1 - 10 Next
Which would be a reasonable argument for SSM, if one could have the expectation that same sex couples would have children. But the large majority of them have no interest in raising children at all, and there are other ways for the children to get those protections. As well, I have no problem with creating some form of legal status to people to gain many of the protections and rights enjoyed by married couples, and think they should be broadened to other relationships that aren't assumed sexual such as friends, siblings, or parent and child. My oldest sister has been living with my mother for years, helping her with what she's too old now to do herself. Why shouldn't they be able to enjoy many of the legal protections of married couples? But I doubt that would satisfy many same sex couples, because it wouldn't necessarily provide the social validation they are seeking.
Whatever issue I might have with same sex marriage, that isn't one of them - same sex couples with children will have those children whether they marry or not.
In both cases what people choose to do with their marriage is their business, as is whether they choose to have children out of wedlock. In neither case does it change the interest the state has in heterosexual couples marrying, it merely means society has (rightly IMHO) given up on forcing the issue. You can choose to get a driver's license and never drive a car, only as personal ID. That doesn't change the primary reason the state has for giving it to you in the first place. And it still doesn't change the fact that expanding marriage to same sex couples under the current understanding (equal protection) radically shifts the understanding of the fundamental purpose of marriage from producing and raising the next generation to acknowledging a couple's close, personal, implicitly sexual relationship. (But only a couple's, what about polygamists?) If that is to be the purpose of marriage, then the government should simply get out of the marriage business altogether.
So basically what you are saying is that advancing science (specifically, the ability to determine fertility) has invalidated the traditional grounds of marriage. The problem is, you're assuming we want the government verifying the fertility of everyone that might want to engage in heterosexual sex, and encouraging only those that prove fertile to save it for marriage. I don't know about you, but I'm not exactly comfortable with giving the government that much power - just imagine the possible abuse. Much better to simply assume that men and women are potentially interfertile and encourage them to marry before sex.
And how does not extending marriage to same sex couples "forbid private, consensual homosexual behavior through the use of force"? It doesn't prevent couples from sleeping together, or from choosing to build a life together. It simply says that homosexual couples do not meet the criteria for state-supported possibly-sexual relationships.
That's a fine argument for opposing, say, anti-sodomy laws, but not marriage. Realistically, the state shouldn't care if a married couple is getting it on every night or at all. Marriage is about limiting heterosexual sex to relationships where any children that result are raised in the best available environment, and supporting that family when children are the result. What marriage is *not* about is societal validation of a personal private relationship just because, and those supporters of small government that believe it is doing so should be calling for eliminating marriage's special legal status and making it a purely private matter. After all, what business is it of the government who lives with - or even sleeps with - whom?
In response to:

Jensen and Flynn

doug64 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 4:25 PM
Neither - academic politics isn't good preparation for managing the country, and he'd be wasted as Secretary of Education. Instead, put him in charge of education for one of the Red states, where he'd have some real power.
In response to:

Judicial Betrayal

doug64 Wrote: Jul 04, 2012 12:34 AM
Oh, right, so you'd rather have presidents whose judicial appointments you *know* will violate their oaths instead of one whose appointments *might* do so? Like that's an improvement.
In response to:

Judicial Betrayal

doug64 Wrote: Jul 04, 2012 12:33 AM
We expected it from them, so it's no surprise. But we expected Roberts to be a man of honor.
In response to:

John Roberts' Arrogance

doug64 Wrote: Jul 04, 2012 12:24 AM
If I thought Roberts was simply mistaken I wouldn't want him to be impeached. But as best I can tell, Roberts didn't rule as he did because he was wrong, but because he wanted that particular outcome and invented a reason to support it. *That* is what makes him an honorless political hack that betrayed his country.
1 - 10 Next