The Sanctity Of Marriage

[PaulS]

Paul,

What we are talking about here is not about recognizing the humanity of homosexuals nor of the ignorance of some people of homosexuals nor the treatment they have received from parts of the population. Nor are we talking about forbidding anyone of their free expression of a loving relationship with a member of the same sex. We are talking about a definition of marriage that in spite of what is said in any vows was intended by society here to form family units that procreate the species for the survival of the species and to fit in line with what society sees as its ideal family. While it is true that we can still procreate out of the circle of marriage, its intentions within this society was for order and family values that were in line with the dictates of society and its ideals in general. (which do and may change) Therefore it was designed to define the relationship between a man and a woman whereby the hope of offspring would be a natural progression and in societies view best for the raising of its future generations.

 

I beg to differ, Joseph. I AM talking about recognizing the humanity of homosexuals, the ignorance of some people, and the treatment gays have received. You are the one talking about a set definition of marriage as though such a definition can't be applied in the 21st century with broader ramifications. Do we really only marry these days so as to procreate? Do you really think governments these days are trying to entice people to marry so as to procreate? I think not. What is wrong with accepting an expansion of the definition? How does it harm heterosexual marriage or lessen its significance?

 

A review of the history of marriage shows that is was as just for power and cooperation between families and tribes as it was for procreation. In fact, it was controlled by the church long before the state got involved. Perhaps that skews are understanding of marriage too.

[JosephM]

Paul,

Then that is fine. Talk about the real issues, I agree with you they are the real issues. And they aren't solved by changing a definition so lets not confuse the matter, I think you will find much less resistance from people if we stick to those concerns and leave the definition of marriage alone. And Yes, i do think government is concerned about continuing the species and its view of families, values, rearing children and education to maintain itself within the bounds it determines appropriate. Its rules and regulations and policies attest to this.

Joseph

 

PS And those rules and policies are to an extent always discriminatory in nature in some way. In my view, equality in society is only a concern when it is convenient. Such is the nature of society. I can give you a host of examples if you like.

[dblad]

Dennis, I am getting really repetitive and, I know, it sounds argumentative, but I am still waiting on a rational argument against gay marriage. I don't think asserting religious values is a rational basis for banning gay marriage.

 

George

 

George,

 

From my earlier post:

 

"…the larger and more general argument is based on premises that are neither provable nor disprovable; to say "society has seldom made laws against same-sex marriage because for most of history, the concept was not considered possible" is apparently true. In the ancient world, there was a recognition of the existence of homosexual behavior, sometimes disapproved of, but other times approved of; there was, however, not a recognition of the possibility of same-sex marriage. The premise, in this case, is that there is a lengthy history of recognition of heterosexual marriage, and that to change the conditions of marriage is to change its definition. This is a rational argument against same-sex marriage; I disagree with the part of the premise that requires me to give credence to a long-held proposition by virtue of its persistence and its ubiquity, but I cannot prove that this value is wrong. I see no flaw in the logic leading to the conclusion: if long held precedent creates a value, and heterosexual marriage is a long-held precedent, then heterosexual marriage is the definition that meets the value. I disagree with the premise, but I can't disprove it, as such; I can only make a strong case for a different value. I can't dismiss the argument as irrational, but I can say that I think it's wrong and based on error."

 

You don't say why a religious value cannot be a premise in a rational argument; do you feel the same way about other statements of value, which cannot be proven or disproven? It seems to me you're on the verge of wiping out much of the history of syllogistic logic, from Aristotle to Aquinas. I suggest that the reason such arguments seem irrational to you is that you start from a different premise, not because you have shown them to be irrational. Some in our culture believe that all religion is irrational, since it can't be demonstrated empirically, but I'm going to argue that the limitation of rationality to the empirical is founded on a premise that is, in itself, a value to which someone has made a commitment. Almost everything we as a society do is based on one or more values, and values can't be strictly empirical.

 

I'm starting to sound repetitive, too, I'm sure; I know I'm too wordy, but I think I've made some interesting arguments and would love to hear your response to them.

[GeorgeW]

Dennis, I think I have repeated myself too many times already. So, I think it best that I go back to my corner.

 

George

[Neon Genesis]

JosephM, please explain to me how me getting married to another man prevents your wife from reproducing. Please explain this and back up your claims with actual scientific evidence.

[PaulS]

Paul,

Then that is fine. Talk about the real issues, I agree with you they are the real issues. And they aren't solved by changing a definition so lets not confuse the matter, I think you will find much less resistance from people if we stick to those concerns and leave the definition of marriage alone. And Yes, i do think government is concerned about continuing the species and its view of families, values, rearing children and education to maintain itself within the bounds it determines appropriate. Its rules and regulations and policies attest to this.

Joseph

 

PS And those rules and policies are to an extent always discriminatory in nature in some way. In my view, equality in society is only a concern when it is convenient. Such is the nature of society. I can give you a host of examples if you like.

 

Joseph,

 

I am talking about the real issue. To me the real issue is that our society has come of age where it can broaden the narrow definition some hold of marriage. Marriage has meant many things in the past (my opening post of Spong's just one example). I haven't at any point tried to change the definition of marriage other than to suggest that there is no obstacle to it including gay people. You are the one that seems to be saying that it can only include male/female relationships on the grounds that marriage was instituted to encourage/reward/recognise couples for procreating.

 

I am still at a loss to see just how gays marrying somehow harms/denigrates/reduces the institution of marriage. Is heterosexual marriage threatened by homosexual marriage? - I would argue "in no way". People may feel threatened because of their religous beliefs or because they think marriage is reward/recognition for potential procreation and contribution to society, however the fact of the matter remains that if two people of the same sex marry, nothing changes at all for the hetero couple.

 

So if hetero marriage isn't harmed, then why not allow homosexuals to marry and feel whole?

 

Maybe things are different in America, but in Australia there is no discrimination between gays and straights concerning rearing children, education, rules and regulations and policies that atest to such, other than the discrimination concerning the right to hold a marriage licence. If a gay couple live together and raise a child, for all intents and purposes as a married hetero couple, they are afforded the same legal rights and indulgences as the hetero couple. I fail to see how the hetero couple are any better off. But off course the homosexual couple are worse off because they are denied a state licence to formalise their marriage.

 

Now we can say that this is the law so let's leave it alone, but I think the tide is massively turning and that people are becoming more understanding of homosexuality and accepting of their desire for inclusion with society and their fellow humans.

 

I keep coming back to this point - how does homosexual marriage harm or reduce hetero marriage? Do you simply stand on the ground that marriage is an institution that was designed to recognise and reward hetero couples because they can naturally procreate and benefit society, whereas homosexuals can't so they should be rightly denied that privelege of a marriage licence?

Edited October 29, 2012 by PaulS

[JosephM]

Joseph,

 

I am talking about the real issue. To me the real issue is that our society has come of age where it can broaden the narrow definition some hold of marriage. Marriage has meant many things in the past (my opening post of Spong's just one example). I haven't at any point tried to change the definition of marriage other than to suggest that there is no obstacle to it including gay people. You are the one that seems to be saying that it can only include male/female relationships on the grounds that marriage was instituted to encourage/reward/recognise couples for procreating.

 

Paul,

I don't see the word marriage as a narrow or greatly changed definition. It was never in the course of US history and perhaps before never meant to define same sex relationships. While it may have meant many things in the past such as one man and more than one woman i have never heard it defined other than a relationship of those of the opposite sex.

 

I am still at a loss to see just how gays marrying somehow harms/denigrates/reduces the institution of marriage. Is heterosexual marriage threatened by homosexual marriage? - I would argue "in no way". People may feel threatened because of their religous beliefs or because they think marriage is reward/recognition for potential procreation and contribution to society, however the fact of the matter remains that if two people of the same sex marry, nothing changes at all for the hetero couple.

 

Paul,

Tell me, why do you feel a need to change the definition rather than make up a new word to describe such a relationship as same sex union? Why antagonize the meaning which suits heterosexual couples presently quite well? if your concern is equal rights and privileges and benefits as you say then address those rights and work for social equality for the gays and Lesbian community. Why instead try to make it the same as another word which for centuries has been intended to convey a particular accepted meaning and now you seem to be trying to force a new meaning on a culture that many people (especially many religious individuals) find an unacceptable option to them. Words are important to people and the unions you identify are different , not the same by nature, and the meaning of the word marriage need not be changed just to make one side happy at the expense of the other who do not agree? As i said if its the discrimination on the part of the government that bothers you, then address that issue, not the established defined word called marriage. Gays are not forbidden a public union here but only certain benefits afforded to the legal definition of marriage by the government. If that is unacceptable work to change the benefits for homosexual unions rather than change the established heterosexual definition of the word and upset others.

 

 

So if hetero marriage isn't harmed, then why not allow homosexuals to marry and feel whole?

 

Using the word marriage doesn't make a homosexual whole no more than the word Christian makes one a follower of Christ. I don't know that there is any law in the US that forbids homosexuals from a ceremony and announcing their commitment to each other and the world. Why does it have to be an established word identical to the word used by heterosexuals when it signifies a different type of union?

 

Maybe things are different in America, but in Australia there is no discrimination between gays and straights concerning rearing children, education, rules and regulations and policies that atest to such, other than the discrimination concerning the right to hold a marriage licence. If a gay couple live together and raise a child, for all intents and purposes as a married hetero couple, they are afforded the same legal rights and indulgences as the hetero couple. I fail to see how the hetero couple are any better off. But off course the homosexual couple are worse off because they are denied a state licence to formalise their marriage.

 

It is no different here. homosexuals can make up any papers they like and have ceremonies but the federal government does not recognize it as marriage. They can even adopt children here also.

 

Now we can say that this is the law so let's leave it alone, but I think the tide is massively turning and that people are becoming more understanding of homosexuality and accepting of their desire for inclusion with society and their fellow humans.

 

Yes, and i am with you there. More understanding and compassion is needed on both sides. As far as i am concerned homosexuals are my brothers and sisters and what their sexual preference is is no business of mine. i just have well could have been born a homosexual. The ones i associate with are more loving , thoughtful, sensitive and compassionate than many of my heterosexual friends but i still do not feel it is appropriate to infringe on a definition that was and is still meant meant to convey a different meaning. And furthermore that changing is unacceptable to many heterosexuals and presently to our society as it exists at this time.

 

 

I keep coming back to this point - how does homosexual marriage harm or reduce hetero marriage?

What does the reason matter since you won't find it rational? Is it not enough for you that it is rejected by those who have in the past established it with a particular meaning and they are entitled to want to keep it as such? Homosexuals are not forbidden joining together as partners, they are only forbidden within the traditional definition of marriage by the government by being forbidden a recognized marriage license similar to Australia.

 

Do you simply stand on the ground that marriage is an institution that was designed to recognise and reward hetero couples because they can naturally procreate and benefit society, whereas homosexuals can't so they should be rightly denied that privelege of a marriage licence?

 

Our society in the US presently reflects that position which is evident by the discrimination in the laws. Society discriminates against almost everyone. The present laws are no accident. they were purposefully implemented to accomplish an ideal or value.

IE.... graduated income tax is discrimination

giving tax credits for having chrildren is discrimination

forcing people to support wars they don't believe in is discrimination

forcing only those of a certain age to fight our wars is discrimination

Taxing inheritance of only those with estates over 5 million (2012) at 35% and in 2013 of those over 1 million at 55% is discrimination

taxing singles at a higher rate than married is discrimination

requiring racial quotas is discrimination

profiling is discrimination

aiding nations most who are deemed to be advantages to us is discriminationation

requiring people who have no children to contribute school taxes to support those who have many is discrimination

increased costs for medicare benefits for those over a certain income level even after retitrement and paying in more than others is discrimination

not allowing convicted felons to vote is discrimination

allowing discretion to a judges sentencing for the same exact crime based on his interpretation is discrimination

 

One could go on and on and i am not saying that these are right or wrong, fair or not, i am just saying it s the function of government and society and the reality of it is that not everyone will be treated as equal as they would suppose because the good of the whole as seen by government/society often conflicts with the wishes of the individual or a class of individuals. I believe if we address the real issues instead of definitions we may get further and we may or may not be able to change things until society as a whole changes but hopefully we can continue working to do so with compassion and respect for those who differ so we can accomplish our goals at peace instead of alienating those who disagree with name calling, character attacking and assuming they are irrational because they see marriage as defined differently.than those wishing to change it. Alienation mostly serves only to prolong the evolutionary process.

 

Joseph

 

PS Sorry for the long post. I have repeated myself many times in hopes that i have made myself clear enough. I am done so if you don't address anymore questions , i will retire from this thread

 

Neon,

 

I did not overlook your questions to me in post #80.The nature and wording of the question is not based on any of my premises and i find myself unwilling to even respond to such.

[Neon Genesis]

JosephM, why are you so terrified at the idea of gays getting married? Do you have some insecurity about your sexual orientation you're not sharing with us?

[PaulS]

I don't see the word marriage as a narrow or greatly changed definition. It was never in the course of US history and perhaps before never meant to define same sex relationships. While it may have meant many things in the past such as one man and more than one woman i have never heard it defined other than a relationship of those of the opposite sex.

 

I'm no expert on same-sex marriages of history, but Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....same-sex_unions advises that it wasn't a big deal until about the mid-300s when Constantine outlawed it. It didn't seem to be an illegal issue for Rome before then.

 

But definitions and paremeters change over time anyway, Joseph. Surely we don't have to stay with the one single definition of marriage you are referencing. In our times is there no scope to broaden that definition to encompass loving gay relationships?

 

Tell me, why do you feel a need to change the definition rather than make up a new word to describe such a relationship as same sex union? Why antagonize the meaning which suits heterosexual couples presently quite well? if your concern is equal rights and privileges and benefits then address those rights and work for social equality for the gays and Lesbian community. Why instead try to make it the same as another word which for centuries has been intended to convey a particular accepted meaning and now you seem to be trying to force a new meaning on a culture that many people (especially many religious individuals) find an unacceptable option to them. Words are important to people and the unions you identify are different , not the same by nature and should not be changed just to make one side happy at the expense of the other who do not agree? as i said if its the discrimination on the part of the government that bothers you, then address that issue, not the established defined word called marriage.

 

The main reason I feel it important to use the word marriage for gays is to include them as whole persons. I view them as no less a loving married couple than a hetro pair, it's just that the State won't let them have that recognition. I am for letting them have such recognition and as a married hetro man, I find no offence, no threat, no concern in doing so. I don't think refusing to allow gays to legalise their union as a marriage is providing equal rights, even when the other prejudices are addressed - this one will still remain. I don't even care about the fact that in my hetero marriage I have two children and married gays can't naturally conceive their own (without a third party becoming involved). That to me is a big "so what?"

 

I am not trying to force anything on anyone. I, like you, have an opinion. My opinion is that gays should be allowed to be married. If my opinion becomes popular enough it will become law. That is what I think will most benefit society in moving forward. I expect once it becomes law anybody that doesn't agree with it will be silent and won't try to force heterosexual marriage only, on anyone

 

It seems to me we are discussing which side to make happy. You are concerned it will upset those who hold a view the tradition is male/female marriage only. I am concerned that such a view makes many homosexuals unhappy and feel less whole than their opposite-sex counterparts. Words are very important to people, very important to gays too.

 

Using the word marriage doesn't make a homosexual whole no more than the word Christian makes one a follower of Christ. I don't know that there is any law that forbids homosexuals from a ceremony and announcing their commitment to each other and the world. Why does it have to be an established word identical to the word used by heterosexuals when it signifies a different type of union?

 

If it's just a word, then I guess I could ask you what's the hangup with heteros that don't like the word marriage for gays? Sure, there may be a tradition that it has meant heteros only (debatable, but I'll go with that), but surely we can be mature enough to make room for gay marriage. The definition gets broader, more inclusive, welcoming to more - I just don't see the threat (other than it going against a relious conviction which some do find threatening as though they need to be the police for God...and I am not referring to you).

 

If society voted, and the decision came down in favour of homosexuals, would that end the matter for you? Would you then change your mind because society now recognises same sex marriage as a societal right? Well at the moment the boot is on the other foot and many gays feel harmed by it.

 

 

As far as i am concerned homosexuals are my brothers and sisters and what their sexual preference is is no business of mine. i just have well could have been born a homosexual. The ones i associate with are more loving , thoughtful, sensitive and compassionate than many of my heterosexual friends but i still do not feel it is appropriate to infringe on a definition that was and is still meant meant to convey a different meaning. And furthermore that changing is unacceptable to many heterosexuals and presently to our society as it exists at this time.

 

That it is unacceptable to many heteros and presently to a society as it exists right now is no reason for not suggesting/fighting for change. Slavery was a long established tradition (longer than marriage) but most of the world finally got around to understanding it as mean, inhuman, unfair, prejudiced etc. Change was fought for and against. The question is not whether change upsets people, but whether it is right or not. Of course on that 'rightness' many hold different opinions.

 

What does the reason matter since you won't find it rational? Is it not enough for you that it is rejected by those who have in the past established it with a particular meaning and they are entitled to want to keep it as such? Homosexuals are not forbidden joining together as partners, they are only forbidden within the traditional definition of marriage by the government by being forbidden a recognized marriage license similar to Australia.

 

I might find it rational, Joseph. I actually can see your point on rationality and didn't buy into the argument at all during this topic. Whilst it may be commonly accepted thought that marriage was established with a particular meaning, the word 'gay' was too. Words and their meaning change. I think it is time to change the definition of marriage to include gay people, that's all.

 

 

Our society in the US presently reflects that position which is evident by the discrimination in the laws. Society discriminates against almost everyone. The present laws are no accident. they were purposefully implemented to accomplish an ideal or value.

IE.... graduated income tax is discrimination

giving tax credits for having chrildren is discrimination

forcing people to support wars they don't believe in is discrimination

forcing only those of a certain age to fight our wars is discrimination

Taxing inheritance of only those with estates over 5 million (2012) at 35% and in 2013 of those over 1 million at 55% is discrimination

taxing singles at a higher rate than married is discrimination

requiring racial quotas is discrimination

profiling is discrimination

aiding nations most who are deemed to be advantages to us is discriminationation

requiring people who have no children to contribute school taxes to support those who have many is discrimination

increased costs for medicare benefits for those over a certain income level even after retitrement and paying in more than others is discrimination

not allowing convicted felons to vote is discrimination

allowing discretion to a judges sentencing for the same exact crime based on his interpretation is discrimination

 

One could go on and on and i am not saying that these are right or wrong, fair or not, i am just saying it s the function of government and society and the reality of it is that not everyone will be treated as equal as they would suppose because the good of the whole as seen by government/society often conflicts with the wishes of the individual or a class of individuals. I believe if we address the real issues instead of definitions we may get further and we may or may not be able to change things until society as a whole changes but hopefully we can continue working to do so with compassion and respect for those who differ so we can accomplish our goals at peace instead of alienating those who disagree with name calling, character attacking and assuming they are irrational because they see marriage as defined differently.than those wishing to change it. Alienation mostly serves only to prolong the evolutionary process.

 

Laws change. Society changes. Perhaps society would be returning to its Roman & Greek roots of allowing gay marriage prior to religous intervention outlawing such.

 

It's true that alienation does not do much good in affecting change (and sometimes I need to take more care when phrasing my thoughts), but it is also true that societal definitions change as a society matures (we no longer stone to death our daughters who are found not to be virgins on their wedding day - I wonder how long that was held as a societal norm and proper understanding of the condition a woman should be in upon marriage?).

 

It would seem after the discussion so far, the strongest reasons you have for not legalising gay marriage are that:

1) marriage wasn't created for gays but for hetero couples in order to encourage pro-creation, and

2) people who believe this will be upset if it changes.

 

I think both these points can be worked on by the proponents of gay marriage, and I wish them well.

Edited October 30, 2012 by PaulS

[Neon Genesis]

Can I just chime in and say I really tire of the whole "I'm not a bigot! Some of my best friends are black/gay!" cliche?

[PaulS]

Another bonus of gay marriage - the rate of unwanted pregnancies amongst homosexual male unions is zero. Much better than any hetero stats!

[NORM]

As far as i am concerned homosexuals are my brothers and sisters and what their sexual preference is is no business of mine. i just have well could have been born a homosexual. The ones i associate with are more loving , thoughtful, sensitive and compassionate than many of my heterosexual friends - emphasis mine

 

Herein lies the problem with your argument, Joseph.

 

1. You assume that homosexuality is a preference. Ironically, you slipped up in the next sentence and referred to the fact that homosexuality is a normally occurring incidence for a portion of the human population.

 

2. Your next sentence is the type of sentiment expressed by someone who holds contempt for another type of person, but wishes to mask that contempt by words of false praise. Homosexuals are not "more loving, thoughtful, sensitive and compassionate than heterosexuals. They can be hateful, thoughtless, insensitive and mean - just like you or me.

 

No one human group owns the word marriage (Webster's definition #1: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law). It was made up by humans to describe a relationship from one human to another - traditionally, among men and women that originated as a way for warring groups to unite or form some political alliance (ex; King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain). Love had very little to do with it. The fact that men and women could create little subjects was a plus (adding to the population of taxpayers). Over time, marriage evolved to become more about love than convenience [you will notice that Mr. Webster's definition doesn't mention anything about love - should we deny those who wish to marry because of love unworthy because it isn't in Mr. Webster's original definition?]. In America, marriage has added a third and fourth element: tax deduction and spousal benefits - neither of which are mentioned in Webster's definition. Should we deny those who seek such protections use of the word?

 

So, clearly, human beings are in control of the word marriage, as it has been adapted to suit the ever-changing dynamic of human society.

 

Homosexuals are just as much a human as you are. Therefore; they "own" the word too. So, Mr. Webster has added a second part to the first entry in the word marriage: (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

 

This is a straw man argument if I ever heard one.

 

The only reason heterosexuals perceive a threat to the word marriage is because they believe that they are somehow more of a human than homosexuals.

 

That argument is out of date.

 

But what do I know?

 

NORM

[JosephM]

Herein lies the problem with your argument, Joseph.

 

1. You assume that homosexuality is a preference. Ironically, you slipped up in the next sentence and referred to the fact that homosexuality is a normally occurring incidence for a portion of the human population.

(snip)

NORM

 

Norm,

Not really. You assumed wrong. i slipped up in the first sentence using the word preference instead of orientation and got it right in the second one ,...unless of course you think you know what i really meant more than myself.

[NORM]

Norm,

Not really. You assumed wrong. i slipped up in the first sentence using the word preference instead of orientation and got it right in the second one ,...unless of course you think you know what i really meant more than myself.

 

Then your beliefs are inconsistent with your words. If you TRULY believe that homosexuality is natural for the segment of human kind so "oriented," then you would agree that there is no logical or rational argument against allowing them to share in the definition of marriage.

 

I am really puzzled at your arguments on this thread. It stands in stark contrast to some of the positions I've know you to defend.

 

NORM

[JosephM]

Norm,

No problem. Being puzzled at my argument is okay. Your position is fine with me. I don't have anything more new to say publicly.

[Hornet]

If a society bans same-sex marriage, then is that society morally wrong for doing so? If so, then what moral standard are you using to judge other society for being morally wrong?

[PaulS]

I would argue that it is morally wrong to ban gay marriage based on the moral standard developed by science (that being gay is just as natural as being hetero) and our evolution of our thinking has gotten humanity to a point where we are recognizing the harm we are causing trying to deny our gay brothers and sisters wholeness and inclusion in society.

 

I liken the situation to other morals that have modernized throughout history - stoning non-virgin daughters to death, slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights, etc.

[PaulS]

An excellent site that puts forward argument and counter-argument much more eloquently than I.

 

http://www.arguingequality.org/

[DCJ]

If you TRULY believe that homosexuality is natural for the segment of human kind so "oriented," then you would agree that there is no logical or rational argument against allowing them to share in the definition of marriage.

 

Not at all. Whether homosexuality is natural or not has no bearing on whether same-sex unions can be marriages. You've offered a dictionary definition of marriage, and pointed out some changing reasons people have had for getting married, but you haven't described what sets marriage apart from other relationships. Any discussion must address these issues:

 

1) In arguing for same-sex marriage, it seems obvious that marriage must include sexual attraction. But why? Why can't two close friends or siblings be married? If their emotional bond is just as deep as the sexually active couple, why should they be disenfranchised because their union isn't sexual?

 

2) If marriage is primarily about the legal benefits, why can't the friends or siblings above share in those benefits and have their relationship recognized as a marriage?

 

3) On what basis should a marriage be limited to two people? If three or more people find emotional fulfillment in polyamorous unions, shouldn't they have the legal recognition of a marriage?

 

4) Finally, if marriage is mainly about legal benefits or a deep connection, why should the state be involved at all in trying to preserve the union? The state doesn't do that with other close relationships. What interest does the state have in regulating emotions? Why should the state encourage fidelity, permanence, and make divorce so difficult?

[halinsalem]

Same sex marriage and abortion are both issues that have been picked up by the Republican conservatives because they are "easy" issues and they can invent "easy" sound bites that are practically indefensible and they do not have to provide statistics or reason to support them. Following is an excerpt from an essay that I recently wrote for another group:

 

 

The Catholic and conservative belief that “life begins at conception is “BELIEF”, not necessarily a scientific fact. Up until a few years ago, the prevailing belief was that the fetus acquired a ‘soul’, i.e. became a person, in the third or fourth month of gestation. At some point in time the Republicans picked up on the abortion issue because it is an easy issue to use politically. Being against abortion does not require money, time, or effort; a person just has to be righteous, nothing else is required. The issue also is a political benefit for the spinners because they can use terms like MURDER in the sound bites. The attacks on Planned Parenthood are completely wicked propaganda, satisfying someone’s ignorant, negative judgment, or, fulfilling a political objective without regard to right, wrong, damage, or injury to innocent parties.

 

And then there is the campaign against same sex marriages. Another ‘easy’ political issue that does not require anything but being righteous. Based on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 which labels same sex relationships “an abomination (NKJ)” or “detestable (NIV)”.

 

The biblical book of Leviticus describes a life and culture of the Iron Age, which took place approximately 3000 years ago. A scientist or medical doctor in 2012 will tell you that your only sexual instrument is your brain and that male or female tendencies are genetic and have little to do with body parts. People did not know this in the ‘Iron Age’. If two individuals love one another they need encouragement and respect, not criticism.

 

If you want to obey the restrictions of the Iron Age then you should also observe God’s rules described in Lev. 11:4-12 (eat no pork, rabbits, horses, or shellfish); Lev. 19:28 (no tattoos); Lev. 19:33,34 (treat the stranger among you with love and respect); Lev. 21:5 (no trimmed beards). Women had no authority or power in that society. Obviously, we now live in the 21^st century and a very different culture.

 

Marriage in this 21^st century is also very different from even one hundred years ago. A recent statistic stated that, in 2011, more than 40% of babies were born to unwed women. Another statistic: 57% of marriages end in divorce or separation. If a large number of couples are living together without a wedding ceremony and half of those who do go through the ritual do not see it as a commitment, what does ‘marriage’ mean?

 

Frankly, I do not think either one of these issues (abortion or same-sex marriage) should be involved in today’s statewide or national politics. They are both personal issues that should be dealt with within the family, the individual’s church, or with local professional counseling

 

Hal

[NORM]

Whether homosexuality is natural or not has no bearing on whether same-sex unions can be marriages.

 

It does matter - the fact that homosexuality is not learned or feigned behavior, but a natural state of being makes all the difference in the world. It means that the homosexual is seeking marriage for EXACTLY the same reasons as heterosexual couples.

 

Just because homosexuality is something that you don't understand or find squeamish doesn't mean they are freaks to be excluded from "normal" society.

 

 

You've offered a dictionary definition of marriage, and pointed out some changing reasons people have had for getting married, but you haven't described what sets marriage apart from other relationships. Any discussion must address these issues:

 

1) In arguing for same-sex marriage, it seems obvious that marriage must include sexual attraction. But why? Why can't two close friends or siblings be married? If their emotional bond is just as deep as the sexually active couple, why should they be disenfranchised because their union isn't sexual?

 

I'm so glad that you brought this straw dog up, because history is rife with examples of cousins and even brothers and sisters being married in feudal Europe as a means of uniting warring tribes and dynasties. The State's interest in marriage is mainly based on the benefits such unions bring to the society as a whole.

 

Of course, I am sure that you are aware that medical science has discovered since then that intermarriage of close relatives has negative genetic and health consequences.

 

What benefits do gay couples bring to society, you ask? Well, the same thing as happily married heterosexual couples: human beings who are being given the right to the pursuit of happiness. Happy people are productive people!

 

Why do you wish to deny these folks the right to pursue happiness?

 

So far none of you have been able to identify one single, solitary impediment to the enjoyment of your life should homosexual couples be allowed to marry.

 

Unless you simply get off on having the power to deny them this happiness.

 

2) If marriage is primarily about the legal benefits...

 

Who said that marriage was only about legal benefits?

 

3) On what basis should a marriage be limited to two people? If three or more people find emotional fulfillment in polyamorous unions, shouldn't they have the legal recognition of a marriage?

 

Straw dog. I'm surprised that you didn't use the example of someone wanting to marry his dog.

 

4) why should the state be involved at all in trying to preserve the union?

 

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

NORM

[GeorgeW]

Norm,

 

"Who said that marriage was only about legal benefits?"

 

I think that is the issue. Gays now can form whatever private union they wish and can even get it sanctioned by a consenting church. What they do not have is any legal status for this union in most states - no tax benefits, no protection by inheritance laws, etc.

 

We cannot compell people to accept this relationship, but we can compel them to recognize legal rights if the laws are changed as I think they should be. However, in time I think most reasonable people will come to accept it as we have come to accept integration, women's rights, etc.

 

George

[GeorgeW]

In our Sunday paper, there was a full-page ad by Billy Graham urging people to vote "biblical values." He specifically mentioned the one-man, one-woman marriage issue. I guess, from his perspective, caring for the least among us is a lower ranked "biblical value" than preventing gays from marrying.

 

Although he has, in the past, called Mormonism a "cult" he endorsed Mitt Romney several weeks ago. I guess keeping gays from marrying also trumps cultism in his "biblical values."

 

George

[dblad]

I must say, George, I do wonder how much of this sentiment is actually from Dr. Graham, and how much is from his son, Franklin.

 

Dennis

[GeorgeW]

I must say, George, I do wonder how much of this sentiment is actually from Dr. Graham, and how much is from his son, Franklin.

 

Although the sentiment of the letter was, as I understand it, consistent with Billy Graham, the impetus to have it printed in newspapers was probably his son. I am confident that Billy is opposed to gay marriage and he has endorsed Mitt Romney.

 

George