Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

for the record, I don't have any objections against polygamy. Incest, though, is more of a problem in regards to procreation. and before you argue incestual procreation vs. homosexual procreation, homosexuals raising an adopted or tubed child doesn't run the risk of functionally retarded inbreeding, like the royal families, or Tennessee.

What? We were arguing about the list of people that are still being discriminated against under the aforementioned argument. It was stated that minors aren't excluded because they can't enter contracts, but they are excluded, because we choose to not allow minors based on laws that we created.

@alma You had said that my view changed this fundamentally, and I stated that it didn't change anything as far as children. Glad you came around. Took you less posts then normal too.

None whatsoever, although Alma seemed to think that my rational somehow changed something with it.

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 5:22pm by Xsarus

True enough - at least, you can't without invoking a variant on gbaji's drivel of "the state wants children to be born into wedlock", namely "the state wants those children who are born to not be a drain on their parents due to defects".

To be honest, the state itself doesn't give a shit - the politicians do.

What do other groups have to do with same-sex marriage?

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 5:32pm by Belkira

Except that every group gbaji gave was relatives, minors or people who don't want to be married.

Hm. Good point. I say go for it.

That's not true, go look again. Even still, there were no valid reasons why relatives or minors should be excluded other than "that's the way it is now"

It shouldn't even be about that.

It should be about "what set of criteria do we reward for having children", if you really want to maximize social benefits from this.

I think the line of reasoning is "Well, let's see why we disallow it to other groups and, from that, extrapolate out randomly pull out of our *** a reason why we disallow it to the dirty unredeemable gays."

GAAAAH!!!

I've said this several times. I'm listing off people and groups who might desire to gain the benefits of marriage, but who are not able to because the state wont grant them to them. I'm talking specifically about the benefits granted by the government. Not the contract you enter into when you get married. Those are technically two different things.

Gay couples can today enter into a marriage contract. But if they do, the state still wont grant them the benefits. In the same way, a pair of siblings could enter into a marriage contract, but the sate wont grant them benefits for doing so either.


Why is this so hard for people to wrap their heads around? There is a contract which you agree to enter when you get married. This includes all the agreements which exist between the parties of the contract. Like shared property, income, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.

There are *also* a set of state granted benefits. Those benefits require that you meet a set of criteria. One of those criteria is that you agree to enter into the contract. Another is that you be a couple. Another is that the couple not consist of two people who are close relations. Another is that both parties be able to enter into the contract. Another is that neither party are already bound by an existing marriage contract. And finally... one of the conditions is that the couple consist of a male and a female.


The criteria which prevents gay couples from gaining access to those state benefits is only one of a list of criteria. This is not my opinion. It's a fact.


If you are to argue that the criteria which excludes gay couples from gaining those benefits is unconstitutional, you have to discover what the purpose of the criteria and benefits are in the first place. The SCotUS test for discrimination is that it is allowable if the discrimination is consistent with the purpose of the law. So it's not unconstitutional to set the voting age at 18 because the intent of the law is to limit it to people who are old enough to make sound decisions about their lives and the world around them, for example. It's also not unconstitutional to create a housing program which targets poor minority neighborhoods if the purpose is to help address disproportionate housing among said groups.

It's not automatically unconstitutional to have discriminatory criteria. You have to examine the law, determine its purpose, and determine if the discriminatory criteria is consistent with that purpose (and if the purpose itself is not unconstitutional of course). A purpose of "encourage children to be born in an environment in which both biological parents are bound by marriage contract" is consistent. It matches all of the criteria in the marriage statute in question. And it absolutely means that not granting said benefits to gay couples is *not* unconstitutional discrimination.


If you can't even noodle out why we have those benefits, then you can't possibly hold an intelligent position on the question at hand. You're literally arguing from a position of ignorance.

I wonder why you still insist on arguing about it, then.

Relax gbaji, this wasn't about you, but what Alma specifically said.