In this case, children are best served being born into families with one woman, and one man, who are the biological parents and who raise the children in a biological unit.
While people will chose other arrangements, there is no sense in providing special encouragement for arrangements that virtually ASSURE that one or both parents will NOT be biologically connected to children.
Non-biological parents don't have the same connection to children, are more likely to leave, and the state should not encourage by special treatment (and marriage recognition is SPECIAL TREATMENT, not a right) for situations that are clearly disadvantageous for the children.
Marriage as an institution exists and is recognised by the state precisely because providing a stable family environment for offspring is a "common good" and essential to a properly functioning society. It's not about what two people feel like getting rewarded for, it's what government wants to encourage.
There's no reason for government to encourage with special, tax-favored treatment, long-term relationships between same-sex couples.
Note that nothing in this amendment keeps gay couples from making their own bonds of "matrimony", from having and raising children, from doing everything as a committed couple.
It simply keeps the government from providing tax-favored, preferential treatment to those couples.
Obviously you know nothing about nature and have never lived on a farm to make that kind of a foolish statement....It seems some Virginians agree with the Jim Crow mentality of old...that some citizens are entitled to "special rights" instead of all citizens having rights....
Your thinking is such that you aren't the sort I'd enjoy conversing with.....
I prefer creative thinkers who are compassionate and not into denying other people equal rights.
Nobody is denying any individual "rights". Any male can get married to any female, and any female can get married to any male, regardless of sexual orientation.
That's not quite true of course, there are many types of "coupling" that we do deny to individuals, like you can't marry your sister, or your mother, or in most cases your cousins, aunts, or uncles. Note that all of those are predicated on the problem of offspring, but apply even if you promised not to have offspring, or in the case of a gay couple you were incapable of having offspring.
In fact, the rules against marriage of closely related people prove the assertion that marriage was meant primarily to encourage family units, not simply to provide special treatment to any two people who felt like living together.
I do not believe that "rights" are conferred on groups of people, but rather on individuals. You as an indidual should have the same rights as every other individual, but rights to not confer to "couples", only individually to the two people in the couple.
You know, I can get special access to HOV lanes because I own a Prius (I did not choose to get the special plates). By your logic, teh government should not grant me special "rights" not available to ALL citizens, in other words that if you choose to own a gas-guzzling SUV, you should still get the same "right" to use HOV as I get with my Prius.
But my point is that you DO have the same right, you could buy a Prius. You make a CHOICE as to whether you want to do so, and the right does not convey if you don't choose what the government is encouraging you to choose.
Likewise with marriage, if you really want the benefits of marriage then get married to a member of the opposite sex. It's a choice that many gay people actually make.
I was greatly encouraged for the future of Virginia by the passage of the Marriage Amendment. Thank you, charles, for your sensible posts and comments on this topic.
8 comments:
Would you care to explain to me how it's "for the children"?
It's always "for the children".
In this case, children are best served being born into families with one woman, and one man, who are the biological parents and who raise the children in a biological unit.
While people will chose other arrangements, there is no sense in providing special encouragement for arrangements that virtually ASSURE that one or both parents will NOT be biologically connected to children.
Non-biological parents don't have the same connection to children, are more likely to leave, and the state should not encourage by special treatment (and marriage recognition is SPECIAL TREATMENT, not a right) for situations that are clearly disadvantageous for the children.
Marriage as an institution exists and is recognised by the state precisely because providing a stable family environment for offspring is a "common good" and essential to a properly functioning society. It's not about what two people feel like getting rewarded for, it's what government wants to encourage.
There's no reason for government to encourage with special, tax-favored treatment, long-term relationships between same-sex couples.
Note that nothing in this amendment keeps gay couples from making their own bonds of "matrimony", from having and raising children, from doing everything as a committed couple.
It simply keeps the government from providing tax-favored, preferential treatment to those couples.
Obviously you know nothing about nature and have never lived on a farm to make that kind of a foolish statement....It seems some Virginians agree with the Jim Crow mentality of old...that some citizens are entitled to "special rights" instead of all citizens having rights....
Your thinking is such that you aren't the sort I'd enjoy conversing with.....
I prefer creative thinkers who are compassionate and not into denying other people equal rights.
Buzz...Buzz...Mosquito
Nobody is denying any individual "rights". Any male can get married to any female, and any female can get married to any male, regardless of sexual orientation.
That's not quite true of course, there are many types of "coupling" that we do deny to individuals, like you can't marry your sister, or your mother, or in most cases your cousins, aunts, or uncles. Note that all of those are predicated on the problem of offspring, but apply even if you promised not to have offspring, or in the case of a gay couple you were incapable of having offspring.
In fact, the rules against marriage of closely related people prove the assertion that marriage was meant primarily to encourage family units, not simply to provide special treatment to any two people who felt like living together.
I do not believe that "rights" are conferred on groups of people, but rather on individuals. You as an indidual should have the same rights as every other individual, but rights to not confer to "couples", only individually to the two people in the couple.
You know, I can get special access to HOV lanes because I own a Prius (I did not choose to get the special plates). By your logic, teh government should not grant me special "rights" not available to ALL citizens, in other words that if you choose to own a gas-guzzling SUV, you should still get the same "right" to use HOV as I get with my Prius.
But my point is that you DO have the same right, you could buy a Prius. You make a CHOICE as to whether you want to do so, and the right does not convey if you don't choose what the government is encouraging you to choose.
Likewise with marriage, if you really want the benefits of marriage then get married to a member of the opposite sex. It's a choice that many gay people actually make.
yes - and go to the polls nude - just as nature intended
For the record,
I am against the marriage of the straw couple.
I was greatly encouraged for the future of Virginia by the passage of the Marriage Amendment. Thank you, charles, for your sensible posts and comments on this topic.
Post a Comment