Marriage Debate

Meadmaker said:
A legal commitment to stick with my wife and son. (Yeah, the son's in there, even if the law doesn't spell it out.)
Click to expand...

That's what the homosexuals that want to get married want, a legally recognized commitment to stick with each other.

Or maybe their goal is to destroy family values.
 
Fine. What's in it for me? In the case of a childbearing marriage, society gets something. They get a child raised in an environment that will make him less likely to steal your hubcaps.

And, since some gay marriages are child bearing, at least in the legal and practical sense, I'm for 'em. But when folks say that moms can marry daughters, I admire the intellectual honesty of the approach, but I think something is lost. And when someone says there is no more connection between marriage and children than there is between bicycles and paper routes, once again I think we've missed a point somewhere.
 
I didn't require the state to recognise my relationship with my partner in order to help support "our" kids. I did it because it was the right thing to do. I didn't get anything in return from the state. Notably, I didn't get to apply for citizenship after three years with a green card, as I would have done if my partner had been a woman, and we'd gotten married. Explain to me again why that's fair?
 
And, since some gay marriages are child bearing, at least in the legal and practical sense, I'm for 'em.
Click to expand...

thaiboxerken said:
So you don't think homosexuals should get married because it doesn't benefit you?!
Click to expand...

These threads wouldn't take 20 pages if you would try to understand what was actually said.


But what I was getting at is society recognizes a relationship because it benefits society to do so. What is society's benefit? Why should they, we, bother recognizing a particular relationship?

ETA: Note, carefully, that's a question. Not a statement. I have already given my reason why I think society ought to recognize them, and it's related to child rearing. So, what's your reason?
 
But what I was getting at is society recognizes a relationship because it benefits society to do so.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that it does. You haven't shown that it does. However, even if they did, are you asserting that we should ban same-sex marriage just because there isn't anything in it for society?

I think that same-sex marriage should be recognized only because it's fair. To ban same-sex marriage is simply promoting bigotry and intolerance towards homosexuals.
 
Terry said:
I didn't require the state to recognise my relationship with my partner in order to help support "our" kids. ... Explain to me again why that's fair?
Click to expand...

And explain to me when "fairness" became an overriding societal goal, so that equality must be achieved even among non-equals. I'm concerned about your kids, so if the law put some hardship on them, that would be a problem, but you're an adult. You can, and did, take care of yourself.

But there is a reason why one might be more inclined to take a fast-track on immigration with hetero marriages that wouldn't be a concern with same sex marriages. It is related to...drum roll please....children. The hetero couple might accidentally become parents, which would create a state interest in that couple remaining together.
 
thaiboxerken said:
However, even if they did, are you asserting that we should ban same-sex marriage just because there isn't anything in it for society?
Click to expand...

And, since some gay marriages are child bearing, at least in the legal and practical sense, I'm for 'em.



Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :
So you don't think homosexuals should get married because it doesn't benefit you?!


These threads wouldn't take 20 pages if you would try to understand what was actually said.
Click to expand...

But if there were nothing in them for society, I don't think we should "ban" anything, but we could leave them alone.
 
Meadmaker said:
But if there were nothing in them for society, I don't think we should "ban" anything, but we could leave them alone.
Click to expand...
Did we need to demonstrate that society as a whole would benefit when we struggled with the question of equal rights for black people? If so, we ought to have our heads examined. People have the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or did you not get that memo?
 
I'm simply for gay marriage because I believe in equal rights for all law-abiding citizens. It's a wierd belief, I know.
 
If Joe and Bob across the street got married, I fail to see how my marriage with Linda would be affected. Truth in advertising would dictate that Bush's proposal is not a Defense of Marriage but a Restriction of Marriage. Marriage is strengthened when more people are married.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I'm simply for gay marriage because I believe in equal rights for all law-abiding citizens. It's a wierd belief, I know.
Click to expand...

The theme of my posts in this thread has been "What is marriage?"

You seem to take the belief that it is almost self-defined, by the married couple. I've characterized your attitude toward marriage as, "I don't care what it is, as long as it doesn't discriminate."

Do you think that's a fair characterization?
 
Meadmaker said:
The theme of my posts in this thread has been "What is marriage?"

You seem to take the belief that it is almost self-defined, by the married couple. I've characterized your attitude toward marriage as, "I don't care what it is, as long as it doesn't discriminate."

Do you think that's a fair characterization?
Click to expand...
I can't speak for thaiboxerken, but allow me to ask what you have been smoking. For the last time, marriage is an economic and legal institution providing many benefits to the consenting adults who partake in it.
 
Meadmaker said:
Well, once again, we've heard what marriage isn't. It isn't about children. So what is it? Apparently, it allows you to buy beach houses together, and if you bury a body under the porch of the beach house, you don't have to worry about the co-owner of the beach house testifying against you.
Click to expand...

Historically it was about assigning rights to property and the inheritance of property. (Remember it is only recently in the "western" world that women and children are not viewed as the property of their husband and father.)

People seem to forget that it is only the past say 10 decades that the state enforced property restrictions have been relaxed e.g. a woman is no longer required by law to obey her husband, a woman can now sign a contract without her husband's permission, a woman can now own property in her own right and so on.

Indeed it could be argued that wanting marriage to be no more then "property rights" is really the argument to re-instate traditional marriage!
 
Last edited:
I just received an e-mail from Maggie Gallagher:

For the foreseeable future, Americans are going to live with some deep moral disagreements on the marriage issue. Conducting this debate in a spirit of mutual respect and civility would be a lot easier if gay marriage advocates stopped pretending that only fear, hatred or bigotry is at the root of these disagreements.
Click to expand...

She also sent a link to some articles:

http://www.becketfund.org/index.php/article/494.html
 
Hardenbergh will you be adding any comments or pointing out which arguments you think are the good ones and then be willing to debate and discuss those arguments?
 
Darat said:
Hardenbergh will you be adding any comments or pointing out which arguments you think are the good ones and then be willing to debate and discuss those arguments?
Click to expand...

I think Meadmaker, Huntster and Ziggurat have done an excellent job in presenting their arguments (much better than I ever could).

I neglected to add that I appreciate the contributions by all the members regardless of whether I agree with them or not.
 
Last edited:
Hardenbergh said:
I think Meadmaker, Huntster and Ziggurat have done an excellent job in presenting their arguments (much better than I ever could).

I neglected to add that I appreciate the contributions by all the members regardless of whether I agree with them or not.
Click to expand...

But I'm interested in your arguments. You've posted several links etc. so I keep assuming somehow these represent your views or are what you consider to be good arguments that haven't been addressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom