It&#39;s All About Me

Step back a bit and it's so deliciously absurd though, isn't it? This whole "defense" of the "sanctity" of marriage. Since when did marriage become so sacred? Why aren't they outlawing divorce? Wouldn't that be a more effective "defense"?

It's just thinly-veiled homophobia in my book.

From:

susandennis

I can step back but I can't see the thin veil. It's overt homophobia in my book.

But, yes, so absurd. 1. that 'their kind of marraige' needs defense and 2. that defending it to hurt others will make it better.

I think my main problem is that my cynic was turned off. I just knew they couldn't uphold that stupid law and I didn't for a minute consider that they might. So I'm surprised as well as pissed.

From:

machupicchu.livejournal.com

.
.
I am not at all surprised by this decision. But I had high hopes (and a 5-4 decision indicates it was a close call), and as a result am deeply disappointed.

I had a lot personally riding on this decision. Now my engagement will likely have to last another several years.
.
.

From:

It's not homophobia. The encouraging of procreation is a legitimate state interest, and the best way to have more babies is to ensure that only opposite sex couples can marry.

From:

machupicchu.livejournal.com

.
.
That doesn't make any sense at all. What about all the same-sex couples who are unable to have children? Should they be denied the right to marry as well?

The way I see it, homophobia is the only basis of this decision.
.
.

From:

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple's willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis.

From:

machupicchu.livejournal.com

.
.
In your original comment you wrote, the best way to have more babies is to ensure that only opposite sex couples can marry.

How does allowing same-sex couples to marry prevent opposite couples from being able to procreate? Do you really think it will encourage gay people to get married to members of the opposite sex and have children?

I still fail to see the rationale here. My disagreement with the argument that encouraging procration is even of paramount importance aside, same sex marriage poses no threat to heterosexual marriages whatsoever.
.
.

From:

The only reason marriage exists is to further state interests - specifically, the encouragement of procreation. Sure, same sex marriage poses no threat to opposite sex marriage, but because same sex partners cannot procreate, the point is moot.

From:

same sex partners cannot procreate

Even that's a little hard to pin down as factual. Same-sex couples can (and do) procreate via surrogates and in-vitro. Chromosomes are irrelevant, since the couple is raising the child themselves, regardless of genetic makeup.

From:

You're kidding, right? Same sex couples cannot procreate, plain and simple. Zygotes don't spontaneously generate themselves - you need sperm and an egg.

Now, I don't know about you, but I've been in a same sex relationship for thirteen years, which means I've had plenty of time (thank God) to thoroughly explore my partner's body. I have yet to see any ovaries or eggs - I just don't see how we could reproduce.

From:

OK, I'll play along... (I'm going on 12 years with my husband, myself.)

If we wanted more kids (my partner has two children, now grown, from a previous marriage to a woman), we could surely find a surrogate to carry for us, if we looked hard enough. But thankfully, neither one of us wants that. You're quite strict on the mechanics and definition of procreation-- I'm gathering that you do not see using a surrogate as "valid" procreation, and I frankly do.

But anyway, I maintain that I have it great. I get two "kids" that are already grown, and now I am fast-tracked into being a grandfather, which is the best. I get to enjoy babies but then send them on their way back to their parents when I'm tired of 'em. ;)

From:

LOL... You're not serious, right?

In case you are... why not outlaw abortions instead? Seems a lot more effective, and certainly the "best way to have more babies". And it's more than a little naive to think that married people have the lock on baby production!

From:

rivendweller.livejournal.com

I feel that way about the entire country with Bush in office. I'm embarrassed, too. At least we know not all of us agree with the way things are going.

From:

Really this just enshrines the insecurity that most Americans have in marriage. They can't make their marriages work better by trying to blame other people for 'attacking' them. It's always easier to look out than in.

(why IS your comment window text entry in 2 point? I get about 4 pixels per character on a 1600x1200 screen)

From:

Hmm, maybe it was me. Careless ctrl-mousewheel use?

From:

susandennis

Whew... you had me head scratchin' there for a minute...

From:

The text in the message box us substantially smaller than in theoriginal comment above the reply.

From: