Homosexual Marriage; Why not?

[Guest]

I read the article and it doesn't explain anything.

Can you name one reason, other than a religious belief, that people should not be able to marry someone of their own gender?

Procreation? Is that required for heterosexuals? Is there a requirement that one be married to have children?

Obviously, no.

I mentioned my discomfort because I cannot fathom any other reason in the world that someone would feel free to deny a portion of our citizenry the right to have a legally recognized relationship with someone they love.

You can say the word means whatever you want. So can I. To me, the word means that you are united as a family, and that you have legal responsibilities and obligatons and legal benefits, as one entity. You say it means something else, but have not been clear on what that is, except it doesn't involve girls marrying girls and boys marrying boys.

If I am married, my spouse cannot be denied access to me if I'm seriously injured. If I'm married, my spouse inherits my property without having to go through legal battles. If I'm married and I die, my spouse automatically gains custody of children we have as a couple. If I'm married and I die, my spouse has pension and social security benefits. If I'm married and my spouse becomes ill, I am entitled to certain leave to care for them. If I'm married and asked to testify against my spouse, I can refuse in most cases. If I'm married and I die, my spouse can determine where my final resting place will be. If I'm married, and my spouse leaves me, I'm entitled to certain property of the marriage and to joint custody of my children.

Etc.

But these only apply because I'm heterosexual. If I were not and the person I wanted to spend the rest of my life with was another woman, I have no guarantees on any of these things.

What exactly does allowing people to marry those of their own gender hurt? It doesn't take away from your marriage at all..yours is what it is. More than 50% of marriages end in divorce. Does that make your marriage less? I've read that 70% of people cheat on their spouses. Does that make your marriage different than what it is? If marriage for gays is made legal, will you feel obligated to marry a man?

The same arguements were made 50 years ago against interracial marriage and they made no sense either.

The only reason to ban marriage of gays is religious and we're not a theocracy. Our government should strive to be objective and apply the law equally to all citizens. If your church wants to refuse to marry gays, I'm fine with that. If you never want to allow a gay person into your house, you should absolutely have that right. But there is no sensible reason on earth for our government to ban the marriage of two individuals of the age of consent.

[Perd Hapley]

Barbara, who is talking about banning it?  Go down to your local homosexual or far-left church and ask if any charges have been brought for conducting homosexual weddings.

[Guest]

I don't think we have any local homosexual churches and probably no leftist ones here.

[Guest]

We do always wonder about the Lutherans, of course.

[Phantom Warrior]

We do always wonder about the Lutherans, of course.

ELCA, I'm assuming?  Missouri Synod is definitely NOT supporting homosexual marriage.  And good for them.

[Perd Hapley]

Barbara, I would still like to know which Christian beliefs you were talking about.  I think I may start another thread to discuss race and sex and how it relates to the issue of homosexual marriage, among other things.  I was also thinking that the article meandered a bit, and needed a lot of editing.  I need to add to it in places, rearrange things, and maybe trim some.

The same arguements were made 50 years ago against interracial marriage and they made no sense either.

Not very familiar with that issue.  Which arguments do you think were similar?

Can you name one reason, other than a religious belief, that people should not be able to marry someone of their own gender?

The burden of proof is on those who want to change the law; they must supply reasons.


Concerning the semantics of the debate, saying that marriage is just a word leaves some question as to why this mere word is so important to homosexuals.  I have no problem with saying that two homosexuals and their children are a family, but my infantry company at Fort Hood was also a family to me.  It's a much wider meaning, and I submit that it has always been so used - marriage has never been so widely defined.  Just to answer the obvious jab, no there was nothing homosexual going on in Bravo company, so far as I know.  

More than 50% of marriages end in divorce. Does that make your marriage less?

Our current divorce rate is the result of a culture in which divorce is far too easy and far too acceptable.  Imagine if business contracts could be severed at any time by either party, and both parties could walk away with little societal disapproval.  Of course, legal difficulties increase when children are involved, but so does the negative effect of divorce.  The rate itself doesn't hurt my marriage, but the culture makes it very tempting to give up at the first sign of trouble.  Then consider that children of divorce have a poor model to follow for thier own relationships, and we can see that it builds upon itself.

[Gewehr98]

Hey, now!

We do always wonder about the Lutherans, of course.

This Wisconsin Synod Lutheran [WELS] is doing just fine, thank you.  

Although, I'm sure somewhere someone would consider our after-service fellowship of coffee and cookies offensive.

[Gewehr98]

Fistful, that's interesting what you mentioned about the ease of divorce these days, vs. riding out the rocky portions of a marriage.

My parents stayed together for the sake of the kids.  Once we had left the nest they didn't divorce, and are soon to celebrate their 41st anniversary.  They made it work, obviously.

Myself, I'm on Wife #2, but I'm trying hard not to repeat the mistakes of Marriage #1.  Maybe some day I'll quit asking myself if I just didn't try hard enough to make things work the first time...

[280plus]

I'm sure somewhere someone would consider our after-service fellowship of coffee and cookies offensive.

Absolutely. Cake and donuts go with coffee. MILK goes with cookies. What's wrong with you people?

[Guest]

Ok, let's try this.

Outside of religious belief, what are the reasons for denying the right to marry to a portion of our citizens?

If it makes sense not to allow gays to marry, it will make sense outside of a religious context.

[thebaldguy]

The government views marriage as a contract - you are now responsible for each other's debts, and well as life making desions. That's it. They don't care or ask if you love each other, or anything else. I an understand private religious groups having their requirements. Thats' their business, not the role of a government. From a government standpoint, it's a contract, nothing more. Why should the government sanction contracts only between only heterosexuals an no one else?

Having said that, I don't think I should be considered a law breaker by living with my girlfriend. Many states consider unmarried people living together felony sodomy. Many state don't enforce it, but they never removed it from the books. We've lived together for three decades now. Three decades of breaking the law.

[Perd Hapley]

Ok, let's try this.

Outside of religious belief, what are the reasons for denying the right to marry to a portion of our citizens?

If it makes sense not to allow gays to marry, it will make sense outside of a religious context.

Barbara, you keep asking the same question without acknowledging what I have said.  If you do not accept my reasoning, please at least let me know.  Perhaps I have merited you ignore list.  

This is not a question of "not allowing gays to marry."  They are free to marry anyone or anything.  The question is why government must expand its understanding of marriage to include a different kind of relationship that doesn't have to do with government's supposed interest in marriage.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ok, let's try this.

Outside of religious belief, what are the reasons for denying the right to marry to a portion of our citizens?

If it makes sense not to allow gays to marry, it will make sense outside of a religious context.

First, nobody is denied the right to marry.  If anything, gays already enjoy special protections under the law that are denied to straight individuals.  Homosexuals have MORE rights, not less.

Second, rather than asking why we shouldn't change anything, why not tell me why we should be forced to change things?  Most Americans find homosexual marriage to be objectionable (and this is not necessarily a religious objection).  If you wanna make a change, and in the process force most of your contrymen and women to accept something they strongly disagree with, then the burden is on you to give compelling reasons why.  You have to explain BOTH the reasons why the change needs to be made, AND exactly which delegated authority grants government power to force those changes upon all of us.

Third, once marriage is expanded to allow two men or two women to marry, we won't be able to stop there.  Some men love more than one women, so let's also expand marriage to accomodate folks who want three-way marriages.  Some men love little girls, and in the interests of not discriminating against them we'll have to expand marriage to allow old guys to marry 8 year olds.  The single women living next door really loves her cats.  She's a nice person, and we can't discriminate against her, so we'll have to expand marriage to allow unions with one's pets (it wouldn't be fair to deny Mischieff and Fluffy and Figaro access to their "domestic partner's" health coverage).  Of course, many couples love each other dearly, but only for a few weeks or months at a time.  Let's stop insisting that marriage be a life-long affair, and thus allow all American couples the right to marry regardless of their level of commitment.  If the un-insured kid next door breaks his arm, perhaps you should be allowed to marry him for the afternoon, so that his injury is covered by your own employee benefits (nevermind that your employer never intended to pay for converage that extends to the entire neighborhood).

"Marrying" you cat is absurd.  But really, it's no more absurd than "marrying" someone of the same sex, or "marrying" your 5 best friends, or "marrying" God-only-knows who or what else...  

Blech.  I have half a dozen non-religious reasons why gay "marriage" is a bad thing,  but it's late and I'm tired.  I'm going to bed.  Goodnight, y'all.

[Oleg Volk]

I've always considered the state suppression of Mormon customs unreasonable...so would be all for legalizing polygamy, polyandry and other forms of marriage, in addition to the conventional M&F model.

[Perd Hapley]

Does the state suppress Mormon polygamy in terms of breaking up weddings and/or homes, or do you mean that the state simply does not recognize the additional wives?

polygamy - marriage with more than one husband or more than one wife.

polygyny - having more than one wife, concubine, etc.

polyandry - having more than one husband, consort, etc.

complex marriage - multiple husbands, multiple wives

[Guest]

What I want to know is when the government got the right to tell *anyone* who they could or could not marry. I would also like to see how it has any impact on anyone else whatsoever if two men or two women wish to marry.

[Perd Hapley]

I would also like to see how it has any impact on anyone else whatsoever if two men or two women wish to marry.

Precisely why it doesn't merit government's support, approval or endorsement.

[Iain]

HTG - you realise that a lot of that post was way off-beam right?

We're talking about two consensual adults engaging in some form of contract with each other. Expanding the definition of marriage to include this situation would in no way also expand the definition to include relationships where one party is not a consenting adult. Or would it include cats.

There have been a couple of half-hearted attempts to equate homosexual relationships and paedophilic relationships in this thread. Call it what you like but those attempts have been made, and it says far more about a moral judgement that the poster is making than it does about whether or not homosexual marriage should be legal. You of course have the right to that moral judgement, but for all intents and purposes there is no legal similarity between a relationship between two men above the age of consent and a relationship between an old man and an eight year old girl.

And as for the idea that marriage is a serious concept and that it shouldn't include 'bizarre' relationships like that between a woman and her cat and or a marriage between myself and my best friends - I entirely agree. Sham marriages are ridiculous, but are we really saying that it is not ok for me to marry my cat, or a homosexual to marry his boyfriend and that these are somehow equatable? Again that you would equate the two only highlights a moral judgement about homosexuality on your part.

You've not given one reason so far why two men above the age of consent who are involved in a serious relationship should not be able to 'marry' each other under the eyes of the law.

A change in the law to recognise gay unions would not force any change on you either. I doubt it would make the slightest bit of difference to me, you or anyone who is not homosexual and the marrying type. If you can tell me why and how it would impact you then I'll be interested.

Fistful - I agree that a part of marriage is to raise children (as that is what I interpret your last post to mean). That sits uncomfortably with me in a way because my having children relies on IVF, but anyway, in this country there are certain tax benefits attached to being married aside from having children, and there are certain legal powers and responsibilities too.

Now how about a situation where homosexuals could draw up a contract to enable each to take on those responsibilities (next of kin etc) and that they take out health insurance and the like where the company involved agrees to recognise their relationship as they would recognise marriage. Government would equalise the tax situation by abandoning any tax breaks for being married and would only provide tax breaks and the like for those actually having children, thus the point of marriage (as far as you are concerned) is recognised by government. Homosexuals have some of the attached legal rights that marriage presently entails. It wouldn't be called marriage (legally anyway), it would be a contract, and governments interest in marriage (children) is still recognised. Thoughts?

[Perd Hapley]

Iain, if the general, historical taboo against homosexuality has been so swiftly and easily swept away, why not the general, historical taboos against incest and pedophilia?  Has homosexuality historically been regarded as less abhorent or less harmful than these other two?  I doubt it.  Could not the physical dangers of the other two be as easily dismissed as the physical danger of homosexuality has been?  Or who are you to say that a marriage between a woman and a cat is less valid than a homo or hetero marriage?  This is also a personal, moral judgement.

If I wished to psychologize my opponents as cheaply as you do, I could say that the attempt to equate my position with that of anti-miscegenationists "says far more about a moral judgement (about my point of view) that the poster is making than it does about whether or not homosexual marriage should be legal."

[Stand_watie]

Does the state suppress Mormon polygamy in terms of breaking up weddings and/or homes, or do you mean that the state simply does not recognize the additional wives?..

The state actually puts people in prison for polygamy.

[Perd Hapley]

So they are charged with polygamy or bigamy, then, not with statutory rape or some other crime?

[Guest]

I would also like to see how it has any impact on anyone else whatsoever if two men or two women wish to marry.

Precisely why it doesn't merit government's support, approval or endorsement.

Riiight, and why dont you address the portion of my post that you chose to ommit. Why dont you explain the governments roll in marriage in the first place?

By your grossly flawed logic the government *is* supporting, approving, or endorsing heterosexual marriage. WHy dont you justify why that is OK?

[Iain]

Iain, if the general, historical taboo against homosexuality has been so swiftly and easily swept away, why not the general, historical taboos against incest and pedophilia?  Has homosexuality historically been regarded as less abhorent or less harmful than these other two?  I doubt it.

The fundamental difference, historical condemnations aside, is that one is behaviour between two consenting adults and the other is having sex with kids.

[Firethorn]

So they are charged with polygamy or bigamy, then, not with statutory rape or some other crime?

Note:  This actually plays multiple ways, but I'm defaulting to the usual 'man marries multiple women' thing.

I believe that they usually only go after morman polygamists when they fail to pay child support.  The laws place such people in very fragile circumstances, the man is basically at the women's mercy if they choose to take him to court.

Bigamy charges come up when one wife doesn't know about the other.

The true problem that comes up is that he's not legally married to any extras, causing issues with inheritance, medical powers, taxes, co-mingled finances, etc...  Basically the same issues that the gays are currently having.

For example, let's say that one of the 'undocumented' wives, sadly, ends up in the same situation as Terry Schiavo.   The parents would become the legal guardian of her, and they could deny all access to the husband.  Now, in Morman America, you know that the parents generally at least tacitly approved of the situation and would probably go along with his wishes, but you can't be sure.  Also, if the will isn't perfectly set up, the parents might end up with it all, maybe with or without guardianship of the kids, with the money held in a trust for same.

The tax situation may actually favor the polygamist, since 'single parent' qualifies for all sorts of tax breaks and aid, and legally speaking, the man can't claim the undocumented wives as dependents.  Even claiming his kids would be complicated.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm not sure it's OK, c_yeager.  I am perfectly open to considering the total deregulation of marriage.  If there is any government role, however, I am saying that homosexual relationships do not present the same attendant legal issues, having to do with child custody and inheritance.  They cannot be shown to have the beneficial effect on society that heterosexual marriage might be shown to have.  If there is any reason for government involvement, then, homosexual relationships do not merit such attention any more than two cousins who live together or two friends who share a house or a business.  That is why I might support legal measures that make it easier for people, regardless of sex, to arrange for hospital visitation, etc., so long as a private, sexual relationship is not the basis of this.