What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?

Not George Lucas, good to have you back. Unfortunately I don't have enough time to respond fully to your arguments but if you want to at least see some of the research that has been done, click on the links that I provided a page or two ago. There are many links to the studies that were conducted within those webpages.

BTW, correlation means more to me than opinion.

In the meantime, I've gotta log of the net for a while.

It's been fun debating everyone.

 

McCartney:

Marriage is what it is. I geuss my point was hard to see, but it's this: gays don't want to be married, not really, not marriage as is currently defined and has been defined since time immemorial.

What they want is to have their situation, which is not marriage, called marriage.


Gay marriages have happened in San Francisco, their legality is yet to be determined, true, BUT, IN MASSACHUSETTS, gays will have the option of getting MARRIED in two months, and there isn't a thing you or anyone can do to stop it, because it will be completely legal.

Not necessarily: to give itself time to work the issue out, and perhaps pass an amendment to the state constitution to render the ruling moot, the state could stop issuing marriage licenses, at least for the time being.

Everyone would be treated equally in the meantime, no?


Aunechah:

If the government's interest is in promoting stable environments for a child to grow up in, why is giving the child away for adoption legal? Why is single-parenting legal? Why isn't the government restricting marriage only to people who are financially well off?

Because this is an imperfect world. The ideal should be promoted. Everything else that isn't obviously harmful should still be legal.

It's a simple thing to understand.


Not George:

You have a very low opinion of your opposition. Like I've said, we're not all as one-dimensional as you make us out to be.

A lot of this is based on what I see posted: if at least some of y'all said that Newsom went too far and the rule of law is a vital thing, I'd have more respect for y'all.

The most McCartney could say is that he opposes such law-breaking in other circumstances, but he's not yet outright opposed law-breaking these circumstances.

Even in the world of politics, the most criticism for Newsom from the pro-gay-marriage crowd came from Barney Frank, who didn't criticize the act itself, only its timing as politically inconvenient in an election year.

In other words, if it was December already, Frank would have had no problem with Newsom's actions.

It's hard to respect the opposition when -- at least on the surface -- they take such outrageous positions.

If it was more clear that they respect the rule of law, for instance, I would exhibit a greater level of respect.


And, truly, correlation doesn't imply causation, but be very careful. The same standards that one could demand of the study of Scandinavia would also likely discredit the results of the APA studies.

 

At least in one important respect, it's not possible to get two memmbers of the same gender with results similar to a heterosexual relationship: no gay couple can reproduce.

However, as has already been discussed, the government is not concerned with verifying that a couple is capable of reproducing before it issues a marriage license.


At least here, none of supporters have criticized what Newsom did

Didn't I?

I think that what he's done, while it's beneficial in bringing attention to the issue, hurts the cause since it shows a disregard for the law.

The effort should be to show that marriage restrictions contradict the higher law; instead, this appears to be activism in violation of the law.

Regardless, the Massachusetts Supreme Court may well have been right to say current laws are unconstitutional (I don't think so, but I'll play along for a moment), but they were wrong to tell the statehouse was the solution must be.

I would regard the Massachusetts Court's decision to mean "barring an amendment to the constitution, here is what you must do to rectify the marriage law."


I don't see how special benefits to couples contradicts the principle of individual equality.

Treating a couple as an individual certainly muddles the concept of individual equality. Am I equal to other individuals, or some individuals and some couples?

 

Because this is an imperfect world. The ideal should be promoted. Everything else that isn't obviously harmful should still be legal.

It's a simple thing to understand.

Excuse me? You think that children growing up in poverty are better off than children growing up under homosexual parents? And how do you know that homosexual parenting is "harmful" to a child? Going by what you just said here, you'd think marriages between homosexuals would be legal....

-Aunecah

 

wombery, I honestly missed your criticism of Newsom, but I'm glad you did criticize him.


However, as has already been discussed, the government is not concerned with verifying that a couple is capable of reproducing before it issues a marriage license.

First, in this case, how much verification is necessary?

Second, there's a difference between -- for lack of better terms -- a relationship template and a instance of that template.

"One man, one woman" is a template; Bill and Mary is one of many possible instances of that template.

"Three women" is a template; Sue, Debra, and Charlene is one of many possible instances of that particular template.

And while the government may not be concerned about which instances will (or could) result in childbirth, it might ought to be concerned about which templates result in childbirth.

As templates go, heterosexuality does result in childbirth and homosexuality does not. Perhaps that does justify the government promoting a specific subset of heterosexuality (monogamous fidelity).


I would regard the Massachusetts Court's decision to mean "barring an amendment to the constitution, here is what you must do to rectify the marriage law."

First, surely there are other options: the complete abolition of the institution, for instance.

Second, regardless, I don't think it's the court's perogative to dictate a solution. They can declare that certain laws (or sets of laws) are unconstitutional, but I'm not sure they can dictate what sort of laws will replace the current laws.


Treating a couple as an individual certainly muddles the concept of individual equality. Am I equal to other individuals, or some individuals and some couples?

I don't follow.


EDIT:

Aunecah, you misunderstand.

"Gay marriage" means that homosexuality is more than legal, it's actively promoted as an ideal.

The ideal should be promoted... with the institution of marriage.

Everything else should be legal... without such promotion.

 

Jansons_Funny_Twin:You don't have that right.

Vezner replies: So who's trying to take rights away from other people now?

It seems that you don't believe in equal rights either. Hypocracy is a common thing among some of these activists.

Vezner, are you saying you have the right to deny rights to others? Who gives you this right? From what law is it derived?

I'll be more specific:

How does granting benefits, protections, and responsibilities equally to homosexual and heterosexual unions "take away rights"?

---

Bubba: [i][color=slateblue]I'm not asserting that both are harmful, obviously. I'm confirming the rather obvious fact that both cause results that the other alternatives do not.[/i][/color]

As I noted, not all marriages cause children. Not all children cause marriage. Not so obvious a fact; in fact, not so much a fact in reality.

[i][color=slateblue]Beer can cause drunkenness, while milk and OJ cannot. Heterosexual intercourse can cause pregnancy, while homosexual intercourse cannot.[/i][/color]

Again, heterosexual intercourse does not always cause pregnancy.

And as an aside, beer, OJ, and milk all have the capacity to make one sick.

[i][color=slateblue]First, how can I possibly neglect a point and simultaneously assert that it doesn't matter? The fact that I say something doesn't matter means that I'm not neglecting the existence of that thing. [/i][/color]

I did say neglect. I did not say ignore. by using the carefully selected word "neglect" instead of "ignore" to say that you are not giving these facts just credibility.

[i][color=slateblue]Second, I know that there isn't an inevitable relationship between marriage and reproduction. If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion.[/i][/color]

but, did you not just finish saying that gay marriage cannot be legal because the couple cannot biologically reproduce? In fact, you even go on to say: [i][color=slateblue]There isn't an inevitable relationship between marriage and reproduction, but there has always been a relationship. [/i][/color]

Isn't this contradictory to your above statement?

[i][color=slateblue]I'm arguing that the stronger the relationship is, the better it is for society.[/i][/color]

Then you're arguing pointlessly, for I agree with this statement wholeheratedly. What it sounds like you are arguing, though, is that homosexual couples cannot have a strong, intimate relationship--at least not as strong as heterosexuals can. I believe this argument is unprovable with either science, sociology, psychology, or politically. I'd love to hear you try, though.

[i][color=slateblue]The goal is to limit the number of births out of wedlock, to ensure that the greatest possible proportion of childbirths arise from marriage.[/i][/color]

I think we all agree that homosexuals can't procreate without third-party intervention (surrogate). So how will denying gay marriage work toward the "goal" of "limiting the umber of births out of wedlock,to ensure that the greatest possible proportion of childbirths arise from marriage"?

you've already argued that homosexuals don't procreate. So how does gay marriage possibly affect this goal of yours? Oh, right, here's your answer:

[i][color=slateblue]One of the best ways I think one can do that is to emphasize that the primary social purpose of marriage has something to do with reproduction, and one can do that by limiting marriage to the one type of relationship that can lead to reproduction: one man, one woman.[/i][/color]

Even when it doesn't lead to procreation? With that answer, you [i]should[/i] also be advocating denial of marriage rights to heterosexual couples who cannot ever biologically conceive.

But that's not what you're advocating, is it?

[i][color=slateblue]It's whether homosexuality should be promoted as equivalent.[/i][/color]

Equivalent in so much as what, exactly? What defines a relationship? you are saying that homosexuals cannot have an relationship

 

BTW, correlation means more to me than opinion.


Then your worldview is going to be seriously distorted. Not saying that maliciously, but going by correlation in studies isn't the best way to go.

 

Aunecah, you misunderstand.

"Gay marriage" means that homosexuality is more than legal, it's actively promoted as an ideal.

The ideal should be promoted... with the institution of marriage.

Everything else should be legal... without such promotion.

You missed Aunecah's question.

Do you think that children growing up in poverty are better off than children growing up under homosexual parents?

And how do you know that homosexual parenting is "harmful" to a child?

 

Beer can cause drunkenness, while milk and OJ cannot. Heterosexual intercourse can cause pregnancy, while homosexual intercourse cannot.
/i]

Besides which, this also ignores the reality that "sodomite" sexual relations are more common amongst heterosexual couples than it is amongst homosexual couples.

 

"Besides which, this also ignores the reality that "sodomite" sexual relations are more common amongst heterosexual couples than it is amongst homosexual couples."

You mean relativelly speaking, because half of homosexual couples (lesbians) don't practice sodomy, whereas gay men...

 

SAN FRANCISCO ? Gay marriage opponents went back to court Friday to try to stop the wedding spree that's been taking San Francisco by storm for more than a week.

Two judges planned Friday to consider lawsuits from mostly conservative and religious groups who want to halt the gay marriages that began last Thursday against state law but with the mayor's approval.

The city of San Francisco is also asking that those cases be consolidated into one case to be heard by Superior Court Judge James Warren (search).

In what critics call a delay tactic, San Francisco is taking California to court on grounds its ban on same-sex marriages (search) is unconstitutional.

The city, which filed the lawsuit late Thursday, has sanctioned more than 2,900 gay unions since it began defying state law last week.

Mayor Gavin Newsom (search) said he doesn't regret giving out marriage licenses before the city sued the state, but added he's glad the question is now in the courts.

"I think what we have done is affirm marriage here in San Francisco," Newsom said. "We affirmed it because we are celebrating people coming together in their unions. I feel affirmed as a married man by what's happened here in San Francisco."

A lawyer for a group trying to halt the gay marriages said the move was meant as a delay.

"This is as much a maneuver to keep this in court and keep the issue alive as it is anything else," said Benjamin Bull, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (search).

The city is asking Superior Court Judge James Warren (search) to declare unconstitutional three sections of the California Family Code (search) that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

City officials want the judge to determine if barring same-sex couples from marrying violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the state constitution.

On Tuesday, Warren gave the city the choice of ending the same-sex wedding march or returning to court in late March to show why the process has not been halted. The city said it would continue issuing such licenses until forced to stop.

Judge Ronald Quidachay is considering a lawsuit filed by another conservative group, the Campaign for California Families (search). He said Tuesday he was not prepared to issue a ruling, and scheduled another hearing for Friday.

Like the city, conservatives want the two cases consolidated into one, but they want Quidachay to hear it instead of Warren.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (search) said San Francisco's same-sex marriage licenses do not meet legal standards.

Meanwhile, New Mexico's Sandoval County said it will issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because it had no legal grounds to refuse them.

New Mexico law defines marriage as a civil contract between contracting parties and does not mention gender.

"This office won't say no until shown it's not permissible," said Victoria Dunlap, county clerk of Sandoval County, which is home to 90,000 people just north of Albuquerque.


Link

Dunno, but it looks like these groups are going to lose their case. Soo...I'm wondering, how long until the Supreme Court rules over this? You know these groups are going to appeal if they lose. And then maybe the DOMA may well be struck down as well. That is if the Supreme Court rules in favor of gay marriage.


I'm really curious, what are Conservatives going to do if they lose?

 

Homosexual parenting is harmful to children because it doesn't provide an ideal case for role modeling- much like single-parent, divorced, abusive, or transient homes do.

Children have to have parents in the home who can effectively socialize them.

Since 98% of our society is comprised of heterosexual men and women, then any percentage of stable heterosexual marriages corresponding to that number would contribute to healthy, socially adept children and young adults.

If you open the floodgates and allow for imperfect family structures to became the IDEAL, then you will promulgate a generation of children confused and traumatized about their role in society. We have plenty of evidence of the damage that divorce, single-parent homes, and transient foster care has done to individuals in our society. Why unleash another plague to further undermine communities, and once again lower the standards as to what constitutes acceptable behavior in our society?

 

If you open the floodgates and allow for imperfect family structures to became the IDEAL, then you will promulgate a generation of children confused and traumatized about their role in society.


What are you afraid of?

 

And while the government may not be concerned about which instances will (or could) result in childbirth, it might ought to be concerned about which templates result in childbirth.

Well, then that brings you back to an argument that the purpose of marriage is related to childbirth - not child rearing, but simply the birth.

And if that is the case, why rely on a template that may provide childbirth, rather than requiring the actual birth itself? After all, WIC is not handed out to all women simply because they fit the template of "people who may become pregnant"; it is given specifically to women who are pregnant or who are providing nutrition to a child by breastfeeding.


First, surely there are other options: the complete abolition of the institution, for instance.

True, although I feel it's safe to say that so many people consider marriage a "right," it's possible no one considered this as a remotely feasible solution.


I don't think it's the court's perogative to dictate a solution. They can declare that certain laws (or sets of laws) are unconstitutional, but I'm not sure they can dictate what sort of laws will replace the current laws.

But can they direct the legislature to take action? I'm not clear on whether, in the Massachusetts case, what was challenged in court was a single state law defining marriage as being between man and woman, or the code of requirements for marriage that were used by all counties. If the Massachusetts Court was ruling that some state law defining marriage was invalid, but said nothing of anything else that might be in other areas of the law outlining the requirements of marriage, it would seem pointless, since the county clerks would still only issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples.


Treating a couple as an individual certainly muddles the concept of individual equality. Am I equal to other individuals, or some individuals and some couples?

I don't follow.

For many legal purposes, a married couple is a single entity. Whether this is to their advantage or disadvantage in any given case, it still means that I am treated differently from a married person.

If I am tried in a court of law, I - and only I - can claim a right not to testify against me. Also, if I am put on the witness stand, I can be compelled to testify against any other person in the world. A married person is not treated the same way; in a sense, the fifth-amendment right against self-incrimination is extended to the spouse.

When it is time to pay my taxes, I file a single return. Many married couples file a single return, instead of one apiece. The tax amounts - the percentage each individual is taxed - is different.

If I die without a will, a tax will be collected on my property; not so with a married person.

If a married person has an automobile insurance policy, the coverage they receive is extended to their spouse. The same is not necessarily true if I get a policy and add another person who is not my spouse.

A marriage is treated differently from any other family relationship, and I am not convinced that it is rooted in the purpose of encouraging childbirth in wedlock. More than likely, it is because the religious principle that two married people "become one" was long ago incorporated into common law, and was carried over into American law despite the new ideology of individual equality under the law espoused in our Constitution.

It is a contradiction which, I believe, has never really been considered and acknowledged by the American people as a whole.

 

This is the absolute most important role for our species - parenting. They simply aren't equal.

I strongly disagree with this.

The most important role for us as human beings is to live good lives. There are many different ways to do this, many different ways, other than parenting.

It should not be anyone's life goal to have children. There are a lot of ways to contribute to society, and suggesting that parenting is the singular most important one is trivializing the contributions that those of us who aren't parents can and do make.

So, they aren't part of the norm, as you say so, and, despite the fact that they can't have children, they can marry? Well, homosexuals aren't part of the norm, can't have children, but can't marry. Why the distinction? It's clearly not the fact of not being able of having children, nor the fact that the couple is not "normal".

Exactly. Why the distinction?

You better start introducing some qualifiers - such as, hetrosexual people who aren't murderers, sexist jerks, rapists, child molesters, abusive, who aren't more interested in cars than in their children, who don't spend more time in office than at home - because I'm a really picky person.

Aunecah, you and I should start some legislation. I would certainly like for there to be some qualifiers for parenting other than "being willing to lie back and spread one's legs, and having functioning reproductive organs".

Hell, wanting children rather than "believing one is supposed to have them" would be a start.

Gay people can have sex all day if they want but there will be no child produced from it, ever. The ONLY way for a Gay couple to have a child is through either adoption or through modern technology (sex change, artificial insemination, and etc).

Vezner, this is also the only way infertile couples can have children.

So what?

The purpose of marriage is the raising, the procreation of the race, and raising children.

So infertile people shouldn't get married? What about people who don't want children?

The purpose of marriage--including my own, which is a decade running and child free--is to form a family with the person you love.

But "Gay Animals" are hardly the majority of animals out there.

Gay humans aren't the majority of humans. Again, so what?

I'm not saying that defects don't occur, but in nature the gay animals tend to die out because of an obvious reason, they can't reproduce.

My branch of the family line stops with me. So what?

 

From Today's San Francisco Chronicle:

Meanwhile, in New Mexico, the Sandoval County clerk married a lesbian couple after announcing that the state had no legal grounds to refuse them licenses, and other same-sex couples quickly began lining up to get married themselves.

And after watching TV images of the weddings, the symbolic ruler of Cambodia, King Norodom Sihanouk, said Friday that homosexual couples should be allowed to get married.

Ideas are like a virus. They spread and eventually consume a nation. San Francisco has been a social leader for decades, and these past weeks has reclaimed it's title.

 

"Since 98% of our society is comprised of heterosexual men and women, then any percentage of stable heterosexual marriages corresponding to that number would contribute to healthy, socially adept children and young adults."

I don't follow this.

Care to rephrase, or explain further? And please show something to back up such thoughts?

 

Kessel Runner:
Besides which, this also ignores the reality that "sodomite" sexual relations are more common amongst heterosexual couples than it is amongst homosexual couples.

Interesting side story: Several years ago in an ethics class, we were discussing homosexuality and sodomy. Our prof. informed the class that married couples have anal sex all the time. Yes, she's married. I never looked at her the same again.

The Abstract:
Homosexual parenting is harmful to children because it doesn't provide an ideal case for role modeling- much like single-parent, divorced, abusive, or transient homes do.

Care to back this up with some facts?

Bubba:
"Gay marriage" means that homosexuality is more than legal, it's actively promoted as an ideal.

It's not promotion. It's recognition.

This is the absolute most important role for our species - parenting. They simply aren't equal.

Says who? Since when does our species have a determined explicit role? Under whose authority?

Vezner:
The purpose of marriage is the raising, the procreation of the race, and raising children.

Again, says who? Under what authority are we bound to this?

 

I'm really curious, what are Conservatives going to do if they lose?

My biggest concern is that those opposed will resort to hate crimes, like those witnessed when equal rights were upheld to other minorities.

Homosexual parenting is harmful to children because it doesn't provide an ideal case for role modeling- much like single-parent, divorced, abusive, or transient homes do.

Where is your proof that every gay parenting model is worse and more harmful than single-parenthood, divorce, abusive, or transient homes?

Children have to have parents in the home who can effectively socialize them.

Having two parents in the family will certainly help establish having one parent at home while the other works, right? So why does this go against gay marriage? It sounds more like an argument for gay marriage.

Since 98% of our society is comprised of heterosexual men and women, then any percentage of stable heterosexual marriages corresponding to that number would contribute to healthy, socially adept children and young adults.

If gay marriage makes up only 2% of all marriages, how can that two percent possibly destabilize the entire institute of marriage??

If you open the floodgates and allow for imperfect family structures to became the IDEAL, then you will promulgate a generation of children confused and traumatized about their role in society.

Do you see abusive families as ideal? How about divorce? How about single-parenthood?

What laws arew you invoking to stop these? And how are children in better circumstances within these than within a productive family led by two gay adults?

What are you afraid of?

This is just a guess, but it sounds like a fear that the children of America will all be indoctrinated into gaydom (not exactly conducive to the 2% ratio, though).

 

Bubba:

One relationship sometimes leads to childbirth and the other never does; men and women are different, so a male-female relationship may be qualitatively different than the alternatives. I explained myself, and you should respect my arguments enough to do likewise: explain why my arguments are completely invalid and explain why homosexuality should be treated as equivalent.

Because childbirth is not the be-all, end-all, sanctified act that some people are making it out to be?

Because there are other reasons for getting involved with someone other than reproduction?

Hell, I'll concede that it may be not be a reason some people have sex, but it's still a result -- AND AN HUGELY IMPORTANT RESULT AT THAT.

No, it's a hugely important reason to use birth control, especially for people in my position who could be put in danger by being pregnant.

At least gay people don't have to worry about that.

Is the creation of human life so insignificant that the government should be unconcerned about it and the activity that results in it? Get real.

I don't appreciate being talked to like I'm stupid just because I don't glorify having a lot of babies.

These are the reasons why I think form influences behavior in this case. For what reasons do you disagree?

Personal experience.

My husband doesn't watch sports every Sunday, insist on fixing cars by himself, burp and fart on demand, have a huge drive to sleep around based on "must hunt wild beast", or smoke cigars. He does cook, he's soft-spoken, and he's much more nurturing and a much better housekeeper than I am.

I don't wear pink, watch chick-flicks, read romance novels, cry on demand, cook, clean, love dressing up in skirts and heels (in fact, I'd rather eat dirt), or scream every time I see a bug. I do swear like a sailor, I'm very blunt, I like action movies, and I would prefer to read a good historical nonfiction, practice kickboxing or play with my Star Wars figures than go to some Oprah book club.

Is it not possible that people think that because it's true?

Nope.

There is nothing wrong with a loving relationship between two consenting adults, even if it doesn't fit your idea of "normal".

So you say, but I believe you've admitted that you don't really want children. Lots of people think they'd be courageous heroes in a crisis, but reality doesn't always match their hopes and wishes. Likewise, here, you're telling me this from a position in which child-rearing is firmly in the realm of the hypothetical.

I'm 32 years old. I believe I know what my dreams, hopes, and values are, and I don't appreciate being told "Oh, you'll change your mind," like I'm a teenager saying that I'm going to marry a 6'4" blond because that's the only appearance I like.

There are plenty of people who do raise children the way I've just described, and there is nothing wrong with those children. And yes, I know about children--over the past 11 years, I've taught thousands of them. I would appreciate it if you would not insinuate that I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

The purpose of marriage is the raising, the procreation of the race, and raising children.

Wait! You can catch gay? By all means stop it!

But really, where's the harm?

 

"This is just a guess, but it sounds like a fear that the children of America will all be indoctrinated into gaydom (not exactly conducive to the 2% ratio, though)."

Exactly my thoughts.

Which is ludicruous, to say the least.

 

Bubba:
Hell, I'll concede that it may be not be a reason some people have sex, but it's still a result -- AND AN HUGELY IMPORTANT RESULT AT THAT.

But only for people who choose to.

ag:
I don't wear pink, watch chick-flicks, read romance novels, cry on demand, cook, clean, love dressing up in skirts and heels (in fact, I'd rather eat dirt), or scream every time I see a bug. I do swear like a sailor, I'm very blunt, I like action movies, and I would prefer to read a good historical nonfiction, practice kickboxing or play with my Star Wars figures than go to some Oprah book club.

Did I marry you?

Like I've said before, you know nothing about marriage unless you've been.

 

"I don't wear pink, watch chick-flicks, read romance novels, cry on demand, cook, clean, love dressing up in skirts and heels (in fact, I'd rather eat dirt), or scream every time I see a bug. I do swear like a sailor, I'm very blunt, I like action movies, and I would prefer to read a good historical nonfiction, practice kickboxing or play with my Star Wars figures than go to some Oprah book club."

You go girl!

 

The thinking about the parents goes as such: When children are younger they seem to role model after the mother if you're a female or father if you're a male. Another thing is that children seem to erhmm..."like" their opposite gender parents and sees their same gendered parents as a threat to them, causing jealousy and blah blah blah. This is all behaviorist type stuff, but that's how it goes. Apologies to KW if I'm off in this aspect, it's been a bit since I've dealt with children psychology. In short they have no gender identification, which is what these conservative groups are arguing. A humanist approach might go from a different angle; I consider myself a humanist, and as such do not believe any of this completely...well I do know it exists, but gender identification can occur outside of the family, though. And isn't just based on the parents.

Since homosexual couples are monogender, this obviously scares conservatives into believing that one man and one woman should be married. But this goes against the evidence of parents who divorce and remarry, and the child turns out fine and all that junk. I think our society has a child fetish, though. And that's a whole other debate.