This poll was directed towards the anti-gay marriage AD members, I would appreciate if only anti-gay marriage members vote in the poll, but all are welcome to join in the postings.

I'm just curious about the logic behind denying rights to gay people in this country - I was wondering if intelligent people (I hold most of you guys in that group), could explain to me an accurate argument that justifies withholding rights to gays. Explain how you voted.

Those of you who aren't voting (those who are for gay marriage rights), this is a great place for us to dissect the motives that stand behind the prejudices.

Or maybe we'll get a good argument and have a change of heart.

Amlord Posted: Feb 19 2004, 02:03 PM

Thank You Perspective for the new thread and Thank You Amlord for the invitation to address your argument
I guess what doesn't sit right with me is the presumption that the citizens owe the state something (in this case children) in return for the State granting us liberty through our constitution and laws (in this case marital laws). It has always been my perception that we are the state. The state is a reflection of the needs of the people (which includes Homosexuals) and the laws exist to protect the rights or liberty and property of the people. I am not aware of any behavior modeling within our constitution or laws. Any law I can think of exists to protect society from the detrimental actions of the individual.

I visited my favorite capitalist reference site and found an article;


http://www.capitalism.org/tour/preamble8b.htm

I see three "Other" votes and no explanation. It would be nice to follow perspectives request and list the reasons behind your stance.

or

Did those who chose "Other" mean to null the vote so you could see the results?

Edited for spelling.

I voted OTHER.

Here is my quote from the other thread:
[quote]My argument against gay marriage has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with children. The State's only benefit from marriage is that they produce children. There are many drawbacks to marriage (from the point of view of the state) including court battles over property, loss of productivity due to marriage problems,etc. A stable marriage which produces children produces better children (from society's point of view). Marriages will not all produce children and not all children are the products of marriage, but the State commonly uses laws to "encourage" behavior rather than mandating it. Such encouragement is never universal, either from a cause OR an effect standpoint. My argument is entirely secular (from a legal standpoint), and, I think, a "valid" one. [/quote]

A couple of responses that didn't belong in that other thread:
[quote=perspective]So you are saying that you oppose gay marriage because homosexual couples are incapable of providing a stable family in which children would be raised?

If that is what you're saying, than I disagree that it is a valid, secular point. I'd say it is an unresearched, unsubstantiated claim.

If you are claiming that a stable homosexual home is less likely to raise "better" children (your own term) than an unstable heterosexual home, than I disagree that it is a valid, secular point.

Suzy's claim that there is no valid, secular reason to oppose gay marriage still has not been debated in a sufficient manner. I encourage those who disagree to continue the debate here -Topic: The Argument Against Gay Marriage. [/quote]

[quote=Grendel72]Same sex couples already have children.
Marriage benefits are not denied to infertile heterosexual couples, nor to those who choose not to have children, nor does marriage end at menopause...

I find this position frankly infuriating, it is quite plainly a justification after the fact and in your zeal to persecute homosexuals you insult heterosexuals who are unable to conceive. [/quote]

If we take a step back, we can ask ourselves: why does the state have marriage at all? What is the benefit to society? After all, there is no legal acknowledgement of Boy Scout Troops, Soccer teams, bridge clubs or any other "private" organizations, be they between 2 people of 2 million people. Why would marriage be any different from the point of view of society?

My answer to that question is that the government (State or Federal) has a vested interest in the products of marriage. Government has little at stake when it comes to who wins a Soccer match, or who comes out big in the weekly Poker game. But the product of marriage is of extreme interest to society.

[I know I have written this before...]
Children are the natural by-product of marriage. This is an undeniable fact.
Children are the natural result of marriage, although I am not denying that they also come from non-married couples.

The State of Our Unions : The Social Health of Marriage in America

From marriage.com
[quote]Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.[/quote]
History of Marriage
We have other means to deal with property: a strong court system. I can will everything I have to someone I am unrelated to: a charity, a friend, even my dog, as long as my will was in order.

Bloodlines are much less important now than they were in the past, but marriage STILL handles this today.

So we are left with procreation.

Now, society needs babies, so why not simply set up anonymous sperm exchange locations (i.e. brothels) to accomplish this? Because children need parents. If I must, I can provide numerous sources that children raised by the State cause more problems, cost more money, and are generally alot more trouble than children raised by individuals.

Now, we have identified that we need children and we need individuals to raise those children. Marriage provides a suitable juxtaposition of these two needs. Married couples, especially with children, are much more likely to produce healthy, successful children.

A Longitudinal Analysis of Family Relationships and Children's School Achievement in One- and Two-Parent Families
[quote]The findings of this study are complex and multivariate; they reveal a web of social and family ecology links to students' academic success in school. Two-parent households are associated with higher socioeconomic status indicators, more support for the family, less parental depression, and less family dysfunction than one-parent households. Two-parent households also had children who were less hyperactive, more academically skilled, less anxious or depressed, and (judged by teachers) good in academic standing.  [/quote]
Students Do Better When Their Fathers Are Involved at School
[quote]Children living in single-parent households are, on average, less successful in school and experience more behavior problems than children living in two-parent households (McLanahan and Sandefur, 1994). [/quote]

From these links, we see that two parent households are preferred over single parent households. So we need to narrow it down between married couples and co-habitating couples.
Children
[quote]Family income directly correlates with the number of American children who live in or below the level of poverty. Only 7.7% of first-marriage families live in poverty compared to 6.6% of stepfamilies, 28.3% of cohabiting couple families, 30.5% of single-parent, widowed families, 32.4% Divorce/Separated, single-parent families and 59.6% never-married, single-parent families (See Figure 4.7).[/quote]

So we see here that 28.3% of co-habitating couples are below the poverty line, compared to only 7.7% of married couples (both with children).
How Do Cohabiting Couples With Children Spend Their Money?
[quote]Cohabitation is an increasingly prevalent living arrangement in the United States. This
demographic trend has raised concerns among researchers and policy makers who believe that cohabitation fails to confer the same benefits to family members as does marriage. Whether cohabitation should be considered not equivalent to marriage depends in part upon the extent to which cohabitors’ behavior differs from that of married couples. We draw on data from multiple years of the Consumer Expenditure Survey to compare the expenditure patterns of  approximately 34,000 married-parent families, cohabiting-parent families, and single-parent families. In crosssectional analyses, we find that cohabiting families spend a larger share of their budgets on alcohol, tobacco, children’s clothing, and transportation than do married families, and a smaller share on adult clothing, health care, and education than do married families. Compared to single-parent families, cohabiting families spend a larger budget share on food in the home, alcohol, and tobacco, and a smaller share on food away from home, adult clothing, and education. Examining differences in spending patterns using fixed-effects analyses finds much smaller differences than in the cross-sectional analyses. Our results indicate that cohabiting families allocate their budgets differently than do either married families or single parents, although we do not find strong evidence supporting the view that cohabitation causes these differences in behavior.[/quote]
(emphasis mine)
So they were not able to find a cause, but the spending patterns are different in a co-habitating household with children compared to a married couple with children.

It goes into a bit more detail:
[quote]The rapidly increasing rate of cohabitation has raised interesting questions about cohabitation as a context for childrearing. In addition to research suggesting that married people 4 enjoy higher levels of economic stability, happiness, and health relative to adults in cohabiting unions, (Waite and Gallagher, 2000), studies have also suggested that cohabiting couple families have fewer economic resources than do married couple-families (Manning and Lichter, 1996), that the cohabiting union has a lower relationship quality and a higher incidence of domestic
violence compared with marriages (Brown and Booth 1996; Kenney and McLanahan, 2001), and that cohabiting couples with children experience higher levels of depression compared to married parents (Brown, 2000). In addition to potential differences in the economic and psychological contexts that children in cohabiting unions experience, cohabitation might affect the parenting contexts of
child development. Parents differ in the ways in which they allocate resources, including time, money, and affection, to their children. Thomson, McLanahan, and Curtin (1992) showed that cohabiting-parent families eat breakfast together less often than do children in single-motheronly families. Carlson and McLanahan’s (2001) analysis of the new Fragile Families data showed that cohabiting mothers read to their one-year old children somewhat less frequently than do married mothers. Hofferth and Anderson’s (2003) analysis of a national sample (the PSID Child Development Supplement) showed that children living with their mother and a
cohabiting father spend significantly less time directly engaged with this father figure than children living with two married biological parents. Also, in that study, cohabiting fathers report that they act less warmly toward their children than do married fathers. Bulcroft, Carmody, and Bulcroft (1998), drawing on data from another national sample, report differences in the monitoring and control of teenage children in cohabiting couple families compared to intact families; the effects varied by the sex of the child and the specific type of parental behavior.
These findings provide suggestive evidence that parents in cohabiting couple families allocate 5 their time and energies differently than do married parents. Such findings are interesting to the extent that they might provide an explanation for why children in cohabiting unions appear to have worse developmental outcomes than children in married-couple families (Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones, 2002; Nelson, Clark, and Acs, 2001; Thomson, et al. 1994).[/quote]
So, the results of co-habitation are less than can be expected from marriage.

We can think of co-habitation as simply a newer for of "non-traditional" or "non-nuclear" family. What's the real difference between co-habitation and marriage? A simple piece of paper?

I think not. The difference is the attitude of the participants. There is a level of voluntary commitment there which is not present in the co-habitating family.

The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially
[quote]Can cohabitators make their relationship just like a marriage?
  While there were eight times as many cohabitating couples in the 1990 census as in the 1980 census, marriage and living together are not the same. Cohabitating couples do not have commitment.

Cohabitating couples are less likely to be sexually faithful, to support each other emotionally and financially, and to manage their money as well. In a couple who live together, one can spend extravagantly, while the other says little about it so long as the bills are paid. On the other hand, in a married couple, if one spends extravagantly, the other may have plenty to say about it.

Cohabitating couples are also less likely to monitor each others' health, remind one to go to the dentist, prepare healthy meals, and speak up about unhealthy behaviors like smoking, drinking, and reckless driving. They also do not specialize in different areas, since they know the relationship could end without strings.

Women who were more career oriented were more likely to cohabitate (57%), as were men who rated their leisure time as more important (53%) (Clarkberg, 1995). However, cohabitators tend to hold more positive ideas about divorce, and more negative attitudes about marriage in general as well. Cohabitating women do not show the same level of high risk behaviors that single men do, but they are more likely to be accompanying such single men (Umberson, 1987). Married women are more likely to have private health insurance (about 80%) than single women (about 50%) (Hahn, 1993).

As for abuse, children in single parent homes or step-families are at a high risk for physical and sexual abuse. Step-fathers and boyfriends of the mother are the highest risk abusers. Although they typically contribute on 2% of the childcare, they are responsible for almost half the reported abuse incidents by non-parents (Margolin, 1992). One study concluded that "Living with a step-parent has turned out to be the most powerful predictor of severe child abuse yet" (Daley and Wilson, 1996). 
[/quote]
Let's tie this back in to Gay Marriage. First, let's examine the role of gay couples as parents.

I have already provided a link saying that the participation level of the father is critical to a child's success and happiness in school. In a Gay marriage involving two women, there is obviously no "father" involved. The sperm donor is often anonymous (for an in vitro fertilized mother) or uninterested (in the case of adoption). There is little to no chance that a father is involved.

Similarly, in a male-male Gay marriage, the mother is unlikely to be involved.

There is a balance to be struck in a relationship when it comes to raising children. Mothers nurture, fathers promote competitiveness. A balance is struck when raising a child between being compassionate and striving for success. Both of these elements need to be provided. Both must also be moderated.

Gay marriages do not provide this balance, almost by definition.

Let me address one more point before people become irate with me:
[quote=Grendel72]Same sex couples already have children.
Marriage benefits are not denied to infertile heterosexual couples, nor to those who choose not to have children, nor does marriage end at menopause...

I find this position frankly infuriating, it is quite plainly a justification after the fact and in your zeal to persecute homosexuals you insult heterosexuals who are unable to conceive. [/quote]
Same sex couples do have children, either from a previous (straight) relationship, or through adoption/artificial insemination.

Marriage is a tool that is used to promote the situation that has been proven to be ideal for raising children. One mother and one father, living together to raise kids.

Some laws are made to promote certain behavior (or discourage other behaviors).

Do laws against littering ensure that people will not litter? Of course not.
Do "Crimestopper" type reward programs ensure that a criminal will be caught? Of course not.
Do tax incentives for having children mean that everyone has more children? I don't know. I don't think that they do.

But they encourage behavior, to the benefit of society. Marriage has traditionally been used to promote people having children who are legitimate (used to be a big issue) and who have the most chance to succeed in society.

Besides children, what other benefits are there to be gained via marriage?
Visitation rights? Hardly a government issue (since the government doesn't run many hospitals). Hardly a compelling argument to get married, either.
Inheritance? As I said earlier, get a decent lawyer and you can bequeath your money to your dog if you want. Not really an issue.
Taxes? I guess if paying higher taxes is seen as a benefit...
Health care? I did not marry based upon what my wife's health care package looked like. Marrying for purely monetary reasons seems contrary to the spirit of the institution. I cannot marry my brother for his health care benefits, even if gay marriages were allowed. So we would still have "discrimination"...

The government's only motivation here should be he betterment of society. Show me how endorsement of gay marriage will positively affect the US as a whole. Explain to me why the government should care how or if two people live together.

Marriage (from the government's viewpoint) is about children, and thus there is no compelling reason to allow people who cannot have children to wed.

Marriage or being married is not a right but a privilege. For any marriage to take place certain criteria must be met by each party. Society must decide what that criteria is if the government is going to be in the business of marrying people. This is what is taking place right now across this country; states are deciding if the criteria should change. To date, 38 states, including California, have decided to stick with the traditional definition of marriage.

Arguing that marriage is a right is flawed because there would always be people claiming that they are denied their 'right' to marriage including children, polygamists, the people from NAMBLA, etc as rules of exclusion would still apply. The only utility from arguing that marriage is a right is that it is a way for the courts and legislative judges to overturn the decision of the people.

I beg to differ with you, it is my contention that, marital laws are not a form of social modeling on the part of government they are merely guidelines to divvy up assets including the custody of children in the event that the marriage is dissolved. Marriage is a unique contract in that assets are acquired during the course of the marriage without individual ownership but an ownership intrinsic to 2 individuals i.e. children, home and savings. It is the states responsibility to protect the rights of the individual. Could you imagine the chaos that would ensue on a regular basis if these laws did not exist, children would be stolen and hidden from the estranged spouse, people would be left homeless and penniless by the spouse with the gun that has cleared the bank account and refused the estranged spouse entrance into the home, people would resort to vigilante behaviors as their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been denied by the bully in the marriage. It is our constitution that has brought about these laws and it is our constitution that ensures access to these laws to all citizens.

[quote=Amlord,Feb 19 2004, 05:10 PM]I voted OTHER.

Here is my quote from the other thread:
[quote]My argument against gay marriage has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with children. The State's only benefit from marriage is that they produce children. There are many drawbacks to marriage (from the point of view of the state) including court battles over property, loss of productivity due to marriage problems,etc. A stable marriage which produces children produces better children (from society's point of view). Marriages will not all produce children and not all children are the products of marriage, but the State commonly uses laws to "encourage" behavior rather than mandating it. Such encouragement is never universal, either from a cause OR an effect standpoint. My argument is entirely secular (from a legal standpoint), and, I think, a "valid" one. [/quote]

My answer to that question is that the government (State or Federal) has a vested interest in the products of marriage. Government has little at stake when it comes to who wins a Soccer match, or who comes out big in the weekly Poker game. But the product of marriage is of extreme interest to society.

[I know I have written this before...]
Children are the natural by-product of marriage. This is an undeniable fact.
Children are the natural result of marriage, although I am not denying that they also come from non-married couples.
[/quote]
In many cases, marriage is a natural by-product of pregnancy. Has been for years.

[quote=Amlord,Feb 19 2004, 05:10 PM]
From marriage.com
[quote]Most ancient societies needed a secure environment for the perpetuation of the species,a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights, and the protection of bloodlines. The institution of marriage handled these needs. For instance, ancient Hebrew law required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother's widow.[/quote]
History of Marriage
We have other means to deal with property: a strong court system. I can will everything I have to someone I am unrelated to: a charity, a friend, even my dog, as long as my will was in order.
[/quote]
You're right, we do have other ways to deal with property. But in this country - the only way for gay couples to visit each other on their deathbeds in the hospital is to be LEGALLY MARRIED. The only way for the surviving partner to gain social security benefits of the other is to be LEGALLY MARRIED. Because that's the law.

[quote=Amlord,Feb 19 2004, 05:10 PM]
So we are left with procreation.

Now, society needs babies, so why not simply set up anonymous sperm exchange locations (i.e. brothels) to accomplish this?  Because children need parents.  If I must, I can provide numerous sources that children raised by the State cause more problems, cost more money, and are generally alot more trouble than children raised by individuals.
[/quote]
And children raised by homosexual people make up 99% of the criminals in prisons. Your point is?

[quote=Amlord,Feb 19 2004, 05:10 PM]
Now, we have identified that we need children and we need individuals to raise those children.    Marriage provides a suitable juxtaposition of these two needs.  Married couples, especially with children, are much more likely to produce healthy, successful children.

From these links, we see that two parent households are preferred over single parent households.  So we need to narrow it down between married couples and co-habitating couples.
Children
[quote]Family income directly correlates with the number of American children who live in or below the level of poverty. Only 7.7% of first-marriage families live in poverty compared to 6.6% of stepfamilies, 28.3% of cohabiting couple families, 30.5% of single-parent, widowed families, 32.4% Divorce/Separated, single-parent families and 59.6% never-married, single-parent families (See Figure 4.7).[/quote]
[/quote]

Hey, whadya know! Homosexual couples make up 10% of the country's population and homosexual couples rearing children are so rare that there aren't even any statistics on them yet. The studies you have shown do not correlate to REAL LIFE studies - a large population of children who were raised by homosexual couples, compared to a large population of children who were raised by heterosexual couples. You can't just use comparison by linking all these highly biased, non representitive studies together.

[quote=Amlord,Feb 19 2004, 05:10 PM]
As for abuse, children in single parent homes or step-families are at a high risk for physical and sexual abuse. Step-fathers and boyfriends of the mother are the highest risk abusers. Although they typically contribute on 2% of the childcare, they are responsible for almost half the reported abuse incidents by non-parents (Margolin, 1992). One study concluded that "Living with a step-parent has turned out to be the most powerful predictor of severe child abuse yet" (Daley and Wilson, 1996). 

Let's tie this back in to Gay Marriage.  First, let's examine the role of gay couples as parents.

I have already provided a link saying that the participation level of the father is critical to a child's success and happiness in school.  In a Gay marriage involving two women, there is obviously no "father" involved.  The sperm donor is often anonymous (for an in vitro fertilized mother) or uninterested (in the case of adoption).  There is little to no chance that a father is involved.

---
Gay marriages do not provide this balance, almost by definition.
[/quote]

So now the government knows what is best for my family? The government should not be in the business of dictating what the government thinks is the best way to raise a child.

[quote=Amlord,Feb 19 2004, 05:10 PM]

But they encourage behavior, to the benefit of society.  Marriage has traditionally been used to promote people having children who are legitimate (used to be a big issue) and who have the most chance to succeed in society.
[/quote]
I will acknowledge that your argument that the government promotion of the healthy relationship is one of the more logical and seemingly non-prejudiced arguments. But the fact remains that until we allow gay couples to marry (refer to commitment problems of cohabitating couples as you listed above) and raise children, you really can't say that the heterosexual married couples produce better children than homosexual couples. The argument can't be made until a study is done. There is no way for you or the government to know that homosexual couples are not just as capable of raising "ideal" children as heterosexual married couples.

[quote=Amlord,Feb 19 2004, 05:10 PM]
I did not marry based upon what my wife's health care package looked like.
[/quote]
Yes, you married her because you loved her. What a wonderful freedom that is.

[quote=Amlord,Feb 19 2004, 05:10 PM]
The government's only motivation here should be he betterment of society.  Show me how endorsement of gay marriage will positively affect the US as a whole.
[/quote]
Show me how it would negatively affect the US as a whole.

[quote=Amlord,Feb 19 2004, 05:10 PM]Marriage (from the government's viewpoint) is about children, and thus there is no compelling reason to allow people who cannot have children to wed.[/quote]

Your argument was very nicely put together. But a few disjoint studies that seem to follow your own roadmap to proof could lead me easily the opposite direction.

Our country -- and our world -- is overpopulated. The United States government can't even take care of the homeless veterans living in our own streets.

Marriage is MOST DEFINATELY NOT solely about procreation. If it was, you could not stand here and justify denying rights to gays for the sake that there would not be enough "benefit" to society in the form of little bodies. There are plenty of bodies on the streets that the government could tap into that potential if the government really cared.

Thats jumping to an assumption. No where on any document have I seen the government specifically condoning marriage as a way to create offspring. Marriage does not, in any way, connote children. It is doubtful that the entire marriage program is based on the production of children.

Besides, if anything, with the population exploding as it is now, the government has a desire to decrease the amount of children in this country.



There are several married couples who do not have children. Some don't by choice while others are infertile. Such couples do not have children and are outside the scope of the "governments vested interests," yet are allowed to marry. Why not Gay couples?

Becominghuman:
Did you read the link with the history of marriage? Marriage predates this country. Historically, it was completely about procreation of legitimate children who could inherit their father's name and property (bloodline and inheritance).

What is doubtful about that?

If you doubt the "purpose" of marriage in this country, do you "doubt" the purpose of charitable deduction tax laws? No where in them does it specifically state that the purpose is to encourage charitable donations.

As I stated, laws encouraging a certain behavior do not guarantee that behavior in 100% of the population. If the government gave $1000 to everyone who dyed their hair bleach blond, I guarantee you that not 100% of the population would become bleach blond. There would be a significant increase, though.


I agree here. Marriage is more akin to the privilege of driving a car than the right to own a gun. Marriage is not for everyone. Marriage gives extremely few "exclusive" benefits. Marriage carries quite a few burdens.

Here is an excellent write up:
Marriage not to be toyed with

Yes, but you have to actually donate something in order to get the tax break, don't you. There is nothing in a marriage contract that promotes or denies the acquisition of children. Marriage is not a perk for child production. Marriage does not, in any way, promote a need to make children.



Yes, but those that did follow through with dying their hair would receive $1000. If you didn't have any hair, you couldn't dye it blond and therefore you would not receive the $1000.

If marriage is indeed a reward for producing children, only those who could produce children would get married. If you couldn't have children, you would not receive the benefit of getting married (If you don't have hair, you can't get the $1000).

Tax breaks fulfill their goal, 100% of those people who have confirmed charitable donations get a tax break (People who did not make a donation could not get a tax break). The hair law would fulfill its goal, 100% of the people who dyed their hair beach blond would get $1000 (Those who didn't have beach blond hair could not get $1000). Marriage, however, would not fulfill its goal. Everyone who got married would not necessarily have children (Those who can't have children could still get married).

Thus, we can all get married without ever having to think about children (Much like receiving $1000 without dying are hair beach blond or getting a tax break without making a donation).

Of course, when the Supreme court has ruled (in Loving vs. Virginia) that marriage is a basic human right the burden is shifted to the bigots to justify why a basic human right should be denied to a specific segment of the population. And I don't want to hear the tired semantic argument that homosexuals have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as heterosexuals: not only is that argument STUPID, but the same argument could have been applied to the Lovings, that they had the same right to marry a person of their own race as anyone else.
BULL. Until you are prepared to break up post menopausal heterosexual couples, until you are prepared to forcibly separate infertile couples, until you make it illegal for married couples to use birth control, this is simply justifying bigotry after the fact. You ignore your wrong-headed theories when it would be uncomfortable for you (whenever it would effect heterosexuals).
Not strong enough for homosexuals. The court recognizes "family" above all, even when that family has treated us like garbage they are given preferential treatment to our real families.
We have to pay thousands in legal fees to get some semblance of the 1049 legal rights that heterosexuals get with their marriage licence, and in many cases it still isn't enough to keep the very families that have disowned us from swooping in like vultures to take what has been left to our real families.
So why should children of same sex couples be denied this?
So why would you force gay parents to cohabitate rather than marrying?
Actually, studies of lesbian couples (I am unaware of any studies involving gay men) have shown that a stable two parent homelife is the important thing, not the genders of the parents. But even accepting your ideal, why would you deny families that don't meet it the right to come as close as possible?
You make an interesting point- those laws which are designed to benefit parents only apply to parents. An opposite sex married couple with no children is no more able to collect those tax incentives than I would be if I were allowed to marry the man I love.
Prejudice is bad for everyone, the end to legally sanctioned discrimination would be a lessening of evil in the world.
And yet we do, as long as they are heterosexual.

Amlord, if your links are correct, and the purpose of marriage was historically to promote a stable environment for rearing children, how does that relate to the purpose of marriage today? I would argue that the purpose of marriage today, has relatively little to do with raising children, and more to do with a legal recognition of your commitment to another person, not to mention getting access to the benefits that come with this legal recognition - being able to visit them if they were seriously injured, for example (usually relatives and spouses only). How many people today get married with "promoting a stable environment for raising children" in mind? QUOTE


I beg to differ. Children are the natural by-product of sex, which not all married couples engage in, and most certainly not all unmarried couples abstain from. One could argue that the vast majority of married couples do have sex, and so naturally are likely to eventually produce children. Except for advances in medicine and surgery that can make that likelihood close to zero.

I stated in another thread that from what I've observed about same-sex couples, there is one partner who tends to play the role historically reserved for males, and the other takes the role historically associated with females. If this role-reversal swap works fine in heterosexual marriages (i.e. the breadbasket mother and the stay-at-home-dad), then I see no reason why two females (breadbasket mother and stay-at-home mom) or two males (breadbasket father and stay-at-home-dad) aren't equally as capable of playing these roles.

P.S. I loved the Simba icon, he's sooooo cute!

I would agree with this statement as well Suzy. I too believe that marriage may have historically been in place for the reasons you suggest Amlord, but today it is a whole different animal.



That may be true, but that interest has little to do with children. Clearly, without procreation our society would not thrive, that is indisputable. Instead, the benefit to society is stability. Additionally marriage is very similar to a merger between two corporations, by joining and working toward a common goal they are able to accomplish more.

Your link The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better off Financially further proves my point.

Personally I think that co-habitation is a good step towards marriage, but that is not the subject of this debate. The point I wish to higlight here is exactly what you were trying to use against gay marriage. Couples that are in a co-habitation relationship, according to your link, "Cohabitating couples are less likely to be sexually faithful, to support each other emotionally and financially, and to manage their money as well."

This is true, because when it really comes down to it, you cannot build for the future unless you have some sort of binding commitment there. Why would one party put down a $20,000 down payment for a $200,000 home if their mate could easily walk out of the deal leaving them with more of a mortgage than they could handle alone? The simple answer is, they wouldn't. Everything that article states is exactly the reason people get married, so they can build a future.

Gay couples are already living together and are personally committed to each other. However, they cannot enjoy the benefits that marriage provides. Were they allowed to be married I'm sure that many would take up the same activities as married couples such as buying homes, saving for the future and building a life together.

Therefore, I would argue that allowing gay couples to marry would do nothing but benefit society.



This may be a traditional view, but that certainly does not prevent gay parents from adopting roles accordingly. If this were an absolute then how do any kids raised by single parents ever turn out correctly? The answer here is simple, the single parent adapts. The single parent either takes on characteristics of both a mother and a father -- i.e. coaches the soccer team and also makes a healthy meal every night -- OR they get help from other family members whenever possible. To assume that gay couples are not capabale of this is completely false -- Gay couples are in fact raising children today and I see no reason why those children will somehow be any more or less adjusted than the rest of us. If anything they will be more tolerant of others and more willing to challenge the status quo.



I think that if you look at my responses above you will see that I have refuted this statement. Marriage is not about children. There are gay couples that have children (who are not married) and there are straight couples that don't have children, don't want them or can't have them. The government does not deny them a marriage certificate simply because of that fact. As I said above, the government's interest in marriage is the stability and growth it provides. You don't see many singles or co-habitants out buying 250K homes in the burbs do ya?

Additionally, I highly doubt that the government needs more children. There are hundreds of babies that are given up for adoption each day. Many of those babies are raised by the state at great expense initially and greater expense later when the children become a detriment to society. Are these the children the government is so interested in?

I see 8 votes against gay marriage, and I only see one brave sole arguing his point. Where are the rest of you?

You should help a brother out. Don't leave Amlord holding the ball alone.


In the interest of debate, of course....

I am going to need to see some evidence that for the current federal government of the US, marriage is about children. There is, as has been stated several times here, no problem with infertile people, post-menopausal women, or just people who dont want kids to get married. It is not written in any law, policy, guideline or bylaw that I can find that marriage is about children.

I agree that, historically, marriage could be considered to be about children. And?
Historically, asylums were to remove the insane from public view where they could die in isolation. Originally, women were to be entirely subject to men with no rights or freedoms (which, by the way, has a lot to do with the original institution of marriage)

The fact that something may have had children as one element at one point in the distant past means little to nothing if we accept (and we have to) that the modern context is completely different. As I recall, marriage was once entirely religious in nature as well. That changed. Marriage could not end in divorce at one point. That changed. Marriage used to call upon the woman to obey the man. That changed. Marriage used to require the woman's family purchasing the marriage with Dowry, even in western cultures. That changed. Mariage used to mean that the sum total of the woman's posessions transferred ownership to her husband. That changed. If you go back far enough, Marriage used to involve rampant polygamy. That certainly changed.

If anything, the 'tradition' of marriage is that if is constantly being updated and altered to fit the times, that is the real 'tradition'. Yes allowing gay marriage is a change, but simply saying it is a change is not even close to sufficient to a reason to deny it. If you wish to make a case against it, you must then demonstrate how allowing this equality, making this change is detrimental to society as a whole.


Listen carefully: the fact that you may not personally approve of an activity should not be reason enough for you to seek to deny those who practice that activity equal rights and recognition so long as that activity harms nobody.

Well...I support same sex marriage, but actually agree with Amlord about 80 percent on this. I'll give you my opinion, using just a couple of quotes with which I disagree...
This was your response to a statistic about sexual abuse. You don’t believe that the government has an interest in protecting children from abuse? Does the government have an interest in protecting ANYONE from ANY criminal? If you are abusing your child, the government will step in, for better or worse. It does have a vested interest in preventing abuse. The government even provides classes in childcare for indigent parents, so there is obviously an acceptance that the government has a role It even has a vested interest in promoting nutrition for the developing baby…ask anyone who has ever used WIC.
Is anyone saying that the sole basis for marriage is procreation? It is, by far, the most significant basis for state sanction.
The fact that there are so many unwanted children is a direct example of why that is the case. How many of those children come from stable married homes? It is much cheaper to encourage stability for families than to provide for those unwanted children (and often lock up the maladapted ones) later on. Obviously, no government in any free society can force people to marry. Therefore, examples of people who have children and aren’t married are irrelevant. People have children without being married. They often raise wonderful, well-adjusted children. However, the statistical probability that the children will be better provided for physically and emotionally in a stable and commited relationship between two parents instead of one (especially one with revolving-door mommies and daddies) is much higher.

Again...I am posting this NOT because I am against gay marriage. I support it. I simply think the argument in favor of it (at least represented by many of the posters here) is missing something very important and ignoring something very obvious.

My personal anecdote, because I was once living with and engaged to a man who turned out to be homosexual. I could have easily married him and had children. If I had listened to my mother about all of the things that mattered (conversation, mutual goals,ect), I would have. I also know, beyond a doubt, that he would have made an excellent father and wanted children more than I did at the time.

Suppose we had been married, had children immediately, and theen broke it off because our other incompatibilities became irreconcilable? What if I yacked, and left him with the kids? Why shouldn’t he be entitled to provide just as stable an environment with someone he loved? Why should his sexual preference, which made him absolutely incompatible with me, ultimately, preclude his ability to provide a stable and loving home to children he might want? Then, if we can accept that he should have that right, for his children, how can it be denied to anyone else who wants to marry, for the same reason every straight person is entitled to it?

Just my personal thoughts.

No, it wasn't. This was in response to supposed "proof" that balanced families consist of one male and one female. The "proof" cannot be taken at face value because there have not been studies to prove that balance can also be defined as two parents who may be the same sex, but who provide just as much "balance" as any heterosexual parents.
My response says that the government does not know what is best for my family - I was raised by 8 loving adults - 2 moms, 2 dads, 4 grandparents - 2 of which were gay. In my world, the norm is that gay people can provide superior care, more so than the heterosexual children with stuffy parents who fight all the time but would never divorce based on principal. No, I was not refering to abusive parents - abusive parents have nothing to do with this debate.


Not to be rude, but this whole tangent has nothing to do with the debate.


What a great way to solve the problem than to create stable homes of loving parents who physically cannot have children, and will HAVE TO adopt! State-sanctioned gay marriage is a tangible, intelligent solution to all those unwanted children - you agree in your own argument. Children need stable marriages to be raised in. Homosexual married couples can provide that. I agree with you.


So if I want to raise my dead sister's child, I shouldn't even be allowed to try? Just be cause the statistical probability says we need two parents? Of course I'm allowed to, but why shouldn't gay couples be allowed to do something - you are saying that they shouldn't because statistical probability says we need a male and a female. Well, statistical probability is derived from a biased study - a study in which society has never LET homosexuals demonstrate their effectiveness, so the statistics are tainted and most likely WRONG. You can't base your argument on statistical probability. It's biased. Inaccurate.


What is so obvious? Please teach those of us in favor of it with your debate skills. Since we're missing something very important and ignoring the obvious and all.

WHo isn't allowing you to try? Isn't this whole discussion about the REASON behind support for state sanctioned marriage? Why do you think the state sanctions marriage?

That's quite a rant, for the post I gave. The obvious thing that many are missing is the fact that homosexuals do want to raise children in stable home environments. The state doesn't sanction marriage to promote social stability because they want people to buy large houses together, or share social security benefits.

Editted to add:
I think I should say something about this one, too.
If you are going to make the statement that, "The government should not be in the business of dictating what the government thinks is the best way to raise a child.", evidence to the contrary would be on topic, yes? The government certainly DOES involve itself in the business of dictating how a child should be raised. And yes, your response is rude. Your entire post is very caustic for a person who ostensibly is interested in discussion of this issue (you did start the topic, right?).

I have seen nothing that would indicate it is the most significant basis. How do you place it above all the other rights granted to a married couple (If it even places at all)?



Children should be absent from this claim. It does not require children at all to have a stable family. If marriage does indeed encourage a stable family, it does so with or without children.

Having children is not a 'right' associated with marriage at all. It is in the state's interest to promote a stable environment BECAUSE children are very often brought into that equation. Do I really have to add link number 50 indicating how and why a stable home is good for children?

It doesn't require children to have a stable family, however, the state has no reason to sanction and promote marriage if children were not a large part of the equation. Why would it? What interest does the state have in promoting romantic relationships?

The government involves itself in protecting the rights of ALL individuals. That includes protecting children from abusive parents - or even wives or husbands from the abuse of each other. You example is not a counterexample.

My response is not rude, it is accurate. Your tangent had no relavence to the debate.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that children are not the basis of the government's sanctioning of marriage.

According to the GAO, the subject of marriage falls into roughly 13 categories, as it applies to the laws of this country:
GAO report


What is it then?


1. Social Security benefits?
The whole premise of these laws was that one spouse (the wife) stayed home while one (the husband) worked. Despite the fact that this scenario has gone the way of the dodo (and good riddance), how would this apply to Gay married couples? Presumably, in the absence of children, both spouses would be working and thus garnering their own Social security benefits. The combination of two separate Social Security accounts is greater than a single Retiree plus Spouse account. So being married is actually a drawback. But Social Security benefits is certainly not the reason that the government endorses marriage.
2. Veteran's benefits?
Aside from the fact that gays are functionally prohibited from serving in the military, this boils down to the fact that Veterans receive pensions and health care benefits and their spouses receive similar benefits. The basis behind these benefits extending to spouses is pretty much the same as #1--it assumes that one spouse may not work. I would forward that people do not get married so they can receive Veteran's benefits from their spouse, and the government has no interest in extending such benefits as a benefit of marriage. This certainly is not the government's reasoning for endorsing marriage.
3. Taxation benefits?
The main "benefit" from being married (from a taxation point of view) is the ability to transfer wealth between the spouses without it becoming a taxable transaction. I guess this could be a perk, but marriage comes with significant drawbacks for one spouse if there is ever a divorce--joint property. This is again a wash, in my eyes. You take the good with the bad. There are other implications to marriage and taxes, such as estate taxes. There is certainly little incentive for the government to advocate marriage over possible tax implications.
4. Federal and Military benefits? Essentially the same as #1 and #2.
5. Immigration? The spouse of a legal immigrant can also apply for a visa after a certain period of time. I don't see this as a terribly pressing issue as it applies to marriage.

There are more areas, I am sure others can highlight which are most important to the matrimony-challenged in the US.

What I am getting at is that there are both benefits and disadvantages of marriage, both in theory and in practice. From a legal standpoint, where is the great benefit of marriage to the individuals? More importantly, where is the benefit to the State, because that is what is at the hub of this debate.

We can all agree that love plays an important role in marriage, but it certainly plays no role in the government's interest in marriage.

If you take children out of the equation, what is the government's interest in referring to two people co-habitating as being "married"? There are benefits to the individual, but to society...


So what is your belief? What IS the government's interest in marriage, if it is not children.

Without children, marriage becomes a state-sanctioned long term relationship. I am certain that long term relationships can and do exist without government intervention.

Gay marriage has no emphasis on children. In fact, children are an afterthought at best. I am not saying that gay people never have children, but children are certainly not the focus of a gay relationship. Since this is the case, there is little reason for the state to endorse gay marriage.

According to the Supreme court of the United States in Loving vs. Virginia:

The burden of proof is not on homosexuals to prove that we deserve basic civil rights, but on bigots to prove that such rights would cause some form of harm.

Funny, Grendel. Did you examine the statement?

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. "
Implicit in this statement is the role of Marriage as a vehicle for procreation.

Thank you, an excellent point which needs to be stated more widely and more loudly. Nobody ever should have to justify equality, rather there had better be a very strong and compelling argument to ever justify inequality.

Amlord, if your entire agrument against allowing two consenting adults who happen to be of the same gender from enjoying the benefits of marriage is "the government started endorsing marriage so they could reap the benefits of their children," I'd like to ask you if you really believe that applies today. Do you honestly think that the only reason the government of America, right now, involves itself in someone's marriage is because they are concerned about the married couple having children? I don't know how many children are in foster or adoptive homes, but if the government was so freaking concerned about raising children into healthy, well-adjusted adults, they'd allow gay people to marry and adopt. An unwanted child is placed in a loving home with two individuals who've consented to each other for life, and for all intents and purposes, make just as good of parents as heterosexual couples do (no stats out on that yet that I've found, as, obviously, gays aren't allowed to marry). If the government was so concerned about the children, why would they not want to encourage every couple who loves each other from marrying, and if they lack reproductive abilities, they could offer a stable environment not to their own children, but to others'?

I can agree with you, that in modern times, the state should have no interest in the personal relationships of its citizens. The state gains nothing by sanctioning these unions. Many of us can agree that if the state was not meddling in the personal affairs of the family, this "marriage" debate would be a none-issue because seperate could very well be equal. (Civil unions vs Marriage). Many religious people feel that the state should not be involved in the "holy ceremony of marriage" and many atheist folks don't want the values of religious folks dictating their family planning.

If the state would ADMIT that there is no reason to be involved in family's lives, then we wouldn't have a problem. I guess what most of us are suggesting to you is that the stretch you've made - that the state is interested in promoting healthy families - the state does not follow this very strongly, makes exceptions all the time (allowing divorce, ignoring infertile unions).

The mere "suggestion" of creating what the state construes as a "traditional", therefore "most effective" family unit is misplaced. The state should not make such suggestions, and moreover, the state is not equipped with the proper data to make such suggestions. The state has no intel on what kind of families are effective, so how can it "promote" effective family lives?

An example:
The whole world believes in a religion that tells you to tie your shoes before putting them on. Governments arise and pass laws sanctioning this method as the proper method to put on shoes. Those people who tie their shoes after putting them on are not permitted to buy shoes. They do studies on the effects of tieing the right shoe first, the left shoe first. They tell you that tieing the right shoe, putting it on, and then the left shoe, then putting it on - is the best, most effective way to put on shoes. Using your logic, you would make the statement that the statistics show that the most effective way to get your shoes on is to tie them first. Then put them on. But you don't even have any results or any data about how effective it is to put your shoes on FIRST and then tie them. Because those people aren't allowed to buy shoes, let alone demonstrate their effectiveness at putting them on.

You'd agree the above study is flawed.

That's why your statistical references are flawed. They simply don't know that the way things have always been done is the only effective way to do it.

You do realize, don't you that procreation was exactly the problem a previous generation of conservatives had with the Lovings. Can't allow them interracial couples to muddy the bloodlines, y'know.

The fundamental right being defined is the right to marry the person you love. The lovings could have been told that they have the same right to marry another person of their own race, but the court found that the right to marry the person you want to marry is more significant than a bunch of nosy nellies being overly concerned with the procreation of complete strangers.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but explicit in the statement is that marriage is a basic civil right of man. As such, barring any compelling reasons why not, it must be treated as a basic right.

Your entire line of argumentation stems from the premise that marriage MUST have a specific societal reason to be legal (which is silly) and that reason can only be procreation (which is silly). But even if we accepted both those assertions, all you would have managed to do is argue a sum-zero, that there is a positive missing. There is still no negative, no reason not to treat this civil right as a civil right. That is even if we accept your assertions.

Vermillion,

First of all you need to put your foot in your own mouth. Furthermore I have read many books such as the dead sea scrolls and your claim where the authors of the bible actually got the ten commandments from is completely false.

Second of all you said the Bible is fiction.

This tells me that not only are you ignorant but you are not a person of one of the major faiths such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. No one of these faiths would say that the bible is fiction. If they did and claimed they were part of these faiths then that would tell me that they are hypocrites.

I have no further need to discuss anything with you because you dont value life and Gods laws as a Christian or other religion I mentioned would.

Furthermore there are differences in sin. For example "lying about staying up to your parent to late" would be a sin yet no where near as bad of a sin as Same Sex relations or killing someone.

These are actually based on Catholic principles. In which if you ever read the a Catechism book you would no that.

You know the funny thing is that this debate is really meaningless. God will judge everyone someday anyway. So it doesnt matter what you think. When you see him someday are you gonna say well I thought you were wrong? Or I didnt believe in you? You think he will have mercy to people who openly disobey him?

Do your own will! It really doesnt matter to me. I have more important things to take care of then talking to someone who supports gay rights or gay unions. Gay people trying to be something there not. Gay people are phoney. Women trying to be men. Men dressing like women. Unnatural sexual relations.

It is disgusting and immoral and your arguments challenge millenia of beliefs.

Lets see here are we going to go by what our creator has told us and what are ancestors told us. Or are we going to follow some people who do not share the same values as us who preach things that are sins.

Do you know what would happen if everyone was gay? The population would cease to exist! This is not what nature intended. Furthermore it is disgusting!

People that are gay need help! They need mental help

Do you know what bwould happen if everyone were female? The population would cease to exist! This is not what nature intended.

Obviously, being female is deeply unnatural. Same with being male.

Grendel,

Did that hurt your feelings?

Being a female and a male is natural. That is what god made us to be. God did not make just women or just men. He made us together so we could be one in marriage. Have you ever heard of "opposites attract"?

Two become one, Male and Female?

Partaking in same sex relations is a "CHOICE".

And anyone saying different is naive and doesnt want to take responsibility for their own actions.

Silen: first things first, you are new here, this is your third post, so I will cut you some slack: Calm down on the insults, the demonizing and the prostheletising. Your last post could have been reported to a moderator. If you wish to debate issues, then we can continue. If you have no interest in debate and rather intend to simply state your personal interpretation of divine-will and cast anyone who disagrees with you out as godless heathen, then this is worse than useless.

Back to the 'debate':

Again, I notice you make no attempt to address any of my points at all, I am not sure if this is unwillingness or inability, but it does make your responses somewhat hollow.

You are correct, I am not religious, I am however a professional historian, and the fact that there are codes astonishingly similar to the ten commandments that existed centuries before is not in dispute. The code of Hammurabi is just the most well known. These codes are logical antecedents to the commandments... it is certainly more plausible than the similarity is just a co-incience and these descended directly from God.



Actually I said you were selectively interpreting a 2000 year old anachronistic work of fiction. In point of fact, I overstated in some respects. The Bible is clearly not entirely fiction, much of it is an interpretation of actual events, events that can be documented in the Historical record. Other parts are invention and interpretation, but you are right, to call it a work of complete fiction was excessive on my part.



You are correct on the second part, you can consider yourself warned on the first. I am agnostic. Moreover, of course none of these faiths would refer to their holy books as fiction, thats why they are faiths.

Actually, even that is not true, in Vatican II, the Pope himself referred to the Old testament as an accurate metaphor, meaning even he admits it is possible that creation may not have occurred in 4004 BC, but that some of the timeframes might be metaphorical. Sorry, I am getting sidetracked here again, back to the issue at hand.



Again, consider yourself warned.



Ah, now we get down to it. Clearly the Commandments are, well, commandments, and the ultimate expression of Gods law. Fine. But there is no commandment against homosexuality, so lets leave those aside for a moment.

The only comment against homosexuality comes in Leviticus, in the same section, the same book as the ban against eating shellfish and wearing clothing of two different fabrics. These are none of them commandments, so who are you to break two but follow the third as if it had some special significance? Who here is the hypocrite?



This is just silly. If its pointless then why did you originally post here? You started this, not I. You have your opinion, and no matter your protestations, thats all it is, and I have mine. If you turn out to be correct, then you will have a lot of penance to do for all those shellfish you ate...



I already dealt with the whole issue of 'unnatural', it is one of the many points you chose not to deal with in any of your responses. Might want to look into that. Please consult my original responses in the old thread, and then feel free to actually adress them.



You tell me who needs mental help more: 1) a group of people who wish the recognition of the ability to express their love and devotion for each other or; 2) people who would deny them that equality based on a selective reading of one passage in a section of a book written 20 centuries ago by people purporting to have heard it from a guy who was the son of God...

Your religious bigotry has no place in denying human rights. Have you no logical reasons for denying basic human rights?

The God I worships tells us to treat others as we would wish to be treated, would you really have me treat you the way you are treating me?

Silen,

First off, welcome to the next millenium, many of us believe it's a great oppurtunity to promote tolerance and understanding of other's religions and beliefs.

Let's sum up your arguments for debate:

A.) Homosexuality is GROSS
B.) The three major religions are Islam, Christanity, and Judaism.
C.) If everyone was Homosexual the human race would die.
D.) There has never been any accepted homosexuality in civilizations in the history of mankind.
E.) Homosexuality is equivalent to murder... according to the bible.

It's really not worth anyone's time to address any of those arguments. However, you can educate yourself quite a bit by orienting your mind with reality a bit. In case you didn't know, sticking by those five things listed above really make you come off as not only being severely afraid of homosexuality, but also someone afraid to look at the facts, or educate themselves on any of the issues.

Perspective, how many examples do I need to provide to 'prove' that the government involves itself in the business of dictating how children should be raised? Examples of abuse and nutritional supplementation aren't enough? What about child labor laws? Mandatory education? FCC regulations for television broadcasts? The list goes on and on beyond protection of bodily integrity.

Then, in your response to Amlord later, it sounds as though you are against state sanctioned marriage in the first place. Why argue so strongly about the value and definition of something you don't believe in? Go for the equal rights and civil liberties argument entirely, rather than disagreeing with the foundation of marriage and principle behind it.

Funny, but when I read it, I thought it implied that marriage was a vehicle to make sure someone was watching my back (to ensure my survival). Not that I had to have kids. Although, I guess kids could fill that role, my spouse would probably be better at it in the first 20 years or so.

Again, looking at the statement, I'm not sure I would agree that marriage is "fundamental" to our existence or survival. It's nice, but living together works about the same. It's just that there's all those laws now that confer benefits on the person you marry.

The government makes those laws. But the government really doesn't have a vested interest in WHO you marry; that's what the Loving case was really all about.

And, yes, it really does feel like we're fighting old history all over again.

And every time I read that gays cannot serve in the military or get married, I think: "And Jews can only work in the shops." When the government starts telling you what you can do based only on your genetic disposition, then the government is overstepping its bounds. And we're only a few small steps from the next pogrom.

I know reposting previous comments is frowned upon, but as this discusion originated in another thread, I though I would repost a section of what Silen keeps referring to, when he repeats his comments endlessly on how anal sex is 'unatural':




(Vermillion @ Feb 20 2004, 03:25 PM)
I agree completely, according to your strict definition, homosexuality is not natural.

In fact, anal sex is not natural, as you say, it cannot lead to reproduction, and as we all know reproduction is the ONLY purpose of any kind of union, the only thing that could EVER make it 'natural'.

In fact, Oral sex is not natural either. No reproduction chances there. To use your exact words, "this is a sexual perversion. A lust."

Masturbation, certainly not natural. Use of birth control (rhythm or artificial): Not natural. Heterosexual sex over the age of menopause (about 40): not natural. Sex with infertile people? Not natural.

If you accept that the ONLY definition of 'natural sexual relations' is ones with the possibility of ending in reproduction, then you have just cut off 90% of sexual activity. But perhaps you see a difference: perhaps you can explain to me how anal sex is 'less natural' than oral sex, or than sex over the age of menopause.

You keep saying it is 'unnatural', care to actually back up that silly blanket assertion with some argumentation?

Silen Posted on Feb 20 2004, 02:45 PM


I find this statement to be hypocritical, to openly acknowledge that it is Gods duty alone to judge man and then proceed to stand by the belief that man should judge man through biased laws

Our laws and constitution are not the laws of God! Unless you believe that man is God? (Blasphemy!) Then why would man think he should enforce his will or his specific belief structure on another man? Isn't that something that should be left between each man and his God, Everyone will meet their maker, Right?

From Dictionary.com

From Vermillion

Well considering the heterosexual relations are the norm we'll use it as the "ordinary course of nature." How many heterosexuals engage in anal sex? Not to many, I would guess. As for oral sex and masturbation they are just for stimulation purposes, with the goal to eventually get to natural sex.

Hmmm, and here I thought I was naturally occurring. I had no idea that I was a cyborg of some sort, thank you for informing me.

My point is that nature is all around us. Humans are naturally occurring, nothing we could possibly do would be unnatural.
As a sidenote, homosexuality occurs in nature all the time, check out these adorable gay penguins.
Something being uncommon does not make it unnatural, nor would being "unnatural" be a reason to legislate against something. My boyfriend is left handed, this is not common- would you claim it is unnatural?

I never said you as human being is unnatural, just your behavior. And even though penguins may have homosexual sex and prostitution, that doesn't mean it is natural human behavior. Following your logic it's ok for me to urinate and defecate in public and possibly lay eggs.

Public urination and defication are most certainly natural. We can logically legislate against said activities for public health reasons.

For a human to lay eggs would be unnatural, and you could not do such a thing.

Whether or not something is "natural" should have nothing to do with legislation against said thing. We legislate for the public good, which is why you aren't allowed to poop on the sidewalk.

What harm does homosexuality cause anyone?

When has natural animal behavior ever been accepted as natural human behavior? It's what sets us apart from the animals.

What public good can become if we legislate to promote unnatural human behavior?

Actually, the bigots are the ones attempting to change the laws, so the question should really be "what public good can come from enshrining prejudice in the US constitution?"
But to answer your question, the exact same public good that came from ending Jim Crow laws, miscegenation laws, poll taxes and the like... which is to say that an end to publically enshrined prejudice is a good thing.