I would agree with Wertz about getting rid of all special rights to married couples until (and if) they have kids. This makes sense.

It also makes sense to give those same benefits to anyone raising a child regardless of sexual orientation, or even if they are a single parent. This seems the most just way to ensure that certain people aren't given special rights that are denied to another group.

I also like the idea of churches (without any legal authority to confer any special benefits) marrying who they want. The religions that have an issue with homosexuality, no matter how misguided, can stay in their comfort zone.

As for the incest argument, my biggest issue with incest is that it usually happens in situations where one is not a consenting adult, as in uncle/neice, father/daughter or son, older brother/little brother or sister. There are issues of being dependent in the home for their survival and not having any way to escape if it's desired.

I think (but could be wrong) that incest has been a taboo longer that homosexuality -- Oedepus Rex as an example in ancient Greek culture that had no problem with homosexual acts. I don't know if the taboo is justified or not.

Because that "logic" ignores the genetic depression that results from close inbreeding. Due to the lack of genetic diversity, incest can lead to reduced fertility, increased congenital defects, higher infant mortality, slower growth rate, smaller adult size, and loss of immune system function. Homosexual unions result in none of the above. The argument is specious - and unworthy of serious debate.

Now, if those heterosexuals who wish to form consenting incestuous unions would agree to sterilization before the union is consummated, I would have no problem with it.

I'm enjoying this debate and don't want to take us off-topic, but since a few people have asked, there is a contemporary example of first-cousin procreation and birth defects. I thought it was interesting that sleeper said this:

telegraph (UK)

But I don't think you all are addressing the reality of capitalism in this mix. Many "rights" given to married couples are associated with private institutions, such as insurance providers or financial institutions. The only governmental "right" is associated with taxation, and is cluttered into a largely ineffective tax code that needs an overhaul to begin with.

Frankly, if the bank or insurance company gives a better rate to a newly married couple, it's largely due to risk. They're more likely to be a better customer statistically, as if they weren't these industries wouldn't act in this manner. It's simple capitalism.

Your mention of incest may or may not be true, but I suppose that's neither here nor there. The fact is that according to the courts, my logic is pertinent. It may be more or less taboo in your eyes, but frankly, many Americans see homosexuality as Taboo. As I've stated numerous times, if incest was such a "taboo" historically, why did the royal families marry within very closely related circles?

it's not ignoring anything, but more supporting American beliefs regarding reproductive rights. If we can legislate who can and who cannot reproduce, will we then make it illegal for incestuous couples to have children?
Will it then be a crime, regardless of marriage?

Frankly, in the United States we do not legislate whether drinkers, smokers, or drug users can have children. If a person, for instance, has a history of heroin use, we do not force sterilization. There really isn't any forced sterilization in the US at this point.

The argument is worthy of debate in the fact that if homosexuals are allowed to marry openly in the United States, there should be no legal distinction between homosexuals and any other consenting adult couple sharing in this legal distinction.

Wertz I can't recall our last go-around on this - How do we reconcile that marriage is constructed in a specific way to facilitate child-rearing, while saying that, in effect, homosexual marriage should be allowed (vs. say incest) specifically because it doesn't facilitate child-rearing?

Put another way:
Question 1 for debate - 1. How does same-sex marriage weaken marriage in this country?



I haven't decided whether I "have any problem with that," or whether it "sounds fair," but would you admit that this fundamentally changes (if not weakens) marriage in this country? And this is honestly the most practical, pragmatic suggestion that we master debators have come up with in two months?

Question 2 for debate - Why would heterosexual couples choose not to get married if same-sex couples are allowed to marry?
Well, we take away the tax benefit, redefine marriage to include anyone of any sex that can or can't pro-create, and we say that marriage & child-rearing are no longer related, and that they don't really benefit society. I'd say that, in the medium to long term, yeah - lots of heterosexual people would no long feel the need to get married.

Well, since gay marriages are not yet recognized there's unlikely to be any data on whether there is more or less risk, but I'm willing to bet that it's comparable to the risk of a married hetero couple.

But gay unions do facilitate child-rearing (though not, obviously, child-bearing). My partner and I reared two foster kids - and I doubt either of us would have been able to do so on our own.


If marriage in this country has been reduced to tax benefits, then I'd agree that this would change marriage in this country - for the better.


The only modification I'd make there is that I feel that couples, rather than single parents, who are rearing children should form a civil union, whether accompanied by a "marriage" or not. I feel that, ideally, a child or children should have at least two parents (of any gender) and that it is best if those parents are in a stable relationship.

But you are talking at cross-purposes. You are comparing the church-sanctioned and government-supported marriage with the type of model proposed during the course of this debate. Heterosexuals may no longer feel the need to get "married" under this model, but there's no reason they wouldn't want to form civil unions themselves. As things stand, heterosexual couples need to get a marriage license (civil union) whether they have a church wedding (marriage) or not. Sure, more people may opt for just the civil union rather than the religious ceremony, but many already do.

And, as mentioned above, if fewer heterosexuals decide to get married just because they'd have fewer benefits, then good. Maybe there'd be fewer bad marriages.

Ahhh... ok. I understand your logic and anticipated this response.

If this is the case, then why aren't same-sex roommates given the same accord? I believe that the point I'm trying to make is that business is driven by purely financial motives, and that if two people living in a committed relationship of the same sex are less likely to have accidents or default on a loan, financial institutions across the country would've probably already tried to cater to this market. In either case, it's a capitalist notion, based simply on what makes for good business.

I see the point you're trying to make, but I don't know about the premise - do married people get better insurance rates? This stuff is all based on actuarial tables, so as you note it's not a "special" benefit it's just odds. Like young men having more expensive car insurance.

American Express, Bank of America, Capitol One, Bank One, E*Trade, and many others actively seek out the gay market. As you note, it makes for good business. I know for sure I've seen ads from AMEX that note "domestic partners have special needs" or something to that effect.

If I am, it's not intentional. The topic doesn't state "religious" or "state sanctioned" marrige, it just states "marriage." I think the fact that it's both a state and religious institution is giving us the vagueness you allude to.

So - does the fact that "marriage" is advocated for and largely defined by the religious majority in the USA mean that it is illegitimate or discriminatory, and thus should be aboloshied or 'redefined' by the state? And if it is, doesn't that weaken the institution? Currently, marriage can be a church-sanctioned affair, sanctified by one's God and recognized by the State via license (which is signed by the preacher in a church wedding). Making it civil only surely weakens it for the faithful, doesn't it?

Maybe the opposite is true. The faithful need the state to remind them that going to church is more than a holiday affair. Take a look at this article. Has the government been butting into Catholic affairs or courting them for their vote?

More importantly, why should the state make it strong for the faithful? Government affirmation of religious beliefs is not a substitute for maintaining the kind of faith that matters. This may sound like "another lib'rul" trying to stamp religion out of the public square but perhaps religious advocates are better off not looking up to Uncle Sam for divine inspiration.

Well, let me first clarify one thing. This topic is about civil marriage and not religious marriage. Every debate I have started on this topic has dealt with civil marriage as opposed to religious marriage. I apologize if there was confusion. This topic is not about religious marriage.

I have always felt that religious organizations should not have to recognize or perform same-sex marriages.

Now, incestuous marriage is a reality in this country. Just over half of the states in the union allow first cousins to marry. Some require that the couple be sterilized. This is a fact. Will this lead to sibling marriages or father/daughter marriages? It might. Just don't use homosexuals as the scapegoat if it does. Blame the folks who lobbied to marry their cousins.

Is the government well within its rights to legislate morality? To discriminate against certain groups when it comes to marriage? Yes, it is. I would argue that the states were well within their rights to deny marriage to homosexuals as long as there were sodomy laws in those states. But it must be consistent. Laws define the moral view of the government -- as protector of its citizens. If the government changes its moral view by removing a law (either through the legislature or the judiciary), the government must examine all laws related to that moral view. Now... sexual relations between brother and sister... father and daughter, etc... have been taboo in this country since its inception. Sexual relations between cousins... not so much. The government has a law to reflect this moral view... sexual relations between full blood family members is illegal -- sexual relations between cousins... not so much.

Now, someone will ask what about homosexuality and its being considered taboo. Well, the government no longer holds that moral view. The number of states with laws against homosexuality has been decreasing since 1961 and Lawrence basically made the remaining few unconstitutional. The government removed those laws (either through the legislature or the judiciary). So, it must be consistent. The government has no valid interest in excluding same-sex couples from marriage based on a view of homosexuality as immoral or taboo, because the government does not view homosexuality as immoral.

And let's get something clear here because there seems to be some confusion. There is a difference between child-rearing and child-bearing. People keep using child-rearing to mean child-bearing when the two do not mean the same thing. Child-bearing is birth, child-rearing is the raising of a child. Marriage does nothing to facilitate child-bearing... that hasn't been the case for a very long time. Marriage does, however, facilitate child-rearing. The government gives no incentives, however, for bearing a child -- whether the child is present through procreation or some other means, the marital incentives are the same. If same-sex couples were allowed to marry, marriage would facilitate child-rearing for those couples in the exact same way as it would for non-procreative heterosexual couples. So, allowing for same-sex marriage does absolutely nothing to remove or diminish the relationship between marriage and child-rearing.

Taking this distinction into consideration, answer the question again, carlitoswhey. Why would heterosexual couples choose not to get married if same-sex couples are allowed to marry?

I think it is unrealistic and unnecessary to do away with civil marriage. It serves a purpose. On paper, marriage is still the ideal relationship in which to raise a child. Yes, there are problems with marriage... or should I say problems with the people who engage in it... but these problems won't go away if you get rid of marriage and establish civil unions for everyone. People will still get civil unions for the wrong reasons. There will still be children adversely affected by terminated relationships and selfish parents. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Well, I'm a little slow on the googling this AM, but I read that 73% of Catholics have their marriages approved by the church. And let's be honest, they have to jump through hoops, so another 10 or 15% surely are married by a layman in a separate but still Christian ceremony. Catholics represent about 20% of the US population (60 million or so). I know that 80% of Americans are nominally Christian. so, let's say that, of all other Christians, "only" 60% of them are married in a church or by a religious figure. The 2 or 3% of Americans that are Jewish or Muslim are probably 99% married in a religious service as well. I was at a country club wedding last month and even they brought a preacher out for about 10 minutes. This gives me a ballpark weighted average of 65% of marriages being religious, and I'm being conservative.

So, on average, 2 out of 3 marriages are sanctified by a church or religious figure in some nominal way. When those millions of Americans think of "marriage" they are thinking of their marriage, which is a combination of state and God-sanctioned. Go ahead and compartmentalize your debate question all you like, but that is what "marriage" means to most of us. When we see movies with a nervous bride and the family all dressed up they aren't heading to the courthouse, they are heading to church. Call it idealistic, dated, whatever, but for most of us that is "marriage." Why then does it surprise us when 2/3 or more of voters choose to define marriage this way every single time they are asked?


I can't tell you how aggrevating it was when I lived in the United Kingdom and everyone referred to my wife as my "partner." It absolutely drove me nuts, from the bank to the post office to our British friends. We're not partners, we're husband and wife. The best, most pragmatic solutions offered here all do away with marriage. Call the red-state hicks in the sticks stupid with their sloganeering but how in the world is getting rid of marriage for everyone not ending marriage as we know it.?

What's wrong with just voting to extend the right of marriage to same-sex couples and no further? This won't end marriage, it will just expand it to include a lot of folks who are essentially living as married couples anyway.

I think because, as carlitoswhey so eloquently stated, for the majority of Americans, a wedding is a culmination of a state and religious act. Christianity doesn't appreciate homosexuality as a viable lifestyle, and hence the detest for the idea of merging marriage and an anti-Christian idea.

As much as people would prefer to not use Texas as a litmus test, we just had a recent vote on this very topic. You mention taking it to a vote, and I believe that a national vote is probably in order (even though we don't do things this way), or even a state-by-state vote. This does not mean allowing your state supreme court, or the national Supreme Court to legislate from the bench (as some states have in the very recent past).

I believe that the people of the nation and/or individual states should make this distinction. If I were to make an educated guess, that even as poverty stricken as Texas can be, w/ an 80% vote against same sex marraige (essentially), the rest of the nation would be apt to garner at least the 51% majority necessary to preclude homosexual marriage as a nation.

Again, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers probably didn't have this in mind for the History of the United States, so I believe that the Supreme Court should be excluded in its entirety. If a vote is necessary, I'm up for it. My home state (Louisiana) would probably vote similarly to Texas, and as I mentioned earlier, I'd be very surprised to see legislation of this type pass in our current American cultural climate.

Okay... to this I offer you a great big... "so what"? So, people see marriage as a combination of religious and civil. Bully for them, I say. I'm not surprised at all. For most it is, but the issue of legal recognition of marriage deals only with the civil. There are churches out there who marry homosexuals right now... the issue is that these marriages are not recognized by the state. So, no... I'm not "compartmentalizing" my debate question... I am dealing with the issue at hand -- legal recognition of same-sex marriage which deals only with the civil aspect of the institution.



I agree to some extent with Robert B on this. But I say this, deal with the legality of each type of relationship based on the issues associated with that relationship alone. Acknowledge that allowing for one does not mean that you must allow for the others. If we allow for the legalization of marijuana, does it follow that we must then legalize heroin? No. Different drugs, different issues. If the taboo on incestuous sex between full blood family members is lifted, then let them marry. If the government can find a way to accomodate polygamy and still offer equal protection to all participants, then let them marry.



And here it is, folks. The reason why the majority don't want to legalize same-sex marriage. This was the same excuse used to attempt to prevent interracial marriage, by the by. And it took the Supreme Court to put a stop to that. But, then... they weren't legislating from the bench in that situation... no... of course not, no .

So, the Supreme Court appears to be legislating from the bench in this instance because... why? Because you disagree with those decisions? I mean people voted on interracial marriage and the Supreme Court defied the will of the people in that instance. But that wasn't legislating from the bench and this is. Hmmm...

carlitoswhey, there is a difference between marriage as a ceremony where family and friends celebrate the intent to form a long lasting partnership and marriage the legal partnership. You have stated you consider them to be one and the same thing. Doing so is to your disadvantage. Legal status should never be confused with emotional status as it will cause undue strain trying to have the government defining your emotional status. Marriage the legal document is only linked with marriage the loving relationship if you decide to do so. This link is not legally binding.

It is proper that entspeak has narrowed the discussion to the legal aspects. This we can change via changes in law. For the good, government does not make a law regulating the love between people nor should it ever do so.

If we end marriage the legal one, there is not reason marriage the loving relationship will stop. We have history to prove this. Same sex couples have marriage the loving relationship already without marriage the legal one. Clearly the two are not linked. You do not have to have one to have the other.

Actually, any time the Supreme Court changes the course of history against the will of the people, legislating from the bench it is. Plain and simple.

Basically, in the case of Loving v Virginia, the couple knew the law and didn't abide by it. Frankly, as abhorrid as our racially centered history was, the law wasn't voted on by the people. This racially centered legislation was induced by the Virginia state government. This shouldn't and isn't the case with gay marriage.

In the event of homosexual marriage, what I'm proposing is a popular vote. In the event that the state of Virginia had actually had a popular vote to prevent interracial marriages, and the law upheld, I would just believe that maybe it would be a bad idea to live in Virginia. In Texas, the state voted overwhelmingly to uphold the institution of marriage in its current form. If the Supreme Court of the United States (who is not responsible to a constituency) changed that decision, it would be plainly legislating against the will of the people from the bench. Their job is to interpret the constitution as it relates to the law. The constitution never even once mentions homosexuality, and the only way they could justify a pro-gay marriage decision would be to employ "judicial-activism" and over-turn the popular vote.
(Sound familiar? Read the decision on Roe v Wade and its interpretation of the 14th amendment.. )

Because as has been stated over and over and over and over and over, that is purely subjective and discriminatory.

The reason marriage is not currently discriminatory (in my opinion), is that the probabilities are high that a married man and woman will conceive children. Based simply on genetics and the survival of our species, no other class of people can do that.

As has been discussed, the common opinion is that marriage has nothing to do with conceiving children and moreover, is completely ineffective. With that, gays should be allowed to marry.

So, to address your point, what makes gays so special that they deserve to have marriage redefined to include them, but reject other classes of people wanting the same (polygamous relationships, platonic relationships including more than one person, etc). Your idea is discriminatory by design.

So, the only solution appears to be to get rid of marriage and extend incentives to people who raise children (gay, polygamous, or straight). When the group of people (why limit marriage to only two?), no longer are raising a child, revoke those benefits. Of course, this will require allowing the government to regulate the benefits, investigate households to ensure they are complying with the law, and enforcing the law when people try to cheat the system.

So glad a conservative thinks the delivered the correct ruling in the Dred Scott case, seeing as laws were passed in favor of slavery at the state and federal levels.

Unless I’m mistaking your intention and you’re actually trying to pigeonhole the USSC to avoid making similarities between Loving v. Virginia and the gay marriage debate?



Does that mean you think keeping polygamous unions out of marriage contract within the U.S. is purely subjective and discriminatory?

Actually, there is a stark contrast. Loving v Virginia (for those whom haven't already "google-d" it), was a USSC case in 1967 where an interracial couple moved from DC (where said union was legal) to Virginia (where it was not). The stark contrast between this case, and say if the USSC were to deem gay marriage legal is that in Loving v Virginia, the state statute prohibiting the interracial marriage was produced by the Va government as opposed to a popular vote. In the state of TX, we voted to prohibit gay marriage (basically) in our state. This was the will of the people. If the USSC reversed this decision, how would it not be legislating from the bench???

The supreme court is appointed by a President, and not subject to the Democratic Process. I'm not sure how liberals can feel secure in this ideology and support an unchecked portion of the US system, especially considering the changing tide on the USSC (7 of 9 appointed by a Republican). The Supreme Court isn't subject to the vote of the people; which is inherently sticky in itself. (i.e. Ginsburg and Breyer wouldn't have been my picks.. )...

Marriage by its nature is subjective and discrininatory (though not purely so, necessarily).



Banning same-sex marriage in effect prohibits marriage based on sexual orientation. It means that the only way gay people can marry is to wed people to whom they, by definition, cannot be romantically or sexually attracted. It is even more restrictive in this sense than a ban on interracial marriage.

Bans on incestuous marriage and polygamy do not have a comparable effect: A ban on incestuous marriage denies marriage only to those who look solely within their immediate family for romantic/sexual partners, while a ban on polygamy denies marriage to no-one.

Anyone engaged in the gay marriage debate should be somewhat familiar with Loving v. Virginia. However, you present a criterion for the USSC I haven’t heard before, Aevans. Are you saying the USSC is never constitutionally correct (or as the popular vernacular goes nowadays, legislating from the bench) when overturning local referendums introduced by politicians dodging electorate backlash? Almost never? Hardly ever?



A president who is elected by the people. If you take issue with their rulings (and I have my own issues) take it up with the executive and the Senate, impeach or get the amendment process off the ground.

That is completely absurd. Issues of civil rights should most definitely NOT be decided by "the people" because more often than not the people are the problem in the first place. Do you really think we'd have the kind of gender and racial progress we have today if such things were left to the people?

That is precisely the reason the Supreme Court isn't voted in by the public, they don't answer to "the people" they answer to the Constitution. Politicians frequently pass or try to pass laws because "the people" want something done a certain way - that doesn't make what they want right.

Also, what happened in Texas is completely meaningless. That is like saying that Texas voted to keep breathing air. I lived there for 20 someodd years aevans and I can assure you quite a few areas are extremely homophobic. In college the good ol' boys would pile in the pickup truck to go beat up homosexuals on a Friday night, and that was less than a decade ago. Texas does not carry any weight in this debate at all.

To be fair Texas' amendment to the state constitution does carry weight in this debate. A few states have the outcome of their referendums against gay marriage and civil unions being challenged in the courts. My issue with Aevans's Texas-Loving comparison are the incredulous arguments popping up like daisies that have nothing to do with the constitutionality of laws and Supreme Court rulings and everything to do with populist appeals to the common man’s common sense.

If marriage is about companionship and not about children, then absolutely. This has been my point all along.

Thanks for answering DR. I guess my next question is this: If marriage is about companionship and not children, why can we discriminate against polygamous relationships but not incestuous relationships? What is unique about the potential hurt to women (not underage girls) in polygamous marriage that is nontransferable to incestuous marriage?

I see. So, what you're saying is that a law can be considered unconstitutional only if it is induced by the legislature and not if it is put in place by public vote. Interesting view. If the wording of the law is exactly the same but it is passed by public vote then... suddenly the nature of the law changes from unconstitutional to constitutional? I'm sorry, but that is completely absurd.



And there is absolutely no mention in the Constitution of the right of association, so it must be judicial activism for the courts to deem unconstitutional the laws that violate that right. Brilliant reasoning there. And, of course, absolutely untrue.

There is also no mention of interracial marriage or marriage at all, for that matter, in the Consitution. And yet, the 14th Amendment was used to recognize that interracial couples by right should have access to the marriage institution.

Recognition of a fundamental right is not granted by the majority. It is protected, with limitation, by the Constitution. And there are very specific and strict conditions that the government must meet in order to violate those rights even if that violation is supported (either through induction by legislative representatives or passed by public vote) by 99.9999% of the people. That is constitutional law.

DaytonRocker

You keep saying that allowing same-sex marriage makes marriage not about children. Where is your evidence for that? You've only shown evidence that relates to civil unions and not same-sex marriage. Procreation is but one way of introducing children into a married family. And as long as heterosexual couples marry, it will continue to be the primary way in which children are introduced into a married family. Are you telling me (and I've asked this question countless times) that procreation will suddenly not be the primary way in which children are introduced into a marriage as a result of allowing same-sex couples to marry? THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. Please, please, please take me down that road. Explain it to me. Explain how the vast, incredibly huge, monumentally large majority of married couples (heterosexual married couples) will stop procreating in marriage solely because same-sex couples can marry. Will you do that, please? Because if you can't explain it, the credibility of your "point all along" comes into question.

I hate to crash into the middle of this and preach a sermon, but I thought it might help to tell you where I'm coming from on this issue, so to speak.

I'm a 40 y/o woman who has, at various times in my life, identified as either bisexual or a lesbian. I have been celibate for the last four years, and have no plans to change that anytime soon. I didn't become celibate because I thought being a lesbian or bisexual was a sin; I sort of fell into celibacy and liked it. It's a sort of peaceful way to live. However, not everyone is able to live this way and I realize that. Fifteen or twenty years ago, I couldn't have lived this way either. LOL

I have had four serious relationships with women in my life. In the longest lived one, which lasted almost exactly five years, we had a commitment ceremony performed in a chapel. My father, who's a minister, performed it.

This was in 1993. I was 28. The ceremony was not legal in the state it was performed in, nor was it considered a valid marriage by the denomination of the chapel it took place in. The pastor was willing to allow us to use the space out of kindness, I suppose, because I'd been raised in that denomination and because we really had no place else to go.

The relationship ended after five years. I don't regret having been in it, and would only point out to detractors that plenty of straight marriages break up within the first five years too. (Also, my former partner has been in another relationship ever since then -- eight years -- so obviously SHE's capable of going the distance. LOL).

I'm not sure I could ever get into another relationship. I have some major trust issues, and this relationship is part of the reason for them. But if I did, and if the person I wanted to be married to was a woman, I'd want legal recognition for it. Why should I have to pay lawyers and jump through all kinds of hoops to cobble together a watered-down version of what a straight couple automatically gets the day they marry -- joint tax filing status, joint health insurance eligibility, inheritance rights, etc.?

DR, perhaps we're talking past each other and not understanding. I've laid my cards on the table. My passion about this issue comes from a couple of decades of seeing friends I care about treated like second-class citizens because of who they fall in love with -- as well as a good many years of having to hide who I was and how I lived lest I lose my job, alienate straight friends or colleagues, or be asked to leave my church (which did happen at one point). If I'm defensive, I figure I've got a right to be.

I'd be interested to hear, as entspeak has requested, your thoughts.

A post from me from earlier in the thread:

There's not an arrangement I could think of that would be exempt.


I have no idea how to answer your question. Why in the world would married couples cease to procreate with gay marriage? I can't answer your question because I can't understand your logic. If you can't understand the points I've been making countless times, then it's a futile effort. It'd be easier to just let you question my credibility. Wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last time.

Edited to add:
Previously, I have stated that if incentives were removed in having children, some couples (particularly younger ones) may choose not to have children. If incentives were not effective, we wouldn't have them. To go deeper in why the incentives would be eliminated/reduced, you'll have to read my posts earlier in the thread. I've been clear on that subject. But nowhere do I suggest gay marriage will be the end of heteros having children.

Well the whole crux of what is being said against same sex marriage is if it exists that hetero marriage will be destroyed. First of all, just because you cannot legally couple does not mean you cannot partake in a same sex couple, at any time a person or persons can go out and do such if they so desire.

To me it comes off like if we allow sliced bread to be made circular it will cause the butter industry to die out, I just don’t see how the two are really being put together. Anyways, there are places in the world where people can already couple legally that are same sex, if what you say is true, all hetero marriages in those areas should become extinct, if not, it only leads a person to think that such truly are not related.

Anyways, its not about marriage in some religious sense that is at debate here, its about some form of a union that is recognized legally and would allow for many of the benefits a couple can have while married. I do not think it would count for children as such have to be present first don’t they, like having dependents listed on your W-2 for instance.

An easy non-answer, I guess.

The logic is this:

Currently, heterosexual married couples can get married for companionship and never have children. This option is currently open to them. Yet, still... the vast majority of marriages involve children. Yet, you seem to be claiming that solely because same-sex couples are allowed to marry -- which will have absolutely no effect on the nature of heterosexual marriage -- that enough heterosexual couples will suddenly make use of that option and marriage will become, in society's view, about companionship and not about children. Why would this happen? That is the question, because that is the flaw in the logic of your point. If the option is there now to make marriage about companionship and not about children, why don't the vast majority of heterosexual couples make use of it now? Why would they suddenly choose to solely because same-sex couples are allowed to marry?

You claim that heterosexual men and women will suddenly decide to marry people of the same-sex solely to get marital benefits. Indeed, some will... just as there are currently heterosexual men and women who get married solely to get marital benefits. But in order for this to have a detrimental effect on the institution of marriage, the vast majority of heterosexuals would have to change their view of marriage. It seems to me that somebody mentioned that the majority of people in this country view marriage as being both religious and civil. So, in order for marriage to become about companionship and not about children, the vast majority of people would have to toss aside their religious view of marriage (which, as I recall, involves marriage being about children). Why would they do that?

edited to add:



Some couples may choose not to have children if the incentives for having children are not removed. Some couples, in fact, do choose not have to have children even with the incentives. Perhaps this is because people don't tend to have children in order to receive more benefits from the civil aspect of their marriage. Are you saying this tendancy is going to change solely because same-sex couples are allowed to marry?

Please provide a link to the posts. You don't have to re-type them, but it would be nice to read them without having to wade through 12 pages of posts. If you didn't know already, clicking on the post number in the upper right of the post will allow you to copy a link directly to that post.

The only relevant mention that I could find to incentives in your posts was this:



As I mention above, in order for this to happen, the majority of people will have to change their view of marriage. And why hasn't this happened already? The door for this happening has been open for many, many years and this "doomsday" scenario regarding incentives hasn't happened. Why does it suddenly start happening if same-sex couples are allowed to marry?

Perhaps there are more references to this, but I couldn't find any other relevant reference to "incentives" using an advanced search of the thread.

Okay. I see where the companionship-only transformation gay marriage would have on the institution (according to you) entered the conversation. Let’s stick with that argument. Is the fact that gay marriage is not legally possible in the U.S. the only thing keeping polygamous and incestuous marriage at bay OR are polygamous and incestuous marriage illegal for their own individual justifications? If it’s the latter how can gay marriage remove these agreed upon justifications currently keeping polygamous/incestuous marriage illegal?

I'de like to add; If a man can marry another man, or another women can marry a women.... Then if this is allowed, whats stopping me from marrying my cat!

Okay, I tried to resist, but... resistance is futile.

Let me also offer a welcome to you, Imdbombboarder -- you and your cat.

As someone of your... taste... has probably already discovered, you currently can't marry a pet. I'm sure it was heartbreaking for you to learn, but... there you are. Unfortunately, that won't change if same-sex couples are allowed to marry. Civil Marriage will still be a contract... a legal contract which requires that both parties be able to engage in a contract and both parties must be able to consent to that engagement -- neither of which, I'm sure you've learned, is your cat capable of. So, while -- and I hope I speak for the rest of the AD community when I say this -- I feel for you and your dilemma... you and your cat will have to be happy with being "partners". .

I think the door to any type of marriage has not been opened through most of the US, so I'm picking door #1. I believe once a class of people who could never ever conceive children are allowed to marry, it would be impossible to deny other class of people those same rights. It would be purely subjective and wrong.

Two women could artificially inseminate. Two men cannot. A group of 4 people wishing to be married could artificially inseminate (assuming there is a woman involved). 4 men cannot. Do we allow gay marriage between women and not between guys because they can conceive? My bet is, that's not going to happen.

So, when a class of people that could never conceive children are allowed to marry, I don't see how anyone could think that marriage has anything to do with children. Consequently, everyone becomes eligible for the same rights.

Wait a minute, DR. First you wanted to remove children out of the picture to make your point. I went along with your argument. I asked you questions trying to get you to extrapolate on the moral and practical reasons why the U.S. outlaws polygamous and incestuous marriage right now while we’re still debating gay marriage. All of a sudden you introduce children into your argument.

It seems you’re being reluctant and we’ll keep chasing our tails. But I’ll go another round with you. A brother and sister can meet the childbearing burden of reproducing. Being able to do so, this couple should receive a marriage license but they are not allowed to. This ban predates polygamous marriage in Utah. Why don’t we allow them to get married and, once again, how would gay marriage lift the ban on this couple?

Aren't people over the age of 65 a "class of people"?

And, although you quoted his post, you completely ignored Lesly's questions:



Why would denying these groups access to the right of marriage be purely subjective and wrong if the individual justifications for keeping these types of groups from marrying are not removed?

Geez...I feel like I'm talking in circles here. I have been very consistent in saying that I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman for the purposes of conceiving and raising children. This arrangement - while not perfect - happens overwhelmingly. There is nothing discriminatory in this arrangement. No other class of people can do the same naturally. Women need to get pregnant no matter how it is done to keep our species alive. This is not a choice - this is a requirement.

Siblings are prevented from marrying because of the genetic risk. Men and women have been denied marriage licenses after finding the same risks in their blood tests. There is nothing subjective in this premise.

If you allow two men to marry that could never bear children and are not required to raise children (just like straight couples), then marriage clearly has little to do with children.

To preclude invading our privacy, the government currently does not require married people to have children. They don't have to because most marriages produce children. There is nothing stopping people from having sex and/or having children with or without marriage. But a marriage is the best foundation - no matter how flawed it is - to give children the best opportunity to grow up in a stable environment. So, we incentivize that through marriage and it's benefits.

But two or more guys can do nothing to help procreate. Of course they can adopt, but so can any other class of people. They don't need a license to have sex no more than any other class of people need a license to have sex. So, if they can't procreate and don't have to have children (just like straight marriages), it's about the companionship and it's associated legal benefits - nothing more and nothing less.

So, do we allow gay women to marry and not guys? If not, where do we stop? And that's my point. What can a group of gay guys do that any other class of people can't do? Do gay men somehow have a different type of love than any other class of people can experience? To say they can or "yes" is completely arbitrary and subjective. So, not allowing any other group of people that cannot procreate and could love each other equally to not marry is discriminatory. At that point, there is no qualifier for anybody to get married and receive the associated benefits. There is no proof of love just like there is no proof of being heterosexual. The difference being of course, that men and women overwhelmingly get married and have children.

The common denominator in marriage now is the ability to create children. The common denominator in gay marriage that includes men is love. But that common denominator exists between anybody - not just gays. How do you fail to see that point?

If a man and woman get married, the odds are very high they will be heterosexual and have children. That's part of our genetic makeup. Currently, we could assume two guys who marry are homosexual. That's it. But there is no proof that is the case (unlike the history of men and woman having children) and there is nothing they could do to change that. There is no question that two guys could love each other just like and man and woman could. But if that's the only requirement, what stops anybody from saying what they say without having anything to show for it? Men and women have tens of thousands of years of history on our side that says we are hetero and will have children. Gay men have their word. If that's enough (and I'm not saying it's not enough), then anybody's word should be good enough - not just gays.

So, either let everybody marry or get rid of it. I think any group of people raising children should get the same benefits. Nobody should be denied that based simply on gender as I think that is completely subjective. I believe people who can't or won't have children should not get the same beneftis as groups that do. But how do we enforce that? Marriage cops? Do people go to jail for being married and not having children? Or do we have a new class of people - married with children - as opposed to married?

Instead of all that, we just assume men and women who have children will have children because overwhelmingly, they do. We do not create a new branch of government to make sure there are no exceptions to the rule. Statstically, marriage will serve it's purpose. If you believe straight marriage is old, busted, and ineffective, THEN GET RID OF IT. Don't use it is a cheap excuse to allow gays to get married. Either marriage is about the best environment for children or it's not. If not, kill it. Everybody will eventually get a slice of that pie and render marriage useless.

entsepeak:
No offense, but go pick a fight with somebody else. If you don't have the time or energy to review the history of this thread, please don't pressure me to repeat points previously made. My time is no less valuable than yours. Almost everything you ask has been previously answered.

Don't worry, none taken. I'm merely debating the topic.

So. A couple -- both over the age of 65 -- wants to get married. Is it an invasion of their privacy to know how old they are? No. Their age is right there on their application for a marriage license. Is it likely that this couple has any intention of conceiving a child? No, it is, in fact, extremely unlikely and highly improbable. There is only one woman on the face of the planet over the age of 65 known to have ever conceived a child. She did it through artificial insemination, it required an emergency caesarean section, and she lost two other fetuses in the pregnancy.

IVF is an expensive treatment that can take many cycles to be successful. The likelyhood of success dramatically decreases after the age of 45 -- thereby increasing the cost. Insurance companies in the US do not cover the costs of these treatments for women over a certain age -- usually over 45 or so. It is also considered highly unethical for a treatment center to perform these types of IVF (some even have upper age limits). It is also looked down upon by society.

So, here you have a class of people for whom conception is extremely unlikely... again, only one woman in the world over 65 has ever conceived. For whom it isn't an invasion of privacy to discover this fact. And yet, we allow these types of couples to marry. And they have always been allowed to marry. But has this had an adverse effect on whether people view marriage as being about children? I don't think so. Does this mean that polygamy and incest should be legalized? Ummm... no. Those two types of relationships have their own issues to sort out before they will ever be legalized.

Now, a man over 65 can marry a younger woman who can conceive. So do we just prevent women over 65 from marrying? No, we can't do that.

Yet, as you say... gay women -- the vast majority of them -- can conceive and gay men can raise children. But we should deny them marriage because.... why?

Incest and Polygamy have their own issues. Incest laws also deal with the social taboo of incest... it is not just about genetics. The laws were created also because of this social taboo. Sodomy laws were not just about allowing for procreation in marriage, they were also about a social taboo. The majority of states, however, changed their minds about that taboo and repealed sodomy laws. Until the social taboo is lifted enough such that legalization of incest occurs, that justification for keeping incest illegal does not go away. Also, inbreeding over the long term is a huge problem. If a brother and sister choose to marry, they may have normal children. But what if those children decide to marry? And the children of those children decide to marry? The odds of genetic problems increase dramatically -- not quite the case with sex between cousins there is never any reproduction between full blood family members. I don't think it's a good idea either way, but... the problem is dramtically reduced with cousins. Well, you may argue that we should mandate sterilization for these couples. That's a pretty sticky issue. There are currently movements to lift bans on sterilization in those few states that require it for cousins -- they are claiming that they have a right to reproduce.

And for the record, there are very few states that even require blood tests anymore.

Polygamy, as I have stated many times -- and as you have failed consistently to acknowledge -- has it's own justifications for being illegal. These also do not go away just because same-sex marriage becomes legal -- just like these justifications don't disappear when we allow couples over the age of 65 to marry.

Marriage should be about raising children... personally, I wholeheartedly agree. Should marriage be about conception? Maybe... but it hasn't been for a long, long time. Yes, it is a biological fact that our species needs conception in order to survive. Allowing for same-sex marriage does not change this fact. Those same-sex couples that can never conceive can however adopt... and there are many, many children in need of adoptive parents... and marriage is the ideal situation in which to raise children -- even those ones that are adopted. And the other issues surrounding incest (social taboos and reproductive rights vs. increased inbreeding issues) and polygamy (protection of equal benefits and obligations for spouses) do not disappear if same-sex marriage is allowed.

I agree with DaytonRocker's opinion that allowing non-heterosexual couples to marry is changing for a large segment of society(let us call them Segment A), what they think the purpose of marriage is all about. This segment associates marriage with becoming a parent and getting special rights as a parent.

I also agree with those who point out that despite what this Segment A thinks, marriage is not always about parenting. It is also the special rights between two people who have a close relationship and nothing to do with parenting and these rights should not just be dependent on being a heterosexual couple.

I also agree with those who point out that despite what this Segment A thinks, there are other non-heterosexual couples who wish to be recognized as parents and get the same special rights as heterosexual couples have in regards to parenting as heterosexual couples are not the only type of family who can be good parents.

-------

Overall, the marriage contract as it is has been proven to be inadequate for handling all of these situations that do exist. It is wrapped up around Segment A thinking. Our society is much more diverse than Segment A. All segments of society should be treated equally. How our citizens are treated should not be dependent on fitting the belief systems of one segment.

Just think of how many believe legal marriage language and religion are one and the same thing. Let us say it is 30% (I do not know the actual percentage) of the population thinks this to be true. Then, probably 30% of the judges think this way, too. Would not such a judge be considering religion when they preside over a divorce? There is nothing in the law to prohibit such thinking. I believe whenever I hear someone champion "traditional family" they are a part of Segment A. Yes, I do believe there are a lot of them.

DaytonRocker is correct that same sex marriage will weaken marriage as it will change how Segment A looks at marriage.

-------

I see three camps in the discussion:

1) same sex marriage will weaken marriage for the worse.

2) same sex marriage will not weaken marriage.

3) same sex marriage will weaken marriage for the better.


I seem to be the only one in camp 3. /boggled We are in dire need of family law reform to satisfy all three of the opinions I have listed at the top of my posting. Same sex marriage will weaken marriage. Hopefully, it will propel society in the direction of creating parental laws and civil union law which will replace the cumbersome model of marriage law. Society needs to look at itself and evolve.

If, as you say, Segment A is the "traditional family" segment, then same-sex marriage will not weaken marriage, because marriage itself (as opposed to peoples perception of it) has not been about the traditional family for a very, very long time. If allowing same-sex marriage opens Segment A's eyes to that fact, so be it... but that doesn't mean that marriage itself is weakened.

The "traditional family" marriage model (as a complete definition of marriage) died the moment the government eased fornication and adultery laws and removed bans on contraception in marriage. Thus ended the "traditional family" marriage model as a defining component of marriage. This is not to say that Segment A couldn't continue to use the model, but it became an option in marriage and not what marriage was exclusively about. The "traditional family" marriage model will always exist as an option. To say that Segment A will suddenly choose not to use the model solely because yet another non-procreative group of people is allowed to marry has no basis in reality. It is a scare tactic... it is propaganda. The marital sky is falling! It is absurd.

To say that we should exclude a group -- for whom there are no other issues to prevent them from being married -- because we want to claim that the "traditional family" marriage model defines marriage is to deny the changes that have already occurred. You want the "traditional family" marriage model to define marriage? Okay. Bring back those laws. Make marriage exclusively about procreation. Oh, wait, we can't... because we want privacy too. Doh! But you can't have it both ways.

You can't say, we will exclude this group solely because we want to mandate a "traditional family" marriage model... but we aren't going to hold ourselves to that mandate. That is unnecessary discrimination and unconstitutional. Polygamy and incest have other issues associated with them that go beyond a conflict with the "traditional family" marriage model. This is not the case with same-sex marriage. This claim of a mandated "traditional family" marriage model is the only reason given for excluding same-sex couples (except for the clearly bigotted reasons which are also clearly unconstitutional).

So to claim that marriage is weakened by the legalization of same-sex marriage is absurd. Marriage itself is unchanged. The marriage contract remains exactly the same. The only thing that is different in society is that another group of non-procreative couples is allowed to marry. Some will conceive children, some will adopt children, some will not have children at all, and some people will abuse the marriage benefits. Sounds just like marriage today.

Heterosexuals weakened marriage... why hold homosexuals accountable for those ills?

Is a married (heterosexual) couple who chooses not to raise kids any "less married" than a couple who does choses to have kids? If so, how is this codified?

Also, if a gay couple with kids believes (as you do) that marriage is the best environment for kids and wishes to get married, what recourse do they currently have?

Is marriage about the best environment to raise kids, or isn't it?

First, a common denominator, by definition, must be common - i.e., it must occur in every instance. Having children is clearly not a common denominator of marriage and never has been. There have always been childless marriages.

Further, those high odds you keep mentioning aren't really all that high - at least not any more. The number of married women without children in the 40-44 year age bracket in 1998 was 66.8%. One in three doesn't strike me as "very high" odds. Clearly, the bulk of the population no longer feels that marriage is predominantly about having children. So much for common denominators.

On the other hand, 23% of never-married women had born children outside of marriage. I would agree with you (at least I think we're in agreement on this) that a stable family unit is the best environment for raising children - as opposed to single parents - or no parents. I also feel that it doesn't matter a damn whether the parents of a child are its natural parents, adoptive parents or foster parents. So if you are claiming that marriage is all about the children and the imperative of propagating the species, why is the gender of the parents so important to you? Which is more important - the person who bears a child or the people who take responsibility for feeding it, clothing it, educating it, and caring for it?

The only difference - as you have admitted yourself - between a gay marriage and a straight marriage is that one can produce children and the other can't. If the family after the moment of birth is of any importance to you, why should it matter what sort of family a child is raised in? To suggest otherwise sounds like a pro-lifer who doesn't give a hoot what happens to that life once it's pushed out of the womb.

Perhaps one of the reasons that both childless marriages and single parents are on the increase is that, as a society, we are beginning to divorce sex itself from propagation.

Sex, in fact, serves two purposes. The first - and the only one you seem to be considering - is to produce offspring. But the second is equally as important - and the two can be mutually exclusive - and that is to bind two people together through pleasure. In your model family, that bond is so strong that it will sustain a relationship long enough for children to be raised to adulthood. But, again, why does that bond have to exist between the same two people responsible for bearing the child in the first place? The world is full of successful step-parents and successful adoptive parents. Are their marriages of any less value than those of a couple who actually bore the child they raise? And what of the increasing number of couple - heterosexual married couples - who only feel that sex need serve the second purpose?

The problem many people have with sexual pleasure is that, unless it is accompanied by child-making, it is seen as a threat to the "traditional family". It is perceived that, if anything that satisfies our sexual desires outside of marriage is acceptable, marriage itself is undermined and the integrity of the family is threatened. If we accept that argument, then the two-thirds of marriages that do not produce children are of less value than those that do. And both adultery and premarital sex should be considered threats equal to homosexuality and childless marriage.

Of course, there is a third purpose that sex serves - and, especially in relation to gay stereotypes, it tends to muddy the waters considerably. That is sex as purely recreational pleasure, outside a stable relationship. But, prejudices to the contrary, libertinism is hardly restricted to gay men. And the most common manifestation of this third purpose - masturbation - knows no boundaries of gender or sexual preference whatsoever. But I am talking here about the purposes of sex within a relationship.

The reason, I feel, that homosexuality is singled out by so many (apart from the promiscuity stereotype and the all too widespread belief that homosexuals are incapable of human relationships) is for the reasons you've stated here. Relations between same-sex partners can only ever fulfill one of the purposes of sex: pleasure. I suspect that many people see sex for pleasure as some sort of hedonistic, family-destroying indulgence and ignore the fact that it can create exactly the same kind of bond that will sustain a relationship long enough for children to be raised to adulthood. And this is in spite the fact that they themselves may have sexual relations that are not intended to produce children. Have you ever done this, DaytonRocker? Or has every one of your orgasms been specifically geared toward conception? If not, then you are as indulgent a family-destroying hedonist as I am.

But if your sexual relations are part of sustaining a loving relationship and forming a unit in which children could be raised, then you and I are quite alike. This is what I meant when I earlier stated that it's unlikely that either my partner or I would have fostered a couple of kids on our own. We had first fostered a bond in which a stable environment could be created for rearing children to adulthood - and that's exactly what we did.

I am, however, playing devil's advocate a bit with all this. I, for one, don't feel that child-bearing or child-rearing or propagation of the species need figure in marriage at all. For me, it is enough that two people love each other, are committed to a relationship, and want to spend their lives together. Any two such people, regardless of their gender breakdown, should enjoy the same rights, responsibilities, and benefits as any other two such people. That - to me - is equality. It's all about love, DR. It's all about love. And if that love can be extended to another generation - whether borne of that relationship or not - so much the better.

You’re not the only one. For example, you cite the obvious genetic risk associated with incestuous marriage but fail to say how gay marriage itself would remove this uncontested scientific fact and making it so “nobody can be discriminated against.”

I can’t read your mind. I don’t know where to go with this unless you put gay marriage and incestuous marriage s