Quote:
Originally Posted by doogur
The institution today isn't even what it was 50 years ago, much less 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago. It certainly isn't a stagnant thing.
Your argument about procreation holds no water. If the ability to procreate plays a substantial role in the state interest, then why doesn't the state REQUIRE a man and a woman to bear children in order to get married?
Furthermore, allowing gays and lesbians to get married with have absolutely NO bearing on the procreation equation anyway.
If people - gay or straight - want to have children, they will find a way regardless of marriage. You are using the procreation argument where there is NO BASIS FOR THE ARGUMENT.
|
The state doesn't REQUIRE men and women to have children because it is without a doubt unconstitutional. Your assertion is nonsensical, and you're well aware of it. We don't force people to give to charity (other than our ridiculous system of taxation), we give them benefits should they choose to do so. That is because the federal and state governments have a vested interest in helping the poor, the sick, etc. The government believes it has an interest in encouraging family-creation, and thus marriage incentives are provided.
I'm not using the procreation argument. I'm telling you that there will be resistance to gay marriage considering many of the incentives for marriage benefits are not present with gay relationships. This isn't me trying to argue the point, this is me telling you absolutely where the resistance will come from and why.
Marriage doesn't have anything to do with procreation, but natural procreation has a lot to do with the government's interest in marriage. There are exceptions to the ability to bear children in straight relationships, but the RULE with gay relationships is that natural procreation ISN'T POSSIBLE inside that relationship.
Hybrid Mode
