Rose's Law:<quoted text>
its not rational because its not rational?
you ARE going to have to do better than that...WAY better!
Here are two reasons, please address them specifically:
"First, the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children,
Morons with no real argument scream, "But what about the children!?"
It's not an either/or situation. They can print out as many marriage application forms as needed.it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships.
And that would matter if you had to be able to reproduce in order to be allowed to marry.Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not.
What does that have to do with gay marriage?Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or temporary.
And they still do that in states that allow gay marriage.It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born.
It thus could choose to offer an inducement--in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits--to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other.
Not rational at all. Sterile straight couples aren't denied the benefits of marriage.The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples
Rose's Law...There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father.
360 mothers?Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule--some children who never know their fathers, or their [*360] mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes--but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold."
No matter how a person feels about gay couples bringing up children, it's a separate issue. Gay couples can raise children without getting married, and marry without raising children.