Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[robvalue]

Anima: You're asking me why it's a bad idea to let children marry? Is that the question? I know you say "state's interest" and I'm not entirely sure what that difference that makes. If this is the question, then children are consenting to a formal legal relationship when they are not considered mature enough to make such a decision, as with other legally binding contracts. Children can be taken advantage of, for a variety of reasons, by a devious adult. marriage is about more than sex. In fact it isn't about sex at all, as far as I'm concerned. You seem to be saying that is all it is about. I'd have thought having children being taken advantage of was bad for "state's interest".

If it's a good idea to let children marry, why not allow it anyway regardless of what happens? Why is it suddenly being brought up now? Suspicious timing.

I know you continue with this "procreation" defense but it is really not sailing my boat. I'm not aware of any legal aspect which talks about sex or having children, you brought up that weird law but it still doesn't cover this adequately. You can still have children if you're a same sex couple, so what's the difference?

If the next response goes nowhere I'm finished with this particular line because I feel we're not making any headway. But thanks for the input

My brain isn't absorbing your other legal example about laws and ethics. I'm not claiming they are the same thing, but I'm only saying the law is mainly based on stopping harmful things which are generally immoral things. I know it's never as simple as that. But to say the law has absolutely no correlation with morality seems incorrect by inspection. Maybe there are some weird exceptions sure, I'll try and understand your example later.