Why should same-sex marriage be illegal?

[Sy_Noe]

Many children of SS couples who are not adopted and are the biological offspring of one of their SS parents would probably be deprived of existence if their gay parent had decided not to procreate at all. So surely existing is better for such a child than not existing at all. There are also many children who have a parent of both sexes where one or both of their parents are not good parents. So having both a mother and a father does not always insure a good experience for many children.

Good pt

 

[Jon_S_1]

Good pt

Such reasons do not mean they should be codified into law as “best practices”.

 

[Sy_Noe]

2357Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142*They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Sounded from what you posted you might’ve been unaware of the church’s teaching regarding sodomites.

No. I was very much aware the Catholic Church teaches homosexual acts are disordered and under no circumstances approved. But I don’t practice the faith. In fact this is one of the reasons why. Because I’m at a place on my faith journey where I believe it is as unnatural for a gay person to lie with a straight person as it is for a straight person to lie with a gay person.

 

[Jon_S_1]

No. I was very much aware the Catholic Church teaches homosexual acts are disordered and under no circumstances approved. But I don’t practice the faith. In fact this is one of the reasons why. Because I’m at a place on my faith journey where I believe it is as unnatural for a gay person to lie with a straight person as it is for a straight person to lie with a gay person.

What you may be missing is that it’s perfectly natural for either to have sex with nobody.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Yes you were deprived as one parent was absent. It is not the ideal situation. I imagine you very much have a desire to have known and learned from the parent that was missing. You never felt deprived of the love of the mother or father that had died? I find that hard to believe. Sure you may have coped well, the surviving parent may have done an outstanding job, but you missed out on some things, I’m sure if you dig deep you will agree.

Your situation was by tragedy.

The same sex marriage case is by design.

That’s a huge difference.

As for the idea that orphaned kids need caretakers. Sure they do. And they should be placed with people that would most easily fill the role of mother and father. This is why single people have a hard time adopting too.

If marriage is simply a social contract of commitment it should not be bound by sexuality at all. People should be able to marry their friend, parent, child, sibling, caretaker, neighbor, etc.

At that point marriage makes no sense and serves no real state purpose.

No I really never felt deprived. Honestly growing up all my friends had a mother and a father and it never bothered me that I didn’t. I don’t recall even thinking about it. It was my reality. My surviving parent, you are correct though, did an outstanding job. As did my sister in raising my niece as a sole parent. And from what I know, my deceased parent could at times, perhaps due to alcohol, get somewhat abusive. So no I’d rather have been raised by the loving parent who raised me. Or had I been an orphan, by a parent or parents who would do the same regardless of their gender.

 

[JD1789]

I know heterosexual couples of childbearing age who are naturally unable to produce a child.

This is an exception to the natural order of the relationship, not the norm. The norm of a homosexual relationship is the inability to reproduce. There is no exception to this. There has been some fascinating research into genetic engineering though. This will never change the natural order of things though.

 

[WJeffrey]

The nonreligious answer that I have heard is so that homosexuals can be just as miserable as heterosexuals. But that hasn’t been my experience.

 

[signit]

The state has an interested in population growth for the survival and prosperity of the state. With this population growth, they have an interest in the members of society being productive, safe, and functional. They have long determined (like over thousands of years) that the family is the best way to accomplish these things. The family procreated to serve the states growth and succession needs and when kids have both their mom and dad in the home they function at their highest potential.

Over time the state had incentivized marriage and given things like tax breaks to encourage it as well as things that build up family like child tax credits and other supports.

However, as discussed before, one court in 2014 rejected that argument, and other courts have rejected procreation-based arguments:

static.squarespace.com/static/524cc5a7e4b09484086dc046/t/53b2dd72e4b046738abd43df/1404231026802/LoveMemoOpinion.pdf

[at pp. 15-16]

The Court will begin with Defendant’s only asserted justification for Kentucky’s laws prohibiting same-sex marriage: “encouraging, promoting, and supporting the formation of relationships that have the natural ability to procreate.” Perhaps recognizing that procreation-based arguments have not succeeded in this Court, see Bourke, 2014 WL 556729, at *8, nor any other court post-Windsor, Defendant adds a disingenuous twist to the argument: traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate which, in turn, ensures the state’s long-term economic stability.

These arguments are not those of serious people. Though it seems almost unnecessary to explain, here are the reasons why. Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. See Bishop v. United States ex rel. Holder, 962 F. Supp. 2d 1252, 1291 (N.D. Okla. 2014) (“Marriage is incentivized for naturally procreative couples to precisely the same extent regardless of whether same-sex couples (or other non-procreative couples) are included.”). The
Court finds no rational relation between the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and the Commonwealth’s asserted interest in promoting naturally procreative marriages.

The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in “ensuring humanity’s continued existence” are at best illogical and even bewildering. These arguments fail for the precise reasons that Defendant’s procreation argument fails.15

Numerous courts have repeatedly debunked all other reasons for enacting such laws. The Court can think of no other conceivable legitimate reason for Kentucky’s laws excluding same-sex couples from marriage.

 

[Jon_S_1]

However, as discussed before, one court in 2014 rejected that argument, and other courts have rejected procreation-based arguments:

static.squarespace.com/static/524cc5a7e4b09484086dc046/t/53b2dd72e4b046738abd43df/1404231026802/LoveMemoOpinion.pdf

[at pp. 15-16]

Please answer then, why the state is interested in marriage?

 

[signit]

Please answer then, why the state is interested in marriage?

Another view, from the famous Goodridge decision, in 2003:

caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1447056.html

In part II.A. of the opinion, the court notes the benefits to marriage to society and to the individuals involved and to their children.

I understand that that’s not the Catholic view.

In part II.B, the court rejects procreation-based arguments.

Quote from the opinion:

**The department has offered no evidence that forbidding marriage to people of the same sex will increase the number of couples choosing to enter into opposite-sex marriages in order to have and raise children. **  There is thus no rational relationship between the marriage statute and the Commonwealth’s proffered goal of protecting the “optimal” child rearing unit.   Moreover, the department readily concedes that people in same-sex couples may be “excellent” parents.   These couples (including four of the plaintiff couples) have children for the reasons others do-to love them, to care for them, to nurture them.   But the task of child rearing for same-sex couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws.   While establishing the parentage of children as soon as possible is crucial to the safety and welfare of children, see Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess Med. Ctr., 435 Mass. 285, 292, 756 N.E.2d 1133 (2001), same-sex couples must undergo the sometimes lengthy and intrusive process of second-parent adoption to establish their joint parentage.   While the enhanced income provided by marital benefits is an important source of security and stability for married couples and their children, those benefits are denied to families headed by same-sex couples.   See, e.g., note 6, supra.   While the laws of divorce provide clear and reasonably predictable guidelines for child support, child custody, and property division on dissolution of a marriage, same-sex couples who dissolve their relationships find themselves and their children in the highly unpredictable terrain of equity jurisdiction.   See E.N.O. v. L.M.M., supra.   Given the wide range of public benefits reserved only for married couples, we do not credit the department’s contention that the absence of access to civil marriage amounts to little more than an inconvenience to same-sex couples and their children.   Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of “a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized.”  440 Mass. at 381 (Cordy, J., dissenting).26

 

[LeafByNiggle]

However, as discussed before, one court in 2014 rejected that argument, and other courts have rejected procreation-based arguments:

static.squarespace.com/static/524cc5a7e4b09484086dc046/t/53b2dd72e4b046738abd43df/1404231026802/LoveMemoOpinion.pdf

[at pp. 15-16]

We know what the courts have ruled. If this were a forum on Constitutional Law, these legal arguments would be just the sort of thing we would want to consider. But this is not a forum on Constitutional Law. It is a forum on Social Justice. And the OP title of this thread is “Why should same-sex marriage be illegal?” This is a question of right and wrong that comes before law. Usually law gets it right, but sometimes law gets it wrong. Questions on what the courts have ruled have no relevance to the basic question of right and wrong. On the contrary, considerations of basic right and wrong are relevant in setting law.

The OP question cannot be decided without considering what interest the state has in an institution like marriage. Anyone who believes that procreation is not the main reason for state involvement in this institution really has only one defensible position to take - that there should be no state involvement in marriages of any kind.

 

[Thorolfr]

Here are several studies you can read. But in my experience the false narratives people hold too are so strongly held that even if an army of children told their story to them that they would not change their opinions.

frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/8/gay-couples-children-oppose-same-sex-marriage-tell/?page=all

ic.galegroup.com/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&zid=a9764475de34e422c34761f9631ce865&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010014234&userGroupName=viva2_tcc&jsid=d04

I see you’ve included something from the Family Research Council on the Mark Regnerus Study:

But a new critique of Regnerus’ work by Professors Simon Cheng (University of Connecticut) and Brian Powell (Indiana University), published in the same journal as his original study, Social Science Research…suggests that Regnerus misclassified a significant number of children as being raised in same-sex households. Based on a re-evaluation of the data, it concludes there are minimal differences in outcome for children raised by same-sex parents and married opposite-sex parents…

Fundamental to the critique is the basic idea that Regnerus misclassified children as having been raised in same-sex households when, in fact, under a fairer assessment they had not been.

Regnerus does not check for, or apparently even consider the possibility of, inconsistent, uncertain, and unreliable cases in his data—even though some other items in the NFSS offer some limited means to assess this possibility. For example, Regnerus (2012c) acknowledges that, according to the aforementioned calendar data, over half of the respondents never lived with a parent’s same-sex partner, but fails to mention that many respondents—approximately one-third—also never lived with their same-sex parents or lived with them very briefly. [emphasis original]

This likely means that a sizable number of the 236 respondents counted as “raised by” lesbian mothers and gay fathers had not, in fact, been raised by same-sex parents. For example, nine of the responses likely came from jokesters:

The most blatant example of highly suspicious responses is the case of a 25 year-old man who reports that his father had a romantic relationship with another man, but also reports that he (the respondent) was 7-feet 8-inches tall, weighed 88 pounds, was married 8 times and had 8 children. Other examples include a respondent who claims to have been arrested at age 1 and another who spent an implausibly short amount of time (less than 10 minutes) to complete the survey.

Another 53 of the 236 responses came from children who lived with gay mothers or fathers for less than a year. Another 20 came from respondents whose entries were otherwise inconsistent or improbable. Others had lived with gay parents for 2-4 years.

washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/

I have a lot of confidence in studies that include people who are 7-feet 8-inches tall, but nevertheless weigh only 88 pounds, were married 8 times and had 8 children…

 

[Jon_S_1]

I see you’ve included something from the Family Research Council on the Mark Regnerus Study:

washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/

I have a lot of confidence in studies that include people who are 7-feet 8-inches tall, but nevertheless weigh only 88 pounds, were married 8 times and had 8 children…

All Audie’s have shortcomings but to throw it out completely is ridiculous.

The same people that say this study is bad point to a study of a SINGLE lesbian couple who’s kids had above average IQ’s.

As if you can even have an effective study based on a single family.

I’m sure you have no problem with that though right…

And of course no response to any of the other sources.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Another view, from the famous Goodridge decision, in 2003:

caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1447056.html

In part II.A. of the opinion, the court notes the benefits to marriage to society and to the individuals involved and to their children.

I understand that that’s not the Catholic view.

In part II.B, the court rejects procreation-based arguments.

Quote from the opinion:

How does this answer my question?

What is the states interest in regulating marriage in any way?

 

[signit]

We know what the courts have ruled. If this were a forum on Constitutional Law, these legal arguments would be just the sort of thing we would want to consider. But this is not a forum on Constitutional Law. It is a forum on Social Justice. And the OP title of this thread is “Why should same-sex marriage be illegal?” This is a question of right and wrong that comes before law. Usually law gets it right, but sometimes law gets it wrong. Questions on what the courts have ruled have no relevance to the basic question of right and wrong. On the contrary, considerations of basic right and wrong are relevant in setting law.

Right, and as I said, I know what the Catholic position is and I accept it.

The OP question cannot be decided without considering what interest the state has in an institution like marriage. Anyone who believes that procreation is not the main reason for state involvement in this institution really has only one defensible position to take - that there should be no state involvement in marriages of any kind.

But, if procreation is the main reason, how does limiting marriage to couples who can procreate incentivize procreation?

I find it hard to understand this argument. It might be a stronger argument if people *chose *SSA; and then they could choose same-sex marriage and not procreating over opposite-sex marriage and procreation.

But, in the real world, I don’t see how what two other people do over there has any bearing on a Catholic couple or whether they have children.

 

[signit]

How does this answer my question?

What is the states interest in regulating marriage in any way?

The court said that there are benefits to marriage other than procreation, and named some, both for society and for individuals.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The court said that there are benefits to marriage other than procreation, and named some, both for society and for individuals.

If the court is right and that gay couples trying to raise children are disadvantaged in their parenting then I am too.

I am a single father and I do not get the tax advantages of marriage. I should sue and try to get those tax breaks. I guess o could marry myself. Or maybe my parents who help me with the kids.

The court and you, of course miss the forest through the trees on these issues. The government should look at the bigger picture and they aren’t.

The examples you posts are not legitimate reasons why the government should regulate marriage.

I can get enjoyment from a great many things the government does not involve itself in.

 

[Thorolfr]

All Audie’s have shortcomings but to throw it out completely is ridiculous.

The same people that say this study is bad point to a study of a SINGLE lesbian couple who’s kids had above average IQ’s.

As if you can even have an effective study based on a single family.

I’m sure you have no problem with that though right…

And of course no response to any of the other sources.

One of your sources is an article published by the Washington Times which was founded by Sun Myung Moon, the founder of the Unification Church (otherwise known as the Moonies), and is still owned by a group controlled by Moon. Another article is published by Cybercast News Service which is described by Wikipedia as, “a conservative American news website founded by L. Brent Bozell III,” a former board member of the American Conservative Union. Another article is from the Family Research Council. All of these sources present only one kind of conservative viewpoint and are not supported by any sound scientific evidence.

And finally, you posted an article by Dr. Trayce Hansen who, as one source points out, was called as a witness by the Alliance Defense Fund:

Dr. Hansen admitted on cross-examination that parenting evaluations represented a new area for her and that she never actually had prepared one. Dr. Hansen never had been qualified as an expert witness by any court. Dr. Hansen never had been retained by any party as an expert witness. Dr. Hansen’s psychology practice involved geriatric patients. Dr. Hansen conceded that she currently did not work with children and had fewer than four years of professional experience after earning her Ph.D. She had worked as a research assistant and had published one article in the journal Personality Assessment in a forensic-type situation. . . .

The court noted that, contrary to Dr. Hansen’s testimony, the APA concludes that no evidence suggests that same-sex couples are unfit to be parents, or that psychosocial development among children of same-sex couples would be compromised in any respect.

slowlyboiledfrog.com/2012/03/open-email-to-dr-trayce-hansen.html

 

[edwest2]

Just a quick thought. There are laws that prohibit a certain action, and laws that endorse a specific action. There is taking liberties away vs establishing something as a positive, encouraged institution. It may not be practical to legally prohibit every immoral action, but we certainly shouldn’t endorse or institutionalize gravely immoral actions.

Agreed.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Because it would normalize a disorder.

That’s the answer. I’ve known and know LGBT people but I could not point one out in a crowd of strangers. The other problem has to do with the confusion caused when marriage is redefined.

Ed