Arguments before the SCOTUS re: Prop. 8

[redfox]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gay-marry-court-20130127,0,6421506.story

Pretty nonsensical to me...

From the article:
Conservative attorneys did not argue that gays or lesbians engaged in "immoral" behavior or lifestyles. Instead they emphasized what they called the "very real threat" to society posed by opposite-sex couples when they are not bound by the strictures of marriage.


The traditional marriage laws "reflect a unique social difficulty with opposite-sex couples that is not present with same-sex couples — namely, the undeniable and distinct tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended pregnancies," wrote Clement, a solicitor general under President George W. Bush. "Unintended children produced by opposite-sex relationships and raised out-of-wedlock would pose a burden on society."


"It is plainly reasonable for California to maintain a unique institution [referring to marriage] to address the unique challenges posed by the unique procreative potential of sexual relationships between men and women," argued Washington attorney Charles J. Cooper, representing the defenders of Proposition 8. Same-sex couples need not be included in the definition of marriage, he said, because they "don't present a threat of irresponsible procreation."


From the comments:
So unplanned and unintended offspring is the gold standard of who can get married?
Thesis - If the child is unplanned and unintended, marriage is permissable.
Converse - Marriage is permissable if the child is unplanned and unintended.
Inverse - Marriage is not permissable if the child is not unplanned and unintended.
Contrapositive - If the child is not unplanned and not unintended, marriage is not permissable.
That thesis leads to a false conclusion.

[bae]

Madness really.

So sterile people, and women past menopause should not be allowed to marry?

As far as gay couples not presenting "a threat of irresponsible procreation", well, I know more-than-a-few gay couples with children. Who then split up. Causing all sorts of heck.

So that dog won't hunt.

[redfox]

Madness really.

So sterile people, and women past menopause should not be allowed to marry?

As far as gay couples not presenting "a threat of irresponsible procreation", well, I know more-than-a-few gay couples with children. Who then split up. Causing all sorts of heck.

So that dog won't hunt.

Truly madness. I am shocked that such a weak, inane argument is being put forth. Is it some kind of code? It's just so, well, illogical, as you pointed out. And it seems disrespectful to put before the Justices.

I am in both the categories of having been half of a gay couple wth a child who split and awful things ensued (1986), and a post-menopausal woman who married (2004). I am here to say, from grim personal experience, that having legal protections by way of my three-party marriage contract (DH, me, the state) is a considerably better arrangement than having none.

[creaker]

Stupid.

Based on their argument, what they are really saying is that sex between unmarried, opposite-sex partners should be illegal. As well as divorce for any couple that has children. And that marriage does not need to be an available option for any couple that can't procreate

[ApatheticNoMore]

Thesis - If the child is unplanned and unintended, marriage is permissable.
Converse - Marriage is permissable if the child is unplanned and unintended.
Inverse - Marriage is not permissable if the child is not unplanned and unintended.
Contrapositive - If the child is not unplanned and not unintended, marriage is not permissable.
That thesis leads to a false conclusion

Contraceptive - the solution (more or less ...)

[bUU]

Yeah, if that's the best they've got then the only way they could prevail is if the judges decide based on political perspective.

[peggy]

Yeah, if that's the best they've got then the only way they could prevail is if the judges decide based on political perspective.

Ahh....there's the rub!

[Gregg]

Madness really.

I concur.

[redfox]

Just for the sake of noting how things change... How many of us would have all been in agreement about this 18 years ago, when the marriage equality movement started?

[bUU]

I don't recall a time when I wasn't in favor of marriage equality.

[Gregg]

I'm with bUU. This has never been an area that I thought the government had any business 'regulating' and frankly have never cared who marries who.

[Spartana]

I don't recall a time when I wasn't in favor of marriage equality. Ditto!

It all sounds crazy to me. Don't understand the logic at all of this article. What about us child-less by choice people? The infertile? The menopausal? The elderly?

[bUU]

There are other things that people are coming around to, today, that I don't recall a time I didn't favor: For example, equal rights for women, for example. I was there at the first NOW rallies, brought up to respect women in a manner previous generations didn't even deem respectable, much less (as it is today) the only respectable manner.