"They just want the right to marry the person they love!!!"

[De Selby]

   'Cause now we need to provide a reason why irrational ideas about marriage aren't recognized. 

Whats the irrational idea about marriage here?  The only irrational idea I see in this thread is that gay marriage law has some impact on procreation.

[Ron]

For thousands of years when someone used the word "married" it was understood to mean man + woman or maybe man + multiple women in some cultures.  

For hundreds of years in the west we have built up a jurisprudence around the legal meaning of marriage that revolved around man + woman and generally their offspring.

Deciding by fiat to shoehorn same sex couplings into thousands of years of cultural understanding of what marriage is and somehow attempt to make the legal system constructed around normal heterosexual relationships try and apply to something that is not the same is just plain crazy.

Words have meaning.

The gay agenda acknowledges this by insisting that there is no difference between gay relationships and normal relationships. That is why they insist on usurping the institution of marriage. They are looking for societal approval and acceptance. They don't want to be considered different, despite the obvious.

Those that want to conflate the rabid haters with those who actually believe in the meaning of words and the importance of the family structure are being intellectually dishonest IMHO.

 

[Balog]

Marriage is a religious institution. The state is involved only because it recognizes 1. the societal benefits of families staying together 2. The importance of the family as the basis of all society.

There is no prohibition on religious marriage ceremonies for gays (or polygamists for that matter), and there is no societal rationale to justify the state being involved in gay unions.

The only reason for state recognition of gay marriage is to punish people with opposing views, and enforce normalization of the practice. It's heavyhanded social engineering by government at its worst.

[De Selby]

Marriage is a religious institution. The state is involved only because it recognizes 1. the societal benefits of families staying together 2. The importance of the family as the basis of all society.

There is no prohibition on religious marriage ceremonies for gays (or polygamists for that matter), and there is no societal rationale to justify the state being involved in gay unions.

The only reason for state recognition of gay marriage is to punish people with opposing views, and enforce normalization of the practice. It's heavyhanded social engineering by government at its worst.

Wait a second, what about gay couples wanting to have the same legal presumptions and entitlements as hetereosexual couples?   Wouldn't that be another reason to support it?  I don't imagine that punishing people with opposing views matters nearly as much as the very real legal entitlements that come with a marriage.


Ron, the idea that homosexuality has been outside the purview of relationship law "for thousands of years" is so far from a historical truth that it cannot be a basis for making law.   The word marriage isn't that old, amd neither is the concept of it held by most anti-gay marriage advocates today.

Asserting that words (not thousands of years old) have meanings (based on a historical claim that merits no acceptance) isn't a basis for assigning rights to some and denying them to others.

[Balog]

There is nothing inherit in the marriage contract that is not available through other contractual means.

And "rights" are not things the state can summon up willy nilly, nor are they things that imply forcing someone else to do something.

[De Selby]

There is nothing inherit in the marriage contract that is not available through other contractual means.

And "rights" are not things the state can summon up willy nilly, nor are they things that imply forcing someone else to do something.

Sorry, but marriage isn't the same as a contract and there are a wide array of contractual rights that can be successfully challenged, say, by a family member who doesn't like the gay partner, that can't be challenged in a marriage.   If marriage were just a contract, you wouldn't need divorce court.

Giving the same legal status to a gay couple doesn't force a straight couple to do anything, nor does it "undermine the family".

[dogmush]

Wait a second, what about gay couples wanting to have the same legal presumptions and entitlements as hetereosexual couples? 

Here we are with the words and their meanings thing again.  The legal trappings of marriage aren't rights or entitlements.  They are benefits bestowed by the state on folks who are acting in a way the state has chosen to encourage.  Gay folks are not acting in that way. (neither are single folks, but that's another thread)

So the relevant question here is: Does our society want to start encouraging gay marriages*, as opposed to just not discouraging them.  And frankly, the answer is very probably no.  Why should we?


*Which is a completely separate question then whether or not we should keep encouraging straight marriage.

[makattak]

Ron, the idea that homosexuality has been outside the purview of relationship law "for thousands of years" is so far from a historical truth that it cannot be a basis for making law.   The word marriage isn't that old, amd neither is the concept of it held by most anti-gay marriage advocates today.

Nuptias, nuptiae:
noun
feminine
1.marriage (pl.), nuptials, wedding
Declension: 1st
Age: In use throughout the ages or unknown
Subject: All or none
Region: All or none
Frequency: Less common
Source: General or unknown or too common to say

What was that about not being thousands of years old?

[MicroBalrog]

The people who made up that word had males marrying each other.

[makattak]

The people who made up that word had males marrying each other.

Bunk.

[MicroBalrog]

Bunk.

Gay marriage in ancient Rome: already discussed in detail on APS.

Not that, of course, this matters at all.

[makattak]

Gay marriage in ancient Rome: already discussed in detail on APS.

Not that, of course, this matters at all.

Are you meaning decadent Imperial Rome? (I.e. NOT the people who "made up that word?")

[makattak]

Gay marriage in ancient Rome: already discussed in detail on APS.

Not that, of course, this matters at all.

Further, the fact that "so few examples of it exist" (per almighty Wiki) suggests it is an abberation of debauched emporers, such as the precedent for an equine legislator.

[De Selby]

Nuptias, nuptiae:
noun
feminine
1.marriage (pl.), nuptials, wedding
Declension: 1st
Age: In use throughout the ages or unknown
Subject: All or none
Region: All or none
Frequency: Less common
Source: General or unknown or too common to say

What was that about not being thousands of years old?

Why not pick the actual word?  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Marriage&searchmode=none

Oh yeah, no history, so we choose prejudice - the state does favour one relationship over another, therefore it should continue to do so.   

I cannot see how any libertarian buys that.

[Ron]

The word marriage has been around in its current form for nearly a thousand years and has always meant the coupling of male and female.

There are Latin and Greek equivalents as well as Hebrew that easily get us into the thousands of years category.  

Repeating some new formulation (gay marriage) over and over in the media over a period of years doesn't change the definitions and history of the word AND OR the concept. The concept of marriage as reflected in other languages that have their own word(s) for marriage is ancient and as far as I can tell never included same sex unions.

If our culture, our nation is at a point where we are going to recognize gay unions giving them the same entitlements of marriage then we have created a new institution. Call it what you will but it will never be the historic institution of marriage.

You can use the implied violence of the state to force us to pretend that it is the same, but ultimately that is just an Orwellian word game.

Meanwhile the freedom of association, to assemble and eventually the freedom of religion will be if not lost, damaged beyond recognition.  

[makattak]

Why not pick the actual word?  http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=Marriage&searchmode=none

Oh yeah, no history, so we choose prejudice - the state does favour one relationship over another, therefore it should continue to do so.  

I cannot see how any libertarian buys that.

There's the problem that the actual word "marriage" comes from the actual English language, which in actuality is not thousands of years old. Actually. (But you will note it comes from latin roots... just like most of our laws.)

And I'm a classical liberal, not a libertarian.

[Balog]

Sorry, but marriage isn't the same as a contract and there are a wide array of contractual rights that can be successfully challenged, say, by a family member who doesn't like the gay partner, that can't be challenged in a marriage.   If marriage were just a contract, you wouldn't need divorce court.

Giving the same legal status to a gay couple doesn't force a straight couple to do anything, nor does it "undermine the family".

Marriage is a contract, as far as the state sanctioned aspect of it. About the only thing that being married provides that cannot be duplicated via living wills/power of attorney etc is being a dependent on insurance. I don't favor the government mandating who must be covered and under what circumstances, although obviously you do (per conversation about American healthcare) so I can see why that wouldn't bother you. Your assertion that things "can't be challenged in marriage" is demonstrably false. And having a specific court for the dissolution of one specific type of contract, that is unique among contracts as it can involve the guardianship of children, proves nothing.

It doesn't force straight couples to do anything, but no one is saying it does. That's a patently false strawman, and about the level of doublespeak bs I expect from 1 a lawyer in general & 2 you in particular. It doesn't force private individuals to do anything, but it does in fact force businesses and institutions to do things. Things that they may very well be morally opposed to.

[MicroBalrog]

Are you meaning decadent Imperial Rome? (I.e. NOT the people who "made up that word?")

"Decadent Imperial Rome" ruled the world for nearly a millenium.

But yeah, Rome had gay marriages. So much for 'millenia without them'.

[makattak]

"Decadent Imperial Rome" ruled the world for nearly a millenium.

But yeah, Rome had gay marriages. So much for 'millenia without them'.

Further, the fact that "so few examples of it exist" (per almighty Wiki) suggests it is an abberation of debauched emprors, such as the precedent for an equine legislator.

Equality for horses! Why are we denying the rights of horses to serve in government!

[Perd Hapley]

It's settled then. We have found a few examples of same-sex "marriages," even in a culture that happened to boss around large parts of the world. Therefore our laws must mirror this one fact, chosen at random from all the other weird, depraved stuff that has happened in world history.

Good job, marriage-denyers, you've proven your point.

[MechAg94]

Since we are going to bring out all the old ideas, are we going to allow gay husbands to beat their "wives" so long as they injure them seriously?  We can also make it so the "husband" has the rights to all the land ownership and is the only one who can vote. 

[AJ Dual]

Since we are going to bring out all the old ideas, are we going to allow gay husbands to beat their "wives" so long as they injure them seriously?  We can also make it so the "husband" has the rights to all the land ownership and is the only one who can vote. 

Oh come on now... how much is a little wrist flapping going to hurt?

[MicroBalrog]

Since we are going to bring out all the old ideas, are we going to allow gay husbands to beat their "wives" so long as they injure them seriously?  We can also make it so the "husband" has the rights to all the land ownership and is the only one who can vote. 

So we're moving from "tradition is against homosexual marriage" to "we shouldn't respect tradition just because it is tradition"?

[MillCreek]

Since we are going to bring out all the old ideas, are we going to allow gay husbands to beat their "wives" so long as they injure them seriously?  We can also make it so the "husband" has the rights to all the land ownership and is the only one who can vote. 

Not to mention that mixed-race marriages are a sin, or something.

[Balog]

Since we are going to bring out all the old ideas, are we going to allow gay husbands to beat their "wives" so long as they injure them seriously?  We can also make it so the "husband" has the rights to all the land ownership and is the only one who can vote. 

Not to mention that mixed-race marriages are a sin, or something.

Oh look, things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand.