This was created in response to some posts in another thread -- specifically comments made by Carlitoswhey and Deerjerkydave. I'd like to continue that discussion here.

Questions for debate:

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

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

The responses that I've read to the first question thus far all seem to be circular or completely ignore certain facts. The second question seems to get ignored entirely. To start off, I will respond to the posts in that other thread just prior to its closing.


Carlitoswhey,



This is irrelevant. The child still has only 2 biological parents. The fact that neither mother chooses to know if she is the biological mother is much like adoptive parents not telling a child they are adopted. But, the information is available. A simple DNA test reveals which is the biological parent.



The valid State interest in preventing siblings from marrying is that to allow them to marry would be State endorsement of an illegal act. Until the incest laws change to allow siblings to legally have sex, they will never be allowed to marry. It used to be that way with homosexuals. Until 1973, there were no laws against gays marrying, the legal definition of marriage in almost every state was exactly what same-sex marriage advocates are asking for now. What prevented them from getting married were the sodomy laws.

If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, incest laws will still prevent siblings from marrying. And incest laws can and already have changed in absence of same-sex marriage. I did not draw the line at first cousins. The governments of 26 states drew that line. And many of these states have laws and constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage. So you can't tell me that there is a direct connection between same-sex marriage and allowing for sibling marriage. There is no connection.



And allowing for same-sex marriage does not wipe away the child-rearing aspect of marriage either. Same-sex couples can engage in the child-rearing aspect of marriage -- either through adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy... all the options that non-procreative heterosexual couples who wish to rear children have. That doesn't change if you allow same-sex couples to marry.



Umm, no... I didn't cleverly say "raise kids and not "have kids"... you did. So, if you position falls apart it is because your position dealt with raising kids:


So your position falls apart. Okay. Now, regarding you new position... am I to assume that "having kids" means something more than the presence of a child? Do you mean procreation here? Please elaborate.



Yes, but the article deerjerkydave quoted, along with the many other Scandinavian reports I've read by those opposing same-sex marriage, all seem to conveniently leave out the fact heterosexual couples were allowed to engage in these "marriage-lite" situations -- registered partnerships and the like. So, it is more likely that marriage declined because more heterosexual couples went the registered partnership route. There was an alternative... an alternative that did not have as many strings as marriage... easier to dissolve.

It's much like the effect that no-fault divorce had on marriage. You make it easier to get out of marriage, more couples opt for the easy way out. You give them a registered partnership with fewer strings, they choose it over the more stringent marriage contract. So, Kurtz is blaming same-sex marriage for the problem created by giving heterosexual couples more alternatives to marriage.

As I've already stated, if you include same-sex couples in marriage rather than creating alternatives, marriage will not decline because there are no alternatives. Sure, people may choose not to get married at all, but they aren't going to do that simply because gays can get married. Why would they do that?



I am doing no such thing. I recognize that men and women are different. But in absence of a valid State interest in preventing same-sex couples from marrying, to deny them that right is an act of discrimination.

Deerjerkydave,



No. In Scandanavia, the introduction of alternatives to marriage weakened the meaning of marriage to society. Get the facts straight. If heterosexual couples were not allowed to engage in alternatives to marriage, marriage would not be weakened -- unless, of course, more heterosexual couples simply decided to shack up and not get married at all. But in absence of an alternative like registered partnerships, there is absolutely no connection between heterosexuals choosing not to get married and allowing same-sex couples to get married. Why would heterosexual couples choose not to get married solely because same-sex couples could?

I am saying that the intent to raise children is not a pre-requisite for a marriage license. Being that this is the case, you can't prevent same-sex couples from marrying simply because they may not choose to raise a child -- unless you are going to prevent heterosexual couples who have no intention of raising children from marriage as well. To do otherwise is called unnecessary discrimination and is unconstitutional -- as marriage is a fundamental right in this country. The law states that in order to violate this fundamental right, the State must have a valid State interest related to excluding same-sex couples from marriage and the exclusion must be necessary in order to further that interest. If the interest is maintaining the child-rearing aspects of marriage, that has to apply across the board to heterosexual couples as well -- otherwise the interest cannot be deemed necessary and the exclusion is unnecessarily discriminatory.

First of all, Entspeak, I have to give you a compliment for your compelling arguments. I know that there are some strong objections against gay-marriage in the U.S., but some of these objection clearly are made out of thin air, as you pointed out.

Now for answering your questions:





It doesn't, period. I don't see any logical relation between people of the same sex marrying and the weakening of marriage in general. The only reason why some people might think that is partly caused by there own traditional or religious background. They regard marriage as something holy, and because homosexuality is wrongfully regarded as a sin, they see same-sex marriages as an attack on their own traditions and believes. And the worst thing of all this is the fact that they have been succesfull in their struggle in many countries. What happened to the right to be treated equal in this country, I thought America was the land of opportunities, now this is a nice case and time to show that even homosexuals have the same opportunities as heterosexuals in your country.

We the Dutch have had a lot of critizism because our legislation in regard to same-sex marriages .Some of our opponents have tried to point out that because of the decade-long campaign for same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, the relationship between marriage and parenthood has been broken apart.

There say: because homosexual people can marry, a lot of heterosexual people will break up their marriage earlier, or don't want to marry at all. Maybe it is me, but I don't see the causation between the two things.

Would religious people hesitate to marry if they knew that homosexuals could also marry? Of course not! Religious people will always marry, marriage is considered as an holy union between a woman and a man in the face of God. Will people break up their marriages earlier if same-sex marriage is legal? I have yet to see one argument that links the increase of divorces with the acceptance of same-sex marriages. The fact that people break up more easily and frequent has more to do with the individualization of society than the fact that homosexuals can marry.

If some people cannot swallow the fact that homosexuals are also normal persons and like to marry the ones they love, like we all do, than that says more about that persons narrow view on society than about same-sex marriages in general.

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

It weakens the institution of marriage by taking the institution further away from its primary purpose as the ideal structure in society for raising children. Marriage becomes nothing more than a celebration of two individuals' love for one another. Mind you, I am not saying that "love" is not an important component-- but it is not the only component. More importantly, it is not the primary reason why society recognizes marriage.



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

I don't think the argument is that ss marriage will affect whether heterosexuals choose to get married. Rather, it is how ss marriage changes the institution itself. As I stated above, the closer marriage gets to being simply a celebration of "love"-- between two people-- the more difficult it becomes for the institution to be seen as requiring the two people to stay together for the sake of the children. The focus changes dramatically.

Ah, it's getting clearer to me now.
- sodomy laws made same-sex marriage illegal
- incest laws make sibling marriage illegal

Interesting. When I asked what the valid state interest was, I was speaking of the actual morality or societal benefit of banning the activity (sibling marriage). I didn't say anything about incest. Obviously, incest laws were passed to prevent sibling-spawned children. Since gay "marriage" is illegal, I assumed we were debating philosophically about the public good, not arguing the actual law on the books. But since you raise it...

What illegal act are you speaking of when you deny sibling marriage? Why do my would-be-married 2 brothers have to have incestual sex? I'm not telling them to have sex. In all sincerity, it hadn't occurred to me in my example of 2 brothers getting married that they would have sex. Before I accuse you of having a dirty mind, I have to step back and ask - why would you assume sexual activity?

It's almost as if you are saying that married people have to engage in sex with each other. Indeed, it sounds as if you think they must have sex to consummate a marriage? What a quaint, nineteenth-century thought.

Why do you assume that sex is part of marriage?

PS - when I said "my argument falls apart" I was of course being sarcastic

I understand and respect your arguments, but I don't agree with them. I think the main difference is the way we look at marriage. I have the feeling (due to the link you posted of Leaderu) that you view marriage as a fundamental aspect of society, as it is advocated by religious people. Family is the cornerstone of society, and marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of every family. Although I agree with the first part of this view, I do not agree with second part. Marrying somebody is not the only recipe to make sure your children will have a happy, warm and safe childhood. On the other hand from a childs perception it really doesn't matter if his/her parents are married or not. They just belong together, they will always be mom and pops.

So by allowing the gay marriages of a rather small minority, the nation's heterosexual couples will feel that the purpose of the institution of marriage is more about the celebration of two individual's love for one another, and less about raising children, and this will weaken marriage, and as a result, society?

It strikes me that this issue is going to be entirely a matter of opinion.

I'm heterosexual, and in civilian life, I primarily do family law. In my opinion, heterosexuals aren't going to significantly change their reasons for marrying because they see homosexuals getting married, or think differently about getting divorced when children are involved because homosexual marriages exist. Nor will they decide with diminished frequency to have children in the first place because they know some gays or lesbians are married. If marriage is truly the ideal structure in society for raising children, it will still be the ideal structure in society for raising children if the homosexual minority is allowed to marry too. The focus will not "change dramatically" for heterosexuals.

Well, that's just my opinion. Perhaps we could hear from someone who is 1) heterosexual, and 2) believes homosexual marriages will dramatically change the focus of marriage for heterosexuals, and 3) would like to share their feelings here why the focus of marriage personally changes for them. I don't mean sharing with us why you feel other heterosexuals might feel that way, I mean sharing with us why you will feel differently about the focus of your marriage, or intentions to get married, etc. Why you might decide raising children isn't that important in your life if you get married now, if gays have marriages too, or why you might feel its more acceptable to divorce and leave your children hanging because you know that homosexual marriages exist. Or why you will feel that your marriage is more about celebrating your love for your spouse, than your marriage is about raising children, if you know that some homosexuals are married too. If you can, please be specific and descriptive in sharing your personal feelings about your own marriage (or intentions to get married), as you will be helping us advance this debate and understand why the focus of your marriage changes dramatically for you if homosexual marriages exist.

Hayleyanne,



You are making the assumption both that all same-sex couples will not want to raise children and that parents must be of the opposite sex (if I understand correctly your use of the quote). Now, I know how you personally feel about this, Hayleyanne. You feel that same-sex couples are not equal to heterosexual couples. You've made that quite clear in the past. So, you'll excuse me if I question exactly where your argument comes from.

As I stated to you many times, the point regarding child-rearing being the primary purpose for marriage is a weak argument for denying same-sex couples the right to marry. The intent to raising a child, while marriage is the ideal relationship in which to do so, is not a pre-requisite for marriage. If you don't deny marriage to heterosexual couples who have no intention of raising a child, you can't deny it to same-sex couples who have no intention of raising a child. One could say that the government believes that simply because a man and a woman are getting married the probability is higher that a child will be born and that the intent was always to have that happen, but then you'd have to inform carlitoswhey that the government assumes married couples have sex, and we wouldn't want to disappoint him that way. Besides, the government does not care if you have children or not. If a heterosexual couple proves to the government that it can't conceive children, the government does not question whether the couple has the intent to adopt or find some other way of introducing children into their family. Do they? So why hold this "primary purpose" only over the heads of homosexual couples?

Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not further remove marriage from child-rearing. You are taking a trend that is already occurring among heterosexual couples and attributing it to homosexual couples.

Between 1990 and 1997, the birth rate among married women dropped 12% and has only slightly increased since then, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. This means fewer married women are choosing to have children. Haven't these heterosexual women and their spouses further removed marriage from the purpose of child-rearing? Yet, nobody will tell these couples that they can't get married despite the fact that they are further removing marriage from its "primary purpose", will they?

Well, if you're not going to answer my question directly, could you perhaps tell us WHY the government assumes that married couples have sex?

It's not hayleyanne "making an assumption" that parents must be of the opposite sex. Isn't that how we make babies? Or, since 100% of marriages don't all have children, is procreation totally irrelevant to this debate. In which case, please see my first question.

I'm not entspeak, but I'll make a stab at it.

The government assumes that married couples have sex because traditionally, that has been part of the marriage contract between two people. The fact that many married couples don't have sex -- for whatever reason -- does not change the fact that traditionally, sex has been considered one of many elements of a marital relationship. Since you are defending the 'traditional' definition of marriage, how you wouldn't know this escapes me.

And yes, in a strictly biological sense, birthparents must be of the opposite sex. However, the fact is that some birthparents choose not to raise the children they create, and some adoptive parents are either single or partnered with a person of the same sex. To my way of thinking, children need parents or caregivers who can provide emotional and practical stability, adequate practical resources (shelter, food, clothing), and love. Many people who are thus qualified are not heterosexual married couples.

I would be willing to concede calling a legal and civil union between two same-sex partners something other than 'marriage,' but only if such a union conferred all the legal and practical benefits that marriage does. And in that case, why not call it what it is?

Vibiana

Traditionally, marriage is between a man and woman, as well.

Entspeak



Well what's the valid State interest in not letting siblings have sex?? There is none. So is not this law unconstitutional? Your reasoning is circular.


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

A historic and traditional prerequisite to marriage was that the people participating be of opposite sex. Allowing same sex marriages changes that. Whether this change weakens, strengthens, or has no effect on marriage all deals with perception. Because what we feel is stronger or weaker is relative. In the minds of many Americans the change or alteration to how marriage is defined is a weakening of the "institution of marriage"(whatever that is). Myself I feel it has no effect.

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

You got me on that one. I never understood people who thought this.

Sex between married couples has long been determined to be a right. As such, the government can't prevent married people from having sex -- so much so that prison inmates must be allowed to have sex with their wives. If there are concerns regarding the result of the couple having sex (i.e. the sex act is illegal), the government has an obligation to prevent the marriage in order to do its part in preventing the sex act. If it allowed the marriage, it would be tacitly agreeing to the sex. If the sex act is illegal, the government would be tacitly agreeing with the commission of an illegal act because it allowed the couple to be married knowing that sex between them would then become a right.



As I have stated before to Hayleyanne -- and she has been unable to counter this argument -- procreation is no longer a fundamental aspect of marriage. It hasn't been for some time. As such, the government can no longer reasonably deny same-sex marriage on the basis of an interest related to procreation.



Not at all. Regardless of the constitutionality of incest laws, the changing of these laws is completely independent of whether same-sex marriage is allowed or not. If same-sex marriage is allowed, incest remains illegal until someone makes the legal determination that incest laws are unconstitutional or the laws are repealed by the legislature. As such, there is no connection between same-sex marriage and the legality of incest. Allowing for same-sex marriage has no effect on whether siblings can marry. If incest laws were found to be unconstitutional tomorrow, siblings would be allowed to marry shortly after because there would be no reason to prevent it. This would occur even if same-sex marriage remained illegal. That is the point. Whether incest laws are unconstitutional is a topic for a completely different discussion. The fact is, they exist now and that prevents siblings from being married.

If this is the justification, then why is divorce allowed? Nothing weakens the institution of marriage more than allowing it to be dissolved...especially as easily as it can be currently. Further...given the alarming rate with which divorce occurs, what evidence is there that heterosexuals have any better grasp on what it takes to form a permanent relationship which therefore benefits society and the family structure? Given these issues, I think that while this argument might have strong philosophical underpinnings, it rapidly loses value when confronted with the reality of heterosexual marriage in today's society.





Again, I think this argument suffers when confronted with current divorce rates. How exactly is allowing ss marriage more detrimental to the institution than allowing divorce...particularly at the rate at which it currently occurs? This is also true for the child raising aspect. How exactly is an institution in which 50% of all marriages fail beneficial for the children involved? Or, perhaps more pertinently, how is ss marriage less beneficial than that?

That is the point I was trying to make to carlitoswhey.



I have to admit, you have a point and this is the argument where I always get lost when it comes to this issue. The prohibitions against homosexuality in the Book of Leviticus are in the same Book as those against approaching anyone "near of kin." I suppose the only valid State interest in preventing incest is that it causes profound mental, emotional, and sometimes physical trauma to its practitioners and their descendents. However, we don't tell people who are in high-risk groups for producing children with Down syndrome or Tay-Sachs or cystic fibrosis that they are breaking the law by having children, even though those children face lives that will be shortened and compromised; so that's a road I've never wanted to start out on.

"...has long been determined to be a right?" Is sex outside of marriage a privilege then? Does either of these qualify as "pursuit of happiness" I wonder?

Of course there is sex outside of marriage and it isn't illegal. To follow your logic, childless couples make procreation "no longer a fundamental aspect of marriage" but sex is indeed fundamental because marriage confers that right on the couple. Never mind that the couple had every right to have sex before they were married. Nor the fact that sexless marriages are still sanctioned by the state.

It seems to me that the sex has something to do with the procreation, which has something to do with "marriage." At least traditionally.

I'd happily debate "how do today's divorce laws weaken heterosexual marriage" but I think that this is the stuff of another topic.

Sex outside of marriage is still illegal in some states. Historically, it was illegal in every state in this country for a very long time.

Just because an institution confers a right on an act, it does not necessarily follow that that act is fundamental to the institution. The two are not mutually exclusive. Sex is not a fundamental aspect of marriage because, as you've pointed out, you do not need to have sex in a marriage.

As for that debate being another topic, I agree (any takers on this? ). I think where it is relevant to the current discussion is that it detracts from some of the arguments presented against allowing ss marriage. It is difficult to argue against it from a 'it detracts from the institution perspective' because other circumstances which arguably have a greater impact on the institution are allowed, so its difficult to say that this should suddenly become a factor in deciding what is legal and what isn't. I also think it similarly detracts from the child raising argument because, again, we allow actions which are even more detrimental to child raising (if ss marriage is detrimental at all, which would need to proven...whereas there are a great many known issues for children caused by divorce).

I'm glad you started this thread Ent!

I've always stated that marriage has two relationships. One with the people and one with the government.

The governemnt's relationship with marriage is one of a secular nature. The government, as one of the posters here mentioned, doesn't care if you have children or not. They just want to oversee the legal and financial (read:taxes) aspects of the union.

Now, marriage's relationship with the people is one based in tradition and personal beliefs. I stress personal because Americans have different beliefs from one another, but many share some of the same fundamental beliefs in matters of faith. Yet even there, people differ. So while it's a safe bet to say that a Hindi and a Christian will agree that same-sex marriages are wrong, they won't agree on a plethora of other things, especially in the raising of a family.

So, knowing that this country is filled with people who have a myriad of different personal beliefs, why is it fair that we inject that personal belief into the secular law?

As Hobbes, and I, and many others over the different threads regarding this debate have pointed out, there is no outcry against the divorce rate in this country by the same folks (save a few here at ) that condemn homosexuals marrying and claim it will be the downfall of it's tradition. Nor is there any outcry against deadbeat dads (or mothers) who abandone the responsibility of raising a family.

All too often, it's the lesbian couple that is rasing a child and doing a good job that is being blamed for the disintegration of tradition and morality in society and not the man and woman who have each been divorced *at least* once and get married, only to have a couple kids that see how miserable their folks are as a married couple ten years down, and come to find out that their dad cheated on their mom (or vice versa or both) and go through a nasty divorce that tears the family apart.

Haleyanne, procreation was a fundamental part of marriage. It was so only because of business, politics, and the survival of familes in days that have long passed.

Ex:

- Business: One man enters a business venture with another, and to ensure future sucess, the daughter of one is forced to marry the son of the other (because that way, one partner wont try to screw the other).

- Politics: Any monarchy in history. What spawned the Anglican Church? Henry VIII can't sire a child through one woman, so he tries to divorce her and marry another, (and kills other women and so on)! Monarchs got married to sire future monarchs...and that didn't always work! And yet, here we stand today!

- Survival: In some cultures (matriarchial or patriarchial), there had to be someone that lead the family. Ancient Israel is a good example. There always had to be a leader and make decisions for the family because not all of them could lead, number one, and two, not all of them knew what to trade, where to graze, where to settle.

But the one common tie between all of those points is that they're no longer relevant! No one uses marriage to codify business ventures anymore, monarchies are a quaint historical tie to the past, and most of us can all survive outside of our families. And even the close knit families that stick together dont all depend on one child.

Entspeak brought up a great point as well. Why are you denying gays marriage on the basis that marriage is fundamental to raising a family when there are scores of married couples who, by choice or otherwise, have no children?

I know why the government doesn't care. Because they have no moral or religious interest in the couple's business.

That fact there basically undermines the procreation argument.

To sum it all up I'll useAzure's point .



What it comes down to is personal philosophies. It's not about how it will effect familes, the tradition of marriage, etc. It's about how you feel about it. How it effects you. I mean, when it comes down to it, no one else will decide how you raise your family. No one else will decide how you treat your spouse. No one else will decide how you choose to honor your beliefs and traditions.

If anyone is going to bring down the social fabric of society and destroy the tradition of morality, it will be the man or woman who refuses to take responsibility for their own personal decisions. You can't say, "Gay marriage made me divorce..." or "Gay marriage made me not want to get married..." or "Gay marriage made me not have children..." or "Gay marriage made me cheat on my wife..." or "Gay marriage made me run out on my kids...".

What this is a case of is the people trying to legislate morality. Period. The people seem to get upset when the government tries to do that, as long as it's not their moral standard they're infringing on, yet the people seem to like to determine who can do what in their personal lives when they disapprove of the way others live.

Anyone remember the parable about the log in the eye?

So... sodomy laws were struck down in the name of progress. Since marriage confers a right to sex, the definition of "marriage" should change to include homosexuals. OK. Sounds like marriage is all about sex? Nope - entspeak tells me that sex is not a "fundamental part" of marriage, but that it does confer a "right to sex" in some states. Ok. One less fundamental part - check.

- Sex is not a fundamental part of marriage, because there are sexless marriages (but a right to sex is conferred)
- "for the benefits" is not a fundamental part of marriage, because people marry for other reasons (but a right to benefits is conferred)
- Procreation is not a fundamental part of marriage, because there are childless marriages
- Religion is not a fundamental part of marriage, because the state sanctions it
- Heterosexuality is not a fundamental part of marriage for all these reasons

I guess my next question is "does marriage even exist?" Why is this ring on my finger? Or, does society even have the right to define marriage (and pass laws to reflect this)? The vast majority of Americans agree on what marriage is, we pass laws to reflect this, we even get married, but we are told that our "traditional" definition is bigoted and unconstitutional. The fact that we came together, formed a society, decided that families were important to society, legislated as such...all of this is some quaint notion and is completely obsolete in today's progressive world.

I don't see how to solve this except to eliminate marriage altogether. Every tenet of the marriage institution is minimized as "not fundamental" or "not legal" or "obsolete" and yet no carlito, we're not trying to destroy or even redefine marriage. It's all very confusing.


The government = The people, no?

Ah, this is what everyone I've debated with falls back on. "Then why does marriage exist at all?" Do you honestly believe that marriages without children serve no benefit to society? Marriages without sex or without religion serve no benefit to society? If encouraging individuals to establish stable familial relationships which allows for a stable environment in which children may be raised should the couple choose to do so has a benefit to society, then perhaps it is a good thing to keep marriage around. So there is no need to go to the extreme of eliminating marriage just because same-sex couples want to participate in it.



Who removed the fundamental aspect of these tenets? Who made them obsolete? Who, therefore, destroyed or redefined marriage? The state of these tenets is the state of marriage today... right now... and same-sex marriage is illegal -- so same-sex couples obviously had nothing to do with it? Why blame homosexual couples for redefining or destroying marriage when it was heterosexuals that did so? Do you believe that keeping same-sex couples from marrying will somehow make procreation a fundamental aspect of marriage again? It won't. Heterosexuals chose to minimize that fundamental aspect and I don't see them electing to return to a time where the government can tell them that they can't use contraception in marriage, that they can't have oral sex in the privacy of their own home, that they must do everything they can to allow for the possibility of procreation in their marital relationship.

That hasn't been the primary purpose of marriage for years. Heck, in 2003, 38% of all children born in the US were born out of wedlock. The only real purpose of marriage these days seems to be the tax benefits you get.



That's why 52% of all first marriages end in divorce, huh? Because all these people are staying together for the sake of the children?

These might have been valid 20-30 years ago, but today, children have little or nothing to do with getting married. That's just reality, as unfortunate as it is. That being the case, there is no logical or rational reason not to allow homosexuals to get the same tax benefits as heterosexuals. It doesn't change the focus, it simply recognizes that the focus changed long ago.

Before I put my two cents in, a slight correction:

That is a bogus, but highly repeated figure. The actual figure ranges from 30-40%. Nobody really knows, but it's not as bad as everyone assumes.

Anyhow, gay marriage will kill marriage. If it's allowed, simply get rid of it. It becomes irrelevant.

Many people who oppose gay marriage (like me) base it off of our need to procreate and in doing so, reap benefits to offset our efforts. Some do for religious reasons. But these are reasons that have nothing to do with being a homophobe.

Gay marriage will not only weaken marriage, it will destroy it. Because it won't stop there. At the end of the day, people will be marrying people and failing to recognize those unions will be discriminatory. So, the benefits of marriage will be so watered down, it will no longer be useful.

There is no hetero gene. But women and men have opposing genitalia designed to procreate. Men typically generate more testosterone while women typically generate estrogen. All of these natural combinations combine to help us procreate.

There is no gay gene. There is no gay test. Many gays become strictly hetero after time. Many are bisexual. Homosexual relationships are not uncommon in nature, but actual penetration is extremely rare. So, there is really nothing natural about gay sex other than some people (2-3% of the population) really wanting it. That's hardly a natural act when in our species, it's relatively rare (although, with 6 billion people, that's still a lot).

Lastly, there are public health issues. Statistically, there is no such thing as a monogamous gay male relationship (it can happen, but very, very rare). Only 2% of gay males will be in a relationship for longer than 5 years.

Gay women - on the other hand - tend to be more like traditional marriages without the health risks.

My point with the stats and details (trust me, these have been hashed out more than once on this site, so feel free to search for them), is that a very small minority want to impose their will on the overwhelming majority, when we can't even know who they are. There is no proof someone is gay. My proof of heterosexual behavior is my body design and my wife's design. There is no question. Furthermore, our kids and our species thriving is further proof.

When people begin marrying people, it will be for benefit. It's not as simple as bedside care and other legitimate limitations (which should be dealt with). But how about health insurance? What will people do to get free medical care in this day and age? With a pre-nuptial agreement, staged marriages for benefit would be a slam-dunk. Discount this as a slippery slope argument, but just remember: The people who got rid of smoking on airplanes said it would never go further than that. Many people who took welfare assistance turned it into a way of life.

If gay want to marry like heteros knowing they cannot reproduce, get rid of marriage. I have no problem with all if us being on a level playing field. But gay marriage is a special right for a miniscule group of people. They can marry now as much as straight people can. But they want additional protection to marry people of the same gender.

Ok, you can have your board back...

So, what about all of the "heteros" who, knowing that they can't reproduce, opt for marriage? We haven't gotten rid of marriage because of them, have we? What about people in their 60's who marry knowing that they don't want children... we haven't gotten rid of marriage because of them, have we? The whole "gay couples can't procreate so they shouldn't be allowed to marry" is pure discrimination.

This "irrelevancy of marriage" scenario that you talk about already exists. And yet, marriage still seems to be relevant to those people who do use it to procreate and raise children. How does that change if same-sex couples are allowed to marry?

You're not going to get much disagreement from me. At this point, I'm leaning towards abolishing marriage.

Obviously, heteros can marry and choose not to reproduce. However, they can change their mind at any time. Some can't reproduce. We can't force people to reproduce, but we can safely assume that statistically, they will. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

By the same token, gays can go back to hetero . Happens all the time. The point being, there will be always be exceptions because we can't force people to comply with whatever we deem the marriage contract to be.

At that point, people are just marrying people. I could marry my father to get his health insurance. There is no law saying we have to have a physical relationship or even live in the same state. If I want to do that when/if gay marriage becomes legal, it would be discriminatory to not allow me/us to do that. If I wanted to have six wives, it would be discriminatory to prevent me from doing so.

Could people marry for bad reasons now? Sure...although I know plenty of gay people (who are a very small portion of the population), I've never met a person in my life that married someone strictly for benefits. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen. but my bet, it is very rare.

Most reading this will discount my reasoning because of the slippery slope argument, but that is intellectual laziness. I already know people that have said they will try to get memberships to events cheaper as a gay married couple since the husbands don't want to do it. The abuse of these "rights" is a foregone conclusion.

I have no problem with gay marriage because I have no problem with abolishing marriage and everything it grants us. Level the playing field. Get rid of it if it has nothing to do with procreation.

First off, Carlitoswhey, the state has a different relationship with marriage than the people do. I don't see where the "right to have sex" even comes into play. Actually, I don't even see where you're going with this. All I see is a comical implication that marriage is being destroyed as we speak. I don't see that happening.



Yet, John Adams once said that, "We are a nation of laws, not men." To use law as a means to impose personal philosophies on others is wrong.



So it's not half, but almost half. Which completely moots the point about heterosexuals not respecting the tradition of marriage!

/sarcasm...



You're telling me that people being free to marry who they chose to will be discriminatory? Can you elabrate?

Watered down benefits? How will benefits be watered down if their [I]fairly applied to those who qualify?



There's also nothing really natural about monogamy. Human males are naturally not monogamous, so should we do away with anti-bigamy laws? Should marriage be done away with, period? After all, the species is at stake!



Assuming you mean the spread of AIDS, heterosexual conduct regarding drug use is as big an issue as when it's spread through intercourse. That, and there's an entire continent to the east that will show you it's not just a gay issue.



Askin for equal rights is imposing one's will? Geez, I guess the same goes for blacks and other minorities as well. As far as proof of being gay is concerned, I don't even know where that falls into play.


As for your slippery slope argument, if you think heterosexuals havent already gotten the ball rolling on the specifics you mentioned....



That's like a dictator saying that you have the right to read anything you want, when his paper is the only paper....

Not sure what your point is with the first question. My point was, it doesn't stop with gays. Gays are not a special group with a different set of rights. If women can marry men, women can marry women, and vice versa on all counts, it's just people marrying people. There are no qualifiers any longer.

Secondly, if everybody gets the same benefits, they are no longer benefits.

As far as male monogamy, maybe/probably. That's too broad a paintbrush. I have no problem being monogamous and I am put in situations weekly that attempt to strain that (lead guitar in a bar band with a house full of drunk women). So, my ancedotal evidence would seem to point otherwise.

But the marriage contract would seem to support the idea of helping force a man to remain monogamous for the purpose of benefitting children. Why do you think the guy gets his butt whipped in divorce court? It's purposely designed to make it as hard as possible for a man to up and leave his family. Your last point supports my argument that marriage is designed to help keep a family together for the benefit of the children.

I have too much road rash on all my time here at AD to have the same arguments regarding this subject. Mine is not a popular position, but one I believe that at the end of the day, better founded for the future of our children.

As far as your other arguments, we could go back and forth on that all day with contradicting evidence. So, to spare us all that misery, you win. You're right. I bow to your wisdom.

Not all discrimination is bad in the eyes of the law. Someone will always be getting the short end of the stick. The law does however weigh such discrimination against a valid State interest related to engaging in such discrimination. In the case of a right like marriage, there must be a valid State interest related to preventing a specific group from marrying and the prevention must be necessary in order to further that interest. If the government does not prevent non-reproductive couples -- whether they are by choice or otherwise -- from marrying, then it is obvious that it is unnecessary to prevent a group from marrying based on an interest in promoting procreation. This is the type of discrimination the constitution won't allow.

If you want to identify yourself and your father as homosexual (you'd still have to get by the fact that father/son marriages would still be illegal even if same-sex marriages were legal), then you'd certainly be able to do so. But the percentage of people willing to publicly identify themselves as homosexual in order to get benefits is likely to be just as low as heterosexual couples currently seeking to marry for insurance benefits. And if any of these people were found out, it may very well be considered marriage fraud. Likewise, you'd have to be able to convince the government that it has no valid State interest in preventing polygamy before you could claim that not being able to have six wives was unnecessary discrimination. But hey, you can follow the second route now even if same-sex marriage remains illegal. Or you can choose to marry your mother and try to convince the government that it has no valid State interest in preventing incest -- again, you can do this even if same-sex marriage remains illegal. That is why the slippery slope argument is a fallacy.

Except for gays, because they're special, right?

Your entire post made my point. You want special rights for a class of people who claim to be a minority, but can choose at any time not to be in a minority (unlike people of color/race). It is not uncommon for gays to become straight. It is not uncommon for gays to be bisexual. But men are always men and women are always women (unless you modify your body to change the appearance of your gender. That debate is off topic).

But my point is, why stop there? Why should they get special rights? My father/son point has nothing to do with incest. But if me and my dad share a special bond, why can't we enjoy the fruits of a civil union that gets me on his insurance so I can start a business? If marriage has nothing to do with sex/procreation/children, you would be discriminating. Yet in your post, you say that's ok. I just don't see how you can have a credible argument when you are willing to discriminate.

My point is, you can't. So, everyone should be able to marry anyone they want. In that case, get rid of marriage. It's no longer necessary.

Hey I know, let's see if gay people further that interest by procreating and bring more tax-paying americans into the fold. Could that possibly be a valid state reason? You've already stated that likely procreation is a state reason to confer "sex rights" on a couple, and that discrimination is OK. Why can't you get the rest of the way on this?


Wow, we'd have to publicly declare ourselves? "Are you now or have you ever been gay" - can you un-declare yourself gay or are you stuck with it once you get married? Do you have to wear a pink triangle on your clothes, or perhaps carry a fashionable European carry-all?

Why do you insist on bringing sex into the definition of marriage, but simultaneously dismissing that pro-creation has anything to do with it?

Right to sex, incest laws, insurance benefits, tax advantages, penalties for divorce - let me see, what do these things have in common... ... why, it's almost as if society has deemed a family with children to be a thing worthy of encouragement! Indeed a valid State interest! And this law discriminates against a class of people who are not biologically capable of participating in this activity. It's almost as if we've asked a third-grader what marriage is, and they've answered truthfully! Brilliant!


There's the incest again. I do not understand why you insist on married people having sex. As for the slippery slope, as DaytonRocker noted, it's not like well-meaning liberal legislators ever take a mile once you give them an inch. We've gone from "congress shall make no law" to "Disney shall make no movie" in a quick 50 years and you know it. We see the slippery slope in action every day, especially with the Left's sacred cows of "equal" rights for its activist base. Ever go to a "diversity" training course?

I was not the one saying that marriage gives one the "right to have sex" - that was my sparring partner, explaining why the repeal of sodomy laws allows gay marriage. (I of course approve of the repeal of sodomy laws. In a perfect world, they'd be repealed by gutsy modern state lawmakers and not by a judge, but hey)

The most forceful and telling point I have seen come out of this debate comes from Carlitoswhey. He hits the nail on the head when he asks:




When we deconstruct “marriage” to respond to all the arguments that support same sex marriage we are left with:



Surely this can’t be right. But indeed it is, if we allow marriage, the institution, to be defined by the exceptions to the rule.

How about we consider the question more reasonably and ask instead: Why does the state define marriage as it does in the first place? What does the state get in return for conferring special status on the union of a man and a woman? Did the state pick this configuration arbitrarily? Of course not.

What then is unique about the union of a man and a woman? Why would the state choose this particular union on which to confer special status?

Titus argues that the special status conferred on the union of a man and a woman is based on religion. If that were the case, then the state is in the marriage business for the purpose of making a moral judgment. I find it difficult to believe that our extensive and longstanding regulation of marriage has to do with the state simply seeking to make a moral judgment that homosexual conduct is wrong. If it is only a moral judgment--what does the state get out of this? Nothing, except a moral pronouncement. There has to be more.

Entspeak seems to be making the argument that there is nothing special about the union of a man and a woman and the state would sanction any kind of union as long as it is not illegal. So, as soon as the sodomy laws were struck down as unconstitutional, the state has no interest in prohibiting same sex marriage. This argument assumes that marriage is a package of benefits, available to anyone who would apply. Entspeak takes this view to the extreme and says that the State cannot deny anyone the “package of benefits” unless it has a legitimate interest in doing so. The argument only makes sense if you view marriage as just that: a package of benefits. But it is not any such thing. Marriage is not just benefits. First and foremost, it regulates the conduct of individuals.

So we have to ask the most important question:

Why does the state have an interest in regulating the union of a man and a woman?
The answer is simple: sexual relations between a man and a woman have the potential to produce children. The state has an interest in establishing “marriage” as the ideal setting in which to raise children that are potentially produced.

When we redefine marriage to include same sex couples, we reframe the meaning of marriage. It becomes primarily the state’s recognition of “love” between two individuals. It does not take a rocket scientist to see how this reframing affects the institution. If the purpose of marriage is simply to celebrate the “love” of two individuals, once that “love” diminishes or changes or disappears, why should the couple stay together, even if they have children. Marriage will be divorced from its longstanding role as the ideal setting in which to raise kids. Azure Citizen says this is just a matter of opinion. It is not. When we redefine the fundamental meaning of marriage so that it no longer includes the basic element of procreation we wind up with an entirely different kind of societal institution. One that no longer produces what it was intended to produce: the ideal structure for child rearing. Instead we get an institution that represents nothing more than government recognition of “love” between two people.

It is a matter of opinion as to whether or not redefining marriage to include same sex couples will reframe the meaning of marriage to primarily become the state's recognition of "love" between two individuals rather the ideal setting in which to raise kids. You believe it will; I believe it won't. You can't claim it's not a matter of opinion and that you are simply "right" about this, unless you deliberately want to be arrogant.

The argument that homosexual marriage will cause marriage to become an institution that represents nothing more than goverment recognition of "love" between two people is weak. People who want to raise children inside of marriage are still going to do so, even if a small number of homosexuals get married too (they are a small minority, comprising maybe 5-10% of the population). Marriage will not be "divorced" from its longstanding role as the ideal setting in which to raise kids.

Hayleyanne has the strongest argument (surprise!) so I'm going to get after it like a duck on a junebug:



This not true in any meaningful way, given that childless, non-reproductive hetero couples - who state outright their intention to not adopt - can get married, but same-sex couples who already have children cannot.

How does redefining marriage to include same-sex couples shift its primary focus to the extent that it "no longer produces...the ideal structure for child rearing"?

You're trying to wring too much out of the absolutist "redefines marriage" bogeyman. To wit:



This is an unsupported assertion, given that nonreproductive hetero couples are exactly as married as couples with kids. Broadening marriage to include same-sex couples might - might - increase the proportion of married folks w/o children, but why would it necessarily do so in the numbers necessary to shift the "primary focus" of marriage from childrearing?



OK now you have, through rhetorical slieght-of-hand, transformed "shifts the focus from childrearing to love" to "excludes childrearing altogether". Not only have you not supported the focus-shift argument, now you're suddenly arguing as if you have proven a much more extreme "complete exclusion" argument.



You've (mis)laid your rhetorical stepping-stones one after the other, and here is where you've ended up:



This is a scenario based on a chain of faulty reasoning. You seem to be suggesting that parents and family courts will use the legalization of same-sex marriage as an excuse to neglect children's needs. Is this the upshot of what you are arguing?

How, in reality, will allowing same-sex couples to marry erode marriage as the ideal structure for child rearing?

Also, (and this is addressed to others besides hayleyanne), arguing that same-sex marriage "redefines marriage" or is a "special right" or "is wrong because there's no State interest" - these are not enough, in themselves, to make a valid case against same-sex marriage. All of those arguments could have been made a hundred years ago to justify anti-miscegenation laws, and they are just as weak with respect to same-sex marriage. Invoking such terms in a debate does not magically obviate the need to make a reasoned argument.

This is exactly my point. Procreation can't be the valid State interest related to the exclusion of same-sex couples. If it were necessary to exclude people from marriage because they couldn't reproduce, the state would also have to exclude those couples that it knows can't reproduce -- heterosexual or otherwise. But it doesn't. So the State can't claim that procreation is the valid State interest related to excluding same-sex couples. If it does it is violating a fundamental right without a valid State interest related to doing so that is necessary in order to further that interest. That is unconstitutional.



Marriage records are a matter of public record. Any document that you fill out requiring you to identify your spouse would "out" you. So yes, marrying an individual of the same-sex would publicly identify you as a homosexual.



Whoa! I never, ever, ever stated that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. Geez, you're beginning to sound like Hayleyanne. Where did I state that? Please. Show me the post where I even intimated that procreation had nothing to do with marriage. I stated that procreation is no longer fundamental to marriage. It is no longer an essential component. It used to be. Marriage laws were all geared toward encouraging procreation in marriage and only in marriage... sodomy laws, fornication laws, adultery laws, bans on contraception... But we changed all that a long time ago. Procreation is, at this point, the most common method used by married couples in order to have kids. Others have kids by adopting, artificial insemination, etc...

A man and a woman can go to the County Clerk's office with their testes and ovaries in a jar filled with formaldehyde, and tell them, "We're never going to have kids... we can't have kids... but we're here to get our marriage license." Are they told, "I'm sorry but the State has a valid interest in procreation so we have to deny you a marriage license." No, they don't. Now this may be an extreme example, but similar things happen. For instance, some couples have to prove that they can't procreate before they are given a marriage license. So, tell me, how can procreation be the valid State interest related to the exclusion of same-sex couples?

Civil marriage is a collection of benefits and obligations... a contract in which two people agree to adhere to those obligations for which they receive certain benefits. It doesn't sound particularly romantic, but at it's heart that is what civil marriage is.

There is only one remaining obligation explicitly related to procreation in marriage. If you are the husband to a wife who has had a child while you are married to her, the child is assumed to be yours. But even this obligation is slowly disappearing. Soon, there will be no specific obligations related to procreation in marriage. But even this obligation applies only to those couples who choose to procreate rather than going with another alternative.

I mean, the obligations used to be huge regarding procreation. It was illegal to use contraceptives in sex, it was illegal to have sex before you were married (because procreation was only to occur in marriage), it was illegal to have sex outside of your marriage (it would be assumed that the offspring was the husbands), it was illegal to have any type of sex that would not allow for the possibility of procreation (sodomy laws). Marriage was all geared towards procreation... procreation was a fundamental part of marriage. That simply isn't the case anymore.

I will concede that marriage grants a right to sex with your spouse because of the possible procreation that results. I believe that even before no-fault divorce, you were able to get a divorce if your spouse refused to have sex with you. And procreation is still the method used by the majority of married couples to have children. But the state does not deny marriage to the minority of heterosexuals who choose or are unable to procreate. Therefore, the state can't discriminate against another minority group on those grounds.



See above.



Not exactly true. The state does have an interest in establishing marriage as the ideal setting in which to raise children. How those children come into the family, however, varies and the state does not obligate couples to choose to raise children.

You would deny same-sex couples the right to marry because you believe it further removes marriage from procreation, but heterosexuals have already further removed marriage from procreation. Same-sex couples can't further remove it by engaging in marriage unless, somehow, heterosexuals choose not to procreate simply because same-sex couples are allowed to marry. Heterosexual couples already have the choice not to procreate... some already make that choice. You are saying that more will make that choice because same-sex couples are allowed to marry? How is that going to happen?

I still have not seen one single reasonable argument why allowing same-sex couples to marry will harm the institution of marriage.

Unless, of course, the harmful thing will be that some heterosexual couples will no longer have legal reinforcement for their homophobia.

I can tell you only what I've read from one poster in this thread. Allowing same-sex couples to marry will mean that homosexual couples will be seen as being "on a par" with heterosexual couples and that is a bad thing. Hayleyanne stated that in another thread -- homosexual couples will be seen as equal to heterosexual couples. What does that sound like to you? I know what that sounds like to me. <edited to add: I'm not saying this homophobia, I am saying that it is an unjustifiable concern and prejudiced>

To be fair, here is the exact quote:



John and Jim just might raise a healthy child in a stable environment but because they are a gay couple, they aren't equal.

I don't think this is a valid reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Comments like this are counterproductive. It's not necessarily homophobia; it's just a reaction to seeing something that you thought was already nailed down changed in a way that seems very odd, disrespectful and possibly harmful.

I disagree. I don't know how you can possibly see denying an entire group of people the right to legal and civil protection for their committed, consensual relationships anything but an outrage. Allowing same-sex couples to marry doesn't hurt anyone.