How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | December 09, 2003 | Alan Charles Raul

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Does equal protection under the law require us to be blind to the fact that heterosexual coupling produces children?"

I can walk out of my front door and knock on the doors of four heterosexual married couples who either can't or won't have children...I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

[weegee]

Round and round and round on these threads.

You can keep ignoring that "homosexuals" as a classification are people who identify themselves based on a sexual fetish.

People who want to eat horse meat in America are prohibited from doing so by law (even though horse meat is processed for export for human consumption in America).

If the government cannot regulate what goes on in the bedroom (but can legislate how much water your toilet flows in your bathroom), why are there any age of consent laws?

We know that teens are having sex (and underage sex used to be prosecuted as statutory rape). We know that adults are having sex with teens below the age of consent and that states make exceptions in the law for "Romeo & Juliet" (and now "Romeo & Romeo") cases where the adult is within 4 years of the minor below age of consent.

Therefore the persons consenting to legal sex acts are not "consenting adults". And those who are both below age of consent are definitely not considered legally able to "consent". In rare cases (say a 14 year old and a 10 year old) it will be considered molestation or statutory rape but the difference in age (not "maturity") is no different than the exception made "later" in the underaged teens years.

These would still appear to be "morals" sex laws.

Either the government has jurisdiction there or it doesn't.

[weegee]

Blood related couples are prohibited from marrying because the offspring they produce could be prone to genetic defects.

Either the government can regulate marriage or it can't.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm going to take a whole lot of crap from people here, but read this.

[jwalsh07]

People are supposed to marry the person they love, not the person you approve of.

Yeah I know, thats what the SJC of Mass said in their opinion and you're repeating of it verbatim confirms my informed opinion that neither you nor they have the power to redefine words by fiat.

But I believe you've shown yourself to be polyphobic here Luis by using the singular. Who are you to limit marriage to two people? Though I must admit your definition and the SJC's are magnanimous enough to allow a brother and sister, et al, to enter into a platonic marriage to access econoomic advvantages not currently available to them.

[WOSG]

You are the one foundering. You admitted that you:
"denounced laws based on someone's notion of morality."

You declared it wrong to legislate on the basis of morality, then
you declared your own moral statements as a basis for laws!

There is a word for this: HYPOCRISY.

physician, heal thyself! ... You need to understand your own logical contradiction to understand the reason the author of the posted article has an excellent point.

"I said I'd take the Constitution's equal protection applying to all citizens as being 'moral.'"

In the constitution, equal protection is given "under the law". To presume no distinctions in law are valid is bad 14th amendment reading and impossible law. the basis of the law is morality (again) and it by definition creates categories. A helmet law for motorcyclists doesnt discriminate against motorcyclists per se. likewise granting status to men and women who wish to marry does NOT discriminate against those who dont wish to join into those responsibilities. There are perfectly rational reasons to maintain the traditional family as a structure that is deserving of a greater amount of protection and consideration than other unions based on homosexual relations etc. thus there is not a whit of denial of equal protection in codifying the tradition definition of marriage ie between 1 man and 1 woman into law.

see the Goodrich dissent that totally skewered the phony grandstanding of the majority opinion on this. The Mass supreme court ruled CONTRARY to the direct words of the Mass constitution, Mass. law, and legal logic.

To use equal protection as a blanket bar is to claim that we have no right to stop incest polygamy or ANY set of relations. It's absurd. The majority ruling was bad law and bad logic.

" Denying the benefits of legalized unions between adults based on their violation of religious dogma (commandment morality) violates constitutional 'morality.'"

bad thinking again. Why is any morality an invalid basis of a law? There is NO SUCH CONSTITUTIONAL BAR. Again, morality is the 1 key ingredient to all laws. The only reason to oppose such a basis as presumptively invalid is anti-religious prejudice. That itself violates your own statement!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Your rights end where mine begin.

The right of blood relations to marry end when the rights of the unrealized issue of their union come into play.

By the way, a great number of States OK the marriage of blood relatives as long as there is an agreement, or no possibility, of any issue.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Why don't you quit your normal tactic of engaging in slippery slope arguments, and stick to the issue being discussed for once?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Yeah I know, thats what the SJC of Mass said in their opinion and you're repeating of it verbatim confirms my informed opinion that neither you nor they have the power to redefine words by fiat."

By the way, as usual, you countered by attacking the poster, and not addressing the actual issue.

[jwalsh07]

Why don't you quit your normal tactic of engaging in slippery slope arguments, and stick to the issue being discussed for once?

Luis, it is impolite to answer a question with a question. But I understand your reticence to engage in debate here. You either have to extend marriage to all who are exercising their "transcendent liberty" or you have to draw lines and regulate.

I am clear where I draw the line, you evidently do not have the wherewithal to draw a line.

[jwalsh07]

By the way, as usual, you countered by attacking the poster, and not addressing the actual issue.

Small violin, tears streaming.

[Unassuaged]

What do you say to the argument that marriage was, at one time, between a man and a woman and another woman? That arrangement has legal and religous presednese.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Cruse, equal protection demands that all are treated equally. Anybody can get married as long as you marry a member of the opposite sex. A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman, that is not proscribed."

Here's your principle applied to a different situation.

The State of Texas outlaws the performance and/or observance/participation of all Jewish religious rites in the State. The Texas legislature defends their ban by arguing that all citizens are aqually treated under the law, as Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, at al. are equally forbidden to perform and/or participate in Jewish religious rituals.

[WOSG]

"I think we agree the Constitution requires us to apply the protection of the law equally. Equal protection is a process, not a moral code."

Well said ... equal protection is a process, not a result.
You need to work forward from the process to the result.


"Does equal protection under the law require us to be blind to the fact that heterosexual coupling produces children? Of course not."

The gay activists would say 'yes'.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"You either have to extend marriage to all who are exercising their "transcendent liberty" or you have to draw lines and regulate."

Why would that be?

We are talking about one adult making the choice to marry another adult.

[jwalsh07]

The State of Texas outlaws the performance and/or observance/participation of all Jewish religious rites in the State. The Texas legislature defends their ban by arguing that all citizens are aqually treated under the law, as Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists, at al. are equally forbidden to perform and/or participate in Jewish religious rituals.

You really should take a refresher in the Constitution, both the US Constitution and the Texas Constitution. Start at the 1A of the US COnstitution.

[WOSG]

You simply support Lawrence v Texas and Goodridge because it accords with your ideology, there is no basis in the US Constitution or the Mass Constitution for either opinion of those courts. But that won't stop you from using the Constitution as toilet paper as long as your moral code is serviced. You're position is the one taken by those who support an overly strong central government ruled by the elite few in robes.

Ah,yes... file this under: The Ends do no justify the Means!

[WOSG]

"The State of Texas outlaws the performance and/or observance/participation of all Jewish religious rites in the State."

No it doesnt ... put down the crack pipe.

[jwalsh07]

We are talking about one adult making the choice to marry another adult.

More polyphobia. I think you are a repressed polysexual who is acting out against polysexuals.

Recognise that argument? :-}

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I am clear where I draw the line, you evidently do not have the wherewithal to draw a line."

The only thing you lack however, is the chalk to draw that line with.

The US Constitution guarantees that even those who you would leave on the other side of your "line" get a voice.

The mistake lies in the very fact that there is government involvement in marriage to start.