Right now, any man and woman that want to get married for any reason can do so. If you are a man you can find a willing woman and marry her for health insurance benefits, tax benefits, citizenship, whatever you want. There isn't even a requirement that married people live in the same place.

The government doesn't ask you questions about your intentions. I remember getting my marriage license quite clearly. I filled out a form which contained some indentifying information for myself and my wife (SSN, date of birth, legal names, etc), we waited in line, paid our $35 and left. That's it. No one interrogated me to ask if we planned to have children, there was no blood test, they didn't even ask if we planned to live together. I could have been marrying my neighbor for all they were concerned, they just wanted their $35.

I fail to see how allowing homosexuals to marry is somehow going to mean that people will all of a sudden start marrying for no good reason. Does the fact that a man has to marry a woman right now somehow prevent that? You are taking a pretty extreme slipperly slope position.

Plus it sounds a whole lot like talking points... link

Entspeak wrote:


Entspeak-- the right to marry, to the extent that the Court has called it a "fundamental right", means the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no legal authority for your assertion that it would encompass the right to marry the same sex. Fundamental rights have been defined by the Court as those rights that are rooted in our nation's history and traditions. Same sex relationships, let alone marriage, are not rooted in our nation's history and traditions.


Azure Citizen wrote:


Are you saying that a redefinition of marriage will not reframe its meaning? What is the meaning of marriage now, as it is traditionally defined? What is the purpose of marriage from the State's perspective?

RobertB wrote:


RobertB-- I am not suggesting that family courts will intentionally use ss marriage as an excuse to neglect children's needs. I am suggesting that marriage in the public eye, will be viewed as primarily about celebrating the love between partners. As the focus shifts to the individual partners in a marriage, children will necessarily take a back seat. After all, marriage is primarily about celebrating the love between two people, and when that love has lost its luster, where is the motivation to stay? Certainly not the children. As Renger said:



Entspeak wrote:



Again, you are trying to define marriage according to the exceptions (those couples that choose not to have children). Traditional marriage, with its definition of one man and one woman, still looks to procreation as a fundamental aspect. It does so for the reasons I have stated: to emphasize that marriage has the important aspect of representing the ideal setting in which to raise children. Once you remove that aspect from the definition, it loses that unique aspect. As you quoted me from an earlier thread: it puts John and Jim's marriage on a par with John and Mary's. This observation has nothing to do with discrimination or homophobia and everything to do with how legalizing same sex marriage shifts the fundamental meaning and purpose of marriage.

Animals cannot consent to marriage any more than a 6 year old could. That's a bogus argument. But why wouldn't someone be allowed to have multiple spouses? If marriage is a companionship issue, polygamy seems to be perfectly reasonable.

The answer will surely, be "they should". It always is when having this discussion. So now, the gay marriage debate went from heteros being married, to gays being married, to polygamists being married. Do you somehow doubt there won't be another group?

What is the point of marriage when that happens? I don't see any. So, get rid of it.

Really. There are no othere qualifications? I seem to recall that, currently, there are a few other qualifications beyond just having the people be of the opposite gender. You saying that these other qualifications disappear when the gender qualification is removed? I don't think so.



In the courts, hayleyanne, the right to marry is established. You, yourself state that in order to establish a right it has to be rooted in our nation's history and traditions. Well, that's been done. The right to marry is well established. There is no need to establish a different right. There is no need for same-sex marriages to have been rooted in our nation's history and traditions in order to give them access to that already established right. We are not talking about the denying of a new right, we are talking about exclusion from an existing right. We are talking about the removal of an explicit exclusion put in place in the '70's. You can only exclude a group from marrying if there is a valid State interest related to that exclusion and the exclusion is necessary in order to further the interest.




Really, hmmm... it seems to me that, since the vast majority of people in this country are heterosexual, in order for this to occur it will have to be because heterosexual couples begin to view it that way. Why would heterosexual views regarding marriage change solely because same-sex couples are allowed to marry? Are you going to tell me that heterosexual couples are going to suddenly say, "oh goody, the government is allowing these people who can't procreate to marry... you know what? I'm not going to procreate either." It's ridiculous.



And this doesn't happen already today? Excuse me? I think it does. Why are you saying that this will only come about if same-sex couples are allowed to marry? It already happens... and quite frequently. You telling me that more heterosexual couples will not stay in marriages if same-sex couples are allowed to marry? You are taking something that already occurs in absence of same-sex marriage and using it as a reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Why?



Well, explain to me how the government is interested in traditional marriage with procreation as a fundamental aspect? It has removed all obligations associated with traditional marriage and procreation except one, one that does not apply to those married couples who do not procreate. It asks specific couples to sterilize themselves before marrying. This is a government that is interested in traditional marriage? I don't think so. Can John and Jim raise a child? Then how are they not on a par with John and Mary's? What about Stan and Sally's marriage, a couple who have chosen never to have kids and have both had surgical procedures done in order to prevent procreation? Are they on an exact par with John and Mary? What about Bill and Jenny, first cousins who were required to be sterile before their marriage would be valid? Are they on an exact par with John and Mary? What about George and Estelle a pair of 90 year olds? Are they on an exact par with John and Mary? If procreation were fundamental to marriage... the government could deny them the right to marry, but it doesn't. Why?

The fundamental meaning and purpose of marriage shifted when the government removed the obligations associated with procreation from marriage. That already happened. That sealed the fate of the traditional marriage. You can't hold that against homosexuals. If the change hadn't occurred, I would agree with you and be arguing that same-sex marriage would shift the fundamental meaning and purpose of marriage, but it did change and heterosexuals changed it. You want to go back to the government being interested in only traditional marriages? I don't think many will go for that. So. You have to accept the state of marriage as it stands today, you don't have to like it, but you have to accept it. And in it's current state, it is unnecessarily discriminatory to deny access to the right of marriage to same-sex couples.

Traditional marriage has become a personal choice, a personal view... one, in fact, that I choose for myself... but it is not the government's view of marriage.

I am 100% in accord with hayleyanne. Procreation is not the exclusive reason for people to get married, but out of necessity for a stable society and in the interest of such from the state procreation should be the primary reason for marriage. Legalizing same sex marriage changes the emphasis of marriage from procreation to affirmation of love and monetary benefits. Such a redefinition would literally gut any remaining value to marriage.

Marriage is already up against the ropes in this country with divorce rates and cohabitation being as high as they are. Redefining marriage in such a significant way could prove to be the final blow.

Please explain how this works. How will allowing same-sex couples (many of whom have children) to marry will affect people in such a way that marriage becomes valueless and society becomes destabilized.

Are you suggesting that spouses will have a diminished regard for their parental duties because the gay couple down the street is legally married? If so, you can't just state this as a given, you're going to have to support it.

I have already tried to pin hayleyanne down to a concrete argument when I suggested that the legalization of same-sex marriage will somehow compel parents and family court judges to neglect childrens' needs. Her response seems to boil down to: oh no, nothing so concrete or specific will happen, but somehow some vague perception will shift such that kids will lose out. Somehow, but nobody knows how. This is the argument you are agreeing with, deerjerkeydave.

I have seen these lofty-sounding but abstract arguments against same-sex marriage over and over, but nobody will ever stick their neck out and argue any specifics, or propose any hypothetical "here's how it would happen" chains-of-events. This is because the more specific and reality-based the same-sex marriage debate gets, the more ludicrous the "same-sex marriage will gut marriage and child-rearing" arguments are revealed to be.

A pop star can fly to Vegas on a bender and marry her childhood friend, then get an anullment in a matter of days. Yet you object to granting marriage to a lesbian couple who's been together for 15 years and have two kids. It seems that you marriage doomsayers are picking your battles pretty selectively.



...somehow, theoretically, in your opinion - yet nobody seems able to explain how this terrible consequence would actually play out.

I defy any and all same-sex marriage doomsayers to dispense with the abstractions and generalities and propose their most reasonable "here's how it might play out" scenario.

The government no longer holds procreation to be the primary reason for marriage. The government regulates marriage in order to encourage a stable familial environment in which it is possible to raise children and the government encourages married couples to raise children, though it is not a requirement of marriage to do so. Now, it used to be to encourage people to procreate in a stable familial environment in which it is possible to raise children, but heterosexuals... those pesky heterosexuals gutted out the procreation part from the law, thus redefining marriage. So you can't argue that procreation should be the primary reason for marriage. You can argue that raising children should be the primary reason for marriage. But, the government does not make that a requirement and, last I checked, same-sex couples can and do raise children... so you can't deny them access to the right of marriage on those grounds either. Yes some same-sex couples may marry and never choose to raise children, but heck... so do slightly less than 12% of married couples today, according to the National Center for Heath Statistics. Heterosexual couples will always make up the vast majority of married couples. In order for this "final blow" to occur, the majority of married couples will have to engage in this nebulous doomsday scenario. So, I ask the question yet again... why would they do this solely because same-sex couples can marry? You are saying that heterosexual couples will suddenly change their view of marriage simply because same-sex couples are allowed to marry. Take me down that path, please... explain it to me... be specific. How does that happen?



I second that.



The traditional, historical definition is not the same as the State's definition... not anymore. You can argue traditional marriage all you want but it is your personal view and not the view of the state as reflected in the marriage contract.

Really, I guess someone forgot to tell me that pumping out kids was the primary reason I got married. Oh wait, it wasn't.

Your proposal would require a lot more government control of the institution than we already have deerjerkydave. Are you proposing that you answer questions which you are somehow "graded" on and you are only issued a license if it looks like you intend to procreate? Or how about introducing fertility tests or making sure two people are a good genetic match? What about checkups after X years to make sure you are pumping out kids? The state does none of those things and I think all but extreme elements of society would agree they are completely ridiculous suggestions. However in order to make procreation the primary reason you get married something along those lines would have to occur.

Oh and by the way a lot of gay couples adopt kids, and not the same kids that all mixed sex couples want (i.e. newborn babies), they take on older children and give them a chance at being loved. The last thing we need in this country is more procreation, we have too many people having kids that shouldn't and too many kids that are being given up and not finding homes. Procreation isn't something we should promote.


Ah, finally some honesty. When you strip away all the rhetoric this is what we are left with, a group of people trying to blame a small element of our society for their problems. The fact is some people can't take responsibility for their martial problems so attacking homosexuals makes an easy scapegoat. The best bumper sticker I have seen on the subject reads: "4 out of 5 Baptist divorcees oppose gay marriage."

I am saying that in my opinion, a redefinition of marriage by allowing heterosexual and homosexual marriages will not reframe its meaning in the fashion that you postulate. That marriage, for heterosexual couples, will not become "nothing more than government recognition of "love" between two people." That marriage will not become "divorced from its longstanding role as the ideal setting in which to raise kids." That heterosexual conduct in marriage will generally continue as it is and has been, without being significantly impacted by the marriages of a small minority of our society. I find the doomsday scenarios presented in this thread irrational and unrealistic.

Arguing over exactly what marriage means, how it is traditionally defined, and exactly what its purpose is tends to be another subjective exercise in opinion and interpretation that assumes we're going to find consensus and agreement. Among heterosexuals, marriage means many different things, that often change with time, circumstance, and individual perception. For some, marriage is about love. For others, its about a stable environment for raising children. For others, its about financial security and stability. For others, its about social status. For others still, its for a number of other reasons, be it convenience, getting benefits, obtaining residency status, or maybe even just things like insecurity, or gaining acceptance from other family members who expect them to marry. Maybe a marriage is several of these things, lumped in together, some more important than others, but the things themselves changing, emerging, and receding in priority over the passage of time, something I see frequently in my occupation. Insisting that marriage must be strictly defined as being about procreation is a simple argument of convenience for those who wish to exclude homosexuals; it is rife with hypocrisy in the face of countless heterosexual marriages which having nothing to do with procreation.

Perhaps you would like to argue that despite the many shortcomings in heterosexual marriages, the institution of marriage should be about procreation. Fine, but to me, you are not adequately explaining how a small minority of homosexuals marrying the person they love will cause the heterosexual majority to abandon procreation in any significant fashion. If John and Mary were planning on having kids, they are going to have them, whether Sue and Jill living down the street are married or not. Keep in mind that the heterosexual couples of our society are going to outnumber the homosexual couples in society at something better than ten to one.

This debate has been, and continues to be, about opinions. You have your opinion, and I have mine. All human opinions suffer from our human biases. Much turmoil, fear, and upheaval was voiced about the impending dangers to society when people dared to challenge the miscegenation laws prohibiting blacks and whites from marrying in the 1960's... and yet, the sky didn't fall, the Earth kept spinning, and the Sun rose the next day. One of my all-time favorite judicial quotes comes from the trial court judge who was considering sentencing a black man to prison for having married a white woman, resulting in the Supreme Court decision striking down miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967):


The arguments against homosexual marriage on the basis of upholding the sacred tradition of procreation have been voiced here in a far more eloquent and much less ridiculous fashion. However, I find their susbtance to have something disturbingly similar to the miscegenation arguments of the 1960's. We are forewarned that the institution of marriage will be damaged and significantly affected by permitting homosexual marriages, and that heterosexuals will be swayed from procreation in favor of marriage on the basis of "simply loving their partner instead". But when pressed to carefully substantiate how and why this will occur, the argument appears to me to become vague and speculative. I begin to wonder what young people will think in the year 2040 or so when they look back, study history, and marvel that some people thought the marriages of a small homosexual minority would cause the majority of heterosexuals to abandon procreation and raising children.

Azure-Citizen,

Surely you should get post of the year for this concisely defined paragraph or two.

I was watching an IFC documentary on homosexuality in film and life this afternoon. It made me wonder, why and what makes a portion of the population ok with homosexuality and another so hateful towards it and the people who find themselves there.

Its interesting that people can come up with so many arguements to deny a population their basic rights. When one understands history and that these same arguements have been used against blacks, against women, against the love between blacks and whites- its astounding that people can come up with new twists, like sex with goats, incest and other such balderdash. The more creative and religious come up with the sanctity of marriage and procreation.
I call this total 'spin'. Its not a new term, its just so much more valid when you can see people being outright liars because they hide behind their prejudices in making FAKE arguments to support themselves and hide within their professed 'religion' -which clearly states ' love your neighbor as yourself'.

They hate the idea of sweaty, hairy, man on man sex, so they try to spin it into an anti-procreation debate that is so false, so transparent, so utterly without basis, all the while trying to disguise what they just cant fathom- the images in their own filthy minds of flagrant sex, as if gay life was only concerning sex. Anti-gay sentiment is ALL ABOUT what heterosexuals imagine goes on behind closed doors. Nothing more.
Its all about the nasty sex, the things married people do but dont talk about. The nasty factor just gets people all in an uproar.

Why am I perfectly ok with homosexuals, and homosexual marriage? Am I a godless person? Am I doomed to hell? I wonder what gene made me accept that others might be different than I, that I have some idea of the hell they live through in a predjudiced society? Of a thing they cannot change, and perhaps would not even if given the option? I accept this.

What makes me able to accept this as a fact of life, having nothing to do with me, and what makes this so utterly unacceptable to others, having nothing to do with them?
Denial will just not cut it. Ignorance will no longer suffice. The Earth is round and revolves around the sun, evolution is science, men and women will be attracted to their opposites, and sometimes to each other. It doesnt make them bad people. Sometimes they will even be interracial! They will have kids, and adopt kids who need homes. (Shocking!)
May your imaginary friend (god) be the judge, but not any of us be. Its just hate, diguised as something else. A weak disguise BTW.

What everyone seems to miss in the whole debate- is that we are not really trying to protect marriage- poeple will find ways to become mates, goverment or no, books are filled with the stories of denied love- anybody here ever hear of Romeo and Juliet?

What we are really trying to do is protect the sanctity of divorce and death/disability benefits

The entire debate really has nothing to do with the act of marriage- gays can go to thier own church, and have a pastor or whatever marry them- it is what happens AFTER the marriage ends, or when it is coming to a painful close, that the entire debate is REALLY focused on- and children have nothing to do with EXCEPT for custody. Gays raise children right now- with or without anyones approval. It is the dispensation of the children when the marriage ends, one way or another, that is the problem.

So, the real question is, how is marriage harmed? Not at all- but divorce, death and disability/custody stuff- that is definately an issue.

So what is the religious right really trying to protect here? - I recall one stat that said the most stable relationship is a lesbian one- more stable than the hetero sexual relationship- if marriage was all about procreation, we would just have a temporary liason for child bearing, and then allow lesbians to raise our children in a nice, stable enviroment LOL

I think the entire message boils down to money- there are a group of folks here that doesn't want to see gays get the same death/divorce/disability/custody benefits that hetero couples recieve- perhaps because it will hurt thier bottom line- and use the "eeewww" factor to get the ignorant and bigoted to go along.

But the fact of the matter is that we are indeed trying to protect marriage. The very idea and very basis of union in this country is being put in jeopardy. Homosexuals will always love, indeed you are correct. But to condone it is to further contribute to what sociologists are calling the moral decay of American values.



I do not think you are correct, if I may point out: divorce rates would eventually climb to higher rates of homosexuals married and would again cause the breakdown of family.



So two gay men could be raising me and suddenly they do not want to remain together and so I am thrust into a case of custody rights? I do not find your argument feasible, courts and court systems will listen to children or dictate who the child goes to based on the best situation; i.e, does the person have a job? financially secure? etc. No problem will really come if homosexuals separate and then the child factor is thrown into the mix. Granted, this goes against my argument...




I think differently. Marriage is the thing harmed here, the protection of the ideals and things once held sacred in this country are being replaced with things that reflect negatively on us as a whole. To suppress things is what the government does best, I find it trivial why now this is becoming a hot topic. Divorce rates: yes, they would climb to record-highs. Death and Disability as well as Custody Rights: nothing would change in the system because they would be legally married, therefore entitled to all of the aforementioned.



An interesting idea, but I am not so sure many people will want to give up their children in favor of strangers or people whom do not share their values. Stability isn't everything, it takes both time and patience to raise children, can two lesbians without question provide both? Yes, heterosexual couples perhaps may not be able to, but I think it a lot more healthy to be raised by a man and a woman so a child can pick up on what is surrounding it in the area of the different genders.



My thoughts on this subject vary, but never have I said "eeewww" at this. I have a few homosexual friends who are both for and against same-sex marriage. Money is not a factor at all, when given the real crux laid out in front of you it has to do with obstacles placed in front of a group or minority... and obstacles are always perceived to be overcome at some point in time, which is what I amount this to.

I challenge you to explain exactly how legalized same-sex marriage will contribute the moral decay of "American values".



I challenge you to support this assertion.



I challenge you to explain exactly how allowing same-sex couples to legally marry will "harm marriage" in any significant way.



I challenge you to back up this unsubstantiated opinion, which you appear to be using as a basis for your argument.

If same-sex marriage is such a threat to marriage and childrearing, why can NOBODY come up with clear, specific reasons to explain how this can be?

My answer: Because it's no threat to marriage and family at all, but some people are uncomfortable with it, so they have to flail about and grasp at any straw they can in order to justify their hurtful and irrational prejudice.

Nothing in your posts suggests that you've either read or attempted to comprehend the debate points here. Are you so polarized on this issue that you ignore other points of view as if they don't exist? Every response in your post has been addressed. You may disagree, but they exist.

According to your post, there is no need for debate. According to you, you are correct. If we disagree, we're bigots. There is no in-between.

So, I suppose the debate is over. It's been decided.

So I somehow made my first post in this thread (a line-by-line deconstruction of hayleyanne's claim that same-sex marriage will weaken childrearing) and my last post (an equally fine-toothed call for clear, specific arguments as opposed to stating a contested position as a given fact) without reading or attempting to comprehend others' POV?

How would that even be possible?



On the contrary. There is very much a need for debate. I, like entspeak and Azure-Citizen, have repeatedly called for opponents of same-sex marriage to make a clear, reasoned case for same-sex marriage doing actual, real-life harm to the institution of marriage or the practice of raising healthy children.

If this has been done already in this thread and I've missed it, please point me to it. I'd really like to see it. As I said:

"I defy any and all same-sex marriage doomsayers to dispense with the abstractions and generalities and propose their most reasonable 'here's how it might play out' scenario."

Why should the fact that nobody has been able to do this yet mean I'm being stiff-necked or truculent?

EDITED to respond to DaytonRocker's edit:



They do indeed exist and have been refuted. Arguments that have been soundly refuted - or are too vague to refute - don't have to be brought up again and re-refuted.

Somebody just connect the dots for us:

1) Same-sex marriage is legalized
2) X
3) The dissolution of marriage as an institution, accompanied by endemic child neglect.

What is X, specifically?

Oh, please. In jeopardy? Again, for it to be in jeopardy, the other 98% of the population (heterosexuals) would have to change the way that they approach marriage.



To record highs? What a ridiculous statement. Will the number of divorces increase? Of course it will, more people getting married will mean that more people get divorced. Homosexuals make up for roughly 2% of the US population -- this according to an amicus brief put forth by gay and lesbian groups in the Lawrence v. Texas case. 59% of the population is currently married. If homosexuals are allowed to marry add 2% to that figure if and only if every single homosexual got married. This highly unlikely scenario would mean that 61% of the population was married and 1.6% of those marriages would be homosexual couples. Now, if every single one of these marriages ended in divorce you would only add 1.6% to the percentage of marriages that end in divorce. That would mean that the percentage of marriages that end in divorce would increase by a whopping, massive, humongous, gigantic 1.6%. 42.6% vs. 41%. Oh, my god the sky is falling, the sky is falling! Marriage is doomed!!! Family is doomed!!!

Please, the only way the American traditional family will breakdown is if heterosexuals break it down themselves. They are and will always make up the vast, vast, majority of marriages. Don't use homosexuals as the scapegoat for the breakdown of the American traditional family. It just ain't gonna happen that way. I mean, really... how does that occur? How exactly does this breakdown occur? Heterosexuals would have to change their own personal views regarding marriage and family solely because same-sex couples are allowed to marry. How does that happen? And why? Be specific.

CAN I HAVE EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION, PLEASE?!

I have the feeling that this whole discussion about same-sex-marriage is getting a bit out of hand. Everybody is making statements, but it seems nobody is really listening.

Wouldn't it be nice if everybody was happy, treated equal and with respect? Shouldn't that be guiding line in adressing complex and difficult issues like same-sex marriages. Shouldn't we all try to find a good solution to this problem, a solution that is fair and honest for all the people? Shouldn't we all try to make a better future for ourselves and our children?

Lets stop the endless debate about same-sex marriages and its possible impacts. Lets focus on how to solve these differences. Lets try to incorporate all the different aspects in one nice overall plan.

How can we legalise same-sex marriages and respect the more traditional (religious) role of marriage in society?

In my opinion, a closer look at the Dutch model, is a nice starting point for answering this complex question.

What was the main reason for allowing same-sex marriages in Holland? The issue of equality.

Denying homosexuals the right to marry can be seen as a social inequality and dicrimination. It conflicts with a fundamental aspect of democracy, namely the right of equal treatment. Inequality is unacceptable in any decent liberal and democratic country. (this statement is not only my own, but was also made by the Dutch Supreme Court in 1991.)

Acknowledging this fact was the first step in solving this social problem. (The government should always take actions against any form of inequality, don't you agree?)

The next step was trying to create a legislation within the context of the constitution, without trying to offend the more traditional (religious) groups. It was a well-known fact that the Catholic Church, for example, views marriage essentially as a religious instititution. Religious people feared that s-s marriage legislation could have a negative influence on the marriage as a holy institution and tried to obstruct and reverse this legislation.

In the end we solved this problem in a fairly simple way. If a man and a woman want to marry in Holland, they always have to go to their cityhall. Its in the cityhall, and in the presence of an special civil servant, that you can legally marry. Most of the time it is merely an signing of some documents to make it legal. Because the state is strictly seperated from the church in Holland it wasn't a big deal when gays and lesbians married. We just applied the normal rules on these people. (Equality came first, religion second, as it should be in a modern society)

Even the religious institutes in Holland couldn't really argue against the way things were decided. It didn't have a direct impact on the way they saw marriage. They weren't forced to marry same-sex couples.(freedom of organization) Their view on same-sex marriage was never seriously questioned. (freedom of speech) In fact nothing dramatically at all happened after the legislation was approved.

I am not saying that our way is the best way, but at least we haven proven that it can be done and that the negative outcomes are at best minimal.

Could the Dutch approach have the same results in the U.S.?

Hey Renger

You're "fairly simple way" is exactly what we're debating. As it is now, a man and a woman in America can go to their city hall and get married, usually by an officail called the "justice of the the peace". The church doesn't have to get involved at all.

So yeah, if we could just make that possible for a same-sex couple then sure, everything would be hunky-dory. Or society would crumble to pieces, depending on who you ask.

I dont think so, not as a whole. Perhaps in States such as San Fransisco, but United States is quite closed minded in general.

The difference between the US and Holland is that Holland is European. They are more open-minded and caring for their fellow man, Americans on the other hand have been brought up to see themselves as Nr 1, and no one else.

This, i would say, would make it quite different. But how? I wish not to speculate about it now.

Maybe we can simplify my point down to this. Here's a statement made by Renger:



Change it to this:


I have a problem with the second for reasons that have been deemed hysterical. Fair enough. However, if you believe the first statement is true, then you have to believe the second is true. Otherwise, you would discriminating against other classes of people (wherever your imagination takes you) to grant a special "right" to gays.

Assuming you believe both statements to be true (with limitations due to genetic problems, age of consent, etc), then the debate isn't really about gay marriage at all. It's about marriage being defined as a union between any two individuals. I think that is wrong. It's not because of morality, prejudice, homophobia, or any other type of hate bait. It's because I want people that choose to have kids to receive an incentive to have the kids and bring them up with the best chance of success. You may see people marrying people as not interfering with that and that's fine. I disagree. The incentives will drop because when enough people receive those incentives without any intent of having children, it will go away.

There were too many responses to my post so I apologize for not being able to reply to everybody. I will focus on this question as it seems to be the primary question.

Legalizing same sex marriage, thus changing the definition of marriage away from procreation, will not cause an immediate implosion of existing marriages. What it will do is quietly change the rising generation's view of marriage such that it is not a necessity for raising a family. We will see a gradual increase in cohabitation and children born outside of wedlock. And as I already said once in this thread, cohabiting couples are 2 to 3 times more likely to split up, leaving children as the ultimate victims. Whenever I hear the question, "who does it hurt?" the answer is the children of the rising generation.

As for supporting this claim, all you have to do look at countries where the definition of marriage has been devalued (including our own) and you will see a trend wherein cohabitation is on the rise, marriages are postponed, and more children are born outside of wedlock.


Every state which defines marriage as between a man and a woman is making procreation the primary reason it has interest in the institution. As I already said, procreation is not the exclusive reason, but should be the primary reason. Why? Because the state has an interest in stable families and a stable society.

At the same time we also made a big step in reducing the inequalities that have existed for way to long between homo- and heterosexuals. Legalizing same sex marriages can be an important step in the acceptation of homosexuals in society. It is a positive step towards equality.



I agree with you that children should never be the victim, but I think you see things in the wrong way. It is plain wrong to view the gay emancipation as a driving force behind the gradual increase in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births.


http://www.europebyphoto.com/gay-marriage/...undermines.html

Though I disagree with DaytonRocker on this issue, he is correct Robert B, the issue has been addressed and your side has not answered or has simply ignored how it was addressed.

If you were to say that by not allowing homosexuals to marry they are being discriminatory, how are you to then deny two siblings the right of marriage or a father and daughter, or stop a man from having multiple wives or a woman from having multiple husbands?? If you can change the definition of marriage to accommodate homosexuals, the others will have the exact same right to marry using the logic that you all are using.

The other side fears this. That is where i began to differ with them, but how do you stop marriage from being basically... open house??

So which is it? Procreation or stable families and a stable society? They are not the same thing. I don't see procreation being the primary reason why the state is involved in marriage because as I said earlier they don't do any sort of checking on your ability or desire to procreate. Simply putting a man and a woman together doesn't guarantee or encourage procreation. We aren't living in China with strict procreation laws quite yet.

I also noticed you are using the words "should be", in other words that is your opinion and you haven't presented anything to back it up, yet you are passing it off as fact.

Now if it is "stable families and a stable society" then I don't know why you think homosexual couples don't fit that bill. I wouldn't even be all that surprised if you have formed that opinion without even knowing a homosexual couple with adopted or lab assisted children. There are plenty of homosexual couples that have adopted and raised children and we could be fairly certain that if this caused big issues then news outlets like FoxNews would be trumpting studies on every program.

If the state's interest is in "stable families and a stable society" then they should be allowing homosexual marriages because these couples do adopt and have children through artificial means. There are plenty of facts to back this up and there are also plenty of articles documenting the problems with adopting when you are in a homosexual relationship (e.g. both parents can't legally be guardians so if one dies the child becomes a ward of the state). The "protect the children" argument backfires on you.

And procreation is the only way in which to have a stable family and a stable society? So we should exclude those who can't procreate... is that it? Those who can't procreate are unable to have a stable family and don't contribute to a stable society. This is what you are saying?

Do those who don't procreate now... the 12% of married couples who choose not to have a child... have they caused a de-stabilization of society that can be directly linked to these women's choice not to procreate? How exactly are they de-stablilizing society, de-stabilizing marriage? How?



This has already been addressed as well. Nobody has ignored it or failed to answer it. That is patently untrue. The response we give is routinely dismissed without any reason or information to back it up. People simply saying bad things will happen without pointing how we end up going down that road. People saying simply that gay marriage leads to incest and polygamy. Why? How does that happen? "Because you have to..." But why? We've told them how that can't happen and they ignore it. They simply say "you have to" and ignore all the other obstacles that currently keep sibling marriages and polygamy illegal as if all the other issues surrounding incest and polygamy melt away as soon as you let same-sex couples marry. The idea is absurd.

What keeps two siblings from marrying now, a father and a daughter from marrying?... Is it the fact that marriage is currently legally defined as being between a man and a woman? Hehe... I don't think so. So, there must be something more keeping these other types of relationships, polygamy included, from being legal at the moment, right? I mean if there was not something more keeping them illegal, there would already be sibling marriages and legalized polygamy going on right now. But there isn't. So, isn't it possible that there are other obstacles that keep sibling marriages illegal, that keep polygamy illegal? Why would they change? If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, the State interests in preventing sibling marriages and polygamy, these other obstacles, they remain, don't they? I mean, if this is just about procreation, then why not allow siblings to marry now. Hmm? A sister and a brother can procreate can't they? Why not allow a man to marry more than one woman now, I mean they will procreate won't they?... oh, boy will they procreate. But the government does not allow a sister and a brother to marry even though they can procreate... it doesn't allow polygamy even though polygamous relationships allow for procreation. Why is that? Why doesn't the government allow these marriages to occur legally now?

What the anti-gay marriage side HAS completely failed to explain is a CONCRETE explanation of how marriage is harmed- there is no evidence whatsoever that the institution of marriage is harmed, and even more importantly, how, for instance, my marriage to my wife is somehow harmed- that our vows become somehow less because gays are allowed to marry- there is absolutely no evidence presented here EXCEPT slippery slope arguments- 0, zip, nada.

The only argument, as I have said, that has a DEMONSTRATABLE harm is the institution of divorce- this will be changed without a doubt- the SO in the gay relationship will have all the rights of the opposite sex marriage in divorce, 50% of the goods, rights to custody and such as I explained before

DR and others- when you deny a right to someone- IT IS ENCUMBANT UPON YOU TO DEMONSTRATE IMMEDIATE HARM TO YOU AND YOURS- some slippery slope argument just doesn't wash.

If I deny the right of DR to own a gun, I have to demonstrate why- let's say he abused that right at some point, harming someone else with his right to own a gun- so that right is removed. For you to take rights away from blacks prior to the civil rights movement- the same slippery slope argument was used - but no harm to society could be proved or enumerated by allowing blacks the same rights as whites.

Same issue resides here- what eminent harm can you possibly, with empirical evidence, harms the institution of marriage or , even more importantly, and more to the point, your marriage (if you are married)?

Will you suddenly have to divorce because gays are able to marry? If not, you have no arguement at all except bigotry and "eeewww" .

I don't understand how this is harmful? I understand that same-sex couples will have the same rights in divorce as heterosexual couples, but how is that harmful?

I am sorry- bad choice of words- perhaps, the role of divorce will be expanded to INCLUDE those that are of same sex- I see no actual harm here, but some change- there will be revenue lost to the goverment too when same sex couples are allowed to inherit the same as married couples- it is automatic, very few lawyer fees and having to set this stuff up with living wills and designated gaurdians and such- right now, a husband and wife automatically are the others guardian- so there is little lawyer fees- so the lawyers will be harmed in not making so much money off of gays- see, there is some harm to lawyers here, perhaps they are the driving force behind the idea of denying this right to gays?

Entspeak


Allowing gays to marry will not lead to incest or polygamy, these things are already happening. What it does do ,is say that society does not have the right to set parameters between consenting adults in concerns to marriage. Or is that not what you are saying??

And yes there are obstacles to stop incest and polygamy that won't instantly dissolve as soon as gays are allowed to marry. However, the road map is set forth by the precedent of allowing Gay marriage.

Not allowing Gays to marry really is a moral issue. But your argument is that it is discriminatory to not allow them to marry and that the State has no valid interest to not allow them to marry. Now the other side has given you what they believe to be a valid state interest, which is "it removes us further from the idea that marriage is to promote procreation."

To combat this line of reasoning your side has argued the inconsistencies by picking out exceptions For instance, you will point out that we allow marriage between couples that we know are sterile and can not procreate.

Well, Entspeak if what you do works for Gay marriages what is to stop the other groups from using the same logic. You think you have an argument against allowing siblings to marry or polygamous relationships that does not have exception found in in normal marriage?? I

If you argue abuse in a polygamous relationships are abusive, one merely needs to point to the fact that some monogamous relationships facilitates abuse, yet they are still allowed to marry.

If you argue that relationships involving incest should not be allowed to get married due to the fact there is a chance of child deformity. One can point out that couple that are high risk in concerns with child birth deformities are allowed to marry, now.

So it is not that allowing SS marriages will cause all these other issues to instantly become legal, it just leaves an effective blueprint of logic that these other groups seeking legitimacy can follow.

See, I guess my libertarian streak comes in real hard here- I see no goverment need to stop CONSENTING ADULTS from praticing incestual marriage or polygamy either. Polygamy is pretty heavily practiced now in reality anyway, and I am not talking about religious groups- those are the high profile - like with prostitution and the highly visible street walkers, they are no where near the majority practicing this- it is triads settled down as "roomates" quietly practising a lifestyle know one knows about that except for select friends.

None of these acts is there a goverment interest in doing anything but making sure the contracts are followed, and no harm comes to those directly in the relationship- as in the case of abuse- if the relationship works, children are not being harmed in any tangible way, in fact, it works out rather well for that triad (V style is the most common, with the bottom of the V being the anchor to the relationship, can be man or woman) - so if there is no eminent harm for anyone in the relationship- the goverment has no business intruding in the marriage unless the contract is violated or voluntarily dissolved (divorce) by one or more parties.

Really, what the goverment practices in it's role in marriage right now is completely devoid of the definitions banty-ed about here by various morals of the religious folks.

Catholic religion does not recognize the marriage of non-catholics, but the govement does.

So what is the current role of goverment really in a marriage right now- does it say how they have to interact, what kind of sex they must have, or how many children or if to have children at all?

WE all know the answer is no

So- if the law does not regulate how many children, or if you can have children, in a marriage, then the contract of marriage has nothing to do with procreation

Does the law currently uphold what kind of sex a married couple must have, or that they must be exclusively monogamous to each other- since the reason for divorce being adultery has been mostly abolished in the US- the answer is no then the goverment does not regulate what kind of sex is being peformed within the marriage vows, or even regulate or enforce who they can have sex with outside of marriage- like an "open" marriage.

Okay, than what is the practical application of what the goverment does- it issues a license, that binds the couple financially together, and gives them legal rights to be each others gaurdian, and get certain tax breaks, inherit etc. - in other words, it only comes into play when one of the principals in the contract become unable to function as a consenting adult (such as death and disability) or one or both parties decide to terminate the contract

That is the legal aspect of marriage today.

Now, for most folks, that are not religious, and do not have overtly religious ceremonies, outside it just being a ceremony that has religious overtones- what it really is, is getting up in front of your friends and publically declaring your intent in front of everyone you care about of staying with this person for the rest of your life- in my years of relationship counselling, for the commitment impaired- they ask, what is in that piece of paper- so I describe some of the legal reasons lined out above- and then, tell them "it is your public declaration in front of your friends that you are committed to this person that makes a marriage ceremony important to both-

That is both the legal and practical application of marriage- now, there are many that take a religious connotation to it (I certainly didn't, I don't care if God needs to hear me declare my love and faithfullness to my wife, but I do want my family and friends to hear it) - but that has absolutely no business whatsoever being codified into law, because, if it is, you have a theocratic law[B] based on a religious defintion, and then, you have an established religion by definition.

CruisingRam,

Thanks for the clarification, I understand that now.



Society or the government? Sometimes society and the government conflict... for example the majority of society did not want interracial marriage, but it was still necessary for the government to allow it. In that sense, the State is like a nanny hired to work in the best interest of society. (Perhaps a weak analogy, but close enough for government work.) We are talking about civil marriage... the legal contract between the State and a couple... not between society and a couple. The State is like a nanny hired in the best interest of society.



Another ambiguous phrase... what is this "roadmap" that leads to the dissolution of these obstacles?



You are truncating what I said... leaving the most important part out. According to the law, yes, the State must have a valid State interest... the State can claim any interest is valid... but, the State must also show that the exclusion is necessary in order to further that interest. That is the key part. That is the law. That is the way our government deals with questions regarding laws that limit fundamental rights... such as marriage. So, if the state does nothing to prevent those heterosexual couples who can't procreate from marrying and, in fact, requires some couples to be unable to procreate before marrying, it is obvious that the exclusion of a group because they can't procreate is unnecessary. This being the case, to exclude on those grounds is considered unconstitutional. Do you follow that? That is the law, like it or not. Are you telling me that this is not the way the law works?



One of the aspects of marriage, fundamental aspects actually, is that it affords protections to spouses. Assumed paternity, for example, protects a child from being disowned by the father if paternity is questioned -- if the pregnancy happened during the marriage, the child is assumed to be the husband's. Of course, heterosexuals are slowly removing this final obligation explicitly related to procreation in marriage. Another example, is that it protects spouses in terms of assets in the event the marriage dissolves. It also protects spouses in terms of custody of children should the marriage dissolve. Now this system is geared towards couples, a pairing of two. This system would have to be reconstructed to accomodate polygamy. The State has a valid interest in maintaining the two-person nature of marriage because it is more efficient to regulate it in that manner. And it is unnecessarily complicated to accomodate multiple spouses in a marriage. Add to this, the history of abuse linked directly to polygamy and you have a necessary exclusion.



We already have incestuous marriages of a kind. The precedent for sibling marriage has already been set, so how can you claim that same-sex marriage will set a precedent for sibling marriage? That's just absurd. It is the marrying of first cousins and the requirement that they be sterile that has set that precedent. So, you can't hold sibling marriage over the heads of homosexual couples seeking to get married. Oh, and the obstacle I was referring to, again, was the possible abuse of an unwilling family member. Fathers forcing daughters to marry them. This makes the exclusion necessary. Protecting children. After all, a child can get married before the age of 18 with a parent's consent.

I'm sorry entspeak, but you are continuing to justify your discrimination via the "government's interest" or whatever. That is completely subjective and arbitrary.

Maybe this is what you can't seem to get your head around:

The discussion of sibling marriage (as an example) has nothing to do with incest. By removing the procreation aspect of marriage (whether it exists or not), it becomes a union between two consenting adults - nothing else.

In allowing gay marriage, this union between two people has nothing to do with sex. Otherwise, you'd have government regulating sex between consenting adults. It would only be about companionship. So, this "companionship" aspect is endless - which includes siblings, polygamy, and a multitude of other variations.

Remember, there is no gay test. There is no gay gene. There is no way to prove or disprove your sexual predication. On the contrary, men and women have all the natural components to be attracted to each other and mate. It's not a gene, but the difference is in the genetic design.

When marriage becomes about companionship, gays have no special privilege anymore than heteros. It's a level playing field. But that level playing field would include any two consenting adults. Not just gays or heteros.

I am not following you DR- you seem to agree that marriage is about companionship and not procreation- but I am not sure if you are for or against gay marriage by your statement- are you saying that because marriage is no longer about sex or procreation that it is simply a contract between consenting adults already- and therefore, allowing gays to marry does not change marriage as we know it?

DaytonRocker

I compared this statement with a text on Wikipedia about marriage. They wrote:



It clearly shows that a marriage IS all about companionship. Two people who choose to "join together their live in emotional and economic ways through forming a household".

But is this "companionship" aspect endless? No, of course not. The people, their political representatives and the justice departments have more than enough instruments to make sure that legalising same-sex marriages doesn't open up a "Box of Pandora". For an example, just look at the Dutch model! We legalized same-sex marriage but we will never allow polygamy, marriage between syblings etc. .

DaytonRocker
That's all you can ask for in a society that is built on the principle of equality. Gays do not need special privileges, heterosexuals do not need special privileges: they should have the same special privileges.

It is good to point out the fact that legalizing same-sex marriages could lead to a weakening of marriage in general, and that , because of this possible negative side-effect, the government should be carefull in handling this whole issue. We should consider every possible positive and negative outcome regarding same-sex marriages in the US. We should weigh these outcomes against eachother and look for the best solution.

droop224
I couldn't agree with you more on that point. The moral aspects (liberal v.s. traditional views on society) of this issue are the most important obstacles in finding a good solution.

droop224

As I said before it is up to the legislators to make sure that other groups cannot exploit the fact the homosexuals can marry legally. I don't support sybling marriaqe, I don't support polygamy or any other form of social disapproved relationships. Reasons for this are various. As far as I can tell, in the U.S., same-sex relationships are becoming more and more socially acceptable, in contrast to sybling relationships or polygamy. (41% believe that same-sex sexual behavior is always wrong. This is a remarkable drop from 58% by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago in 1998.) That's the main difference.

You seem to keep saying that same-sex marriage removes the procreation aspect from marriage. But it doesn't and I never said it does. The procreation aspect of marriage remains exactly as it is today: one of the methods, the primary method, in fact, by which children are introduced into a married family. Statistically, it would be impossible for that to change. Unless, of course, you are saying over half of heterosexuals capable of procreating will suddenly choose not to procreate solely because same-sex couples are allowed to marry.



As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the government does not regulate sex between married couples, so, according to your logic the current union has nothing to do with sex. So, what's your point here? I'm not clear. You keep dismissing the government interest in preventing these other types of unions, but you can't. The government exists and as long as there is a government interest in their exclusion and the exclusion is necessary in order to further that interest these relationships will remain illegal. That's just a fact.



Isn't there already a "level playing field" amongst heterosexuals? Shouldn't any consenting heterosexual man and woman be allowed to marry? I mean, if procreation is the be all and end all of marriage, but the government doesn't really seem to care if you procreate (note: I did not say, "doesn't care if you raise children" -- the government does encourage couples to raise children) and will require some couples to be unable to procreate before being allowed to marry (this is the institution of marriage that you claim exists now, mind you, sans same-sex marriage)... why not let fathers marry daughters, why not let brothers marry sisters, why not let a man marry multiple wives, why not let a woman marry multiple husbands? In the current system there is already a "level playing field" that should, according to your logic, allow these other types of relationships. But does it? No. Why? Because gays aren't allowed to marry? Wha-huh?! That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

No, I believe marriage is about children. A legal bond is formed to help stabilize the marriage for the benefit of children. Of course it doesn't work all the time, but getting a divorce is very, very painful to all but a few. So, it's an incentive to get counseling and repair a marriage rather than simply up and leave. That benefits children. It doesn't always work, but it's the best game in town.

Secondly, having children is expensive. Caring for them properly and providing the best chance of success is hard work. In fact, many marriages would be much easier if no children were involved. So, there are certain financial benefits with marriage to help offset that cost and incentivize procreation. In other words, couples that want to have children may not feel that they can afford it. That's a critical and legitimate question. So, we get financial benefits that puts more money in our pocket to provide for them.

If marriage is not about procreation, but about companionship, then any two people cannot be denied that legal status. And that's where I disagree with virtually everyone on here. It's not specifically because of gays. It's because the benefits we receive to have children will be watered down. In other words, if everyone can receive the same benefits, they are no longer benefits. It's a social program instead. Our cost to raise kids will increase. It's a simple supply and demand issue.

I am still not following your logic here DR- in application- as far as law goes- marriage is not about procreation at all- because you get the same tax break if you have children and are not married.

So, in a practical, real world aspect, as far as the law is concerned, since they don't test for either biological defects or the ability to procreate, and most importantly, they allow seniors past the breeding and child rearing age to marry- how can you seriously say that the law of the land dealing with marriage has anything to do with procreation?

I agree, even 50 years ago, when divorce as basically near illegal, you might have had a point- and 200 years ago, well, even less, (polygamy was only made illegal when the mormon church was founded, and marrige was only recently even a part of goverment- it used to be only recorded in the family bible) but since you and I were born, there was no real component of marriage and procreation.

I think I understand what you and droop are saying. You're saying that allowing same-sex marriage may not instantly make incestuous or polygamous marriage legal, but it will remove (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) definitional contraints which make such undesirable things inevitable. Another way to put it is, all the arguments for same-sex marriage also seem to work for other, even weirder (my term) types of marriage. Do I have that right?

I'm not being sly here, I'm asking because I want to make sure I understand your point.

Entspeak


Well, as I am sure you know society often uses the government to set it's parameters. Society wants to set parameters on Gay marriage and is currently using the government to do this. Since the government is being used by society to hinder the progress of homosexuals from getting married, either society or government is a fine word to use.



I wouldn't call it ambiguous, but, hey, maybe it is to you. Road map in this sense means a set of procedures used by a previous group that another can follow.



No, I didn't follow. Maybe I have had too many beers or something. A couple may or may not be able to reproduce. It is rare that a couple can not reproduce. However a homosexual couple can NEVER reproduce. It would require a great deal more of paperwork, time, and effort for the government to know whether this or that heterosexual couple can or can not procreate, seeing how many couples may not even know themselves until they begin trying to reproduce. But, it is well known that homosexuals can not reproduce with each other, so it would not require any extra work to exclude them. Did you follow that??

By the way if law works the way you say it works... then why are we even having a debate?? Gays should have always been able to get married. The fact that they are not getting married might be the hint you need that law doesn't work exactly as you are saying it does.

Renger