NYT Style Section Profiles Newly Married Couple

Comments

1
MMMM...old man sperm
2
O look! Dan is covering news about gay people! Shocking!
3
O look! An idiotic comment from the moron @2! Shocking!
4
That would seem to represent an example of the exact OPPOSITE of what the lawyer was originally arguing: if the State's interest in fostering marriage is "binding opposite-sex couples together for the making of babies", and a 70 year old man is still potentially capable of making babies, then what interest, if any, would the State have should he elect to marry a post-menopausal woman who cannot have babies? Shouldn't the state, if in fact it' primary interest is the "making of babies" refuse to allow this different-sex couple to wed, and instead compel the male to seek out a mate who CAN have babies?
5
And those older men, with greater resources, could support more than one wife. Leading to truly traditional, Biblical marriage - one man, many women.
6
Well a gay man, obviously, is still capable of having children and we'd like to keep that within a marriage. A gay marriage. So his spunk is sequestered in an infertile orifice too.

And of course a gay woman is still capable of having children, and we'd like to keep that in a marriage too. A gay marriage. So after she visits the sperm bank, she's not an unwed mother.
7
What about biological males that are legally females, for example those with full to partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. They are raised as females, are classified legally as females, but they are as biologically males as any other XY human... They don’t get questioned when they get married to someone of the same sex..

I feel what people are fighting for, is the right to get married to whomever they want, no questions asked, as much as Mr. Lauder and Ms. Glickman can pop down to the License office to get a marriage license no question asked... Marriage is much more than about pro creation, I looked upon it as a merger of assets..
8
@1, I'm so turned on right now.

@2, that's why we come here.
9
Let's hope one of the supreme court justices asks the pertinent question: which disgusts you more, young gay sex or elderly PIV sex?
10
@9 YES, This.
11
@9 Ha, if only! All the arguments against gay marriage are so weak, if the Supreme Court doesn't finish the job with its decision on this case, it will be a sad day.
12
Or more to the point, which scenario do they spend more time picturing and imagining what it feels like.
13
Dude! Easy on the "dusty" "old" business, okay? Time comes for us all. A person can be "elderly" (what does this mean?) and still have great sex, not to mention great relationships. We may not turn you on, but you don't need to denigrate people of age to make your (thoroughly valid) point.
14
I wish it were that simple; I wish the Supremes were going to go with that kind of logic. But I'm far from confident, given Roberts' Alito's, Thomas' and especially Scalia's ability to let their personal attitudes color their decisions. This should be an open-and-shut "Equal Protection/14th Amendment" case, but when even Kennedy --Mr. "Dignity" himself--seems to be thinking about throwing this back to the states, it's very, very far from a sure thing. Keep your fingers crossed.
15
@4 - you're spot on, and you beat me to it. Of course, asking for anyone to consider these arguments is to ask someone to apply reason to the question of SSM. And there is only one answer if you do that. The bigots and their henchmen instead hide in the issue-avoiding stance of supporting states' rights. It's their last refuge in anything that resembles reason.
16
If SCOTUS can't manage to make the right ruling on this one [y'know like Canada did 10 fucking years ago!], I'm done. This country can just rot.
17
It's not hard to see how the anti-equality side can pull off a win, here; at least one justice thinks homosexuality is an abomination, and possibly as many as five. Overconfidence isn't justified here, because they don't need to prove anything in order to win.
18
Why stop there? Once my wife hits menopause, should I be legally required to divorce her and marry a fertile 22 year old? It's all about procreation, after all.
19
A child by a man that age is statistically more likely to suffer from birth defects than the child of a consanguineous couple. The argument just doesn't hold up.
20
My father remarried at 79 to a family friend of 68, and it's a good thing for both, keeps them out of nursing homes at age 80 and 91.

They're also happy and in love.

They've produced 9 children between them -- when they were considerably younger. but apparently Scalia and his ilk would insist they create another, although I imagine that would have put a dent in their longevity, especially hers.
21
It's good news that MN has no orphans or other children in need of adoption. I presume this must be the case because otherwise the state would have an interest in supporting stable,bonded couples who are unable to have biological children.
22
D'oh I think Michigan is MI not MN.
23
@16: Seriously. We are a pretty good test case for y'all.

I myself have conducted a long-term experiment comparing the effect of same-sex marriage on opposite-sex marriage. I contracted one opposite-sex marriage in Canada prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage, and one after said legalization. To date, I can report that the legalization has had no statistically significant impact on childbearing within marriage (n=2 for both marriages); duration of marriage (y=11 before, y=7 and counting after); and self-reported levels of marital happiness and satisfaction (high in both cases).

Q.E.D.
24
My father remarried at 79 to a family friend of 68, and it's a good thing for both, keeps them out of nursing homes at age 80 and 91.

They're also happy and in love.

They've produced 9 children between them -- when they were considerably younger. but apparently Scalia and his ilk would insist they create another, although I imagine that would have put a dent in their longevity, especially hers.
25
Goddamnit, how many times do I have to tell myself not to eat while I read Dan Savage because on way too many occasions I end up putting something in my mouth at the same time I read phrases like "Mr. Lauder's still-capable sperm—sloshing around and potentially causing havoc. Safely sequestering the dusty old spunk of elderly gentlemen".
26
#8 - turned on and then you come, huh? hee hee
27
Of course same sex couples can make babies. Just not with each other.
What is the problem here? I just can't see it. Court case after court case.
The same bullshit gets brought out. And none of it really stands up, holes in every argument against gay marriage.
Dan. You keep fighting the good fight.

29
The correct retort here is that by this argument, the state's compelling interest of binding two people together to raise children is to ALLOW gay marriage, so that children adopted by gay parents have two people tied together to raise them.
30
Bravio, philophile, @6. An argument I have never seen and persuasive at that. Happy Weekend, everybody.
31
@2: He was writing about straight people. Did you even read the article?