Gay Marriage should be Illegal (3)

Regulation of marriageI think Con mischaracterizes my argument a bit. If it’s easier to understand, I’ll follow their format:1) If there is a compelling State interest to regulating (or making illegal) some activity, then the State should.2) Limiting marriage to couples able to procreate and produce viable children is a compelling state interest. Gay couples (by themselves) cannot produce viable children together. Therefore, we should ban gay marriage. If the State fails to make laws that are in the best interest of furthering a society then that government should no longer stand. It is clearly in the best interest of the US to maintain its current population and maybe even increase it. By allowing the concept of marriage to fall away from its traditional roots would invite other forms of non-procreative marriages since law is based on precedence. I think the interracial marriage argument is a red herring. Nowhere have I argued that interracial marriage is the same as gay marriage. In fact, by limiting regulation to productive marriages in my argument it would have included interracial marriage. Ever since long history of marriage began it has been for the creation and protection of a family unit. To change it now because a group of people think that society should change to suit them is unworkable. Civil Unions afford all the protections gays could hope for it seems that they are simply fighting now for a word. Once civil unions are taken into account, any argument of being unfairly denied recognition and benefits goes out the window. I would also point out the fact that there are places that ban gay marriage is not a good reason to ban gay marriage. There are some places that ban Christianity. .. As to your banning of Christianity argument, I assume you took this low brow tack because you assume I’m religious. To answer the question, the fact that a law exists does not in and of itself make a good law. What makes a good law if it reflects the society that created it and protects the interests of that society (i. e. compelling state interest). So, I suppose in some countries banning women drivers and Christians may very well be a compelling State interest. I don’t know their society well enough to judge that. Marriage and procreationI am aware of no law that restricts marriage (at least in western civilization) to couples if they can't or are unlikely to produce "viable" children. .. Okay, then. I’ll take Illinois’ marriage restrictions as an example. Most other states are similar in their laws for marriage restrictions. I’ve bolded the restrictions on likely infertile couples below:§ 750 ILCS 5/212. Prohibited MarriagesSec. 212. Prohibited Marriages. (a) The following marriages are prohibited: (1) a marriage entered into prior to the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one of the parties; (2) a marriage between an ancestor and a descendant or between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption; (3) a marriage between an uncle and a niece or between an aunt and a nephew, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood; (4) a marriage between cousins of the first degree; however, a marriage between first cousins is not prohibited if: (i) both parties are 50 years of age or older; or (ii) either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, presents for filing with the county clerk of the county in which the marriage is to be solemnized, a certificate signed by a licensed physician stating that the party to the proposed marriage is permanently and irreversibly sterile; (5) a marriage between 2 individuals of the same sex. (b) Parties to a marriage prohibited under subsection (a) of this Section who cohabit after removal of the impediment are lawfully married as of the date of the removal of the impediment. (c) Children born or adopted of a prohibited or common law marriage are the lawful children of the parties[1]. In the Prohibited Marriages section, four out of the five prohibitions are for marriages that are likely not to produce viable offspring. The intent can be seen in § 750 ILCS 5/212(4)(ii) where first cousins can marry if they are sterile or too old to reproduce. So it should be obvious that the legislature isn’t banning cousin marriage on moral grounds but rather that it is banned because the consanguinity could produce unviable children. Other states allow cousin marriages but all have laws restricting marriage between incestuous couples[2]. The main reason for this difference is varying attitudes about whether first cousin offspring is at significantly higher risk for producing non-viable offspring. The state and the harm principleI don't accept that marriages should only be granted to those who are judged to be providing a benefit to the state and I don't think you should either. Remember under Pros argument here both gays and hetrosexuals can be denied marriage if they are not deemed as providing a benefit to the state. I demonstrated in the previous section that the law already does this. If the State did not benefit in some way from regulating marriage then there would be no marriage law to begin with. It is a compelling State interest to limit marriage to those couples where it can be reasonably assumed that they could provide viable offspring. Rather than restrict marriage or anything for that matter cause its not deemed beneficial for the state we should only restrict something if it will result in "harm" as the harm principle says. .. "The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill first articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. "[2]Yes, I’ll accept that definition of the harm principle. I’ll present one of my own:compelling state interest:a governmental interest (as in educating children or protecting the public) which is so important that it outweighs individual rights[3]. The two concepts apply to the topic at hand. Absent a compelling state interest, restricting gay marriage should be legal. There is a compelling state interest, however, and that is the protection of the family unit. Depending on the poll, between 53-62% of Americans want to keep the historical definition of marriage intact[4]. Marriage of convenienceEven if we accept Pros now new modified rule, this doesn't result in the banning of gay marriage, it only says that certain gay marriages and hetrosexual marriages should be banned. Well for the sake of argument we can agree to Pros rule here and thus allow gay marriages & hetrosexual marraiges that are not deemed a "marriage of convenience". Yes, but to do so would be to ignore my other points. Marriage of convenience should be illegal but it’s off point and I shouldn’t have lead us there. It doesn’t follow, however, just because we agree to make marriage of convenience illegal that other forms should be legal. It has truly been a pleasure discussing this with you. Sources:[1] . http://www.ilga.gov...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] . http://dictionary.findlaw.com...[4] . http://rpc.senate.gov...