Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
- Thread starter
- #221
How is marriage a right?
Loving v Virginia
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"
Well Syriusly, given that marriage is "fundametal to our very existence and survival" and "the foundation of the family and of society", it seems to me that children are the paramount members of marriage. And so it is to their rights the states set definitions, such as "no incest, no polygamy, no homosexual" marriages. Incest we can predict would produce genetically hampered children. Polygamy we have seen divides the attention of one blood parent (usually the father) too thinly between his often very numerous children..and lessens is individual devotions to each wife....which ultimately makes them like quasi-single mothers. Single parents the children are lacking one of the blood parents 100% of the time, and that's no good either. Homosexuals even worse, guarantee a missing blood parent 100% of the time PLUS they offer zero exposure and daily interaction for the children for the complimentary gender-as-role-model.
So as you can see, the issue of marriage is family, society and survival. All those things begin with the children in marriage, who then grow to become married themselves based on what they saw modeled before them in their parents. So it is that the state becomes interested in marriage, to preserve all those good things by setting incentives for two, just two, blood parents of the children who most likely will result, to be in their home to raise them with the best social advantage and promise as future rocks at the foundation of any subsequent generation. Male/female is that guarantee, or best shot at the ideal.
A black marrying a white woman is still a man marrying a woman. So naturally, to ban that was functionally indefensible. But banning polygamy, banning incest, banning single parents, banning homosexuals? All those things make rock solid, objective, emotionless, sober good sense for the best interest of the children in the home. Just as a black man marrying a white woman didn't tarnish the brass ring, neither do two sterile heteros. Because if they adopt, at least they provide the "complimentary gender-as-role-model" which is vital to a child's well-rounded formation in society; which contains men and women, males and females. A sterile hetero couple, like a black man and a white woman do not tarnish the "male/female" structure approved by the state for the best interest of children.
In the overwhelming majority of male/female marriages our future people/citizens are created. We'd do well to inspect any new petition to disrupt that apple tree to make sure socieity's children (its very future) isn't being sold a bushel of rotten fruit hidden at the bottom..
Last edited: