The Equal Protection Clause argument is valid, but keep in mind that historically, the government has placed limits on certain types of marriages for public policy reasons—like age restrictions or prohibiting incestuous marriages. The state can sometimes argue that marriage laws serve a broader societal interest, like the protection of children or the institution of marriage itself. If the state makes the case that traditional marriage serves a compelling interest, wouldn’t that open the door to justify some restrictions? What would your response be if they claimed it was about preserving societal stability rather than individual rights?
Trending News
Here are the top political news stories for today.
21 Replies
“If the state makes the case that traditional marriage serves a compelling interest, wouldn’t that open the door to justify some restrictions?”
Yes, the government can regulate marriage when there’s a compelling reason tied to actual harm. Age restrictions exist to prevent child exploitation. Incest laws exist to prevent genetic disorders and coercion. These restrictions serve clear protective functions. Where I disagree with you is that using that precedent to justify banning same-sex marriage doesn’t hold up, because there’s no objective harm being prevented. Unlike child marriage or incest, two consenting adults of the same gender do not harm each other, their children, or society.
The "broader societal inter… Read more
@B9SFCWX 5mos5MO
Incredibly well written. I want to recognize your articulate and substantive response. This is what we need to strengthen the conversation.
It seems the common thread in opposition is of the religious basis. Finding resolution with someone arguing from the standpoint of faith seems fruitless.
How do we help people understand why religion is not, and should not be, the framework for rights.
@RIPCharlieRepublican7mos7MO
“-Procreation? Marriage has never required children, and plenty of heterosexual couples can’t or don’t have kids.”
Procreation is, in principle, impossible with a gay couple, and only by chance does not happen in those heterosexual couples. A human is, in principle someone with two legs. A human may be born without them, by chance, but he is still human. An ape, however, is not a human. It is, in principle, not a human, and does not have rights as such.
@BBGBQ494mos4MO
Procreation is also, however, not the goal of marriage. Furthermore, it's not your problem what other people do. All campaigning against gay marriage achieves is that now Senators gotta find their 89 gay hookups in a Tenessee airport bathroom instead of being nofmal about it
@B8PC6ZTRepublican 3mos3MO
Informed Gay Marriage #3 Expert Social Issues
The goal of marriage is to create a stable societal family unit, and that purpose does not exist when the married couples does not attempt to have children.
@BDJNHBS1mo1MO
@Renaldo-MoonGreen 2yrs2Y
Here aconter claim on social stability in support of same sex marriage: The Stonewall Riots. The Stonewall riots were a series of riots where LGBTQ+ people fought for their rights in NYC. Now tell me which would you prefer not gay marriage and possible riots or no gay marriage and having some Christians being upset?
@9Y9MYBKRepublican2yrs2Y
Narcissism is characterized by the belief that one's own perspective is the only valid one, and that the source of all of ones issues are other people. It's often accompanied by a lack of empathy and compassion, as well as the delusion that others must conform to their worldview, and if they don’t, something must be “wrong” with them. You are a Narcissist. Insisting that anyone who is LGBTQ+ has a mental illness says more about your own fragile ego and inability to handle different perspectives than it does about reality.
@Renaldo-MoonGreen 2yrs2Y
@B3C3HQL1yr1Y
It appears so do you. Since when was a man loving a man wrong? Is it any of your business that two women are getting married?
@BDZGBKF2wks2W
@BBMQXBW4mos4MO
“Now tell me which would you prefer not gay marriage and possible riots or no gay marriage and having some Christians being upset?”
First of all your stupid. You put no gay marriage twice. Your argument is invalid. Please don't argue with Christians just because you are unintelligent. I'm assuming that you are not Christian, which you should be. This is because it is the only way to get to heaven. However, I have talked to many Christians who argue this same point of stupidity. They are invalid and so are you. The bible states that God created man and woman. Not just men and men or woman and woman.
@BCK6CZ53mos3MO
“The bible states that God created man and woman. Not just men and men or woman and woman.”
Well, it's a good thing that the Bible isn't our framework for laws and human rights then, huh?
@ChristianGuidedConstitution2mos2MO
@BCPKK4RProgressive3mos3MO
@RIPCharlieRepublican7mos7MO
More conversations
Join in on more popular conversations.
