Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gilda
CFBC: Child Free By Choice. It refers to fertile couples of child bearing age who choose not to have children. They actively oppose laws giving preferential treatment to families, including tax breaks, child-care subsidies, etc., on the basis that it requires those who choose not to have children to subsidize the children of those who do.
|
I would find a couple like this hypocritical if they chose to accept marriage benefits. They feel it's wrong to subsidise children, but don't mind subsidising relationships? Society has no stake in how a relationship turns out, but there is a large interest in children being raised in stable environments.
Quote:
AIS: Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. A genetic defect in some children conceived with XY chromosomes causes their body to be unable to process androgens (male hormones). Without the altering effects of androgens, the human body develops into its default mode, which is female. These people are identified as female at birth, grow up as girls, and develop normal female sexual characteristics, including breasts and and female genitals. They're usually not diagnosed until puberty, when they fail to begin menstruation due to not having ovaries and a uterus. Other than needing to take hormones, they are normal, infertile women, indistiguishable from XX women by any means other than an internal examination or chromosome test.
I include these women, as well as single X women, and survivors of cervical, ovarian, and testicular cancer in my argument for a reason. These are indisputably biological conditions, and not lifestyle choices. You've stated before that that's the difference between discrimination based on race and discrimination based on orientation--the first is a biological condition, but, you claim, the second isn't. Here is a whole slew of biological conditions that prevent conception, and now you're saying you'd advocate discriminating against them based on those biological conditions.
|
Again, I don't see it as discrimination. They are excluded by biology, sure. But no more than men are excluded by biology from getting abortions, or I am excluded by biology from playing in the NBA. As I said above, government sponsored/endorsed marriage benefits should be (and according to Florida, are) for the use of providing stable environments the biological offspring of a couple.
Quote:
|
As to the purpose of marriage laws being for parents of biological offspring, the Florida court is just plain wrong, and disingenuous to boot. It's tortuous reasoning designed to obfuscate the true purpose of the ruling, which is to deny same sex marriage on the basis of perceived morality. Marriage laws provide a large variety of protections to the partners that have absolutely nothing to do with child rearing, indeed, most of them have nothign whatsoever to do with children, and adopted children are provided the same legal protections as biological children.
|
And I could just as easily say that the Mass. court is just plain wrong, and disingenuous to boot. And I could back it up by saying that sexual orientation is not mentioned in the constitution, is a choice, and that the ruling judge(s) were making their private beliefs law.
Arguing the correctness of court rulings gets people nowhere. I was mildly suprized when I found out the basis of the court's ruling (and the government's argument). It was a belief I held before, and was impressed to see it successfully argued. I had assumed that all challenges would be based more on states rights.
If you could find a way to separate out the financial benefits of marriage from those benefits that could be accomplished with legal contracts, bundle them all up and call it "gay marriage" I wouldnt' oppose it. I wouldn't support it, but I definately wouldn't oppose it. But that hardly seems necessary, everything non-financial I have seen desired by gay marriage advocates CAN be accomplished with legal documents.
Quote:
|
If the purpose of marriage laws is to provide a stable environment for rearing children, then it would be foolish to deny that protection to adopted or artificially inseminated children on the basis of their parents status.
|
It's not just for the rearing of any children, but the rearing of biological children. Key difference. That helps make sure that there is both a mother and father involved with the child (in theory).