|
|
|
That point borrowed from Kokle: Jones may want to vote in France but he doesn't live there, so his inability to vote on French affairs do not directly affect him, however much he wants to vote there. Homosexuals want to do something - marry - that does directly affect their lives, where they live.
Again, you overlook the basic fact that homosexuals cannot marry the gender of their choice, while heterosexuals can. How much more simple can the difference be ?
Inequality of desire can be the state's concern. It used to be law in many states that people of different races could not marry one another. They may have desired to do so, but were not allowed to. They were free to marry people of their own race if they wished but the fact that they desired to marry outside their race wasn't enough for them to be able to do so. Those laws have been repealed - to allow people to marry others of whatever race/colur they desired.
| Quote: |
| Certainly some heterosexual couples do not have children, either by choice or circumstance. Just because in some individual cases marriage has not been fully actualized |
Where is it necessary in law to have children to 'actualize' a marriage ? Why cannot a marriage be founded on love as well as or instead of having children ? Is it so hard to accept that people can get married and exchange vows simply to show their commitment to one another without wanting children ? Historically, marriages were arranged as much to control property and form alliances as they were for providing children. People who didn't have much property or need alliances were free to marry pretty much who they chose. Neither love nor children are the only thing that can define a marriage. It can be either, or both. Childless marriages are not the expections to the 'rule': they are an alternative. Law does not insist that married people have children, and neither does society. Laws provide support and benefits for married people who have children, but it doesn't insist that they do have children. Raising children is often an important part of marriage (though people raise children without being married) but it has never been the sole or only purpose of marriage.
You ask why should homosexual couples be granted marriage rights when other close non-marital relationships aren't ? The answer is in your question. Those other relationships are non-marital. Roommates, college brothers etc aren't planning to exhange vows and commit to long-term relationships. They can be close and supportive, but not generally to the point of becoming next of kin. Family members already have next of kin rights.
First you argue that if gays who make a loving, sexual commitment to one another get the legal benefits of marriage, then so should anyone else who wants to make a loving, but non-sexual commitment, then later you argue that love itself is not the reason for marriage or what defines a marriage. Therefore if a couple share love but not sex, they do not have a basis for marriage, so why should they get the same benefits as a couple (gay or straight) who do consummate the marriage ? Also if there is no law requiring heterosexual married couples to have children, then why should they get 'preferential treatment' just because they are sexually involved ? That is what your logic suggests is the case.
|
|
