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

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

Given the above two questions, what relevance does marriage being "about having kids" have to the same-sex marriage debate?

With respect, I think that is missing the point. I dont think many people will disagree wth the idea that marriage can be about kids, or that kids are an important part of marriage. But that is not the question.

The question is, is marriage primarily and sollely about kids, to the extent that if kids are removed from the equation, there can be no marriage? Because that is what 'your side of the debate' seems to be arguing, that without the possibility of procreation (though raising kids from a previous coupling is still quite possible) there is 'no point' to homosexual marriage. 'Your side of the debate' seems to be that without the possibility of conceiving a child (not raising or teaching or paying for or caring for, the argument only seems to care about conception) there simply is no marriage.

Two problems, firstly as many people have pointed out, you cannot make such an argument without adressing the many, many marriages that take place without the possibility of conception, post-menopausal women being the most obvious example, but there are many more.

However, in my mind the more important problem with that argument is how utterly and insanely narrow-minded it is, that the entire reason for the existence of marriage has been reduced to the moment of conception. Nothing that happens before or after conception matters, nor does any other aspect of the marriage; things like love, respect and commitment and all that. Why does the Christian marriage oath speak at great lengths about honour, love, commitment, fidelity, caring, trust and so on, but never states that the couple must procreate? Why bother with all that 'irrelevant' mushy stuff if the single defining raison d'etre of marriage is the moment of conception, and without that moment the concept of marriage itself is null and void?

Because that really is what 'your side' of this argument boils down to isn't it? That the instant of conception is the be-all and end-all of marriage?

My mistake. Well, actually their mistake, but you know what I mean. But further in the same report, we find that "among families earning $75,000 and over with 48 percent being childless" and "families earning under $10,000 with 36.2 percent being childless". That is still a fairly high percentage of childlessness - and the stats you cited yourself indicate that childless marriages are on the increase.

Despite the error, my points stand: having children is far from being a "common denominator to marriage", that the odds are not "very high" that all married couples will conceive (close to fifty-fifty in upper income families).



Absolutely. I know loads of married couples that have no intention of having children, who married out of love for each other, rather than to get a certificate for baby-making - and about as many divorced couples who never did have kids (thanks be to God). And every study that I've seen (here, in the UK, in Australia, in Denmark) indicate that childless marriages are on the increase (as, indeed, are childless women in general). Just Google "childless marriage statistics" and take a look around.

I have always understood that marriage is about sex, whether it produces children or not. That marriage is, bluntly, a license to copulate. It is from that that the whole stigma attached to pre-marital sex is derived. Pre-marital sex, tradition tells many of us, is wrong. Post-marital sex - whether children result from it or not - is hunky dory. There is, of course, an additional stigma attached (by many) to "children born out of wedlock" - but the two are not at all the same thing.

Marriage, religiously has everything to do with approved sexual relations, while not in reference to US civil law. Our laws typically only govern consent; but do not legislate pre-marital sex.

In reference to the government, the laws are designed to encourage procreation and the establishment of a family... hence our tax codes that encourage the bearing of children and getting married in the same breath.

Frankly, the predominant religion in the US being Christianity, we probably ought to leave religion out of the debate... as we know where the Bible stands on this one.

However, in reference to US civil code, having children is encouraged. I believe that the Nuclear family in the US has long been heralded as the "center of morality", and the backbone of the tax paying base in the United States. One that has a mortgage, two children and a spouse to feed, etc is most likely to be productive and pay his/her taxes and become a productive member of society.

My question is, if marriage is heralded as simply a "civil union" by homosexuals and the only benefit would simply be to be able to see their "partner" in a hospital (an oft used rant seen on these debates), why not simply change the laws governing seeing people in hospitals? Is it about tax code? Why couldn't we simply change the tax code to encourage "long-term partnerships" in reference to taxation? (it's good for home buying, economic stability, etc... why not?)

What is it really that homosexuals need out of the word "marriage"? There were times in our history that the "civil" portion of said union didn't even exist, so that being said, isn't it generally a religious ceremony? How many of Americans don't engage in a religious institution in the United States? If the majority of Americans associate themselves as Christians (I've heard between 70-80%), how could it largely not be considered a religious act? What % of Americans just go to the Justice of the Peace and "tie the knot"? What are the real benefits to homosexuals getting married? How is it truly helpful to the United States?

Finally, to bring my argument full circle in reference to the USSC, I'd like to state that the USSC's legislation has often been regarded by portions of the United States as incorrect or immoral. Their ability to change the course of United States history completely "unchecked" isn't necessarily always a positive aspect of our government, which ordinarily is regarded as "checked and balanced".

Leaving abortion alone; what about decisions regarding property rights? What about Kelo v New London?

Again, this is why I believe that the TX legislation is pertinent to the debate. The state allowed its people to decide, and we all know where that went... what's so wrong with allowing the people to dictate its own morality? Afterall... why should there be any unchecked power in the US gov't? If it suits your argument ... that's great... but what if the President could legislate via committee completely unfettered? (lest we not forget that Congress still holds voting powers...) That's how many Americans would feel if Gay Marriage is enacted by the USSC...

This is a misconception that needs to be corrected. You don't get some sort of tax benefit by being married or having children. You do get to account for them in your taxes but the small credits don't in any way make up for the cost.

The standard deduction for a single person is $4,850 and the standard deduction for a married couple filing jointly is $9,700. Gee that is simply the single person's standard deduction X 2. For married filing separately it is $4,850. No tax incentive to get married here.

You can find the rates for estimated tax payments in 2005 in a graph on the linked page. Estimated taxes are what comes out of your paycheck and if you are married you can take home more each paycheck but that doesn't in any way change your overall tax liability. You are still judged at the end of the year based on your total earnings the same as a single person. No tax incentive to get married here.

Finally let's talk about kids. You get to take a whole $1000 as a tax credit for each child. You are also eligible to deduct certain things like daycare. Getting a measly $1000 plus some deductions for large out of pocket expenses like daycare is not in any way an incentive to have children. The federal government is simply giving you a small break if you have kids. Being single or married with no kids is definitely advantageous from a tax perspective. No tax incentive to have kids here.

So actually aevans, you are completely wrong. The government does not encourage marriage or having children with our tax laws. Until recently marriage actually worked against you from a tax perspective and the "penalty" was removed in the last 5 years or so.

"Close to 50/50?" No way. Maybe rich people have less kids, but I'll bet it's not even close to 50% of upper income groups not having kids. I drive through the richest neighborhood in Chicago on my way to work and every house seems to have kids. Then again, I suppose if I walked through Manhattan I'd see more childless couples - cost of living maybe?

White American women have a birth rate of 1.8 or so (the replacement rate is 2.1 - this and immigration are why demographics are shifting). You'll be especially pleased to note that white fertility rates positively correlate to Republican voting - Bush carried the top 15 white-fertility-rate states in 2004. So, Bush won the highest income groups, and the highest fertility rates, but those two are not correlated?

The only statistic I could find to (almost) back up your assertion was Maureen Dowd saying that among women executives aged 35 or over who earn over $100,000, almost 50% are childless.

So even according to Dowd, 81% of men who earn $100,000 or more have kids.

Sorry, but I think you are wrong about "upper-income families" being childless. It's true that men marry younger women, and that many put off children, and consequently there are a lot of mercedes in the parking lot of the fertility clinic, but to imply that half of married upper-income households don't have children is just not true.

As DaytonRocker and others have pointed out, marriage is structured in a way to create stable families in order to raise kids. Yes, not all marriages will bear children. But the structure is in place to make the man (sorry gals) stay around and raise his kids. That is the raison d'etre. When men follow their, um, instincts vs. follow the structure, that's where marriage breaks down. Society benefits from married couples having kids - income, stability, morals, etc. That's why we encourage marriage. It's not about companionship, because the societal benefit of companionship hasn't been demonstrated to be as great. Maybe it is, and maybe we'll change marriage someday.

I'm not even remotely wrong. It all depends on whether you believe that expenses should become reasons for tax deductions. Yes, having children and additional mouths to feed increases your overall cost of living. However, the federal government is not obligated to offset said costs. People incur costs in a million ways, but that doesn't obligate the federal government to subsidize such action. So, why would the Government subsidize the cost of having children??? (Is it even possible that it behooves the government to do so? )

Secondly, married couples don't and didn't necessarily lose by getting married. Here's what MSN Money has to say:(http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/P48908.asp)
"To be sure, millions of people did pay for the privilege of saying “I do.” Forty-two percent of married taxpayers paid more because they were filing jointly than they would have if they remained single, according to a 1996 Congressional Budget Office analysis. The average penalty was a significant $1,380.

But more couples -- 51% of the total -- paid less tax jointly than if had they not married. The average bonus these couples received: $1,300....

For most middle- and upper-income people, though, there are plenty of financial benefits to marriage, regardless of their income tax situation. Among them:
Workplace health and pension benefits coverage. While some companies offer health coverage to domestic partners, this benefit is typically taxable as income. When spouses are covered, the benefit is tax-free.

Social Security retirement and survivor benefits. A husband or wife is entitled to one-half of the spouse’s Social Security benefits and to additional benefits in the event of death.

Lower insurance rates. Married people usually get a discount on auto insurance and may pay less for other types of insurance.

Automatic inheritance rights. Die without a will, and your spouse gets your stuff. In many states, the surviving spouse has a legal right to at least one-third to one-half of your estate.

Preferential estate tax treatment. The $1 million estate tax limitation doesn’t apply to married people: you can leave an unlimited amount to a spouse without owing one penny of estate tax. In certain states, this benefit is multiplied by special capital-gains tax treatment for homes and other assets held by married couples as community property."

Why on Earth would the US government want to do so?? Again.. because it's definitely in their favor in that often increases financial stability, increases the likelihood of rearing children, increases the likelihood of home purchases, etc.

Yes you are wrong aevans, I'm sorry. There is no significant financial advantage from being married or having children as codified by law (e.g. taxes). The numbers are in black and white right there.

If you were right then you would do better than single couples on taxes on the basis of being married or having children. As it stands you don't even break even most of the time and often lose.


You said as codified by law, your biggest points from the money article (insurance and health benefits) are not even the responsibility of the federal government, they are controlled by private companies. Those same companies could offer these benefits to singles or domestic partners tomorrow if they wanted to with no federal involvement.

Inheritance is a benefit of being married, but it can just as easily be obtained legally by unmarried couples. Certainly having these "automatic" rights is one reason why homosexual couples want to be married but it isn't a financial benefit nor does it encourage marriage.

I don't think the vast majority of America really cares about the $1 million inheritance limit, only a very small percentage of the population is that wealthy.

I didn't say there was no benefit to being married, I said there was no significant financial advantage and the government certainly doesn't encourage marriage by offering financial benefits as you suggested in your post.

This is a very misleading statement. In fact, many Christians disagree about the Bible's stand on homosexuality.

The Alliance of Baptists, which consists of over 120 congregations, has released this statement about homosexuality and same-sex marriage:


The Christian Church (aka the Disciples of Christ) are a denomination numbering some 834,000. Their statement:


Quakers have an almost completely decentralized church system. Some churches allow homosexual clergy, some support same-sex rights and marriage, some do not.

Three of the largest denominations in the US, the Presbyterians Church USA, the Episcopal Church (USA), and the United Methodist Church, all are currently experiencing huge schisms over the issue of homosexuality. In all three of these huge denominations, the schisms are such that it seems likely the national conferences will split apart.

I'd say this information stands in sharp contrast to your assertion that, since we all 'know' how Christianity feels about this issue, that we can dismiss it. That is obviously not true.



What are the real benefits to allowing interracial marriage? How is it helpful to the United States? In the case of both interracial and homosexual marriage, the 'benefit' is that it merely stops harming people who simply love each other and want to express that love through an open commitment. To not allow homosexual marriage, one really must be able to point out how allowing it will cause harm. This has not been done yet in any convincing manner.

Perhaps people looking for harm can conduct a search in a state or a country which has legalized gay marriage for a married heterosexual couple who are getting divorced because homosexuals are allowed to marry.



Yet we have seen that homosexual couples also raise children. Are you saying that children raised by homosexuals do not benefit our country? In fact, all your societal benefits - income, stability, morals, etc. - would apply as well to homosexuals as to heterosexuals.



Since those benefits would also arise from homosexual marriages, I arrive at the same conclusion - that it is definitely in their favor to support same-sex marriage.

How is it advantageous from a tax perspective not to have kids? No kids = no tax credit. If you are saying that the 'measly $1000 plus some deductions' doesn't cover the cost of kids, fine. The fact remains that you are taxed at a lower rate if you have kids, via the tax credit.


I know that we're all rolling in dough here, but if a $1000 tax credit isn't the government encouraging children, what is it? Looking at the tax tables I remind myself that couples earning under $59,400 are taxed at 15%. A $1000 tax credit means that you can earn another $6700 free of income tax.

I'm not suggesting that people have kids specifically because of the $1000 credit. But there is no doubt that the government is, at the very least, rewarding, if not encouraging child-bearing.
I did some back-of-the-envelope math on Canadian provinces a while back, and it seemed that less than 10% of gay men took advantage of this right. Can't find it right now - anyone know the gay marriage rate in Netherlands or other countries? I doubt that there is evidence of hetero couples divorcing, but I wonder how many gay couples (especially men) are actually marrying.

I'm sure that kids with 2 gay dads do better than some kids with one lousy parent, yes. But you do raise an interesting question. Since many posters here have noted that not all marriages result in children, let's leave kids out of this. What is the societal benefit in encouraging 2 gay men to stay together? What sort of divorce laws should we have for them? Should gay divorce law have the same requirements as regular marriage, or should it be easier to get out of a gay marriage since it's likely only about 'companionship?'

As stated before, homosexuals have no patent on that. Any two people whatsoever can and do adopt kids (aunts/uncles/grandparents/godparents/family friends). Of course gays adopting help. But that does not give them a special "right" since they are not the only class of people that can adopt.

But now, we hear from our resident expert that marriage is about sex - not children. If marriage is about that, let me use the same argument used against me:

I know plenty of people who are married and do not have sex (I find that premise disturbing personally). In fact, some are in my family (not my immediate family). Should they be allowed to stay married? If so, does that mean that anybody can get married and not have sex? Assuming thats the case, why can't any two people who choose not to have sex and/or have children be married?

I find the argument that marriage has nothing to do with children the same as someone stating going to church has nothing to do with religion because after all, not all people beleive in God. Some go because they are pressured, feel guilt, etc.

If marriage is about sex, why the financial incentives? Is the government paying us to have sex?

I'm not even going to venture to debate why the referenced denominations feel why they do about homosexuality, but the fact is that the bible isn't particularly "pro-homosexuality"!
What about Leviticus 18:22?
"Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."

How about Romans 1:26?
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

We could go on about this one... but my post clearly stated that we didn't want to bring the Bible into this one, as it is pretty clear on where the bible stood on homosexuality. I didn't even begin to discuss denominations that support homosexuality (or pseudo-support it) in their churches.




Of course children raised by homosexuals have the same chance to become productive members of society. I personally believe that there are thousands of children who need good homes (in case of adoption) and I suppose artificial insemination (spelling?) could be an option as well. In either case, a man has to be a "part" of the equation. I generally am not sure of the long-term ramifications of children being raised in homosexual homes, and would prefer not to debate it... as there are *probably* far worse things (i.e. drug use or abuse), but most adoption agencies don't knowingly allow heroin addicts to adopt... so maybe that's another thread to be born.

However, you ask why it wouldn't be in the government's best interest to support gay marriages? Well, politically it's a nightmare to begin. Most politicians understand the demographics of the United States as well as you and I. Regardless of whether you agree that a majority of Americans support the cause or not, frankly, no politicians would like to alienate such a large voting base. Otherwise, your argument is solid in that (in theory) homosexual marriages would enduce a level of stability.

But then... wouldn't also polygamy?

As I mentioned earlier, I believe that America's overwhelming discord with homosexual marriage is simply a religiously based argument (wrong or right), particularly as many Americans see marriage as a religious institution.

If we're not going to bring the Bible into this one, why did you?

Other highlights of Leviticus include proscriptions against wearing mixed-weave fabrics, approaching one's wife for intercourse within a certain number of days of her menstrual period, and not keeping kosher. How many of those who try to use the Bible to justify their objections to homosexuality keep kosher?

That is exactly what I'm saying Carlito, it doesn't come anywhere close to covering the cost of kids. Nor does it rise to the level of encouraging them from the government's perspective. Married couples don't sit down and say "let's have kids, the government will give us $1000 a year."


That is not encouraging anything. I would define "encouraging" couples to have kids as something that provides a significant financial advantage on the government's behalf. It would have to completely defray the cost of children or come close.

This $1000 credit is "nice" but it does not in any way rise to the level of encouraging kids.

And regarding that 15% bracket - again if you both earn money and are considered "middle class" you are likely to be over that bracket.

I could see a case being made that there are benefits in place if you have the 1950's mentality of "the man works and the woman raises kids" but in our world people that think like that are quickly becoming a minority.

Which is another reason for the government to do a better job encouraging marriage and child-bearing. We are the only advanced democracy in the world that is coming close to maintaining our population via live births. This is by definition a good thing for society, as it ensures our society will actually continue. Western Europe does not have this luxury, because of low birth rates.

As for the 15% bracket, you may be surprised to learn that many, many couples earn that amount and are able to raise a family. Oddly, you can't afford to do this in a wonderful city like San Francisco. According to the salary calculator at realtor.com, if you make $100,000 in San Francisco, you would only need to make $51,822 to enjoy the same lifestyle in Asheville, North Carolina (a nice place to raise kids). Unlike San Francisco, you could send your kid to public school there and maybe mom could only work part-time. Or she could even stay home, because in North Carolina people wouldn't look at a man working and a mom at home as being something from the 1950's...

I used the bible as a reference as QH discussed denominations and their acceptance of the homosexual status.

I merely decided that it was pertinent to the readership to discuss that the Bible does denounce homosexuality.

The New Testament largely ignores the topic, as it's rarely (and not directly) mentioned. I believe that because Jesus's attitude towards people was more related to Grace than condemnation as a general rule. This in itself could be a debate... but none the less, homosexuality is denounced in the Bible.

Yes, the numbers are there in black and white. You get tax breaks for having kids. Whether or not you think the amount of the break is sufficient is neither here nor there. The point is that the government offers this tax break for a reason. And although some might feel otherwise, the truth is the government has a motivation behind each and every tax break. Whether it is a noble motive or not is yours to decide.

$1000 per child (as quoted above) may not sound like a lot to you, but multiply it times the number of children in tax-filing families and it adds up to quite a bill. The government is not giving away "free money" for the heck of it. It has an objective in mind and that objective is apparent on its face: promote the creation of stable child-bearing families.

Ok so by your logic it only costs a few thousand each year to raise a child? You could easily spend that on pampers in under a year. For the government to be encouraging you to have children the tax break would have to be a lot bigger.

Like everything you get to claim deductions or credits for they are acknowledging that children are a financial burden just like a home, student loan or medical expenses.

Her point is important, though. While you are correct that homosexuality is condemned in several verses of the Bible, you were wrong to say the Bible should be kept out of this discussion because of that. You made an inference with your statement that because homosexuality is condemned by a few verses, that Christians therefor condemn homosexuality.

First, those verses are open to various interpretations. Second, Vibiana's point is important. There are many things condemned in the Bible, particularly in Leviticus. The fact is that most Christians ignore the vast majority of these proscriptions; yet many churches seem to arbitrarily have held on to homosexuality as being condemned. These same people, by and large, do not follow the bulk of the Mosaic laws.

Even most churches who condemn homosexuality have become more lax about their interpretation of the OT, which in one place, called for people discovered to be practicing homosexuality be put to death. Most Christians who condemn homosexuality do not believe that homosexuals should be executed. And why don't they - if as you say, the Bible is clear about this?

You are the one who brought the Bible into this, by making an erroneous assumption, that because Christianity condemns homosexuality, it needn't be brought into the discussion. I merely pointed out that this statement was patently untrue. Not only do some denominations embrace even homosexual clergy, but even the largest denominational conferences in the US are extremely divided by this issue. A large and growing minority of Christians support equal rights for homosexuals, including marriage.

If same-sex marriage is made legal, there are plenty of churches who will be glad to give homosexual couples religious wedding ceremonies. This is an important point, because if, as you say, the Bible condemns homosexuality, would you also say that all of those churches and denominations are actually not Christian? Should any church that allows its members to wear mixed fabrics be considered not Christian?



By this same argument, it was not in the government's interest to pass the Civil Rights Act, or to allow interracial marriage. Marriage promotes stability and monogamy (though many heterosexual marriages bely this!). The government should do this because it is the right thing to do. I'll agree with you, though, that most politicians, liberal and conservatives, rarely have the guts to stand up for what is right, as opposed to what will get them re-elected.

However, I think that legalizing same-sex marriage is inevitable. Already, as is evidenced by the popularity of television shows about homosexuals, among other areas, we accept homosexuality more and more. Most of the churches who denounce it today will probably be marrying gay couples twenty years from now - just like most of the churches who were opposed to miscegenation would today marry interracial couples without a problem. As we socially evolve, many of the superstitions and taboos of the past don't survive being revealed to objective scrutiny.

The fact is that people made the exact same arguments against interracial marriage as they are making against gay marriage - that it would destroy the institution of marriage, render it meaningless, that it was then only a matter of time before polygamy and bestiality were made acceptable. None of these things happened.

Most people opposed to this are conservative, either socially or politically. That is no surprise, since 'conservative' by definition means resistant to change. I contend that in twenty years, at most, 'conservatives' will by and large accept homosexual equality the same way they now accept racial equality. I can't help but think (and hope) that these charged debates will seem merely quaint shortly down the road.

Many good points in reference to the biblical ideology, but I do believe that this debate began as a more secular topic. I merely mentioned that the bible denounces homosexuality, as does it not specifically mention inter-racial marriage.

I believe that these debates probably will become less impassioned over time, but don't necessarily know that this is a postive notion. Social evolution can generally be construed as a postive notion, but I presume that it depends on the topic and/or how someone perceives the change. I also would caution you, QH, to be careful when you insinuate that American conservatives are "socially rigid" or "intolerant".

Is the civil rights debate the same idea? Possibly. But if so, why were the roots of the nation's most well known racist organization (the KKK) seeded in the Democratic party? Why was the largely Democratic south understood to be the seed of racism? If "conservatives" held a higher percentage of the vote for the Civil Rights Act, why is the homosexuality debate different? (Republicans held a margin of 79 to 21%, or 136-35 where as Democrats held a 63 to 37% margin of 153-91)

Seemingly, during the Civil Rights era, Republicans were far less reluctant to move in a progressive manner. What's the difference?

Is it because of the likelihood of HIV infection? (in fact, in 2003 men that have sex with men comprised 2/3 of all HIV infections, while only comprising 5-7% of the population: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm)
Is it because of perceived drug use? (http://www.narth.com/docs/gayteens.html)
Is it just due to it's perception of being "un-natural"?

These are more hypothetical questions as opposed to debate ideas. I personally believe that the coorelation between Civil Rights and Homosexuality aren't necessarily the same, and right and wrong statements are purely subjective.


I'm going to venture that if a politician follows the will of his/her constituency, he/she is most likely to get re-elected, as in the case of the Civil Rights era. If the American population largely believes that homosexual marriage is not right, who exactly are you to make the judgement QH? They surely stood up for what was right in the Civil Rights debate... why are they so wrong now???

Well, we eventually saw the light and our elected representatives passed the Civil Rights Act, and our elected President signed it. If we allow same-sex marriage, by any name, I'd propose that this would be the way to do it. Not by pretending that it's a Constitutional issue and litigating. Currently, the voters are not inclined to legalize it. This may change.


I have to agree with this, at least the way things are going now. Most American churches (some listed above) are super liberal, even leftist at the leadership level.

Actually, lots of polygamy references have been made in this thread, and it is, if not acceptable, at least tolerated in Europe if you are Muslim. As for beastiality - it's played openly in the porn cinemas of Amsterdam, where coincidentally you can marry your gay partner. Correlation does not equal causation, but it's interesting.


Again, you are probably right about this attitude down the road. Even today, I don't spend any time trying to convert the homosexuals in my office or church. The thing is, re-defining marriage strikes some of us as "special treatment" not so much "equal treatment." Whenever I see the little blue bumper sticker with the = I always imagine a > if you catch my drift. The whole racial equality thing is a red herring, and homosexuals would do themselves a service by not ticking off an entire race by aligning their behavior-based "rights" cause with someone's skin color.

This rhetoric has little place in this debate and is off topic. It really is irrelevant what the historical position of the political parties was on the racial issue as it relates to their positions on things today. It is pretty clear that there was an ideological shift in the Democratic party during that time period and the "Southern Democrats" found refuge in the Republican party. This has been discussed at length in other topics, in particular the "Southern Strategy." I know you are trying to use the fact that the Democrats were technically against these things in the past as some sort of backhanded insult but it really doesn't logically follow and quarkhead isn't a Democrat in the first place so I'm not sure why you even brought it up. The Democratic party wasn't liberal at that time and most who call themselves Democrats today wouldn't have done so back then.


Have you so quickly forgotten that people didn't just standup for Civil Rights over night? It took years of fighting, it took riots, etc before politicians were willing to touch it. I hope that we have evolved a little bit since then and people won't have to go to such extreme measures before they are heard.

CR, I think you are confusing "incentives" with "subsidies". You continue to discount the financial incentives because of which seems to you, to be a meager amount. But just because they have little value to you, it doesn't mean it doesn't have value to many others. Does this somehow coerce people into getting married that otherwise wouldn't? Of course not - we're not subsidizing marriage.

I know people who come hell or high water, will have perfect attendance at work just so they can get a $100 bonus at the end of the year. The financial incentives associated with marriage will not coerce people to get married, but it will provide an affordability in areas they otherwise would not have had. As I've stated before - if a young couple were deciding whether or not they could afford to raise a child, this amount might be enough to push them in the direction of having the child they want instead of being childless for financial reasons.

So now, we add to the reasons of how gay marriage won't weaken the institution of marriage: Marriage only ends in divorce anyway, married women hardly have babies, and the financial incentives associated with marriage are worthless.

So tell me again why gays want to get married so badly?

Probably for the same reasons that you wanted to get married in spite of all of those factors as well.

I've really tried to listen to your arguments DR, but I just don't think you have made a compelling case for how gay marriage will weaken the institution of marriage. Gay marriage is allowed in Canada, I don't see story after story in the press about how the sky is falling. Out of all of our global neighbors Canada is probably the most similar to us from a cultural standpoint and therefore it is a pretty sure bet that if it hasn't destroyed their society and peoplare aren't now pushing to marry multiple women, their sister, their pet rock, etc up there then it is just silly to suggest it'd happen here.

Maybe Joe can give us a report on whether the sky is falling in Canada yet.

During the summer 1 year ago over 4000 couples were married (according to San Francisco anyway) for a few months until the state voided them. Did you wake up during those months and decide marriage just wasn't worth it anymore? Did you think to yourself "man, homosexuals are getting married so I guess I should just give up my marriage because it is worthless now." I'm betting you didn't.

I'm sure you realize there are civil unions in Vermont - your marriage feel diminished as a result of that?

Someone upthread compared this to the controversy when interracial marriages were banned, the arguments would have been the same yet we are all still here... getting married.

If homosexuals can adopt, they can get tax breaks for such. So in that light, what is the point to them getting a marriage?

I mean the whole issue on the tax relation to marriage is being played out that if you get married you get all this free money. Then the only reason same sex couples want the legal status is so they can rip the system off for all this free money, and they should just be happy living knowing that society does not offer them so neat ritual backed up by supposed incentives.

To an extent, you are right. I am sure some same sex couples would look towards any possible incentives financially from marriage as a plus to do such, but really, I doubt for it to be the only motivation for homosexuals desiring to have their relationship made legal. Plus, without some vast overall opinion from the homosexual community on the issue, all you are going to have is speculation on the subject, either for or against it.

The only thing I know is I do not see any real reason to stop them from being able to have some form of a marriage that allows for legal representation of being a couple. The infrastructure of society in many ways has many facets that are built to deal with couples, or something you cannot obtain as a single person. Furthermore many of these require legal representation of that relationship. So in a point denying homosexuals that right ultimately has to come from a bias against the fact that those people are homosexual, for what other reason exists?

This is where you start to get all this arguments that make no sense. You get tax breaks for having children if you are a single parent, does the government want that? They must because you do get them last time I checked. So what else could it be. What if the couple does not want any children. What if its a single women that just wants artificial insemination about four children worth of times? We don’t seem to stop any of this.

How about elderly people that want to get married. They must simply be doing it just for tax breaks.

Its bias. I cannot still find one argument that makes any sense. The issue of, well, if you let them marry, what’s to stop bestiality, the two are separate issues. The other alternative to that argument is like one I used earlier, guns are legal, why is nerve gas illegal, or military grade tanks.

Plus if what is said about marriage being destroyed was to be true if same sex couple obtain such, this should have occurred then in places where homosexuals can legally marry, I am sure it has not.

Maybe its people of same sex that live together and love each other would like to get married, you know, they might even be Christian or of some religion or simply feel it would be nice to have such. Even if not, I don’t see why they could not have that right. Either as the same as marriage or a civil union.

The moral lesson to me from all this is that with all the issues in the world and all the other stuff that humans are still basically ignorant on, that this would take center stage they way it had. I think it goes to undermine creation theory big time lol.

The "fifty-fifty" is not my opinion, it is a reference to the source I quoted. The only thing that I may be "wrong" about is whether, on a scale of 1-100, forty-eight is "close" to fifty. Call my source wrong, if you must, but I was simply referring to Fertility of American Women by the US Census Bureau from September, 2000. I wasn't just making stuff up. To quote the Census Bureau again:
Maybe those in the richest neighborhoods of Chicago are too busy procreating to fill out their census forms.


While there's no reason to drag religion into this particular debate, I feel compelled to correct a common misrepresentation:


Well, I know where the Bible stands on homosexuality, but I rather suspect that you don't - or you would certainly not be raising the issue here. Might I recommend reading up on the famous "six passages" that are often (incorrectly) used to somehow condemn homosexuality. A discussion of their translation and interpretation can be found at Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse.


Well, almost. What Christians are actually disagreeing about is a recent interpretation of certain Biblical passages that have been both incorrectly translated (and intentionally mistranslated in recent "revised" versions) and taken out of context in order to create targets that were not intended by the original text. You might also be interested in reading up on the actual translation and interpretation of the famous "six passages". This, again, can be found at Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse.


You are quite right. Nor is it even remotely "anti-homosexuality". Indeed, "homosexuality" as a concept didn't even exist at the time the Bible was written. Might I, yet again, recommend reading up on the Biblical passages that are misused to condemn homosexuality at Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse.


Even though it doesn't? One more time: Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse.


No, it isn't. For - hopefully - the last time: Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse.


Except, of course, that he isn't correct. We really need a smiley banging its head against a wall. (Oh, yeah: Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse.)

All that's pertinent to this debate is that certain Christian denominations - or, more to the point, certain religious "leaders" go out of their way to condemn homosexuality even though it is not even mentioned in the Bible - even in the Old Testament. By doing so, they are degrading what they accept as "the word of God" and bastardizing the teachings of Christ. I wouldn't think that the unfounded opinions of such people should even be considered in debating such issues - never mind legislating them.



One point that many seem to be missing in the whole "US tax code provides incentives for getting married" argument - at least in relation to children - is that the tax code provides that "incentive" to anyone who has dependents - single or married, gay or straight. I fail to see where the $1000 credit encourages heterosexual marriage since it's a credit I could claim as a "single" gay male, were my kids still living with me. The child tax credit has nothing to do with marriage - hence, nothing to do with this debate.

OK - you are not wrong, and your source is not wrong, but I disagree with the conclusions based on the data presented. Here is a more updated fertility survey and it cites the same 48% number that your source does. Well, actually it's 47.2% What the source does not do is cross-tab the data from income and age. So, nearly half of households pulling in more than $75K are childless. This is an achievable incomec for most college-educated 2-income 30-year-old couples (even in Asheville, NC). Of course, almost half (44%) of 30-year-olds these days don't have children. When we look at the data by age cell, the total fertility rate of American women is 82%. That is, 82% of all women have at least one child by age 44. I'm guessing (but can't prove) that many of the upper-income earners have not had children yet, but eventually will do so. But there is no way for me to prove this given the data, so I acquiesce.

The fact that more than 80% of all American women have at least one child, and that only 18.7% of married women are childless doesn't lead me to conclude what you said, which was "odds are not very high" that married couples will conceive. 82% strikes me as pretty high odds. Although the trend is down - childless women are up from 10% in 1976 to more than 17% now.

edited to add a little levity - regarding Leviticus, fred phelps et al... God Hates Shrimp

It's not just tax benefits that married couples get. Here's a scenaraio that given the right conditions, I'd do in a heartbeat:

I'm single, own a business, and have great benefits. Insurance, retirement, the whole ball of wax.

My divorced/widowed brother with 4 kids loses his job. We go to a lawyer and get a prenup. Then go to the courthouse and become legally married - we'll say we're gay. Are they going to test us for this? Are they going to arrest us if they can prove we're lying? There's nothing they can do because as is repeated over and over, what we do in our bedroom is nobody's business even if it's nothing. Hell, we don't even plan to live in the same state - something married couples can do now if they choose.

So, I go into work and fill out the insurance forms just like I would if I had married a woman with 4 kids. In a matter of days, him and all his kids are fully insured. He goes back to Maryland, I stay in Ohio, and life is good for everyone.

We file our taxes as married filing jointly. I can split my business income between him and all his kids now by creating a family partnership. I get an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes if I want to hide assets and just give him land, equipment, etc. We can both create QTIP, QTOP, and other marital trusts only allowed to married couples. His kids can get some of my GI benefits for education and special loans. We can both move into a "family only" neighborhood. We get family rates for all our insurance (homeowner, auto, etc). We get tuition discounts. Somebody makes us mad? No problem - we can sue them for any offenses that interefe with the success of our marriage. Hey...I got robbed. My brother could get victim's recovery benefits.

So, my brother meets a woman and decides to marry for love next time. We drag out the prenup, file for a dissolution, and move on with our lives.

God Bless America, huh?

ahhh.... the Truluck.com argument again. This isn't a first.

The thing is that the verses do infer (or even more directly relate) to homosexuality.

The point being made is that it does talk about certain types of food and/or clothing being an abomination to Jews as well. Why?

Simply, as a matter of historical record, the Jews abolished the eating of foods that ordinarily might cause disease or infection. The foods (such as pork or shellfish) often had no means by which to prevent food poisoning or infection related to poorly cooked/preserved food.

Should Christians obey "kosher-esque" laws? I guess that's a matter of opinion. I understand everyones' point that some laws are obeyed and some aren't.

Let's move on to a societal ideology. In the United States, "Republicans" were the most likely to vote for Civil Rights initiatives, but are least likely to vote for gay rights. Why?

Is the conservative "right" out of line for not being more accepting homosexuality? Why do liberals assume that the "correct" thing to do would be to be more tolerant? If tolerance of race-related issues came more easily for Republicans, what motives would "we" have for not being more accepting here?

Why would this be any easier to do, or more socially acceptable, if same-sex marriage were legalized than it is to do with your sister now?

No. Gay or not, your situation would still be illegal, even if gay marraiges were not, because, as brothers, your relationship would be incestuous.

Much as it pains some opponents of gay marriage, homosexuality is not illegal. So homosexual citizens are being discriminated against by the current laws on marriage.

A closer analogy would be smoking - a legal activity that many people strongly disapprove of. Smoking bans in public places take place, but that would be no different to some marriage venues refusing to conduct gay marriage ceremonies - most churches, for example - something they'd be perfectly entitled to do.

For incestuous marriage to become any kind of issue (or marriages to animals, rocks, balls of string or anything of the other slippery-slope examples that supposedly would become fair game if gay marriage were legalised), incest itself would first have to be legalised, and then become widely (but not necessarily universally) acceptable.

Though frankly I think the only way to do it fairly is to remove all the tax and legal advantages of straight marriage and then let any two consenting adults who want to do get married do it, except heterosexual incestuous couples, where the risk of genetic disease and deformity would mitigate against childbearing. I think such incest should remain illegal, so a legal cermony to recognise such couplings would be a non sequitur

What you and your borther do with your genitalia is of no concern to me, but I shouldn't have to subsidise it by your getting favourable tax breaks.

Tax breaks should be directed to people raising children, whether or not they are in couples, and whether or not those couples are legally recognised, because (in a civilised society with a welfare state, like where I live ) I might need to rely on the tazes paid by those children at some point in the futre, due to some unforeseen mishap.

There ya go...there's nothing more I have to add to this debate. This is the argument in a nutshell: It should be made legal for gays to marry, but brothers can't do the same because it's illegal.

I couldn't have made that up.

No, but apparently you can willfully misunderstand it. Julian said that for incestuous marriage to become a viable issue, "incest itself would first have to be legalised, and then become widely (but not necessarily universally) acceptable."

Look at it this way:

Gay sex = legal

sex between siblings = illegal

Marriage of a type which implicitly condones an illegal act is wrong.

Please answer: if you cannot now marry your sister, why would the legalization of same-sex marriage necessarily make it legal to marry your brother?

There are so many still clinging to the idea that same sex marriage does not change marriage. It will because the courts are legally interpreting marriage from the same point of view as DaytonRocker. You can not simply say, "XXX number of gay people were married and the sky did not fall." The legal ramification of this major change will take time to bear fruit. How does a court decide a divorce case when the previous means to reach a decision was to determine who is the man and who is the woman? They will not be able to do so when they are both the same sex. Marriage will no longer be presumed to be a situation where there is one provider and one dependent based upon sex.

Many judges rely upon the traditional model of marriage of a man and a woman and their respective sex roles. The woman is the nurturer and the man is the financial provider. Will the courts now be attempting to figure out which in a marriage is assuming the female role and who the man role ? I expect the judges will need to change their means of reaching judgement and no longer treat marriage in such narrow terms. This will be a major change.

I totally agree with DaytonRocker that this is a major change and it will have many repercussions. I just disagree with DaytonRocker that it is a bad thing.

For the sake sake of argument. Instead of it being his brother... How about just his good friend?

Also since it has been brought up many times that children should not be an issue then actually incestual marriages should be ok if the couple is not having a child right?

In no-fault divorce law, which applies in just about every state in the U.S., there are few allowances for judges to defend the "fairer sex." Alimony is almost unheard of except in cases where an elderly couple parts ways after decades of a traditional husband works/wife keeps house marriage. In most divorces, the family home is sold off and the proceeds split between the divorcing parties. Other assets are divided according to who brought them to the marriage, or split 50/50 if they were acquired during the marriage.

Divorce is what destroys marriage -- not same sex marriage.

Because 2 brothers cannot make a baby. At least with each other. What is the societal benefit to prohibiting same-sex siblings from having sex? Just that it's creepy?

entspeak started this thread (or maybe it was the prior thread) saying that the repeal of sodomy laws per se make the case for same-sex marriage being legalized. Because marriage legitimizes sex. To which I replied "why do they have to have sex?" We have various posters noting that not all marriage results in children, to which I observe - not all marriages have sex either. As DaytonRocker has noted ad infinitum - gays are asking to for a special right, to be treated as a special group of people, who can marry the same sex. This right will not be given to other groups (siblings or polygamous muslims, for example). There is no gay test - you won't be forced to prove that you're gay in order to enjoy a same-sex marriage. So why not 2 good friends or even 2 brothers?

How is that right any more special than what heterosexuals enjoy? After all, if we weren't CREATED in pairs, why should we pair ourselves up?