NationStates Jolt Archive

I know there are too many topics about this subject as it is, but I'm actually genuinally curious about this particular subject: whether or not gay marriage can be declared a guaranteed right under the provisions of the fourteenth amendment of the United States' Constitution, or other such equal protection clauses in other countries' constitutions/laws.

Legal marriage exists in order to promote the raising of future citizens and to help keep existing families secure -- that much seems to be a given. So is it a legislature's right to decide what type of relationships that they wish to grant the benefits and privleges of marriage to in order to best protect and promote the family unit? Or is it discrimination to limit such legal unions to being granted to only one type of a potential family? Going by that sort of logic, aren't laws against polygamy and incestuous unions unconstitutional/illegal then? What are your thoughts?

Well theres legal marriage for "securing" a family and future citizens... and then theres divorce.

Well? For one thing. Religion is trying to lay claims to the concept of marriage.

Going by that sort of logic, aren't laws against polygamy and incestuous unions unconstitutional/illegal then? What are your thoughts?

My thoughts are that the slippery slope goes both ways. As Jon Stewart said last night, this debate is not about marriage, but rather about whether or not being homosexual is part of the human condition or just an act of arbitrary will.

It is highly doubtful that having more than one wife is part of the human condition. Possible, but I've seen no evidence or even any scientific studies on it. Homosexuality is part of the human condition and, thus, homosexuals must be absolutely equal in all aspects of human rights.

As for the slippery slope going the other way, if they can ban the marriage of homosexuals, what's to stop them from next banning divorce and throwing adulterers in prison?

There is absolutely no rational reason to ban homosexual marriage. All arguments for its ban come from emotional response, not rational thinking.