And what was the percentage of people cohabiting and having out-of-wedlock births when the legal definition of civil marriage was gender-neutral? Just a question I have on that one, really. And, I might add, you are still ignoring the fact that same-sex couples can and do raise children.

Marriage used to be (and still is for most people) synonymous with definition of one man and one woman. Only in recent times has relativism attempted to change this. Thus people have felt a need to be more explicit in its legal definition. You cannot tell me that when marital codes were originally drafted in state legislatures that the intention was anything but one man and one woman.


That's because I am not talking about what same-sex couples can and cannot do. I'm talking about how redefining marriage away from social reproduction will lead to further increases in cohabitation for the rest of society.

deerjerkydave I think you made your point clear. I understand what you mean and respect your concerns.

I asked Daytonrocker this question and would also like to ask you the same one:


Is it possible to find a solution for this problem you are adressing, and still allow same sex couples to marry eachother? In other words, is there room for compromise and creativity concerning this issue?

No, I'm sure they didn't, but I'm sure they had no idea that homosexuality would ever be decriminalized either. And constitutionally, you can't simply decide to be more explicit in the legal restrictions on a fundamental right. That's the point. When you decide to get explicit with restrictions on a fundamental right, constitutional law requires that the decision be scrutinized.

We had a gender-neutral legal definition of marriage and heterosexual couples still got married and instances of cohabitation were low. Using your logic, they should've increased... but the dramatic increases in cohabitation occurred after the more explicit definition. The only explanation is that the legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with society's definition of marriage. Society's definition of marriage will change no matter how explicit you make the legal definition of marriage. Unless the draconian measures are brought back into the laws associated with marriage and procreation: enforced fornication laws, bans on contraception, sodomy laws... unless the government goes back to this view of marriage, society will always have the option to choose cohabitation over marriage. And if you give the people the easy way, they will take it. That is human nature. Now, changing the legal definition of civil marriage back to one that is gender-neutral will do absolutely nothing to increase the amount of cohabitation in this country -- history has shown us that.

1. How does same-sex marriage weaken marriage in this country?

It doesn't, and that is an absurd assumption.

I’m going to be brave and put my 2 cents into (very long) thread. Marriage is a wonderful, quaint institution (and like Groucho Marx said, who wants to live in an institution? ) that is more about property and power than it is anything else. In “olden days” it was about joining two families’ holdings (property) by marrying off one’s daughter to the others’ son. Hopefully the couple would produce an heir or two (power) to keep the property in the family. The only difference in modern times is that now the woman in the relationship has some rights to property also.

If marriage was really and truly only about procreation, then all marriages would be arranged so that the best bloodlines were combined, just like cattle.

And goodness knows, that sure isn't the case.

What "special" rights?!? And as for the sex act you mention, I guess you haven't seen the polls that state:

Some morality. Without getting too graphic, if that's your biggest objection to gays marrying...well, that's just sad.

...wait a second...it's been thrown out here several times that only 2% of the population is gay, yet 3.7% of men 15-44 have had anal sex with another man.... that means there must be a bunch of "straight" men out there having gay sex!!! Quick! call the morality police!

Then there is this light-hearted take on the matter:

This is a great question Renger. Currently I don't know if there is any viable alternative. Civil unions are often mentioned. Perhaps this would be a good start to another thread.

Just to point out your excellent example of intolerance by so-called "tolerant" people, let me clarify.

I never - not even once - brough morality into this issue. Someone on your side of the argument brought morality into the debate and I was pointing that hypocrisy out.

Nothing more to add...just setting the record straight.

Actually, carlitoswhey was the first person to bring morality into the debate and I believe he was arguing your side, DaytonRocker:



This was the third post in this thread and the first mention of morality. Sorry, but your side brought morality into the debate, DaytonRocker... your side.

Now, are you saying I should've ignored his argument?

Ugh. To clarify, you were speaking of technicalities "since there isn't a sodomy law..." and I was speaking of the rightness, the correctness, the societal benefit. Or are we to deny that all laws are based on morality?


No, but you shouldn't have brought sex into the argument. You still haven't cogently explained why sex has anything to do with marriage (except the obvious - procreation).

No it doesn't "fall apart" because same-sex couples raise children. Nor does it fall apart because single parents raise children. Nor does it fall apart because New York State has liberal adoption laws. Just because a kid is better off with 2 gay dads vs. an orphanage, doesn't make male-female marriage less ideal.

NEWS FLASH for everybody. Men and women are different. Having a mom and a dad gives you two different perspectives. They contribute different things to child rearing. This is not in dispute and I will entertain no arguments to the contrary. This is why male-female marriage is to be encouraged. It gives dad a reason to stick around when his instincts tell him to go find a girlfriend. It's part of what makes people superior to animals.

Saying that "a married man and woman is the ideal" says exactly that - it's the ideal. It's something the state should encourage. The exceptions do not weaken the argument. Nor are they a cause for re-defining the institution based on what some people's sexual preferences are. Because when you look at your argument, the only one single reason that you give for gay people marrying is sex. You acknowledge that they already can have kids, adopt kids (at least in New York) co-habitate, etc.

I'll try one tangent to see if it works. The United States subsidizes mortgage interest. If you itemize on your 1040, you deduct the interest you pay on your home loan. That's because home ownership is the ideal. It's worth encouraging. We know that home owners contribute more to society by taking better care of their neighborhood, accumulating wealth and stability. Does this discriminate against renters? Sure. Can renters write off credit card interest? No. Do renters deserve "special rights" to deduct pawnshop or credit card interest?

No, I have acknowledged many times in this thread that laws are about morality. Yes, the government passed sodomy laws and incest laws to give legal support to society's moral views. I've already stated that.



All I've stated is that the government can't constitutionally prevent married people from having sex. That is all. I never stated that married people had to have sex.



I have given many reasons for gay people marrying. I have never given sex as the only reason gays marry. That is completely untrue. Gay people marry for the same reasons heterosexual couples do.

New York State puts homosexual couples on a par with heterosexual couples in terms of raising children. It does not tell homosexual couples that they can only adopt a child if there are no married heterosexual couples willing to adopt it. Homosexual couples are not the last resort. Sexual orientation can't be considered a factor in the adoption of a child in New York State. So, in effect, homosexual couples are considered by the New York State government to be just as ideal a candidate for adopting and raising a child as heterosexual couples.

That being the case and marriage being encouraged as the ideal environment in which to raise children (because married couples commit through engaging in the contract of marriage to foster that stable environment -- at least that is the aim), to deny access to the right of marriage to homosexual couples and yet consider them equal to heterosexual couples when it comes to raising children seems contrary to the government's intent in encouraging marriage.

If New York's intent in restricting marriage was to present the "married man and woman" environment as ideal for raising children, it makes no sense that they would not consider sexual orientation when it comes to raising a child. It makes more sense that if they do not consider sexual orientation when it comes to adopting and raising a child, that they would encourage these couples to establish the ideal stable familial environment that is encouraged in marriage. Why? Because such an environment is better for the child. But instead they don't, they send a message that does weaken marriage, it is just as ideal for children to be raised outside of marriage as in. Where's deerjerkydave when you need him?



Ah, but home ownership is not a fundamental right -- marriage is. The analogy doesn't work.

I realize in my last response I didn't truly address this, so I will now. You are right about the procreation, that is why sex has something to do with marriage and why the government can't prevent married couples from having sex.

Now, having opened up that bag of worms, let me remind you: the government does not, nor can it, prevent non-procreative couples from having sex in marriage. This is why sodomy laws were enough to keep same-sex marriage illegal even with a gender-neutral legal definition of marrige. The government, historically, didn't need an explicit exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage, sodomy laws (the criminal nature of homosexual behavior) was all that was needed. This is why I mentioned sodomy laws. This is why sibling marriages will remain illegal until incest is decriminalized. Does that explain it clearly enough?

1. How does same-sex marriage weaken marriage in this country?

I think homosexual couples who wish to have the same legal standings and benefits as heterosexual couples should be able to do so. This aspect of marriage law will not be weakened.

The aspect of marriage law which will be weakened is in the area of family law and children. Many in this country believe the role model for a family is a Husband, a Wife, two kids, and two cars in the garage. This scenario is what marriage is all about for them. Marriage is the legal step towards this goal.

Such thinking is damaging and discriminating to all other types of families. Same sex marriage will weaken current family law. The ills of current family have been discussed in other threads. The stereotypes of marriage and sex roles will be examined if we get same sex marriage instituted. It is about time.

The aspect of marriage law which deals with children may be replaced by a new approach which I would call Parental Law. These laws would be the rights and responsibilities of parents. The rights and responsibilities will be the same for all parents and will be divorced from Marriage Law. There are all kinds of families and all kinds of parents. They all need to be given equal treatment under the law. The weakening of Marriage via same sex marriage will be a means towards that.

But under the law, parental responsibilites are equal as it is. What will change? Right now, for those who choose to procreate, the only difference is a preference in divorce to favor the biological mother or, in case of adoption by one parent of the other's child, the biological parent. What else will change?

You have stated parental responsibilities are equal now then immediately give examples of where they are not. Did you really mean it when you said they are equal?

Changing treatment of parents based upon ones sex will not be a little thing, it will be huge. The list you have started is just a few of the changes.

I stated how they may be unequal in divorce -- the ending of marriage, not marriage itself. And my point was that even if same-sex couples marry, none of those responsibilities change. So, the list I started was not a list of changes.

The marriage contract itself is quite gender neutral... a lot of mention of spouses, but not much mention of anything gender specific. In fact, the only thing I can find in the marriage contract itself that is gender specific relates to procreation and that is assumed paternity -- and that doesn't change if same-sex couples marry. Perhaps it might be helpful if you actually said what would change... specifically. Where, legally, is the marriage contract unequal regarding male and female parents? And what are the changes you are referring to?

Currently, family law is based upon marriage law. Marriage legally has the roles of the wife being the de facto nurturing parent and husband the provider of funds to support the wife who is raising the child. If there is no marriage ( out of wedlock, divorce) the female has the primary parental rights. The male has meager parental rights and is generally treated as a criminal.

My point is that same sex marriage will take away the courts ability to use sex to differentiate between parents. This will promote the adoption of means other than a person's sex to determine parental roles, rights, and responsibilities. Hopefully, parents will be given equal rights and responsibilities and not force parents into antiquated stereotypes and roles based on today's marriage law. I do think same sex marriages will weaken the current legal definition of marriage and lead to changes in marriage law or, even better, a brand new approach for family law not based upon marriage.

entspeak has stated that the marriage contract itself is quite gender neutral. I would agree when I read the Illinois law, it reads gender neutral. But, laws are also affected via court verdicts. In actuality, the Illinois marriage contract is not gender neutral as determined by court verdicts. Hence, I will disagree with entspeak's statement that marriage contracts are quite gender neutral. I state without any reservations that marriage contracts have heavy sexual bias.

My point for this discussion is not about the ills of marriage laws but that same sex marriage will challenge the legal status quo of marriage law. The status quo of marriage is being challenged even without same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is an additional factor edging marriage law towards reform.

First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands

entspeak, to your credit I believe this backs up your argument of "marriage" vs. "civil unions" as regards the number of persons in a marriage contract.


Can you explain how and where marriage became a "fundamental right." Is it in freedom of association? does the 14th Amendment play a role? If it is a "fundamental right" then why do state / county / local governments have the right to restrict marriage based on factors such as age or family relation?

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you on this, carlitoswhey. I took a nice month long walk across Ireland... not much in the way of internet on top of a hill.



Thanks. Yes, I believe that civil unions do weaken marriage by providing an alternative option to marriage. Once you do that, you open the door to situations like the one in your quote.



I don't know exactly... I do know that it is listed as one of many fundamental rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So, it has at least been considered officially by the United States (who played a major role in authoring the Declaration) to be a fundamental right since 1948.



Any fundamental right may be violated, but there are very strict guidelines for how and when such violations are deemed constitutional. This is why, when the constitutionality of laws that violate fundamental rights are challenged in court, strict scrutiny must be applied. As I've stated before, the government must have a valid state interest related to the exclusion AND the exclusion must be necessary in order to further that interest. If the government can satisfy both elements of strict scrutiny, the violation of the fundamental right is constitutional.

1. How does same-sex marriage weaken marriage in this country?

They don’t. I don’t see anything that can be used to even suggest such, save bias, fear, hate, ideological affiliations that disapprove of such. Same sex couples have been around for who knows how long, hetero couples seem to be about the same in frequency of occurrence regardless of same sex couples in my opinion.


2. Why would heterosexual couples choose not to get married if same-sex couples are allowed to marry?

Because, its mean they could be same sex I guess, if that makes any sense. Because they cant be same sex if you cant legally couple you know. People get false marriages anyways, marriages break down anyways, do you really think because somewhere in the world same sex couples were able to get legal representation it would break marriage apart, what logic is being used there, because I cant even fathom it. I mean really now, “sorry honey, we have to get divorced now because same sex people can get married…’’ if someone actually used that for an excuse to get divorced, well, I cant even imagine it. The other option is people are scared of freedom, and people of same sex sharing life together, which will all no is unnatural, like toothpaste and body deodorant, it simply just cant exist in reality and will not be tolerated. I think that’s why arguments against such like this come about really, that’s why I put it in my reply anyways.

This is a fairly interesting example of some of the points I have been trying to make in this thread:

This is a freaking mess. The biological father is in a paternity suit against the former "spouse". This will probably go to the Supreme Court where parenting could be redefined.

But what about the lesbian mother that decided she wasn't a lesbian any longer? Am I the only one that sees the problem with gay marriage when there is no threshold of "gay"? Hence, my point that if gays can marry, then people should just be allowed to marry people barring any genetic risks.

What are you talking about? There is no question of paternity here. The question is whether Carvin has co-parenting rights -- whether, under common law, she is a de-facto parent of the child... not an issue of whether she is the biological father of the child (which is what a paternity suit would involve). Carvin raised the child as a parent with the full consent and public recognition by the biological mother of Carvin as the parent. And what does this have to do with same-sex marriage? This couple wasn't married and Carvin was not the adoptive parent of the child.

More "redefinition", eh? How? Doesn't this happen among heterosexual couples? If you actually read the case, you will see that there is precedent for Calvin's claim... and you will see that other states have also recognized non-biological, non-adoptive de-facto parents under common law. So how is parenting further redefined by this case?



Do you have to prove that you're heterosexual in order to be married? Is there a threshold of "heterosexual"? Are there no marriages that end when one of the spouses comes out as gay? Are there no marriages that end because one spouse decides they want to be with somebody else? This issue isn't "gay marriage" vs. "heterosexual marriage", it's about marriage and whether there is a need to restrict it when it comes to the sexual orientation of the couple seeking it. Why is it necessary to throw out all the restrictions just because it becomes clear that one is no longer needed? That makes no sense.

Of course there is a threshold of heterosexuality. It's called matching genitalia and hormonal designs that has naturally propagated our species for 10's of thousands of years. It's not perfect, but it's tanglible evidence. The "there's no hetero gene" is a ridiculous point. Our body designs are evidence.

I'm not rehashing all my old points made in previous posts. Feel free to search them. But clearly, the traditional parental model could be changed because someone decided they didn't want to be homosexual anymore and entered into a natural child-bearing arrangement (that amy or may not be exercised).

This is nowhere near someone leaving a spouse to enjoy a gay lifestyle (or any lifestyle for that matter). This is changing the parental model to accomadate people who can - at will - change their mind and create a 3 way paternity suit. How is this helpful to a child?

I don’t want to break the debate you two are having, but I would just like to add the point that most anything you can deal with in regards to same sex couples can exist within hetero couples. After a divorce, the parents of a child may yet marry again, or live with a partner, that can come close to a child, in which a dispute between the adult parties may exist, like a step mother, or step father as an example. Drama in relationships in not confined to same sex couples, but I imagine most know this on this board.

Anyways, adoption and marriage are two separate things right? or is the debate to that point overall.

This is "tanglible" evidence, all right. You've tangled it so much, in fact, that it is nonsense. Matching genitalia (by which I assume you mean non-matching genitalia - as they might say on Sesame Street, one of these things is not like the other) merely defines heterosexuality, it doesn't create a "threshold" for it. I have male genitalia - indeed, I'm told, rather impressive male genitalia - and that, I can assure you, does not make me heterosexual. Were I to marry a lesbian, replete with abundant female genitalia, that would not make us heterosexuals. By superficial definition, yes, we would be a heterosexual couple, but that says nothing about our "threshold of heterosexuality" as individuals.

That "threshold" has nothing to do with our genitals - our "body designs" are evidence of nothing more than the fact that there are two sexes. That design does not dictate or predetermine how any two individuals can, should, or do interact. Nor does the fact that a person with one type of genital might marry a person with the other type of genital. Lesbian With Abundant Female Genitalia and I might even manage to procreate - perhaps several times. That would still not make us heterosexuals. Trust me on this.

entspeak is quite right to suggest that there is no "threshold" for either heterosexuality or homosexuality. Like Kinsey and many others, I believe that human sexuality (and probably most, if not all, animal sexuality) exists on a continuum and that very few individuals are exclusively attracted to one sex or the other, though with most individuals falling close to one pole or the other. Nevertheless, for the sake of this argument, I will refer to those who predominantly respond to their own sex as "gay" and those who predominantly respond to the opposite sex as "straight":

Gay men marry straight women all the time. Lesbians marry straight men all the time. This is often because the gay man or lesbian is in denial, in the closet, or acting out of peer, familial, or societal pressure. Some of these marriages succeed (in that they may not end in divorce), but that does not mean that the partners are happy, sexually fulfilled, or capable of being terrific parents should they produce children. And many of these marriages do end in divorce - or worse. I would suggest that this sort of bad "heterosexual" marriage is responsible for more "freaking messes" than same-sex couples who have children then separate. And that's because there is no "threshold" for heterosexuality, either as a prerequisite for marriage or spontaneously generated by the mere fact of marriage. But I think even you must admit that there are even more marriages between straight men and straight women that end in divorce - or worse.


There are loads of marriages that become a "freaking mess", DR, due to all kinds of factors. The same-sex couple story you cite above is an example of one class of "freaking mess" to be sure, but, as whyshouldi pointed out, "freaking messes" are hardly the exclusive domain of same-sex partners. Due to rampant adultery, rampant divorce, rampant re-marriage, and children from several different parents in one family, the "parental model" already accommodates people who can - at will - change their minds and create three-way or even four-way paternity suits. It happens all the time. There are dozens of custody suits daily in which three or more "parents" are involved - and an overwhelming majority of them are "heterosexual".

Your story is "a fairly interesting example" of nothing more than the fact that human relationships are messy. It says nothing about sexual preference, parental models, thresholds of sexuality, or anything else.

What I nice link Carlitoswhey, I was not aware that this happened. It certainly was not a big issue on the regular Dutch news (or I missed it )

For me personally, I must say that this whole debate is going way to far off topic. Making the whole situation more complex than it should be.

Two people (of the same sex) love eachother, want to be together, want to grow old together. That's a wonderful thing, isn't it? For a lot of heterosexual couples marriage is like the celebration of their love. One of the most beautiful moments in their lifes. Why would anybody deny same-sex marriages?

In my humble opinion, what this debate revolves around is the fact that denying gay people to marry, is restricting them in their freedom and rights. The fact that this issue is being made complex and morally charged because of religious objections, does not mean we should place this individual religious opinion above the basic rights and equality in U.S. society.

Maybe in this case the Dutch are more realistic and pragmatic than the people in the U.S.

No, the problem with this debate is not going off topic, but denying the inevitability of what people will do to get their piece of the pie. My point has been soundly rejected as a slippery slope argument, but already, two examples have been shown to show it's started happening during the life of this thread.

But you'll continue to delude yourself into believing that loving gay couples will be the only ones to get benefits associated with gay marriage. When everyone gets the same benefits regardless of gender or child-bearing probabilities, they are no longer benefits. Some married couples need the financial incentives associated with marriage to create and raise children. Those incentives will be washed out as more and more non-child bearing couples marry.

But aren't there any other ways to redirect these special benefits? Should they be attached to the institution of marriage because Christian tradition equalled marriage with child bearing or should they be detached?

Giving people financial incentives to create and raise children is great, but what does it have to do with marriage?

If you say that only people who want to create and raise children should receive these special benefits I would fully agree with you. Same sex marriage can indeed undermine the traditional financial arrangements regarding the institution of marriage. But that still doesn't justify the view that homosexual couples should be excluded from marriage. What it means is that the U.S. government (Congres, Senate) should take a closer look at the existing laws and policies and correct them.

Detach the traditional financial incentives from marriage. Reorganise the financial program, so that government can still provide the same benefits for couples who want to have children. Make a positive step towards acceptance and equality of homosexuals in society, by allowing them their right to marry.

In my opinion this would be a pragmatic and realistic solution for this problem.
Maybe people have other ones? I am interested.

Why stop with homosexuals? Can't you see that point? There are many other non-child bearing relationships that should enjoy the same rights. Failure to do so would be discriminatory.

While it is true that just because a man and woman have mating genitalia designed for conceiving children, this doesn't make them heterosexual. Just because a man and woman marry, doesn't mean that they will have children. But most men and women are hetero and most marriages produce children. Because of these probabilities, we don't have a need to invade the privacy of people to make sure they have children when they get married.

Any other class of people is resolved in possibilities - not probabilities. A loving gay couple could be homosexual. Or they could be bisexual. Or they could be gay today and straight tomorrow. Hell, they could hate each other but want the benefits. But there is no indicator that would ever show a "need" for the benefits of marriage like child bearing couples do daily.

...as could an opposite-sex couple. Yet opposite-sex couples get to be married. What's your point?



...unless they had kids, or wanted to have kids. Or, say, wanted to be able to visit their unconscious spouse in the hospital (another "benefit" that opposite-sex married folks take for granted). Again, what is your point? If a same-sex couple has kids (however acquired), the whole "but they can't produce children!" argument seems irrelevant.



Why did they stop with interracial or mixed-religion couples? The instituion of marriage has changed many times to include newly "socially acceptable" arrangements. Why should changing it to include same-sex marriage be any different? The doomsayers have been wrong every time before, yet this time they happen to be right?

Why effectively deny the the right to marry based on sexual preference?

Are you suggesting heterosexual men and women who elect to avoid procreation permanently through elective surgery should not be allowed to partake in the benefits guaranteed in a marriage license? How about heterosexual couples beyond childbearing age?



DR, I could be wrong but I think you’re former military. I remember a few “marriages” taking place in just one duty station oversea, and heard of numerous other “marriages” occurring in other bases for the sole purpose of reaping the extra monetary benefit involved to be able to afford living off base. The hetero “couple” would file for divorce as soon as conveniently possible. I imagine putting up pretenses at social functions and being charged with adultery can be a huge hang up on your social life.

As far as generalizations go between heterosexuals and homosexuals you’re focused on their mote instead of the beam in your own eye. That’s not to say we should tolerate bad behavior between heterosexual couples, but holding homosexuals to a higher standard makes for a weak argument.

I don't think we're in danger of going extinct from a lack of producing children with or without benefits. In fact the time may soon come when the benefits will be given to those who don't procreate as we are more in danger of going extinct from overpopulation than underpopulation.

The marriage=children line of thinking is problematic. When that's the only criteria there are a slew of questions that can't be answered by that logic: should marriages be terminated when the children have grown and left home? Should marriages be terminated if a couple can't or doesn't want to have children? Should women past childbearing years not be allowed to marry? Should it be illegal for married couples to get permenant birth control (vasectomy, tubal ligation, hysterectomy)?

1. How does same-sex marriage weaken marriage in this country?

I've yet to see a compelling argument to this. Those that believe that it weakens use either religious arguments or shoddy biological arguments about procreation that don't take in those questions I wrote above.

2. Why would heterosexual couples choose not to get married if same-sex couples are allowed to marry?

I don't think they would choose not to, at least not in significant numbers.

The problem with the two examples cited in this thread is that they both have to do with problems arising from the government support for civil unions and not with same-sex marriage. Why blame same-sex marriage for something that has nothing... absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage?



Again, you are blaming same-sex marriage for something that might possibly happen when, in fact, it already occurs in marriage among heterosexual couples. You seem to forget that heterosexual couples make up the vast majority of couples. In order for these incentives to become significantly "washed out" as you put it, it would require a change in the behavior of that vast majority. So, again... why would an increasing number of heterosexual couples suddenly decide not to have children (an option they already have in marriage) solely because same-sex couples are allowed to marry? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

I think this topic is getting off track again. DR, you are not making sense. As others have pointed out, children can be just as harmed in a heterosexual union. The lesbian couple whose story you cite are behaving irresponsibly, to be sure. The child should be allowed to retain parental bonds with both mothers, and the mother with custody should not punish the other mother through the child. But plenty of straight mothers and fathers have been doing just that for years, and hurting their children as a result -- I dare say, more straight parents than gay parents. To be fair, there are also a lot of people, straight AND gay, who do everything possible to separate amicably, so that the children are hurt as little as possible.

Most gay people I know who have children spend a great deal of time and effort making sure that their children will be cared for, nurtured, and protected from any bad things that might happen -- including if there is a death or a separation.

Most straight people I know do likewise. There are a lot of good parents in this world -- it's the bad ones who get all the attention.

Again, you fail to make a compelling argument for HOW same-sex marriage will damage the institution for straight couples. Nor can you make a coherent argument as to why straight couples would stop having children if gay couples were legally permitted to marry.

I don't understand you. It reminds me of people back in the 80s snarling about queers giving each other AIDS, while at the same time violently opposing legal unions.

If the interest of the State were to promote birthing and child raising, it would be most effective if subsidies were granted directly to those activities and not to marriage in particular. Marriage does not necessarily lead to procreation, or to satisfactory production of child raising services. I personally am not sure that there is a shortage either of birthing or of child raising, sufficient to warrant the current degree of intrusion of the State in this sphere.

In principle, the method of organization of given households should be a contractual matter between individuals and neither sanctioned nor recognized by the State -- other than through its provision of civil courts to facilitate the enforcement of whatever contracts thus arise. The individual has a liberty interest in this, and if he or she wishes to form a usual household with one person of the opposite sex; or an unusual household with however many persons of whatever sex; or a merely temporary cohabitational contract with one or more such persons; I fail to see a countervailing public interest that would warrant either prohibition or discouragement.

The State does have an interest in the welfare of children, but laws made to restrict bad child raising should be highly explicit as to what constitutes that, and should not assume that one man and one woman are any better at raising children than any given number of persons of either sex.

It is not the legitimate role of the State to warrant modes of life merely because they are considered holy according to some religion, nor to prohibit modes of life merely because they are considered sinful. The limit of the State's legitimate interest is to encourage or discourage birthing (it may be that there are too many people), and to encourage good child raising.

It appears your post was much easier to write on-the-fly than it was to take the time reading my posts on this subject. Because if you did read my posts and came to these conclusions, there is not a credible debate we could have.

Here's what I said in an earlier post:

You can say it makes no sense, isn't a coherent argument, blah blah blah, but I've not heard a credible argument why my statement above is not true. All I've heard is "slippery slope", "can't happen", won't happen", and every narrow-minded view of a defense of one class of people that comprise 3-6% of our population. Yet in only the life of this thread, three people want to get married and a kid is on the middle of a 3 way custody battle where a woman wants parental rights over the biological father. Of course, these are small examples in a big world. But this is happening without gay marriage being fully adopted worldwide.

But the only argument I hear is "DR, you're not making sense", DR, you can't make a coherent argument", and my new favorite, "It reminds me of people back in the 80s snarling about queers giving each other AIDS". The only thing I haven't heard is "DR, I'm sticking my fingers in my ears LALALALALALALALALALALALA".

You want to disagree with my premise even in the face of evidence showing it's started happening already? Fine...that's why we're here. But the "while at the same time violently opposing legal unions" statements WHEN I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED SUCH A THING are completely lame and intellectually dishonest. If you can't make a better argument then these types of statements, maybe we should debate another topic in another thread. But it's already difficult enough to take an unpopular position against the entire AD community while clouding it with inane rhetoric. My bet is, there are other people who share my views in general, but wouldn't jump into this debate lest they be labeled a bigot and homophobe (which usually happens).

My views are on topic: How does same-sex marriage weaken marriage in this country? I couldn't be more clear, but nobody likes the argument, so claim it's off topic. It is a complicated issue unless you want to give very specific rights to a very specific group. And I have a problem with that. For some reason, I can't get that point to sink in.

Any two people - gay or not - should have the ability deal with personal issues that married people can. For example, visiting loved ones in hospitals. Nobody in their right mind would ever suggest that a same-sex partner should not be allowed to visit a loved one in the hospital because they are not married. Aside from this, there are other issues that a partner should be recognized for much the same reason. Contrary to Vibiana's analysis of my viewpoint, there should be a legal status to allow this to happen. I have no problem with that and in fact, that is my preferred solution.

But it's not just for gays. Can you not understand that? If you are going to change how traditional marriage works, you need to include any two consenting adults - not just gays. How can anyone call themselves open-minded and reject that premise?

Edited to add:
Actually, my "any two consenting adults" could be discriminatory. Why only two? Because that's a number that makes us feel better?

I think the gay-marriage debate in America is rooted in our christian majority. Although we're not a theocracy, we're still a democracy. Morality in many nations is often dictated by the religion of the populus, and hence here we are in the United States.

The Christian population in 2001 fell in at roughly 77%; of which many would oppose gay-marraige simply on religious grounds.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

I know that our founding fathers intentionally seperated church and state in the US, but I believe that something of this magnitude should come to a congressional and/or popular vote as opposed to a Supreme Court decision. (for instance, Roe v Wade probably should've never happened... different thread in the works...). This is a defining moment in our culture, and could have permanent impacts on the lives of Americans forever. Shouldn't America make the decision?

So what bothers you is that more people will be able to reap the benefits of marriage? If such benefits encourage people to form stable relationships, how is that bad?

I think we would agree that what really weakens marriage is DIVORCE.



You know, if you can't understand metaphor, perhaps you should not engage in debate.



I am not labeling you a bigot or a homophobe. If you enjoy playing the martyr, fine, but I'm not going to give you a round of applause for it.



We already give very specific rights to a very specific group (married couples). Why don't you have a problem with THAT, instead of with expanding the group to include people whose relationships are equivalent to what is currently defined as marriage?



A great number of nonsupportive birth families have interfered in situations where their gay or lesbian child was hospitalized, and have forbidden the child's partner from caring for them. It is not always the hospital which interferes -- it is the legal 'next of kin' who has the right to do so. Google "Sharon Kowalski" for an example of this sort of case.



We're back to the slippery slope. Actually, I have no problem with polygamy or polyandry, either, as long as the people involved freely choose it, are of consenting age and not otherwise related. Why can't people live the way they feel comfortable living? They're not hurting anybody.

Also, DR, perhaps you feel your "blah blah blah" is less condescending than my "on the fly" posts, but it's really not.

Ok, to use your logic, let me ask a quick question. You mention "not otherwise related", as if it's a pre-qualifier. Why would two married people whom happen to be related be harmful to society? If two consenting adults, who happen to be first-cousins, decide to marry, why is it less-acceptable than allowing same-sex marraiges?

My objection to consanguineous marriage is that it is likely to produce birth defects if the couple has children. I'm not sure this happens with first cousins, but certainly with closer relatives.

Since same sex marriages by definition could not result in conventional reproduction, this would not be an issue.

Save your breath aevans176....that's already been rejected as "slippery slope" and all that crap. My point directly involves your point. Why stop any group of people? If marriage has nothing to do with conceiving children and having them raised in a two parent household, or is completely ineffective (the common argument here), get rid of it. Otherwise, allow any group of people the benefits. Failure to do so is purely discriminatory, but since it doesn't involve a gay couple, it's ok (according to some on here).

Edited:
Removed an inaccurate response.

I see where DR is going with this and I have to say I agree with him. In our country we afford benefits to married couples. Breaks on car insurance, tax breaks, it is far easier to get a loan as a married couple rather than a co-signer(as I am in the loan business I know), and numerous other benefits as well.

Like DR says, once we allow gay marriage between two couples, people will take advantage of it. You don't have to take the last name of your spouse any longer, so I can see two buddies who have been roommates together(who for this example both are heterosexual), but they want the advantages and breaks a married pair get. So they get legally married. Now they can save money car insurance, taxes, and other services because they are now legally married.

So we can look at this another way... How about we take away all benefits of being married. Since it's really not bettering the society anymore by being married, let's remove all benefits for married couples.

Unless you have children(or adopt them) is the only way you will get any tax benefits or savings.

Sound fair?

This can already happen if the roomates are opposite-sex. How would legalizing same-sex marriage make a difference?

Well, there’re a lot of people in their wrong minds, then. If you and your partner drive from Vermont to New Hampshire and get into a car accident you can’t visit him or her in the hospital.



Why would society be able to restrict the legal definition marriage from polygamous arrangements to a one man, one woman arrangement, but not be able to insert a limited expansion to the legal definition of marriage?



By that line of thinking, does polygamous marriage in Muslim society sit well with you, being that the present-day justification for the practice is based on religious interpretation?

How does same-sex marriage weaken marriage in this country?
It doesn’t, currently, but I bet homosexuals will do as good a job of weakening the institution as heterosexuals have given enough time.

Why would heterosexual couples choose not to get married if same-sex couples are allowed to marry?
Personally speaking on top of having an unconventional view of marriage since childhood the gay marriage debate has made me reexamine my own marriage plans. I knew at a very young age I didn’t want children. You could say I was part of the crowd that always did its part to quietly erode the institution before I was old enough to vote. My father, while financially responsible to his children, was/is(?) an unreformed adulterer in a marriage sustained out of pity instead of love. Those two observations, one of myself, the other of my father, led me to believe a certificate is as meaningful, or meaningless, as the trust two people place on it. Not having to worry about inheritance and always believing in financial independence I could live the rest of my life without a wedding ring and be just as happy.

My boyfriend on the other hand has a different idea. It’s not that he feels the need to make a respectable woman out of me or any such nonsense. He wants to make sure I’m okay should anything happen to him. More than likely I’ll agree to it, but I couldn’t help bringing up the idea of getting “married” through contracts and power of attorney first, instead of visiting the county clerk’s office. He’s an atheist. I’m not surprised he said no and can’t blame him. Who wants to go through the legal loopholes to attain the same status an easy marriage contract guarantees?

If our state offered civil unions to heterosexual couples I’d take it in a heartbeat. Religious connotations attached to the marriage process can take place when I invite a preacher to the ceremony.

As I have stated earlier in this thread, I would be perfectly happy if same-sex couples were offered a civil union option which conferred the same benefits and privileges as marriage, although it seems to me that would be sort of silly -- why not just call it the same thing?

Now I would like to reiterate that statement AND to add that a civil union option should also be offered to heterosexual couples who want no religious aspect to their ceremony. That's certainly more honest and honorable than straight couples "faking" religious devotion to please Grandma or have a pretty place to hold a wedding, when all along they don't plan ever to darken the door of a church again -- until they need their baby baptized (although they don't plan to bring him or her to church after that, either).

But who said anything about procreation? Well, then we'd have to prevent anyone that has a history of genetic defect from having babies as well? What are the statistics on first cousins, brothers and sisters, etc having birth defects as opposed to say... smokers? Should smokers have to abort children? What about someone on prescription medicine?

Basically, if a brother and sister love each other enough to get married, aside from procreatio (as this is not possible in same-sex marriages), why could siblings not marry?

For that matter, why could Father and Daughter not marry? Mother and Son? What if they really love each other?

Obviously, the strongest argument against consanguineous marriage or incestuous relationships would be the possibility of producing birth defected children. However, a compelling argument also exists that the human species is predisposed AGAINST incest, and that most people, in fact, feel a strong aversion to sexual intimacy with a brother, sister, parent, etc.

Now, I realize that you could counter that many people would be repelled by the idea of sexual intimacy with someone of the same sex, but it certainly would not be repellent to the degree that imagining an incestuous encounter would. To a certain degree, repugnance of incest is inbred, as a survival instinct.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but often in nature animals breed with their siblings and family members. This often even happened in the history of human beings (i.e royal families, etc).

However, if you're to make the survival instinct point, I'd have to point out that humans would have no hope of survival in a same-sex relationship. Procreation is impossible. Repellant? That's a purely judgemental statement, but frankly goes against the grain of mother nature and the history of man.

This would indeed be the case if EVERYONE were in same-sex relationships. Since everyone is not, what's the point?

I agree with both of the above. Believe it or not, I have never been an ardent supporter of gay marriage. But, so long as special rights are being afforded to one class of people - any given man and any given woman who decide to go through the motions of a "marriage" - and not another, this strikes me as an inequity.

I would wholeheartedly support the idea of abolishing all marriage benefits unless and until a couple bears children. However, I would then extend certain benefits to any couple, regardless of gender make-up, that decides to raise children, whether they are natural or adopted, whether the couple is married or not, gay or straight. I would extend similar benefits to single parents who are raising children.

As things stand, Robert B is quite right. Any two people can avail of marriage rights, whether they love each other or not, whether they intend to raise children or not, whether they intend to spend their lives together or six months together - so long as they have mismatched genitals. This does not strike me as just.

All of the above addresss benefits. Certain rights, on the other hand, should be extended to any commited couple. Hospital visitation right