can tell everyone that your same sex partner is your husband. What the state is doing is a recognizing a particular form of marriage that it believes is most beneficial to state interests. As such, it provides a variety of benefits to that institution. There are people going ZOMG its discrimination, but the government already discriminates in a number of ways, one of which springs to mind is certain programs that benefit minority business owners.

Also, the family is the basic social unit of our society and the government has interest in promoting the form of that we have discovered to be the most effective over thousands of years.

Re: Subsidizing marriage:

Its funny how there are so many posters who are quick to point out the economic effects of subsidies when the discussion is about other things, but as soon as we start takling about marriage, its suddenly as if the causal link doesnt exist anymore. Dont be willfully blind in this regard. Sure many people will still have children.

Anyhow, not sure if I will respond to any replies as I've dicussed this ad nauseum on this forum before and I'm not too keen on rehashing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would you respond to this: The state has a legitimate state interest in a stable population. The best way to do that is through single-race unions. Bi-racial couples and their children have a difficult time in society (leading to instability) so the state has an interest in decreasing the likelihood of biracial children by only allowing same race marriages.

Would you support same race marriage laws? Why/Why Not?

[/ QUOTE ]


No I wouldnt because there is very little data (other than anecdotal) to support the assertion that bi-racial children have a hard time in society. And race has 0 effect on the simple ability to have a children. OTOH, we have tons of data that document that positive effect of having a heterosexual family structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, it sound like you want to both
a) question the states interest (i.e. determine it's legitimacy) and
b) determine how closely the interest (if valid) is met by the law.

This sounds like a fine rubrick (and one that the courts use)

Basically, the court will see if the statute is narrowly tailored to meet the states legitimate interest. Here, marriage laws are not narrowly tailored to meet that interest because:
1) they apply to married individuals who plan to have no children
2) they apply to individuals with adult children
3) they do not apply to gay couples who have adopted children (while apply to straight couples who have adopted children)

The simple fact is that perpetuating the species is a legitimate interest, but marriage laws aren't tailored for that purpose insofar as they give marriage benefits to those who either intend to never have children or cannot have children.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its rather arbitrary of you to assume only heterosexuals can insure the success of the next generation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lol'd -- A+++++++++++++++ excellent poster, would read again.

Apparently, this guy has perfected asexual reproduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Join us in the 21st century. Humans indeed have perfected reproduction without intercourse.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
It is doing just that by giving special tax credits to some but not others. Which is what this entire thread has been about. Are you even reading anything here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read all my posts? I said back on page one that we should stop bickering about who gets the handouts, but instead change government so people can afford to run their lives/families the way they see fit without needing tax relief to afford to raise said family.

In the meantime, don't "solve" the problem with more handouts! That accomplishes nothing.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is doing just that by giving special tax credits to some but not others. Which is what this entire thread has been about. Are you even reading anything here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read all my posts? I said back on page one that we should stop bickering about who gets the handouts, but instead change government so people can afford to run their lives/families the way they see fit without needing tax relief to afford to raise said family.

In the meantime, don't "solve" the problem with more handouts! That accomplishes nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except nowhere in your cleverly vague post will you explicitly say these benefits for heterosexuals should go away.

[Inso0]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its rather arbitrary of you to assume only heterosexuals can insure the success of the next generation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lol'd -- A+++++++++++++++ excellent poster, would read again.

Apparently, this guy has perfected asexual reproduction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Join us in the 21st century. Humans indeed have perfected reproduction without intercourse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but at $12,400.00 a pop for a less than perfect in vitro fertilization process, that isn't really the best option for maintaining the population.