Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage" is mista

While judges in Cali and Mass summarily redefine an institution thousands of years old, claiming violation of civil rights, one has to ask just 'who is marriage for?'

Is it for the benefit of the partners? Or any issue?

The left believes in egalitarianism uber alles - even to deny reality. Even if there are biological differences, there ought to be a law against it!

I say marriage is for the benefit of any children - not the partners. Why? Because even today, 85% of all women have children - and nearly all are not gay. If benefits do acrue to the married, it is because sucessful families that produce future generations are a major societal interest!

For example, not until the 20th century did Britain have ANY statutory laws regarding the married; prior to then, it was all handled privately. This was possible becaue of state supported religion; dissenters were also on their own. By contrast, the US long had a multitude of creeds, and Jews are scarce in Wyoming, so in the event of a bad marriage, the state teps in on behalf of children. That is our tradition, one we forget because of birth control and much longer lives and hugely swollen welfare state.

Furhermore, modern social science says children hugely benefit from intact marriages ! At every level, at every age - even early adulthood - children are harmed by failed marriage. Practically all gays lack the enormous challenges and responsibilities that come with marrage benefits.

Therefore, divorce involving children ought to be made harder today than boomer's "no-fault" reforms have done for decades. Are gays going to enjoy these "benefits" too? On top of that, gays are, on average, much wealthier!

Why should society provide benefits to people of privilege, lacking the burden of these larger responsibilities?

I see an unseemly self-interested grab for bennies mockingly masked as "equality" and "civil rights." I see very very little thinking through of the greater issues.
Frankly, today's progressives appall me with their blind greed, disguised as rightful "need!"

If gays want bennies - then produce the children first! (My protest sign: "Show us your children first!") Then society will be glad to give them to you

--Orson
(never married)

PS I do have a 50 year-old gay cousin - involved in two or three stable partnerships in his lifetime. A part from being a liberal/socialist himself, he agrees with my points above. So please don't call me an ignorant reactionary.
Besides, I do read Andrew Sullivan - one of the leading proponents of "gay marriage" - who also doesn't see how he is reversing - historically, economically, and psycho-socially - cause-and-effect through his thesis.

 

Re: Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage" is m

Can a civilized society, with a representative democracy, that espouses civil liberties, civil rights, and human rights, honesty prevent two people from marrying?

Regardless of any theological orientation on the issue, it boils down to democracy versus theocracy.

We do not live in a theocracy.

Just a thought and question for further discussion.

 

Um. There are in fact gay and lesbian couples who, by various legal and/or medical devices, have children together. They seem to make perfectly good parents.

Christian marriage as a religious institution is something I have never understood and am not competent to comment upon. It is the model, near as I can tell, for American civil marriage (as opposed to American divorce).

Jewish marriage, on the other hand, is a singularly pragmatic institution. It is designed to protect the woman from exploitation by conferring upon her certain financial rights that are superior to all other claims upon the person and estate of her husband.

It is far from perfect, of course. Traditional Jewish divorce is not available to the wife without her husband's consent, a fact that can have cruel, even tragic consequences. However, by making certain that women could not merely be used and thrown away, Jewish marriage indirectly provides for the needs of the children and helps keep elderly and infirm women from becoming charges upon society. Of course, there is nothing in the institution that helps keep elderly and infirm MEN from becoming charges on society.

I suppose that, since gay and lesbian long term relationships exist, society is well within its rights to adopt rules that protect partners from the arbitrary acts of their partners.It seems to me also that there might well be social benefit in doing so. For instance, one consequence of marriage is that each partner takes upon himself or herself the duty to support the other. This duty is of a sort that cannot be exactly reproduced by contract for a number of technical reasons.

 

Re: Re: Marriage defined by "love?" Or Children's interests? Why "Gay Marriage"

We do in fact live in a democracy. However all governments must set moral standards for the people. Morals and religious values are not the same thing, however they are not mutually exclusive either. If they were, we could not outlaw murder since "religion" first laid claim to that act not being consistent with religious values.

Please understand that your argument allows for polygamy as well. I realize that there are many people that think polygamy should be legal as well; are you included in that group? If said gov't can't prevent two people from being married, how could it prevent three or more? Beyond morality/religion, once polygamy is legal, I think the entire tax code will need to be rewritten.

 

Nosborne, I'm ignorant of this fact. Please explain how homosexual couples are capable of procreating without the involvement of a third party.

 

To paraphrase our last president, it depends on how you define have. They are not having children together in the sense of procreating together...well solely together. There are some who feel marriage is for the sole purpose of procreation.

 

I've got several thoughts:
1. Nosborne always makes a good case.
2. I've rarely just simply agreed with Jimmy. Good for us Jimmy!
3. Texas Black asked, How can gay couples have kids without some big-time help? Answer: Nosborne never said "without a third party," those were your words. I believe his use of the term "devices" was meant in the sense of "desire or will" as in left to his (or her) own devices.
4. Personally, I think the best argument is no argument. What I mean is that you can reject the premise by invoking the Libertarian concept that the Government has no legitimate role in deciding who can and can not get married. The Government should have no say whatsoever, regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight. How's that Jimmy?

Jack

 

It is the government's job to set moral standards. We did that a couple of hundred years ago when we established the constitution. We based our entire society on an ethical standard that was not meant for a limited time, but for ALL time. Without a "black and white" morality you have nothing...nothing to base acceptable behavior on, nothing to base our legal system on, nothing to establish right and wrong. If the system of morality and ethics is subject to change, then what is right today may be wrong tomorrow. "Right" is not established by popular opinion. If a majority of people get together and decide to commit a murder, the murder is still wrong even though a majority decided it was right. I believe in absolutes. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Wihout a set moral standard there is no reason to behave with dignity, charity, respect, or selflessness. It's all in the eye of the beholder, right? It's all perception, right? Wrong! A society without absolutes is destined to implode.

 

Then get ready for the implosion pug. If history has taught us anything it is that NOTHING stays the same. EVERYTHING evolves, including morality. Is slavery right? Once upon a time the answer was, "Yes." Now it's, "No." (Regardless of this it continues around the world). How about the death penalty? Hmmm...a bit of a grey area, no? It seems to depend on where you live. No absolutes there! How about free needles for drug addicts, war, marijuana use, prostitution, abortion? How about sex education in schools, how about "workfare," how about government subsidies of farmers while the same government restricts fishing. You name the issue and I can find a place on the planet where it's OK/not OK. The idea of absolutes is attractive, I admit, but it's not reality. The idea of absolute morality is comforting (of course this depends on which side of the Absolute you're on) but it doesn't really exist. Sorry to disillusion you pug, but no one wants to live in an illusion, do they?
Jack

 

Hmm, it may have something to do with the "JD, LLM in progress" part of his signature block.

 

Perhaps I'm not understanding what nosborne means. I guess when nosborne says "There are in fact gay and lesbian couples who, by various legal and/or medical devices, have children together.", I assumed he (or she?) means they were some how able to procreate. Although, I'm not sure how any legal devices would allow for this. If this is a reference to adoption, then how does that apply to the original poster's argument that the act of procreation is of benefit to society. If "medical devices" refers to surrogate mothering and artificial insemination, then, I think, this still does not satisfy the criterion regarding the ability to procreate within a marriage.

 

Well, Jack, sooner or later the odds do surface! I see they just did.

I agree with you completely.

By the way, Jack, I didn't send in my final registration forms to the Free State.

I am tired of "going to school." By the time I finish CCHS I will have written 40 term papers.

I wrote close to that many for GSST. I am tired and my myopia is probably ten times worse than two years ago, ha!

When I graduate from CCHS I will then have two accredited degrees (the B.S. I already hold and the M.S.).

I have a PhD from a state licensed school. For me now, that's sufficient and I am happy with my life, work, and choices I have made.

Who knows, maybe in a few years I will reconsider. But for now, I just don't have the energy or gumption.

It is getting to be a real struggle to open a text and the thought of more research, voluminous research at that, is just not that appealing at this juncture in my life. Not to mention I have spent so much money already.

Continued blessings and luck to you, Jack! Let me know when you graduate from the Free State.

 

Go Jack

Well said Jack.

I've always subscribed to the opinion that life is not black and white, but 99.9% gray. Agreed murder is wrong, but the law isn't black and white requiring execution of every murderer. There are various degrees depending on the circumstances, which puts it into context. Moral absolutes are a slippery slope.

 

Jack Said: Then get ready for the implosion pug. If history has taught us anything it is that NOTHING stays the same. EVERYTHING evolves, including morality. Is slavery right? Once upon a time the answer was, "Yes." Now it's, "No." (Regardless of this it continues around the world). How about the death penalty? Hmmm...a bit of a grey area, no? It seems to depend on where you live. No absolutes there! How about free needles for drug addicts, war, marijuana use, prostitution, abortion? How about sex education in schools, how about "workfare," how about government subsidies of farmers while the same government restricts fishing. You name the issue and I can find a place on the planet where it's OK/not OK. The idea of absolutes is attractive, I admit, but it's not reality. The idea of absolute morality is comforting (of course this depends on which side of the Absolute you're on) but it doesn't really exist. Sorry to disillusion you pug, but no one wants to live in an illusion, do they?

My reply: Jack, I am not disillusioned. I am keenly aware of the fact that morality tends to "evolve." That was my point exactly. Anyone could take a snapshot in time and easily see that what is morality acceptable in one place is not in another. Then take a "moving picture" of one society over a lengthy period of time and you will see that morality has "evolved" there as well. That is exactly the problem. Human beings are simply incapable of creating their own moral and ethical standards. The founders of this country knew and understood this fact which is why they instituted a system created by God. Like it or not, you are living in a country that was founded on Biblical standards of morality and ethics. As time goes on and we "evolve" out of this sytem it is natural to expect the moral and ethical decline of society. Look around you, no reasonable person could argue that this country is not already sprinting down the path of moral/ethical decay and decline. This would be the implosion to which I referred in my initial post. Will we ever be able to enforce a the system of absolutes? No, I've read the Book and I know how the story ends, but it is our responsibility to try.

 

Childless couples

>>I say marriage is for the benefit of any children - not the partners. Why? Because even today, 85% of all women have children - and nearly all are not gay. If benefits do acrue to the married, it is because sucessful families that produce future generations are a major societal interest! <<

If this is your only definition of marriage what do you do with older couples or couples who choose to remain childless? Should we not allow them to marry?

What about the gays and lesbian couples that do have children or plan on adopting? If a strong family life is makes a strong country, shouldn't we be encouraging the couples to marry?

A quick reminder that not so long ago, only 1960's, interracial marriage was illegal and considered immoral. Morals, as pointed out, do change.

Marriage is a contract between two people and the various governments they live under. Religion is not legally part of that contract. There are more civil marriages in this country than church marriages.

Why shouldn't we extend the benefits of that legal contract to any couple? Would it make it better if we called it something else, like civil unions? But why bother to rewrite the laws of many states to define "civil union" when the legel definition of marriage already takes care of all the legalities.

I don't understand why there is such a negative reaction to what should be a simple extension of rights.

 

My opinion on this is that homosexual marriage should not be allowed. Rather, adoption laws in many states should be changed so that if homosexual couples are allowed to adopt they will have appropriate guardianship and rights over their adopted children. In order to procreate the bottom line is that it takes a man and a woman. IMHO this is the dividing line between homosexual and heterosexual unions. By attacking the long standing institution of marriage in the name of civils rights is not the right approach. Because we are in a democracy the will of the majority should prevail in this matter.


John

 

Every American of legal age, excluding some deemed mentally incompetent to fulfill a contract, is treated the same by our marriage laws. We can only marry if we are unmarried, and if the person we wish to marry is eligible to marry. We can only marry a person if that person wants to marry us back. And, yes, we must marry someone of the opposite sex.

Equal rules. Equal protection. Anyone who wants to follow the rules of marriage can marry. Anyone who doesn't, doesn't have to.

 

Opposite sex

>>And, yes, we must marry someone of the opposite sex. <<

Only recently have some states added this law.

Why? What possible difference does it make to anyone outside the marriage as to whether they are the same sex?

Why should a marriage contract be limited to opposite sex?

>>My opinion on this is that homosexual marriage should not be allowed. Rather, adoption laws in many states should be changed so that if homosexual couples are allowed to adopt they will have appropriate guardianship and rights over their adopted children.<<

This still would not grant them equal access to each others insurance, Social Security and many other rights granted to married couples. The security of those rights are just as important to the parents as to the children.

>>Because we are in a democracy the will of the majority should prevail in this matter.<<

I am not sure which of the founding fathers said this, I'm sure someone on this board can tell us but:

"Laws are made not only to provide for the majority but also to protect the minority."

Remember, once the will of the majority said women shouldn't vote, Indians should stay on reservations and blacks couldn't eat in the same cafes.

 

Funny, that's the exact same argument that was used against interracial marriage.

Do you think that the will of the majority should have prevailed in those states where most people thought that interracial marriages should remain illegal?