What do we do about Same-Sex Marriage?

womberty:

Kurtz also speaks against the dangers of polygamy with more eloquence than I could muster:

"Once parental responsibilities are parceled out to more than two people ? even to someone living outside the household ? it becomes that much easier for any one parent to shirk his or her responsibilities. The very notion that parents can be added and subtracted at will tends to cut against the feeling of special responsibility for a given child."


This page explains how the Supreme Court ruled in 1925 that the 14th Amendment extends the 1st Amendment to the states. Do you disagree with their ruling? Or do you perhaps feel that while the 14th Amendment extends the freedom of speech clause to the states, it does not extend the rest of the protections in the 1st Amendment?

The rest of the 1st Amendment freedoms, sure:

- religious freedom (i.e., right to worship, implicit in the "free exercise" clause)
- freedom of the press
- right to assemble
- right to petition

But the Establishment Clause -- the crucial clause in this debate -- doesn't mention a right, only a prohibition of Congress:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Does that imply a right to a secular state? I don't see how.

 

while exceedingly few of even the most committed gay and lesbian couples believe that marriage will strengthen and stabilize their personal relationships, nearly half of those gays and lesbians who actually disdain traditional marriage (and even gay commitment ceremonies) will nonetheless get married. Why? For "the bennies" ? the financial and legal benefits of marriage.

Do you think this is less true with heterosexual relationships? Are you going to suggest that no heterosexual couple ever marries simply for the benefits? Surely you realize that's not true. Can you even provide evidence that a smaller percentage of heterosexuals would marry for the benefits?


Yet even in a sample artificially weighted with nearly every gay male couple in Massachusetts who had gone through a commitment ceremony (and Stiers had to go out of her research protocol just to find enough male couples to balance out the committed lesbian couples) nearly 20 percent of the men questioned did not practice monogamy.

What were the statistics among lesbian couples?


In brief, gay marriage would not be nearly as monogamous. That would weaken the monogamy of marriage in general, which would weaken the traditional family.

Without the statistics for monogamy among lesbian couples, I could just as easily assert that men weaken the monogamy of marriage in general. All I really need is some statistics on which partner is more likely to cheat in a heterosexual relationship.


gay marriage will be a major step in the further unstringing of our most fundamental ? and most fundamentally threatened ? social institution.

In that case, if the protection of the institution of marriage is so important, perhaps we should try to roll back anything else that has contributed to its rising failure rate.

Make divorces harder - encourage more couples to stay together despite their differences.

Prohibit interracial marriages - after all, people from different cultural backgrounds are going to have a harder time making a marriage work, so why not encourage people to marry those of their own ethnic background?

Prohibit interfaith marriages - religious differences can also tear a family apart.

Close the womens' shelters - stop encouraging women to take their children away from their biological fathers.

I'm sure if we take enough similar steps, we can return marriage to its prior success rate. What do you think?


EDIT:
"Once parental responsibilities are parceled out to more than two people ? even to someone living outside the household ? it becomes that much easier for any one parent to shirk his or her responsibilities. The very notion that parents can be added and subtracted at will tends to cut against the feeling of special responsibility for a given child."

So when do we start closing the daycare centers?


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Does that imply a right to a secular state? I don't see how.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" - the two are grouped together in one section of the Amendment, and in my interpretation, express a protection of the same right. "Freedom of religion", as we commonly call it, requires both parts of that statement.

 

So let me get this straight, your SECULAR PURPOSE is that gays are too promiscious to get married!?!?!?!

RIDICULOUS. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. And since when do we punish entire class of citizens en toto? That's absolutley as asanine as it would have been to say that because a higher percentage of blacks are 'criminals' we should deny them the right to vote or other rights.

That study is garbage, or do I have to explain teh difference between correlation and causation?

Do you think the fact that gays have been traditionally denied the institution has anything to do with it? Don't you think that straight people living in a society that forbid them the institution of marriage would be any different? Is there any empirical evidence that simply being gay genetically predisposes you towards cheating?

FURTHERMORE, this argument is just as worthless as the grounds for excluding them because of procreation, MONOGAMY IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF MARRIAGE.

Bubba, this is just absurd. I can't believe I wasted time dignifying it with a response. And you know what? This is not your reason, you no doubt searched to find this article, this is not your reason, as I'm CERTAIN you would be against gay marriage even if this study had shown that gays were MORE monogamous than straights.

That seems deceitful to me. Admit it, you are basing your reasoning on religous doctrine, and trying desperately to find secular arguments to support it.

EDIT: And what's all this talk of a secular state? As opposed to what a RELIGOUS state? Whose religion?

The state has no right to make laws of a religous quality, you have a right to be free from such laws, it's really not that difficult to understand.

 

Bubba

I'm not saying the government should promote childbirth. Childbirth is inevitable in any country; I just think that, as a response to the inevitable, the government should promote that as many children as possible are raised by their biological parents.

Forgive me for going in circles, but I do not see how letting gay's be legally married will cause children to be raised by people other than their biological parents any more so than they are now. I do not see how letting homosexuals be legally married will result in even more children than already being raised by people other than their biological parents. How will it?


But reading your response to Singularity, I have to again say that you are fighting over a word. I honestly don't care about the word; I care about what it actually describes. Make up a new word for the gay equivalent of legal marriage which is the exact same thing except between man and man or woman and woman instead of man and woman. For the sake of simplicity, I would call it marriage, but if you want to differentiate between man and woman, and m&m/w&w, go ahead.

As for the monogamy issue; you may very well have a good point. Even if it is explained by male sex drive, it does not change the probable fact that homosexual couples are more likely to cheat on each other than married couples. Maybe we should change the legal definition of marriage and the gay equivalent to say that you must be in a single partner relationship for X number of years before you can be legally married or gay-ied.

I don't mean this sarcastically, but you seem to be worried about the word 'marriage' getting dirty if it was used to describe the legal union between gays as well as heterosexuals. Yet you support giving homosexual couples all the same rights as strait couples when it comes to marriage. Given that marriage and gay-age would practically be the same thing, wouldn't that still cause 'marriage' to be dirtied for the reasons you gave for if we called them the same thing? I just feel that changing the word does nothing for what the word actually means.

 

womberty:

Do you think this is less true with heterosexual relationships? Are you going to suggest that no heterosexual couple ever marries simply for the benefits? Surely you realize that's not true. Can you even provide evidence that a smaller percentage of heterosexuals would marry for the benefits?

The point is not just that homosexuals would marry for benefits, but that they would do so despite disdain for the institution of marriage.


What were the statistics among lesbian couples?

...

Without the statistics for monogamy among lesbian couples, I could just as easily assert that men weaken the monogamy of marriage in general. All I really need is some statistics on which partner is more likely to cheat in a heterosexual relationship.

It's probably the men -- and that may be one of the reasons for marriage. Kurtz, again:

(I apologize for quoting Kurtz so much in so short a span, but if I'm going to have to respond to so many different people in such a short period of time, I'm going to take short-cuts.)

Until we face certain truths about sex ? I mean heterosexual sex ? we will never understand the real implications of the movement for same-sex marriage.

This was brought home to me with stunning clarity by William Raspberry's column, "What's Love Got To Do With It?" in last Friday's Washington Post. Raspberry bemoans the near total absence of rules of courtship ? indeed the absence of courtship itself ? from our college campuses. Building on what he's seen over several years as a college teacher, but even more so on a new report entitled, "Hooking Up, Hanging Out, and Hoping for Mr. Right: College Women on Dating and Mating Today," Raspberry chastises parents and college administrators for having abandoned college women to the false equality of meaningless sex with men.

Although a majority of female students expect to meet their future husbands on campus ? and expect the marriages to last ? the campus culture of "hooking up" (quick, no-strings sexual encounters) makes those marriages impossible to achieve. These women are out of their minds, says Raspberry, to think that hooking up can ever lead to a wedding ring or a long-lasting marriage. But Raspberry reserves his greatest scorn for the adults who've effectively deserted their children by failing to teach or enforce reasonable rules of courtship.

In repudiating the bogus claim of sexual "equality" implicit in the culture of no-strings sex, Raspberry offers a remarkable statement: "I don't doubt for a minute that women's control of sex helped to tame men, to focus their attention and make them suitable for, and amenable to, marriage."

Now nothing in that statement would have been remarkable a generation ago. And it's certainly arresting that Raspberry is publicly willing to affirm today what ought to be obvious: that men and women approach sex differently, and that women, by waiting, help men to yoke together love and sex in a way that leads to and strengthens marriage. But what's truly interesting about Raspberry's column is that he wrote it after penning a piece only last year expressing puzzlement that anyone could find gay marriage a threat to marriage itself.

Raspberry wasn't being dense ? just honest. Marriage is one of those institutions we take for granted. The rationale for marriage isn't so much written down somewhere as buried in the thing itself. That's why neither Raspberry, nor other right-thinking liberals, can see the connection between the rise of the movement for gay marriage and the decline of heterosexual courtship and marriage. But the link is there.

Moving on...


In that case, if the protection of the institution of marriage is so important, perhaps we should try to roll back anything else that has contributed to its rising failure rate.

Make divorces harder - encourage more couples to stay together despite their differences.

Prohibit interracial

 

Limiting marriage to "one man, one woman" does not punish gays, any more than it punishes people who can't find someone willing to marry them.

-Yes it does Bubba, and you know it.

I didn't say the study wasn't "true," I'm saying it's assertion is simplistic and in no way supports your argument.

It still doesn't justify the state excluding a class of citizens from a secular institution.

 

Bubba previously stated several times:

The legal sanction of marriage encourages that the most children possible are raised by both their biological parents.

I'll ask this again since Bubba has yet to either provide such precedent or admit there is no such prececent within the American legal system and related jurisprudence.

Can you reference any legal support for this contrived notion? Marriage is a civil contract. Homosexuals have a right to this civil contract. Explain why they should be denied this right - if you're able.

Don't avoid the issue. Don't jump to another matter. Provide the legal precedent or admit you are aware of none.

 

As with all other things regarding the social contract, we can surely find a balance between individual freedom and social stability.

This same subjective and baseless argument has been used in the past in attempts to preserve slavery, limit suffrage, keep schools segregated and limit civil rights in other instances also.

The fact is you have yet to substantiate your claims that revising the legal definition of the civil contract of marriage to include contracts between homosexuals would harm society, decrease the number of children raised by their biological parents, etc. Until you substantiate these claims, you have no basis for asserting that homosexuals should be denied this civil privilege.

No, it's that men are too promiscious to marry each other.

The absurdity of your position is getting the best of you Bubba. If men were too promiscuous to marry each other then by definition the participation of any man in a marriage would compromise the marriage including a man and a woman. Additionally, a report was released earlier this year showing the results of a study that concluded women are more likely to cheat than men.

Limiting marriage to "one man, one woman" does not punish gays, any more than it punishes people who can't find someone willing to marry them.

Again, absurd reasoning. The person who can't find someone to marry them still has the opportunity to marry. The fact that circumstance may ultimately lead to the person not marrying does not mean they were denied a civil right. You could use the same absurd reasoning Bubba just subjected us to and justify denial of voting rights to any group of people on the basis that denying that right to vote does not punish them just like someone who chooses not to vote is not punished. This is some of the most facile and absurd reasoning I have seen in this forum.

With rare exception, the legal definition of marriage in this country has always been heterosexual and monogamous.

I know that's dreadfully inconvenient.

Hence, the initiatives to change the legal definition. What? Don't change a law to say something else because it already says something different? Luckily, the rest of us don't follow this simply inane thought process as we could just shut down the legislative branch now otherwise.

 

Your solution is to give Congress's job of writing laws to judges who are unelected and who often serve for life?

Because the Supreme Court does serve the will of the people?


If they make the right decisions, then yes.

 

Yeah really, I mean, at the very least, it's called COMMON-LAW, AKA JUDGE MADE LAW, which is older than the constitution.

Judges have the power to make law. They alwasy have.

 

Singularity:

You're asking for legal precedence about something that has never before been questioned in the courts: the states' right to issue marriage licenses.

Gasp. The horror.


"As with all other things regarding the social contract, we can surely find a balance between individual freedom and social stability."

This same subjective and baseless argument has been used in the past in attempts to preserve slavery, limit suffrage, keep schools segregated and limit civil rights in other instances also.

And your rejection of the idea of balance between freedom and stability has led to the support of pedophilia and outright anarchy.


The fact is you have yet to substantiate your claims that revising the legal definition of the civil contract of marriage to include contracts between homosexuals would harm society, decrease the number of children raised by their biological parents, etc. Until you substantiate these claims, you have no basis for asserting that homosexuals should be denied this civil privilege.

I have substantiated my claims, here and on other subjects. Not my fault if you're going to ignore that I do.


The absurdity of your position is getting the best of you Bubba. If men were too promiscuous to marry each other then by definition the participation of any man in a marriage would compromise the marriage including a man and a woman. Additionally, a report was released earlier this year showing the results of a study that concluded women are more likely to cheat than men.

If the study I mentioned -- and named and detailed -- isn't substantiation of a claim, your study surely does nothing for this argument, either.

As for this:

"If men were too promiscuous to marry each other then by definition the participation of any man in a marriage would compromise the marriage including a man and a woman."

Hell, I'll concede that point. It's still the best way to promote fidelity and the best way to ensure that as many children as possible are raised by their biological parents, which -- last time I checked -- usually means a mother and a father, a woman and a man.


Again, absurd reasoning. The person who can't find someone to marry them still has the opportunity to marry.

How? No one will marry the guy. Takes two to tango, and if he cannot find a partner, he doesn't have the opportunity to marry, does he?

And you call my reasoning absurd?


The fact that circumstance may ultimately lead to the person not marrying does not mean they were denied a civil right.

I agree: if circumstances lead you to same-sex attraction, you're not denied a civil right if you don't get a license designed for heterosexual coupling.


You could use the same absurd reasoning Bubba just subjected us to and justify denial of voting rights to any group of people on the basis that denying that right to vote does not punish them just like someone who chooses not to vote is not punished.

Bad analogy: a person who chooses not to vote chooses not to vote.

I'm talking about someone who desparately wants to marry but can't find someone to marry him.

If you want to say that, indeed, the bachelor's rights are being trampled on just like the rights of homosexuals, at least that would be consistent.


Hence, the initiatives to change the legal definition. What? Don't change a law to say something else because it already says something different? Luckily, the rest of us don't follow this simply inane thought process as we could just shut down the legislative branch now otherwise.

You might want to see what I was talking about and put my words back into context. I was responding to the claim that "MONOGAMY IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF MARRIAGE."

It is a requirement, at least as presently defined.

If you want to argue that marriage should be redefined to include homosexuality and polygamy, fine. But that means admitting that the current definition excludes both, and that's the only thing I was emph

 

Aw shut it with your hollow threats of, "tyranny," I meant in cases other than this. If congress is too stupid to act or even make progress, then if the courts do it, they have my full support. Either way, change will be made.

 

I'll let that post speak for itself.

 

That's good.

 

The point is not just that homosexuals would marry for benefits, but that they would do so despite disdain for the institution of marriage.

And you don't think any heterosexuals disdain the institution of marriage? You don't think they marry in spite of their disdain, just for the benefits (or to get the parents off their backs)?


Raspberry wasn't being dense ? just honest. Marriage is one of those institutions we take for granted. The rationale for marriage isn't so much written down somewhere as buried in the thing itself. That's why neither Raspberry, nor other right-thinking liberals, can see the connection between the rise of the movement for gay marriage and the decline of heterosexual courtship and marriage. But the link is there.

And you don't think that the government's involvement in regulating marriage, and the resulting secularization, has contributed to the oft-bewailed decline of the institution?


As with all other things regarding the social contract, we can surely find a balance between individual freedom and social stability.

So is it your position that the government may infringe upon individual freedom (and even violate the principle of equal rights) for the sake of social stability?


Funny you bring that up, but it does seem that daycare en masse hasn't exactly had a positive effect on children.

My point was that, if the government can forbid polygamy simply because of the resulting lack of responsibility on the part of biological parents, it can also outlaw daycare centers for exactly the same reason.


No, freedom of religion is just the "free exercise." The Establishment Clause is about freedom from religion; I do not believe we have a right to be free from religion, nor does the Constitution force any such thing onto the states.

I personally think freedom of religion requires freedom from any government enforced religion.

Personal feelings aside, I don't disagree that the 1st Amendment, when passed, was not designed to prevent states from endorsing religion. However, if it's not a good idea for the federal government to promote a particular reason because of its undue strain on the religious freedoms of its citizens, how is it a good idea for the states to do so?


With rare exception, the legal definition of marriage in this country has always been heterosexual and monogamous.

The government does not enforce that monogamy in most cases. A couple could agree to an "open" marriage, and the government wouldn't be able to stop it - would they, though heterosexual, still be "bastardizing" the word marriage? Would you support a government enforcement of monogamy within marriage?


But what if I was? Is it now a crime to base one's political views on one's religion?

No, but it's misleading to claim the government has a secular purpose for marriage when it clearly was endorsing a religious tradition. Claiming that laws should be based on your religion while limiting the religious freedoms of others borders on absurd.


As long as no one is punished for believing or practicing differently, what would it matter if, say, Mormonism was the official religion in Utah?

But God forbid - rather, government forbid - that Mormons be able to practice their religion as they see fit.

If the states have every right to make laws based on the religious views of their citizens, why can't a state allow polygamy?


If you want to say that, indeed, the bachelor's rights are being trampled on just like the rights of homosexuals, at least that would be consistent.

Actually, they are - not because he is owed a marriage partner, but because each member of a married couple enjoys benefits denied to single people regardless of sexual orientation.

 

I didn't abdicate anything, you are misinterpreting what I am saying.

I am simply enlightening you here, I've notice this conservative sentiment against the Courts lately. "Judges shouldn't be making law!" True, Judges shouldn't legislate, but Judges have ALWAYS had the power to make law through their rulings, it's the nature of the common-law heritage we inherited from the British. Perhaps it skirts the legislative line, but that's why we have a seperation and a balance of powers.

And furthermore, there are shloads of decisions the Courts have made that I disagree with.

 

You can argue legal technicalities and interpret rulings and ammendments all day long but what it really comes down to is whether you believe that the institute marriage is something worth defending.

Firstly I believe that it is worth defending and that it is correct for marraige to retain privileges because it is of immense value to society. The commitment to stay together for better or worse means that children will be brought up in a stable two parent family which in most cases is the best way.

Anyone who thinks that civil unions (US) or civil partnerships (UK) for homosexuals will not undermine marriage is utterly naive. Marriage bestows responsibility on those involved. Civil Unions will carry no such concept of responsibility. They will essentially be a second tier marraige that will eventually be extended to any two people setting up home together. All the priveleges of marriage will be extended to such people while none of the responsibilty will. Marrigae that is based on a solemn and binding commitment will be immeasurably damaged. It will be to the detriment of society as a whole.

 

EDIT: Double post

 

You can argue legal technicalities and interpret rulings and ammendments all day long but what it really comes down to is whether you believe that the institute marriage is something worth defending.

Actually, it comes down to whether you believe the government should be defining and defending marriage in the first place.

For comparison, consider the religious institution of baptism. Some religions believe that baptism requires full immersion, while others find sprinkling appropriate. Some believe that infants may be baptised; others require that the individual be able to make a profession of faith before baptism is administered.

Now, within a particular religion, the idea of baptism may well be worth defending against newcomers who might say "The church down the street sprinkles infants; why can't we?" Wouldn't you object to an official government definition of baptism that either excludes your particular practice, or makes it so inclusive as to be meaningless? The best defense, then, comes not through government, but in defending the practice against any government intervention.


Firstly I believe that it is worth defending and that it is correct for marraige to retain privileges because it is of immense value to society.

First of all, there are many other cases where the infringement of the rights of a minority could hold "immense value" to the majority. Does that make it okay?

Second, considering the current failure rate of marriages, it is hard to see how it continues to contribute this "immense value".


The commitment to stay together for better or worse means that children will be brought up in a stable two parent family which in most cases is the best way.

But marriage is not, by definition, an agreement to have and raise children together - is it?

Why doesn't the government just offer a "parental pact" that makes it easier for couples to raise their children as long as they stay together? Why call it "marriage" in the first place?


Marriage bestows responsibility on those involved.

As does any contract between two or more parties. What gives government the right to single out a particular type of contract, and restrict those with access to it?


All the priveleges of marriage will be extended to such people while none of the responsibilty will. Marrigae that is based on a solemn and binding commitment will be immeasurably damaged.

Unless you mean a "solemn and binding commitment" to have children, your argument is meaningless.

If you think marriage should require monogamy, who's to say that requirement can't be made of homosexual marriages as well? Just because someone may be statistically more likely to cheat doesn't mean they will, or that you can deny them equal access to the same benefits. You're arguing for the equivalent of profiling.

 

I'd love to see the dictionary that says that.

So you're only concerned with the dictionary definition, and one from a dictionary written 30 or 40 years ago, when bigotry was far more accepted than it is now?

If a homosexual desires spending his life with the man he loves, and that desire is reciprocated, those desires should be fulfilled.

But it's not marriage. The term does not fit.

Why? Because a dictionary written in the 50s says it doesn't? Because a holy book from one or two religions says it doesn't?

At this point, I don't care who I offend; I'll ask it again.

What's preventing a homosexual man from marrying a woman? Nothing at all.

Lack of love? Lack of sexual attraction?

As FIDo said, it defeats the purpose of marriage. Would you want to be married to someone who was in love with someone else?

Homosexuals and their militant advocacy groups not only want to be free to do what they want -- let's be honest, in this country they already are free -- they want to be free from any sort of criticism.

Homosexuals are no more militant than the folks who stood outside Matthew Shepard's funeral with signs that said "God hates fags."

And as your Bible will still be around, as will Christian groups, homosexuals will never be free from any sort of criticism.

The reproduction argument is quite flimsy, and as I have already demonstrated, would not permit the EXCLUSION of gays.

Bubba denies that this is his only argument, but if it were, it would exclude folks like myself and my husband.

Homosexuals cannot produce children without help from someone of the opposite sex. Or how am I wrong on this point?

So would a lot of heterosexuals. What's your point?

It also infringes on, or at least blurs the lines of, equal protection because some individuals get privileges denied to others. Some people are allowed to marry men; others are not. Some people are allowed to refrain from testimony against the people to whom they are closest; others are not.

Thank you for bringing that up, womberty.

I don't have a will right now, so when I die, everything goes automatically to my husband. If I am ever in intensive care, my husband is allowed in the room with me and is allowed to make medical decisions for me. My husband cannot be required to testify against me in a court of law--anything I say to him is bound by spousal privilege. Everything I own is legally half his. We file jointly on taxes, which gives us a cheaper rate.

I have a friend who is denied these rights and privileges with his lifemate--because his lifemate, like mine, is a male. But because my friend and I are blessed with different genitalia, I am allowed privileges that he isn't. What exactly is fair about that?

Many of those who are for gay civil unions insist that polygamy is not a necessary next step. But I don't believe these people are capable of explaining that belief.

I haven't really explored it because I don't much care whether people are polygamous or not.

 

I have a friend who is denied these rights and privileges with his lifemate--because his lifemate, like mine, is a male. But because my friend and I are blessed with different genitalia, I am allowed privileges that he isn't. What exactly is fair about that?

One thing I don't understand is the argument that gay couples should be allowed access to these benefits through some kind of legally binding contract, but that it shouldn't be called "marriage."

Why, then, should the government's contract for heterosexuals be called "marriage"?

Why not offer the same "civil union" to every couple who wants one, and give the churches the power to define "marriage" as they see fit?

 

Yeah, but you are fighting over a word. You are fighting over grunts and air coming out of someone?s mouth. Is it really worth it?

You feel that the word marriage only applies to opposite sex marriages. I just don?t see why a word is so absolute when the ideas and concepts behind the word are what matters. To two people in love, whether gay or not, is there any difference legally between the word marriage and the civil union you describe?

 

Those fighting over the word should never have relinquished the power of its definition to the government.

 

Actually, it comes down to whether you believe the government should be defining and defending marriage in the first place.

If you believe that marriage is worth defending then you would probably want your government to defend it so I say again that this whole arguement boils down to whether you really believe in the institute of marriage.

For comparison, consider the religious institution of baptism.

That comparison is absurd. Baptism is a religious process that only has an effect on the individual involved. Marriage has benefits to society as a whole.

First of all, there are many other cases where the infringement of the rights of a minority could hold "immense value" to the majority. Does that make it okay?

Supporting marriage does not deny anyone their rights. It is a classic and false arguement for homosexual marriages that they give rights to people. The reality is that they take away the privileges of marriage.

Second, considering the current failure rate of marriages, it is hard to see how it continues to contribute this "immense value".

The fact that hetrosexuals have already caused immense damage to the institute of marriage is not a good reason to damage it further by allowing homosexual marriage.

But marriage is not, by definition, an agreement to have and raise children together - is it?

Unless you mean a "solemn and binding commitment" to have children, your argument is meaningless.

The fact that a fairly small minority of married couple choose not to, or are unable to have children in no way negates the value of marriage to society as whole.

Why doesn't the government just offer a "parental pact" that makes it easier for couples to raise their children as long as they stay together? Why call it "marriage" in the first place?

Because any two people who were living together could claim such benefits yet it would be far less that they would both take a proper interest in the upbringing of the children than a married couple.

If you think marriage should require monogamy, who's to say that requirement can't be made of homosexual marriages as well? Just because someone may be statistically more likely to cheat doesn't mean they will, or that you can deny them equal access to the same benefits. You're arguing for the equivalent of profiling.

Where did I say that homosexuals were more likely to cheat?

 

Womberty, you are spot on, which is why I proposed giving the term MARRIAGE back to religion.

Supporting marriage does not deny anyone their rights. It is a classic and false arguement for homosexual marriages that they give rights to people. The reality is that they take away the privileges of marriage.

Incorrect. How about this?

Supporting gay marriage does not deny anone their rights. It is a classic and FALSE argument to say that they take away the privileges of heterosexual langauge. The reality is that it only gives rights to people.