After participating in a (now closed) debate on homosexual rights, I came away thinking about marriage.

There seems to be a lot of concern for protecting the institution of marriage. The institution of marriage has existed for quite some time -- long before Christianity, in fact. Currently, in this country there are two approaches to marriage, a religious and a civil approach. Many people opt not to use religion to establish there marriage. While it is difficult to separate the two ideas in discussion -- civil marriage and religious marriage, I believe that it is necessary in order to facilitate a constructive dialogue. The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is, historically, a religious one. The idea of same-sex marriage has existed in many cultures for much longer than the current Judeo-Christian definition.

So, the question for debate is...

If we live in a country that protects religious freedom (including the right to be free of it), and there exists a separation between religious marriage and civil marriage... how does same-sex marriage affect the institution of marriage as a whole?

Same-sex marriage expands the institution in a way that will help ensure its relevance for future, more enlightened generations.

As more and more straight people get to know gay people and accept them as, you know, just people, they'll accept same-sex marriage as just marriage. It is inevitable. There is no rational, moral argument against same-sex marriage.

(1) First, your preface speaks of how the idea of same sex marriage has existed in many cultures for much longer than the current Judeo Christian definition. I don't think that is correct. Ancient cultures recognized homosexuality and some accepted homosexual relations as natural-- but I don't believe there has ever been any historical recognition of "marriage" between homosexuals in cultures. But I may be wrong. What are you referring to?

(2) I don't understand the reference to religious freedom in your question to debate. Religious freedom means a religion can recognize any kind of marriage it chooses unless such would be against the law (like polygamy). So, my response puts aside the religious aspect:

How does same sex marriage affect the institution of marriage?

Off the top of my head, I'd say it affects it in several ways.

- It completely divorces our notion of marriage from procreation and redefines it as simply society's recognition of two people's commitment to one another;

- As such it distances "marriage" from its historical purposes such as :

- encouraging people who have sexual relations (that may produce children) to build a stable home and stay together and raise the child;

- protecting women who bear children produced from the union between a man and a woman (legitimacy, assumed paternity);

- because it redefines marriage to focus on the "commitment" aspect instead of the aspect unique to a man and a woman (procreation), it will escalate the possibility that marriage will be redefined to include other types of unions, such as polygamy.

Well, in terms of online information, you can find some here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

What you see there is evidence of unions -- some with ceremonies -- that were marriages or much like what we consider a marriage in terms of economic and social arrangements. Some even required the consent of the father.



No, religious freedom means that citizens are not bound to the beliefs of one particular religion. It means that one particular religious belief is not supposed to be given preference over another, this right to religious freedom is extended to those who do not follow a religion. Basically, according to the Constitution, the government is not supposed to be able to impose a religious belief on US citizens. That is what religious freedom means. While the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman may be a religious view held by many religions, it is not a belief held by all people.


There are also many marriages in which the couple does not procreate, but choose to adopt instead. Are these people adversely affecting the institution of marriage? Why are there no laws against adoption?

The world has moved far beyond the absolute need for people to get married for the purposes of procreation. The world is overpopulated as it is. Would it not make moral sense then to adapt the institution of marriage so that it did not center around procreation, but rather on the commitment of two people to build a stable home and possibly raise a child -- even if said child was adopted? This has already occurred. The institution of marriage has already divorced itself from procreation. And considering the state of the world today, is this bad?

While a lovely image, this is not entirely accurate. The historical purpose of marriage was indeed deeply rooted in procreation, but had more to do with money and land than the stability of a home or how well a child was raised. It was, historically, a bartering agreement between men -- "you can have my daughter if I can have some of your land and sheep and if those lands and sheep will be connected to my family through my daughter's sons." That is the "traditional" marriage in history. It was also used to solve family disputes. Should we go back to that tradition?


I don't quite understand how homosexual unions affect the instituion of marriage in this particular regard. Could you elaborate here?


A popular argument, but misleading. There are many other valid issues that keep polygamy from being legal. The key issue is that it has, historically, lead to a form of slavery (though many wives in monogamous relationships might argue that marriage itself is form of slavery) where older men basically buy younger wives. There really is no comparison, historically, between polygamous unions and same-sex unions -- unless those same-sex unions are also polygamous. On a lighter note, some of our president's best friends are polygamists, so there you have it, he must not have too much of an issue with it. No, I think there is really no chance of same-sex marriages opening the door for polygamy.

I think thaat there are far greater problems in America than same sex marrige. For the president to be spending time trying to pass laws to prevent it is just absurd. Spend that time on better Social Security laws or better education laws or better imigration laws. If two people love each other let them get married. It doesnt affect the sanctity of marrige. The strength of marrige lies in whether or not it is a lasting commitment.

This is the kind irrational overstatement that helps people feel OK about being intolerant. Same sex marriage, in itself, "completely divorces" the institution from the allegedly vital component of procreation. And it (again, singlehandedly) "redefines" marriage as nothing more than than two people being committed to each other.

So when my septugenarian grandmother married a 80 year-old man, I should have resented her for "redifining" marriage and weakening the bond between my wife and myself? They obviously weren't getting married to have kids. And maybe we should not allow a sterile person to get married?

Of course I realize that's not what's meant by hayleyanne's assertion. What it means is that it's OK for some non-procreative couples to get married, but not others. If the couple can't procreate because they're of the same sex, they are denied marriage, but if it's because of sterility or age (or mere choice), well that's OK.

This is an arbitrary distinction used to justify an unjust policy.



My above comments apply to these boogeyman arguments as well. Somehow extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples will discourage parents-to-be from marrying each other and lead to polygamy. How? Because it "distances marriage from its historical purposes" and "redefines marriage to focus on the 'commitment' aspect". Those are reasonable-sounding phrases, but can anyone explain how it actually works? Because to me it seems like this:

Phase 1) Extend marriage to same-sex couples
Phase 2) X
Phase 3) Polygamy and widespread single-parent families! (I've also heard everything from increased divorce rates to the "mainstreaming" of bestiality.)

What exactly is X? This is the crux of the topic at hand (How does same-sex marriage affect the institution of marriage as a whole?) Can anyone explain it in concrete terms - or even hypothetical scenarios - rather than mere abstract speculation?

Same Sex-marriage is not only an American issue and it is a problem for any society as to how tolerance and moral values can be respected equally.

In Germany the Federal government passed a law so that there now exists a so called "life-partnership", which gives gay couples the right to adopt children, right to an inheritance, and basically all the privileges that married couples have (renting apartments, taxation of both incomes) and so on.
The Federal Court ruled that this law does not violate the German constitution as the conservative party objected.

In my opinion gay couples should not have the same privileges as straight couples have, for I feel homosexuality is somewhat unnatural and marriage is supposed to ensure a stable home for the raising of children. But gay people are not being gay because they want to but because they feel differently than straight people do.If they want to be accepted by society, why not? It is not my place to judge them, as long as they do not undermine the very foundation of that same society that they want to be accepted by.
Therefore I think the law on "life-partnership" is a sufficient compromise, because gay cannot marry as such, so the sanctity of marriage is protected, but they can life as married couples do, which was their goal I suppose.

Maybe this is an option for the States as well.

Irrational overstatement? That's a very extreme characterization of what "hayleyanne" wrote. So, by your logic, those who wish to preserve the institution of marriage, a fundamental institution of our culture, based on a common understanding of what "marriage" is are somehow "intolerant"?

There is nothing "unjust" about the concept of "marriage". It is recognized by our culture, and the overwhelming majority of our citizens to mean the legal union between and man and a woman. Hayleyanne is exactly correct in the historical and cultural reasons for this with respect to procreation and the protection of the woman.

The fact that your grandmother could marry and not procreate is irrelevant to the primary rational behind the institution of marriage. Pointing out am exception does not disqualify the primary idea behind a concept.

Frankly, what I resent, and what the majority of Americans who flocked to the polls last November to vote AGAINST gay marriage resent, is the arbitrary redefinition of a basic social institution to fit the selfish desires of a minority within a minority and then being labeled "intolerant", "bigoted", "homophobic", and "unenlightened" as a result.

Gay marriage advocates have presented NOTHING compelling to show how they are suffering massive discrimination because they can't "marry". For every so-called "disadvantage", there is a practical workaround and an associated advantage that "married" couples don't enjoy. Furthermore, legal solutions to this minor problem have been proposed (civil unions) as well as from private industry (partner benefits) but rejected as "not enough" by the militant gay activists because they want all or nothing.

If you ask me, the entire gay marriage movement is an irrational overstatement designed both to legitimize the most radical elements of the gay movement and also a new market opportunity for the legal lobby would have the opportunity of handling the (inevitable) divorces resulting from gay "marriage".

If there is intolerance on display here, it's against those who believe that our basic institutions, traditions, customs, and social mores should be preserved.

Robert B, you wrote:

- (my point)It completely divorces our notion of marriage from procreation and redefines it as simply society's recognition of two people's commitment to one another;

This is the kind irrational overstatement that helps people feel OK about being intolerant. Same sex marriage, in itself, "completely divorces" the institution from the allegedly vital component of procreation. And it (again, singlehandedly) "redefines" marriage as nothing more than than two people being committed to each other.

So when my septugenarian grandmother married a 80 year-old man, I should have resented her for "redifining" marriage and weakening the bond between my wife and myself? They obviously weren't getting married to have kids. And maybe we should not allow a sterile person to get married?

Of course I realize that's not what's meant by hayleyanne's assertion. What it means is that it's OK for some non-procreative couples to get married, but not others. If the couple can't procreate because they're of the same sex, they are denied marriage, but if it's because of sterility or age (or mere choice), well that's OK.

This is an arbitrary distinction used to justify an unjust policy.

Most people marry to have families. Society recognizes this fact. Some don't want to or can't have children. But they are the exception to the general rule. We don't define marriage by the exception to the rule. The point is that same sex marriage takes procreation out of the equation entirely. It is no longer the general rule-- it simply is irrelevant. Hence, the general rule for recognizing marriage becomes "commitment". The question for debate asked how same sex marriage affects the institution of marriage. This is how it affects it-- by redefining its core.

You wrote:


My above comments apply to these boogeyman arguments as well. Somehow extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples will discourage parents-to-be from marrying each other and lead to polygamy. How? Because it "distances marriage from its historical purposes" and "redefines marriage to focus on the 'commitment' aspect". Those are reasonable-sounding phrases, but can anyone explain how it actually works? Because to me it seems like this:

1) Extend marriage to same-sex couples
2) X
3) Polygamy and widespread single-parent families!

What exactly is X? Can anyone explain it in concrete terms - or even hypothetical scenarios - rather than mere abstract speculation?

"X" is the "slippery slope". Once you take the unique aspect of procreation away from the core understanding of marriage, it is difficult to distinguish other types of unions in any meaningful way. Some will say that polygamy can be distinguished because it is really enslavement of women or some such thing. But that is not really true, in fact that is a prejudice or bias that we hold in our society. Polygamy can be one woman-- several men. Several women, one man; two men and two women. Off the top of my head I could see arguments why polygamy should be legalized: it allows for people to organize economies of scale in raising the kids. For example, two men and two women with children could create a "family" and benefit from all sharing the workload in earning income to support the family and raise the kids in an economically secure environment. Polygamy in the U.S. doesn't have to be the type we know from the islamic world -- that is a prejudice we have to get beyond. Moreover, there is a strong argument that we are infringing on a person's right to freely exercise their religion when we outlaw polygamy.

In short, "X" represents that slippery slope that we as a society will go down if we choose to recognize same sex marriage because I see no meaningful argument against it (i.e. one that is not full of bias).

Its categorical claims ("completely" this and "simply" that) are not supported by hayleyanne's arguments. That makes it an overstatement. It's irrational because, like most arguments against same-sex marriage, its categorical claims are not backed up by sound reasoning.

My statement was a critique of Hayleyanne's argument, not a judgement on her personally.



I also wish to preserve marriage. I just happen to think that "civil unions", "domestic partnerships" and other "marriage-lite" concepts will damage the institution more than allowing same-sex marriage.

As for intolerance: Almost every argument I've heard against same-sex marriage applied equally well to interracial marriage a century ago, eg "you're redefining an institution", "this is how it's been traditionally", "most people are against it", "it could lead to polygamy/bestiality/increased divorce rates" etc. Those arguments didn't cut it back then; why should they be enough in this case? Your argument that the discrimination isn't "massive" enough because there are "practical workarounds" is not particularly compelling either.



Feel free to explain, in concrete terms, how same-sex marriage will affect procreation or the protection of women. No one else seems to be able to.



But pointing out that we make an exception in some cases but not others - and apparently for no good reason - supports my argument that the procreative argument is bogus. The argument really boils down to "because people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry each other" - circular reasoning.



Again pretty much all of the above quote applied to interracial marriage a couple of centuries ago. I don't feel the need to refute fallacious arguments (ie appeal to tradition and appeal to popular opinion). Nor do I feel the need to apologize for people feeling resentful that others object to unreasoned discrimination.

I'm still waiting to hear in real-world terms how same-sex marriage will affect the institution of marriage (other than by making it more inclusive).

RobertB wrote:
As for intolerance: Almost every argument I've heard against same-sex marriage applied equally well to interracial marriage a century ago, eg "you're redefining an institution", "this is how it's been traditionally", "most people are against it", "it could lead to polygamy/bestiality/increased divorce rates" etc. Those arguments didn't cut it back then; why should they be enough in this case? Your argument that the discrimination isn't "massive" enough because there are "practical workarounds" is not particularly compelling either.

The analogy is not the same. The U.S. miscegenation laws were a historical abberation. Historically interracial marriages have always existed. That is not the case for same sex marriages. There is no meaningful historical precedent.

This is what I think is the heart of the matter. This debate is exactly 180 degrees out of phase. You are insisting that those defending an institution that has been established over generations need to justify that defense with "compelling" arguments; all of which you will (or course) reject out of hand.

The burden of proof is on you and on those who wish to fundamentally modify this institution.

Fundamentally redefining the institution of marriage does not "strengthen" it. That's a wild leap of semantical imagination. Inter-racial marriage didn't fundamentally change the definition since the issue was still the union of a man and a woman.

The issue here is precedent. There are generations upon generations of precedent that says that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Yet, the advocates of gay marriage cast aside this concept, which is at the core of our entire legal system, the rule of law, and the American civilization itself, in such a trivial way that it takes one's breath away. Why stop there? Why not just ignore ALL precedent?

You don't like a court decision? Just say it's not "compelling" and ignore it. The established precedent means nothing. The same thing could be true with all social traditions and customs. We have a strong precedent that the parent of a child has more rights over that child than the "state" or a "stranger". Why not cast that "old" established social tradition aside as well? Those old arguments don't mean much in the brave new world of unlimited moral relativism, do they?

There is absolutely no need to cast aside generations of precedent to fulfil the current social activism "flavor of the month".

You make an excellent point lordhelmet. I think the burden of proof is forgotten in this debate. The burden is on those who seek to change the way the institution has -- for all intents and purposes -- been defined.

Those seeking change-- come forward to meet the burden by casting the ban on same sex marriage as discrimination. And that is fine. But it still means that we, as a society are required to examine the entire issue very closely before leaping into to make a fundamental change.

I would argue that not legalizing gay marriage is NOT DISCRIMINATION. In order for there to be discrimination, you have to have two similarly situated groups. The two are not similarly situated. Man/Woman vs. Man/Man or Woman/Woman. It is comparing apples to oranges. There is a fundamental distinction -- and not a superficial distinction as we have with interracial marriage.

That doesn't mean that gay partners ought not to have certain rights. But I think the more interesting question is:

WHY MARRIAGE AND NOT CIVIL UNIONS?

As an historical institution, both as recognized by government and by the churches, marriage has been a form of chattel slavery, in which the woman became the property of the husband. Gosh we should have never tampered with that definition, which after all goes back generations!

In fact, the changing of the institution of marriage from a master/slave to an equal-partner relationship was a far more fundamental change than allowing gays to become married. Since gays are a small minority of people, they will, as married couples, merely become part of that exception to the procreation segment which hayleyanne speaks of.

She says that allowing same-gender marriages is fundamentally shifting the meaning of the institution, whereas mixed-race marriage did not; because race is a superficial difference. To me this shows in some ways how far we have come. I can assure you that even more recently than 100 years ago, racial differences were held to be at least as fundamental as gender differences. It is heartening that we do not think this way now. We take it mostly for granted that racial differences are merely surface nonsense, and that women are the equals of men. 100 years from now, it is highly probable that people will look back see the banning of gay marriages as equally quaint and idiotic, the differences as superficial.

Since those opposed to gay marriage seem to rely on the 'historical institution' argument, it seems worth pointing this out. Because the institution of marriage has changed in fundamental ways over the centuries. And surely, the change which afforded women the equal rights of their husbands in a marriage was far more fundamental than this gay marriage idea. After all, that changed all marriages. This will change none. There is no existing, or as yet undeclared, heterosexual marriage which will be affected by gays being able to get married. The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, because you are picking an arbitrary starting point for it. Couldn't you just as logically start the slippery slope with miscegenation? Or the rise of women from chattel status? Or the state recognition of marriage at all? Why do you randomly pick this point in the arc as the starting point of this slippery slide into moral turpitude?

Through all the superficial changes to the institution of marriage that you listed, one constant fact remained; marriage was between man and woman.

Changing that is not superficial. It's fundamental.

Again, the burden of proof is on the side that wants to redefine the core of "marriage" not those who want to preserve the PRECEDENT.

I haven't seen anyone do that yet.

Your argument fails for one main reason. You are deciding that the changes I described are superficial, and that allowing two people of the same gender to wed is fundamental. However, that is merely an opinion. As I pointed out, and this is not my opinion, it is a fact, the perception, the reality of people has changed quite... fundamentally over the years. We may see racial differences as superficial, and I agree that they are, but at one time people did not see it that way at all. In fact, the races were thought of as fundamentally different. Ditto the sexes. Go back 200 years and tell a married man that his wife should not be his property, that she should be an equal partner with equal rights, and he would have said, 'it's NEVER going to happen.'

Just because you decide that this particular change is fundamental does not mean that in retrospect people will agree. Historical precedent shows us that this is true. See what happens if you go back to medeival Europe and tell people that the sun is the center of the solar system. History is replete with this sort of thinking, from the protestant reformation to the abolition of slavery, from the heliocentric universe to womens' suffrage. As our perceptions change, and over time, we view previously held notions as silly, superficial, and quaint. At the time, however, they are seen as fundamental. This is sociology 101 stuff, really.

From Turner v. Safley



Seems to me gay marriages do fulfill the needs I placed in bold print in the decision in Turner v. Safley. It is time gay Americans get the same rights we give rapists, robbers, junkies and thieves in our prison system.

Civil unions may be an option...though seperate but equal has been tried before without much success. Personally I believe the state should only legitimize civil unions, not marriages, for all. I am married, due to that I have certain legal obligations and certain rights imposed by the state of Texas and the US government. If I divorce my wife, as am I, is entitled to a certain split of material goods. If one of us dies the other may recieve some sort of government benefit. These are all civil issues. My marriage was also a sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church. This imposes obligations on myself which if I violate could lead to eternal damnation. This is a spiritual issue.

The reality is the state should be involved with civil unions only and let marriage be a spiritual issue. It is going to be the burden of the states to show a state interest in denying what the USSC has already ruled as "one of the basic civil right's of man" to gay Americans.

This really isn't an issue that "I" have decided as to whether the fundamental nature, the core element, and the PRECEDENT of marriage is between a man and a woman. It's our culture, it's our tradition, and it's our social mores. I think I learned those words in "sociology 101" by the way.

The bottom line is that sexual differences between two members of the same species are fundamental independent of how much spin you want to apply to this basic biological fact. It isn't a matter of "my" opinion. It's a fact.

Racial differences are not. A man is a man whether he's a WASP, an Asian from upper Mongolia, or an Aborigine from the outback.

Again, I must point out that this debate has advocates that have turned the issue on it's head. The attempt is being made to put the burden of proof on those who accept the precedent and the universally accepted concept of an institution called marriage.

The burden of proof is actually on you and fellow gay marriage advocates.

You need to present a compelling reason why this basic social institution should be fundamentally changed. Pointing out events centuries ago just doesn't cut the grey poupon.

Like I said earlier, what you advocate stands the concept of precedent on it's head. Is that what you really want?

[quote=lordhelmet,Jan 5 2005, 12:03 PM]
[QUOTE]The burden of proof is actually on you and fellow gay marriage advocates.

You need to present a compelling reason why this basic social institution should be fundamentally changed. Pointing out events centuries ago just doesn't cut the grey poupon. [/QUOTE]

Read this somewhere before?

[QUOTE]Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [/QUOTE]

Actually the burden will be on the states to show that there is a significant state interest allowing the state to violate what the USSC has already labeled "one of the basic civil right's of man".

Hugo wrote:

QUOTE(Hugo @ Jan 5 2005, 12:10 PM)

QUOTE(lordhelmet @ Jan 5 2005, 12:03 PM)

The burden of proof is actually on you and fellow gay marriage advocates. 
 
You need to present a compelling reason why this basic social institution should be fundamentally changed.  Pointing out events centuries ago just doesn't cut the grey poupon. 

Read this somewhere before?

QUOTE

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Actually the burden will be on the states to show that there is a significant state interest allowing the state to violate what the USSC has already labeled "one of the basic civil right's of man".

Hold on Hugo. Before you get to the point where the state is required to show a significant state interest in defining marriage as between a man and a woman--- the precedent must support that same sex marriage is a "basic civil right of man". I think the Court is pretty clear that the right to marry someone of the opposite sex is a civil right. And indeed, everyone pretty much has that right.

It is a leap to say that everyone ALSO has the right to marry someone of the same sex. It is a different "right".

Fixed quotes -Amlord

If we live in a country that protects religious freedom (including the right to be free of it), and there exists a separation between religious marriage and civil marriage... how does same-sex marriage affect the institution of marriage as a whole?

It seems that marriage is very unprogressive and rather barbaric ritual of binding oneself to another as an expression of love. Oddly in today's society, we can see most of these bonded couples end in divorce, so where is the love? Besides would want to be chained to one person for the rest of their life? Or have such a connection recognized by their government? Or who could love someone for the rest of their life? Certainly not half of America.

It seems with all the talk on 'what a marriage is' that people lost what marriage means to them. To most people marriage is away of expressing to a community that one chooses another until death or divorce as an expression of love sharing everything. In the eyes of the court system, which can be translated into the eyes of the state or into a civil union, marriage is a contract agreed to by both parties of legal age to enter a contract, to share money and property until such time that either person dies. If in the event that one or both parties agree to a seperation, division of property, and economy will apply under the contract of divorce. In the eyes of religion, a religious marriage is all of the above (minus divorce if you are Catholic) entered with a contract not to the state but to God. That's it. So if one believes their God to allow homosexual marriages, then they can have a religious marriage.

I think homosexual marriages does not harm to institution of marriage. It is divorce that harms the institution of marriage. If people really wanted to fight for the institution of marriage they would fight against divorce and the damage it causes.

Let us look to Lawrence v. Texas to give us some further enlightenment into how the court might rule on the inevitable challenge to the recently passed state laws prohibiting gay marriage.



This opinion was written by Justice Kennedy, often the swing vote on the USSC court. It was a 6-3 vote. Kennedy, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor, Souter all rejected centuries of traditional morality in favor of the Due Process Clause.

[quote=hayleyanne,Jan 5 2005, 08:12 AM]
[b]Robert B, you wrote:

What exactly is X? Can anyone explain it in concrete terms - or even hypothetical scenarios - rather than mere abstract speculation?[/b]

"X" is the "slippery slope". Once you take the unique aspect of procreation away from the core understanding of marriage, it is difficult to distinguish other types of unions in any meaningful way. Some will say that polygamy can be distinguished because it is really enslavement of women or some such thing. But that is not really true, in fact that is a prejudice or bias that we hold in our society. Polygamy can be one woman-- several men. Several women, one man; two men and two women. Off the top of my head I could see arguments why polygamy should be legalized: it allows for people to organize economies of scale in raising the kids. For example, two men and two women with children could create a "family" and benefit from all sharing the workload in earning income to support the family and raise the kids in an economically secure environment.



[quote=lordhelmet,Jan 5 2005, 09:41 AM]

The issue here is precedent. There are generations upon generations of precedent that says that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Yet, the advocates of gay marriage cast aside this concept, which is at the core of our entire legal system, the rule of law, and the American civilization itself, in such a trivial way that it takes one's breath away. Why stop there? Why not just ignore ALL precedent?

You don't like a court decision? Just say it's not "compelling" and ignore it. The established precedent means nothing. The same thing could be true with all social traditions and customs. We have a strong precedent that the parent of a child has more rights over that child than the "state" or a "stranger". Why not cast that "old" established social tradition aside as well? Those old arguments don't mean much in the brave new world of unlimited moral relativism, do they?

There is absolutely no need to cast aside generations of precedent to fulfil the current social activism "flavor of the month".


The slippery slope and precedent arguments cited above seem to be a pretty good expression of the sentiments of conservatism, Edmund Burke-style. Classic conservatives argue that the unintended consequences of change are often over-looked when reformers try to change social institutions. Burke effectively wrote about the French Revolution and the perils of change in society. However, trying to set this debate in the conservative court, by arguing that the burden of proof is incumbent upon those seeking change rather than those who can claim precedent, is an attempt to make others accept the premise that this approach is the best way.

One of his contemporary counter points was Thomas Paine who argued that as creatures of reason we should not be cling to the lifestyles and institutions of our ancestors simply because there is precedent. He was able to offer a devastating attack on the principles of hereditary monarchy and aristocracy and the idea of inherited social class and privileges in this area.

As with all great thinkers, both men had clear and cogent points. We should not be confined to a conservative premise or a radical premise to determine the verdict in a debate here.

As for the issue of the slippery slope and unintended consequences, I think it is a clear issue that should be considered but not abused. It is an simple tactic to scare people away from change by saying it will make the sky fall. It is also simple to say that a change will have all benefit and no detriment. In the above examples, I think that those of us who argue that gays should be allowed to marry should also be ready to accept the argument of those who feel their rights are being infringed if they are not allowed to engage in polygamy. If we open up the institution of marriage to a reappraisal of what that means, and it is demonstrated the homosexual marriage does not cause cataclysmic damage to western civilization, I would think that polygamists could later claim they are being unfairly treated by not having their social practices recognized by the state. (Of course I think we would need a larger community that engaged in long-term and stable multi-partner relationships.) But I don't see that deep of a slope of possibility beyond that, such as adult-pre teen child marriages coming back.

I think the slippery slope argument in not as effective when it is taken to the point of: Allow gay marriage and Americans will no longer feel compelled to obey the law or follow court orders.

I personally don't think (after running the unintended consequences check in my mind) that recognizing gay marriages will cause damage to society and I think the prohibition blocks individual Americans civil liberties. And you of course are welcome to completely disagree with me.

As a side note that I would be willing to explore in more depth in another thread, I find it interesting that neo-conservatives, who argue the Burke type of conservatism, that unintended consequences are so unpredictable and so potentially damaging that it is worth preserving practices and institutions that contain some injustices (social classes, state churches, and slavery would have been issues of his day), find it easy to say that we should be going into foreign country and fundamentally altering their political, economic, and social institutions from without and expect a rosy outcome. Again I would be happy to follow up this observation in another thread.

But are those differences really fundamental? I do still contend that this is more perception than it is reality. Perhaps the genitalia of men and women are 'fundamentally' different; but then again, perhaps not. Those genitalia serve different functions, but both are the sexual organs of the body. Can a man born without a penis still marry a woman? Can he marry a woman born a hermaphrodite? The lines between the sexes, physically, are blurred around the edges. But what other differences might exist which give cause for your designation as 'fundamental?' None that I can see. Oh, a century or two ago, and people would have listed many 'fundamental' differences between men and women. But today, do not women and men enjoy the same legal rights and protections? You have spoken of historical and legal precedent, yet chosen to dismiss my own uses of precedent. In a legal sense, in the sense of our rights as citizens, there are very few, if any, differences between the genders. I say again, you are deciding, in light of historical perceptions and precedent, what a 'fundamental' difference means and is.



But this is what I am saying. I don't think you have been paying attention to my argument. Of course racial differences are superficial. But, though you choose to dismiss my historical precedent, at one time racial differences were seen as fundamental. In today's society, we also view most differences between men and women as superficial. Why are you so fixated on different genitalia? Isn't that really just as superficial as racial characteristics? Blacks and whites in this country share all legal rights. So do men and women. The differences between blacks and whites today are only the superficial differences of skin and features. The differences between men and women today are only the superficial differences of genitalia and secondary sex characteristics.



Ah, the burden of proof! But it depends, does it not, on agreeing that gay marriage is indeed a fundamental change. Since that is your underlying assumption here, the burden of proof is actually on you to prove that it is fundamental. If you can convince me that this change would be fundamental, then the burden would indeed be upon me to prove that a 'fundamental' change is justified. But so far, you have not proven that allowing people of the same gender to wed fundamentally changes the institution of marriage. You merely state it as fact.

Your one attempt at doing so is to use historical precedent. Which, I must say, you undermine by dismissing my entire argument with your "Pointing out events centuries ago just doesn't cut the grey poupon" statement.

My argument has been, and remains, that the advancement of womens' rights changed the nature of the institution in far more fundamental ways than gay marriage possibly could.

Perhaps you could actually address my argument in more detail, rather than saying it doesn't cut the mustard? Do you deny that people once perceived the difference between races as incrediby fundamental? Do you deny that people once perceived the difference between the genders as fundamental? I have only attempted to show that concepts we have held in the past, connected to the institution of marriage, were considered very fundamental. It is retrospect which allows us to think of them as superficial.

Are there no protections for married couples with adopted children? I believe there are. So you have already separated marriage from procreation, no? So marriage doesn't exist to encourage procreation... you said it yourself. The fact is, there are married people who adopt children... these people in no way dilute or adversely affect the institution of marriage at all. They are encouraged through marriage to build a stable home and raise their adopted child. Why would it be any different with people of the same sex? These people would either adopt or have children using other methods currently employed by heterosexual couples -- all of which have their protections under the law.



Let me get this straight... procreation is at the core reason for the existence of marriage, but marriage doesn't exist to encourage procreation? No, marriage exists to protect couples and children (through either procreation or adoption, or some combination of the two) in a family. Procreation is an option, by your own admission, and therefore cannot be at the core of it's existence. A relationship that builds a stable home and raises a child (if one is present), which is what you are describing, is at the core of the existence of marriage.

Doesn't marriage also offer these rights to adopted children? When you adopt a child, legally, the child is yours as regards all of the things you mention. How does adopting a same-sex marriage in which a child is adopted affect this in any way?


Well, apart from my Bush joke, I wasn't referring to eastern marriage beliefs. I was referring to what is happening in our own country. This is the state of polygamy in the US... there are laws against it, but they aren't necessarily being enforced:

http://www.childpro.org/2003%20media/2003%20media%2001.htm
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy96.html
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy1.html

This is the culture of polygamy in the west. So, no, it isn't a western bias at all.



This is why same-sex marriage will have no effect on the legality of polygamy. There is no exploitation of partners or children in same-sex marriages (at least not any greater possibility of it than exists in current heterosexual marriages).

I can't possibly imagine continuing this debate if all definitions are up for grabs and everything is relative to spin, opinion, and interpretation.

Now the fundamental biological differences between men and women is an "opinion"? A reality based on perception?

Under these ground rules everything is possible. With no standards, there are no positions that mean much of anything.

Your own logic can be turned back on itself at will to refute every assertion that you've been making. That's my perception.

For example your casual assertion of: "Oh, a century or two ago, and people would have listed many 'fundamental' differences between men and women"

Really? Says who? That's your perception which is based on your perception of history which has been proven in many cases to be dubious at best and outrightly fraudulent at worst. Were you there personally then? If so, what difference would it make? It would just be your "opinion", not a generally recognized fact.

I see where you're going with this. No thanks.

Who is encouraging people to raise children in stable homes? Abuse, child pornography, molestation, two homes, two dads and moms, two sets of grand parents, bouncing from one house to the next, why? For the self centered needs of their parents.

I believe their are always reason for divorce, but lack of love is not one. Abuse is one. No one can survive an abusive relationship. This includes a person who abuses drugs and alcohol. There is no stability in a home of abuse. The second reason is adultery. In adultery all trust is lost, so how could one regain a stable relationship?

"Your father and I don't love each other." So because people don't love each other they should destroy the stability of a home? As opposed to working through their love? In a society with a high divorce rate, we must ask ourselves who is encouraging these children to be raised in a stable environment?

Just to address this one point about my analogy: A historical precedent is irrelevant to this analogy because anti-miscegenation laws weren't abolished by appealing to historical precedent. They were abolished because enough people realized their basic unfairness regardless of historical precedent.

I was going to comment more but quarkhead said it better & more concisely than I would have.

Those of us who have good friends or close family members who are gay must just see things diferently than those who do not. I don't see how you can, on the one hand, care about another person and see him/her as a your human equal, and on the other hand deny them something as basic as marriage to the one single other consenting adult that they wish to marry, and who wishes to marry them.

If you know many gay people, surely you know a gay couple that is as loving, caring and committed as any straight married couple. It's the same thing. Male-female or same-sex, it's the same kind of relationship. I don't see how anybody who knows such a couple can say otherwise.

Marriage, historically, has had little to do with an expression of love. Most marriages were arranged for financial or social gain with little consideration for love.



Well, the majority of divorce occurs because of financial problems not because of abuse or lack of love. Many people, while lovely and loving, confuse domestic problems that have become intolerable with "a lack of love" - or perhaps they were never "in love" in the first place. I believe people get married for the wrong reasons and at the wrong time because of the belief that marriage is about love. It really isn't, nor has it ever been. It also protects spouses and children by affording them rights as part of a married family. You can love someone and not be married. I want to marry the woman I love, but I'm not going to do it until I believe that we have a partnership that will make a marriage work -- shared goals, a shared view on how to raise a child and the ability to work together to achieve those goals and raise our children. Until I find the woman I can do that with I won't get married. So, I agree with you. Misguided views of marriage as I've described above (heterosexual or otherwise) do quite a bit of damage to the institution of marriage.

So your assumption is that if one is against gay marriage one doesn't "have any good friends or family members who are gay"?

To me, that's just another way of saying that those who oppose changing a fundamental institution on philosophical grounds are "ignorant", "Insensitive" or "homophobic bigots". Well, I know gay people in both categories and personally resent your assumption.

The institution of marriage is "basic". But it's "basic" between the one member of each sex, not the same, and not multiples of either.

This issue is not about whether two gay people can love each other and live in a "caring relationship". They can. They can do it with or without gay "marriage".

The solution is out there as well. It's called "domestic partnerships". You know, I think most people would go along with that if the institution of marriage would be left alone.

The real question is whether the gay lobby will settle for a practical solution that addresses the minor inconveniences that they suffer by not being allowed to "marry" or whether they will continue their all or nothing radical agenda.

The question is why does it have to be exclusive to heterosexual couples? It doesn't open the door to polygamy because there are reasons why polygamy should remain illegal -- exploitation being the big one. So why? Because it's tradition? Traditions change, don't they? They evolve to meet the needs of the time, right? Marriage is not exclusively about procreation so why does it have to be defined as between a man and a woman? Because that's the tradition? Beyond any personal distaste for homosexuality that you may or may not have (because it is irrelevant), how does adapting the institution adversely affect it?

Yes, because the definition of "marriage" has traditionally been defined as between a man and a woman. That's the fundamental basis. It's the definition.

As I suggested, if two men and two women want to set up shop and sacrifice their individual rights and potentially half of their incomes in a legally binding way, I have no problem with it as long as it's called something other than "marriage".

End of problem.

I see, so it is an issue of what it is called. It can be a marriage in every sense but the name. So homosexual couples getting hoomblygroomed (my temporary name for homosexual marital-esque unions - to make you feel better) and raising children and having all the protections equivalent to marriage is not the problem... and that will do nothing to undermine the institution of marriage soleley because it has a different name. I see. So, to you, the only important aspect to the institution of marriage is what it is called. Interesting. I mean, if you accept the false argument that same-sex marriage will open the door to legal recognition of polygamous marriages, won't legally recognized same-sex unions open the door to legally recognized polygamous unions?

Wow lordhelmet, my assumption that you don't have good friends and close family who are gay was the same as calling you a "homophobic bigot"? You're a fun guy to debate with!

Gay people can indeed love and care for each other while being denied marriage. So can an interracial couple. So let's ban interracial marriage, or else call it a "domestic paretnership". They can still love and care for each other, so what's the problem?

My assumption was based on your lumping gay people wanting marriage rights into a selfish, militant, radical "gay lobby" who should settle for a practical solution and rather than equal treatment. These don't sound like the statements of someone who has had many serious good-faith conversations about same-sex marriage with gay folks involved in long-term monogamous relationships.

But please enlighten me, lordhelmet, how do you justify your views on gay marriage to your gay acquantances? What is their response to views on how same-sex marriage affects the institution of marriage?

Well, your name is pretty silly and would likely hurt your cause, but essentially the answer is yes.

Gayriage is the name I like better. It even "sounds" like marriage, but it's not. It's different. Or you could do what Rudy Guliani proposes (and I support) and call them "domestic partnerships".

Of course, lawyers would be all for the idea given the fact that they could increase their potential market of divorce/separation cases and their associated fees.

And, at the end of the day, what will happen? Most gays WON'T get "gayrried" because they will realize that they actually had it better when they weren't. Dual income, no kids in most cases? One wants to bail after 10 years and doesn't owe the other half of their accumulated wealth? This topic will go poof! and will be replaced by the next flavor of the month cause.

In response to RobertB:

My comment: The U.S. miscegenation laws were a historical abberation. Historically interracial marriages have always existed. That is not the case for same sex marriages. There is no meaningful historical precedent. (my quote)

RobertB's response: Just to address this one point about my analogy: A historical precedent is irrelevant to this analogy because anti-miscegenation laws weren't abolished by appealing to historical precedent. They were abolished because enough people realized their basic unfairness regardless of historical precedent.

I understand why americans abolished the miscegenation laws. My point was that drawing an analogy between interracial marriage and same sex marriage is not accurate if (and I thought you had originally said this) the basis of the analogy is that historically they had both been prohibited.

RobertB wrote:

Those of us who have good friends or close family members who are gay must just see things diferently than those who do not. I don't see how you can, on the one hand, care about another person and see him/her as a your human equal, and on the other hand deny them something as basic as marriage to the one single other consenting adult that they wish to marry, and who wishes to marry them.

If you know many gay people, surely you know a gay couple that is as loving, caring and committed as any straight married couple. It's the same thing. Male-female or same-sex, it's the same kind of relationship. I don't see how anybody who knows such a couple can say otherwise.

Many people know alot of gay people. My husband's brother was gay. Me knowing someone who is gay or not does not change my view of how we should approach changing the definition of marriage. Personally, I believe that people are probably born homosexual (although we don't really know) and because of that I want gay people to be treated completely fairly. I fully support civil unions which provide the necessary protections for gay couples. Although such protections can be achieved outside of civil unions, I have no problem with making it easier to insure them through something like a civil union. However, I do not support jumping into a redefinition of what marriage is. As I said in an earlier post, I believe a more interesting question is : Why marriage and not civil unions?

How does same-sex marriage affect the institution of marriage as a whole?

Same sex marriage erodes the boundaries of what is acceptable in terms of marriage.

entspeak's link to the history of gay marriage: Same-sex marriage shows us some interesting things.

First off, in most of the cases where same sex marriage was acceptable, it was not in actuality a marriage. For instance:





So the same sex marriage was a temporary arrangement. Marriage, when viewed traditionally, is not a temporary circumstance.

In the Fujian province, the "boy marriages" referred to may have been more akin to pimping your son out for cash, as bride prices were paid to marry these boys and the arrangements were temporary. Source

In addition, the Azande's had many other peculiar customs, such as incest, sex with children, and infant marriages. Source

The fact that some same sex marriages were legal does not mean they were akin to marriage.

As for the impact of gay marriage on society, we have a modern example of what acceptance of a form of marriage which is not centered around children: Scandinavia.

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia





Half of all children are now born out of wedlock in Scandinavia. By contrast, in the US, that figure is around 30-35%. This number has been relatively stable over the past 8 years.Source

Of course, the question arises on how, exactly, gay marriage leads to the increase in out of wedlock births? Why does allowing same sex couples to marry erode the meaningfulness of marriage?

To answer this, we must ask ourselves what marriage means. The answer varies from person to person (which is part of the problem). The very concept of gay marriage has moved the emphasis of marriage from children to other areas. No longer is it taken for granted that people get married so they start a family.

Before anyone jumps all over my "assumption" that children are the fundamental basis of marriage, let's examine a concept once known as the "shotgun wedding". Why would a father, whose daughter becomes pregnant out of wedlock, force the future father to marry his daughter. Of course, there are various rationales, including ensuring that someone other than himself is financially responsible for the new baby, but the key point is that having children and getting married were once considered hand-in-glove. That is, having children was once considered almost equivalent to being married.

This is no longer true. We need to ask ourselves whether or not the child raising aspect of marriage should be emphasized more, or discarded. In Scandinavia, where the importance of marriage between parents has eroded, we see the results: a majority of children are born out of wedlock. We have not seen the social implications of this, but Scandinavia certainly will over the next decade or two. I doubt anyone is encouraged by the trends there.

In order to emphasize marriage's importance in child rearing, it is important to stress the male-female bond which occurs in marriage. By de-emphasizing this aspect of the relationship we call marriage, we devalue it and therefore invite a further deterioration of the institution. We de-emphasize this by watering down the institution first off by reducing the social stigma of out-of-wedlock births and second by encouraging those who cannot, by definition, conceive children to become married.

It is not as simple as saying that allowing same sex relationships to be termed "marriages" creates a unique stress on the institution itself. However, it does add additional pressure on an institution that has been weakening over the past few decades. That weakening has caused real and measurable societal problems. Weakening it further may cause the institution to become a thing of the past, a quaint institution that used to be the framework of the family. Worse yet, it may morph into something wholly separate from child rearing, which would be a tragedy.

Edit to fix quotes.

Robert B. and lord helmet.

First, let's keep the back and forth jabs to a minimum, please. Take a step away from the computer and breathe before you post. I'd like to keep this thread open. Thanks.

Robert B,

You are getting off topic as well. The response of lord helmet's friends to his views is irrelevant to this conversation. If you would like to find out, please send him a private message and you can get all in each others face through that form of communication -- again, for the purposes of keeping this thread open, please.

I speaking to modern American history. It is not allowed to sell people for financial or social gain in America. Slavery has been outlawed. Whether or not people do or do not do it is an entirely different topic.

This by no means changes the fact that the archaic ritual of marriage should have any impact on anyone. The problem is the governments own recognition of the civil union contract that translates to tax benefits for those who enter the bond union. Removal of the tax benefits would remove any interest in marriage by many.



Are there statistics to show that most divorce stem from finical problems? Even if most divorce do stem from finical problems, is that a reason to make the family unstable? If a couple can't make one house work finical, how will they ever make two houses work financially?

I do agree, if a marriage is built on sharing lives, which includes working towards the same goals out of respect for on another, then any marriage will survive. Any partnership will survive. Any business built on a partnership will survive. So it returns to entering the legal contract.

What makes the contract of marriage separate for any other business contract?

RobertB wrote:
Wow lordhelmet, my assumption that you don't have good friends and close family who are gay was the same as calling you a "homophobic bigot"? You're a fun guy to debate with!

Gay people can indeed love and care for each other while being denied marriage. So can an interracial couple. So let's ban interracial marriage, or else call it a "domestic paretnership". They can still love and care for each other, so what's the problem?

My assumption was based on your lumping gay people wanting marriage rights into a selfish, militant, radical "gay lobby" who should settle for a practical solution and rather than equal treatment. These don't sound like the statements of someone who has had many serious good-faith conversations about same-sex marriage with gay folks involved in long-term monogamous relationships.

But please enlighten me, lordhelmet, how do you justify your views on gay marriage to your gay acquantances? What is their response to views on how same-sex marriage affects the institution of marriage?

Robert-- referring to a "gay lobby" is just a shorthand term for describing a group of people that advocate a particular agenda relating to gay rights. Not all gays are part of the gay lobby but clearly there is a gay lobby-- as with any other type of group seeking to gain some type of change.

I ask you to please explain to me why the term "marriage" is so important? Or is it? Are civil unions enough in your opinion? And one more point, I just don't understand why this issue is such a big one. The types of protections that are gained through marriage can be gotten otherwise. Moreover, the downside of "marriage" seems to far outweigh the benefits for gays. For example, if gay marriage becomes legal in the U.S.-- gays will be forced (just like heterosexuals) to get married if they want certain benefits. No longer will their be "domestic partner" benefits for gays-- instead they will have to show a marriage license. As it stands now-- they can structure their lives in such a way as to have the best of both worlds.

Well, this seems to be an issue with marriage in general. One could ask why people get married at all? But they do. So, your belief is that all there really is that is important about the institution of marriage is what it is called -- not who engages in it?

Amlord,

Yes, I'll ask the question... how does same-sex marriage lead to more children being born out of wedlock? There is no connection. It's like saying, "I saw two cars crash in front of me... not coincidentally, I had just written down the word "car" on a piece of paper. Therefore, writing the word "car" leads to more car accidents." Could it possibly be that marriage itself is falling apart in Scandanavia for the reasons that lord helmet puts forth? Could it be that more people are thinking along those lines? That seems more likely to me than to make a connection between people who are of the same sex getting married and heterosexuals having children without getting married.

What you are getting at is that homosexuals are incapable of providing a stable home for children. Can you please point to some evidence for this assumption? Because if you can prove to me that same-sex couples somehow adversely affect what I believe to be the core of marriage, I will change my mind.

If it is all over term then why doesn't the government stop marriage all together. Allow marriage to return to religions, and offer that all people can enter a "domestic partnership." Which is legally what marriage is. Marriage in the eyes of government is nothing more then a contract (as of right now between a man and a woman) between two people to share money and property until such time as death or divorce. At which time the contract will no longer exist and the property and money will be divided among participants.

In turn we remove "marriage benefits", and offer "civil union benefits" in hospitals, taxes and death. All people will be allowed to enter into a civil union, except for polygamist due to the legal nature of a partnership (two people), and people who wish to enter a union with an animal or a minor, because neither can legal enter into a contract.

Legally... merely the contents.

hayleyanne,


I think this is what we're asking? Why is the name so important. Is the institution of marriage nothing more than a name? You can basically have all the rights afforded by the institution but you can't have the name is what I'm reading here. We'll give you everything the institution allows but just don't connect yourself to the institution by name. Wouldn't that be considered discriminatory? I mean why can't they call it marriage? Because marriage is "traditionally" between a man and a woman. And yet it isn't that discrimination based on sexual preference to say you can have all the benefits but you can't use the word?

In fact, there is a movement to extend domestic partner benefits to heterosexual couples... there's your adverse affect on heterosexual marriage and it comes from denying it to homosexuals. I mean, if you are not married why should some people be getting benefits for not being married simply because they are homosexual... isn't that discrimination based on sexual preference?

http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/dp-wrong.html

Why do people get married then? Really I think there is a strong argument that the negatives outweigh the positives (absolutely) if the couple does not have children.

So again, in my mind, it boils down to marriage's link to family and kids.

What my thesis would be from the Scandinavia information and US data is that equal rights and converging income for women lead to higher divorce rates. Women are no longer stuck in a marriage due to economics. My thesis assumes there is also a positive correlation between a society providing equal opportunities for one group (women) and providing it for another (gays).

Not necessarily true, Hayleyanne. I am a married woman with no children and no intention of having any, but there are certain protections that marriage provides to my family.

The site that I referenced above has a short list of marital benefits, many of which can not be privately contracted, and out of that list, this is what applies to a childless couple:



It is a very large percentage of the list, and much of this deals with property rights and the distribution of property.

Okay... I agree, many people want to get married in order to start a family. I would also argue that many homosexuals want to get married for the same reason. So, what's the issue?

Cyan,

Thanks for the list. I'd not seen that before.

This is not the real question, the real question is whether the majority of people will allow for marriages to not be recognized by the State. As some one pointed out, the solution is simple; take marriage out the equation and leave it as a religious ceremony. Instead of going to court and getting a certificate of marriage" go to court and get a certificate of "Domestic Partnership" The state recognizes "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" and your Church or religious affiliation recognizes your "marriage" I am willing to bet my last dollar that majority of gays will be fine with this, while mainstream heterosexuals would lose their mind.



Let me be honest... I don't have any Gay friends, nor do I particular relate to any. I had some gay neighbors a while back, but besides "hey" nothing much was said. You may resent what Robert B said, but I don't see how what he is saying is flawed. Do some reflection. If you know Gays or have friends that are gay, how can you truly respect them and care for them as friends and in the same breath say "But you don't deserve the rights I have", it does seem odd to me.



I would have a hard time defending your side as well, maybe you should change positions if it is so difficult. The only fundamental difference between sexes is our sex.

Seriously I have a few questions can a kidney of a female go into a male?? What about a lung?? What about a heart?? ...a liver??

Also I have a really important philosophical question for everyone.

The word precedent just keep getting thrown around all over the place, if everything should depend on precedent how do we ever change??

I will say this to Gay marriage advocates, though it is a separate debate, those who say that allowing gay marriage would lead to allowing polygamy have the right of it. The arguments both run parallel courses this goes for the pro's as well as the cons.



There is no comparison between racial issues and homosexual issues either except for the fact that some minorities happen to be gay. However the discrimination works the same and that is what we compare. So gays argue that as consenting adults they should be allowed to married whomever they choose. A polygamist would argue the same.

My comment related to why "marriage" is so important as an issue to gay couples. Why is it so important? Cyan listed a number of benefits associated with marriage and I don't deny that this is true. Although two points in that regard:

(1) first, a number of these benefits can be pre-planned
(2) second, I would still assert that the negatives of marriage (without children) outweigh the benefits (if there are no children)

If, as you say, that most gay couples want to get married because they want to raise families-- then I believe this would put them on a more equal footing with heterosexual couples. But I don't think the facts bear that out. Yes, some gay couples adopt, or bring children to the relationship. But they represent a small minority. If however, studies prove me wrong on this point-- I would be much more convinced that the two types of relationships should be called marriage.