Published: Friday, June 20 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
higv, you've asserted in many postings that "thousands" of gay men
have somehow turned themselves straight and thrived in heterosexual marriages.
You're right, lots of them have married women. But I have yet to read of
one who does not admit still being attracted to men--they simply choose to
squelch these feelings because they value the family they now have. Well, at
least for a while. Any number of Mormon and Evangelical Christian men did just
that and, five or ten years into the marriage, were caught sneaking out for
liaisons with other men. If you don't believe me, go into any gay bar and
holler, "Dad! What are you doing here?". Then count how many men turn
around to see if they are the one who was "recognized".
To "Furry1993" actually, it is only recently that marriage was declared
a right.In the SCOTUS majority opinion they state that marriage laws
are a state issue. See "UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR". The Supreme court
agrees with me that the definition of marriage is a state issue. They mention
multiple cases where it was established that it is up to the state to determine
the definition of marriage.You also have yet to show that marriage
laws prevented a homosexual person from getting married to a person of the
opposite gender. According to the laws, sexual orientation and love have no
bearing on people getting married. Nowhere is sexual orientation something that
will prevent a person from marrying a person of the opposite gender, a marriage
license also does not require that the couple love eachother. There is no
discrimination when marriage is defined as the legal union of 1 man and 1
woman.Discrimination is introduced by saying that marriage is
defined by who you love. If marriage is defined by who you love, then it is
discriminatory to preven a group of sexually confused people from being married.
Redshirt1701, what states are allowed to do is enact requirements for marriage,
not "define" marriage. And it has been repeatedly asserted by SCOTUS
that these requirements must have a rational basis. That is why restrictions on
blood relatives, on minors, on mentally incompetent people, and on
already-married people exist. Each of these restrictions have a rational basis.
The restriction on SSM has none. Tradition, the children argument, and
religious belief all fail the sniff test. That is why anti-SSM laws are falling
To "Laura Bilington" yes, and the states did define marriage on a
rational basis. Rational #1, the best situation for a family is for the
biological parents to be married and raising their children. Rational #2, there
is no benefit to the State in recognizing SSM. Rational #3, according to the
DOJ, when a gay couple co-habitates they double their risk of domestic
violence.Those are the basic rational behind defining marriage as
being between a man and a woman.What benefit to society is there to
encourage or recognize gay marriage? The only logical answer is NONE.
@RedShirtRational #1: I agree it's best; but not often the
case. Are we to take kids away from single mothers? Disallow foster child
adoption? Also parents can simply cohabit without being married, so why create
this special protection? This creates a special class of society and deprives
equal protection.Rational 2: What benefit does "marriage"
have on children over their parents just living together? What interest does
the state have in defining such a union?Rational 3: Certain people
are going to live together whether or not they can marry. Preventing this
marriage does nothing to slow down the rates of abuse. With the
above arguments, what benefit is there for the state to recognize any form of
marriage? Equal protection would state that if you recognize one, you must
recognize all, unless you can through due process show why it would be of harm.
The same-sex community does not have to justify their right, society has the
burden to prove why they should not.
To "Darrel" the state recognition of marriage is to encourage Rational
#1.You missed the point of #2. What benefit does the State get if
it was to recognize the marriage of gays? They will lose out on taxes revenues
since inheritances can be passed from one partner to another and avoid that tax.
There are some tax breaks given to married couples that will also cut tax
revenues. Plus, there are the SS benefits that are paid to the survivors.
Since they are infertile, they are incapable of producing children that would
add to the tax base. Since less than 1/4 of gay couples have children, they
would represent an overall drain on society as they age, where 90% of
heterosexual couples have children and represent a net gain for society. Rational #3, discouraging a behavior that leads to harm will decrese the
harm. Since the rate of harm is high without encouraging the behavior, what do
you think will happen when the behavior is encouraged?You missed the
big question. What benefit to society is there to recognize SSM?
RedShirtCalTech,As usual, you're asking yourself the wrong
question. Have you read Amendment 3? It doesn't provide anything, it
prohibits something.So, the proper question when examining a law
that prohibits something is, what does society gain by prohibiting it? And
that's where your beliefs run into a brick wall..--Gay people
are already allowed to have sex. It's a Constitutionally-protected private
matter..--Gay people are already allowed to have children. Some of
them had children while they were trying to be straight, because society puts so
much pressure on them to deny who they are, and they really do try. Others have
already adopted, because adoption agencies, and states, have looked at them and
determined that they'd be fine parents. Others have used their own
reproductive capacity along with licensed assistance..--Married or
not, gay people are allowed to choose partners, live together, and form familes.
Whether that involves children or just the two partners, those are families. Given the above, how does society benefit from prohibiting them from
marrying? I can think of several ways that prohibition is harmful. Be
@Redshirt1701 ....."Nowhere is sexual orientation something that will
prevent a person from marrying a person of the opposite gender, a marriage
license also does not require that the couple love eachother."So
you admit that it's discrimination based on the relative gender of the
spouses, in the same way that the bans on mixed-race marriage were
discrimination based on the relative race of the spouses? It's great that
you admit that, but just be aware that both race and gender are subject to
heightened scrutiny by a court. Perhaps that explains why your
side is losing unanimously?
To "Testimony" Ammendment 3 defines marriage, and prevents people from
redefining it based on their whims.Society is benefitted by
prohibiting SSM because gays will pay higher taxes, which will offset their
expense later in life because 75% of gay couples will NEVER raise children.By discouraging SSM, you also reduce the cost for police and social
services because they will not have to deal with as many domestic violence
incidents.In other words, by prohibiting SSM, the gays and their
lack of children will not be a drain on old age entitlements, and they will not
drain the social services because of violence.To "skrekk"
prohibiting SSM is no different than prohibitions on bi-polar people from acting
out violently. Being gay is not like race. There is NO gay gene. All we know
about gays is that they have abnormal brain chemistry. Do we make laws to
legitimize the behavior of people with abnormal brain chemistry, or do we seek
treatment? Until we know what cause a person to be gay, we are doing nothing
more than taking an overweight person to a buffet.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments