Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

In truth I have come to believe, much as Prometheus does, that government should absolve itself of that responsibility altogether (or nearly).

OK. I'll work within that framework, then. What role would government play then? You left yourself some convenient wiggle room by saying "nearly" absolved from marriage. Aside from religious reasons, if government had no role to play at all, what would be the point of getting married in the first place? If government removed recognition of the lifelong covenant to take care of one's wife, no matter what circumstances befell her, how many single mothers would there be today? Do you think that number would increase?

In other words, how does this "strengthen" the institution of marriage, as many homosexuals claim their vision of "equality" would do?

[belverron]

I'm not out to strengthen the institution of marriage. Marriage belongs to the churches. Contracts should be able to cover the essentials when it comes to governmental/societal recognition. A limited form of civil union might be alright, too. It'd depend. I'm not sure about rights like not having to testify in court against your partner, or whatever. That might be abused.

I'm not talking about killing marriage or lifetime commitments, though.

[YourTokah]

I was gonig to begin this post by saying that I don't understand what the big deal is here... but I do. It comes down to religion. Once again, I believe that people's religious ideas of what is moral Should Not dictate what is legal. Separation of Church and State! Hello!!! Of course, in this country that is really just a myth. People are sheep, republicans and southern baptists and democrats and catholics alike, (although fewer democrats - heh) - If you want to call it a "civil union" then call it a damn civil union, give them the same rights afforded to other married or civilly joined couples, and MOVE ON!
If you're so worried about what God thinks of it, then let him take care of it when and how he chooses to. Don't force your religious beliefs on others simply because you're in a majority.

[Dirty Name]

Contracts should be able to cover the essentials when it comes to governmental/societal recognition. A limited form of civil union might be alright, too. It'd depend. I'm not sure about rights like not having to testify in court against your partner, or whatever. That might be abused. I'm not talking about killing marriage or lifetime commitments, though.

So let me get this straight... you don't really want gay marriage at all, then? To take this position, you are basically saying that "marriage" has no real social, legal or economic purpose - that it's really just a "state of mind."

Do you sincerely believe that relationships between fathers, mothers and children would be strengthened if marriage was marginalized as a purely religious thing?

[Dirty Name]

I was gonig to begin this post by saying that I don't understand what the big deal is here... but I do. It comes down to religion.

You have a lot of reading to do. The case against gay marriage is entirely secular, though many religious folks don't know how to articulate it, and so they do untold damage every time they scream that homosexuality is "wrong." My answer? I agree that's it's morally wrong, but morality is not part of my argument.

A cursory reading of the last few pages would have told you as much. Just reading this page alone would have told you that the current discussion is actually centered around the abolition of legal marriage altogether. If you think that's a purely religious issue, you are woefully misinformed.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name So let me get this straight... you don't really want gay marriage at all, then? To take this position, you are basically saying that "marriage" has no real social, legal or economic purpose - that it's really just a "state of mind."

Of course it has a social purpose. And it's not as if you wouldn't be able to get married by a church or another institution of your choice. Since when does government provide meaning to our relationships?

[Dirty Name]

No I understand all that, but I don't think I made myself clear.

If you remove all government/legal recognition for married couples, the end result will be that fewer people will get married, and this creates long term problems for society when children are born out of wedlock.

Unless you think children raised in single-parent homes is a good thing.

[belverron]

I would hope it would not reduce the marriage rate. I do not see why it would.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: YourTokah Don't force your religious beliefs on others simply because you're in a majority.

The argument is not primarily religious from my perspective, YT. I am with the majority in opposing homosexual marriage, and in representative forms of government, majorities rule. But I don't throw the same fastballs that DN does. My perspective is based upon tradition, the tradition of man/woman marriage that extends into the mists of pre-history. I don't agree that minorities (homosexuals and their paladins) may redefine traditional concepts like marriage that already have a firm definition.

On the other hand, if a homosexual couple are able to find a sympathetic minister to join them in holy matrimony, who am I to say that sacrament doesn't apply? I just don't think that the state and its enforcement and coercion powers belong the the arena of marriage. Thus I oppose many of Dirty's arguments as well. I don't favor a Traditional Marriage Amendment, because I favor less intrusion by the state in the lives of citizens, not more.

[SteveA]

The question isn't whether or not gays should be allowed to legally marry, it's "Why does everyone want government to make these decisions for is in the first place?".

I'm sure most people here could confidently assess a couple they knew and decide for themself whether or not they wish to respect someones marriage.

The only reason marriages were created in the first place was as an attempt to create a stable family unit (I think men created the institution as a way to help assure their children were really their own ). Anyway, the more we place marriage and the family in the hands of uninvolved beaurocracies, the more likely we are to continue seeing people effectively married to the state instead of each other. I've seen families almost destroyed by family law. People are more than able to marry privately and commit to supporting any children they have or whatever other agreements are viewed as appropriate when a couple gets married but it's an issue that should remain in a private social or religious context.

Marriage has been about children. Consider if a 70 year old couple were to get legally married, or possibly two younger people who have been living together for 15 years but never intend to have children. What's the purpose of a tax writeoff or special legal treatment if they happen to file a form or not? It's not impossible for people to get married privately and sign some marriage contract indicating what commitments they have, like any other private relationship and this removes the potentially abuses opened up when such instititutions are left up to courts, divorce lawyers and legislators trying to buy a few more votes. It was a mistake getting government into marriage and this gay marriage issue is yet another example of why.

[Libertarian]

Quote by: PatrickHenry The argument is not primarily religious from my perspective, YT. I am with the majority in opposing homosexual marriage, and in representative forms of government, majorities rule. But I don't throw the same fastballs that DN does. My perspective is based upon tradition, the tradition of man/woman marriage that extends into the mists of pre-history. I don't agree that minorities (homosexuals and their paladins) may redefine traditional concepts like marriage that already have a firm definition. On the other hand, if a homosexual couple are able to find a sympathetic minister to join them in holy matrimony, who am I to say that sacrament doesn't apply? I just don't think that the state and its enforcement and coercion powers belong the the arena of marriage. Thus I oppose many of Dirty's arguments as well. I don't favor a Traditional Marriage Amendment, because I favor less intrusion by the state in the lives of citizens, not more.

What about slavery that dated back thousands of years?!?! Just b/c it was the tradition we should have kept it? No, that is now how it works. And you say that it extends into pre-hisotry, but throughout all of written history (when government was effectivly formed) there has been homosexuals. How is tradition an arugement!

[Dirty Name]

Marriage has been about children. Consider if a 70 year old couple were to get legally married, or possibly two younger people who have been living together for 15 years but never intend to have children. What's the purpose of a tax writeoff or special legal treatment if they happen to file a form or not?

So to solve this problem, you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not just admit that NO government solution is going to be perfect, but strive for the best possible solution - the one that makes the most sense economically, socially and legally?

The only reason marriages were created in the first place was as an attempt to create a stable family unit

You seem to understand the basic concept, but then you point to anecdotal evidence of "families almost destroyed by family law" while forgetting the vast majority of families that are obviously helped by it.

What's the purpose of a tax writeoff or special legal treatment if they happen to file a form or not?

The purpose is to give additional support to the institution of marriage. Contrary to what some seem to think on these boards, marriage is NOT necessarily a religious institution - it's simply the most logical arrangement for biological parents to form a family.

It's not impossible for people to get married privately and sign some marriage contract indicating what commitments they have

Impossible? No. But a generation from now, the lack of government acknowledgement of marriage would most certainly result in a lower percentage of them taking place in the first place. Government recognition acts as an anchor for the institution, particularly in those relationships that aren't centered around the religious notion of marriage.

[YourTokah]

Whether or not I am "woefully misinformed" (as I am sure I am, as most everyone is at one time or another) the bottom line of my message applies.

Stay out of it.

Government - Stay out of it.
You - Stay out of it.

Should we abolish marriage/legal unions altogether?

To what real end? It's worked thus far, and ending it would only create confusion and scads of new issues. Not to mention the outcry from the community holding that "marriage dates back into the "mists of time"".

About the morality of homosexual marriage - I swear, I just don't understand why any reasonable, intelligent, thinking, compassionate person who doesn't rely on the opinions of others would have any problem with it whatsoever.

What difference does it make what equipment is downstairs? They are people just like you and your grandma and your gay great uncle (because you probably have one, somewhere in there). Does it hurt you or change your life at all if they get married? The tax situation might change a little, and that's about it. What is so wrong about it?

Somebody, please tell me Without using the words God, Morally, Precedent, and Historically.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Dirty Name So to solve this problem, you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why not just admit that NO government solution is going to be perfect, but strive for the best possible solution - the one that makes the most sense economically, socially and legally?

I agree that "NO government solution is going to be perfect", as you said. So which of the two options given, either pro or against gay marriage is "the best possible solution"? What if someone else disagrees? Is it critical that we come to a consensus? Is someone claiming some physical harm if other people don't agree upon whether or not gay marriages are legal or not? I see expecting people to come to a consensus on a non-issue is where the problem originates. What if some people claimed property values in their area were lower because not everyone used the same color paint? If a survey came around asking if you liked green or tan, what would you say?

You seem to understand the basic concept, but then you point to anecdotal evidence of "families almost destroyed by family law" while forgetting the vast majority of families that are obviously helped by it.

Well my brothers and sisters were taken at a young age by the legal system and given to a mother with mental problems who couldn't support them and shipped off to aunts and uncles despite the fact that my father was able and more than willing to support the family. My best friend had his 3 daughters including one under a year old taken from him, against the wishes of everyone in the family. I can recite a ton of anecdotal evidence that supports the idea that these occurances aren't exceptions but likely the majority of experiences of government intervention into family affairs.

The purpose is to give additional support to the institution of marriage.

And who is denied such an ability without government intervention? Noone is denied doing so in a voluntary manner without the state. If someone owns a motel and feels married couple should get a discount on rooms, they are more than welcome to do so. It's their private affair. It becomes a problem when laws discriminate forcibly (via. police and the IRS/tax laws) in a manner that does something other than provide the basic protections against crime that it should be concerned about.

If someone doesn't support the institution of marriage they shouldn't be forcibly expected to. You may feel that they aren't forcibly expected to but the mere fact that government was required to create the system indicates that it wasn't a private voluntary creation but instead a way to involuntarily require people to support it. Sure, maybe some things like this are unavoidable if we rely on democracy but is that an ideal or just an unnecessary evil?

Contrary to what some seem to think on these boards, marriage is NOT necessarily a religious institution - it's simply the most logical arrangement for biological parents to form a family.

And I never stated it was purely a religious institution, I said it should be left as a private one. Yes, I agree that it was intended to be supportive of families but we should reject the idea of requiring everyone to support it. If someone feels it important to give a married couple a wedding present, or they choose to donate the money to a charity or use it to support an aging relative those should be voluntary charitable actions, not mandated by law or we're only going to see yet another minority upset that government is encroaching in their private affairs.

Impossible? No. But a generation from now, the lack of government acknowledgement of marriage would most certainly result in a lower percentage of them taking place in the first place.

And what facts lead you to this conclusion? Is the continuing decline in marriage rates or increase in divorces that could very likely correlate to the increasing overhead imposed on married couple via. family laws? Could it be the growth in the welfare system that replaces family dependence on each other with instead a reliance on forced intervention and redistribution as a means of survival for some?

Government recognition acts as an anchor for the institution, particularly in those relationships that aren't centered around the religious notion of marriage.

I won't deny that marriage agreements are important, and even emphasized that in previous posts. I only want to discourage attempts to have government intrude and/or alter these between people. Marriage is an institution with a history that long predates the U.S. Government should merely recognize such arrangements and enforce private agreements as necessary, not dictate to individuals which are valid and what specifically people should be required to do in respect for these.

The more we rely on government to supply a moral foundation, the less people will learn for themselves why such social mores exist and the value of them. People will instead view it as something they are expected to conform to and resent it because they can't see the rational.

Something else to consider. If states had a greater ability to treat marriages differently, we'd have real results we could easier demonstrate to people what merit or not such a state institution has. Sometimes people only learn and grow by making mistakes and trying to protect too many people form themselves is only going to leave them handicapped and resentful.

[Dirty Name]

I would hope it would not reduce the marriage rate. I do not see why it would.

That's the problem. You are advocating a wholesale change in an institution that has formed the backbone of this country for more than 200 years, and the backbone of civilization for thousands more, and you admit that you merely think it wouldn't make much difference.

Contrast that with the evidence from Scandanavia which shows a startling increase in out-of-wedlock births and cohabitiation rates, and you have all the reasons you need not to strip marriage of benefts.

But wait! There's more:

Privatizing marriage wouldn't accomplish anything except to strip benefits from heterosexual couples. Homosexuals would gain nothing, and everyone would be treated to far more regulation than they ever dreamed of.

"What?" you say. But I thought privatization would reduce government involvement in marriage. Precisely. Marriage would be reduced to a private religious ceremony. But it would most certainly increase government involvement in civil partnership contracts, each of which could be as wildly different as the next. This means a massive amount of new regulations would be required in order to administrate civil partnerships in a fair and equitable way, to ensure the protection of children, and the fair distribution of partnership assets and benefits in the event of a dissolution.

No, Belverron, I don't think privatization accomplishes much of anything except to strip away the financial incentives and government bestowed legitimacy of marriage, and for what?

Some crazy notion of "equality" that flies in the face of reality.

[Dirty Name]

I can recite a ton of anecdotal evidence that supports the idea that these occurances aren't exceptions but likely the majority of experiences of government intervention into family affairs.

That may be the sum total of experience of government intervention. But I contend that most families don't ever experience government intervention of that type in the first place.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Libertarian What about slavery that dated back thousands of years?!?! Just b/c it was the tradition

Is this a classic red herring or what? You equate the tradition of male/female marriage with human slavery for the sake of argument? Do you deny that traditions have value? Let's just redefine every single social institution then. I don't think you really wanna go there...

[Dirty Name]

What is so wrong about it? (Homosexual marriage) Somebody, please tell me Without using the words God, Morally, Precedent, and Historically.

1) Why does it need to be recognized in the first place? Typical answer = "equality"
2) Equality for gays necessarily means equality for anyone wishing to marry
3) Open marriage means benefits for all
4) Benefits for all means massive increase in federal budget and taxes, OR
5) Elimination of benefits for all
6) Elimination of marriage benefits weakens institution of marriage
7) Weakened marriage results in more kids raised in single-parent households.
8) More single parent households means wide variety of negative consequences such as teen pregnancy, drug abuse, criminal activity, unemployment, reliance on welfare, etc.

I contend there is NO REASON for gay marriage in the first place. Equality isn't the issue because there is no basis on which gays are discriminated against.

Sexual orientation? Nope. Consider a gay man and gay woman expressing a desire to marry one another. Society and the law allow it. Thus, "sexual orientation" is NOT the basis for discrimination.

Gender? Nope. Which particular gender is targeted by the current law? Male? No. Female? No. Since neither gender is prevented from marrying, no claim can be made for gender discrimination.

Age? No.
Race? No.
Religion? No.
Color? No.
Creed? No.

What then?

[SteveA]

I can recite a ton of anecdotal evidence that supports the idea that these occurances aren't exceptions but likely the majority of experiences of government intervention into family affairs. That may be the sum total of experience of government intervention. But I contend that most families don't ever experience government intervention of that type in the first place.

Ok, let's assume that the DMV doesn't have long lines, that public education provides a high quality of service and that the welfare system doesn't create dependencies etc.

Why must people who don't want to support state marriages or feel excluded by being denied such priveledges, be required by law to be supportive of an intimate relationship between two people whose actions they have no control over?

If you start a company, there are legal considerations you have to take into account for married couples. If you're a single tax payer, you pay more money because two other people happen to live together and have filed the correct form. In many states, merely because you happen to live with someone for too long, the state claims the ability to declare you fall under their common law marriage provisions.

I'm not saying that these can't be beneficial in some way or that most people would reject these institutions but I'm trying to point out that we already, in the private realm have, through religious institutions or privately enforceable agreements in the past, dealt with these issues, and considering the increasing divorce rates and decrease in number of people becoming married, likely did better without the growth in government influence, though we seem to disagree on that, and less need for the police and family courts to be involved in the process. To me it makes sense that nature/God/evolution etc. has provided people a natural ability to raise children and have a family without placing these things in the hands of generally unresponsive bodies whose underlying motivation is to acquire a few more votes.

Why does McDonalds give you a smile and a few cashiers, while the DMV give you an hour long wait? Because police can't force you to buy BigMacs. McDonalds must be competitive because it doesn't have a guaranteed monopoly despite customer satisfaction, whereas in many cases we actually reward governments with greater power the more poorly it performs. Consider education - isn't there a never ending crisis in educational finances, at least as portrayed by msot media sources, if not in reality? Why? Because public schools don't receive funding dependent upon how well students are educated. Private school are able to increase their prices if they provide good services. Public education relies on crises to motivate voters and loosen wallets.

Sorry for drifting off topic, though I don't see it as thread drift really.

[SteveA]

And something else to consider: Marriage is something that should provide benefit in itself. The ability to share costs, have children in a more likely stable environment, commitments to fidelity, intimacy, security or to be socially accepted etc. are some of the benefits and reasons why people desire to get married.

So if state marriages were created to promote marriage, in what ways does it promote it and do they serve as distractions and artificial benefits that dilute the importance of it? If people who otherwise would not marry do so because of tax writeoffs, citizenship, alimony, and additional legal rights etc. do these truly promote the institution or dilute the intent and benefits?

Laws should merely protect the peace and protect individual rights, not perform social engineering. We used to call police officers, peace officers and I like to see a return to that view. Legislation doesn't create moral people (nor are ideas of morality even likely to be agreed upon) it only gives the illusion of it like a puppeteer mimics life and freedom of motion by pulling strings. I agree marriage was intended for raising families but if someone doesn't view it the same way, and their actions don't hinder in any real way my ability to be married and have a family, then what they do with their freedom is something I have no say in. If a community of people all decide to ban or allow gay marriages, it's their property and freedom to say what they allow or not on it. We can try to educate people but intruding into private affairs and pulling strings is where political problems start (unless of course somehow there was truly a matter of self-defense involved, which there isn't in this case). Everytime we do pull those strings, add yet another thread on the political forum about government abuses of power - and the reality is laws can only address a fixed number of issues, and jails only hold a certain number of people before economies go sour so pick the most important things that most everyone agrees upon, limit government to those functions and if individuals or communities want to add anything else, they can control those things privately and take responsibility for them too.