NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.


It is often cited in debates about gay marriage from the pro-gay rights side that marriage is simply a "legal contract." According to proponents of this "simply a legal contract" philosophy, the institution as a legal one holds no obligations to families or children.

Now, I agree that marriage is a legal contract...given for what reason? Because the government likes to give legal benefits to people in relationships? Because it makes government officials feel warm and fuzzy inside that couples get a tax break? Because the government wants to promote "love", because it's clear that such an emotion is and has always been the justification for marriage, and it's worth it to spend millions of tax dollars on legal benefits for married couples whose love will, of course, grow due to having them?

Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families. Saying that marriage is a legal contract is like saying that my grass is green because it's green, rather than it is because I watered it; it's stating the effect of the institution without mentioning the intentions behind it. A state goverment has the right to afford legal status to couples as it sees fit based on the institution's aforementioned goal -- to promote and assist couples in raising the people who will inherit the country in the future. A state government may decide this based on the people's morals and for financial reasons as well. That the institution includes gay couples is not implicit, nor is it implicit that it includes straight couples (although it seems quite logical that it would based on the obvious reproductive advantages). It makes little sense to state that marriage exists only as a legal contract without any reasoning behind it, or, as the implication of this argument appears to be, that martial rights exist to make couples happy. Not only does this make little sense and suggest that our tax dollars are being wasted, but, and this is NOT the main point of my argument, proponents of gay marriage who oppose incestuous and polygamous marriages will find little room to justify banning such types of relations from being legally sanctioned if they use this argument.

You duped yourself.

So, if I understand your argument aright, marriage is a legal contract only because the government made it such, but that doesn't mean that it is a legal contract?

Forgive me, but I fail to see how it is not an actual legal contract.

Which is exactly why the legal benefits of marriage are not granted to those who are married and yet sterile, or chose not to have offspring!

Wait....crap.

So, if I understand your argument aright, marriage is a legal contract only because the government made it such, but that doesn't mean that it is a legal contract?

Forgive me, but I fail to see how it is not an actual legal contract.
Perhaps you missed the words "Now, I agree that marriage is a legal contract..." (Second Paragraph) In this post, I am discussing the argument of those who say that it is a legal contract and nothing more. Please re-read the first and second paragraphs...Hell, the whole post.

Which is exactly why the legal benefits of marriage are not granted to those who are married and yet sterile, or chose not to have offspring!

Wait....crap.
Marriage serves as an encouragement for infertile couples to adopt. There's no requirement to have offspring, but there is incentive (legal benefits...). If that's not the reason that marital rights exist, then what, pray tell, is the reasoning? Like I said, is it a legal contract just for the sake of being a legal contract?

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to given an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.


It is often cited in debates about gay marriage from the pro-gay rights side that marriage is simply a "legal contract." According to proponents of this "simply a legal contract" philosophy, the institution as a legal one holds no obligations to families or children.

Now, I agree that marriage is a legal contract...given for what reason? Because the government likes to give legal benefits to people in relationships? Because it makes government officials feel warm and fuzzy inside that couples get a tax break? Because the government wants to promote "love", because it's clear that such an emotion is and has always been the justification for marriage, and it's worth it to spend millions of tax dollars on legal benefits for married couples whose love will, of course, grow due to having them?

Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families. Saying that marriage is a legal contract is like saying that my grass is green because it's green, rather than it is because I watered it; it's stating the effect of the institution without mentioning the intentions behind it. A state goverment has the right to afford legal status to couples as it sees fit based on the institution's aforementioned goal -- to promote and assist couples in raising the people who will inherit the country in the future. A state government may decide this based on the people's morals and for financial reasons as well. That the institution includes gay couples is not implicit, nor is it implicit that it includes straight couples (although it seems quite logical that it would based on the obvious reproductive advantages). It makes little sense to state that marriage exists only as a legal contract without any reasoning behind it, or, as the implication of this argument appears to be, that martial rights exist to make couples happy. Not only does this make little sense and suggest that our tax dollars are being wasted, but, and this is NOT the main point of my argument, proponents of gay marriage who oppose incestuous and polygamous marriages will find little room to justify banning such types of relations from being legally sanctioned.Ok, just a couple of flaws with your little arguement.

First, gay people can, have and do raise families. Saying that governments give benifits to married people to promote families as an arguement against granting marriage benifits to gays overlooks this.

Second, marraige in itself doesn't give you obligation to children or a family. In fact obligation to children you spawn comes without marraige and many people live as a family without marriage. Also many married people choose not to have chldren or raise a family.

Ok, just a couple of flaws with your little arguement.

First, gay people can, have and do raise families. Saying that governments give benifits to married people to promote families as an arguement against granting marriage benifits to gays overlooks this.

Second, marraige in itself doesn't give you obligation to children or a family. In fact obligation to children you spawn comes without marraige and many people live as a family without marriage. Also many married people choose not to have chldren or raise a family.
For your first point, please attend a reading class, and then read the note posted at the very top of my post. Thank you.

Secondly, I never spoke of an "obligation" or a requirement to have children. The legal benefits of marriage are incentives to have children and a family, therefore assisting in the development of the next generation of the country. That is the reason that marriage exists.

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to given an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.


It is often cited in debates about gay marriage from the pro-gay rights side that marriage is simply a "legal contract." According to proponents of this "simply a legal contract" philosophy, the institution as a legal one holds no obligations to families or children.

Now, I agree that marriage is a legal contract...given for what reason? Because the government likes to give legal benefits to people in relationships? Because it makes government officials feel warm and fuzzy inside that couples get a tax break? Because the government wants to promote "love", because it's clear that such an emotion is and has always been the justification for marriage, and it's worth it to spend millions of tax dollars on legal benefits for married couples whose love will, of course, grow due to having them?

Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families. Saying that marriage is a legal contract is like saying that my grass is green because it's green, rather than it is because I watered it; it's stating the effect of the institution without mentioning the intentions behind it. A state goverment has the right to afford legal status to couples as it sees fit based on the institution's aforementioned goal -- to promote and assist couples in raising the people who will inherit the country in the future. A state government may decide this based on the people's morals and for financial reasons as well. That the institution includes gay couples is not implicit, nor is it implicit that it includes straight couples (although it seems quite logical that it would based on the obvious reproductive advantages). It makes little sense to state that marriage exists only as a legal contract without any reasoning behind it, or, as the implication of this argument appears to be, that martial rights exist to make couples happy. Not only does this make little sense and suggest that our tax dollars are being wasted, but, and this is NOT the main point of my argument, proponents of gay marriage who oppose incestuous and polygamous marriages will find little room to justify banning such types of relations from being legally sanctioned.

And what precisely is the point of banning families made up of gay couples?

Your analysis is flawed as well: the government does not rescind marriage licenses nor deny them to heterosexual couples who choose not to have children.

Marriage serves as an encouragement for infertile couples to adopt. There's no requirement to have offspring, but there is incentive (legal benefits...). If that's not the reason that marital rights exist, then what, pray tell, is the reasoning? Like I said, is it a legal contract just for the sake of being a legal contract?

Which of course is a perfectly logical reason to deny it to gays as they are of course, biologically incapable of adopting!

Wait....crap again.

Lemme see if I get this straight. Your argument is that the legal benefits of marriage should not be given to gays because the basis FOR those legal benefits is to encourage a family, which gays do not do, and therefore should not be granted benefits they were not intended to enjoy because they can not bring about what those benefits were designed to do.

Yet those benefits are not denied to same sex couples who can not, or more importantly WILL NOT, conceive. Which is basically a gay couple, a couple who both biologically can not, and by choice WILL not, cause a pregnancy.

You say but infirtile couples can adopt, and the laws exist to promote that choice. A choice that gays can not have for some reason? Is the assumption that no gay couple would ever want a family? Disproven often.

By your logic, the government would benefit MORE by giving marriage benefits to gay couples who WANT children over straight couples who don't. After all a gay couple may actually WANT to start a family, and thus should get those benefits, but a straight couple who doesn't want children shouldn't, because they are not doing what the legal benefits are intended to do, help start a family.

Your argument fails. Next.

Marriage serves as an encouragement for infertile couples to adopt.


Even if we were to believe this is true, why could not a gay couple adopt?

Which of course is a perfectly logical reason to deny it to gays as they are of course, biologically incapable of adopting!

Wait....crap again.

Lemme see if I get this straight. Your argument is that the legal benefits of marriage should not be given to gays because the basis FOR those legal benefits is to encourage a family, which gays do not do, and therefore should not be granted benefits they were not intended to enjoy because they can not bring about what those benefits were designed to do.

Yet those benefits are not denied to same sex couples who can not, or more importantly WILL NOT, conceive. Which is basically a gay couple, a couple who both biologically can not, and by choice WILL not, cause a pregnancy.

You say but infirtile couples can adopt, and the laws exist to promote that choice. A choice that gays can not have for some reason? Is the assumption that no gay couple would ever want a family? Disproven often.

By your logic, the government would benefit MORE by giving marriage benefits to gay couples who WANT children over straight couples who don't. After all a gay couple may actually WANT to start a family, and thus should get those benefits, but a straight couple who doesn't want children shouldn't, because they are not doing what the legal benefits are intended to do, help start a family.

Your argument fails. Next.
Are all of you so quick to defend that you've lost the ability to read what is right in front of you? Read the note at the top of my post:

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.

Can you read it now?

Marriage serves as an encouragement for infertile couples to adopt. There's no requirement to have offspring, but there is incentive (legal benefits...). If that's not the reason that marital rights exist, then what, pray tell, is the reasoning? Like I said, is it a legal contract just for the sake of being a legal contract?
Your reasoning is flawless. Homosexuals, by nature, are incapable of adopting or raising children. Because, um, well, I said so.

Your reasoning is flawless. Homosexuals, by nature, are incapable of adopting or raising children. Because, um, well, I said so.
Please see the large text above, note its prominent position on the top of my original post, because, um, well, I said so. It might help all of you stop debating with yourselves.

Are all of you so quick to defend that you've lost the ability to read what is right in front of you? Read the note at the top of my post:

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to given an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.

Can you read it now?

Hi there. Let me see if I can explain this to you in simple words. You state you wanted to "dismantle" a particular argument, by promoting a counter argument.

yet your counter "argument" (put in quotes as a dare not use the term seriously) are full of logical holes so large I can drive a truck through them, that not only does it fail to "dismantle" anything, but using your "argument" actually makes the pro gay marriage argument STRONGER, as, has been pointed out many times, the institution of marriage, though it MAY have been formed to promote families, is NOT denied to those who, through biology or choice, will NOT be forming families.

Hi there. Let me see if I can explain this to you in simple words. You state you wanted to "dismantle" a particular argument, by promoting a counter argument.

yet your counter "argument" (put in quotes as a dare not use the term seriously) are full of logical holes so large I can drive a truck through them, that not only does it fail to "dismantle" anything, but using your "argument" actually makes the pro gay marriage argument STRONGER, as, has been pointed out many times, the institution of marriage, though it MAY have been formed to promote families, is NOT denied to those who, through biology or choice, will NOT be forming families.
Still can't read, huh? My argument was against a particular justification for gay marriage...not against gay marriage itself. If you believe my counterargument (none of which was put in quotes, except when I quoted the argument I was dismantling, mind you...) helps strengthen the gay marriage cause -- GREAT. That's not the point of my post, but that's one thing you can take away from it. You are so blinded by your impulse to defend and attack that you've lost the ability to see something for what it is without reading endless implications into it and inventing quotation marks where they don't exist.

Are all of you so quick to defend that you've lost the ability to read what is right in front of you? Read the note at the top of my post:

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.

Can you read it now?


We're simply quick to point out that your argument makes no sense and the flaws are easily pointed out. Apparently your inability to refute the pointing out of these flaws has led you to believe that "shouting" and accusing people of not reading what you wrote is the appropriate response.

Apparently you are not interested in debate but simply in making a statement and then insulting those who point out its very obvious flaws.

A. The government is not allowed to discriminate. The government is not allowed to discriminate. The government is not allowed to discriminate. If the government offers a privilege to its citizens, it is not allowed to discriminate unless the discrimination is materially relevant to the purpose or nature of the privilege.

B. The government allows old, infertile people to get married; therefore, either marriage is not constructed exclusively to promote the growth of families, or the government recognizes that an ability to produce children is not necessary to this goal.

C. The latter is demonstrable by the fact that same-sex couples often seek marriage precisely to found a family. To reiterate in clearest terms: just because two people cannot physically reproduce with each other does not mean they cannot or are less likely to want to build a family. This makes the sexes of the two partners materially irrelevant to the alleged purpose of marriage.

D. There are rights afforded by marriage apart from financial benefits which can be difficult to secure in other contracts, such as the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, or, in some locales, the right to even visit at the hospital. These rights are neither strictly tied to the purported goal of promoting the growth of families, nor logical to deny other couples who wish to entrust each other with them.

E. For the record, I am in favor of allowing incestuous marriages and also in favor of the legalization of polygamy, provided there is an option for a couple to legally commit that they will not marry other people. However, that entire point is irrelevant to the particular issue of same-sex marriage; it only serves to expose hypocrisy, which everyone has in some arena of their life.

We're simply quick to point out that your argument makes no sense and the flaws are easily pointed out. Apparently your inability to refute the pointing out of these flaws has led you to believe that "shouting" and accusing people of not reading what you wrote is the appropriate response.
No, you're simply quick to point out flaws in an argument that I didn't make. You started writing about how my argument pertains to gay marriage and how it isn't successful in giving reasons why it shouldn't be allowed. That wasn't what my post was about, and I "shouted" (if that's what reposting what was originally posted in the first place in larger font is...) in order for you to understand that. You apparently, after all of that, still don't.

No, you're simply quick to point out flaws in an argument that I didn't make. You started writing about how my argument pertains to gay marriage and how it isn't successful in giving reasons why it shouldn't be allowed. That wasn't what my post was about, and I "shouted" (if that's what reposting what was originally posted in the first place in larger font is...) in order for you to understand that. You apparently, after all of that, still don't.


Then in the name of the dear and fluffy lord, what IS the point?

I have the feeling I'm not the one missing the reading comprehention. You stated you wished to "dismantle" an argument. Dismantle...to break down, to destroy. IE you wished to present a method of countering the original argument, a "counter argument" if you will.

However, your counter argument is, as far as arguments go, crap. It is ill formed, nonsensical, and as far as an exercise in logic goes, truly terrible.

In other words, and lets see if your comprehention stays with me, your efforts to "dismantle" the argument have failed. Regardless of what my feelings on gay marriage are (and I have the feeling you wouldn't understand them if I tried to explain it), your counter argument, as an exercise in logic, is poor, and illformed.

To make this post into 5 words or less: It is a bad argument.

PS dude, you're arguing with a mod, I'd chill if I were you.

A. The government is not allowed to discriminate. The government is not allowed to discriminate. The government is not allowed to discriminate. If the government offers a privilege to its citizens, it is not allowed to discriminate unless the discrimination is materially relevant to the purpose or nature of the privilege.

B. The government allows old, infertile people to get married; therefore, either marriage is not constructed exclusively to promote the growth of families, or the government recognizes that an ability to produce children is not necessary to this goal.

C. The latter is demonstrable by the fact that same-sex couples often seek marriage precisely to found a family. To reiterate in clearest terms: just because two people cannot physically reproduce with each other does not mean they cannot or are less likely to want to build a family. This makes the sexes of the two partners materially irrelevant to the alleged purpose of marriage.

D. There are rights afforded by marriage apart from financial benefits which can be difficult to secure in other contracts, such as the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, or, in some locales, the right to even visit at the hospital. These rights are neither strictly tied to the purported goal of promoting the growth of families, nor logical to deny other couples who wish to entrust each other with them.

E. For the record, I am in favor of allowing incestuous marriages and also in favor of the legalization of polygamy, provided there is an option for a couple to legally commit that they will not marry other people. However, that entire point is irrelevant to the particular issue of same-sex marriage; it only serves to expose hypocrisy, which everyone has in some arena of their life.
Old people may still adopt, as may gay couples. That's a very valid point in favor of legalizing gay marriage. As for the discrimination part -- you spelled it out well. It appears that from a child-raising standpoint, gay people may ably adopt as well as infertile straight couples. These the kind of arguments that I like to see, not arguments that have no beginning and no end ("it's a legal contract, and a legal contract only...").

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.

Lets make this so clear that even you can understand....

What we are trying to say is that it doesn't dismantle shit... there are major flaws in your logic.

If you don't care to hear opposing views, don't post here.

"Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families."

You have not proven this statement as true. Several have pointed out that the elderly, the infertile, and those who do not wish to have children are afforded marriage licenses. This would tend to show your statement is false. What is difficult to understand about this?

Homosexual couples are able to adopt. If the criterion for marriage is "growth and development of families" then your "dismantling of the argument that marriage is simply a legal contract" because marriage is afforded to people "in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families," is false, because denying it to a segment of the adult and capable population is preventing the potential growth and development of families.

Then in the name of the dear and fluffy lord, what IS the point?

I have the feeling I'm not the one missing the reading comprehention. You stated you wished to "dismantle" an argument. Dismantle...to break down, to destroy. IE you wished to present a method of countering the original argument, a "counter argument" if you will.

However, your counter argument is, as far as arguments go, crap. It is ill formed, nonsensical, and as far as an exercise in logic goes, truly terrible.

In other words, and lets see if your comprehention stays with me, your efforts to "dismantle" the argument have failed. Regardless of what my feelings on gay marriage are (and I have the feeling you wouldn't understand them if I tried to explain it), your counter argument, as an exercise in logic, is poor, and illformed.

To make this post into 5 words or less: It is a bad argument.

PS dude, you're arguing with a mod, I'd chill if I were you.

What argument do you think I'm refuting? That gay marriage should be legalized? If you are still under that impression, then you, my friend, are the one that needs to better grasp reading comprehension.

Ahem. Ahem. Allow me to clear something up.

My original post dealt with dismantling the argument that marriage is a legal contract, and therefore, for that reason alone, it should be afforded to everyone. It in no way dealt with reasons as to why homosexuals can't be allowed the privlege. Promoting and assisting in the development of families may very well deal with couples who adopt, straight and gay alike. It may deal with polygamous and incestuous people as well. That is up to your discretion. However, to say that the contract is a legal one without any reasoning as to its existence is not a valid point. Points should be made relating to the purpose for marriage, all of which you have done, but have incorrectly done so by trying to engage me in an argument, as if I somehow argued that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I never did, and, in fact, I wrote it in a disclaimer at the top of my post that that was not my intention.

I'm thoroughly confused but this is fun to read.

You are stating that marriage, as a legal institution, is about the propogation of families (and perhaps soley for the propogation of families).

This can be argued for the simple reason that getting married does not require you to answer whether or not you plan on having children.

moreover, for many, the reasoning is irrelevant. If it is a legal institution, then, for whatever reason that institution was formed is not relevant, as many believe that once codified in law, the constitution demands equal protection and equal treatment under the law, so that which is given to one, is given to all.

These the kind of arguments that I like to see

Thank you. My dad just finished studying to be a lawyer, so I've had some training in how to say things authoritatively, unambiguously, and watertightly. More to the point I've heard the ins and outs of this argument for years and I've never changed sides on it. This just happened to be a new angle I hadn't heard so I wanted to apply my rebuttal to it.

Ahem. Ahem. Allow me to clear something up.

My original post dealt with dismantling the argument that marriage is a legal contract, and therefore, for that reason alone, it should be afforded to everyone.

Equal protection under the law. No further analysis is necessary.

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.


It is often cited in debates about gay marriage from the pro-gay rights side that marriage is simply a "legal contract." According to proponents of this "simply a legal contract" philosophy, the institution as a legal one holds no obligations to families or children.

Now, I agree that marriage is a legal contract...given for what reason? Because the government likes to give legal benefits to people in relationships? Because it makes government officials feel warm and fuzzy inside that couples get a tax break? Because the government wants to promote "love", because it's clear that such an emotion is and has always been the justification for marriage, and it's worth it to spend millions of tax dollars on legal benefits for married couples whose love will, of course, grow due to having them?

Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families. Saying that marriage is a legal contract is like saying that my grass is green because it's green, rather than it is because I watered it; it's stating the effect of the institution without mentioning the intentions behind it. A state goverment has the right to afford legal status to couples as it sees fit based on the institution's aforementioned goal -- to promote and assist couples in raising the people who will inherit the country in the future. A state government may decide this based on the people's morals and for financial reasons as well. That the institution includes gay couples is not implicit, nor is it implicit that it includes straight couples (although it seems quite logical that it would based on the obvious reproductive advantages). It makes little sense to state that marriage exists only as a legal contract without any reasoning behind it, or, as the implication of this argument appears to be, that martial rights exist to make couples happy. Not only does this make little sense and suggest that our tax dollars are being wasted, but, and this is NOT the main point of my argument, proponents of gay marriage who oppose incestuous and polygamous marriages will find little room to justify banning such types of relations from being legally sanctioned if they use this argument.

No, marriage is about the continuance of cultural, traditional institutions.

Would you argue that families can only be started through marriage? If you say yes, you have bit the bullet, if you say no, then your argument holds no weight.

EDIT: The fact that it is offered as the incentive to form families only serves to propogate traditional norms. For government to not be unjust, it would guarantee these incentives to anyone who was willing to start a family, regardless of their present or planned marital status.

Equal protection under the law. No further analysis is necessary.
Equal protection under the law has its limits. There is reasoning rooted within the institution of marriage for it to exist and for who it should be granted to, as are there are certain criteria for people to receive welfare, to be eligible for affirmative action, etc.

No, marriage is about the continuance of cultural, traditional institutions.

Would you argue that families can only be started through marriage? If you say yes, you have bit the bullet, if you say no, then your argument holds no weight.
Marriage provides incentive for future and protection for current families. It is not required for two (or more) people to be married to be eligible to start a family -- no where is that stated in any of my posts.

So your argument is that marriage exists simply to continue a tradition? If so, what was the intent behind that tradition? Financial reasoning and property rights were stronger reasons back in ancient cultures, but it was rooted in having children, i.e. "producing heirs."

Equal protection under the law has its limits. There is reasoning rooted within the institution of marriage for it to exist and for who it should be granted to, as are there are certain criteria for people to receive welfare, to be eligible for affirmative action, etc.
I argue that it doesn't have limits. Every citizen is intrinsicly granted equal protection under every law. Not just the laws that you want them to be protected by, but EVERY law. That is what "equal protection" means.

Additionally, your argument still falls flat. While the intent of marriage laws is to promote childbirth and such. Marriage is not, however, denied to couples who either cannot or choose not to have children. They can adopt, or remain childless. These are not peanlized under marriage law. As such, there is no difference between a homosexual couple or a (be it willingly or circumstantially) barren couple. Both sets can adopt, choose to have a surrogate mother/father, or remain childless. Therefore, your argument fails in explaining why a homosexual couple is somehow different from a barren couple.

Equal protection under the law has its limits. There is reasoning rooted within the institution of marriage for it to exist and for who it should be granted to, as are there are certain criteria for people to receive welfare, to be eligible for affirmative action, etc.

THAT is actually quite an intelligent counter argument. Good call.

In response however I state that welfare is based on the state of the person, and not the status as a person. Thus the criteria for welfare is not dependant on belief, race, religion, or sexual preference, and only economic condition which is not based on WHO that person is.

As for affirmative action, this one is trickier, and in fairness, in the interests of intellectual honesty, I'm not sure where my feelings on it lie.

Marriage provides incentive for future and protection for current families. It is not required for two (or more) people to be married to be eligible to start a family -- no where is that stated in any of my posts.

But to receive the benefits, they must get married. In that sense, the benefits do not provide incentive to start a family, they provide incentive to get married, to follow a traditional institution.

So your argument is that marriage exists simply to continue a tradition? If so, what was the intent behind that tradition? Financial reasoning and property rights were stronger reasons back in ancient cultures, but it was rooted in having children, i.e. "producing heirs."

The origin of the tradition is irrelevant. All that is relevant is the tradition in the present. As it is now, marriage is completely unnecessary unless propogated by the government.

Perhaps you missed the words "Now, I agree that marriage is a legal contract..." (Second Paragraph) In this post, I am discussing the argument of those who say that it is a legal contract and nothing more. Please re-read the first and second paragraphs...Hell, the whole post.
You attempt is to state that the argument that marriage is a legal contract fails due to the reasoning behind such a status.

As has been pointed out repeatedly to you, this premise is false. Furthermore, the argument that marriage is a legal contract and therefore should be made avalible to homosexuals is still fair game. No matter what the previous reasonings were, it's how it is written now.

For example, going back to that famous "All men were created equal", when that was written they mean white, property owning, males of a certain age. Nowadays that has changed to include everyone else (more or less).

Since the law MUST be applied equally it behoves us to look at what marriage is NOW as what it was before does not pertain to the current argument about its application; and now it is a legal contract.

Verve Pipe's attempt to refute gay marriage in such a way is strange to me.

Now, I agree that marriage is a legal contract...given for what reason?

The reason, despite the severa comical rhetorical follow-ups you give, is not this:

Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families.

This is a very peculiar statement. Your use of absolutes implies that all marriages exist to make families, first of all, an inherent falsehood in that you imply that all married couples are interested in having children. It is thus your statement that it should be legally mandatory that all married couples have biological children.

Also, your assumption is that gay people are incapable of creating families. This is absurd in that it denies the concept of adoption, a service sorely needed to relieve orphaned children from all over the planet. It is also absurd in that you imply that heterosexuals make better families than homosexual couples: the divorce rate for heterosexuals is 33 per 100 marriages, for gays, it is less than 1 divorce per same-sex marriage.

It makes little sense to state that marriage exists only as a legal contract without any reasoning behind it, or, as the implication of this argument appears to be, that martial rights exist to make couples happy.

Actually, it does make sense that [sic]marital rights exist to make couples happy. What you imply is that marriage is a necessity for raising and properly rearing a child. This is also an absurdity; the sexual act is unaffected in its capacity to create offspring by the presence or absence of a marriage liscence, nor is the capacity of parents to love their children, or enroll them in schools, feed them, clothe them, or house them, affected by the presence or absence of a marriage liscence. The tax incentive exists not as a deliberate plan to encourage the raising of children [this is why children have their own, seperate tax credit until a certain age], but rather as a means to simply refund the price of the liscence itself as an incentive to marry, essentially, a decision by the government to issue $50 "marriage bonds" that will be repayed through taxation. Such a system is also succesful in that it eases other, inevitable costs of marriage, such as the wedding itself, and the purchasing of a home, both of which would be exorbitantly expensive in the formative years of the marriage liscencing system.

Nothing in Valve Pipe's original statement actually refuted a gay marriage argument, rather, posited his philosophy that the purpose of marriage is to create children.

Still can't read, huh? My argument was against a particular justification for gay marriage...not against gay marriage itself.

The problem is that your particular argument against the justification falls apart in the face that it's reasoning is inherently flawed by not taking into account all variables. By taking into account these variables, your attempt at debunking the reason falls flat on its face.

It has been often argued here that infertile couples still have the right to marry, as do those who have no wish of raising children. Marriage offers a steady commitment between two people, protected by legal benefits. In the process of that relationship, two people may ultimately a) adopt if they are infertile or b) change their mind and have children. Both such cases happen frequently. Married couples raising children was not a worry in ancient times, as that was considered what couples just did when they got married -- it didn't have to be forced. Nowadays, the fact that it is quite traditional to get married and raise (not have...raise) children may provide incentive for people to do so, or the desire to do so may just arise. If it does, they are already legally protected, and thus assisted in raising their family.

As for the point on welfare -- economic discrimination is still discrimination; while it does not say "sexual orientation" in the 14th amendment, no one here is denying that is implied, nor is the requirement written that in order to be free from discrimination, it must be a part of one's "status." Except the institution of welfare has a purpose, as does marriage, and it makes sense to "discriminate" in these cases based on the will of the state.

And for the last time, I'm arguing about the definition of marriage, not why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Marriage serves as an encouragement for infertile couples to adopt. There's no requirement to have offspring, but there is incentive (legal benefits...). If that's not the reason that marital rights exist, then what, pray tell, is the reasoning? Like I said, is it a legal contract just for the sake of being a legal contract?
Wait, why can't same sex couples adopt then? I mean, if infertile couples can just go adopt (and that's why they get marital rights) then why can't same sex couples do the same? Hell, they can even have biological children with the aid of sperm donors or surrogate mothers.

It has been often argued here that infertile couples still have the right to marry, as do those who have no wish of raising children. Marriage offers a steady commitment between two people, protected by legal benefits. In the process of that relationship, two people may ultimately a) adopt if they are infertile or b) change their mind and have children. Both such cases happen frequently. Married couples raising children was not a worry in ancient times, as that was considered what couples just did when they got married -- it didn't have to be forced. Nowadays, the fact that it is quite traditional to get married and raise (not have...raise) children may provide incentive for people to do so, or the desire to do so may just arise. If it does, they are already legally protected, and thus assisted in raising their family.
This assumes that they MIGHT adopt or MIGHT change their mind, it fails to address that they can marry without having to sign or state that they will give full and considerable consideration to actually rasing children. Thus, again, the argument fails.

It has been often argued here that infertile couples still have the right to marry, as do those who have no wish of raising children. Marriage offers a steady commitment between two people, protected by legal benefits. In the process of that relationship, two people may ultimately a) adopt if they are infertile or b) change their mind and have children. Both such cases happen frequently. Married couples raising children was not a worry in ancient times, as that was considered what couples just did when they got married -- it didn't have to be forced. Nowadays, the fact that it is quite traditional to get married and raise (not have...raise) children may provide incentive for people to do so, or the desire to do so may just arise. If it does, they are already legally protected, and thus assisted in raising their family. This still fails to state why a gay couple is different from a couple that does not want children or cannot have children. Yes, those heterosexual couples may one day end up with children, but it is equally possible that the gay couple will as well.

As for the point on welfare -- economic discrimination is still discrimination; while it does not say "sexual orientation" in the 14th amendment, no one here is denying that is implied, nor is the requirement written that in order to be free from discrimination, it must be a part of one's "status." Except the institution of welfare has a purpose, as does marriage, and it makes sense to "discriminate" in these cases based on the will of the state.The difference is that every person CAN recieve welfare if they fall into such a need. If Bill Gates suddenly lost his fortunes, there would be nothing to prevent him from getting welfare. Not his race, religion, sexual orientation, history, et. al. No single group is denied welfare if they need it. With marriage, a group is excluded on no more basis than their sexual orientation. A more apt example is your example of affirmative action, which I tend to disagree with (affirmative action...not your point).

Verve Pipe,

The incentive to raising a family is intrinsic, people will build families regardless of government policy.

When government ties financial incentives to having children while being married, the only thing it is doing is bribing people to get married when desiring to have children.

That is why I say that it is simply a government propagated traditional institution.

While I personally think gay marriages need to be legalized, I actually find his argument to be indeed true.

What some of you are saying is that gay couples may adopt too. You are however, missing the whole point of the argument. Marriage affords legal rights to promote, and I emphasize promote, adoption or raising a child in any way for that matter. The government does not want to promote gay couples adopting children. That is why the government does not want to give gay couples a stable environment that helps the upbringing of a child. That way, the government may, reversely, discourage gay couples from adopting.

This argument, in my opinion, does refute people's argument that marriage affords a couple legal rights. However, the only problem with it is that the government cannot discriminate. It does not have the right to promote something by discrminating (which is also why affirmative action is wrong) even if what the government is trying to promote is good. It is simply unconstitutional. According to the 14th amendment all citizens have equal protection under the law.

This assumes that they MIGHT adopt or MIGHT change their mind, it fails to address that they can marry without having to sign or state that they will give full and considerable consideration to actually rasing children. Thus, again, the argument fails.
I would say that the argument does not fail -- just because it isn't a certainty doesn't mean that it should not be afforded to people for this reason. If married couples must agree to have children, then those who do not wish to have children/are not sure may not marry and, thus, for those who do change their mind/decide that they do want children may not choose to get married. While marriage is not required for a steady relationship, the fact that it is a legal contract, that property rights, inheritance rights, healthcare benefits from companies (many of whom do not offer such benefits to unmarried couples), financial protections for widows/widowers and their children, etc. are afforded to married couples, provides incentives for couples to stay together, therefore providing a healthy, stable, and protected atmosphere for children to grow up in. For these reasons, marriage protects families, a primary goal of the institution, and this must be considered in legalizing various forms of marriage. Gay people may or may not fall under this criteria, depending on your point of view.

While I personally think gay marriages need to be legalized, I actually find his argument to be indeed true.

What some of you are saying is that gay couples may adopt too. You are however, missing the whole point of the argument. Marriage affords legal rights to promote, and I emphasize promote, adoption or raising a child in any way for that matter. The government does not want to promote gay couples adopting children. That is why the government does not want to give gay couples a stable environment that helps the upbringing of a child. That way, the government may, reversely, discourage gay couples from adopting.there is no basis for that point (be it on this thread or in legal terms), nor has it been stated and/or backed.

This argument, in my opinion, does refute people's argument that marriage affords a couple legal rights. However, the only problem with it is that the government cannot discriminate. It does not have the right to promote something by discrminating (which is also why affirmative action is wrong) even if what the government is trying to promote is good. It is simply unconstitutional. According to the 14th amendment all citizens have equal protection under the law.It doesn't refute that marriage affords legal rights. Not all rights come down to tax breaks. There are inheritance rights, medical rights, insurance benefits, etc. which are also afforded by marriage.

I would say that the argument does not fail -- just because it isn't a certainty doesn't mean that it should not be afforded to people for this reason. If married couples must agree to have children, then those who do not wish to have children/are not sure may not marry and, thus, for those who do change their mind/decide that they do want children may not choose to get married. While marriage is not required for a steady relationship, the fact that it is a legal contract, that property rights, inheritance rights, healthcare benefits from companies (many of whom do not offer such benefits to unmarried couples), financial protections for widows/widowers and their children, etc. are afforded to married couples, provides incentives for couples to stay together, therefore providing a healthy, stable, and protected atmosphere for children to grow up in. For these reasons, marriage protects families, a primary goal of the institution, and this must be considered in legalizing various forms of marriage. Gay people may or may not fall under this criteria, depending on your point of view.
My question still remains. Why are gay couples exempted, while assorted childless couples are not? I understand that your argument is based on the intent of the law to create families. It is clear, however, that the intent of the law does not always play out. Why are gay couples prevented from marrying while couples that may never have children can?

there is no basis for that point (be it on this thread or in legal terms), nor has it been stated and/or backed.

It doesn't refute that marriage affords legal rights. Not all rights come down to tax breaks. There are inheritance rights, medical rights, insurance benefits, etc. which are also afforded by marriage.

It is not true that it has not been stated. Many times I have heard people who are against gay marriage say that one reason they are against it is so gay couples won't raise children. They argue that if gay couples do raise children, then the children will be grow in an immoral environemnt, and that it will ruin the child.

Also, any marriage rights still promote a family. The government doe snot want to promote that sense at all. And anyway, would you want the government to make a "special marriage" (or civil union) that only affords gay couples certain marital rights?

there is no basis for that point (be it on this thread or in legal terms), nor has it been stated and/or backed.

It doesn't refute that marriage affords legal rights. Not all rights come down to tax breaks. There are inheritance rights, medical rights, insurance benefits, etc. which are also afforded by marriage.
Actually, the stating and backing of that argument has been in all of my posts thus far.

I never stated my goal was to refute that marriage affords legal rights...

As for the bit on the 14th Amendment...

The whole bit that gay marriage is inherently a legal right would be true under this amendment...if marriage exists simply to afford rights to couples, which it doesn't. If a state sees that the best way to afford these rights is through allowing only heterosexual marriage, then the goal of the insitution is achieved. If the state believes that in order to accomplish this goal, all types of marriages must be allowed, then the goal of the institution is achieved. Just because two people are a couple does not mean that they have a right to get married...The only obligation that the government has is to protect families as it sees fit.

It is not true that it has not been stated. Many times I have heard people who are against gay marriage say that one reason they are against it is so gay couples won't raise children. They argue that if gay couples do raise children, then the children will be grow in an immoral environemnt, and that it will ruin the child.I'm speaking about this thread. If it hasn't been raised on this thread, then there would be no reason for it to be discussed. If it had been mentioned, and I missed it, then I'm sorry.

Also, any marriage rights still promote a family. The government doe snot want to promote that sense at all. And anyway, would you want the government to make a "special marriage" (or civil union) that only affords gay couples certain marital rights?I understand that, but it seemed to me that this thread had distinctly taken on the tone of tax breaks. Actually, I noticed that two posts above mine addressed the issues I raised, but must have been posted while I was typing, and I'm far to lazy to go edit right now.
And I am completely for marriage rights to all. That being said, I support certain rights over no rights.

My question still remains. Why are gay couples exempted, while assorted childless couples are not? I understand that your argument is based on the intent of the law to create families. It is clear, however, that the intent of the law does not always play out. Why are gay couples prevented from marrying while couples that may never have children can?
Why are they exempted? I'll tell you why: homophobia. It's really that simple. No, there's no legal justification for it, but that is the only logical reason that I can see as to why gay couples are denied being able to marry in so many states (of the U.S.) and countries.

Actually, the stating and backing of that argument has been in all of my posts thus far.:headbang:
my bad...sorry, I'm a little distracted right now...

I never stated my goal was to refute that marriage affords legal rights...Didn't think you were...sorry if it came off like that.

As for the bit on the 14th Amendment...

The whole bit that gay marriage is inherently a legal right would be true under this amendment...if marriage exists simply to afford rights to couples, which it doesn't. If a state sees that the best way to afford these rights is through allowing only heterosexual marriage, then the goal of the insitution is achieved. If the state believes that in order to accomplish this goal, all types of marriages must be allowed, then the goal of the institution is achieved. Just because two people are a couple does not mean that they have a right to get married...The only obligation that the government has is to protect families as it sees fit.Ah...but I argue that if the goal of a certain law is, in itself, limiting and technically illegal under the 14th amendment, then it should either be abandoned or modified to fit the constitution. Clearly, I'm not about to argue against marriage as a whole, and so it should be modified appropriatly. There is no (good) justification not to.

Why are they exempted? I'll tell you why: homophobia. It's really that simple. No, there's no legal justification for it, but that is the only logical reason that I can see as to why gay couples are denied being able to marry in so many states (of the U.S.) and countries.sounds about right. I'm mad that my state only legalized civil unions. I thought we would actually manage to go all the way.

I don't even consider homophobia to be a logical excuse. It tends to rely on circular logic and the "ick" factor.

*shrug*

I'm speaking about this thread. If it hasn't been raised on this thread, then there would be no reason for it to be discussed. If it had been mentioned, and I missed it, then I'm sorry.

I understand that, but it seemed to me that this thread had distinctly taken on the tone of tax breaks. Actually, I noticed that two posts above mine addressed the issues I raised, but must have been posted while I was typing, and I'm far to lazy to go edit right now.
And I am completely for marriage rights to all. That being said, I support certain rights over no rights.

So according to you, I may not raise any point not formerly mentioned in the thread? That means that no one can add anything except what the first post says. I may add sources, information, facts or whatever I want as long as it is relevent to the topic.

Actually, the stating and backing of that argument has been in all of my posts thus far.

I never stated my goal was to refute that marriage affords legal rights...

As for the bit on the 14th Amendment...

The whole bit that gay marriage is inherently a legal right would be true under this amendment...if marriage exists simply to afford rights to couples, which it doesn't. If a state sees that the best way to afford these rights is through allowing only heterosexual marriage, then the goal of the insitution is achieved. If the state believes that in order to accomplish this goal, all types of marriages must be allowed, then the goal of the institution is achieved. Just because two people are a couple does not mean that they have a right to get married...The only obligation that the government has is to protect families as it sees fit.


Not true. The 14th amendment does not say all rights must be administered equally. It specifically says that people have equal protection under the LAW. A marriage is a law I would say. I do believe there are laws regarding marriage, and therefore all people must be allowed to marry (this also means that polygamy).

So according to you, I may not raise any point not formerly mentioned in the thread? That means that no one can add anything except what the first post says. I may add sources, information, facts or whatever I want as long as it is relevent to the topic.no, I was contesting how you raised the point, as in you made it appear that you were responding to something that I thought wasn't in the thread, despite the fact that it actually was in the thread.
In short, I'm an idiot:)
sorry.

The 14th amendment does not say all rights must be administered equally.
That's sort of my point...The right to marry is rooted in promoting and protecting families; the state's only obligation is to regulate it so that that goal is met.

That's sort of my point...The right to marry is rooted in promoting and protecting families; the state's only obligation is to regulate it so that that goal is met.
The problem with that is it then relies on the same homophobia that is in question with gay marriage in the first place. The argument is still as valid as the rest because the strongest argument against it is illogical. The goal of marriage is to promote families. The government administers the law to reach this goal. Gay parents would create more families. Therefore the government should extend marriage to gays. But this is stopped by the "ick" factor and homophobia. Therefore, it is logical that the government would permit gay marriage to further their goal of having families, but illogically chooses not to. yes?

That's sort of my point...The right to marry is rooted in promoting and protecting families; the state's only obligation is to regulate it so that that goal is met.

Not so. The law says that two consenting adults may marry. Then there are laws as to what married people recieve. If it really says consenting adults, then gays under the current law should be allowed to marry. IF it says man and woman then it is unconstitutional, because not all citizens are afforded equal protection under the law. People with a different sexual orientation do not have the same protection because they may not marry those they want to, while the heterosexual person can marry anyone he/she wants to.

If the government could set a goal and pass any laws (even discriminatory laws) to accomplish that goal, then our country would certainly be fucked up.

Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families.

That is indeed *one* of the reasons. Where your argument breaks down is your implied assumption that it is the only one, or at least the only one that matters.

Are all of you so quick to defend that you've lost the ability to read what is right in front of you? Read the note at the top of my post:

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.

Can you read it now?
Yep, I can read it. It does not change the fact that you have failed to dismantle said argument :rolleyes:

That is indeed *one* of the reasons. Where your argument breaks down is your implied assumption that it is the only one, or at least the only one that matters.

That is one of the most important reasons. And you cannot allow marriage to gay couples without going against that reason, and therefore the government (along with other reasons) decided it would be better not to afford gays the same rights. That is unless you create civil unions, which I and many others oppose because it only sets gays as "special" citizens. Also, even with civil unions, there is a sense of marriage, which may encourage adoption, which the government wants to avoid completely.

That is one of the most important reasons. And you cannot allow marriage to gay couples without going against that reason, and therefore the government (along with other reasons) decided it would be better not to afford gays the same rights. That is unless you create civil unions, which I and many others oppose because it only sets gays as "special" citizens. Also, even with civil unions, there is a sense of marriage, which may encourage adoption, which the government wants to avoid completely.
yes, it sets gays apart as "special", but in the same way as segregation set blacks aside as "special"...they're "getting the same deal" only not really.

That is one of the most important reasons. And you cannot allow marriage to gay couples without going against that reason,

Unless you allow homosexuals to adopt of course ;)

and therefore the government (along with other reasons) decided it would be better not to afford gays the same rights.

No, most governments that do not allow gay marriage do so because the dominant holy book in their country says so.

Perhaps marital rights exist because at a time in this world people did love and care for eachother not money and someone at that time beleived that it needed to be protected(that love) and the only way to ensure something like marriage could continue would be through rights....just a thought....not even sure if i understood all those really big words you put in there mean still.

That is one of the most important reasons. And you cannot allow marriage to gay couples without going against that reason, and therefore the government (along with other reasons) decided it would be better not to afford gays the same rights. That is unless you create civil unions, which I and many others oppose because it only sets gays as "special" citizens. Also, even with civil unions, there is a sense of marriage, which may encourage adoption, which the government wants to avoid completely.
What about old folks marrying? Too old to reproduce, so why let 'em? Marriage is a more a contract of economic interdependance than one to make babies, although babies do benefit from that economic interdependance.

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.


Well it is wonderful to see someone so dedicated to the pursuit of truth. Let's see if the rest of the post substains this statement of purpose...




It is often cited in debates about gay marriage from the pro-gay rights side that marriage is simply a "legal contract." According to proponents of this "simply a legal contract" philosophy, the institution as a legal one holds no obligations to families or children.


You are misconstruing this. Perhaps deliberately. The point is that marriage is a contract because it has always been about property and succession of assets. The property side of the matter has been relatively straightforward to deal with, and there is a well estbalished body of law about it. There have never been legal obligations to bear children _because the law tries to avoid telling you what you must do_ save to prevent harm to others. The legal system as a principle tries to be be about forbidding you to do undesireable things than about trying to make you do desireable thing.

This is not a small distinction. The modern theory of law is based on the concept of liberty articulated by John Stuart Mill. Namely, that each person is the only party who can say for sure what is best for them. And that thus where the property or person of someone else are not being _directly damaged_ we have to let them do what they want however distasteful. Because as soon as we start presuming to say we know better for someone else than they do...we write an open ended blank check for meddling in each other's affair and internal struggles that even if they don't result in civil war _do_ result in people being abused by the ignorance of others.

A society free of the shadow of such meddling is a happier and more productive one than a "brother's keeper" society. To a degree, we have started to lose touch with this, as can be seen by the proliferation of bylaws, zero tolerance regulations, and the attempt to legislate people into behaving well. It hasn't done much good compared to the harm of teaching people by example that their judgement is meaningless and that it is the government's judgement that matters the most about the matters of their day to day lives.

Also, in the modern age, women have finally had the stable and substainable option to manage their own assets and make their own livelihood _as a rule_ rather than an exception. And thus we now have family law relating to the degree and manner that custody of children is allocated after divorce.

Marriage touches upon children both by nature of custody and concerns about property even insofar as sticking to the view of it as purely contractual. You will note however that the one thing it does not do is either oblige the bearing of children _nor take special measures as to the manner of their rearing_! The only laws we have in this regard are that they must be educated and they must be safe from threat of injury or death.

And the law is written this way because it is a violation of our vision of liberty to place demands upon what people most do except in exceptionally dangerous circumstances. Childlessness is NOT such a case. Uncommon perhaps but not as exceptional as threat of death or denial of access to education. Keeping true to this vision of liberty is for the collective good of society as well.

Nowhere is it implied or stated that these areas are a seamless whole and that the rights and responsibilities regarding one section of marriage law are continengent upon another discrete part.



Now, I agree that marriage is a legal contract...given for what reason? Because the government likes to give legal benefits to people in relationships? Because it makes government officials feel warm and fuzzy inside that couples get a tax break?


Rhetorical questions are not arguments. I believe I have just ennumerated the government's interest in marriage: orderly succession of property (at the start of marriage, at the end, or upon the death of one partner); standards for custody in the event of divorce; and a minimum standard on a VERY few issues for how children will be raised if there are children.

Marriage is structurally akin to the partnership form of business association. Each spouse is agent for the other. All assets may be disposed of by either at will in any manner. This sort of open ended structure leads to abuse and thus the government must have laws for when it fails. And because it is similar to a business, it has the same priveleges and responsibilities as a business would.

Marriage is a contract because people end up in frequent and significant conflicts and the government must be there to referee as it does in _all_ such cases.


Because the government wants to promote "love", because it's clear that such an emotion is and has always been the justification for marriage, and it's worth it to spend millions of tax dollars on legal benefits for married couples whose love will, of course, grow due to having them?


No. This is setting up a straw dummy argument. The point of government involvement is simple and already establshed above. You trivialize or ignore these obvious points and then add in non existent ones to accuse your opponents of impracticality and sentimentality when they do no such thing.


Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families.


The intent you postulate is irrelevant to the operation of the law. Nowhere does the law say "and in order to augment the socioeconomic status of families, we hereby enact...." except for measures like government _programs_ like family allowances and baby bonuses. The core of marriage law is uninvolved in such attempts.

Legal involvement by the State is not based on some crude attempt at social engineering. The intervention is simply the result of meeting the demand for arbitration in the all too common circumstances mentioned above.

Moreover, to say that a family is only a family in the event of children is simply not legally the case. Marriage is primarily characterized by mutual agency, merging of estates, and an alteration in rights and responsibilites. None of these characteristics is dependent upon raising children.


Saying that marriage is a legal contract is like saying that my grass is green because it's green, rather than it is because I watered it; it's stating the effect of the institution without mentioning the intentions behind it. A state goverment has the right to afford legal status to couples as it sees fit based on the institution's aforementioned goal-- to promote and assist couples in raising the people who will inherit the country in the future.


The intention of our laws is irrevelant to the settlement of them. You could argue that the speeding laws are about encouraging greater traffic safety, so that if you looked at common correlating factors in serious accidents and made sure you didn't have them in the vehicle while operating it you could then argue for an exemption from the speed limit.

The legal system does not allow this sort of thing. It's hard enough to impartially adjudicate the laws and keep within the system of precedent. If you count the _intention_ of the law as _part and parcel of the operation of it_ then you open the way to chaos by making the written, precise law subordinate to the indistinct, ambiguous consideration of intent.


A state government may decide this based on the people's morals and for financial reasons as well. That the institution includes gay couples is not implicit, nor is it implicit that it includes straight couples (although it seems quite logical that it would based on the obvious reproductive advantages).


Actually, no the government may _not_ decide to bar people from marriage based on factors as you mention. First, it would violate the underlying principle of individual liberty in our legal system. Secondly, it would be a mockery of law to state that "if this moral or financial circumstance applies, then _almost inevitably_ things will go badly, and thus we bar them from marriage." It is a mockery because we have no data to make these suppositions into fact. There are too many variables. There may be general trends, but it is not equitable to protect some people from their mistakes by preventing other people from having their stab at the pursuit of happiness.

This inteference in the exercise of the right to marry does not happen. The fact that it does not happen means that the government cannot be consistent with their principles of rights...not if they deny queerfolk the same right as heteroxesual people enjoy in being allowed to marry.


It makes little sense to state that marriage exists only as a legal contract without any reasoning behind it, or, as the implication of this argument appears to be, that martial rights exist to make couples happy.


On the contrary, to state that the intent of the law is part of the operation of the law beyond the existence of the statutes is what is nonsensical. If there is an end that the government wants, it can create policies or programs to promote that. The law is not a tool of social engineering. The law is a tool of protecting us from harm at the hands of the state or our fellow citizens. It would not function if we tried to make it the basis of making the world perfect.

We can barely understand the best outcomes much less come up with reliable, impartial and sufficiently effacious rules to promte them. The law abdicated all such attempts by embracing the modern theory of liberty.

And the law _definitely_ does not exist "to make married people happy". If that were the case, why would there be any duties or responsibilities ?


Not only does this make little sense and suggest that our tax dollars are being wasted, but, and this is NOT the main point of my argument, proponents of gay marriage who oppose incestuous and polygamous marriages will find little room to justify banning such types of relations from being legally sanctioned if they use this argument.

Parallel treatment is what the rights we are endowed with are about. If someone is in otherwise identical circumstnaces with someone else and is being treated differntly by the law based on an extraneous factor...the law says there must be remedy to grant the same outcome as is "normal".

I'll note that I _don't_ oppose polygamy.

Regarding the case of marrying within the limits of consanguity...assuming you think the specter of inbreeding is so dreadful....here you are comparing apples and oranges to say that they can invoke the "otherwise identical" principle.

Consanguity laws exist because the State assumes the right to sanction unhealthy breeding. You can argue the fairness of this intervention but it is substainable to claim that one of the conditions that must exist in marriage is no possibility of inbreeding. This does not disqualify queerfolk and it does serve an independent purpose.

Actually, there is no sound basis to make polygamy illegal. We can talk about protecting the rights of women. We can talk about uncertainty in establishing the existence of a truly parallel case to marriage. We can talk about the burden of complexity in adjudicating cases with three or more adults involved. But all of these are supposition and not proven fact.

Even if women are oppressed within polygamous marriages, they _are_ entering them from their free will. If they are married by coercion then the law has every right to intervene to seek remedy. But otherwise, even if the outcome seems demonstrably worse for them, they _have the right to the pursuit of their happiness_. No one's person or property is damaged directly. The interference is unwarranted.

Just because providing government service is hard, ultimatey it must always be provided. The people involved must ultimately understand the language that their dealings with the overnment occur in. The government must carry out the case to the full extent of its abilities.

The polygamy prohibition is wrong. I don't like polygamous marriage, but better to let people do something I find distasteful then to compromise the principle that we can do what we want to as long as it harms no one directly.

And what does this [polygamy] have to do with the price of eggs in China ?
The point is that the government forbids it based on reasons of differences of alleged substance. The government has fully abandoned such attempts regarding queerfolk affairs. They used to say that queerfolk were unstable or immoral but these accusations were disproven and now the right of these people to the same treatment as heterosexuals is incontestable on a legal level.

It is quite conceivable that the government's allegations against polygamous arrangements will be found to have the same lack of substance as historical allegations against queerfolk too.

So no, I don't see you trying to serve the truth here.

Ok, just a couple of flaws with your little arguement.

First, gay people can, have and do raise families. Saying that governments give benifits to married people to promote families as an arguement against granting marriage benifits to gays overlooks this.

Second, marraige in itself doesn't give you obligation to children or a family. In fact obligation to children you spawn comes without marraige and many people live as a family without marriage. Also many married people choose not to have chldren or raise a family.

This raises a couple of points which are worth answering. As you say gay people (mostly gay women in practice) do sometimes have children and heterosexual married couples do not always have children. In both cases these are exceptions to the more usual situation, just because there is an exception does not invalidate the general rule.

In an ideal world we would have laws and regulations that fitted every individual circumstance perfectly, in the real world such laws and regulations would have to be almost infinitely complex and impossible to apply for any society as large and complex as a typical Western nation. In practice governments have little choice but to adopt a more broad brush approach in which they take account of the fact that most married couples have children and most gay couples do not. If you want a government that micromanages at the level of the individual relationship then that is a valid (but currently impossible) aspiration. If you want a government to fail to disitinguish between clearly different groups within society on the grounds that exceptions will exist then you are taking away the ability of a government to generally encourage or discourage anything - so you might as well give up on government altogether.

--
Nic

No quote here. This is my first post ever on these boards.

I'm going to argue against the basic point that marriage is, first and foremost, a legal contract. Rather, I think it is a religious/spiritual/social contract. Certainly, if religion/society had not invented the concept of marriage, we would still have people in family groups, or as couples without children, in unions of the same type (just as often occurs now outside the boundaries of legal marriage). Equally certain, we would not be debating who should be legally entitled to live in such groups/pairings.

I uphold that marriage as a legal contract is simply a legal recognition of a socio-religious institution, and as such, under the establishment clause of the first amendment (as there are certainly gay churches marrying gay couples within america) and equal protection, denying anyone the right to be married, and legally recognized as married by the state, is a violation of U.S. first and fourteenth amendment rights.

What the original purpose of marriage was, or why the government thinks people should be recognized as married, is immaterial as soon as it recognizes a single marriage that just -might- fall outside that purpose. For that matter, in some states, legal marriages are only granted when services are carried out by religious institutions registered as such with the state, which further emphasizes the point that marriage falls under the first amendment.

Personally, I don't see why pro-gay rights individuals would ever argue for gay marriage via the 'Marriage is a legal contract' angle, when the 'Marriage is a religious institution' angle holds so much water.

"A marriage is a committed relationship between or among individuals, recognized by civil authority and/or bound by the religious beliefs of the participants. This dual nature, a binding legal contract plus a moral promise, makes marriage difficult to characterize."

Tell me what the gay lobby actually wants, and I'll tell you if I am willing to accomodate.

If what they really want is 'air time' then the answer obviously is: Fiddlestick You!

A state goverment has the right to afford legal status to couples as it sees fit based on the institution's aforementioned goal -- to promote and assist couples in raising the people who will inherit the country in the future.You have it backwards.

We don't need the reason for marriage. We need the reason for gay couples' exclusion from it. This is what the government needs to justify.

As a legal question, this is an issue of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection. Under standard equal protection analysis, it is the discrimination, the legal distinction, or the exception that needs to be justified.

Now, it's somewhat unlikely that the courts would, in this case, apply the strict scrutiny test that would put the burden of proof on the government to show that excluding gays from marriage is necessary to further a compelling state interest--but it is possible. Technically, homosexuals have both of the Supreme Court's express qualifiers for a suspect class: they have been the victims of ongoing historical discrimination; and homosexuality is an immutable characteristic--at least if the Court believes the best scientific evidence. And it would be laughable to believe the government's argument that banning gay marriage is necessary to preserve the institution itself. This is almost exactly the same argument the state gave for segregation in Brown v. Board of Education.

Unfortunately, more likely as our courts face more of these cases they will gravitate toward the weaker rational basis test, namely that the government need only show that the discrimination is rationally related to a legitimate government end. Surely the courts will agree that "preserving" marriage is a legitimate state interest. Thus, advocates of gay marriage must argue that it is not even "rational" to believe that letting homosexuals marry will somehow deter heterosexuals from doing so.

I happen to think this is a convincing argument.


Secondly, gay marriage advocates usually bring up the "contract" argument for one or both of two specific reasons: 1) to emphasize that marriage, for the purposes of the law, involves only the couple and the government that authorizes the deal--religion should not be involved; and for this purpose it does not matter why the government preserves the institution--only that the government does; 2) to argue that the "Defense of Marriage Act" is unconstitutional, as the constitution requires that each state recognize contracts approved by the others; again, here it does not matter why the government marries people--only that it does so as a form of contract, so that if it is recognized by one it must be recognized by all.

My question still remains. Why are gay couples exempted, while assorted childless couples are not? I understand that your argument is based on the intent of the law to create families. It is clear, however, that the intent of the law does not always play out. Why are gay couples prevented from marrying while couples that may never have children can?

The reason why I believe Bush is against marriage is because he is uable to realise that there are two types of marriage, the religous and the civil. They do not have to be mutally exclusive.

The religous marriage is the commitment of two people to each other being formalised before God, (the civil marriage is included automatically) the type of relationships allowed to make this committment before God is up to the church of that religon to decided.

Civil marriage is the legal contract provided by the state and was probably originally intended to encourage and support families/bringing up of children in a stable environment (though not always true). This type of marriage I believe should be open to all people, no one is barred, that is why we have civil partnerships (civil marriage for gay couples) in the UK that confer all the same rights as civil marriage. I think the reason partnership is used is because the word marriage is seen by the public to have religous aspects to it as well.

Sorry, a bit off track of the debate. The original poster I believes makes a valid point about why marriage was first made into a legal contract and the reasons are still valid today. It should be noted however that these reasons do not exclude gay couples. It is just that people seem not to be able to seperate the two types.

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.


It is often cited in debates about gay marriage from the pro-gay rights side that marriage is simply a "legal contract." According to proponents of this "simply a legal contract" philosophy, the institution as a legal one holds no obligations to families or children.

Now, I agree that marriage is a legal contract...given for what reason? Because the government likes to give legal benefits to people in relationships? Because it makes government officials feel warm and fuzzy inside that couples get a tax break? Because the government wants to promote "love", because it's clear that such an emotion is and has always been the justification for marriage, and it's worth it to spend millions of tax dollars on legal benefits for married couples whose love will, of course, grow due to having them?

Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families. Saying that marriage is a legal contract is like saying that my grass is green because it's green, rather than it is because I watered it; it's stating the effect of the institution without mentioning the intentions behind it. A state goverment has the right to afford legal status to couples as it sees fit based on the institution's aforementioned goal -- to promote and assist couples in raising the people who will inherit the country in the future. A state government may decide this based on the people's morals and for financial reasons as well. That the institution includes gay couples is not implicit, nor is it implicit that it includes straight couples (although it seems quite logical that it would based on the obvious reproductive advantages). It makes little sense to state that marriage exists only as a legal contract without any reasoning behind it, or, as the implication of this argument appears to be, that martial rights exist to make couples happy. Not only does this make little sense and suggest that our tax dollars are being wasted, but, and this is NOT the main point of my argument, proponents of gay marriage who oppose incestuous and polygamous marriages will find little room to justify banning such types of relations from being legally sanctioned if they use this argument.

I'm sure I'm like the 10 billionth person to note this, but none of what you said gives any logical argument against gay marriage.

Plenty of heterosexual couples marry but do not "grow families." That's my plan, personally.

Meanwhile, a third of homosexual couples ARE raising children. Nothing about being homosexual prevents somebody from rearing the next generation...indeed, homosexual couples tend to adopt the "undesireable" children who are too old, too drug-addicted, or just too black for any hetero couples to want them. To turn around and smear these families is pathetic.

Perhaps marital rights exist because at a time in this world people did love and care for eachother not money and someone at that time beleived that it needed to be protected(that love) and the only way to ensure something like marriage could continue would be through rights....just a thought....not even sure if i understood all those really big words you put in there mean still.
Actually, it's just the opposite. Marriage as we know it was originally designed to be a form of property exchange, and love rarely had anything to do with it. Women viewed marriage as their "career," since they weren't legally allowed to have any other career, and men viewed marriage as a means of acquiring an appliance that cleaned the house and provided them with offspring.

Sex wasn't even really that much of a factor, since women weren't supposed to ever want or enjoy sex, and men were expected to have affairs for romance and thrills.

Civil marriage is the legal contract provided by the state and was probably originally intended to encourage and support families/bringing up of children in a stable environment (though not always true). This type of marriage I believe should be open to all people, no one is barred, that is why we have civil partnerships (civil marriage for gay couples) in the UK that confer all the same rights as civil marriage. I think the reason partnership is used is because the word marriage is seen by the public to have religous aspects to it as well.


I think you - perhaps understandably - have the cart before the horse. The instutution of marriage pre-dates the state. The state never really had a choice about recognising the importance of the basic family unit. Few states have tried to radically meddle with the pre-existing institution of marriage and I would struggle to think of a single one where that meddling was a success.

Co-habitation is not really the same thing. If the state sees a general benefit to the non-participants in encouraging co-habitation then it would be reasonable for the state to act to encourage it. In practice this is almost entirely a private matter of no consequence to society at large. The UK laws on civil partnerships have emerged largely because it costs the state very little and because it is deemed to do no real harm; arguably it was a waste of legislative time that could have been spent on encouraging behaviour actually beneficial to society as a whole but then that is true of most laws passed by parliament so in that regard it is pretty normal.

The logical follow-on from the change in the UK laws will a gradual and piecemeal withdrawal of benefits that accrue to marriage and reassign them to those in long-term committed child-rearing relationships - which is where they are needed to support the long-term commitment that is the best environment in which to raise children. Unfortunately we will then end up with what British society at least has always tried to avoid which is adding insult to injury for couples unable to have children who will then have their marriages labelled somehow less valid. I suspect this is probably a natural and inevitable shift as a consequence of the changing attitudes to marriage[2].

[1] Can I reiterate for those who do not understand decision making processes that real life decisions are made on what is generally true not what is absolutely always true - because in the messy reality of life nothing is absolutely always true except death. There are always exceptions but until they become numerous enough to alter the overall outcome they should not affect the decision.

[2] Although these are still overstated by many. Even with our much extended lifespans and the much-touted choice of some not to have children it is still true that the majority of widows/widowers are left with dependent children. (source DWP figures 2001-2004). If you added in figures for those with older children (over 16) I think you would find that the role of childrearing within marriage has not changed as much as is often claimed.

--
Nic

No quote here. This is my first post ever on these boards.

I'm going to argue against the basic point that marriage is, first and foremost, a legal contract. Rather, I think it is a religious/spiritual/social contract. Certainly, if religion/society had not invented the concept of marriage, we would still have people in family groups, or as couples without children, in unions of the same type (just as often occurs now outside the boundaries of legal marriage). Equally certain, we would not be debating who should be legally entitled to live in such groups/pairings.

I uphold that marriage as a legal contract is simply a legal recognition of a socio-religious institution, and as such, under the establishment clause of the first amendment (as there are certainly gay churches marrying gay couples within america) and equal protection, denying anyone the right to be married, and legally recognized as married by the state, is a violation of U.S. first and fourteenth amendment rights.

What the original purpose of marriage was, or why the government thinks people should be recognized as married, is immaterial as soon as it recognizes a single marriage that just -might- fall outside that purpose. For that matter, in some states, legal marriages are only granted when services are carried out by religious institutions registered as such with the state, which further emphasizes the point that marriage falls under the first amendment.

Personally, I don't see why pro-gay rights individuals would ever argue for gay marriage via the 'Marriage is a legal contract' angle, when the 'Marriage is a religious institution' angle holds so much water.

You are not recognized as being married by the state (a secular organization) without its certification, whether you are religiously married or not.

In other words, to be married religiously you need both the ceremony and the state's license; to be married civilly, you need merely the state's license.

Therefore, marriage as administered by the state is not a religious institution as you posit.

You are not recognized as being married by the state (a secular organization) without its certification, whether you are religiously married or not.

In other words, to be married religiously you need both the ceremony and the state's license; to be married civilly, you need merely the state's license.

Therefore, marriage as administered by the state is not a religious institution as you posit.

In Canada, until the 1950s, all marriage licensing was handled by the Anglican Church. It wasn't even a government function until then, and it seemed to run well.

In Canada, until the 1950s, all marriage licensing was handled by the Anglican Church. It wasn't even a government function until then, and it seemed to run well.

Your own post acknowledges that today it is not run by the Anglican church; why is that?

Because it was recognized not as a right granted because of a particular religious bent (since it would discriminate against non-Anglicans) and the orderly distribution of property in a legal contract, as well as the power of one partner to direct/manage the care of another who could no longer direct/manage his or her own care, is more important to the state.

Your own post acknowledges that today it is not run by the Anglican church; why is that?

Because it was recognized not as a right granted because of a particular religious bent (since it would discriminate against non-Anglicans) and the orderly distribution of property in a legal contract, as well as the power of one partner to direct/manage the care of another who could no longer direct/manage his or her own care, is more important to the state.

What would be wrong with letting any recognized church or atheist organization handle marriage?

And let the state handle the divorce property and custody settlements, and power of attorney.

What would be wrong with letting any recognized church or atheist organization handle marriage?

And let the state handle the divorce property and custody settlements, and power of attorney.

The State cannot outsource its role as arbiter and condition-setter for public contracts to any NGO. Unless you turn that NGO into a Quango.

It's true that many of the rights associated with marriage are benefitial to the welfare of children, but that does not neccessarily lead to the conclusion that the government intends for marriage to lead to children, it simply protects any children should they be a factor.

There are other rights for married partners that aren't directly connected to children, for instance POA rights, access to finances and assets and inheritence laws (where no children are involved), also pensions and tax benefits for married couples of a certain age (UK).

Marriage affords a couple all the rights associated with it regardless of whether or not there are children involved. The law serves to protect people, all people (and I think we all agree that homosexuals are people) when things go wrong, not to dictate people's lifestyles.

I think when people invoke the "contract" argument in favour of gay rights, I've done it myself, it is a perfectly valid argument, because even if one insists that marriage, by law, is directly related to children (which I don't believe it is), that does not exlude homosexuals for various reasons we are all very familiar with.

Civil Partnerships (in UK) afford most of the same rights as marriage, not all, apparently, but I have been unable to actually find any source online detailing the differences specific to the UK! It seems all the important ones are still there - inheritence, employment and tax benefits etc, not sure about access to bank accounts upon death of one partner etc.

People may hold the religious belief that marriage leads to children (or should), as vigourously argued on another thread last week, and those religious beliefs may well be reflected in the law by those making it. This is an issue of some importance here, as it is entirely probable that this is the precise reason why homosexual marrige is still illegal almost everywhere in the world. It is an issue in need of address. Is (in the UK) the bible still relevant in law when so few members of the country actively adhere to Christian teachings?

It is different in the USA as Christian numbers are so much higher than here, however, the law must still protect those who are not Christian (or any other religion fobidding homosexual sex), even if they are a minority as your constitution is the binding and driving force of the law.

Anyway, my points are
1) marriage is a contract that affords a variety of rights, not just those directly associated with children, to everyone who enters into marriage
2) homosexuals are capable of raising a family and equal protection to any children is the right of the child (straight, unmarried couples with children are making a choice not to marry and take up those rights, homosexuals aren't able to choose)
3) intention of the state in lawmaking may be prejudiced, in which case they need to be challenged

What would be wrong with letting any recognized church or atheist organization handle marriage?

And let the state handle the divorce property and custody settlements, and power of attorney.


I didn't say there was anything wrong with it; but now you're introducing three separate organizations (church, non-secular, state) where one will do.

Multiplying paperwork = a bad thing.

In Canada, until the 1950s, all marriage licensing was handled by the Anglican Church. It wasn't even a government function until then, and it seemed to run well.
False.

<sidetrack>
Have you ever heard of the Catholic Church? Did you know they were in Canada before the 1950s? Then you'll be surprised to hear that they did carry marriage ceremony.
</sidetrack>

I actually think the argument put forward here about the reason for the legal status of marriage is a pretty good one. Marriage exists because of many things, not the least being that society has seen it as it's building block for at least 1500 years. It is also a way of regulating the most common and most healthy human relationship in history. All the people who tell you that hetrosexual marriage is a failure just needs to look at the history of any society who abandons it. We have had several in history, including the Roman Empire for example, and everyone of them has collapsed as they have embraced something outside of marriage as a standard for human relationships. In fact even the idea of a nuclear family is new, marriage might be the standard relationship, but the healthiest one includes grandparents etc, as people work to support each other in their life long monogomus relationships.

However I am also not against Gay relationships being recognised. But creating gay marriage is not the answer. In fact many people I know who choose that persuasion aren't interested in a life long commitment to one person. SO why not create something different that deals with legal issues like access to superanuation, inheritance and custody of children, that isn't called marriage but still has some kind of legal status. Maybe a relationship register?

Cheers.

I actually think the argument put forward here about the reason for the legal status of marriage is a pretty good one. Marriage exists because of many things, not the least being that society has seen it as it's building block for at least 1500 years. It is also a way of regulating the most common and most healthy human relationship in history.

For the majority of the last 1500 years, marriage was a relationship between a man and his property. I fail to see how any adult relationship can be "healthy" when one of the participants is the property of the other.


All the people who tell you that hetrosexual marriage is a failure just needs to look at the history of any society who abandons it.

I don't see many people saying that heterosexual marriage, in general, is a failure. Rather, I see people pointing out that heterosexuality does not appear to be either necessary or sufficient for a healthy marriage.


We have had several in history, including the Roman Empire for example, and everyone of them has collapsed as they have embraced something outside of marriage as a standard for human relationships.

I'd love to see some sources on this.


In fact even the idea of a nuclear family is new, marriage might be the standard relationship, but the healthiest one includes grandparents etc, as people work to support each other in their life long monogomus relationships.

Sure.


However I am also not against Gay relationships being recognised. But creating gay marriage is not the answer.

Here's the thing: homosexuals have been rearing children for a long time now. Homosexuals have been in committed, monogamous relationships for a very long time. It's not about "creating" gay marriage, at this point, it's about recognizing that gay marriage already exists. The only stumbling block is that a loud minority are trying to actively block these marriages from being legally recognized.


In fact many people I know who choose that persuasion aren't interested in a life long commitment to one person.

Many heterosexuals I know are not interested in marriage, either. Guess we toss out hetero nups, huh?


SO why not create something different that deals with legal issues like access to superanuation, inheritance and custody of children, that isn't called marriage but still has some kind of legal status. Maybe a relationship register?

Why should homosexuals have different legal status than heterosexuals? The principle of "separate but equal" was tossed out a generation ago, you know.

However I am also not against Gay relationships being recognised. But creating gay marriage is not the answer. In fact many people I know who choose that persuasion aren't interested in a life long commitment to one person. SO why not create something different that deals with legal issues like access to superanuation, inheritance and custody of children, that isn't called marriage but still has some kind of legal status. Maybe a relationship register?

Cheers.

And this differs from the current institution of marriage how?

False.

<sidetrack>
Have you ever heard of the Catholic Church? Did you know they were in Canada before the 1950s? Then you'll be surprised to hear that they did carry marriage ceremony.
</sidetrack>

That said, the government wasn't in the business of doing it.

Which is exactly why the legal benefits of marriage are not granted to those who are married and yet sterile, or chose not to have offspring!

Wait....crap.

Yup, my marriage shouldn't be classified as such because my husband and I don't intend to procreate. Oh wait. Maybe not.

It is often cited in debates about gay marriage from the pro-gay rights side that marriage is simply a "legal contract." According to proponents of this "simply a legal contract" philosophy, the institution as a legal one holds no obligations to families or children.

As a legal contract, you will find yourself with obligations towards any children you have with your spouse and you will be responsible for your spouse. These are just a few of the many legal obligations you will have towards your family.

It is a legal contract and nothing more unless people make more out of it.

As a legal contract, you will find yourself with obligations towards any children you have with your spouse and you will be responsible for your spouse. These are just a few of the many legal obligations you will have towards your family.

Quite.

The marriage contract (at least in the US) includes mention of what happens if you buy a house with your husband/wife, yet nobody seems to be arguing that the entire point of marriage is for two people to buy a house together.

Odd, how that works out, isn't it? :)

Quite.

The marriage contract (at least in the US) includes mention of what happens if you buy a house with your husband/wife, yet nobody seems to be arguing that the entire point of marriage is for two people to buy a house together.

Odd, how that works out, isn't it? :)

I got married because I wanted a life partner who was also interested in bearing and raising children with me.

If I didn't want children, I wouldn't have gotten married.

I got married because I wanted a life partner who was also interested in bearing and raising children with me.

If I didn't want children, I wouldn't have gotten married.
That's lovely for you, but I'm not sure why you choose to bring it up now.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qd-pqRhskMI&search=Louis%20CK

Watch the damn video.

How about them straight couples that get married and dont/cant have kids...


yeah...

How about them straight couples that get married and dont/cant have kids...


yeah...
They aren't REALLY married then, are they? Because, after all, breeding is what determines how much you love your spouse, and how committed you are to your marriage. Somebody with 5 kids obviously has a marriage that is 5X better than that of a person who has produced only 1 child.

[/sarcasm]

Marriage is pretty much for the legal benefits of being able to do many things as a couple instead of seperate. Anyone that says otherwise really has a skewed vision of what marriage is. Having kids and marriage are mutually exclusive, one does not affect the ability to do the other.

The entire premise upon which your argument is based is flawed. If we actually look at the many protections afforded to married couples, it becomes evident that marriage has little to do with raising children. The few rights afforded to married couples regarding children are much like the other rights similarly afforded to married couples - the ability to act as a single legal entity and thus both have custody of the children, even if both are not biological parents.

It is fairly evident from the actual protections awarded by marriage that the purpose of marriage is to recognize a particular situation in which two people decide to live as a single entity. They wish to be next-of-kin to one another, the share their resources, and so on. Without that construct, they could lose possessions that were rightfully theirs or defraud creditors by simply transferring funds to a spouse.

The main purpose of the government in recognizing marriage is not social - as you suggest - it is economics. The government needs a way to recognize who owns what, who owes what, and who can speak for another. The government needs to be able to enforce legal constructs and protects its citizens from losing their own possessions due to a legal loophole (ie. only one spouse's name on a mortgage).

Look at the protections afforded to marriage - over 1000 of them in most states. Very few have any relation to children at all. Most of them are, plain and simply, related to money.

That's lovely for you, but I'm not sure why you choose to bring it up now.
Because you seemed to imply that marriage is for joint property.

Well it is wonderful to see someone so dedicated to the pursuit of truth. Let's see if the rest of the post substains this statement of purpose...





You are misconstruing this. Perhaps deliberately. The point is that marriage is a contract because it has always been about property and succession of assets. The property side of the matter has been relatively straightforward to deal with, and there is a well estbalished body of law about it. There have never been legal obligations to bear children _because the law tries to avoid telling you what you must do_ save to prevent harm to others. The legal system as a principle tries to be be about forbidding you to do undesireable things than about trying to make you do desireable thing.

This is not a small distinction. The modern theory of law is based on the concept of liberty articulated by John Stuart Mill. Namely, that each person is the only party who can say for sure what is best for them. And that thus where the property or person of someone else are not being _directly damaged_ we have to let them do what they want however distasteful. Because as soon as we start presuming to say we know better for someone else than they do...we write an open ended blank check for meddling in each other's affair and internal struggles that even if they don't result in civil war _do_ result in people being abused by the ignorance of others.

A society free of the shadow of such meddling is a happier and more productive one than a "brother's keeper" society. To a degree, we have started to lose touch with this, as can be seen by the proliferation of bylaws, zero tolerance regulations, and the attempt to legislate people into behaving well. It hasn't done much good compared to the harm of teaching people by example that their judgement is meaningless and that it is the government's judgement that matters the most about the matters of their day to day lives.

Also, in the modern age, women have finally had the stable and substainable option to manage their own assets and make their own livelihood _as a rule_ rather than an exception. And thus we now have family law relating to the degree and manner that custody of children is allocated after divorce.

Marriage touches upon children both by nature of custody and concerns about property even insofar as sticking to the view of it as purely contractual. You will note however that the one thing it does not do is either oblige the bearing of children _nor take special measures as to the manner of their rearing_! The only laws we have in this regard are that they must be educated and they must be safe from threat of injury or death.

And the law is written this way because it is a violation of our vision of liberty to place demands upon what people most do except in exceptionally dangerous circumstances. Childlessness is NOT such a case. Uncommon perhaps but not as exceptional as threat of death or denial of access to education. Keeping true to this vision of liberty is for the collective good of society as well.

Nowhere is it implied or stated that these areas are a seamless whole and that the rights and responsibilities regarding one section of marriage law are continengent upon another discrete part.




Rhetorical questions are not arguments. I believe I have just ennumerated the government's interest in marriage: orderly succession of property (at the start of marriage, at the end, or upon the death of one partner); standards for custody in the event of divorce; and a minimum standard on a VERY few issues for how children will be raised if there are children.

Marriage is structurally akin to the partnership form of business association. Each spouse is agent for the other. All assets may be disposed of by either at will in any manner. This sort of open ended structure leads to abuse and thus the government must have laws for when it fails. And because it is similar to a business, it has the same priveleges and responsibilities as a business would.

Marriage is a contract because people end up in frequent and significant conflicts and the government must be there to referee as it does in _all_ such cases.



No. This is setting up a straw dummy argument. The point of government involvement is simple and already establshed above. You trivialize or ignore these obvious points and then add in non existent ones to accuse your opponents of impracticality and sentimentality when they do no such thing.



The intent you postulate is irrelevant to the operation of the law. Nowhere does the law say "and in order to augment the socioeconomic status of families, we hereby enact...." except for measures like government _programs_ like family allowances and baby bonuses. The core of marriage law is uninvolved in such attempts.

Legal involvement by the State is not based on some crude attempt at social engineering. The intervention is simply the result of meeting the demand for arbitration in the all too common circumstances mentioned above.

Moreover, to say that a family is only a family in the event of children is simply not legally the case. Marriage is primarily characterized by mutual agency, merging of estates, and an alteration in rights and responsibilites. None of these characteristics is dependent upon raising children.



The intention of our laws is irrevelant to the settlement of them. You could argue that the speeding laws are about encouraging greater traffic safety, so that if you looked at common correlating factors in serious accidents and made sure you didn't have them in the vehicle while operating it you could then argue for an exemption from the speed limit.

The legal system does not allow this sort of thing. It's hard enough to impartially adjudicate the laws and keep within the system of precedent. If you count the _intention_ of the law as _part and parcel of the operation of it_ then you open the way to chaos by making the written, precise law subordinate to the indistinct, ambiguous consideration of intent.



Actually, no the government may _not_ decide to bar people from marriage based on factors as you mention. First, it would violate the underlying principle of individual liberty in our legal system. Secondly, it would be a mockery of law to state that "if this moral or financial circumstance applies, then _almost inevitably_ things will go badly, and thus we bar them from marriage." It is a mockery because we have no data to make these suppositions into fact. There are too many variables. There may be general trends, but it is not equitable to protect some people from their mistakes by preventing other people from having their stab at the pursuit of happiness.

This inteference in the exercise of the right to marry does not happen. The fact that it does not happen means that the government cannot be consistent with their principles of rights...not if they deny queerfolk the same right as heteroxesual people enjoy in being allowed to marry.



On the contrary, to state that the intent of the law is part of the operation of the law beyond the existence of the statutes is what is nonsensical. If there is an end that the government wants, it can create policies or programs to promote that. The law is not a tool of social engineering. The law is a tool of protecting us from harm at the hands of the state or our fellow citizens. It would not function if we tried to make it the basis of making the world perfect.

We can barely understand the best outcomes much less come up with reliable, impartial and sufficiently effacious rules to promte them. The law abdicated all such attempts by embracing the modern theory of liberty.

And the law _definitely_ does not exist "to make married people happy". If that were the case, why would there be any duties or responsibilities ?



Parallel treatment is what the rights we are endowed with are about. If someone is in otherwise identical circumstnaces with someone else and is being treated differntly by the law based on an extraneous factor...the law says there must be remedy to grant the same outcome as is "normal".

I'll note that I _don't_ oppose polygamy.

Regarding the case of marrying within the limits of consanguity...assuming you think the specter of inbreeding is so dreadful....here you are comparing apples and oranges to say that they can invoke the "otherwise identical" principle.

Consanguity laws exist because the State assumes the right to sanction unhealthy breeding. You can argue the fairness of this intervention but it is substainable to claim that one of the conditions that must exist in marriage is no possibility of inbreeding. This does not disqualify queerfolk and it does serve an independent purpose.

Actually, there is no sound basis to make polygamy illegal. We can talk about protecting the rights of women. We can talk about uncertainty in establishing the existence of a truly parallel case to marriage. We can talk about the burden of complexity in adjudicating cases with three or more adults involved. But all of these are supposition and not proven fact.

Even if women are oppressed within polygamous marriages, they _are_ entering them from their free will. If they are married by coercion then the law has every right to intervene to seek remedy. But otherwise, even if the outcome seems demonstrably worse for them, they _have the right to the pursuit of their happiness_. No one's person or property is damaged directly. The interference is unwarranted.

Just because providing government service is hard, ultimatey it must always be provided. The people involved must ultimately understand the language that their dealings with the overnment occur in. The government must carry out the case to the full extent of its abilities.

The polygamy prohibition is wrong. I don't like polygamous marriage, but better to let people do something I find distasteful then to compromise the principle that we can do what we want to as long as it harms no one directly.

And what does this [polygamy] have to do with the price of eggs in China ?
The point is that the government forbids it based on reasons of differences of alleged substance. The government has fully abandoned such attempts regarding queerfolk affairs. They used to say that queerfolk were unstable or immoral but these accusations were disproven and now the right of these people to the same treatment as heterosexuals is incontestable on a legal level.

It is quite conceivable that the government's allegations against polygamous arrangements will be found to have the same lack of substance as historical allegations against queerfolk too.

So no, I don't see you trying to serve the truth here.
Ah, my friend, but I was...The problem is that people are so quick to defend and so skeptical when it comes to any subject where the words "gay" and "straight" are mentioned that everyone in their presence becomes an enemy. I blame quite for a few people for this: Jerry Falwell, George Bush...you get the picture.

Here you have asserted that marriage is a legal contract laid out to transfer property and finances in an orderly fashion. This is a good argument in favor of gay marriage because it actually gives a purpose for the legal contract of marriage to be in existence, rather than it just existing for the sake of existing. Yes, I know marriage was always about property rights and such, but when one examines the standards of marriage that are rooted in the institution, it undoubtedly involves the raising and protection of families, which are assisted by the other benefits from marriage (healthcare, hospital visitation, etc.) as well as the financial and property aspects. While it may not be written in law that having families is the purpose for marriage, it is no doubt a fixture of the institution, what with the custody rights that couples are entitled to with the children that they may have/adopt in a marriage, and it is legitimate to consider this aspect of the union in legislating martial law. A state does have the right to use this aspect of the issue as a deciding factor in allowing or disallowing certain types of marriage, whether some consider it to be fair or not.

Of course it is illogical to say that gay couples are not as capable as straight couples when it comes to adopting and raising a family, but nevertheless it is a state's right to legislate marital law as it sees fit based upon this aspect of marriage.

EDIT: Marriage is indeed a legal contract. As it has pointed out, for the transfer of property and finances, and for the protection of families. My original point was that some justification has to be given for the existence of marriage. Some here have done that, and that was exactly my intent -- for the blind "legal contract" without justification point to dissolve. Others have mistaken me with those who wish to dismantle the arguments gay marriage as a whole, which was not the case.

Marriage exists because of many things, not the least being that society has seen it as it's building block for at least 1500 years. It is also a way of regulating the most common and most healthy human relationship in history.

(a) Do you need the government to regulate your relationships?
(b) If a monogamous relationship is the healthiest relationship, why would you deny recognition of homosexual relationships?

In fact even the idea of a nuclear family is new, marriage might be the standard relationship, but the healthiest one includes grandparents etc, as people work to support each other in their life long monogomus relationships.

Indeed. And homosexuals cannot do that?

However I am also not against Gay relationships being recognised. But creating gay marriage is not the answer.

It isn't creating anything new. It is simply recognizing it, just as no one "created" interracial marriage. They simply removed the blocks that kept the government from recognizing it.

In fact many people I know who choose that persuasion

One cannot choose one's sexual orientation. Tell me, when did you sit down and decide to be straight?

aren't interested in a life long commitment to one person.[/qutoe]

Especially at a young age, most people - gay/straight/bi/whatever - aren't all that interested in a lifelong committment. That interest seems to come with age.

[quote]SO why not create something different that deals with legal issues like access to superanuation, inheritance and custody of children, that isn't called marriage but still has some kind of legal status. Maybe a relationship register?

Why create something that already exists. Its called civil marriage.


Because you seemed to imply that marriage is for joint property.

What marriage is to you and why the government recognizes it need not be the same thing.

Because you seemed to imply that marriage is for joint property.
Oh, sorry if I wasn't clear...my point was that some people appear to be arguing that marriage is "for" having children simply because marriage includes provisions for any children that are born to the married couple, and this is as silly as saying that marriage is "for" buying a house simply because there are also provisions for what happens to a house that the couple purchases.

I don't think it's anybody's business to tell any other married couple what their union is "for." Some people feel that their marriage is about having babies, while others feel it is about joint property, and still others believe that getting married is the only way they can get laid without pissing off God. Some people believe all of the above, some believe something entirely different. Who the hell cares?

As long as nobody is trying to take control of what MY marriage means, I've got no beef with them. They can tell me that their marriage exists because the Great Serpant Marmelejad likes everything to be organized into groups of two, and I'll nod and smile politely.

Still can't read, huh? My argument was against a particular justification for gay marriage...not against gay marriage itself.

And that argument is 100% wrong and you should stop using it. Still cant read, huh?

Anyway, my points are
1) marriage is a contract that affords a variety of rights, not just those directly associated with children, to everyone who enters into marriage

Indeed. Not even a majority of them are associated with children.

2) homosexuals are capable of raising a family and equal protection to any children is the right of the child (straight, unmarried couples with children are making a choice not to marry and take up those rights, homosexuals aren't able to choose)

Indeed. The children of homosexuals are denied many protections afforded to the children of heterosexuals. Take, for instance, the case in which a lesbian couple decides to have a child. One mother is the biological mother, and thus has legal custody of that child. But, unlike a marriage - in which the other parent could also have legal custody - there is no way for her to adopt that child and share responsibility. Thus, if the biological mother cannot sign off for medical treatment (out of town or whatever), no one can. If the child needs to be questioned by a police officer, the non-biological mother cannot act as a parents. If someone needs to pick the child up from school early, it cannot be the non-biological parent. And so on.....

3) intention of the state in lawmaking may be prejudiced, in which case they need to be challenged

May be?

I got married because I wanted a life partner who was also interested in bearing and raising children with me.

If I didn't want children, I wouldn't have gotten married.

See, I got married because I couldn't imagine my life without Patrick.

Because it makes government officials feel warm and fuzzy inside that couples get a tax break? Because the government wants to promote "love", because it's clear that such an emotion is and has always been the justification for marriage, and it's worth it to spend millions of tax dollars on legal benefits for married couples whose love will, of course, grow due to having them?

Why are people in these discussions always so very stuck on this imaginary tax break? Does no one actually examine the tax codes. I hate to break it to you, my dear, but most married couples end up paying MORE in taxes than they would filing singly. And, since young gay couples generally have quite a bit of disposable income and very few exemptions, allowing gay marriage would actually increase tax revenue.

A state government may decide this based on the people's morals and for financial reasons as well.

A state government has no business deciding anything based on people's morals - as morals change with religion, and the people have freedom of religion.

It makes little sense to state that marriage exists only as a legal contract without any reasoning behind it, or, as the implication of this argument appears to be, that martial rights exist to make couples happy.

Hardly. Marital rights exist to protect couples who choose to live as a single entity - to combine their assets, to make decisions with and for one another, and to live as one. They also exist to protect government interests - to ensure that the couple's assets are protected, even in the event of death, that debtors (including the IRS) receive their payment without being defrauded, and to provide a construct for splitting things up, if necessary.

Not only does this make little sense and suggest that our tax dollars are being wasted,

Once again with the imaginary tax break argument.

but, and this is NOT the main point of my argument, proponents of gay marriage who oppose incestuous and polygamous marriages will find little room to justify banning such types of relations from being legally sanctioned if they use this argument.

Incest has its own problems - and the government can forward a compelling interest in blocking such marriages.

Polygamous marriages cannot use the same construct as monogamous ones, because the marraige law is specifically designed for two people. It would be pretty much impossible to simply extend that out to multiple marriages. However, there is certainly no reason that polygamous marriages could not or should not be recognized. Most likely, they would fall under corporate law - allowing groups of people who wish to live as a single entity to incorporate themselves.

Perhaps marital rights exist because at a time in this world people did love and care for eachother not money and someone at that time beleived that it needed to be protected(that love) and the only way to ensure something like marriage could continue would be through rights....just a thought.

Actually, marriage in the West was (and remains) about property rights and inheritance. If you look at it historically you will see that up until about 100–150 years ago, marriage was mostly confined to the landed élite and the forerunners of the modern professional class, and this was because they were the only ones with significant inheritable property (I use the British example here since that's what I know best).

This doesn't mean that people in the laboring classes (roughly 90% of the population through the mid-19th century) didn't have legally-recognized marriages, but they generally did not have licensed marriages performed by a magistrate or clergyman. Rather, a couple who had been together for some acceptable period of time could attain a recognized state of marriage by performing some commonly-accepted symbolic act, typically stepping together through a designated doorway in the local church. The notion of a Common Law marriage is not just a random phrase, but reflects the legal status accorded to these types of unions under English Common Law (the basis of US, Canadian, and Australian law).

The reasons people without property might forego formal legal marriage were several, but one prominent one was that divorce was difficult to obtain and quite expensive: Divorce required an act of Parliament for that specific couple, and the legislation needed to be introduced by an MP and carried a hefty fee; therefore in practical terms divorce was out of reach of all but the wealthy and well-connected. In addition, without any property of value, there were no concrete benefits conveyed by the legal status of marriage; Common Law marriage was sufficient to prevent any children from being considered illegitimate (which itself pertains to inheritance—whether the child is a legitimate heir).

On the other hand, for the wealthy marriage was an important part of maintaining the family wealth, estate, and title (in combination with legally-mandated primogeniture and entail). Many societies (not just in the West) have long traditions of arranged marriages within the propertied classes for just this reason.

The role of institutional religion in regulating marriage is a complex one. In brief, in the early days of the institutional Christian Church in Europe, the power to regulate marriage (such as it was) lay primarily with the state (such as it was). Around roughly 1000 CE (I don't have the exact time period to hand, but you can look it up), with the Vatican being the most stable and powerful political institution in Europe, the Church was able to wrest sole control of marriage from the various states. Several centuries later, as secular political rulers began to regain political, social, and economic control over Europe, the Christian church, now split into a multiplicity of sects, was forced to concede its privileged position regarding marriage. Today marriage in the West is entirely a secular legal matter—although it may be performed in a religious setting by a religious functionary, the authority to perform the marriage is granted by the state, and a (secular) marriage license is required. In other words, the religious aspect is merely for personal gratification and has no legal significance (except perhaps in the UK where the Church of England continues to be the official state church).

The upshot being that the original argument that marriage is about fostering happy couples or promoting childbirth or raising families is simply incorrect. And just to be clear: There is nothing the original argument that refutes in any way the undeniable historical and legal reality that marriage in the west is a legal contract related primarily to property rights and responsibilities. Any subsequent argument based on the original poster's premise is untenable, because it is historically and legally uninformed and based on false assumptions.

There is simply no way around the fact that marriage in the West is a legal contract pertaining to property rights, including inheritance, insurance benefits, medical benefits and decision-making rights, etc. It is for these reasons that keeping same-sex marriages illegal violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Legal marriage is not about sex, it's not about happiness, and it's not about ecouraging procreation: It is about property, money, and who can make what decisions in certain circumstances.

Why are people in these discussions always so very stuck on this imaginary tax break? Does no one actually examine the tax codes. I hate to break it to you, my dear, but most married couples end up paying MORE in taxes than they would filing singly. And, since young gay couples generally have quite a bit of disposable income and very few exemptions, allowing gay marriage would actually increase tax revenue..
Citation and further proof of this would be nice. I've read that allowing gays to marry would increase taxes as a whole to compensate for the increased amount of benefits being afforded.
A state government has no business deciding anything based on people's morals - as morals change with religion, and the people have freedom of religion.
Morals are not necessarily related to religion.
Hardly. Marital rights exist to protect couples who choose to live as a single entity - to combine their assets, to make decisions with and for one another, and to live as one. They also exist to protect government interests - to ensure that the couple's assets are protected, even in the event of death, that debtors (including the IRS) receive their payment without being defrauded, and to provide a construct for splitting things up, if necessary.
This is a large aspect, I admit. However, the family raising aspect is a legitimate function of marriage that must be considered as well, what with the joint custody privlege.

Incest has its own problems - and the government can forward a compelling interest in blocking such marriages.

Polygamous marriages cannot use the same construct as monogamous ones, because the marraige law is specifically designed for two people. It would be pretty much impossible to simply extend that out to multiple marriages. However, there is certainly no reason that polygamous marriages could not or should not be recognized. Most likely, they would fall under corporate law - allowing groups of people who wish to live as a single entity to incorporate themselves.
What problems, in your mind, does incest have? The power/control argument, where one family member may exert influence over another to force the other to marry him/her? In the interests of liberty, isn't that still their choice to get married? As for the genetic trouble when it comes to two related people having children -- how does this apply to gay brothers and sisters?

What problems, in your mind, does incest have? The power/control argument, where one family member may exert influence over another to force the other to marry him/her? In the interests of liberty, isn't that still their choice to get married? As for the genetic trouble when it comes to two related people having children -- how does this apply to gay brothers and sisters?
Increased likelyhood of congenital defect and the added burden on the government's ressource it brings.

*snip the horseshit*

Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families. Saying that marriage is a legal contract is like saying that my grass is green because it's green, rather than it is because I watered it; it's stating the effect of the institution without mentioning the intentions behind it. A state goverment has the right to afford legal status to couples as it sees fit based on the institution's aforementioned goal -- to promote and assist couples in raising the people who will inherit the country in the future. A state government may decide this based on the people's morals and for financial reasons as well. That the institution includes gay couples is not implicit, nor is it implicit that it includes straight couples (although it seems quite logical that it would based on the obvious reproductive advantages). It makes little sense to state that marriage exists only as a legal contract without any reasoning behind it, or, as the implication of this argument appears to be, that martial rights exist to make couples happy. Not only does this make little sense and suggest that our tax dollars are being wasted, but, and this is NOT the main point of my argument, proponents of gay marriage who oppose incestuous and polygamous marriages will find little room to justify banning such types of relations from being legally sanctioned if they use this argument.
I emphasized that statement because you've just said that there's no need for a FEDERAL marriage law, amendment, or any action whatsoever. Thanks!

Are all of you so quick to defend that you've lost the ability to read what is right in front of you? Read the note at the top of my post:

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.

Can you read it now?
Yes. ANd you've failed to dismantle it, as has been repeatedly shown here. Make your protestations in 100-point font and you'll still be incorrect.

Citation and further proof of this would be nice.

Check the tax codes. The "married" tax brackets are designed for a single income home. Since most homes, even those with married couples, are not single income, this means that most married couples get thrown into a higher tax bracket than they would be individually. The very poor and the very rich may get some sort of tax benefit, but those of us in the middle, for the most part, take a penalty. Legislatures around the country have even referred to it that way - "Marriage penalty."

I've read that allowing gays to marry would increase taxes as a whole to compensate for the increased amount of benefits being afforded.

I've read that too, but never with any support in the actual tax codes. It usually has to do with the fact that people have this misconception that simply being married reduces your taxes - when it generally does the opposite.

Morals are not necessarily related to religion.

They generally are, at least in the sense that you are using them. Can you give me an objective reason that being gay is bad? Can you cite various religions who think they are?

This is a large aspect, I admit.

And looking at the laws relating to marriage, it becomes evident that this is the main aspect. The rest is related - even down to the issue of child custody.

However, the family raising aspect is a legitimate function of marriage that must be considered as well, what with the joint custody privlege.

This is really an extension of the same thing. The government needs to keep track of who is responsible for a child. If two people are equally responsible, the government needs to recognize that.

Of course, homosexual couples can and do raise families - and, as of right now, their children are less protected than the children of heterosexual couples.

What problems, in your mind, does incest have? The power/control argument, where one family member may exert influence over another to force the other to marry him/her?

That is a big part of it, yes.

In the interests of liberty, isn't that still their choice to get married?

How can you say that one would force the other to do it, and then use the word liberty in the next sentence? If a choice is forced, it is not a choice at all.

As for the genetic trouble when it comes to two related people having children -- how does this apply to gay brothers and sisters?

It doesn't. But the other issues do.

You are not recognized as being married by the state (a secular organization) without its certification, whether you are religiously married or not.

In other words, to be married religiously you need both the ceremony and the state's license; to be married civilly, you need merely the state's license.

Therefore, marriage as administered by the state is not a religious institution as you posit.

I strongly disagree with the conception that 'marriage as administered by the state' is really anything but legally authorizing and tracking a social/spiritual/religious ceremony.

The fact is, anyone can walk into a county clerks' office in thier state, and as long as they're a legal adult and marrying someone of the opposite sex, no matter thier intention or purpose in doing so, regardless of thier desire or ability to have children or adopt, intention to live with thier spouse, or almost any other qualifier you care to name, they can walk out with a marriage license. No more than a week later, they can be married.

The fact that religion has -anything- to do with it, makes it a religious institution.

It doesn't even matter that the state -can- administer non-religious marriage. That's arguably a religious right of athiests being given equal protection. The government is lending credit and officiality to -some- religious marriages, with almost zero requirements beyond legal adulthood and that the people involved be of opposite sexes. Religious personages are performing these ceremonies that the state is administering licenses for.

Pardon my frankness, but the idea that 'State-administered marriage' and 'Religious marriage' are entirely separate entities is only so much political B.S.ery. It obviously is not the case. If it were, the state would refer to -every- marriage as a civil union, and require a judge or other state clerk to validate the marriage paperwork, and keep the entire legal end of 'state-administered marriage' completely seperated from any religious ceremony that may or may not be performed- something they wouldn't even track, except possibly for tax purposes.

If the state is validating and tracking marriage ceremonies for some religions (which they undeniably are), then refusal to do the same for another religion, regardless of the specifics of the sex of the people to be married, is, as I stated before, a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, and the fourteenth amendments' equal protection clause.

Marriage is pretty much for the legal benefits of being able to do many things as a couple instead of seperate. Anyone that says otherwise really has a skewed vision of what marriage is.

Well there you go, that's the funny thing about the Western notion of romantic love and marriage. I can't think of a single example of anyone who views marriage your way despite knowing many married couples.

Marriage goes far deeper into our culture than you seem willing to admit, the legal aspects of marriage are really only a recognition of those aspects of it that happen to impact on legally regulated parts of our lives like property. They barely scratch the surface of the full meaning of marriage and what it means to people who enter into it. The question is why do you have such a narrow view of what marriage is and is that skewing your opinions on the whole subject?

--
Nic

The fact is, anyone can walk into a county clerks' office in thier state, and as long as they're a legal adult and marrying someone of the opposite sex, no matter thier intention or purpose in doing so, regardless of thier desire or ability to have children or adopt, intention to live with thier spouse, or almost any other qualifier you care to name, they can walk out with a marriage license. No more than a week later, they can be married.

And no religion need be involved. And a person can get a religious marriage - in any religion - without getting a legally recognized one. This proves quite succinctly that the legal construct and religious construct are separate.

It doesn't even matter that the state -can- administer non-religious marriage. That's arguably a religious right of athiests being given equal protection.

Hardly. A religious person can get a non-religious marriage at the county courthouse too.

The government is lending credit and officiality to -some- religious marriages, with almost zero requirements beyond legal adulthood and that the people involved be of opposite sexes. Religious personages are performing these ceremonies that the state is administering licenses for.

Indeed. The state grants the power to the officiant to sign off on the state-issued marriage license. However, the government is not, at that point, recognizing a religious marriage. It is recognizing a legal marriage, with the officiant acting as a representative of the state.

Pardon my frankness, but the idea that 'State-administered marriage' and 'Religious marriage' are entirely separate entities is only so much political B.S.ery. It obviously is not the case. If it were, the state would refer to -every- marriage as a civil union,

Why must the state change the name of its marriage just so that you won't be confused?

Should the government stop referring to the situation in which a criminal admits to a crime as a confession, since a confession must be done before a priest so that you can be absolved of your sins? I hate to break it to you, dearie, but many words in the English language have multiple meanings, and can refer to more than one thing.

and require a judge or other state clerk to validate the marriage paperwork,

Marriage paperwork is still filed with and validated by the government, whether you have a religious ceremony or not. Religious officiants are simply allowed to act as representatives of the government in witnessing the union.

Did you know that anyone can become a notary public and thus witness the signing of contracts? Does that mean that the contracts cease to be legal?

and keep the entire legal end of 'state-administered marriage' completely seperated from any religious ceremony that may or may not be performed- something they wouldn't even track, except possibly for tax purposes.

All this would do is inconvenience the many citizens who want both a religious marriage and a civil one. The fact that the process is streamlined does not merge the two institutions.

If the state is validating and tracking marriage ceremonies for some religions (which they undeniably are),

Actually, it is perfectly deniable. The state isn't validating or tracking any religious ceremonies. It is granting its own marriage licenses to couples who choose to apply. Interestingly enough, a religious officiant can only sign off on and witness a marriage license. The couple must go and apply for it at a government office. Without doing so, their marriage will never be legally recognized.

Well there you go, that's the funny thing about the Western notion of romantic love and marriage. I can't think of a single example of anyone who views marriage your way despite knowing many married couples.

You're right. Most people - married people included - do not limit marriage to that. However, from the government's point of view, that is *exactly* what marriage is.

Well there you go, that's the funny thing about the Western notion of romantic love and marriage. I can't think of a single example of anyone who views marriage your way despite knowing many married couples.

Marriage goes far deeper into our culture than you seem willing to admit, the legal aspects of marriage are really only a recognition of those aspects of it that happen to impact on legally regulated parts of our lives like property. They barely scratch the surface of the full meaning of marriage and what it means to people who enter into it. The question is why do you have such a narrow view of what marriage is and is that skewing your opinions on the whole subject?

--
Nic
What has actually been argued in this thread is that the government's right to detirmine who can and cannot be married comes down to how the state views marriage, what constitutes marriage as far as the government is concerned. Some are arguing that children are implicit in the marriage "contract", others disagree.

Personal reasons for marriage are a different matter. Personally, getting married was a public declaration of my love and committment to my partner. We intend to spend our lives together and want that relationship to be acknowledged by the law and to receive all the rights and responsibilities that go with that. Yes, children may factor at a later date, and if they are we will both be recognised as parents and all the associated rights and responsibilities that come with that will be in place. And, should the worst happen and one of us is prematurely removed from the equation (either by death or divorce) our children will be protected in a way they wouldn't be were we not married. However, the presence or not of children does not detirmine our marital status and our primary reason for marrying was not to start a family.

My cousin, however, married a Catholic man and their reasons for marrying were very clearly routed in having children as she became pregnant a few months after the wedding. I'm fairly sure they had engaged in pre-marital sex as they lived together, I can only guess that they wished for the stability and assurance of a marriage, not to mention the approval of his family, before they began procreating!

In short, yes, of course marriage is more than a legal contract to the people who get married, and those who are not yet married, however, from the perspective of the state, a marriage is a legal contract concerned with finances and assets.

I strongly disagree with the conception that 'marriage as administered by the state' is really anything but legally authorizing and tracking a social/spiritual/religious ceremony.

No, a wedding is a ceremony, a marriage is something else.

The fact that religion has -anything- to do with it, makes it a religious institution.

And every day people get married in civil ceremonies that have nothing religious about them. Not all weddings are religious.

Pardon my frankness, but the idea that 'State-administered marriage' and 'Religious marriage' are entirely separate entities is only so much political B.S.ery. It obviously is not the case. If it were, the state would refer to -every- marriage as a civil union, and require a judge or other state clerk to validate the marriage paperwork, and keep the entire legal end of 'state-administered marriage' completely seperated from any religious ceremony that may or may not be performed- something they wouldn't even track, except possibly for tax purposes.

As stated above, there are weddings that are not connected to religion. In the UK every wedding is a civil one, except those performed in an Anglican church (Anglican vicars are authorised by the state to perform wedding ceremonies) and the signing of the register is an official record of marriages. In this case they are not entirely separate, but the religious aspect is a personal choice and has nothing to do with the legally recognised marriage.

Here the government simply calls all marriages marriages, there is no distinction between CofE ones and civil ones. The weddings themselves have separate names because people like to distinguish whether they were married in church or not!

If the state is validating and tracking marriage ceremonies for some religions (which they undeniably are), then refusal to do the same for another religion, regardless of the specifics of the sex of the people to be married, is, as I stated before, a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment, and the fourteenth amendments' equal protection clause.

Unfortunately we have an official state religion. If you want to have a different religious ceremony you must still have a civil ceremony in addition to the religious one to make it legal - yet more division between religious wedding and legal marriage.

What has actually been argued in this thread is that the government's right to detirmine who can and cannot be married comes down to how the state views marriage, what constitutes marriage as far as the government is concerned. Some are arguing that children are implicit in the marriage "contract", others disagree.


My point is that the government does not get to choose in any meaningful way. Marriage predates any modern concept of the state by millenia and almost certainly predates both the concept of laws and of literacy to write them down. The idea that legislators can with a stroke of their pen redefine a cultural artifact more ingrained and powerful than the law itself is frankly rather silly. Marriage is one of our most powerful and complex cultural artifacts, you cannot simply redefine what it means by enacting a law - all you can do is alter the way that the law interacts with this aspect of our culture.

If what a particular gay person wants to get out of this whole campaign is some legal changes along the general lines of the way the legal system relates to marriage then that is perfectly possible and they might end up quite happy with the outcome. If they want to get married then that is beyond the power of any state to deliver, they are just going to be frustrated and unhappy whatever the legislators decide because no legislation ever devised has had the power to re-write human cultures in this way.

I rather fear that it is the latter that many of them crave and they are just going to be disappointed. The general level of debate on this thread has at least taught me that many of the people debating the issue do not even see that they are dealing with something far larger than the laws which govern it and hence orders of magnitude more difficult to change.

--
Nic

Marriage predates any modern concept of the state by millenia and almost certainly predates both the concept of laws and of literacy to write them down.

Most likely true. Of course, gay marriage would also predate all of those laws. Not to mention that it has, in various cultures, been recognized and respected as much as heterosexual marriage.

The idea that legislators can with a stroke of their pen redefine a cultural artifact more ingrained and powerful than the law itself is frankly rather silly. Marriage is one of our most powerful and complex cultural artifacts, you cannot simply redefine what it means by enacting a law - all you can do is alter the way that the law interacts with this aspect of our culture.

No one is trying to redefine a "cultural artifact". We are talking, quite simply, about what the government will and will not recognize - and that absolutley changes with changing the law. As for what you or anyone else recognizes as marriage, that is another story. There are those who are legally married who I would not recognize as being married because their marriage is nothing more than a marriage of convenience. There are those who are legally married that certain churches won't recognize, because they weren't married in that church or because one or both members had a previous marriage.

The ideas of the concept of marriage are as varied as any other idea in society. Some people see it as one thing - others see it as something different. This is precisely why we aren't trying to alter what a church recognizes as marriage or what you or any other individual recognizes as marriage. We are simply trying to ensure that every citizen, regardless of sexual orientation, gets equal protection under the law.

If what a particular gay person wants to get out of this whole campaign is some legal changes along the general lines of the way the legal system relates to marriage then that is perfectly possible and they might end up quite happy with the outcome. If they want to get married then that is beyond the power of any state to deliver, they are just going to be frustrated and unhappy whatever the legislators decide because no legislation ever devised has had the power to re-write human cultures in this way.

Non-traditional couples get married all the time - by the state. Do you think the first interracial marriages were generally accepted by culture? They are another group that had to fight for the right to equal protection. Many still don't recognize them, precisely because you cannot rewrite cultural stigmas by passing a law. But, by law, interracial couples are no different than same-ethnicity couples.

The general level of debate on this thread has at least taught me that many of the people debating the issue do not even see that they are dealing with something far larger than the laws which govern it and hence orders of magnitude more difficult to change.

If we are fighting to change the law, the law is all we need to address. Most of realize two important facts: (a) Different cultures are different - even within a country. Some have accepted homosexuals. Some have not. This has been true both in history and today. (b) These things generally change more with time than anything else. A generation ago, an interracial couple would have been just as stigmatized as a gay couple. Two generations ago, an open gay couple would most likley have been murdered outright. And so on....

Well now I see it coming down to two topics:

1) What defines marriage? It is a legal contract, no doubt, but what is at its core? Does it exist as a way of protecting couples with various forms of legal security in relation to propery, inheritance, and finances, thereby helping to stabilize the populous? Is it a fixture of a tradition that goes deeper than law?

2) Can the law discriminate against homosexual couples, or are they protected by the fourteenth amendment?

Originally I had set out to argue that there are obvious motives behind marriage that must be respected before it is construed to include all different types of unions. Furthermore, it is the right of a state to legislate the standards for such unions to be sanctioned as it sees fit. Throughout the course of this debate, however, it has become apparent to me that as a legal institution, without regard for traditional ideas about it and its role in society, marriage is a set of rights afforded to two people, traditionally (I refer to the past few centuries when I use this word) a man and a woman. From a blind, purely legal perspective, there is no requirement for these two people to even be in an emotional or physical relationship (although this is the norm, and undoubtedly why gay couples are pushing for such rights). Respecting this fact, and that in places where gay marriage is banned, no legal requirements exist for two people to enter into this union other than that they must be man and woman, which is clear, unjustified discrimination, I must conclude that, from a legal standpoint, there is no reasoning to restrict marital rights based on the sexual orientation of the two individuals involved in the union. I have yet, however, to hear much noise from the side of this arguement who speak in favor of tradition.

What irritates me about the inevitable conclusion that, legally, marital rights must be equal, is that it automatically changes marriage from (in the U.S.) a state-legislated institution to one that must exist with respect to federal law, the fourteenth amendment with its equal protection clause to be specific. I hesitate to argue that marriage must become a federal issue, but from the conclusions that I have drawn from this debate, it seems to be unavoidable.

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.


It is often cited in debates about gay marriage from the pro-gay rights side that marriage is simply a "legal contract." According to proponents of this "simply a legal contract" philosophy, the institution as a legal one holds no obligations to families or children.

Now, I agree that marriage is a legal contract...given for what reason? Because the government likes to give legal benefits to people in relationships? Because it makes government officials feel warm and fuzzy inside that couples get a tax break? Because the government wants to promote "love", because it's clear that such an emotion is and has always been the justification for marriage, and it's worth it to spend millions of tax dollars on legal benefits for married couples whose love will, of course, grow due to having them?

Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families. Saying that marriage is a legal contract is like saying that my grass is green because it's green, rather than it is because I watered it; it's stating the effect of the institution without mentioning the intentions behind it. A state goverment has the right to afford legal status to couples as it sees fit based on the institution's aforementioned goal -- to promote and assist couples in raising the people who will inherit the country in the future. A state government may decide this based on the people's morals and for financial reasons as well. That the institution includes gay couples is not implicit, nor is it implicit that it includes straight couples (although it seems quite logical that it would based on the obvious reproductive advantages). It makes little sense to state that marriage exists only as a legal contract without any reasoning behind it, or, as the implication of this argument appears to be, that martial rights exist to make couples happy. Not only does this make little sense and suggest that our tax dollars are being wasted, but, and this is NOT the main point of my argument, proponents of gay marriage who oppose incestuous and polygamous marriages will find little room to justify banning such types of relations from being legally sanctioned if they use this argument.


I guess I agree with what you say. But it's not that simple, when people use the term 'marriage is only a legal contract' it's ment to convince the conservative people and not the government. I think it's safe to say that many people consider marrige as more than a legal contract, but rather a spiritual celebration to unite two people, and they see homosexuality as a less than decent trait that should not be celebrated. I don't think what prevents homosexuals from having gay marriage is not the govonment thinking that it doesn't promote the 'family' ideal, or that it'd mean less revenue as govenment sometimes makes decissions based on the people's wants and morals aswell, and people want gay-marriage. I think there are more people who support it than are against it, but there are just still too many people who oppose the idea so despite the people who want it, the govenment will not consider doing as they wish.

The reason they say 'marriage is a legal contract', is because it means that, marriage in itself is a contract and the idea of it being spiritual is just a stigma that people attach to it; marriage is not something specific to one religion so it should not be confined to fit their ideals. You say so yourself that " A state government may decide this based on the people's morals and for financial reasons as well.". So this is an argument to pursued the people or change their morals then, indirectly, the government. So despite it being a flawed argument, I don't think it's as pointless as you seem to think it is :) .

If marriage is not a secular contractual agreement between two parties, then it is a government sanctioned religious function which in turn violates the Separation of Church and State.

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.


It is often cited in debates about gay marriage from the pro-gay rights side that marriage is simply a "legal contract." According to proponents of this "simply a legal contract" philosophy, the institution as a legal one holds no obligations to families or children.

Now, I agree that marriage is a legal contract...given for what reason? Because the government likes to give legal benefits to people in relationships? Because it makes government officials feel warm and fuzzy inside that couples get a tax break? Because the government wants to promote "love", because it's clear that such an emotion is and has always been the justification for marriage, and it's worth it to spend millions of tax dollars on legal benefits for married couples whose love will, of course, grow due to having them?

Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families. Saying that marriage is a legal contract is like saying that my grass is green because it's green, rather than it is because I watered it; it's stating the effect of the institution without mentioning the intentions behind it. A state goverment has the right to afford legal status to couples as it sees fit based on the institution's aforementioned goal -- to promote and assist couples in raising the people who will inherit the country in the future. A state government may decide this based on the people's morals and for financial reasons as well. That the institution includes gay couples is not implicit, nor is it implicit that it includes straight couples (although it seems quite logical that it would based on the obvious reproductive advantages). It makes little sense to state that marriage exists only as a legal contract without any reasoning behind it, or, as the implication of this argument appears to be, that martial rights exist to make couples happy. Not only does this make little sense and suggest that our tax dollars are being wasted, but, and this is NOT the main point of my argument, proponents of gay marriage who oppose incestuous and polygamous marriages will find little room to justify banning such types of relations from being legally sanctioned if they use this argument.

You realize everything you mention here is pretty standard for a 'just a contract'. A partnership contract for business is regulated because it affects government benefits and taxation, much like marriage. It by its nature to some degree encourages the parties in the contract because by being compliant to forming a business in the ways offered by the government they receive benefits and protections, again, much like marriage.

The state cannot discriminate in the executaion of the contract any more than it can in a partnership contract or incorporation or anything other forming of joining of multiple parties into one party. Nothing about a marriage contract makes it significantly different.

Here's a tip: next time when you decide to dismantle someone's argument. Know what it is.

The argument is not flawless but is still quite logical and understandable. Yet, this thread is riddles with people who read one or two lines, take them out of context, and apply their own parameters to it to make it seem illogical. It's inevitable that opponents will do these things like argue what' not even there.
*large sigh* Oh well, human nature to reassure yourself by any means necessary i guess.

I see where you were coming from and that you were simply expressing confusion at the argument.But to be completly honest I don't agree with the concept of homosexual marriage or looking at marriage as simply a legal contract which most governments seem to do any more.

The argument is not flawless but is still quite logical and understandable. Yet, this thread is riddles with people who read one or two lines, take them out of context, and apply their own parameters to it to make it seem illogical. It's inevitable that opponents will do these things like argue what' not even there.
*large sigh* Oh well, human nature to reassure yourself by any means necessary i guess.

He set the tone of the debate when he threatened to 'dismantle' the argument. When he failed to do it, people were less than impressed. What did he expect? Roses? The argument was flawed. He suggested that he was going to show the flaws in an argument and then had to make some up. Bad argument and bad form. What are we supposed to compliment him on? His shoes?

He set the terms. We've been compliant with those terms. He should be ecstatic.

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.


It is often cited in debates about gay marriage from the pro-gay rights side that marriage is simply a "legal contract." According to proponents of this "simply a legal contract" philosophy, the institution as a legal one holds no obligations to families or children.

Now, I agree that marriage is a legal contract...given for what reason? Because the government likes to give legal benefits to people in relationships? Because it makes government officials feel warm and fuzzy inside that couples get a tax break? Because the government wants to promote "love", because it's clear that such an emotion is and has always been the justification for marriage, and it's worth it to spend millions of tax dollars on legal benefits for married couples whose love will, of course, grow due to having them?

Marital rights are afforded to people in order to encourage and assist in the growth and development of families. Saying that marriage is a legal contract is like saying that my grass is green because it's green, rather than it is because I watered it; it's stating the effect of the institution without mentioning the intentions behind it. A state goverment has the right to afford legal status to couples as it sees fit based on the institution's aforementioned goal -- to promote and assist couples in raising the people who will inherit the country in the future. A state government may decide this based on the people's morals and for financial reasons as well. That the institution includes gay couples is not implicit, nor is it implicit that it includes straight couples (although it seems quite logical that it would based on the obvious reproductive advantages). It makes little sense to state that marriage exists only as a legal contract without any reasoning behind it, or, as the implication of this argument appears to be, that martial rights exist to make couples happy. Not only does this make little sense and suggest that our tax dollars are being wasted, but, and this is NOT the main point of my argument, proponents of gay marriage who oppose incestuous and polygamous marriages will find little room to justify banning such types of relations from being legally sanctioned if they use this argument.
Marriage is a specific legal contract that exists because people want it to. It streamlines about a thousand or so specific contracts into one. (Childcare, inheritance, visitation rights, ect.) The tax breaks are not what this is about, it's the other rights that are important. But a gay couple can have children; they can adopt, or use artificial insemination or a surrogate mother, or bring children from previous relationships, especially if one or both is bisexual. Marriage is a legal contract, but it would be stupid to think that it exists purely to support the governments pro-family pro-child agenda.

I think I can understand somewhat what you are trying to say. So we must return to the question: “why is it significant to point out that Marriage is a legal issue?”

First, I would like to address one fallacy. You argue that the legal status of marriage must have some impetus. The government must have an incentive to promote marriage by granting married couples certain legal privileges. Your analogy, that your grass is green because you watered it implies that we must look for the underlying causes of marriage. While this presents an interesting question, I think that your analogy is misrepresentative. Seeking the causes of marital laws in a debate over the refinement of those laws makes about as much sense as seeking the reason why traffic lights are colored red, yellow and green while deciding upon whether or not to turn at an intersection. Whether or not government officials really do "feel warm and fuzzy inside" or wish to "promote 'love'" is a moot argument. The question is not whether or not marriage should be a matter of the state. The fact is that marriage is a legal issue (a point that we both agree upon) and we are therefore faced with the question of how to address the legal ramifications of the law in a way that most equitable and respectful of the rights of the governed.

You suggested that marriage could be better rationalized as a method to encourage procreation. Clearly, procreation is not the sole, nor even primary, objective of marriage since we do not revoke the marriage licenses of couples who do not conceive, whether by choice or by circumstance. And there is a reason why American law does not deny them the right to marry. Simply, it would be unfair under the law to deny couples that fail to conceive the same rights, privileges and responsibilities that other couples under compatible circumstances enjoy. This is why it is important to note that marriage is, among other things, a legal contract – a point that I will come back to shortly.

In your commentary, you searched for a fundamental reason for marriage; eliminating, for example, happiness in the endeavor. That struck me as peculiar since I feel that it would be fallacious to assume that there is only one reason for marriage. (As fallacious as it would be to assume that Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract) If anything, marriage throughout history has resulted from every conceivable situation involving economic and political reasons, evolutionary and cultural causes and (once every while) love. It would be terribly erroneous to assume that even a single marriage arises from only one cause.

There are approximately 200 legal rights granted to married couples in the United States. Some were created for economic purposes (tax codes, inheritance, etc). But there are a myriad of other, less tangible rights that cannot be ignored. The right to visit a loved one in the hospital, for example; or the rights to share a home and, inextricably connected, a life together. Beyond the legal rights, there is also the concept of marriage itself; which for many can be viewed as a deeply satisfying and personal entity.

To say that marriage is a legal issue does not deny that marriage is anything more than a legal contract. If anything, the fact that it is more than what lies on a legal document – that it is an issue affecting the equal rights and well-being of human lives – enhances its importance as a legal issue. This brings us back to the point mentioned earlier. The issue of the legal status of marriage touches something more fundamental than a utilitarian exercise to promote procreation (as fun as that sounds). We are talking about the fundamental principles that comprise the American legal system. At the risk of sounding cliché, I would like to point out that laws do not always follow the most utilitarian or expedient path. We presume innocence until guilt has been proven beyond a doubt in the courthouses, exchange large sums of money with people we do not know, place our lives in the trust of others and give large chunks of our incomes to the government not because it’s expedient or that we derive utility from these actions (generally speaking). We do so because many of us believe in the rule of law (Which I suppose could be considered a long-term source of public utility). I’m not saying that laws are always right (there are unjust laws just as there are unjust people) nor am I naïve enough to believe that they are always followed. However, if we are to believe that every American is entitled to certain unalienable rights and that no individual can be denied equal rights for reasons that do not jeopardize or encroach upon the rights of others; then I think the issue of the legal status of marriage has an eminently important role in this debate.

Well now I see it coming down to two topics:

1) What defines marriage? It is a legal contract, no doubt, but what is at its core? Does it exist as a way of protecting couples with various forms of legal security in relation to propery, inheritance, and finances, thereby helping to stabilize the populous? Is it a fixture of a tradition that goes deeper than law?

Is there a reason it can't be both, with the government only recognizing the former?

2) Can the law discriminate against homosexual couples, or are they protected by the fourteenth amendment?

They are human beings, are they not? Then they are protected by the 14th Amendment.

What irritates me about the inevitable conclusion that, legally, marital rights must be equal, is that it automatically changes marriage from (in the U.S.) a state-legislated institution to one that must exist with respect to federal law, the fourteenth amendment with its equal protection clause to be specific. I hesitate to argue that marriage must become a federal issue, but from the conclusions that I have drawn from this debate, it seems to be unavoidable.

No, it doesn't. The 14th Amendment applies to states as much as it applies to the federal government. The federal government does grant certain recognitions to state marriages - and it would continue doing so for all of them. And the full faith and credit clause in the Constitution (not even an amendment) requires that all states recognize the marriages granted by others. However, there is nothing in the 14th amendment to keep states from still having different marriage laws - so long as their laws apply equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

I see where you were coming from and that you were simply expressing confusion at the argument.But to be completly honest I don't agree with the concept of homosexual marriage or looking at marriage as simply a legal contract which most governments seem to do any more.

The legal contractual issues are the only ones that the government has the power or the need to recognize.

Still can't read, huh? My argument was against a particular justification for gay marriage...
And your argument failed.

I think you - perhaps understandably - have the cart before the horse. The instutution of marriage pre-dates the state. The state never really had a choice about recognising the importance of the basic family unit. Few states have tried to radically meddle with the pre-existing institution of marriage and I would struggle to think of a single one where that meddling was a success.

Co-habitation is not really the same thing. If the state sees a general benefit to the non-participants in encouraging co-habitation then it would be reasonable for the state to act to encourage it. In practice this is almost entirely a private matter of no consequence to society at large. The UK laws on civil partnerships have emerged largely because it costs the state very little and because it is deemed to do no real harm; arguably it was a waste of legislative time that could have been spent on encouraging behaviour actually beneficial to society as a whole but then that is true of most laws passed by parliament so in that regard it is pretty normal.

The logical follow-on from the change in the UK laws will a gradual and piecemeal withdrawal of benefits that accrue to marriage and reassign them to those in long-term committed child-rearing relationships - which is where they are needed to support the long-term commitment that is the best environment in which to raise children. Unfortunately we will then end up with what British society at least has always tried to avoid which is adding insult to injury for couples unable to have children who will then have their marriages labelled somehow less valid. I suspect this is probably a natural and inevitable shift as a consequence of the changing attitudes to marriage[2].

[1] Can I reiterate for those who do not understand decision making processes that real life decisions are made on what is generally true not what is absolutely always true - because in the messy reality of life nothing is absolutely always true except death. There are always exceptions but until they become numerous enough to alter the overall outcome they should not affect the decision.

[2] Although these are still overstated by many. Even with our much extended lifespans and the much-touted choice of some not to have children it is still true that the majority of widows/widowers are left with dependent children. (source DWP figures 2001-2004). If you added in figures for those with older children (over 16) I think you would find that the role of childrearing within marriage has not changed as much as is often claimed.

--
Nic

I agree with what you generally say though I believe the state did not have to endorse marriage if it did not want to. Though I will admit that I know of no example where this is true and that the people who made up the mechanisims of the state originally would have been married and so likely to want to protect/encourage/reward marriage.

In the UK there is already a complete withdrawl of benifits that are unique to marriage (i.e. not able to be obtained some other way within the system). The benifits left are power of attorney, inheritance rights etc which are automatic upon marriage, these however can be done through wills and other legal documents without the need to marry.

Also I agree there is movement in parts of the current government to give co-habitting couples the same rights and duties as married ones. Thouh this is a completely different issue I am against this for the simple reason that it removes peoples choice in what kind of relationship they wish to have with their partner.

I think I can understand somewhat what you are trying to say. So we must return to the question: “why is it significant to point out that Marriage is a legal issue?”.......

.

Now that is a good response to the initial post (IP) unlike the other posts including my own:( which tend to skip around the main points the IP was trying to make.

You're right. Most people - married people included - do not limit marriage to that. However, from the government's point of view, that is *exactly* what marriage is.

No, from the government's point of view that is the only aspect of marriage that they can persuade anyone they have the slightest right intruding upon. I very much doubt that any government has ever been so stupid as to believe that there is no more to marriage than this.

--

Nic

Most likely true. Of course, gay marriage would also predate all of those laws. Not to mention that it has, in various cultures, been recognized and respected as much as heterosexual marriage.


Well maybe you have studied this subject more than me but I cannot think of an established institution of gay marriage in any of the societies that are ancestors to modern Western society. There are odd exceptional cases but exceptions prove nothing more than that sometimes people do stuff that defies the normal rules and definitions.

If you read Ancient Greek literature you will see a form of marriage that is clearly recognisable to modern people, it is the same concept having survived largely intact over several millenia. Yet the notably non-homophobic Ancient Greeks did not consider homosexual relationships to be marriage, they clearly regarded them to be distinctly different to marriage.

If you want to claim that the concept of marriage within our culture has included the concept of homosexual marriage - in defiance of the common understanding of most people either now or throughout our history - I'm afraid the onus is on you to substantiate the claim with some evidence.

--
Nic

WHen it comes down to it there are two kinds of people who oppose gay marriage:
Religious nuts who think God hates fags, and people who are disgusted by the idea of men fucking eachother up the ass, and think that if the government condones this behaviour then they might get ass raped.

The god thing is irrelevant since people can get married in a registry office without the religious aspect, any arguement about kids or families is irrelevant since infertile people and old people can get married. Aside from the ick factor that affects some people, there is no reason whatsoever gays shouldnt marry.

My point is that the government does not get to choose in any meaningful way. Marriage predates any modern concept of the state by millenia and almost certainly predates both the concept of laws and of literacy to write them down. The idea that legislators can with a stroke of their pen redefine a cultural artifact more ingrained and powerful than the law itself is frankly rather silly. Marriage is one of our most powerful and complex cultural artifacts, you cannot simply redefine what it means by enacting a law - all you can do is alter the way that the law interacts with this aspect of our culture.
No one is saying that the law can alter cultural perceptions, only time can do that. What we are saying is that while individuals may have their own personal reasons for marriage, formed by culture etc, the only place the government has in a marriage is to protect the rights of both parties. Do you see the difference? The government has no place to tell people what marriage should mean to them, that is a personal affair, what the government does have the right to do is protect the rights of its citizens in marriage.

If what a particular gay person wants to get out of this whole campaign is some legal changes along the general lines of the way the legal system relates to marriage then that is perfectly possible and they might end up quite happy with the outcome. If they want to get married then that is beyond the power of any state to deliver, they are just going to be frustrated and unhappy whatever the legislators decide because no legislation ever devised has had the power to re-write human cultures in this way.
Why? Two gay people also have their own beliefs about marriage, foremost, I would imagine, as all humans are much alike in these desires, to demonstrate their committment to one another and build a life together (which may or may not include children). The government cannot discriminate on the grounds of gender or religion, as well established by your own constitution.

If you're only worried about what other people think about marriage then you are interfering in the rights of others because you and others are offended! Hardly a fair position for the law to take. In legal terms, marriage is a contract to protect each party, in cultural terms, if two people of the same gender consider their relationship to be a marriage they are well within their rights to believe so. They also ought to have the right to make that relationship recognised by the law.

I rather fear that it is the latter that many of them crave and they are just going to be disappointed. The general level of debate on this thread has at least taught me that many of the people debating the issue do not even see that they are dealing with something far larger than the laws which govern it and hence orders of magnitude more difficult to change.

--
Nic
On the contrary, we know full well that views on marriage are subjective. You seem to think that your own opinions are universally true and applicable to all. Why can't you accept that people get married for their own personal reasons and that while the concept of marriage is bigger than the legal term, it varies from one individual to the next?

On the contrary, we know full well that views on marriage are subjective. You seem to think that your own opinions are universally true and applicable to all. Why can't you accept that people get married for their own personal reasons and that while the concept of marriage is bigger than the legal term, it varies from one individual to the next?

Gosh, where did I say that!

What I did say is that the narrow legalistic view of marriage being posited by a surprising number of people in this discussion does not reflect a view of marriage held by anyone I have ever met and would not in normal parlance be a description of marriage at all. It is like giving a detailed technical specification of a wheel and then claiming you have described a car.

As I thought I made clear - if all the participants in the campaign for gay marriages want is a package deal of contracts prepared by the state for their use with legal recognition within the state then there is no problem with delivering that. If they want to be married, with all the cultural baggage that goes along with that concept, then they will ultimately be disappointed because this is beyond the power of any legislature to deliver.

I am not in the least bit offended, I wonder where you might have got that idea from. I am simply pointing out that the cultural artifact we call marriage has an exceptionally long and surprisingly stable provenance that is not going to change overnight just because a few people would like it to. You cannot undo millenia of culture and tradition so quickly nor can you reinvent anything so complex and multi-faceted as this by diktat and have any hope of it working out as well as you hoped. If the proponents of these changes hope that the meaning of marriage will change to accommodate them within their lifetimes then I strongly suspect they are in for a disappointment.



p.s. I don't have a constitution to obey, or at least not a written one.

--
Nic

Gosh, where did I say that!

What I did say is that the narrow legalistic view of marriage being posited by a surprising number of people in this discussion does not reflect a view of marriage held by anyone I have ever met and would not in normal parlance be a description of marriage at all. It is like giving a detailed technical specification of a wheel and then claiming you have described a car.

As I thought I made clear - if all the participants in the campaign for gay marriages want is a package deal of contracts prepared by the state for their use with legal recognition within the state then there is no problem with delivering that. If they want to be married, with all the cultural baggage that goes along with that concept, then they will ultimately be disappointed because this is beyond the power of any legislature to deliver.

I am not in the least bit offended, I wonder where you might have got that idea from. I am simply pointing out that the cultural artifact we call marriage has an exceptionally long and surprisingly stable provenance that is not going to change overnight just because a few people would like it to. You cannot undo millenia of culture and tradition so quickly nor can you reinvent anything so complex and multi-faceted as this by diktat and have any hope of it working out as well as you hoped. If the proponents of these changes hope that the meaning of marriage will change to accommodate them within their lifetimes then I strongly suspect they are in for a disappointment.



p.s. I don't have a constitution to obey, or at least not a written one.

--
Nic
We are obviously failing to communicate to each other here! How can I phrase this so that you understand what I mean?!!

Marriage means different things to different people. You appear to be implying that there is some universal meaning that is mutually agreed by all peoples and all cultures. I disagree.

Premise1: Marriage means different things to different people
Premise 2: A gay couple wish to be married in the sense as they mean marriage (e.g living together as one, making joint decisions, owning joint assets etc)
Premise 3: The law seeks to hold all people equal regardless of belief

Conclusion: The state is obliged to allow gay marriages to be legally recognised.

That really doesn't do the argument justice, I'm just trying to make it clear what i am trying to say.

And no, no legislator can deliver a marriage with all its cultural baggage, as you put it. Only the couple can do that. Why, please explain, why can two people of the same gender not be married (with all the cultural baggage)???!!

It again comes back to you assuming that marriage means the same to all people, which is false.

We are obviously failing to communicate to each other here! How can I phrase this so that you understand what I mean?!!

Marriage means different things to different people. You appear to be implying that there is some universal meaning that is mutually agreed by all peoples and all cultures. I disagree.



Ah there we go - that's the main point where we lost contact.

I am not attempting to make statements that would be true of any culture, I am discussing this in terms of modern Western culture and with something of an Anglo-Saxon slant as the OP was in English.

I am well aware that you can find cultures outside the Western tradition where same-sex marriages have been at one time or another known and accepted and within those cultures the meaning of the word that translates to marriage will of course be significantly different.

Happy now?

I do think that attempting to redefine the word and concept of marriage by legislation is rather silly and likely to have a rather disappointing outcome.

Let me try to explain by analogy. A lobby group could decide on the basis that the average 6 year old can hold a rational conversation, read and write that treating them legally differently to adults was discriminatory. A legislature might be convinced of such an argument and pass legislation that all 6 year olds and above were now legally adults. Would this mean that 6 year olds were in fact adults? Give it some thought.

--
Nic

Ah there we go - that's the main point where we lost contact.

I am not attempting to make statements that would be true of any culture, I am discussing this in terms of modern Western culture and with something of an Anglo-Saxon slant as the OP was in English.

I am well aware that you can find cultures outside the Western tradition where same-sex marriages have been at one time or another known and accepted and within those cultures the meaning of the word that translates to marriage will of course be significantly different.

Happy now?

I do think that attempting to redefine the word and concept of marriage by legislation is rather silly and likely to have a rather disappointing outcome.

Let me try to explain by analogy. A lobby group could decide on the basis that the average 6 year old can hold a rational conversation, read and write that treating them legally differently to adults was discriminatory. A legislature might be convinced of such an argument and pass legislation that all 6 year olds and above were now legally adults. Would this mean that 6 year olds were in fact adults? Give it some thought.

--
Nic
So, even containing the debate to the UK and USA, (accepting that there are variations between the two and many differences of opinion within each) is your point that marriage=one man + one woman? Is that what this comes down to? If so, why didn't you just say that?!!!!!!!

I happen to think that there are many people who would argue that marriage is much more complex than that, myself included. It is about sharing ones life, committing to another person, loving that person and making a public declaration of that love and commitment, recognised in law by protecting the wishes of those people to share their lives through various rights. Gender is irrelevant.

So, even if people who believe that marriage is only between one man and one woman are in the majority, it doesn't make them correct, my point that the definition is subjective is still perfectly true, it doesn't make two people of the same gender love each other less and want their relationship to be recognised any less. It also doesn't remove their right to have just that.

For all your posturing about the complexity of the definition of marriage, you seem to be implying an awfully narrow definition. Sorry if I am still to grasp your full meaning. But perhaps you have been afraid to state your meaning plainly. Why is that?

For all your posturing about the complexity of the definition of marriage, you seem to be implying an awfully narrow definition. Sorry if I am still to grasp your full meaning. But perhaps you have been afraid to state your meaning plainly. Why is that?

So the sly ad-honinems creep in. I really can't be bothered trying to discuss this with you any more, its beginning to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Feel free to redefine words in any way you like, just don't be surprised when you constantly find yourself talking at cross-purposes with anyone not familiar with your own personal version of the language.

--
Nic

So the sly ad-honinems creep in. I really can't be bothered trying to discuss this with you any more, its beginning to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Feel free to redefine words in any way you like, just don't be surprised when you constantly find yourself talking at cross-purposes with anyone not familiar with your own personal version of the language.

--
Nic

You compare treating gay people as equal to all other people to treating 6-year-olds as adults and you're complaining that someone else is giving you a bad taste.

The law is not in a position to make us believe anything. They are in a position to discriminate or not discriminate and are required to not discriminate. Currently, they are discriminating. They need to stop.

It's really that simple. The discussion is about the legal view because that is the only view the government is in a position to deliver. It has nothing to do with whether cultural views need to or have changed. We are simply talking about the governments role which is of course legal. Your failure to seperate the ideas is your failure.

I happen to think that there are many people who would argue that marriage is much more complex than that, myself included. It is about sharing ones life, committing to another person, loving that person and making a public declaration of that love and commitment, recognised in law by protecting the wishes of those people to share their lives through various rights. Gender is irrelevant.

This is all well and good, but it is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is about the legal standing of certain kinds of marriages, and whether the state is within its rights when it grants marriage rights and responsibilities to one class of persons but denies them to another class of persons on the basis of their biological sex only (I use “biological sex” to distinguish from “gender,” because gender and gender roles are cultural constructs). Every nation has its own legal standards and requirements in this regard, but in the U.S. the same Constitutional protections that make illegal segregation and discrimination on the basis of skin color, and the marginalization, battery, and denial of property rights for women on the basis of biological sex (not to mention the selective granting of voting rights to a privileged class) also apply to same-sex couples who wish to enter into long-term committed living arrangements and enjoy the same legal benefits as do hetero couples.

In this context the other cultural and social meanings marriage may have are beside the point; indeed, they are largely the reason why the U.S. government and the various states persist in maintaining a clearly unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples by categorically denying them rights and protections available to virtually identical hetero couples simply because they are members of a disapproved class, without being able to show either a compelling state interest or anything resembling just cause.

Opponents of equal rights for same-sex couples may trot out many emotional and vociferously-stated arguments against making same-sex marriage legal (no matter how irrelevant or untenable), but then, so did the proponents of chatel slavery based on skin color in opposition to abolition. That these arguments are deeply felt and/or loudly proclaimed (the latter does not guarantee the former) doesn't make them any less illegitimate.

I think I can understand somewhat what you are trying to say. So we must return to the question: “why is it significant to point out that Marriage is a legal issue?”

First, I would like to address one fallacy. You argue that the legal status of marriage must have some impetus. The government must have an incentive to promote marriage by granting married couples certain legal privileges. Your analogy, that your grass is green because you watered it implies that we must look for the underlying causes of marriage. While this presents an interesting question, I think that your analogy is misrepresentative. Seeking the causes of marital laws in a debate over the refinement of those laws makes about as much sense as seeking the reason why traffic lights are colored red, yellow and green while deciding upon whether or not to turn at an intersection. Whether or not government officials really do "feel warm and fuzzy inside" or wish to "promote 'love'" is a moot argument. The question is not whether or not marriage should be a matter of the state. The fact is that marriage is a legal issue (a point that we both agree upon) and we are therefore faced with the question of how to address the legal ramifications of the law in a way that most equitable and respectful of the rights of the governed.

You suggested that marriage could be better rationalized as a method to encourage procreation. Clearly, procreation is not the sole, nor even primary, objective of marriage since we do not revoke the marriage licenses of couples who do not conceive, whether by choice or by circumstance. And there is a reason why American law does not deny them the right to marry. Simply, it would be unfair under the law to deny couples that fail to conceive the same rights, privileges and responsibilities that other couples under compatible circumstances enjoy. This is why it is important to note that marriage is, among other things, a legal contract – a point that I will come back to shortly.

In your commentary, you searched for a fundamental reason for marriage; eliminating, for example, happiness in the endeavor. That struck me as peculiar since I feel that it would be fallacious to assume that there is only one reason for marriage. (As fallacious as it would be to assume that Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract) If anything, marriage throughout history has resulted from every conceivable situation involving economic and political reasons, evolutionary and cultural causes and (once every while) love. It would be terribly erroneous to assume that even a single marriage arises from only one cause.

There are approximately 200 legal rights granted to married couples in the United States. Some were created for economic purposes (tax codes, inheritance, etc). But there are a myriad of other, less tangible rights that cannot be ignored. The right to visit a loved one in the hospital, for example; or the rights to share a home and, inextricably connected, a life together. Beyond the legal rights, there is also the concept of marriage itself; which for many can be viewed as a deeply satisfying and personal entity.

To say that marriage is a legal issue does not deny that marriage is anything more than a legal contract. If anything, the fact that it is more than what lies on a legal document – that it is an issue affecting the equal rights and well-being of human lives – enhances its importance as a legal issue. This brings us back to the point mentioned earlier. The issue of the legal status of marriage touches something more fundamental than a utilitarian exercise to promote procreation (as fun as that sounds). We are talking about the fundamental principles that comprise the American legal system. At the risk of sounding cliché, I would like to point out that laws do not always follow the most utilitarian or expedient path. We presume innocence until guilt has been proven beyond a doubt in the courthouses, exchange large sums of money with people we do not know, place our lives in the trust of others and give large chunks of our incomes to the government not because it’s expedient or that we derive utility from these actions (generally speaking). We do so because many of us believe in the rule of law (Which I suppose could be considered a long-term source of public utility). I’m not saying that laws are always right (there are unjust laws just as there are unjust people) nor am I naïve enough to believe that they are always followed. However, if we are to believe that every American is entitled to certain unalienable rights and that no individual can be denied equal rights for reasons that do not jeopardize or encroach upon the rights of others; then I think the issue of the legal status of marriage has an eminently important role in this debate.
A well put opinion. As you said, my original post was dedicated to finding a rationale for the goverment to grant marriage licenses; the argument that it is just a "legal contract" seemed ridiculous to me, because there had to be some reasoning behind it. I had attributed the various benefits granted by the institution as all being centered on protecting families, but I did not consider that they exist just to protect people in general in such a way that two persons can become interdependent on each other and, therefore, help one another stay secure in a variety of ways. So that, I found, is the reason that marriage is a "legal contract." This definition of marriage, therefore, helped justify it as something that can be decided as a pure legal issue. However, I understand that because it is a legal contract without any strings attached to it, it must be granted equally; yet, the entire point of this thread was to find a rationale behind the process and use that in deciding marital rights -- the various posters in this thread who attacked that argument would have been more effective in explaining why a rationale was not needed instead of attacking the argument's "flaws" without respecting posts in their entirety or posts after prior points were made.

A well put opinion. As you said, my original post was dedicated to finding a rationale for the goverment to grant marriage licenses; the argument that it is just a "legal contract" seemed ridiculous to me, because there had to be some reasoning behind it. I had attributed the various benefits granted by the institution as all being centered on protecting families, but I did not consider that they exist just to protect people in general in such a way that two persons can become interdependent on each other and, therefore, help one another stay secure in a variety of ways. So that, I found, is the reason that marriage is a "legal contract." This definition of marriage, therefore, helped justify it as something that can be decided as a pure legal issue. However, I understand that because it is a legal contract without any strings attached to it, it must be granted equally; yet, the entire point of this thread was to find a rationale behind the process and use that in deciding marital rights -- the various posters in this thread who attacked that argument would have been more effective in explaining why a rationale was not needed instead of attacking the argument's "flaws" without respecting posts in their entirety or posts after prior points were made.

The government need only find a public interest in regulating the contract. Given how common marriage is, they do. They also regulate many other types of contracts, but in the end they are 'just a contract' in terms of the law.

You compare treating gay people as equal to all other people to treating 6-year-olds as adults and you're complaining that someone else is giving you a bad taste.



You appear not to even know what an analogy is, geez. Not that the diviing line between childhood and adulthood is not debatable, in point of fact it is far more debatable that the basic elements of marriage and has varied far more over the history of our culture.

Of course what's really going on here is the good old fashioned ad-hominem - which typifies the public form of the debate where anyone not forming a cheerleading line for the same-sex marriage movement is immediately labelled a homophobe in order to avoid having to address the content of what they are saying.

Its a pity that I find myself on the side of people who in debates such as this I can only find myself disappointed by. Just don't blame anyone else when it does not turn out as the people want because what many people appear to be after is not what any legislature can deliver.

--
Nic

Well now I see it coming down to two topics:

1) What defines marriage? It is a legal contract, no doubt, but what is at its core? Does it exist as a way of protecting couples with various forms of legal security in relation to propery, inheritance, and finances, thereby helping to stabilize the populous? Is it a fixture of a tradition that goes deeper than law?

It is the legal translation of the binding two people together as one as according the traditional norms of our culture. It is the legal "building of a family" so to speak, but tracing the genealogy of marriage is far beyond my abilities.

2) Can the law discriminate against homosexual couples, or are they protected by the fourteenth amendment?

There is no argument that hinders homosexuals from marriage that holds up to logical scrutiny.

You appear not to even know what an analogy is, geez. Not that the diviing line between childhood and adulthood is not debatable, in point of fact it is far more debatable that the basic elements of marriage and has varied far more over the history of our culture.

Yes, whether or not slavery was right was traditionally acceptable is how we should decide now, too, yeah? Or how about the traditional role of women? I have little respect for tradition of that sort.

The longest running and most continuous of traditions among mankind is to try and be better. I don't live my life according to the screwed up rules of the past. I live my life according to what's right. Treating people equally is what's right.

Meanwhile, analogies that compare homosexuals to children are offensive. I'm sorry you're unable to see that.

I'll give you an analogy. Explaining this to you is like explaining calculus to a nine-year-old. Yep, you're right. Analogies can't be offensive.

By the way, your sad diatribe completely ignores polyamorous marriages, differing marrying ages, homosexual marriages, etc. Or are you pretending those marriages not exist? Marriage is hardly some continuous and specifically-defined institution that hasn't changed at all throughout history. Only one of us is ignoring history, and he seems to be getting upset that everyone noticed.

Of course what's really going on here is the good old fashioned ad-hominem - which typifies the public form of the debate where anyone not forming a cheerleading line for the same-sex marriage movement is immediately labelled a homophobe in order to avoid having to address the content of what they are saying.

Do you know what ad hominem is? It's what you did. Rather than make an argument against your opponent, you talked about them 'leaving a bad taste in your mouth' and didn't address their arguments at all. They addressed your argument and included a snipe shot. It's only an ad hominem if your argument is dismissed because of the insult. That has yet to be done TO you. If only it had yet to be done BY you.

Its a pity that I find myself on the side of people who in debates such as this I can only find myself disappointed by. Just don't blame anyone else when it does not turn out as the people want because what many people appear to be after is not what any legislature can deliver.

--
Nic
Ah, yes, don't bother to debate the points. Keep on whining about how people aren't cheering you on. Your argument is poor. It got destroyed. So rather than attempt to rework it you started complaining about how you're being treated.

The sad last resort of those who have no argument to stand on.

Careful, your post almost contained an argument instead of whining and bitching that people aren't treating you well enough.

EDIT: And by the way, I'm not actually comparing you to a 9-year-old. I'm pointing out how analogies can be offensive. Yours was.

I'll give you an analogy. Explaining this to you is like explaining calculus to a nine-year-old. Yep, you're right. Analogies can't be offensive.

Wrong analogy. Explaining calculus to nine year olds is very satisfying, as long as you do not tell them they are supposed to think it to be too difficult.

I do think that attempting to redefine the word and concept of marriage by legislation is rather silly and likely to have a rather disappointing outcome.

No more silly than attempting to maintain a definition with legislation.

Shouldn't people be able to define marriage for themselves?

Wrong analogy. Explaining calculus to nine year olds is very satisfying, as long as you do not tell them they are supposed to think it to be too difficult.

I think 9 is generally a little young, but I agree with the rest of that sentiment.

No, it doesn't. The 14th Amendment applies to states as much as it applies to the federal government.Just for the sake of accuracy, the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT apply to the federal government. The Supreme Court has, however, read all of its protections into the Fifth Amendment... so for practical purposes, the national government and the states are held to the same standard.

No more silly than attempting to maintain a definition with legislation.

Shouldn't people be able to define marriage for themselves?

They can and do and will, which is my point. They do so in a rather more sophisticated manner than the debate on this thread would lead you to believe and the actions of legislators are unlikely to affect them much.

Typically what happens with variant forms of marriage that do not fit in with the expectations of the culture is that society at large creates a qualified term for the state of affairs. The state of "separate but legally equal" is by far the most likely outcome. From general reporting and conversations to date I would expect that in Britain the term most likely to come into common use for same-sex civil partnerships will be "gay marriage" with a ceremony of a "gay wedding", clearly distinguished from the common term of marriage in the same way that "arranged marriage" is clearly separated.

Legal recognition alone means little to society at large - after all the common term for a marriage in which the legal forms are followed but which otherwise does not conform to the social expectations of a marriage is "sham marriage". This should not be surprising - as I have tried to say several times the legislators did not invent marriage and they regulate surprisingly little of it so the idea that they have the power to change it with the sweep of a pen is actually rather silly.

--
Nic

They can and do and will, which is my point. They do so in a rather more sophisticated manner than the debate on this thread would lead you to believe and the actions of legislators are unlikely to affect them much.

Typically what happens with variant forms of marriage that do not fit in with the expectations of the culture is that society at large creates a qualified term for the state of affairs. The state of "separate but legally equal" is by far the most likely outcome. From general reporting and conversations to date I would expect that in Britain the term most likely to come into common use for same-sex civil partnerships will be "gay marriage" with a ceremony of a "gay wedding", clearly distinguished from the common term of marriage in the same way that "arranged marriage" is clearly separated.

Legal recognition alone means little to society at large - after all the common term for a marriage in which the legal forms are followed but which otherwise does not conform to the social expectations of a marriage is "sham marriage". This should not be surprising - as I have tried to say several times the legislators did not invent marriage and they regulate surprisingly little of it so the idea that they have the power to change it with the sweep of a pen is actually rather silly.

--
Nic

Which is why we are trying to get them to stop trying. Many insurance companies are already recognizes ALL families, not just the nuclear families. Other commercial and social groups already recognize. The government is behind the curve. And there is much evidence that the only reason some groups and businesses continue to discriminate is because the government continues to.

The government has no right to present an obstacle and has a duty not to. That's what this is about. Having a focused discussion is not the same as ignoring other problems.

Getting the government to stop discriminating is not a magic pill. It's just the next step. Much like it was in other civil rights struggles, like interracial marriage.

Getting the government to stop discriminating is not a magic pill. It's just the next step. Much like it was in other civil rights struggles, like interracial marriage.

Well sitting here in the UK the government is not discriminating, civil partnerships are treated the same as marriages for all legal purposes I can think of[1].

This is just fine and is a compromise typical of the British establishment, it does what it needs to do to uphold equality without getting overly worked up to the point of trying to achieve the unachievable. There was some hardline criticism along the lines of "failing to call it marriage is discriminatory" but as I've stated in this thread I think the legislators were very much aware of the limits of their powers to change an institution that was not created by legislation in the first place. Trying to force it through as a change to marriage itself would probably not have had any real effect and might have caused an adverse reaction, the British generally do not like to be told what to think and can get quite bloody-minded about it when someone tries.

Obviously the US situation is not quite the same but I suspect that many of the same considerations will apply, after all the culture is not that different.

[1] I did see a mention that some areas of common law are currently unaffected because they were never legislated in the first place. The courts are usually awake enough to adjust their interpretation of precedent in the light of related legislation so the common law will likely shift into line as and when a case comes up.

--
Nic

Meanwhile, analogies that compare homosexuals to children are offensive. I'm sorry you're unable to see that.


Why? What is so offensive to you about the idea that children should have legal rights - or that the age that they should receive them is not utterly fixed - that mere mention of it in an analogy leaves you apparently insulted?

In any case the analogy was to highlight the difference between a legal definition of a concept and the concept itself. The point of which is that changing a legal definition of a concept which does not originate in the law is unlikely to change anyone's opinion of the concept in real life.

As it happens the last campaign for legal change by the gay pressure groups in the UK was for a change to the age at which a child was considered an adult for certain legal purposes. So yes it is a matter of current debate - and rightly so. Those gay pressure groups did not feel insulted by their own campaign so your claim that it is somehow inherently insulting looks suspiciously like the logical fallacy of an appeal to emotion.

--
Nic

Why? What is so offensive to you about the idea that children should have legal rights - or that the age that they should receive them is not utterly fixed - that mere mention of it in an analogy leaves you apparently insulted?

In any case the analogy was to highlight the difference between a legal definition of a concept and the concept itself. The point of which is that changing a legal definition of a concept which does not originate in the law is unlikely to change anyone's opinion of the concept in real life.

First, are you seriously telling me you don't understand why it's against the rules here to call people children? The comparison whether it was supposed to be specific or not was a comparison of gay people to children. See the difference between gay people and children is that there is a compelling reason to not treat children as adults. The differentiation there is meaningful. To act as if the comparison of children to gays is apt is to act like homosexuals are somehow meaningfully different than us in terms of rights or to act as if it should be up to the populace to define what rights they should or should not get.

Second, who cares if it changes anyone's opinion? That's not the goal. They're trying to stop having their rights legally denied. They're trying to stop having the prejudice of individuals supported by the national government. I notice you ignore such things, because you're a troll. You're avoiding real arguments and then whining about how people won't focus on your arguments.

As it happens the last campaign for legal change by the gay pressure groups in the UK was for a change to the age at which a child was considered an adult for certain legal purposes. So yes it is a matter of current debate - and rightly so. Those gay pressure groups did not feel insulted by their own campaign so your claim that it is somehow inherently insulting looks suspiciously like the logical fallacy of an appeal to emotion.

--
Nic
I want a link to that one. You show me where the majority of gays compared themselves to children. I don't believe for a moment that you or any adult believe that the majority or even a large portion of gay people wish to be treated as children. A search for several terms that would link to such a 'movement' reveals nothing.

Meanwhile, methinks you're starting to reveal your true colors.

Well sitting here in the UK the government is not discriminating, civil partnerships are treated the same as marriages for all legal purposes I can think of[1].

Yeah, seperate but equal isn't discrimination. Well, that is, unless you're paying attention.

This is just fine and is a compromise typical of the British establishment, it does what it needs to do to uphold equality without getting overly worked up to the point of trying to achieve the unachievable. There was some hardline criticism along the lines of "failing to call it marriage is discriminatory" but as I've stated in this thread I think the legislators were very much aware of the limits of their powers to change an institution that was not created by legislation in the first place. Trying to force it through as a change to marriage itself would probably not have had any real effect and might have caused an adverse reaction, the British generally do not like to be told what to think and can get quite bloody-minded about it when someone tries.

Obviously the US situation is not quite the same but I suspect that many of the same considerations will apply, after all the culture is not that different.

[1] I did see a mention that some areas of common law are currently unaffected because they were never legislated in the first place. The courts are usually awake enough to adjust their interpretation of precedent in the light of related legislation so the common law will likely shift into line as and when a case comes up.

--
Nic

It's a fine compromise to anyone that doesn't actually care about discrimination. Seperate but equal by its very nature suggests that gay people should be treated differently under law. You might as well support seperating black people into 'equal' school systems. The reason that was outlawed in the US was not because the one school system or the other will be inevitably better but because you can't seperate out a group and give them special laws and expect to call that equality. I'm not particularly surprised that a person who compares gay people to children considers that to be a good solution.

I want a link to that one. You show me where the majority of gays compared themselves to children. I don't believe for a moment that you or any adult believe that the majority or even a large portion of gay people wish to be treated as children. A search for several terms that would link to such a 'movement' reveals nothing.

Meanwhile, methinks you're starting to reveal your true colors.
Sorry, not meaning to support him, but I think he was referring to the gay community campaigning for a change in the age of consent for gay sex. For straight people here it is 16, whereas for gays it is 18.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ley LandWe are obviously failing to communicate to each other here! How can I phrase this so that you understand what I mean?!!

Marriage means different things to different people. You appear to be implying that there is some universal meaning that is mutually agreed by all peoples and all cultures. I disagree.

Premise1: Marriage means different things to different people
Premise 2: A gay couple wish to be married in the sense as they mean marriage (e.g living together as one, making joint decisions, owning joint assets etc)
Premise 3: The law seeks to hold all people equal regardless of belief

Conclusion: The state is obliged to allow gay marriages to be legally recognised.

That really doesn't do the argument justice, I'm just trying to make it clear what i am trying to say.

And no, no legislator can deliver a marriage with all its cultural baggage, as you put it. Only the couple can do that. Why, please explain, why can two people of the same gender not be married (with all the cultural baggage)???!!

It again comes back to you assuming that marriage means the same to all people, which is false.


But didn't you say in your opening post:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Verve Pipe
NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.


It is often cited in debates about gay marriage from the pro-gay rights side that marriage is simply a "legal contract." According to proponents of this "simply a legal contract" philosophy, the institution as a legal one holds no obligations to families or children.



Surely your latter post says it can be just a legal contract to some. So you haven't debunked anything. In fact, you now hold a contrary postion.
__________________
Um, excuse me, but Verve Pipe and I are separate individuals.

Well sitting here in the UK the government is not discriminating, civil partnerships are treated the same as marriages for all legal purposes I can think of[1].

This is just fine and is a compromise typical of the British establishment, it does what it needs to do to uphold equality without getting overly worked up to the point of trying to achieve the unachievable. There was some hardline criticism along the lines of "failing to call it marriage is discriminatory" but as I've stated in this thread I think the legislators were very much aware of the limits of their powers to change an institution that was not created by legislation in the first place. Trying to force it through as a change to marriage itself would probably not have had any real effect and might have caused an adverse reaction, the British generally do not like to be told what to think and can get quite bloody-minded about it when someone tries.

Obviously the US situation is not quite the same but I suspect that many of the same considerations will apply, after all the culture is not that different.

[1] I did see a mention that some areas of common law are currently unaffected because they were never legislated in the first place. The courts are usually awake enough to adjust their interpretation of precedent in the light of related legislation so the common law will likely shift into line as and when a case comes up.

--
Nic
That's right, there has been criticism, many of my friends are gay and they find this compromise insulting. Of course, a large number of gay people have been quick to have a civil partnership ceremony (gay wedding if you like) because they are happy to be able to get anywhere close to marriage, finally.

I know you said you no longer wanted to debate this issue with me, however, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. The fact that you have yet to actually form a response would suggest that you don't have one. Why is it so difficult for you to say what you mean in blunt terms? That is what's great about internet forums, we all get to say what we would really like to say!

The question is simple: what is it about marriage that is unattainable for same sex couples?

I suspect you will continue to dodge the question, so this is the last time I will ask it.

This is all well and good, but it is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is about the legal standing of certain kinds of marriages, and whether the state is within its rights when it grants marriage rights and responsibilities to one class of persons but denies them to another class of persons on the basis of their biological sex only (I use “biological sex” to distinguish from “gender,” because gender and gender roles are cultural constructs). Every nation has its own legal standards and requirements in this regard, but in the U.S. the same Constitutional protections that make illegal segregation and discrimination on the basis of skin color, and the marginalization, battery, and denial of property rights for women on the basis of biological sex (not to mention the selective granting of voting rights to a privileged class) also apply to same-sex couples who wish to enter into long-term committed living arrangements and enjoy the same legal benefits as do hetero couples.

In this context the other cultural and social meanings marriage may have are beside the point; indeed, they are largely the reason why the U.S. government and the various states persist in maintaining a clearly unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples by categorically denying them rights and protections available to virtually identical hetero couples simply because they are members of a disapproved class, without being able to show either a compelling state interest or anything resembling just cause.

Opponents of equal rights for same-sex couples may trot out many emotional and vociferously-stated arguments against making same-sex marriage legal (no matter how irrelevant or untenable), but then, so did the proponents of chatel slavery based on skin color in opposition to abolition. That these arguments are deeply felt and/or loudly proclaimed (the latter does not guarantee the former) doesn't make them any less illegitimate.

Exactly, thank you!

Um, excuse me, but Verve Pipe and I are separate individuals.
:eek:

what was I smoking yesterday?
My apologies. I shall now remove this incriminating piece of evidence.

Sorry, not meaning to support him, but I think he was referring to the gay community campaigning for a change in the age of consent for gay sex. For straight people here it is 16, whereas for gays it is 18.
Then he was being dishonest in his description. They weren't campaigning to redefine childhood. They were campaigning to end discrimination. His post was hideously dishonest. Look at the difference between what you wrote and what he did.

As it happens the last campaign for legal change by the gay pressure groups in the UK was for a change to the age at which a child was considered an adult for certain legal purposes.

Yours states the actual case. His says in a obviously misleading way that was clearly intentional.

EDIT: And don't apologize. You didn't support him and it was an excellent post.

This is all well and good, but it is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is about the legal standing of certain kinds of marriages, and whether the state is within its rights when it grants marriage rights and responsibilities to one class of persons but denies them to another class of persons on the basis of their biological sex only (I use “biological sex” to distinguish from “gender,” because gender and gender roles are cultural constructs). Every nation has its own legal standards and requirements in this regard, but in the U.S. the same Constitutional protections that make illegal segregation and discrimination on the basis of skin color, and the marginalization, battery, and denial of property rights for women on the basis of biological sex (not to mention the selective granting of voting rights to a privileged class) also apply to same-sex couples who wish to enter into long-term committed living arrangements and enjoy the same legal benefits as do hetero couples.

In this context the other cultural and social meanings marriage may have are beside the point; indeed, they are largely the reason why the U.S. government and the various states persist in maintaining a clearly unconstitutional discrimination against same-sex couples by categorically denying them rights and protections available to virtually identical hetero couples simply because they are members of a disapproved class, without being able to show either a compelling state interest or anything resembling just cause.

Opponents of equal rights for same-sex couples may trot out many emotional and vociferously-stated arguments against making same-sex marriage legal (no matter how irrelevant or untenable), but then, so did the proponents of chatel slavery based on skin color in opposition to abolition. That these arguments are deeply felt and/or loudly proclaimed (the latter does not guarantee the former) doesn't make them any less illegitimate.

I didn't read this before so I'm sorry for the late reply, but this is an excellent post and speaks exactly to the point. People who are trying to act like the legal issue isn't the issue are trying to obfuscate the quest for rights. Thank for your post.

Just letting everyone know, New York's high court is ruling on same sex marriages today.

Are all of you so quick to defend that you've lost the ability to read what is right in front of you? Read the note at the top of my post:

NOTE: I posted this to dismantle a particular argument often used by proponents of gay marriage that makes no sense to me. My intention in this post is not to give an argument on behalf of banning or legalizing gay marriage.

Can you read it now?
dont post something if you dont want it debabted.

Well maybe you have studied this subject more than me but I cannot think of an established institution of gay marriage in any of the societies that are ancestors to modern Western society.

Study the Druidic traditions. Study many Native American societies. Even some sects of the very early Christian church. All recognized homosexual marriages. Of course, if you limit it to what most would consider "Western" society, as if the rest of human existence doesn't matter.....

There are odd exceptional cases but exceptions prove nothing more than that sometimes people do stuff that defies the normal rules and definitions.

You claimed that homosexual marriage has *never* been recognized. I pointed out some instances in which it was. Even if it was never the "norm" in all societies, it did happen, and is thus not a "new thing".

If you read Ancient Greek literature you will see a form of marriage that is clearly recognisable to modern people, it is the same concept having survived largely intact over several millenia. Yet the notably non-homophobic Ancient Greeks did not consider homosexual relationships to be marriage, they clearly regarded them to be distinctly different to marriage.

Indeed. In many cases, they regarded them as higher than marriage, as they regarded love between two men as greater than that between a man and a woman. Of course, unlike the cultures of today, marriage was mainly for breeding. Love had little to do with it.

If you want to claim that the concept of marriage within our culture has included the concept of homosexual marriage - in defiance of the common understanding of most people either now or throughout our history - I'm afraid the onus is on you to substantiate the claim with some evidence.

Why limit the discussion to "our culture"? Human existence is larger than a single cultural construct.

No, from the government's point of view that is the only aspect of marriage that they can persuade anyone they have the slightest right intruding upon. I very much doubt that any government has ever been so stupid as to believe that there is no more to marriage than this.

Once again, you are missing the point. The government has no mechanism or need to recognize what marriage is to individuals. It's role in recognizing marriage relates only to the legal and economic issues involved. Thus, from the point of view of the government, marriage is a legal and economic contract. The rest of it is up to the individuals.

Why limit the discussion to "our culture"? Human existence is larger than a single cultural construct.

When discussing the laws that are to be applied to "our culture" then "our culture" is the one to be considered. This is true for all values of "our culture". Were we discussing which laws should be applied to a totally different culture then the cultural considerations would of course be different.

Of course you can enact laws that totally disregard the culture that they apply to, its just that the outcome is unlikely to be what was intended. Similarly you could try to enact a given law across all cultures without consideration for the cultures affected, again the outcome is unlikely to be the one intended or desired.



--
Nic

I do think that attempting to redefine the word and concept of marriage by legislation is rather silly and likely to have a rather disappointing outcome.

And you ignore the fact that no one is trying to "redefine" anything by legislation. We are trying to gain equal protection under the law for all citizens - plain and simple. I don't care if homophobes don't recognize homosexual unions as marriage. I don't care if a given church doesn't recognize it. I don't care if there is someone out there who recognizes it but "just doesn't want to call it marriage." The LAW, on the other hand, must treat all citizens equally.

Redefinitions of cultural constructs do not come from legislation, but from changing attitudes of people. This is another fight altogether.

And analogy would be the women's lib movement. Women worked to attain equality under the law, but even then, we were (and still are, in some regards) discriminated against in societal views. Now, we work to change those societal views, not through legislation, but through societal mechanisms.

You seem to have this idea that someone is trying to change societal views through legislation. No one is attempting this.

And you ignore the fact that no one is trying to "redefine" anything by legislation. We are trying to gain equal protection under the law for all citizens - plain and simple.

Indeed. Where I live, the definition of marriage has NEVER required that the participants be a man and a woman, so it's the homophobes who appear determined to change the definition of marriage...they're the ones trying to pass "marriage amendments" that specify only heteros can wed.


I don't care if homophobes don't recognize homosexual unions as marriage. I don't care if a given church doesn't recognize it. I don't care if there is someone out there who recognizes it but "just doesn't want to call it marriage." The LAW, on the other hand, must treat all citizens equally.

Can I get an AMEN?!


Redefinitions of cultural constructs do not come from legislation, but from changing attitudes of people. This is another fight altogether.

And analogy would be the women's lib movement. Women worked to attain equality under the law, but even then, we were (and still are, in some regards) discriminated against in societal views. Now, we work to change those societal views, not through legislation, but through societal mechanisms.

You seem to have this idea that someone is trying to change societal views through legislation. No one is attempting this.
Exactly. Most of us have long since resigned ourselves to the fact that some people are going to cling to their homophobia with the same fervor that is seen in the dwindling number of racists in our country. We aren't much interested in winning over these poor bastards, we just want them to quit wasting taxpayer dollars on trying to legislate their own sexual hangups.

Once again, you are missing the point. The government has no mechanism or need to recognize what marriage is to individuals. It's role in recognizing marriage relates only to the legal and economic issues involved. Thus, from the point of view of the government, marriage is a legal and economic contract. The rest of it is up to the individuals.

If it is a question of what the individuals within a same sex marriage believe about their relationship then surely they can already have whatever belief they want and need nothing from the government. If it is about what society as a whole believes about their same sex relationship then there is little that government can do via legislation to alter their belief. What government can do is alter laws so that those (to be frank rather peripheral) aspects of marriage that it regulates are similarly regulated for registered same sex relationships.

In any event the governments of few - if any - nations are actually so blinkered about the nature of marriage, it is just that only a few aspects of it are legally regulated. In the UK at least there is legal recognition that if a marriage consists only of the legal and economic aspects that are regulated then it is not a true marriage - and can suffer the civil equivalent of an annullment. I was under the impression that in some cases (immigration law?) this was also true in the USA, although I'm willing to be corrected by anyone more conversant with US law.

--
Nic

Well sitting here in the UK the government is not discriminating, civil partnerships are treated the same as marriages for all legal purposes I can think of[1].

And yet they are not. There is not a single "civil partnership" construct in the world that is truly equivalent to legal marriage. And though I know you want to limit this to a single nation or culture at a time, one of the differences is in international recognition. Many countries - including your own - have treaties with other countries such that a marriage from one country will be recognized in another. This is true whether the couple emigrates, is living in the other country, is traveling there, etc. But it is only *marriage* from one country. To my knowledge, no countries have yet signed treaties about civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, etc.

In the US, these constructs are even further from true equality.

I've stated in this thread I think the legislators were very much aware of the limits of their powers to change an institution that was not created by legislation in the first place.

The legal institution of marriage was created by legislators. How else could it be created?

Trying to force it through as a change to marriage itself would probably not have had any real effect and might have caused an adverse reaction, the British generally do not like to be told what to think and can get quite bloody-minded about it when someone tries.

No one is telling anyone what to think. The issue isn't what individuals think, but what the government recognizes and what protections it offers to its citizens.

If it is a question of what the individuals within a same sex marriage believe about their relationship then surely they can already have whatever belief they want and need nothing from the government.

Sure. There are plenty of homosexual couples who regard themselves as married even if their government will not acknowledge their union. However, in addition to regarding themselves as married, they also desire to have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, which includes recognition of their ability to enter a legal marriage contract.

See how that works? Both can be true at the same time.


If it is about what society as a whole believes about their same sex relationship then there is little that government can do via legislation to alter their belief.

In America, "what society as a whole believes" is not sufficient for law. Society, as a whole, did not support giving women the vote. Society, as a whole, did not support freeing the slaves. Society, as a whole, has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into pretty much every single civil rights breakthrough we've had.


What government can do is alter laws so that those (to be frank rather peripheral) aspects of marriage that it regulates are similarly regulated for registered same sex relationships.

Or it can acknowledge that there is no reason why homosexual couples cannot fulfill all the requirements for a marriage contract.

When discussing the laws that are to be applied to "our culture" then "our culture" is the one to be considered.

Hardly. When it comes to human rights, humanity as a whole must be considered. If "our culture" has always had slaves, does that mean we cannot look to other cultures when we wish to change that?


If it is a question of what the individuals within a same sex marriage believe about their relationship then surely they can already have whatever belief they want and need nothing from the government. If it is about what society as a whole believes about their same sex relationship then there is little that government can do via legislation to alter their belief.

Of course not. No one is suggesting that the law is going to alter anyone's belief. Making black citizens equal citizens under the law didn't obliterate racism. Why would making homosexual citizens equal under the law obliterate homophobia?

In the UK at least there is legal recognition that if a marriage consists only of the legal and economic aspects that are regulated then it is not a true marriage - and can suffer the civil equivalent of an annullment. I was under the impression that in some cases (immigration law?) this was also true in the USA, although I'm willing to be corrected by anyone more conversant with US law.

Immigration law simply holds that one cannot marry specifically for immigration rights. In other words, if I get money to marry a guy from France who wants to become a US citizen, then the marriage can be annulled and he can be deported.

You seem to have this idea that someone is trying to change societal views through legislation. No one is attempting this.

Well in the UK at least this has not actually happened, but some did call for it.

As you raised the comparison with feminism it is worth noting that the original feminists did not try to legally define women as men, they tried to ensure that women would gain the same legal rights as men. Had they tried to legally redefine women as men I daresay they would have conformed to the "we refuse to be separate-but-equal even in the language used" doctrine that calls for same sex relationships to be legally defined as marriages. I happen to believe that their approach was far more sensible and effective.

Women are not the same as men but there should be no discrimination on those grounds. Civil partnerships are not the same as marriages but there should be no discrimination on those grounds. These statements are easy to formulate, support and implement. Where you will hit trouble is when you try to redefine the nature of things by legislation away from what is the common understanding of those things. As I have mentioned before anglo-saxon cultures do not much like being told to change their opinions by diktat and can get quite bloody-mindedly stubborn when someone tries. The feminists were wise enough to understand this, I personally think it would be unwise for the gay movement to disregard it.


--
Nic

Theo - As it happens the last campaign for legal change by the gay pressure groups in the UK was for a change to the age at which a child was considered an adult for certain legal purposes.

Reality - The campaign he is talking about was for the age of consent for all sex to be the same. Currently, gay sex in the UK has a higher age of consent.

He is willing to deceive to support his stance against a change to law.

Note: He used this falsehood because he was trying to suggest that comparing gays to children is an appropriate comparison.

Theo - Let me try to explain by analogy. A lobby group could decide on the basis that the average 6 year old can hold a rational conversation, read and write that treating them legally differently to adults was discriminatory. A legislature might be convinced of such an argument and pass legislation that all 6 year olds and above were now legally adults. Would this mean that 6 year olds were in fact adults?

Reality- Homosexuals in every meaningful way are equal to all other adult humans. Comparing the a quest for equal civil rights for homosexuals to treating children as adults is offensive.

When challenge Theo uses deception to support his claim. Using his fallacious claim about their campaign and his analogy led to this - "Those gay pressure groups did not feel insulted by their own campaign so your claim that it is somehow inherently insulting looks suspiciously like the logical fallacy of an appeal to emotion." He suggests that they themselves equate their struggle with children who are not treated equal to adults. Another obvious falsehood.

He supports discrimination -

Theo - This is just fine and is a compromise typical of the British establishment, it does what it needs to do to uphold equality without getting overly worked up to the point of trying to achieve the unachievable. There was some hardline criticism along the lines of "failing to call it marriage is discriminatory" but as I've stated in this thread I think the legislators were very much aware of the limits of their powers to change an institution that was not created by legislation in the first place. Trying to force it through as a change to marriage itself would probably not have had any real effect and might have caused an adverse reaction, the British generally do not like to be told what to think and can get quite bloody-minded about it when someone tries.

------------

Theo, we know what this is and what you are. You're not fooling anyone. One would think that if you believe your ideas are correct you'd hold them out for the world to see, instead of hiding them behind a thin veil of pretending equality is impossible so discouraging a try at it.

And yet they are not. There is not a single "civil partnership" construct in the world that is truly equivalent to legal marriage. And though I know you want to limit this to a single nation or culture at a time, one of the differences is in international recognition. Many countries - including your own - have treaties with other countries such that a marriage from one country will be recognized in another. This is true whether the couple emigrates, is living in the other country, is traveling there, etc. But it is only *marriage* from one country. To my knowledge, no countries have yet signed treaties about civil unions, civil partnerships, domestic partnerships, etc.



This is a new sub-thread so I'll answer it separately - and with a question if I may.

Do you honestly believe that all world-wide cultures are sufficiently similar that a single enactment of a law in any one country will actually work worldwide? Conversely do you believe you have the slightest chance of enacting a same sex marriage law worldwide and enforcing it upon all nations?

To give a concrete example, if a person were to travel from a state in the USA where they were legally married and arrive in Zimbabwe do you believe that any legal wording of a law in a state of the US would cause the laws or people of Zimbabwe to recognise that couple as married?

Mutual recognition of marriages across borders is not unconditional - there are many forms of marriage that would be legal in one place but not in another. Some of them (e.g. polygamy or involving persons under the local age of consent) that might conceivably be subject to criminal proceedings. It is for example possible for legally married britons to find themselves in legal trouble in other countries, for our legal age of consent is lower than in some other juristictions.

I can perfectly well understand that this is what you would like to achieve and that this is a legitimate aspiration for you - but is it likely within any of our lifetimes?

--
Nic

Well in the UK at least this has not actually happened, but some did call for it.

As you raised the comparison with feminism it is worth noting that the original feminists did not try to legally define women as men, they tried to ensure that women would gain the same legal rights as men. Had they tried to legally redefine women as men I daresay they would have conformed to the "we refuse to be separate-but-equal even in the language used" doctrine that calls for same sex relationships to be legally defined as marriages. I happen to believe that their approach was far more sensible and effective.

Women are not the same as men but there should be no discrimination on those grounds. Civil partnerships are not the same as marriages but there should be no discrimination on those grounds. These statements are easy to formulate, support and implement. Where you will hit trouble is when you try to redefine the nature of things by legislation away from what is the common understanding of those things. As I have mentioned before anglo-saxon cultures do not much like being told to change their opinions by diktat and can get quite bloody-mindedly stubborn when someone tries. The feminists were wise enough to understand this, I personally think it would be unwise for the gay movement to disregard it.


--
Nic

Homosexuals aren't trying to define themselves as heterosexual. They are trying to define themselves as equal and your claims to the contrary bely your prejudice. Homosexuals simply want access to all the same rights everyone else enjoys. Exactly like feminism and women simply wanting access to the same rights everyone else enjoys.

Civil unions are not the same rights. They are different rights. I can get married to the person I love. They are asking for the same rights and deserve the same rights.

You keep calling the current state of marriage to be the 'nature of things' and everytime someone shows you it isn't traditionally the 'nature of things' nor is there any reason for it to remaing the 'nature of things' you attempt to claim this conversation has to remain centered around current society.

If the current 'nature of things' is how we define law, how would law ever change? Black people would still have to use seperate services because it was the 'nature of things' at the time. This is a thinly veiled attempt to excuse discrimination and it's sad.

If it is a question of what the individuals within a same sex marriage believe about their relationship then surely they can already have whatever belief they want and need nothing from the government.
The exact same can be said of heterosexual couples. They can consider themselves married simply by living together etc. They may have a married lifestyle (whatever that might be), perhaps even have children. However, should one of them pass away, what happens to the house if there is no will? What happens to the deceased partner's bank accounts? If the couple are not legally married this all gets very complicated and painful for the partner left behind.

Straight couples have the option to marry, making circumstances such as this more smooth, assets transfer to the living's name only etc, with very little fuss. Homosexual couples are denied this right. Why? Why should they be?

The government cannot dictate who can fall in love with who, who wants to marry who. It simply has the responsibility to protect all citizens equally.

Of course the neighbours may not like that they have gay people living in the street who are married, and may well not consider them married simply because they are gay, but that is their problem, not the gay couple's. Once the law recognises that a minority are equal then societies views will gradually come to see it the same way. As has been pointed out already, the general public has often been behind the times with civil rights movements. This is no exception, it doesn't mean that minorities should be denied their rights.

This is a new sub-thread so I'll answer it separately - and with a question if I may.

Do you honestly believe that all world-wide cultures are sufficiently similar that a single enactment of a law in any one country will actually work worldwide? Conversely do you believe you have the slightest chance of enacting a same sex marriage law worldwide and enforcing it upon all nations?

To give a concrete example, if a person were to travel from a state in the USA where they were legally married and arrive in Zimbabwe do you believe that any legal wording of a law in a state of the US would cause the laws or people of Zimbabwe to recognise that couple as married?

Mutual recognition of marriages across borders is not unconditional - there are many forms of marriage that would be legal in one place but not in another. Some of them (e.g. polygamy or involving persons under the local age of consent) that might conceivably be subject to criminal proceedings. It is for example possible for legally married britons to find themselves in legal trouble in other countries, for our legal age of consent is lower than in some other juristictions.

I can perfectly well understand that this is what you would like to achieve and that this is a legitimate aspiration for you - but is it likely within any of our lifetimes?

--
Nic

If Zimbabwe has a treaty with the US to recognize marriages from the US then yes it would recognize the US marriage. That's the way treaties work.

Your strawman about worldwide law is just that. She is talking about countries who have agreed to recognize our marriage laws.

Theo - As it happens the last campaign for legal change by the gay pressure groups in the UK was for a change to the age at which a child was considered an adult for certain legal purposes.

Reality - The campaign he is talking about was for the age of consent for all sex to be the same. Currently, gay sex in the UK has a higher age of consent.

He is willing to deceive to support his stance against a change to law.

Note: He used this falsehood because he was trying to suggest that comparing gays to children is an appropriate comparison.



What falsehood? Persons of any age under 18 are legally considered children within the UK. Those children of 16 or more have the legal right to consent to heterosexual intercourse in exactly the same way as if they were adults. There was a perfectly reasonable campaign to give them in addition to this the right to consent to homosexual intercourse. This was a campaign for them to be regarded as adults for certain legal purposes - homosexual intercourse - but not for all purposes. I fail to see that my statement was false.

You recurring insistence that I am somehow hiding something or concealing my true opinions however is false and a blatant personal attack. Despite attempting to explain my views both directly and by analogy it appears that you are going to take offence at any view that does not absolutely agree with your own and then use your own offence to make snide insinuations against the person who happens to have differing views. Good luck with the rest of your life.

--
Nic

What falsehood? Persons of any age under 18 are legally considered children within the UK. Those children of 16 or more have the legal right to consent to heterosexual intercourse in exactly the same way as if they were adults. There was a perfectly reasonable campaign to give them in addition to this the right to consent to homosexual intercourse. This was a campaign for them to be regarded as adults for certain legal purposes - homosexual intercourse - but not for all purposes. I fail to see that my statement was false.

Yes, you worded it very carefully to make the statement technically true while be deceptive. I didn't say the statement was false. I said it was a falsehood, a deception. It was and you know it.

They were fighting to make the laws regarding intercourse non-discriminatory. That is not the same as trying to make children be treated as adults. Claiming otherwise is a clear attempt to be dishonest.

You recurring insistence that I am somehow hiding something or concealing my true opinions however is false and a blatant personal attack. Despite attempting to explain my views both directly and by analogy it appears that you are going to take offence at any view that does not absolutely agree with your own and then use your own offence to make snide insinuations against the person who happens to have differing views. Good luck with the rest of your life.

--
Nic
Hmmm.... let's look at the facts.

1. You called making marriage law non-discriminatory going against the 'nature of things'.

2. You suggested that the quest for equality for homosexuals is not comparable to feminism because they weren't trying to become men as if by trying to be allowed access to marry gays are trying to become heterosexuals. This is another clear statement by you that marriage is ONLY for heterosexuals. That's not just society's view, but yours and you let it escape through all of this little statements.

3. You deceptively suggested that homosexual activists in the UK compared their campaign for equality with children being treated as adults rather than properly showing that they were actually just AGAIN seeking equality.

4. You've repeatedly rejected all evidence that marriage has been throughout history regarded in varying ways and with various institutional requirements.

5. You support separate but equal legislation and defended it as a good solution, even though it's discriminatory.

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 equals a person who views homosexuals as deserving of different rights than heterosexuals.

EDIT: And I believe you are hiding or concealing anything. I believe you are trying to hide or conceal your true beliefs and there is a mountain of evidence of that in this thread.

You recurring insistence that I am somehow hiding something or concealing my true opinions however is false and a blatant personal attack. Despite attempting to explain my views both directly and by analogy it appears that you are going to take offence at any view that does not absolutely agree with your own and then use your own offence to make snide insinuations against the person who happens to have differing views. Good luck with the rest of your life.

--
Nic
You haven't been concealing your opinions exactly, but you *have* been evasive. You say that gay people cannot be considerred married by cultural definition even if legally recognised, you talk about redefining the word "marriage" but have not given an actual description of this definition that you seem to think so definate. Even when directly asked what you mean you have refused to answer.

As you raised the comparison with feminism it is worth noting that the original feminists did not try to legally define women as men, they tried to ensure that women would gain the same legal rights as men.

And homosexuals are not trying to redefine "homosexual" as "heterosexual". They are simply trying to ensure that homosexuals gain the same legal rights as heterosexuals - including the legal right to obtain a marriage license.

Had they tried to legally redefine women as men I daresay they would have conformed to the "we refuse to be separate-but-equal even in the language used" doctrine that calls for same sex relationships to be legally defined as marriages. I happen to believe that their approach was far more sensible and effective.

Actually, a comparison would have been if the men in power had said, "Ok, well, we won't actually let you have the same jobs as men. Instead, we'll make separate 'women's jobs' that you are allowed to have. That'll be equal, right?" Or, in the case of ethnic issues, "Sure, black people can have schools. They just can't have the same schools as white people. They have to have their own, less funded schools. That's equal, right?"

Civil partnerships are not the same as marriages but there should be no discrimination on those grounds.

If civil partnerships are not the same as legal marriage, then homosexuals are not being granted equal rights. If they are the same, there is no logical reason for a name change.

Do you honestly believe that all world-wide cultures are sufficiently similar that a single enactment of a law in any one country will actually work worldwide? Conversely do you believe you have the slightest chance of enacting a same sex marriage law worldwide and enforcing it upon all nations?

What does any of this have to do with the price of eggs in China? I never once suggested that any law in one country works worldwide or is enforced upon all nations.

To give a concrete example, if a person were to travel from a state in the USA where they were legally married and arrive in Zimbabwe do you believe that any legal wording of a law in a state of the US would cause the laws or people of Zimbabwe to recognise that couple as married?

It might, if Zimbabwe had decided to recognize marriages from the US - and it would be legally bound to if it had signed a treaty that stated it would.

Mutual recognition of marriages across borders is not unconditional

What part of the word "treaty" do you not understand?

- there are many forms of marriage that would be legal in one place but not in another.

Indeed. But if a treaty to recognize all marriages from a given country has been signed, then the country cannot refuse to recognize any such marriage without breaking the treaty.

I can perfectly well understand that this is what you would like to achieve and that this is a legitimate aspiration for you - but is it likely within any of our lifetimes?

I'm actually not at all sure what you are talking about. I never suggested that I think marriage should be defined the same throughout the world. You are arguing a clear strawman.

If the current 'nature of things' is how we define law, how would law ever change? Black people would still have to use seperate services because it was the 'nature of things' at the time. This is a thinly veiled attempt to excuse discrimination and it's sad.
That's the entire point.

People who benefit from current inequalities will quite often rush to explain why these inequities are "natural" or "normal" or "moral." They will also rush to defend lines of reasoning that would lead us to roll the clock back even further. Hell, this whole marriage mess really started with them uppity women, didn't it? I mean, back in the day, Very Hetero Man was king! He owned his wife and his children, he ruled over them absolutely, and he never had to worry about her orgasm or picking up his own socks.

The fags are just another assault on Very Hetero Man's dominance. The fags are demonstrating that men CAN be nurturing parents who change diapers and pick up around the house. The fags are proving that women can be bread-winning and self-sufficient individuals who can teach their sons to throw a football right.

Who will have Very Hetero Man's back, if not Nature? If men aren't naturally designed to rule as kings of the home, and if women aren't designed to be submissive house bots, and if blacks aren't designed to be the impoverished underclass, and if all those stupid non-white hetero males are NOT biologically predestined to ride at the back of the bus, what then?

What will become of poor Very Hetero Man, who has rested his entire self worth on what he is NOT? He isn't a fag or a black or a woman, and that's why he RULES, goddammit! But what will happen if that is no longer enough?

That's the entire point.

People who benefit from current inequalities will quite often rush to explain why these inequities are "natural" or "normal" or "moral." They will also rush to defend lines of reasoning that would lead us to roll the clock back even further. Hell, this whole marriage mess really started with them uppity women, didn't it? I mean, back in the day, Very Hetero Man was king! He owned his wife and his children, he ruled over them absolutely, and he never had to worry about her orgasm or picking up his own socks.

The fags are just another assault on Very Hetero Man's dominance. The fags are demonstrating that men CAN be nurturing parents who change diapers and pick up around the house. The fags are proving that women can be bread-winning and self-sufficient individuals who can teach their sons to throw a football right.

Who will have Very Hetero Man's back, if not Nature? If men aren't naturally designed to rule as kings of the home, and if women aren't designed to be submissive house bots, and if blacks aren't designed to be the impoverished underclass, and if all those stupid non-white hetero males are NOT biologically predestined to ride at the back of the bus, what then?

What will become of poor Very Hetero Man, who has rested his entire self worth on what he is NOT? He isn't a fag or a black or a woman, and that's why he RULES, goddammit! But what will happen if that is no longer enough?
I love you. I just thought you should know. :fluffle:

I love you. I just thought you should know. :fluffle:
Loving me will make Very Hetero Man cry.

:fluffle:

Still can't read, huh? My argument was against a particular justification for gay marriage...not against gay marriage itself. If you believe my counterargument (none of which was put in quotes, except when I quoted the argument I was dismantling, mind you...) helps strengthen the gay marriage cause -- GREAT. That's not the point of my post, but that's one thing you can take away from it. You are so blinded by your impulse to defend and attack that you've lost the ability to see something for what it is without reading endless implications into it and inventing quotation marks where they don't exist.

Oh, I can read alright. Most of the people here can read. What you fail to take into account in your argument is the following:

1. Marriage is a legal contract provided by the government. It is a contractual state of affairs.

2. Marriage is also a RITE, meaning a religious ceremony performed by a church blessing a union of two people. It carries no legal force in the real world.

One of these may exist without the other, or else you would not have the "Justice of the Peace" weddings commonly held without religious fanfare of any sort. Both may occur at the same time only out of the legal largesse of the government, allowing a minister/parson/Father to legally officiate on behalf of the government.

You may also go and have your relationship blessed by a religious celebrant but without the signed marriage license it counts in the government's eyes for precisely nothing.

Your argument does nothing to invalidate the argument you tried to invalidate or "dismantle," it simply sets up a poorly reasoned argument.

Actually, a comparison would have been if the men in power had said, "Ok, well, we won't actually let you have the same jobs as men. Instead, we'll make separate 'women's jobs' that you are allowed to have. That'll be equal, right?" Or, in the case of ethnic issues, "Sure, black people can have schools. They just can't have the same schools as white people. They have to have their own, less funded schools. That's equal, right?"

Am I the only one who feels very discouraged by the fact that we are STILL having to explain why "separate but equal" is bunk?

Am I the only one who feels very discouraged by the fact that we are STILL having to explain why "separate but equal" is bunk?

Bottle, there will always be people who don't get this stuff. ALWAYS. 2000 years from now we'll still have to explain equality to people. Our hope, our goal, is for that number to decrease in percentage until they are insignificant and I believe that is happening. Imagine having these conversations 50 years ago. I know it's discouraging because a lot of us are surrounded by educated people with similar beliefs, but remember where we've come from. Of course it's discouraging when we look at a snapshot, but when we watch the movie, we definitely seem to be moving toward a happy ending.

Bottle, there will always be people who don't get this stuff. ALWAYS. 2000 years from now we'll still have to explain equality to people. Our hope, our goal, is for that number to decrease in percentage until they are insignificant and I believe that is happening. Imagine having these conversations 50 years ago. I know it's discouraging because a lot of us are surrounded by educated people with similar beliefs, but remember where we've come from. Of course it's discouraging when we look at a snapshot, but when we watch the movie, we definitely seem to be moving toward a happy ending.


You keep assuming that other folks have a positive feeling about equality.
I rate it as quite higher than diversity.
Let me add here that I totally loathe diversity.

When you tell me that Act A has the effect of making group B equal to group C, you may very well convince me that it is for that reason that Act A is loathsome and detestable.

Am I the only one who feels very discouraged by the fact that we are STILL having to explain why "separate but equal" is bunk?

People hold on to their life long ideas, right or wrong, tenaciously. I live with my right foot in the older generation and my left foot in the new generation. Based on what I see, it will take the passing of the generations to make progress. Time is on our side. The youth of the world already see homosexuality much differently than my generation does. I am part of the last generation of gay men that felt the necessity to hide and come out some time in early adulthood.

Now it's not uncommon for gay teenagers to be out and open about it at around age 16-17. That is a wonderfully positive thing.

Prejudice and bigotry will never die out of our species. If it's not one thing, it's another. Jews, blacks, women and gays...next on the hit parade, Arabs and most especially followers of the Church of Islam. It is a sad thing to see the torch of hatred passed from one generation to the next.

Maybe I will get lucky and see gays accepted on a much broader level before I die. But as long as the discussion is initiated by those who hate us, we will forever be on the defensive.

You keep assuming that other folks have a positive feeling about equality.

It doesn't really matter how you feel about it.

When you tell me that Act A has the effect of making group B equal to group C, you may very well convince me that it is for that reason that Act A is loathsome and detestable.

So you are telling us that you are, in fact, a bigot? Good to know you admit it, at least.

It doesn't really matter how you feel about it.



So you are telling us that you are, in fact, a bigot? Good to know you admit it, at least.


Suppose I were so? Got some Law saying I have no right to be bigotted?

Your standard can either be imposed on me by authority and force, or it is your own standard only.
My standard can either be imposed on you by authority and force, or it is my own standard only.

EDIT:
If you depend on the standard of Reason, you are merely deluded, since people have different standards of what constitutes reasonability.

Suppose I were so? Got some Law saying I have no right to be bigotted?

No, you have a right to think anything you want to. You do not, however, have any right to enforce your bigotted viewpoints on others.

Your standard can either be imposed on me by authority and force, or it is your own standard only.
My standard can either be imposed on you by authority and force, or it is my own standard only.

My standard need not be imposed upon any individual. It simply states that all citizens must receive equal treatment under the law. It doesn't make you like it. It doesn't make you recognize any other human being as a full human being entitled to the same rights as you. It doesn't prevent you from saying whatever you want about other human beings and thinking whatever you want about them. It does, however, mean that they are such in the law - whether you like it or not. And, luckily, my standard is written into the Constitution of my country.

Bottle, there will always be people who don't get this stuff. ALWAYS. 2000 years from now we'll still have to explain equality to people. Our hope, our goal, is for that number to decrease in percentage until they are insignificant and I believe that is happening. Imagine having these conversations 50 years ago. I know it's discouraging because a lot of us are surrounded by educated people with similar beliefs, but remember where we've come from. Of course it's discouraging when we look at a snapshot, but when we watch the movie, we definitely seem to be moving toward a happy ending.
It's just so mind-bendingly shameful to me, that these EXACT SAME STUPIDITIES keep rearing their ugly heads.

When I hit the teen years, my mom told me, "Darling, you're getting to the age where you start making some really spectacular mistakes. That's okay, it's part of growing up, and I will still love you and be proud of you even while you are making mistakes. But please, darling, do not make my mistakes over again. Make your own mistakes."

That's how I feel when I look at my generation. We're just now budding into adulthood and we're still in the process of making our mistakes. I'm okay with that, because I know mistakes are normal. But what hurts is seeing us making EXACTLY THE SAME MISTAKES that have been made over and over and over again.