Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

If the benefits that come along with marriage make them more apt to maintain a household, start/run a business, adopt and raise children, and otherwise increase their contribution to society (the same way it does with many married people), then yes, they still contribute roughly the same amount to society that hetero couples do. The reason I use the term "roughly" is that I'm smart enough to not use absolute language unless I can cite what I'm saying as a documented fact. While what I'm saying is epistemologically likely, I would need to do research to justify the use of exacting language.

You have brought up many things in this comment so let me try to address each. The benefits conveyed by marriage are not meant to maintain a household which is why they are not granted to persons who are not married and still need to maintain households (this pisses me off every time I do my taxes). The benefits conveyed by marriage are not intended to help start/run a business and it may even be argued that in order to limit liability of a personal business it is better if the partners do not marry or file taxes jointly (commonly done by doctors in private practice where personal assets are listed in the name of the non-medical practitioner and protected).

The benefits conveyed by marriage does not facilitate the adoption of children as single persons in sufficient financial and situational standing may adopt without being married (and to my understanding is the primary ways homos have adopted children. Not as homo couples but as single individuals. If they had to be married than there would be very few if any children who were wards of the state being raised by a same sex couple). As stated by the respondents "Adoption is an entirely different state interest to which there are different rules applied". As paraphrased by Abraham Maslow in his heirarchy of need in regards to loving and belonging, "There is no substitute for the presence of biological parentage in regards to the loving and belonging which is especially prevalent in childhood. Any efforts to substitute biological parentage will be insufficient and lead to a wanting for this missing relationship which will commonly manifest in an unhealthy manner in adolescents and adulthood."

Again you are trying to say the burden the state places upon itself in recognition of homo relationships conveys benefits to the individuals and those individuals then subsequently will use those benefits to benefit the state (which is to say there is no burden on the state) in the same manner as if they were conveyed to hetero individuals. As we have said this logic is insufficient as it may be said in recognition of any individual regardless of the relationship; including those we know the state should not recognize. The benefit of the individual is not what we are discussing nor is that the concern of the state in the recognition of relationships (such would be the state concern in consideration of the individual). We are talking about the benefit of recognition of the relationships; if the state is going to incur a burden and recognize the relationship it must gain some benefit from the relationship.

Your argument boils down to "They're not producing offspring, so they don't benefit the government." The problems with that are at least twofold. For one thing, many of the marriages the government recognizes are between couples where one or both cannot have children. For another, many gay people actually do produce their own offspring because orientation, like gender, is a spectrum. Many non-traditionally oriented people still have sexual encounters with the opposite sex, and many of those sexual encounters still result in viable offspring (most of whom turn out to be heterosexuals, before you even start that bullshit).

The biological argument concerns itself with the procreative aspect of homosexuality. Under that very argument if the state utilizes a biological evaluation than homos are not equal to hetero and there is no reason for the state to incur a burden on their behalf as their is no benefit derived. In regards to your two fold points.

Response to number one was given long ago in this thread. It is recognized that laws are not perfectly defined and thus may be overinclusive. Upon endeavoring to define the law objectively it may be said the procreative definition is utilized. By which the state stipulates it shall incur a burden and recognize couples that meet the minimum criterion for procreative benefit to the state. This is to say the union of two persons, of the opposite gender, of at least pubescent age. Needless to say this definition will encompass 100% of the group the state desires and a few the state does not desire. Just as you use the term "roughly" because you recognize it is extremely difficult to define something to such absolute specificity, so to does the state go with the most specific ambiguous (oxymoron I know) definition. So that it may make sure to include the desired group, though it may include a few of undesired in that definition. (For what it is worth do not be surprised if the states change the criterion for benefits as there is no need for them to be attached to marriage. That was just convenient, but it is not essential. This is something Chief Justice John Robert's discusses as well.)

Response to your second point, which is not a refutation of the procreative benefit; the state desires heterosexual activities and is not concerned with the orientation of the parties as hetero, homo, bi, tri, or any given mix of orientations. Lest you forget opposite biological genders could marry regardless of orientation or gender identity. It was permitted by means of the overinclusivity of the procreative criterion, which once again is sufficient to include 100% of the targeted group and with only a few who are not part of the target group. With that said it is recognized the relationships and activity the state derives a benefit from are heterosexual and it is for these relationships the state is willing to incur addition burden/cost. Thus, the state is not opposed to any orientation having heterosexual relationship and intercourse, and is even willing to give State recognition of those relationships.

It may be further stipulate the State has no legitimate or compelling interest in the regulation or recognition of relationships beyond procreation (in fact such was argued by the Respondents in the case and discussed by Chief Justice Roberts). This is further supported in Maher V. Roe where the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of Roe V Wade ruling stating the right to privacy extended to medical procedures which may result in the termination of pregnancy, but if the State may have no say in that decision or determine it according to the benefit to the State than it need not encourage, facilitate, or provide benefits for the decision.