Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Same-Sex Marriage

[Monkey1976]

It isn’t even a relevant question because the ability, intent, or willingness to have children is not a requirement of marriage. Furtherance of the species? Give it a rest. There are 7 billion people in world.

Are children necessary for the future or not?

The relevance of procreative ability has only come into question since the push to define a mutually masturbatory relationship between two individuals of the same sex as a “marriage”.

The State only makes that claim on this issue and never when it comes to heterosexuals. Not one State requires children to be produced within a marriage at all nor does it tie biological children to marriage as was demonstrated in oral arguments when Tennessee law was cited.

Read up on “presumption of paternity” - it’s standard in Tennessee, too. Ultimately, marriage is a public declaration that a particular male/female pair will be engaging in sexual activity, and any children both to the female will have been fathered by the male.

What do two men or two women do that requires the same level of recognition?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Are children necessary for the future or not?

The relevance of procreative ability has only come into question since the push to define a mutually masturbatory relationship between two individuals of the same sex as a “marriage”.

Read up on “presumption of paternity” - it’s standard in Tennessee, too. Ultimately, marriage is a public declaration that a particular male/female pair will be engaging in sexual activity, and any children both to the female will have been fathered by the male.

What do two men or two women do that requires the same level of recognition?

It is amazing to me that you continue to go down a path that is unsupported by the actions of the State as it relates to issuing marriage licenses in the past or present. There is no linkage at all between the State recognition of marriage and this requirement to have biological children that appeared out of thin air when the issue of same-sex marriage arose.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It isn’t even a relevant question because the ability, intent, or willingness to have children is not a requirement of marriage. Furtherance of the species? Give it a rest. There are 7 billion people in world.

The State only makes that claim on this issue and never when it comes to heterosexuals. Not one State requires children to be produced within a marriage at all nor does it tie biological children to marriage as was demonstrated in oral arguments when Tennessee law was cited.

I don’t get all this concern about the furtherance of the human species either. I’m pretty sure allowing SS couples to marry is not going to cause the end of children being produced by heterosexuals. And denying homosexual couples the right to marry isn’t for the most part going to cause them to reproduce.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I don’t get all this concern about the furtherance of the human species either. I’m pretty sure allowing SS couples to marry is not going to cause the end of children being produced by heterosexuals. And denying homosexual couples the right to marry isn’t for the most part going to cause them to reproduce.

The funny thing is that is exactly what the Respondents were arguing; that heterosexuals wouldn’t get married or have children anymore if same-sex couples are allowed to marry. An absolutely absurd argument with no basis at all in fact.

 

[Suudy]

Re-read what I asked, I asked if you had any sources other than the above.

Thomas was wrong on many accounts such as heretics and witches. Much of what he wrote is ok but I find much more credibility in Aristotelian and Stoic virtue ethics than in his theories.

So, Thomas was wrong on some issues, therefore his entire body of work is wrong? Really?

 

[Suudy]

It isn’t even a relevant question because the ability, intent, or willingness to have children is not a requirement of marriage. Furtherance of the species?

And none of those are used as a basis for the natural law argument against gay “marriage” (presuming what you mean by “ability” is a defect, such as impotence). The argument is that all marriages are ordered toward procreation, absent defects. The Church goes further and says that lack of intent or no willingness a priori to marriage makes the marriage invalid. But the basic element–ordered toward procreation–has always been present for the natural law argument and for the Church.

Give it a rest. There are 7 billion people in world.

Last time I checked, 6.7 billion of those weren’t part of the US, which is the focus of the discussion.

The State only makes that claim on this issue and never when it comes to heterosexuals. Not one State requires children to be produced within a marriage at all nor does it tie biological children to marriage as was demonstrated in oral arguments when Tennessee law was cited.

But that’s not the point. The point is whether children are produced, must be produced, or might be produced, but whether it is even in the nature of the relationship.

 

[Suudy]

It is amazing to me that you continue to go down a path that is unsupported by the actions of the State as it relates to issuing marriage licenses in the past or present. There is no linkage at all between the State recognition of marriage and this requirement to have biological children that appeared out of thin air when the issue of same-sex marriage arose.

It didn’t appear “out of thin air.” It was always presumed, but not explicitly stated. Indeed, 50 years ago, it was a given that when a man and a woman married that children were a likely outcome. Only now, with the radical separation of child rearing from marriage and sex from marriage is there a need to make the explicit statement: marriage is an institution rooted in generating and rearing the next generation.

 

[Suudy]

I don’t get all this concern about the furtherance of the human species either. I’m pretty sure allowing SS couples to marry is not going to cause the end of children being produced by heterosexuals. And denying homosexual couples the right to marry isn’t for the most part going to cause them to reproduce.

No, but I fear, as do many others, that it will lead to a further degradation in the nuclear family, with husband and wife and children. Children will still be born. And many will be born in a traditional family. But many more will not, and this harms society, harms individuals, and especially children.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

And none of those are used as a basis for the natural law argument against gay “marriage” (presuming what you mean by “ability” is a defect, such as impotence). The argument is that all marriages are ordered toward procreation, absent defects. The Church goes further and says that lack of intent or no willingness a priori to marriage makes the marriage invalid. But the basic element–ordered toward procreation–has always been present for the natural law argument and for the Church.

Not a legal argument.

Last time I checked, 6.7 billion of those weren’t part of the US, which is the focus of the discussion.

And the last time I checked, humans have no natural predators or competitors and there is no extinction threat to our species or the population of the United States. If there were, you can bet that the State would not give two figs about marriage.

But that’s not the point. The point is whether children are produced, must be produced, or might be produced, but whether it is even in the nature of the relationship.

It is precisely the point. The 14th Amendment requires equal application of the law; not the invention of a requirement that never previously existed for one part of society and free-reign for the other.

 

[Suudy]

The funny thing is that is exactly what the Respondents were arguing; that heterosexuals wouldn’t get married or have children anymore if same-sex couples are allowed to marry. An absolutely absurd argument with no basis at all in fact.

Look at the out of wedlock birthrate in the African American community. The argument is that this terrible condition is due to a decline in family values in the African American community, regardless of the cause (legacy of racism, poverty, etc). The point is that this occurs because the traditional two-parent ideal of a family has essentially been eradicated. The issue with gay “marriage” is that many fear it is another nail in the coffin of the traditional family. So, while I don’t doubt many children will be born to heterosexual couples, I do think that we are likely to see a rise in non-traditional families.

And us Catholics and conservatives see the traditional family as the cornerstone of a healthy, moral society. When that starts to decline, many other problems will appear.

 

[Suudy]

Not a legal argument.

But a philosophical one. And law is grounded in philosophy, regardless of attempts to deny it. But I know, deconstructionists like to separate law from philosophy from science and from history. In their word, only the law matters. And it’s a flawed and dangerous approach that will degrade into legalism.

And the last time I checked, humans have no natural predators or competitors and there is no extinction threat to our species or the population of the United States. If there were, you can bet that the State would not give two figs about marriage.

It’s about more than just preserving the species. It is about preserving cohesive, meaningful families. And cohesive, meaningful families have children that have a mother and a father present.

It is precisely the point. The 14th Amendment requires equal application of the law; not the invention of a requirement that never previously existed for one part of society and free-reign for the other.

It did exist, it just wasn’t written down. It was understood. Do you think the law explicitly states every single possible weapon that is prohibited in the commission of a crime? The law doesn’t need to be explicit to have a tangible factor present.

And I wish this equal application of the law argument would go away. If the federal government and the left wished for equal application of the law, we’d see affirmative action laws rescinded (which do not treat all races the same), prevailing law wages rescinded (which do not treat all contractors the same), and more. Every single individual is prohibited in some states from marring a person of the same sex. It doesn’t discriminate against gays any more than it discriminates against heterosexuals, bisexuals, trans-sexuals, etc.

No, what you want, and what has happened, is that somehow everyone should be allowed to marry whoever they love. If the homosexual “marriage” argument wins the day, there will be no grounds to deny marriage to anyone who loves another, regardless of the conditions. The unspoken condition on that love, for THOUSANDS of years has been possibility (though not individually verified) of children.

I know, I know, the gay “marriage” crowd likes to latch on to the examples of elderly people, impotent people, etc. The point is that no verification is needed for gay couples. It’s known in advance. It is presumed for heterosexual couples. And the government, in its desire to uphold relationships that, in theory, may produce children, have taken an interest in marriage. Gay couples cannot EVER meet this condition.

 

[Tomdstone]

If the federal government and the left wished for equal application of the law, we’d see affirmative action laws rescinded …

This is what should happen as AA laws are discriminatory.

 

[Divine3]

nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-hears-arguments-gay-marriage-n349631

1st question audio of oral arguments is here:

Obergefell v. Hodges
Docket Number: 14-556-Question-1

supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1

**
THANK YOU – God help us!**

 

[Sy_Noe]

What a hurtful concept and thing to say to all the children who for many reasons, death of a parent, and any number of other reasons, that their family is not meaningful when a mother and father is not present. Boy am I glad I don’t take some of this to heart and didn’t read it when i was younger.

 

[Sy_Noe]

And cohesive, meaningful families have children that have a mother and a father present.

Hopefully you didn’t mean to cause pain to the many children who do not have a mother and father present, due to death of a parent or any number of other reasons, by suggesting their families without a mother and father are not meaningful. Boy am I glad I don’t take everything on this forum to heart and thankful I didn’t read this when I was younger.

 

[Suudy]

What a hurtful concept and thing to say to all the children who for many reasons, death of a parent, and any number of other reasons, that their family is not meaningful when a mother and father is not present

I admit, “meaningful” was probably the wrong word. Perhaps, a better words are “fulfilling” or “complete” or, dare I say it, “best ordered”. The point is that the death of a parent, divorce, etc, are no fault of the children, but it cannot be denied that these incidences do cause harm. And it’s not just the moment of loss (as in some cases it happens prior to any child having memories), but the absence that causes problems.

Boy am I glad I don’t take some of this to heart and didn’t read it when i was younger.

I do know what it is like. I was raised by a single father. I had a stepmother I hated until I was in college. The rift my parents’ divorce caused was a huge issue until I was in my 20’s. It is real. It is painful.

And my wife’s best friend is a single mother. Her daughter is now starting to ask why she doesn’t have a daddy like her friends. Both her and her daughter’s pain is real.

A friend of mine was adopted. Never knew his real father. Met his biological mother when he was in his mid 40’s. He asked why she had him adopted. Her answer (as directly related to me, by him): “I loved drugs more than I loved you.” Essentially, his mother was a drug addict, and only when she was in her late 50’s (she was 15 when he was born) did she realize the mistake she made. But it was too late for my friend. He grew up in a loving, 2 parent family, and is a successful small business owner. but he admits the revelation that he was adopted was very difficult for him. His pain is very real.

Let’s not pretend that a simple loving, monogamous couple will solve these issues. It doesn’t for many, many children of broken families. It didn’t for me, and it didn’t for my friend. And I don’t think for a minute that adoption by gay couples will either. And I think it will be especially difficult for gay couples that use IVF, surrogacy, or other means to create their families. The only proven method of bringing up healthy, well adjusted, children to be upstanding, moral citizens is a mother and a father together. Outside that, it is the exception. (And I do know that dysfunctional two-parent families exist.)

And I freely admit that I have issues. I may be a well adjusted, perhaps moral citizen (despite my frequent failings), but I am in many ways not healthy. I still harbor resentment for my mother for leaving. I struggle with fears of abandonment by my wife and losing my children. My father’s death left a huge mark on me because I didn’t have a mother there to help me through it.

These are the kinds of things gay “marriage” and their corollaries will lead to. I’m convinced they will become more common. Specific examples of dysfunctional two-parent families, adoption, single parenthood, etc, are not grounds for completely abandoning the two-parent model. It is proven, on average, to work. And those other cases are proven, on average, to fail.

(Edit: I see you edited your post while I was typing my response. Perhaps I still answered your points.)

 

[Suudy]

This is what should happen as AA laws are discriminatory.

But of course the left doesn’t really care about equal treatment under the law. They only care about equal outcome. For them, the ends justify the means. Just as in this particular case. Gays cannot marry whoever they love, and since the basis for the exclusivity of heterosexual marriage doesn’t achieve the equal outcome they want, they feel justified in changing the definition. The means (changing a philosophically, historically, and religiously grounded definition) are unimportant. All that matters is the end.

 

[frobert]

What’s the tangible result of homosexual activity?

If the above is your belief of what constitutes a gay marriage you have little imagination and even less appreciation for family and life.

 

[frobert]

So, Thomas was wrong on some issues, therefore his entire body of work is wrong? Really?

Again you failed to read what I wrote. I said much of what Thomas wrote is ok. Then I gave my opinion of virtue ethics which I believe is more credible than Thomas’ theories.

 

[frobert]

I don’t get all this concern about the furtherance of the human species either. I’m pretty sure allowing SS couples to marry is not going to cause the end of children being produced by heterosexuals. And denying homosexual couples the right to marry isn’t for the most part going to cause them to reproduce.

Adding the “requirement for children” would be a redefinition of marriage whether civil or religious.