What does this have to do with this debate?

If you are referring to my statement regarding the laws as part of the contract, I backed that up in that thread. Do you wish me to repost those quotes here?

To be debated:

1. In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Why do you say so?

To commit to another person. That really is the sum of it. Some people choose to expand that commitment, other do not. I think this world is big enough to accommodate both choices. I believe society is startin to understand that marriage is difficult and no so cut and dry. I do agree with the posters that say that marriage has more to do with rights between the adults that between adults and children. In fact, by having a child, both parents have legal rights to the child, whether they are married or not. What the unmarried couple does not have, however, is legal dominion over their partner's property and medical issues if something were to happen. It is clear who benefits from marriage, legally.

Those that suggest that marriage is about children, I have to say that you are working on an assumption that all marriages are stable and that there can be no stability without marriage. I think that premise falls flat. Having two miserable people live in the same house creates instability and I am not sure that is very healthy. Now, on the other hand, happy marriages provide enormous benefits. The same can be said about people that make a commitment, but choose not to marry. Those children will receive the same benefits as the happily maried couple would provide. Not as cut and dry as marriage=good, no marriage=bad. Now, where we get into a difference is with assests. The marital commitment is a contract between two adults, plain and simple. Children have their own set of contracts with each individual parent. It becomes clear what marriage is about.

I also want to add that not all people are good parents, nor do all couples need to procreate. One great thing about society is the fact it has diversity. Nature thrives on diversity and it should be embraced. There are couples that have children they can not care for and put them up for adoption, well, great for society as there are couples that cannot have children and can provide a stable environment. There are some couples that choose not to have children, because they may want to devote their life to making the world a better place. They have the time and energy to put into those things and lucky for us, we get to reep the benefits (Oprah's school in Africa as an example). It al works together and there is no better or worse decision when one is choosing the course of action that they want. We are in America, after all. We get to choose! We should celebrate that.

2. What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?
I think it goes to show that there is inequality. Everyone seems to get to decide what is right for them except gays. That is simply unamerican on its face. As I have described early, a marriage is a contract between two consenting adults that have benefits for each partner. How is it fair to deny gay americans the right to enter into a legal contract due to their sexual orientation? Strictly speaking legally here, it is a civil rights issue and it is discriminatory. As we can see, many people have different views on what marriage is, the same right should be extended to gay americans. And legally, there simply is no argument to deny a gay couple from entering into a legal contract with each other.
[/quote]

It was an interesting point made by Amlord that he can pass on his worldly goods to his kitty upon his demise (should he choose to). Kitty might end up with the inheritance should there not be human beings contending for the money and should the judge decide in the kitty's favor; however, the kitty will have nothing to say about it other than "meow" and no recourse should the court decide against her.

The facetiousness having been addressed, let's go back to the idea that should one member of a homosexual couple meet his demise, there are often family members bound and determined to deny his partner the inheritance. I would go so far as to say there are probably judges who would rather award an inheritance to the pet of an eccentric deceased person than to a same-sex, human surviving partner. It might not matter to such a judge that the surviving family members may not have even spoken with the deceased for decades because they disapproved of his sexual orientation, but all of a sudden "blood is thicker than water" and the person who was there as a lover, companion and friend is out of luck. That is not fair.

I know that in the Catholic marriage ceremony the priest asks the couple about "welcoming children" into their lives. Perhaps there are similar vows in Protestant and Jewish wedding ceremonies. But it seems to me that the old Book of Common Prayer has the minister asking if each person will love the other "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, and until death do you part". It doesn't mention in parenthood or in childlessness; perhaps it should.

Marriage is meant to provide a stable, loving environment for raising children, and in our previously agrarian society, children were needed to carry on the family name and the family business, and to take care of their elders. A lot of things have changed, and societal values reflect this.

And one more point: Yes, in the Catholic church (I'm not sure about the others) a mutual decision to be celibate as a married couple is acceptable, but it has to be mutual.

I would suggest that it is enough to marry a person because you love each other to the degree that you don't want to spend your lives without each other, with or without children. If the love is pure enough that you want to see this person happy and healthy and you are willing to work toward that person's well-being, that probably doesn't fall under the heading of selfishness.

My mother used to say that couples who intentionally remained childless were selfish. I think that couples who do not want children probably shouldn't have children. They might have been raised in an inhospitable family environment and have doubts about their suitability as parents. God knows there are enough children in this world who weren't wanted and who pay the price every time Mom or Dad are unhappy. There are people who have children because their position in society depends on it...perhaps their children are neglected but not physically abused. My point is that wanting children can be selfish as well, and a broad blanket statement that couples who do not want and do not have children are selfish cannot be accurate.

In the absence of "pure" motives or "socially acceptable" motives, there should at least be agreement between the parties what their intentions are and what the marriage represents. The fact is that there are always going to be people who agree with these motives and those who find them incomplete or unacceptable. A stable marriage benefits society, whether it produces children or it does not. Although I have had three children, I do not base my existence only on the fact that I had children and that Curmudgeon and I are raising our last teenager. But I will also say that this teenager, although she is a challenge, has made my life so much more fulfilling than it was before she entered my life.

I guess my point is, "Judge not..."

(Edited)

As far as I’m concerned, these people have all made far greater contributions to this world than by merely siring/birthing a child:

Louis Armstrong
Eubie Blake
Rene Descartes
Eugenio Montale
Margaret Mitchell
Francis Bacon
Florence Nightingale
Sir Isaac Newton
Friedrich Nietzsche
Copernicus
Julia Child
Bob Barker
Samual Beckett
Beethoven
William Blake
Pierre Bonnard
Rene Magritte
Leonardo da Vinci
Georgia o’Keefe
Vincent van Gogh
Mary Cassatt
Maria Callas
Katharine Hepburn

(all of whom are child-free)

And think about the reasons people have/don't have kids. Who are really the selfish ones? Personally, I think most people's reasons for having children are selfish. It's selfish to have a child when you aren't financially or emotionally able to care for it. It's selfish to make the rest of the world feel sorry/admire/assist you just because you have a child/ren. It's selfish to want a "little you". It's selfish to want to "carry on the family name". Don't get me wrong; I am not condemning people who have kids, but admit it, it's a selfish thing, too.

I think, and he will correct me if I'm wrong, that Amlord is referring to the benefits of the couple, as a couple, to society and not the benefits of the individual (who may be married or not - Descartes never married) to society.

The benefits of the union to society, I think, is what is being debated.

Yes, you are correct.

If marriage is a valid institution from a societal standpoint, then society must gain some benefit from recognizing such unions. I've presented the evidence of why society benefits from the nuclear family.

Society gains little measurable benefit from two adults getting married simply because they love each other. It gains little from tranferring wealth from one adult to another upon the death of the first. It gains nothing from allowing one adult to visit another in the hospital. It may gain something by forcing companies to offer insurance to a second non-employee adult (although I don't think this is required by law). This is not to say that individuals do not gain benefits.

What measurable benefit does society gain from couples that don't have children? When we answer that, we can get closer to answering the question of what the purpose of marriage is.

Certainly, there are benefits from a couple becoming a union. There is no question of that, however, not all unions will be beneficial and not all unions are marriage. Seems to me the major benefit of marriage in society is that there are laws protecting property and health decisions. It is a legal contract between two adults. The sociological aspect of marriage and the benefits thereof do not require marriage per se. An unmarried stable couple that remains together for life will have the same sociological aspect and impact. However, where marriage matters is in the legal protections each individual benefit from therby avoiding costly court battles wherein the court has to make any and all decison regarding the couple's affairs. Divorce laws etc., clearly define splits in property depending on that state, thereby lessening society's expense as a whole. If we are to examine these benefits, then there is no question that gay marriages would actually IMPROVE society and lessen its burden.

No thanks... however....

If sex has always been a part of marriage, to include now, what is the importance of sex in marriage?? As you ask, "to what end?"

This question deals with the purpose of marriage.

If that is the case, why does the state have an interest in that union and more importantly, why have any restrictions?

Why only two people? Why only gays? Why not any group of consenting adults without limitation?

The state has an interest to keep legal issues off the table. For example, if a person needs medical care, the spouse can speak for the person instead of having to petition the court. As far as restrictions, that has usually been due to mores, most notably incestuous relationships. We know that incestuous relationships can harm a person, so it makes sense to not allow that. However, people that choose to marry some relatives are allowed to do so. It was once believed that cousins marrying could produce sick children. We now know that is not true, so states are allowing marriage between cousins.

You can marry more than one person, just not at the same time. People used to be allowed to marry more than one person at a time. Currently, the contract is between two people, and there is a logical reason for this. If a person is on life support, married to two other people, one wants to take him off life support, the other does not, then what? The courts would have to decide. It would take a complete restructuring of our laws to allow for that. It certainly could be done, but it would be a pain. Gay marriage does not at all add those kinds of complications. Also, not allowing multiple marriages apply to all people. No one can enter the marriage contract with two other people. It is not discriminatory. Everyone has to choose one adult person that wish to marry. Gays, on the other hand, are not allowed to marry an adult person they choose. There simply is no reason to deny gays their right to make a legal contract with another adult person. That is discriminatory.

If marriage is about commitment, sex is as arbitrary activity as walks in the park. It really has nothing to do with marriage. Secondly, same sex marriages make your point moot. Why is a sibling arrangement always hetero when discussing same sex marriages? How can there be genetic problems in a sibling same sex arramgement?

As far as legal rights, you seem to be saying that giving gays additional rights should be done because it's easier. I find that very discriminatory.

To be consistent, people should be allowed to marry people - without restriction - if gays are allowed to marry.

Hmmm, I am not following. Where in our marriage laws does it mandate sex? Gay marriage is about being able to enter into a legal contract, it doesn't have anythng to do with sex, and neither does hetero marriage. Just because a couple does not have sex does not negate their marriage, nor should it be a stipulation for it- which it is not.

What "extra" rights? What rights will they have that you will not?

<removed to likely respond to this in a PM>


I'm tired of repeating my response to this. You're placing the utility of marriage in a vacuum and as I've stated several times that premise is invalid. Benefit of the marriage itself is only one part of the equation.


I'm not arguing universally that teachers(or doctors) without children provide superior service to those with children. But its likely that they have more time to give to that profession or other activities that could provide equal or possibly even greater societal benefit than a couple that chooses to raise children. All I have to do in this argument is prove your generalization false (that MWC is universally better for society than the alternatives).


How many times do I have to tell you that I'm not saying that raising children is unnecessary? I'm just saying its not the only game in town from a societal value perspective.


Statistics & research methods evade your curriculum? To summarize, any of the societal partnerships we've discussed can maximize their potential in terms of both fulfillment and societal benefit. Marriage with children is not mutually exclusive in their ability to achieve those ends. Any of those partnerships (including yours) can both fail at fulfilling their potential and succeed at maximizing it. Your premise places a singular emphasis on marriage in a societal benefit equation that has multiple variables, the existence of children being only one of them.


I think perhaps where this debate has gone astray is the concept of societal benefit. In the narrow equation of child rearing, I've conceded that the predominant (but not exclusively) optimal relationship for raising quality kids is with both of their biological parents. My point all along is that in the societal benefit equation, the result of the children is only one measurement of value. In some instances a greater good has been achieved by people (and couples) who choose not to raise children. DaffyGrl provided just a few notable names. Marriage (and partnership) still provides societal value outside of your narrow construct. Some of the great folks on alone prove this.


This is a straw man, and a poor one at that. You have yet to prove any of this. The only thing your research has proven to support your viewpoint is that married couples with their biological children are the most effective at raising children(which I have conceded). Your own articles say that couples without children report higher fulfillment and income (which you assume means they are selfish). I have posited all along that, while selfishness can be a reason for this fulfillment, my own personal experience and some of others in this forum prove that it is not the only reason.

On the societal benefit equation (now that I've dismissed the selfish bit, again), as I've mentioned previously your construct for societal benefit is entirely too narrow. A couple that chooses not to raise children but focuses instead on a number of activities to benefit society (there's a buffet of examples to pick from here) both benefits society and gains within the marriage construct as a source of support. Alone that societal gain may not be possible (a single teacher is a good, albeit not perfect example) or is the gain as maximized as they would be as a couple. If you want a simpler answer, two people married without children can likely donate far more of their time (and money) to charitable activities. Is the societal benefit greater? That may be in the eyes of the beholder, but I would argue that it is certainly not less worthy (as you have argued) to society than raising children. I believe both have tremendous potential value, to each other and society. That, from what I can tell, is where you and I differ.

You do realize that saying "sex has always been a part of marriage" and "sex is a requirement in marriage" are two different things, right? I ask only because you've displayed extreme ignorance when it comes to such things.

Marya,



But we are only discussing unions that are marriage and how these unions are a benefit to society.



This is a benefit in marriage for the people involved, but I don't think this is a benefit that a married union provides to society.

Here are some of the aspects of marriage that provide a benefit to society:

Taken from Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's testimony before the US Senate in 2004 and from National Marriage Project's State of Our Union 2006 report.

• Marriage is a childrearing institution
• Marriage produces wealth.
• Marriage is a "seedbed" of prosocial behavior.
• Marriage generates social capital

In my opinion, the first item on the list is the most important - and I say that with all due respect to those who choose not to have children. The fact that the first item is probably the most important doesn't mean that the other benefits to society are insignificant.

DaytonRocker,

I'm trying not to turn this into another gay marriage debate. Please don't spout the same nonsense that has been refuted in other threads. Polygamy requires restructure of marriage to accomodate it. Incest is not illegal solely because of biological issues, but also with regards to issues of family structure (in particular abuses of power within that structure), but this is irrelevant. Incest is illegal and so long as it remains illegal, incestuous marriage will be illegal.

We have the right to choose who we marry subject to necessary government restriction. But there is a guideline... the restriction must be related to a valid State interest and the restriction must be necessary in order to fulfill that interest. So, no... you do not have to allow polygamy or incestuous marriage if you allow same-sex marriage. That's ridiculous. To say so ignores the manner in which rights are protected in this country.

Refuted? By who? You?

My point is that you find methods to exclude other groups of consenting adults from the same priviledges you want to afford gays. Your reasons are purely subjective and discriminatory.

You haven't refuted squat. You just don't like the argument and are more comfortable discriminating for reasons that make you feel better. If the purpose of marriage is companionship, then sex is no more a factor in the marriage than washing dishes. Without the requirement of sex, nobody should be denied the same rights. There should be no restrictions on marriage whatsoever.

I'm being consistent and you don't like it. Fair enough. But haven't refuted a thing. You're only justifying your own prejudices against other groups of consenting adults because it's too much trouble to deal with. Get off your high horse - you've not made a persuasive argument regarding this subject no matter how many words you type. You are attempting to justify an arbitrary right at the expense of others.

My point is perfectly relevant to this topic. If marriage is not about procreation, than it has nothing to do with sex. Without the requirement of sex, there should be no restrictions - NONE.

Refute my butt....geez....

I love this line of logic....



No,

A gay man can marry any woman who will have him, it is exactly the same logic you use to descriminate against plural marriage that is being used against gay marriage, please show me how these ideas are inconsistant.

Why is it that placing a limit of one is OK, but placing a limit on sexual orientation is not ok ?


If marriage is a civil right , because they are consenting adults ... how are plural marriages not a civil right
and as a civil right, how can we not alter our system to allow for all indiviuals to enjoy these same civil rights?

thread of thought goes like this ...

1) Consenting adults should be allowed to engage is a socially beneficial contract
2)not allowing gays to engage in same is discriminatory based on sexual preference. ( they are consenting adults and love each other .... )
3) plural marriages should not be allowed even though they are consenting adults and love each other....


if marriage is a civil right no overhead in the court should stop it ...

if the burden on the court is the cornerstone on which we decide what rights are and are not granted you can overturn all of them with simple arguements that securing freedom is too cumbersome.

O.K. for a third time... let's see if we'll get another dodge.

If sex has always been a part of marriage, to include now, what is the importance of sex in marriage?? As you ask, "to what end?"

Maybe your next post you can just pretend that I don't exist.

I've illustrated that the government can constitutionally discriminate against these other groups while allowing same-sex couples to marry. You've taken the simplistic approach of lumping together everyone who is not a non-related heterosexual couple and claiming that if any single group that is not a non-related heterosexual couple can marry, the rest of the people who aren't non-related heterosexual couples must be allowed to marry. This completely ignores issues specific to these other groups.

Newsflash, the government can constitutionally discriminate when it comes to marriage... if the State can illustrate that a restriction is related to a valid State interest and that the restriction is necessary in order to fulfill that interest. I've illustrated that restrictions on polygamy and interest can pass this test.


You're right... in fact I haven't even mentioned squat... or squatting for that matter.



But is sex a requirement? Droop keeps claiming that I say there is - of course, I didn't, but that doesn't stop him from claiming I did. Yes, there is an expectation... a presumption by the government that sex will occur... but I don't think you'll see a requirement... at least not in marriage as it exists today.

But, just because sex isn't a requirement doesn't mean that there should be no restrictions. To tie all restrictions to sex would be ridiculous. That would imply that marriage was all about sex. Are you claiming that the purpose of marriage is sex?


The only consistency you've shown is a consistent ignorance of the way rights are protected in this country and a consistent tendency to repeat the same argument without dealing with the refutations of that argument. And, let me add, yes, I don't like it.


Not true at all. I have, in fact, stated quite clearly that should the issues specific to these groups be rectified, I believe that they should be allowed to marry. If incest is legalized, I believe that the right for a brother and a brother, a sister and a sister, a father and a daughter to marry should be protected. If marriage is reconstructed in such a way that polygamy can be accommodated, then, I believe that their right to choose who they marry should be protected.

As it stands, however, the government can constitutionally restrict the choice regarding number and regarding blood relations.

I believe that we all have the right to marry the person of our choice, subject to appropriate and necessary government restriction.



Nope, you are attempting to justify an arbitrary restriction by mixing it in with others that aren't so arbitrary.



Oh, you exist... don't you worry about that, pooky. I think, therefore I am need not apply in every case.

Neither of my previous posts was a dodge. I failed to see the relevance. And you made statements that made it seem like you were equating "sex has always been a part of marriage" with "sex is a requirement in marriage." I was just asking for clarifications.

So, I will assume you have a point related to this topic and that you recognize that nothing that I say below constitutes an acknowledgment that sex is a requirement in marriage.

Well, let's see... the importance of sex in marriage... well... it tends (if unprotected and quite possibly even if one pulls out early - despite what some might say) to lead to procreation the primary way children are created and one of the ways that children are introduced into a marriage... that's pretty important, I'd say.

And, it tends to increase the bond between two people. How did Lyle Lovett put it in The Opposite of Sex? A biological highlighter.



Well, no right is completely inviolable, for starters. And the State may constitutionally restrict or infringe upon a right in one manner while not being able to do so in another manner. So while plural marriages may be a civil right, that right is not protected because plural marriages do not fit into the institution of marriage as it exists today.

Yes, the system altered. But the courts can't order the government to reconstruct marriage in order to accommodate a different form of marriage. It can happen through the legislature, sure... but the courts can't do it. The courts can invalidate incest laws... and should this happen, incestuous marriage should be allowed.

This is how this particular case differs from same-sex marriage. There is no need to reconstruct marriage in order to accommodate same-sex couples. Simply lift the ban and hand out the marriage licenses. Same-sex couples can then marry and abide by the same terms that heterosexual couples abide by and they might (or might not) raise children.

So, now... can we get back to the topic at hand and stop debating same-sex marriage? The second question asked how the same-sex marriage debate would be affected by this revelation regarding children in marriage... it didn't ask us to debate the issue here.

Why should an opinion poll or several opinion polls matter? hence the debate shouuld not be altered at all... just because some today believe that marriage is about "personal commitment" or "love" or having someone to help you clear the dishes at night.... does not mean that it is about that thing... sure they are a part of the overall ... but in the end The state is the one that gets the greatest benefit from stable marriages,

they get the two things they need more desperately than anything else... new citizens and a continuation of their languaage, culture, and history.

You continue to obfuscate the argument by using "incest" and other yucky terms. But with same sex marriages, creating children is not an expectation. If creating children is not an expection, then neither is sex. You are injecting sex into an argument that doesn't belong. Incest is not a factor since sex is not expected. In marriages today, sex is an expectation because children are. So, limitations should apply for obvious reasons.

So, quit putting sex into the equation because in same sex marriages, it is irrelevant. it's simply an arbitrary activity between any group of people. YOU are the one injecting this type of red-herring into the debate and it's critical to the topic of this discussion.

Same sex marriages are not expected to produce children. So, the act of sex is not expected (only assumed). Without this expectation, there should be no restrictions.

Incest is the term, though, DaytonRocker. That's the term used. How else would you like me to describe incest?



Sex is expected. The question is not whether the State has an interest in procreation, the question is whether it has that interest to the extent that it is necessary to exclude other non-procreative relationships. Obviously, it isn't and therefore such a restriction is unnecessary. You also seem to forget that incest is not a taboo solely because of problems that could result due to procreation between closely related individuals.



Only if it is necessary to have those limitations. If the government goes out of its way to allow non-procreative heterosexual couples marry, then it obviously isn't necessary. So, restrictions based solely on the ability to procreate are unnecessary. This doesn't mean that the State still doesn't expect married couples to have sex.



Sex is still part of the equation and always has been.



Because marriage involves more than same-sex couples, sex is still expected. That's like saying assumed paternity means nothing if same-sex couples are allowed to marry. Not true. Assumed paternity will still apply to heterosexual couples that choose to procreate in their marriage.



And now, you are lumping in polygamy with incestuous and same-sex marriages when the bans on polygamy have nothing to do with sex. You are saying that polygamy should be allowed if sex is not in the equation. What does sex have to do with bans on polygamy?

It seems this is thread is going to become another gay marriage free-for all.



Are you claiming that the United States is in desperate need of new citizens? We have some downward trend in population that I was unaware of? Or are you just being lofty? Allowing same-sex couples to marry has no effect on the population. Heterosexuals will still procreate. It is absurd to claim that heterosexuals will stop procreating if homosexuals are allowed to marry the person of their choice.

The same-sex marriage debate is about whether or not the state can restrict the choice of who we marry based on the ability to procreate. If the government allows heterosexual non-procreative couples (that the State knows can't or are unlikely to procreate) to marry, it is obviously not necessary to restrict the choice of who we marry based on the ability to procreate.

However, to bring this back to the topic at hand... I don't believe that sex is the most important purpose of marriage.

Ahhh, yes. So, the state recognizes that adult men and women are capable of entering into a legal contract, thereby allowing OPPOSITE sexes to enter a contract, however, denying SAME sex adults from entering the exact same contract. It is discriminatory. It is a civil rights issue and there is simply no reasonable legal argument to ban it. You must remember as well, Romer v Evans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans The Supreme Court has recognized the civil rights of gays.


Simply put, the Supreme Court has recognized gays as a protected class and disallows discrimination.


Because our system does not recognize plural marriages. No one can marry more than one person. However, some people CAN marry another adult person, and some cannot. It is quite simple really. Heteros can marry their adult lover and enjoy the benefits of, gays cannot. It is discrimination.

Right. Our laws do not allow for anyone to engage in plural marriages. Our laws do allow for two adults to marry, just not an entire, protected group. That is discrimination on its face.


They shouldn't. But now, remember, we had this same problem during segregation of schools. The courts will eventually rule in favor of gay marriage. You can mark my word on that.


It is not the "cornerstone" just an example of how marrital rights helps move society along easier than without them. An example, if you will. I have yet to hear a strong legal argument to deny a protected class of people the right to marry. It simply doesn't hold water.


The majority of people in our society marry. The individual rights each experience most definately benefits the society as a whole. What is a society without its people? That is not to say there are not other benefits. The primary function of marriage is a legal one. People that live together forever still provide society with the same benefits. Let's explore:

But there is a difference between society - as an entity - and the individual. We are talking about the benefit to society... not the collective benefit to individuals.



The difference is in the benefit of a marital union to the children that are a product of that union (either through procreation or adoption) - which has a profound impact on society. Studies show that children raised in the married environment fare better than those that don't. Now, this isn't always the case, but by and large, that is true.



Married couples, as a rule, fare better in this regard than unmarried couples. Again, not always, but by and large this is true.



How so?



Nothing is always so.

My point is this: married couples who do not raise children still provide significant benefit to society.

The most important purpose of marriage can be raising children and those married couples that don't raise children still provide significant benefit to society.

The government used to express, through its laws, much more of an interest in reserving childrearing for marriage because of the environment that it provided and because of the legal benefits regarding inheritance, property, etc... But, because people wanted more privacy and less government involvement in married life, the government no longer pursues this interest to the extent that it used to. The problem is that many people who would impose the "traditional marriage" on society through government intervention do not want to have their right to privacy removed as well. Unfortunately, one can't have one's cake and eat it, too.

I strongly disagree with this assertion. I have never met a single person who even considered the benefits to society when making the decision about whether or not to wed someone. It is EXCLUSIVELY an individual decision...society doesn't even enter into the picture. Therefore, when discussing the purpose or benefits of marriage, it ONLY makes sense to do so from the perspective of the individuals involved, as that is the level the decision is made at.



ignores one of the viable alternatives, and this omission renders your conclusions incorrect. The other alternative is biological parents living together without being married. This is, in fact, a growing alternative, and has reached majority status is some Scandanavian countries.



Case in point...note that this says nothing about these biological parents actually being married, indicating that is their being biological parents and living together, and not their being married, that connotes any benefit to the children. This applies to all of the quotes you cite.

1. In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Why do you say so?

In the United States in 2007, I'm not sure marriage has an important purpose anymore. Divorce laws and the corresponding divorce rate render any assertion of commitment relatively meaningless, or at least frought with uncertainly (uncertain commitment?). There are really no benefits marriage provides that aren't similarly achieved with a long-term committed relationship, a fact which is driving the rise of such relationships in many countries.

2. What effect, if any, does this have on the debate over same-sex marriage?

They should be subject to marriage, just like the rest of us! If anything, I suspect that they would have a far higher rate of success than heterosexuals in this country have demonstrated, although that is indeed a low hurdle to clear.

But does the State consider the benefit to society when regulating marriage? I agree that most people do not consider the benefits that there marriage will have on society, but... then again... I doubt they consider all the ramifications of their decision either. The decision to wed may be the individuals, but the State has some involvement and, I believe, that in the eyes of the State marriage has a benefit to society.

Yes, absolutely...in fact the state probably solely considers benefits to the state. However, consider the debate question: In the United States in 2007, what is the most important purpose of marriage? Are we then going to state that the most important purpose of marriage is its benefit to the state? If that is indeed the case, doesn't than then lead to the conclusion that marriage has little important purpose for individuals? This would then lead to a decline in marriage, for as I indicated and you agreed, the individuals involved in making the decision have little concern for the benefits of the state, and if those are indeed the most important benefits, then the decision would be to not get married at all for doing so would provide little individual benefit. Which is indeed what is happening in many countries now.

I would further declare that if indeed the state has determined that marriage is beneficial to it, shouldn't the state be attempting a massive overhaul of the divorce laws we currently have in this country, which contribute mightily to the high divorce rate we have? How does making divorce so easy match up with the state promoting marriage? Shouldn't the opposite be happening, with divorce being made quite difficult to get? This demonstrates that while we may argue that 'the state' benefits from promoting marriage, it is also quite clear that they strongly favor the individual in such cases....which brings me back to my original contention that, in the long term, it is only benefits to the individuals involved that really have any bearing.

I would further add that the state doesn't promote marriage for marriage's sake, or for marriage's benefit to society, but rather for the political difficulties that politicians would face in adopting any stance perceived as anti-marriage. Politics drives everything the state does, actual benefits are only secondary to its actions. Every study ever done could show the benefits to society of marriage, but if those in the state perceived that having a pro-marriage stance would cost them votes, pro-marriage legislation would never see the light of day. This is the essence of the gay marriage debate currently. We as individuals may have strongly held beliefs over the impact of gay marriage on society, but politicians adopt whichever stance they hold for political reasons: some feel being against it will give them votes, others feel being for it will give them votes. The actual pros/cons of the issue are irrelevant to that determination.

But back to my original contention that individual benefits must be the primary ones considered in the discussion. In today's society, what are those benefits? What do married couples get that unmarried couples do not? I contend that there is little legal/social/monetary (tangible) benefit. I would further contend that there are many tangible liabilities involved in getting married due to today's divorce laws, and the corresponding high rate of divorce, and that, in balance, this leads many individuals to reconsider getting married. Again, this is exactly what is happening in many countries already, and is likely to become more common here in the United States unless things change significantly--societal benefits completely notwithstanding. If indeed marriage benefits society, then the state through its divorce laws is pretty much doing whatever it can to discontinue the practice.

Well, perhaps Victoria Silverwolf could clarify the question, but it clearly doesn't say, "What is the most important reason to get married?" Which, to me, would refer to individual benefit. Or "What is the most important aspect of marriage?" Which might also refer to individual benefit. But, if we are discussing civil marriage which is a civil construct... a legal construct... created by the State, then it's purpose would be determined by the State's interest - either in political or societal benefit... laws tend to exist to serve one of these two ends.



I agree. There is a lot of hypocrisy regarding civil marriage. People will pass constitutional amendments to protect "traditional marriage" but won't do much at all to keep those unions together. This doesn't mean that the purpose of marriage is based on individual benefit. A purpose relates to an aim or goal of the institution, not the benefit received while achieving that aim or goal. Now, individuals may feel that there marriage has any number of purposes for them as individuals, but, being a legal construct, civil marriage has a purpose beyond those individual goals that can only be discovered by examining the nature of the contract. Being that the contract is legal and laws exist to benefit society, the purpose of civil marriage relates to its benefit to society. If, however, we are simply talking about ceremonial marriage, then it could have any purpose that the individuals agree to... or that are established by the religion/belief system (or lack thereof) on which the ceremony is based.



But this has more to do with society's unwillingness to accept the changes it has already made to the regulation of the institution - and the ramifications of those changes. It has little to do with the purpose of marriage.



And I would argue that the benefits and obligations may help define a purpose, but those benefits and obligations are not the purpose in and of themselves.

Entspeak,

These are well formulated responses here, and I would tend to agree with much of what you are saying. However, I think one of the points I was making is being missed here:



Yes, but as I stated previously if indeed we view the purpose of marriage as serving the state's benefit at the expense of the benefit to the individuals, then I will state that marriage will cease to exist. Individuals only get married by their own decision (ie, the state doesn't force anyone to get married), therefore any benefits the state might get will only come about if individuals decide it is their interest to engage in marriage. Which brings us back to the purpose for individuals outweighing any purpose for the state.



Again, see above. The purpose of marriage clearly has to be based on individual benefit. Keep in mind that laws are the codification of values/morals/practices of society. Therefore, marriage laws follow societal/individual behaviour/desires, not the other way around. Any purpose or benefit to the state is therefore coincidental



Same argument as above. Do you have any evidence that the state has passed the laws it has regarding marriage for any grand purpose? If so, please provide it. Note that links indicating benefits does not meet this request. I would need to see evidence that such benefits were indeed the reason such laws were passed.

Gay relationships can harm a person, so it makes sense to not allow that. So, for what little its worth, can straight (i.e. normal) relationships, so according to your logic, we shouldn't allow them either.

No they wouldn't. Simply make it a point of law that, barring something in writing from the medical victim, the first of mulitiple spouses has the final say. Not problematic at all. Furthermore, what does the difficulty of implementing changes in the law matter when we're talking about what you appear to believe are fundamental rights? Rights are rights! So what if enforcing them ends up costing everybody else more. Of course, as I believe that a fundamental difference between a right and a privilege is that it costs you nothing when I exercise my right, wherease when I exercise a privilege it will cost you something, I find your justification based on cost refreshing. Counterproductive in support of your overall argument, but useful fo me.

Nobody has to choose to marry.

They aren't being denied their right to make a legal contract with another adult, they are being denied the privilege of making a specific contract that has implications for third parties. If you want to use a contract model, then you're SOL because you've already justified denying the polygamists the right to contract with whoever they want, and incestuous folks the right. You're foundering because there's nothing that prevents multiple people from generally contracting with one another (i.e., a corporation) and siblings can form contractural relationships at will, except for this one specific type, marital. So, know that the arguments you make for allowing SSM while disallowing polygamy and incestuous marriage are discriminatory.

Not quite. You may think you have a great point by flip flopping all around, but the fact is, you can't give me a legal justification for denying gays the right to marry. Remember that the Supreme Court has recognized gays as a protected class. If the heterosexual group can make a contract among each other, there is no reason to deny another group, gays, to be allowed to enter into the same contract with each other. You can't give me a legal reason gays should be denied entering into the exact same marriage contract hetero have.


WE are the state. As long as individual rights arenot ignored, what we want collectively is what happens in a democracy. We also have the bill of rights which protects individual freedoms. Frankly put, our laws and constitution protects everyone from the state intruding on individual rights and freedoms. Individul rights is the American trumpcard.

For this reason that there are 300 million people in this country, each with his own, unique set of values and purposes, the question of what is "the" purpose of marriage is entirely vacuous. And I am rather surprised that so many people here who consider themselves conservatives and libertarians fail to perceive that is it pointless to argue as if there were only one answer to that question. You might as well debate, which is better, a Ford Explorer or a Chevy Blazer? If liberty is of any value, it is that since each person has his own purposes, human welfare is maximized when each is allowed do as he wishes. Someone may choose an Explorer or a Blazer as he wishes; someone may choose a homosexual relationship or a heterosexual one, as he wishes. In either case, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is satisfied.

Society experiences scarcely any cost in permitting homosexuals to live in formal spousal relationships and to enjoy the customary tax, inheritance, insurance and other benefits of doing so, whatever any given couple's purposes in that may be. The burden of proof should therefore be upon those who would restrict homosexual marriages to show that there is some social cost to these unions, sufficient to warrant their prohibition. It can hardly be enough to say that there is some supposedly universal purpose of marriage that can't be satisfied by homosexuals. Why, in a free society, would anyone's supposed purposes for doing X be adopted as universal, and then made a basis for probiting X from persons who would do it for other purposes?

Finally I am surprised that there is so much concern here over the birth rate. It is not as if there is a shortage of births in the United States, or that the nation would not be just as happy with a few less people in it. In any case, it is not as though homosexuals could be forced to engage in heterosexual intercourse and then raise the offspring with an opposite-sex partner, merely by preventing them from marrying each other. And even if those actions could be compelled, how would doing that satisfy the principles of liberty?

We do not live in a society, nor would we wish to, where persons are permitted to do only that which benefits society. Rather, we live in a society where persons are permitted to do pretty much anything they wish to, so long as it is not inordinately hurtful to others, and in particular to the public at large. This same principle should be recognized in permitting homosexuals to marry.

I previously stated that the purpose of marriage serves society. The State's interest is supposed to reflect that of society.



While the reason an individual marries may be based on individual benefit - the individuals decide to get married; they are seeking the benefits of marriage... yada yada yada... marriage as an institution serves the collective... the large group of individuals that we call society. Do not confuse the individual with society. Yes, society is made up of individuals, but that's the point... society as an entity is a collection of individuals. The purpose of marriage as an institution serves that collection of individuals. Yes, each individual marriage serves those particular individuals, but collectively - as an institution - all of these marriages provides some benefit to society. That is how I understood the question. Perhaps I misunderstood the debate question, but the author of the question has not shown up to clarify. So, perhaps we are debating two different interpretations of the same question. If so, we will never be able to agree, because we aren't debating the same thing.



Here again... you first mention society and then you go on to mention the individual as if they were the same thing. They aren't. While an individual makes up society and a society is made up of individuals, they aren't interchangeable. The society is the larger picture.



Well, laws must have a purpose. Laws without purpose are unconstitutional. If laws serve society, then their purpose must be to society's benefit. Therefore, all marriage laws must exist to benefit society. But, then... Is there a grander scheme to these laws? Do these laws each have individual, unrelated purposes? Or, if you examine them, do you see a larger purpose? Does this original purpose change as the laws change? Is there a connection between assumed paternity laws and adultery laws... between what were bans on contraception and bans on any sex that wasn't penetrative vaginal intercourse? Was there a reason sex was reserved for married couples? Do these serve a larger purpose? Or are they unrelated?



Exactly! WE are the State. WE are society. I, the individual, am not the State, nor am I society. Do you see the difference? Yes, we have the Bill of Rights to protect individual freedoms. Yes, yes, yes, to the rest of what you wrote. But the State as a representative for the society (theoretically, at least) passes laws to serve that society and not to serve the individual... not the individual... individuals as a group, as a society? Yes. The individual... no.



Well, the question for debate asks "What is the most important purpose of marriage?" This would seem to imply that there was more than one. The question we are trying to answer is, "how does one approach the question?" How does one determine what the purposes of marriage are? Some people are saying that the purposes should be based on how marriage benefits the individual. Others are saying that the purposes should be based on how marriage benefits society.