No law denies homosexuals the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. They have exactly the same rights as all other human beings.

Twisting marriage into meaning "the right to marry someone you love" is a bit of a stretch - no?

"The right to marry someone you love" may be a stretch - love is a pretty loose legal concept.

However, "the right to enter into a valid legal marriage contract with any consenting adult who will have you" is not a stretch.

You may believe that "opposite-sex" is inherent in the definition of marriage, but I do not see any reason why that would be the case. Insofar as marriage is a religious matter - which isn't very far, considering many people marry in courthouses and civil ceremonies without any religious involvement whatsoever - my church recognizes same-sex marriages as equally blessed. I, my wife, and my child have the same legal marriage needs as a heterosexual family.

There is no valid state interest that makes it make sense for the government to restrict my marriagable pool of citizens to a single sex. Any argument based on child-rearing becomes nonsense when you realize that I and my partner are both equal legal parents to our daughter. Any argument based on religion becomes nonsense when you realize atheist heterosexuals marry legally all the time.

kaiso:

There is no valid state interest that makes it make sense for the government to restrict my marriagable pool of citizens to a single sex. Any argument based on child-rearing becomes nonsense when you realize that I and my partner are both equal legal parents to our daughter. Any argument based on religion becomes nonsense when you realize atheist heterosexuals marry legally all the time.

You might be equal guardians but it is physically impossible for you to be equal "parents." Again, this is a case where "words mean things" and not simply whatever we want them to mean.

As for state interest, society does have a compelling stake in its continuation via the propagation of new citizens, a need which no amount of "love" between two "consenting adults" of the same sex is currenlty able to fulfill.

kenrockthefirst:

You might be equal guardians but it is physically impossible for you to be equal "parents." Again, this is a case where "words mean things" and not simply whatever we want them to mean.

You are conflating your faith and belief based terms with the legal concept of equality. From a LEGAL perspective, there is no basis for differentiating between the equality of things.

Again this is a case where you are seeking to redefine what words mean to match your personal political ideology, and in doing so deny the panoply of meaning that is reflected in context and the human experience. This sort of narrowing of definitions to serve a political end, is EXACTLY what Orwell was objecting to in his original essay "Politics and the English Language" from whence Newspeak derives

kenrockthefirst:

As for state interest, society does have a compelling stake in its continuation via the propagation of new citizens, a need which no amount of "love" between two "consenting adults" of the same sex is currenlty able to fulfill.

So I take it then that you also believe that any marriage in which children are not produced within 9-12 mos must be annulled absent a physicians statement that they are undergoing fertility treatments

And you also believe that any marriage in which the woman hits menopause should be automatically terminated right?

Or are you being selective in your equal application of the law?

ridgel:

As I recall it was illegal for blacks to attend the same schools as whites in many states not so long ago. If "legal in several states" is your test for truth then you must have a hard time telling up from down.

Its interesting how you conflate "several states where it is legal" to "several states where it is ILLEGAL".

The approriate analogy would be for you to recall that just as it is illegal for same sex couples to marry in some states, it also was illegal in some states for blacks to attend the same school as whites.

And the reasoning is the same in both cases - blacks are not equal to whites, same sex marriages are not equal to heterosexual marriages.

At least get your analogies consistent. The fact that you are hypocritical in even your analogies demonstrates how weak a position it is that you are defending.

kenrockthefirst:

You might be equal guardians but it is physically impossible for you to be equal "parents." Again, this is a case where "words mean things" and not simply whatever we want them to mean.

As for state interest, society does have a compelling stake in its continuation via the propagation of new citizens, a need which no amount of "love" between two "consenting adults" of the same sex is currenlty able to fulfill.

So, kenrockthefirst, are you intentionally invalidating adoption when you state, 'You might be equal guardians but it is physically impossible for you to be equal "parents." Again, this is a case where "words mean things" and not simply whatever we want them to mean'?

You might be equal guardians but it is physically impossible for you to be equal "parents." Again, this is a case where "words mean things" and not simply whatever we want them to mean.

When I married my first wife I also legally adopted her son from a previous marriage. I was the only father he ever knew, and when I divorced his mother, he was old enough to choose who he was going to live with and he chose me.

You get to be equal parents when you are equal parents and blood has nothing to do with that.

Would you argue that anti-miscegenation laws were constitutional because “Anyone who wants to marry a member of a different race has the exact same right to marry a person of their own race everybody else does”?

How about a law denying US citizens free religious expression, based on the argument “Those Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindu’s have the exact same right to worship Marduk everybody else has”?

 If you are the only father a child ever knew, does that mean that he was told you contributed to the conception? Once upon a time, when adoption was knowledge hidden from the child, that might have been the case. Now, children are often (I think usually, although I'm guessing here) told they were adopted. They can find their birth parents if they choose - or not. Once they know they were adopted, they certainly know they have a birth father, different from the father who raised them.

  So an adopted child then would have two fathers - one who is biological and one who adopts. No one argues that one is better than the other. But there are two. Adopted children can look for that parent. Not only do I know adults who have searched for their adult father after many, many years (sometimes that parent has already died) but I've known teens who keep in touch with their biological parents who may live many miles away.

  While parenthood is not entirely dependent on reproduction, children always know they came from egg and sperm and they always want to know the origins. Lesbian parents will have children who love them but also who grow up to find their father. They may end up loving that father too.  Gay men may raise a child but that child will want to find their mother or at the very least, know her story. 

  Same sex couples don't create a life together. Children know how life is created.

kaiso:

"The right to marry someone you love" may be a stretch - love is a pretty loose legal concept.

However, "the right to enter into a valid legal marriage contract with any consenting adult who will have you" is not a stretch.

If two heterosexual brothers realize in their forties that they have no further interest in long-term romantic relationships and no desire ever to reproduce, should a "marriage" between them be recognized by the law? Why should they be denied survivor benefits?

What is it that distinguishes a marital relationship from other types? The fact that the parties have sexual relations with each other?

This is what many conservatives are talking about when they talk about a degradation of the institution of marriage. Not that you are allowing undesirable persons into it (some do believe that as well, but by no means all, and it shouldn't be part of our law in any event), but that you are breaking down a useful distinction, diluting a class that was defined non-arbitrarily. A marriage is more than just a long-term (I'd say "permanent," but regrettably we seem to have tossed that one by the wayside as well) monogamous romantic and sexual partnership.

kaiso:

You may believe that "opposite-sex" is inherent in the definition of marriage, but I do not see any reason why that would be the case.

There is no valid state interest that makes it make sense for the government to restrict my marriagable pool of citizens to a single sex. Any argument based on child-rearing becomes nonsense when you realize that I and my partner are both equal legal parents to our daughter.

Not true. The fundamental purpose of marriage is to use the moral authority of society to reinforce the permanent and unique bonds between natural parents and their children. Everything else related to marriage is derivative of this. Anything that serves to diminish those bonds is contrary to the purpose of marriage.

Adoption, which is the only way same-sex couples can be parents together, exists in order to mitigate damage, not to provide an alternate model. And marriage is not required for adoption.

Another one for you: if we follow the inevitable logic and legalize plural marriages, should the law recognize every person in the group as the parent of every child in the group? Can a child have six fathers and eighteen mothers? Does legal recognition of such relationships help or hurt the child?

“As for state interest, society does have a compelling stake in its continuation via the propagation of new citizens, a need which no amount of "love" between two "consenting adults" of the same sex is currenlty able to fulfill.”

>>Nonsense—consenting adults of the same sex possess the exact same ability to meet the states interest in “its continuation via the propagation of new citizens” that many heterosexual couples the state recognizes as partners in civil matrimony possess ( my wife and I, for example: we cannot have children biologically for reasons of infertility, so we’ve built our family through adoption, just as they have.)

If the inability to reproduce biologically argues that the state deny a couple recognition as partners in civil matrimony, it does so without regard for whether they’re members of the same or opposite gender. If the state is going to elect to deny same sex couples recognition on this basis, then it must also deny all infertile opposite sex couples recognition as partners in matrimony. Anything else violates due process.

Wo you will either have to institute a fertility means test for all couples seeking marriage and prohibit all infertile individuals from marrying regardless of gender or orientation marry (note: this would exclude all women past the age of menopause), or recognize same sex marriages despite the partners inability to conceive and bear children. Anything else violates due process.

So tell me—which one do you pick?

"So an adopted child then would have two fathers - one who is biological and one who adopts. No one argues that one is better than the other. But there are two. Adopted children can look for that parent. Not only do I know adults who have searched for their adult father after many, many years (sometimes that parent has already died) but I've known teens who keep in touch with their biological parents who may live many miles away. While parenthood is not entirely dependent on reproduction, children always know they came from egg and sperm and they always want to know the origins. Lesbian parents will have children who love them but also who grow up to find their father. They may end up loving that father too. Gay men may raise a child but that child will want to find their mother or at the very least, know her story."

Sorry, Sparky, but not necessarily. I'm adopted. As far as I'm concerned, my only father is the man who sat up with me when I was sick, taught me to ride a bike, taught me right from wrong, and loved me no matter what. The fertilizing male is just that, a DNA donor and no more. I have zero desire to locate my biological parents. I hold them no malice; I had a great life with parents that loved me unconditionally and took excellent care of me, but that doesn't mean I have some frantic need to meet them just to see where my DNA came from (and frankly, I get rather tired of being told that I do). It's more important to me to know where my values and priorities came from, and those came from my "real" parents - the ones who adopted me voluntarily and loved me always. They may not have "created" my life, but they certainly gave me a life, and a very good one.