Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(1) There is no purported reason. It's just always been done that way.
|
Actually, there is Supreme Court case law on the purported reasons. It is in the polygamy cases that barred polygamy. The US Supremes struck down the equal protection and due process arguments of the polygamists as well as the freedom of religion arguments because of the biological necessity of one man/one woman to create a child and the historical use of marriage between one woman and one man as the foundation of our societal structure.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(2) Cite, please.
|
Check the Supreme Court cases from the late 1800's upholding the ban on polygamy. I have posted them before. The definition of marriage in those cases and the reasoning for limiting marriage to one man and one woman used by the Supreme Court in those cases is what Congress used in the Defense of Marriage Act.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(3) We let, e.g., single fathers raise kids, even if it might be for the best in some abstract, academic way for the kid to have a mother. Thus, we don't force couples to stay together for the good of the children, because sometimes it would be worse. I can say this from personal experience.
|
I never said we should force couples to stay together and I never said we shouldn't allow single people to raise kids. So what is your point? My point is that it is
best for a child to have both a mother and a father all else being equal. If you use an analogy in which the hetero couple are bad parents and the single parent is a good parent, that is not all else being equal. Of course it is better to have one good parent than two bad parents.
But if you can have both a good mother and a good father, that is the best environment to raise a child in. Children a best raised by both a good mother and a good father.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(4) During WWII, when we were mobilizing the country to fight Hitler and Tojo, there was a government program that forced single parents to marry government-provided spouses of the opposite sex. In the euphoria after VJ Day, the program was abandoned. It is now widely acknowledged to have been a failure.
|
That has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. That is a government mandated arranged marriage. I am not talking about arranged marriages.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(5) Love is best for kids. And, as the Beatles noted, all you need is love. Yeah. Love, love. Although love was formerly believed to be exclusively available only to traditional (tm) couples, The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name now dares to speak its name.
|
It is best for kids to have both a good mother and a good father raising them. That is the best option. The other options might also result in a happy, well-adjusted child, but the child still would have been better off with both a loving mother and a loving father.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
(6) Why is the government involved at all? A fine question. You and the five other people who believe that there is any chance that the government will get out of the business of legislating morality should get together in the lobby of the Radisson at the next libertarian (tm) convention and discuss this. Perhaps the six of you should pick a state to move to where you can vote to change the laws so you can all marry each other.
|
Providing legal recognition of marriage isn't legislating morality. Banning sodomy is legislating morality and I am glad that is no longer constitutional to do in the US.
