The Right to Marry: Justice, at Last

[nclib]

Here is the prblem with gay marriage.  But declaring that marraige is to be between any two people who love each other, and that the primary purpose of marriage is to give state sanction to love, we break the traditional link between marriage and child-rearing.  By seperating the two, we make out-of-wedlock childbirth more acceptable, we make divorce in marriages taht have children more acceptable, and we will therefore increase the rate of single parents in America.  This is not wild specualtion either, there is empirical evidence from Scandanavia of this very phenomenon.

What people need to realize is that it isn't always just about letting people be "happy" or "free", or about us being "accepting" or "tolerant".  Part of what needs to be considered is the actual societal impact of changing the nation's laws.  The law signifies what is and isn't accepted by society, and by changing the law, we change social norms.  Changing this particular social norm would be very harmful.

Legalizing gay marriage may change social norms in a positive way--it could emphasize the egalitarian aspect of marriage.

[nclib]

What is wrong with States asking this question?

I don't think he does - but I certainly believe that homosexuality occurs naturally... thus there must be something in the genes that causes or encourages it.  So it is possible that 10 or 20 years down the road there could be a sexuality test that could be performed on the fetus.

Since, in Migrendel's world, its all about the "choice" of the mother, it doesn't matter what the doctors think or how stupid the reasoning is.  There will be pre-born babies murdered for being homosexual.  Thanks liberals!

Even from you, StatesRights, I cannot believe such a question.

The Medical profession does not, in this day and age, reccomend abortion for any defect of the child, real or imagined.

I agree that it's possible that someday the sexual orientation of a fetus could be known...

It would certainly be terrible to abort a fetus in this situation. However, there wouldn't be a point of having laws against that (as long as abortion is legal)--a woman could lie and say she wanted an abortion for some other reason.

This concept would also apply to the idea of aborting a fetus not of the desired sex.

[nclib]

I'd wonder what a pro-life homophobic woman would do in that hypothetical situation...

[nclib]

Here is the prblem with gay marriage.  But declaring that marraige is to be between any two people who love each other, and that the primary purpose of marriage is to give state sanction to love, we break the traditional link between marriage and child-rearing.  By seperating the two, we make out-of-wedlock childbirth more acceptable, we make divorce in marriages taht have children more acceptable, and we will therefore increase the rate of single parents in America.  This is not wild specualtion either, there is empirical evidence from Scandanavia of this very phenomenon.

What people need to realize is that it isn't always just about letting people be "happy" or "free", or about us being "accepting" or "tolerant".  Part of what needs to be considered is the actual societal impact of changing the nation's laws.  The law signifies what is and isn't accepted by society, and by changing the law, we change social norms.  Changing this particular social norm would be very harmful.

Legalizing gay marriage may change social norms in a positive way--it could emphasize the egalitarian aspect of marriage.

Hmm how? Ones we have gay marriages then we have 3 people in one marriage. Then before you know it people would just forget marriage!

Polygamy does not advance women's rights--most cultures that condone it are pretty misogynistic. Gay couples are certainly more egalitarian than straight couples--studies have shown that wives adapt more than husbands do, even in couples that claim to have egalitarian values.

[nclib]

The second one. Sorry if that was unclear.