At 11:46 AM 2/16/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote:
>It also strikes me as odd for the US Constitution to be delegrating how
>state constitutions
>and laws are to be interpreted. Isn't there supposed to be some firm
>separation between
>state and government powers? This seems to be trying to cross a line that I
>think
>traditionally conservatives would be trying to defend.
It has been done many times. The Constitution, for instance, forbids
State Constitutions from instituting Jim Crow Laws (equal protection.)
>If I understand your argument, you're saying that social pressure to act
>heterosexual
>will decrease so there will be marginally more people who act in their
>preferred
>homosexual orientation? So? If anything, this is a benefit in that there
>will be less
>heterosexual people with spouses who are "living a lie".
Sorry.... I believe that I wrote "nonlinear" originally, when I meant
"nonbinary." I don't believe that sexuality is an either-or proposition,
and one orientation is "living a lie" for all people.
>Marriages are about far more than birthing children. Infertile couples can
>be
>married, as can elderly ones or even just couples with the stated intention
>not
>to have children. Marriage doesn't even require sex at all.
Actually...... in civil law, sex is seen as a requirement of marriage....
but that is neither here nor there.
Infertile couples, of course, can adopt - while still fulfilling the basic
inherent expectation of a child to a mother and a father. Other couples,
of course, can always change their intention.... and indeed, before the era
of birth control and abortion, it would be very rare for a couple to
successfully carry out such an intention for a childless marriage. Since
this concept of a childless marriage is a fairly new invention, the legal
and philosophical regime has not caught up to it.
>It is easily possible for homosexual couples to produce children without
>requiring IVF.
>>From my wife's experience in a fertility center, I know that homosexual
>couples can
>and do produce children (without IVF).
I'm sure that it is possible..... unmarried couples can have children.
Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of adoption.
Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce children the way
heterosexual unions do. Moreover, the question becomes - should we
*incentivise* homosexual couples having children. I argue that we should
not.
>I think that while, ideally, a child with be raised by a mother and a
>father, expanding
>that to be a requirement for/right of the child is overplaying the benefit.
>Many
>locales allow single people to adopt, and certainly there is no law against
>single
>parents. Having two loving parents of the same sex can only be better for a
>child
>than having only one parent.
I think that it is important to keep in mind that there is an enormous
difference between "related adoption" and "anonymous adoption." The law
has always recognized that familal relationships and bloodlines are
important, and these factors have to weighed against the benefits of having
a loving mother and father and against whatever the next best likely
alternative is for the child.
In the case of anonymous adoptions, however..... I think that ceteris
paribis, the best scenario for the child is to simulate the natural
expecation of having a mother and a father.
>If the government wants to promote population growth, I can think of plenty
>of
>other ways to do it besides
But this is the wrong question. The FMA is not a result of "Marriage as
an institution is crumbling in our society, lets shore up marriage by
outlawing homosexual marriages." Likewise, the FMA is not a result of
"We are not producing enough children to sustain our civilization, let's
promote childbearing by outlawing homosexual marriages."
First, the question is: "Should marriage be redefined to include homosexual
unions as well as heterosexual unions?" And indeed, given the current
judicial environment, the question can be taken one step further "Does our
civilization have a moral responsibility to so redefine marriages,
*immediately?*"
In my mind, however, the questions can be further redefined to be: "Should
our civilization incentivse homosexual unions by redefining marriage to
include such unions?" And also, "Does our civilization have a moral
obligation to immediately incentivise homosexual unions by so redefining
marriages *immediately.*?"
I come down very firmly against the latter questions, and also fairly
firmly aginst the former question as well.
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
