Law School Discussion

I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #690 on: February 10, 2008, 06:56:05 PM »
The benefits given to marriage should remain because of the government's legitimate interest in supporting stable families. Stable families mean more stable children & productive citizens. Homosexual relationships are generally unstable & a gay couple's children will have obvious identity and stability problems. Of course, with a 50% divorce rate, marriages are pretty unstable currently.

The rational basis test applies, until the court states otherwise. It meets the test because it supports stable families as it's designed to.

If homosexual activists showed that they have somewhere near a 50% long-term relationship rate & produced children who became productive citizens, maybe support for their unions would materialize.

Wow.  The same argument was used when my parents married in 1960.  Their's was an interracial marriage.  I was three years old when SCOTUS ruled on Loving v. Virginia.

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #691 on: February 10, 2008, 07:56:22 PM »
The benefits given to marriage should remain because of the government's legitimate interest in supporting stable families. Stable families mean more stable children & productive citizens. Homosexual relationships are generally unstable & a gay couple's children will have obvious identity and stability problems. Of course, with a 50% divorce rate, marriages are pretty unstable currently.

The rational basis test applies, until the court states otherwise. It meets the test because it supports stable families as it's designed to.

If homosexual activists showed that they have somewhere near a 50% long-term relationship rate & produced children who became productive citizens, maybe support for their unions would materialize.

That's a ridiculous argument.  Even if you were right about your presumption (which I doubt), you are comparing all gay and lesbian relationships to only married straight relationships.  How many straight relationships break up before marriage and after marriage combined? 

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #692 on: February 10, 2008, 07:59:35 PM »
a gay couple's children will have obvious identity and stability problems. Of course, with a 50% divorce rate, marriages are pretty unstable currently.

...If homosexual activists showed that they have somewhere near a 50% long-term relationship rate & produced children who became productive citizens, maybe support for their unions would materialize.
1. What you say is obvious has no empirical support.
2. How would they demonstrate that? By what standard? Were such standards ever applied to heterosexual relationships--especially the 50% part? It seems like you're just throwing random stuff out there. For instance, I've been in 3 or so relationships. Only one has been long term--the one with my wife. That's a 33% long term relationship rate. So should people like myself be banned from marriage or child-rearing?

I've been in at least 7, and that's only if you count the more "serious" ones.  If you just count dating, there have been many more. 

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #693 on: February 10, 2008, 08:45:04 PM »
I'd be surprised if Freak doesn't return for more punishment.


Note to Freak: read some literature first.

mbw

  • ****
  • 2426
  • TTTundra Law 2012
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #694 on: February 10, 2008, 09:02:15 PM »
a gay couple's children will have obvious identity and stability problems. Of course, with a 50% divorce rate, marriages are pretty unstable currently.

...If homosexual activists showed that they have somewhere near a 50% long-term relationship rate & produced children who became productive citizens, maybe support for their unions would materialize.
1. What you say is obvious has no empirical support.
2. How would they demonstrate that? By what standard? Were such standards ever applied to heterosexual relationships--especially the 50% part? It seems like you're just throwing random stuff out there. For instance, I've been in 3 or so relationships. Only one has been long term--the one with my wife. That's a 33% long term relationship rate. So should people like myself be banned from marriage or child-rearing?

I've been in at least 7, and that's only if you count the more "serious" ones.  If you just count dating, there have been many more. 

I ran out of fingers AND toes by the time I met my spouse at age 30.  I guess the next twelve years of marriage (snd four kids) should be nullified by my 1-in-20 record.

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #695 on: February 10, 2008, 09:22:38 PM »
It's different, Saxby.

t...

  • ****
  • 2365
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #696 on: February 10, 2008, 09:29:36 PM »
rights.  justice.  truth.




Sergio

  • ****
  • 527
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #697 on: February 10, 2008, 09:48:30 PM »
My excused what?

llol.  ::applauds::

::curtseys, like a proper and feminine lady::

I knew you had it in ya...

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #698 on: February 10, 2008, 10:33:52 PM »
An approach taken in California to separate gay marriage and civil unions, was to define the word "marriage" as it would be used and understood by the California state constitution (the union of a man and a woman).  In that sense, marriage wouldn't apply to gay couples, polygamists, goat-lovers, etc.  While the legal rights associated with marriage could still be obtained through civil unions, marriage is strictly reserved for heterosexual couples. 

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #699 on: February 10, 2008, 10:36:32 PM »
An approach taken in California to separate gay marriage and civil unions, was to define the word "marriage" as it would be used and understood by the California state constitution (the union of a man and a woman).  In that sense, marriage wouldn't apply to gay couples, polygamists, goat-lovers, etc.  While the legal rights associated with marriage could still be obtained through civil unions, marriage is strictly reserved for heterosexual couples. 


Got more inanity coming?