Redstate

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Marty, baby, you're not accepting e-mails, and I have no idea whether "5! That is all ... [n/t]" means a high five, or you are suggesting I should commit an unnatural act on myself. Nobody's charging you for the words you post!

5 is a tradition on RS, carried over from the time when posts were evaluated on a numeric scale, 5 being the highest rating.

I've been here a few months, and I was wondering what the 5 meant. Now I still can't figure out what "n/t" means.

IE the message has no content beyond the title. RS 2.0 doesn't actually accept genuine n/t posts, which is one reason many of us have a signature file.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

Sorry to digress, but the Kipling quote I find most moving was one he made to his sister, when he had been informed that his son was "missing in action", I believe in the Battle of the Somme, and thus almost certainly dead, never to be found. Kipling told his sister "you should drop to your knees and thank God that all your children are girls". I don't think I've ever read a more compact and devastating description of a father's grief when he learned of the death of a son.

if YOU are.

J.

he addressed that first point later on in his post.
As I am sure you don't recall:
a man in a polygamous relationship is in 3 separate, individual marriage contracts, 1 with each of his wives.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

Or put another way, if exclusivity is NOT a pre-requisite to a marriage contract, what is? What makes marriage "marriage" if not exclusivity?

Why not have friends marry friends for purely benefit reasons?

If you are going to have a roommate for a year, why not marry them to obtain benefits?

If marriage isn't exclusive, should couples marry other couples they are close to?

Why doesn't everyone in my town marry everyone else? Everyone can get healthcare benefits that way.

In Judeo-Christian cultures and those descended from them, yes. It typically IS a part of the contract. With certain, notable, and usually short-lived exceptions.

As for the rest of your points, those would be counter American culture. And besides, they'd be better served by the style of Civil Unions the OP suggests...

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

You're correct. I skimmed and missed it. Having said that, I think it's largely a distinction without a difference. When people oppose polygamy they never say "unless it consists of a series of marriage contracts, each between two people, then I think it should be allowed."

Just to adjust my comment, in the context of the argument of the post that the raison detre of marriage is children, the point re: two-person marriage contracts within a polygamous situation is not "largely a distinction without a difference" as I said above, so that was an overstatement on my part.

But my point still holds that such a distinction is not relevant to the use of polygamy in most arguments against marriage rights for gay couples. Polygamy is usually presented as something that would constitute a "redefinition" of marriage and one that is immoral and would be a threat to "traditional" marriage, and it wouldn't matter to those presenting that argument if polygamy consisted of a series of two-person marriage contracts.

Polygamy is usually presented as something that would constitute a "redefinition" of marriage ...

But, of course, this ignores the fact that polygamy is as old as the institution of marriage itself. I defy you to find me up to three civilizations that allows marriages to be contracted between people of the same sex.

For example, the immediate past President and Vice-President of Nigeria all have multiple wives - all of whom are pretty strong and educated career women.

... and one that is immoral and would be a threat to "traditional" marriage, and it wouldn't matter to those presenting that argument if polygamy consisted of a series of two-person marriage contracts.

There's no "if" about it. The difference between the Western World and the rest of the world when it comes to marriage is not the number of people who can be in a marriage contract (two) (or the sexes of the people (male and female)) but simply the number of contracts one can be in at the same time.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

You seem to think you are disagreeing with me but you are not. I was referring to the common arguments I hear from others. I am not saying that polygamy does not fit the definition of marriage (although I assume it would in legal terms in the U.S.), and my point re: the two-person contracts is that such a technicality would NOT affect the objections many have to polygamy in the U.S.

Raven pointed out the point about polygamy that you missed so I won't get into that.

So if advances in medical science allow incestuous couples to produce healthy offspring, the ONLY reason (according to you) for not allowing incestuous marriages would go away and you'd favor allowing it?

No.

Advances in science do not necessarily compel the altering of mankind's social institutions. The best environment in which to raise a child is with its siblings by their parents. Allowing sexual contact between siblings and parents and their children does immense damage to that environment no matter how advanced medical technology gets.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Now you're presenting a completely different argument. In your post (as I pointed out), it certainly seems to me that you were saying that the only reason for not allowing incestuous marriages was that they produced unhealthy offspring. Why would you go to the trouble of making that point -- and having that be your only argument -- if your real point were something entirely different?

I should point out that, with your incestuous relationship example, you inadvertently provided an example of how social mores can evolve as a result of practical needs driving behaviors or restrictions on behavior that become viewed as issues of morality. There are numerous others. Why does Jewish law proscribe eating pork? Probably because of the risk of trichinosis or some other health hazard at the time the law was written. Why is pre-marital sex "immoral"? Because throughout much of history, and still to some extent, such activity could leave a woman in one heck of an economic bind (having a child without a supporting father). I HIGHLY recommend to anyone The Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant, which covers morality along with a number of other major philisophical and practical topics http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-History-Will-Durant/dp/0671413333

It will, very soon, be possible to screen all couples for genetic risk. While it is clear that, on average, siblings have a higher genetic risk than radomly selected couples we will soon be able to identify two groups of people:

1. Siblings who have no particular genetic risk.
2. Couples who are entirely unrelated but have a very high genetic risk.

These groups have always existed, but the only blunt tool we had to reduce genetic risk was a law to prevent incest.

I think we have very serious questions to answer when the identification of genetic risk can be done with far greater precision than the incest laws have provided.

We should note that it is utterly different debate than on gay marriage for several reasons.

Firstly, something very significant will have changed - ie, our ability to assess genetic risk. Those who argue that gay relationships are immoral presumably believe that this has always been the case and is immutable over time.

Secondly, the coming debate about incest is only partly about marriage. Sexual relations, in or out of marriage, are banned under most incest laws. Even if you think (as Martin argues in this thread) that marriage is threatened by incesutuous marriages, sex is a different thing. In that sense, incest laws are much more similar to the pre Loving miscegenation laws.

Just by way of an example, here is a sad story. Some friends of mine discovered, around the time of their child's first birthday, that he suffered from a degenerative brain condition that would certainly kill him during childhood. It is genetic and carried by a recessive gene. They were both carriers. This means that any future children would have a 25% chance of having the same condition. A further 50% would be carriers (not, of itself, a big problem, as the condition is very rare), and 25% would not have the gene at all.

My friends did not discover this until after they were married and had a child. Other couples in the same situation would not discover it with the first child (or even, potentially, at all). It would, obviously, be unjust, to apply a law restricting them from having sex at this point. But, if they had been tested when they first met, should they have been allowed to get married?

Incidentally, the maths are interesting. This couple had about the highest genetic risk imaginable with each other. It is far from certain that they would have had a similar risk with their siblings. Say the wife of this couple had wanted to have sex with her brother. There is only a 50% chance he was carrying the same gene, while it was known that her husband was. In other words, sex with her brother was genetically safer that with her husband.

I don't have a conclusion to all the questions that arise from this science. But I do believe these are questions we will be struggling with, and soon.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

You raise an interesting and important moral and legal issue, as that story painfully illustrates. As for the incestuous marriage issue, of course, the genetic risk is really a red herring for some who really object on other grounds (and some of those other grounds -- e.g., societal harm -- are, in turn, often red herrings for their real objections which lie in religion, tradition, norms and social mores).

As for the genetic risk issue among heterosexual couples, I'll have to ask my father if he has thoughts on that. He's semi-retired, but much of his career has been in bioethics and medical-legal issues (he's an MD, JD).

Try to understand me. Part of that is looking beyond your point of view and actively avoiding trying to place my arguments within your own pre-determined definitions.

That way you'll avoid mistakes like thinking that the argument I just made is "completely different" from what I have been making all along. Again, marriage as an institution is about children, BrooksRob - from the establishment of their (legal, at the very least) patrimony, the provision of a good (hopefully stable) environment for them to grow which is, by and large, best provided by their biological parents and role models (male and female for obvious reasons) for them to emulate when they become parents.

This at the same time, does not mean that one must have children in a marriage - that's down to the individual level. At the societal level, it is an entirely different thing. Do you understand?

Think about this; why is it considered ... just wrong, even perverse, for a man to marry his legally (non-biological) adopted daughter (or sister) for that matter? Universally?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

I'm fine with your ground rule. In fact, I abide by it and always have. I suggest another ground rule: that we respond directly and substantively to each other's arguments. My argument was that the argument you presented -- and the ONLY argument you presented -- against incestuous marriage is the genetic health risk for children. I therefore asked you if you would still be against such marriage if that health risk were removed. You responded by saying:

Advances in science do not necessarily compel the altering of mankind's social institutions. The best environment in which to raise a child is with its siblings by their parents. Allowing sexual contact between siblings and parents and their children does immense damage to that environment no matter how advanced medical technology gets.

I then pointed out that you had shifted to a completely different argument. You were no longer basing your opposition on genetic health risk, but instead on not wanting to alter social institutions and wanting the best possible environment for children. How is that not a completely different argument from genetic health risk? What am I missing? I'm perfectly open to an explanation.

Think about this; why is it considered ... just wrong, even perverse, for a man to marry his legally (non-biological) adopted daughter (or sister) for that matter? Universally?

I think that such a situation is generally considered morally wrong because, first of all, most people confuse tradition, religion or norms or social mores with morality, secondly because of real or perceived genetic health risk, third because such relationships can often result from coercion, and fourth because such relationships (or even the possibility of them) interfere with what many consider (as do I) a much more healthy type of relationship between siblings or between parent and child.

I think that such a situation is generally considered morally wrong because, first of all, most people confuse tradition, religion or norms or social mores with morality,

I would say that most traditions, norms and social mores are actually often based on morality - or the promotion of morality. Religion is a more complicated thing.

secondly because of real or perceived genetic health risk,

Read what I wrote again. I mean, you quoted me; "his legally (non-biological) adopted daughter (or sister)" ...

third because such relationships can often result from coercion

What if it's not? What if the relationship begins when she is a successful 26 year old executive and he is a widowed and retired 56 year old?

fourth because such relationships (or even the possibility of them) interfere with what many consider (as do I) a much more healthy type of relationship between siblings or between parent and child.

Interesting that you're making my exact argument here ... but to copy your own favorite; if these types of relationships were allowed for those who want them, how would it affect you? Would you sleep with your Mom (or Dad), or any of your kids? No? So why would you stand in the way of Joan and her father Joaquin getting married?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

You seem to have a habit of asking me why many OTHER people hold a particular opinion or belief, and then when I answer why I think OTHERS hold that opinion/belief, you respond as if I'm giving MY OWN opinion/belief, and then act as if I'm being inconsistent or proving your point. If you want to know MY opinions and beliefs, ASK ME. Don't ask me why I think OTHERS hold that opinion/belief and then get all confused by my answer, ok?

Maybe I misinterpreted you; I was under the impression that your position was that gays were being denied "equal marriage rights" either due to misguided/religious based morality and/or prejudice. Furthermore, I believe you have consistently charged opponents (in this thread and others) with justifying their opposition given that the two guys next door getting married would not affect their own marriages, or be hurting anyone.

I'm trying to make you see (in a way that will enable you to comprehend for yourself my point of view) that your position and your arguments in favor of gay marriage can be used to justify opening up the marriage institution to any and all combinations of people, including close family members and more than two people, at which point it ceases to be the institution it has been, and that has ably served the needs of humanity, for millenia.

Please explain how you can justify the denial of a marriage license to this guy because he wants to marry his sister?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Maybe I misinterpreted you; I was under the impression that your position was that gays were being denied "equal marriage rights" either due to misguided/religious based morality and/or prejudice.

That IS my contention, except for the prejudice part. But I'm focusing primarily on exposing the weakness in the secular arguments against equal marriage rights for gays (which, by process of elimination, reveals religious reasons as the only basis left).

Furthermore, I believe you have consistently charged opponents (in this thread and others) with justifying their opposition given that the two guys next door getting married would not affect their own marriages, or be hurting anyone.

I AM arguing that those who claim that allowing gays to marry will severely undermine "traditional" marriage are wildly exaggerating at best. I think it's absurd to contend that there would be a substantial drop in heterosexual marriages as a result of gays gaining equal marriage rights.

I'm trying to make you see (in a way that will enable you to comprehend for yourself my point of view) that your position and your arguments in favor of gay marriage can be used to justify opening up the marriage institution to any and all combinations of people, including close family members and more than two people, at which point it ceases to be the institution it has been, and that has ably served the needs of humanity, for millenia.

Please explain how you can justify the denial of a marriage license to this guy because he wants to marry his sister?

You present an argument that the traditional definition of legal marriage should be preserved because society would suffer greatly if the definition is expanded, but when asked to consider, hypothetically or otherwise, that such harm may not actually occur, you backtrack to arguing that the traditional definition needs to be preserved...presumably for its own sake. And here you present a slippery slope argument, as if allowing one type of marriage would inescapably lead to all others you do not want. Your last question, if it's intended to test the consistency of principles behind my position, is fine, but we've already gone over this question in this thread, and you did you applied circular logic. You said incestuous marriage has never been allowed and should not be allowed because of genetic health risk to children, but when I asked you if it would be ok if that risk were removed, you reverted back to saying that it shouldn't be allowed because it breaks with tradition. To answer your question, I start with the presumption that if our current laws allow two consenting adults to marry, then ANY two consenting adults should be allowed to marry unless there is a very strong case against it, be it genetic health risk to children (although you should see Quentin's comment and story above) or likelihood of coercion or some other reason. The burden is on those who wish to deny equal rights. If you can make the case that someone (individuals or society) gets sufficiently harmed to justify denying equal marriage rights, then so be it. But the bar for denying equal rights should be set high. Ditto for polygamy (and for polygamy there may be a number of possible arguments, such as highly disproportionate financial burden on society -- immigration, government/employer benefits, high level of confusion -- or the interests of children, but hypothetically if they all could be addressed sufficiently, I don't see an argument for not allowing polygamy simply based on tradition or religion).

Or are you newer to RS than I think?

About a year ago we had a discussion of this topic that also brought up the marriage rates in nations that already have recognized homosexual marriages. It DOES have an effect. a big one.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

I wasn't on RS a year ago, and as for your contention, it's laughable. Even IF allowing gays to marry CAUSED (not just correlated with) a substantial decline in heterosexual marriage, that still would not necessarily justify denying equal mariage rights to gays. Heck, if you want to maximize the number of married people in a MUCH more effective way than disallowing marriage to gays, ban ALL divorce! Ready to do that? And in any case, just to repeat, the causal relationship you assert is just funny. Only possibility I can think of is if a large portion of gays or bisexuals in some countries, prior to allowing gay marriage, were marrying the opposite sex. So we'd have to take first the percentage of the population that is gay or bisexual, and then a percentage of a percentage that would marry the opposite sex if gay marriage were not available, but not if it is available.

As for the broader argument that allowing gays to marry somehow undermines the concept of marriage among heterosexuals, leading great numbers of them not to marry, that's just silly.

yeah, if we guys can marry other guys, who's gonna want to marry a GIRL? Iwwwww gross!

Come on, get real. Letting gays marry is a threat to no one's heterosexual marriage, nor to the quantity or quality of heterosexual marriages in general. As Jon Stewart said, "I was opposed to gay marriage, until I found out it wasn't mandatory."

If you don't want gays to be able to have legally-recognized marriage because you think that would constitute a statement by government that homosexuality is not immoral and inferior to heterosexuality, and you want government to deny such marriage rights to make the implicit statement that gay relationships ARE immoral and inferior because your religion tells you that homosexuality is immoral, then just say so, but don't invent some threat to heterosexual marriage.

Come on, get real. Letting gays marry is a threat to no one's heterosexual marriage, nor to the quantity or quality of heterosexual marriages in general.

This is not the basis of my opposition to gay marriage though it obviously touches on it. Quite frankly, knowing that Jack and James down the street are in a relationship has not affected my relationship with my girlfriend any and I have no reason to believe it would change if I get married to my girlfriend and they also "tie the knot."

But that's at the individual level - and in many cases, when you take things down to the individual level they don't look so disturbing. For example, if consensual adult incestuous relationships were suddenly granted legal recognition, would you sleep with your sister? No, right? But at the societal level it's an entirely different thing.

Allowing any two people to get married poses a threat to the institution itself. It completely decouples marriage from pro-creation and ultimately will alter it into no more than a financial arrangement.

Think about it. Look at it from more than just your perspective. i.e. try to understand that how I can say that homosexual marriage decouples the institution of marriage completely from procreation and yet that I am not saying that every marriage must result in children.

For example, what's stopping Jack and Jill, two straight platonic friends of opposite sex who have no sexual feelings for each other, from getting married today? There are many advantages to it, so why do they not just have an arrangement with each other (draw up an appropriate pre-nup) and partake of these advantages until one of them meets that special someone and they can get a divorce?

I'm not saying this doesn't happen. But the average person, I believe, and I dare say everywhere around the world, despite this being perfectly legal and maybe even logical on some economic basis, would think it ... wrong.

Would you? Why is that?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

You beat that argument down quite well ... who made it though?

Didn't you see that my comment was a reply to Mediahawk's comment, not to your post? And Mediahawk said:

Civil union is simply the backyard door through which homosexuals want to enter the marriage institution so as to ultimately undermine it because they fear it...we need to face the reality that once you open up marriage to homosexuals, polygamy etc, marriage as we have known it will cease to exist.

MediaHawk said:

Civil union is simply the backyard door through which homosexuals want to enter the marriage institution so as to ultimately undermine it because they fear it...we need to face the reality that once you open up marriage to homosexuals, polygamy etc, marriage as we have known it will cease to exist.

You responded with:

Come on, get real. Letting gays marry is a threat to no one's heterosexual marriage, nor to the quantity or quality of heterosexual marriages in general. As Jon Stewart said, "I was opposed to gay marriage, until I found out it wasn't mandatory."

If you don't want gays to be able to have legally-recognized marriage because you think that would constitute a statement by government that homosexuality is not immoral and inferior to heterosexuality, and you want government to deny such marriage rights to make the implicit statement that gay relationships ARE immoral and inferior because your religion tells you that homosexuality is immoral, then just say so ...

So, yep, considering that he said nothing about religion (but you asserted that it was the major basis of his opposition to gay marriage) and that he was rather clear about the fact that he was talking about the "marriage institution" while you went to the individual level and reduced his argument to: "yeah, if we guys can marry other guys, who's gonna want to marry a GIRL?" ... you pretty much beat down an argument MediaHawk certainly did not make.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Should an older (obviously post-manapausal) woman be able to get married? She cannot procreate, so why not deny her the right to get married by your rationale?

Should an older (obviously post-menopausal) woman be able to get married?

Yep.

She cannot procreate, so why not deny her the right to get married by your rationale?

Because her getting married does no damage to the institution of marriage. It doesn't alter it, or decouple it from pro-creation.

Remember this again; the institution of marriage may have the provision of the most suitable/ideal environment for the pro-creating and raising of children as its raison d'etre, but this has never meant that it compels pro-creation ... do you understand?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

She cannot procreate, so why not deny her the right to get married by your rationale? [BrooksRob]

Because her getting married does no damage to the institution of marriage. It doesn't alter it, or decouple it from pro-creation. [MartinAKnight]

So what's different about the "union" of a post-menopausal woman and some guy, and the "union" of two guys, that makes only the latter union damage the institution of marriage? It apparently has nothing to do with procreation afterall.

The position you seem to have taken is that you believe any alteration in an institution is by definition damage to that institution - only negative, never neutral or positive. I assume that you don't believe this to be true in all cases. So can you explain why you believe it is true with regards to the institution of marriage - without referencing pro-creation, the lack of possibility of which you have now implicitly stated in fact does not alter (or damage) the institution?

Aside from comparisons between homosexual couples and heterosexual couples who cannot (or even choose not to) have children, when you look at what citizens are actually telling us marriage means to them, it seems to me society is already re-defining it, based on this 2007 Pew Research Center study:

Americans of all ages, this survey finds, acknowledge that there has been a distinct weakening of the link between marriage and parenthood. In perhaps the single most striking finding from the survey, just 41% of Americans now say that children are "very important" to a successful marriage, down sharply from the 65% who said this in a 1990 survey.
Figure

Indeed, children have fallen to eighth out of nine on a list of items that people associate with successful marriages – well behind "sharing household chores," "good housing," "adequate income," "happy sexual relationship," and "faithfulness." Back in 1990, when the American public was given this same list on a World Values Survey, children ranked third in importance.

The new Pew survey also finds that, by a margin of nearly three-to-one, Americans say that the main purpose of marriage is the "mutual happiness and fulfillment" of adults rather than the "bearing and raising of children." [cite]

And also from Pew:

When it comes to the relationship between marriage and children, Hispanics stand out, with nearly seven in ten (69%) considering having and raising children "very important" for a successful marriage compared with 35% of whites and 49% of blacks -- even so, a majority of Hispanics say that adult happiness and fulfillment is the main purpose of a marriage. [cite]

So if society as a whole no longer believes (if they ever did) that procreation is the main purpose of marriage, do we respond as elitists and nannies, and try to correct what we believe to be bad decision making in the populace by using the government as a coercive or prohibitive tool, or do we recognize that things change, and adapt our government to the people accordingly? I have no problem with people who feel passionately about a particular course of action to advocate for it as you do here, but the government ought to take into account the people of today, rather than the traditions of years past.

The position you seem to have taken is that you believe any alteration in an institution is by definition damage to that institution - only negative, never neutral or positive. I assume that you don't believe this to be true in all cases. So can you explain why you believe it is true with regards to the institution of marriage - without referencing pro-creation, the lack of possibility of which you have now implicitly stated in fact does not alter (or damage) the institution?

No, I have made no such concession.

I'm a bit pooped out so I'll just quote myself from way back ...

It's a definitional issue. What is marriage for?

Marriage as an institution, worldwide, is exclusively reserved for heterosexual couples because heterosexual sex is the only way a new human being is conceived and brought into this world. Marriage is about procreation and not some great conspiracy to persecute gay people.

The instant we allow just any two people to get married, then society has made it clear that children have absolutely nothing to do with the institution of marriage and has now redefined marriage to be exclusively about the wishes and happiness of adults.

And in that case, a man/woman can marry his/her (adult) brother, sister, mother, father, son or daughter so long as it makes him/her happy. What right have you to tell them that they can't get married?

So the number of gay people who do decide to get married or the number of married heterosexuals who are childless by disability or design does not matter an iota.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

The instant we allow just any two people to get married, then society has made it clear that children have absolutely nothing to do with the institution of marriage and has now redefined marriage to be exclusively about the wishes and happiness of adults.

So again, explain why you think that a post-menopausal woman marrying a man when there is no possibility for children and the only reasons they have for pursuing the union are their own wishes and happiness does "no damage to the institution of marriage ... or decouple it from pro-creation" - but that the marriage of two guys for their own wishes and happiness does cause damage to marriage? Neither marriage can possibly produce new children, so what's the difference between the two scenarios that makes one damaging and the other not? Defend your position.

The other problem with your argument is the extreme all or nothing set up you're trying to push: that the only two options are either "marriage is about procreation" or that "children have absolutely nothing to do with ... marriage". The fact is, even the 1990 Pew data indicate that children were only third in importance. A more honest appraisal of society indicates that marriage is viewed as quite a multi-faceted institution with multiple reasons inclusive of but not exclusive to procreation or any other single reason, which appeal to different couples in different combinations and priorities.

Clearly heterosexual couples are not all the same - in fact you are now in a minority of heterosexuals with regards to the belief that marriage is primarily about procreation. The fact that you wont take a consistent position that marriage shouldn't be a priviledge of heterosexuals who cannot or choose not to procreate really undercuts your attempt to assign an institution-damaging quality to the marriage/union of homosexuals on the grounds that they cannot procreate.

Show me just once that a man can get pregnant and give birth or a woman getting pregnant without sperm, and you'll get equality. Nature intended for a child to have a male and female to give it the best chance. Anything else and you are always arguing the exception. Last time I checked men and women are completely different physically and mentally. Each with important influences on their children. I am ok with same sex couples adopting but not artificially creating life.

Show how the line can be drawn for same sex marriages and anyone else who wants a civil union (mother daughter). Once you allow same sex marriage the only determining factor is whether someone is having sex with someone else. How you gonna qualify that? Cams in the bedroom? Why not be able to marry your same sex mom, cousin, sister if you won't be procreating?

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

This seems to be the argument-from-procreation again, though. Show me a post-menopausal woman who can get pregnant without an egg donor, etc etc. I know, I know, she froze her eggs years before just so she could pull one out to justify her marriage - "see, I really could become pregant at 60, if I choose to, so sign the marriage certificate, Mr Magistrate".

But if you're ok with homosexual couples adopting then you're helping even further to dismantle MartinAKnight's argument. Granted the homosexuals didn't jointly create a new kid but if they can step in and provide a loving home for a child then you're covering arguably the most critical aspect of parenting - what good is just making the baby if it wont get taken care of and raised? It's pretty easy to get an egg and sperm together. For those people like yourself who don't believe homosexuals are unquestionably and without fail "bad parents" then there's even less reason to oppose their "union" on the basis that they merely can't procreate - since they can still parent.

Why not be able to marry your same sex mom, cousin, sister if you won't be procreating?

Yes, why not? MartinAKnight did point out not compelling one to testify against one'e spouse, so practically speaking I could see criminals attempting to use unions to avoid convictions somehow - on the other hand I'm really not sure why a spouse is immune from testifying in the first place, or how that started. But does that immunity relate only to testifying about events during the marriage, or does it cover knowledge that a person may have had about criminal activity prior to the marriage? Since I'm ignorant on that I'm really not sure if it's problematic, but if it is then the problem applies universally, not just to homosexual unions.

We're talking about government recognition of a "union" by way of a common set of regulations that codify the benefits and obligations of the arrangement. Churches need not be required to designate any union as a church-ordained or God-blessed marriage recognized by their religion.

I'm coming up empty - do you have any compelling reasons as to why not?

So again, explain why you think that a post-menopausal woman marrying a man when there is no possibility for children and the only reasons they have for pursuing the union are their own wishes and happiness does "no damage to the institution of marriage ... or decouple it from pro-creation" - but that the marriage of two guys for their own wishes and happiness does cause damage to marriage?

Again three rules define marriage worldwide, each tracing its roots to procreation and establishing the closest to the ideal environment for the upbringing and care of children. You may not like it, you may consider it unfair and curse God Almighty for it ... but that is how it is.

Across the entire world; the institution of marriage is reserved for two people of opposite sex who are sufficiently non-consanguineal. That's it. Those are the qualifications for entry into the institution, each rule reflecting the realities of pro-creation.

Again and again I point out that that does not mean that a couple is compelled to reproduce or even prove the capability of reproduction. So if a post-menopausal or barren woman decides to get married to a man, it does not alter the institution one iota because it violates none of the three rules that define marriage, again, in every civilization around the world.

Neither marriage can possibly produce new children, so what's the difference between the two scenarios that makes one damaging and the other not? Defend your position.

I have defended it over and over again. Pointing out those occasions where for some reason or other a heterosexual couple may not be able (or willing) to have children does not shoot any holes into the fact that the institution of marriage is centered around the pro-creating and the raising of children.

Your position that marriage is all about the wishes and happiness of the people who want to get into it - but if that is the case, why limit the marriage contract to just two people, and non-relatives? If it would make Jack happy, why shouldn't he be able to marry his sister? Or brother? Or mother? Or father? Note that the very same arguments that is used to justify gay marriage can be used to justify incestuous marriages between consenting adults and involving more than two people.

You defend that.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Again and again I point out that that does not mean that a couple is compelled to reproduce or even prove the capability of reproduction. So if a post-menopausal or barren woman decides to get married to a man, it does not alter the institution one iota because it violates none of the three rules that define marriage, again, in every civilization around the world.

This is why I pointed out earlier that you're actually taking a position that an alteration of tradition is in itself a defacto negative. Since a homosexual couple is different from the post-menopausal female and male couple only in the sense that the former consists of a same-gender match, then it "violates" only one of your "rules": "Only people of opposite sex can be in a marriage contract."

But the sole rationale you gave for the rule is built entirely on the capability of reproduction: "This is because only opposite sex couples can produce children."

Perhaps we should have started with making you justify this rule, since it's obviously incorrect that assert that marriage has been restricted to opposite gender couples solely on the basis of an ability to procreate or not; indeed as you put it yourself when you directly contradicted the reason for your rule: "I point out that that does not mean that a couple is compelled to ... prove the capability of reproduction".

Absent a requirement to prove a capability to reproduce as a criteria for allowing marriage, then what sort of couples can or cannot produce children is irrelevant, isn't it? And therefore the sole rationale for your rule no longer stands. So how else do you support your rule that "Only people of opposite sex can be in a marriage contract."?

Your position that marriage is all about the wishes and happiness of the people who want to get into it

It seems to be yours as well, when it comes to the marriage of the post-menopausal female and her male companion. According to Pew, it is also the position held by a majority of American citizens.

why limit the marriage contract to just two people, and non-relatives?

I don't know - why? You made the argument for not limiting it yourself (emphasis mine), so are you trying to convince me to disagree with the position you took in your own posting? That's an interesting debate tactic, indeed.

... civil unions should be open to everyone, not just gay couples. This would include, for example, three heterosexual friends of the same sex who want to pool their resources, two elderly widowed sisters who move in together to make ends meet or simply to ward away loneliness. [MartinAKnight]

Anyone can find an exception to nearly any law/rule barring death and taxes. It still leaves your argument using exceptions rather than the rule. Using that logic of exceptions we could not have any laws or rules. Liberals seem to use the logic of exception. Conservatives seem to use the logic of the rule.

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

Not seeing the relevance here. My observation has been that any argument for restricting homosexual union/marriage that relies on a capability to procreate as the necessary criteria is ultimately shown to be vacuous and/or circular in the absence of a consistent application of the criteria to all cases - in other words, apply the rule consistently, or justify the inconsistencies. Is that a liberal or conservative position?

This thread has been typical in that respect: the procreation criteria was waived for the post-menopausal female and her mate - "wishes and happiness" are evidentally all that are required to allow their marriage. Why waive the criteria for the opposite-gender couple who cannot procreate and not for the the same-gender couple who cannot procreate? With procreation off the table all we're left with is the circular reasoning that same-gender couples are prohibited because we prohibit same-gender couples.

And it's actually fine with me if the only justification you have boils down to "because thats the way it's always been" - but just state that and be done with it.

What I hadn't expected was to be asked to defend the original poster's own stated position that such unions ought not be limited "to just two people, and non-relatives". So I'm actually not so sure he and I have much of a difference in what we'd see as an acceptable end state.

Until I can be shown conclusively that "the way we have always done it" is wrong, then that is the position i shall take.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

But for many others, I guess myself included, the issue isn't whether the way we're doing it is "wrong"; instead the question is whether a superset of what we have now ("unions" for more than just heterosexuals) would be better or worse. There's a related question as to what extent the government ought to be adjusting according to the decisions and viewpoints of American citizens, a majority of which see "mutual happiness" as a far more important reason for marriage than "raising children", versus standing intransigent for the sake of traditional viewpoints that are no longer held by a majority of Americans.

Was it proven "wrong" to marry within one's race? By your standard we should still have anti-miscegenation laws that preclude interracial marriage.

Because it is a perfect example of how you keep trying to reframe this entire discussion and rewrite every answer you receive to your comments.

But for whatever reason I can't do that.

What was proven wrong was the attempt to restrict marriage in that manner.

And as I said: Your turn. Prove that the current efinition of marriage is wrong for whatever reason. Prove to us that by fundamentally changing the institution of Marriage in the manner you desire will improve upon it somehow.

We're waiting...

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

The only thing sillier than your question is that you apparently think it's some clever "gotcha" question. Really ridiculous.

First, let's review. You wrote:

To fundamentally change an institution/tradition Those who wish to change it need to show that either that tradition/institution was:

1. a bad idea in the first place as it is currently set up
   
2. a good idea at first but is now a bad idea
   
3. will be fundamentally improved by the changes

And elsewhere:
that's my main justification. Until I can be shown conclusively that "the way we have always done it" is wrong, then that is the position i shall take.

Now, I took that to mean that, to argue against anti-miscegenation marriage laws (i.e., to argue FOR redefining marriage to broaden it to include iterracial couples), it needed to be proven that there was something "wrong" with people of the same race marrying. If what you mean is that it only needed to be proven that it was wrong to deny equal rights to interracial couples, and that the "improvement" would be that a new, broader definition of marriage would remedy a situation of discrimination and denial of equal rights, then my argument regarding gay couples is quite obviously the same -- Duh! Geez Louise!

Yeah, I'm done here. You're being deliberately dense on this subject.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

You're apparently under the impression that if marriage were indeed an institution centered around creating and maintaining the best environment for the pro-creating and raising of the next generation (my belief), rather than just a social arrangement based around the sharing of finances and sex (apparently yours), then for consistency's sake, there should be one (or two) laws in addition to the basic three. i.e. marriage should also be limited to people who are fertile, or most likely to be. And possibly second, that every single marriage must result in children.

Before you took over from BrooksRob I was going to point out the obvious - have you ever considered the possibility that the three rules (two people, opposite sex, non-related) are all that is necessary to clearly define marriage as a definitionally pro-creative institution?

You can come up with a myriad of exceptional circumstances which seem to challenge this definition but like Common Cents points out, they are exceptional. What about if a man and a post-operative transgendered (male to female) person decide to get married? What about if three people produce a child (i.e. man A fertilizes woman B's egg which is then implanted in woman C who gives birth to the child?) What about if a woman is barren, genetically male, or menopausal? What about if a man and his daughter are scientifically assured that they stand no worse a chance of producing a genetically compromised child than the average non-related couple?

It doesn't change anything. Exceptional circumstances do not render a rule inoperative or useless. That some people are born blind doesn't mean we must drop the requirement for sightedness before one can be issued a driver's license even though the blind also need to be able to get from point A to B.

And finally, you obviously didn't get what I wrote in the OP.

I don't know - why? You made the argument for not limiting it yourself (emphasis mine), so are you trying to convince me to disagree with the position you took in your own posting?

No. Let me make it clear. Civil Unions != Marriage. You're confusing two distinctly different things as far as I am concerned.

I would be in favor of civil unions if they were instituted such that any set of people in any combination, and possibly involving more than the traditional two - though if the government picked an arbitrary limiting number like, say, five (or even aped marriage by limiting it to two). In other words, civil unions should be open to gay people, straight people, related people, more than two people, etc.

The key here is that it need not imply a sexual/romantic relationship (like in the case of the widowed sisters living together), or a lifetime commitment (it could be limited to a set number of years, months or even weeks though I would think there probably should be a set minimum), but it would certainly imply/signify a financial/legal one. I envision that privileges like hospital visitation rights, health coverage, joint tax filing, inheritance, etc. would be included as part of the benefits of being in a civil union.

Marriage, on the other hand, would remain as it is, strictly heterosexual, non-related, limited to two, with a few extra privileges attached - as it has been for millenia. I'm with Raven here. I am conservative, which makes me the type of person who is far less likely to think the guy who breaks down a longstanding wall simply because he cannot see its utility (read; a liberal) is wiser than the guy who lets it stand until he can figure out the reason it was built in the first place (read; a conservative).

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

that marriage wasn't set up solely to pro - create, but was set up to to take care of children. You don't really need some kind of institution just to pro - create, but you do if there is going to be a safe place for the kids when they are born. Therefore, I think it would be better to describe marriage as being an institution which gives a place for kid's to be raised, or if not raised at least nurtured.

You're apparently under the impression that ... marriage should also be limited to people who are fertile, or most likely to be. And possibly second, that every single marriage must result in children.

To be brief, I'm saying that if you're ruling out marriage for a homosexual couple on the grounds that such a partnership cannot produce children, then you need to explain why you don't rule it out for a heterosexual couple on the same basis. You havn't - to the contrary you've even stated that "I point out that that does not mean that a couple is compelled to ... prove the capability of reproduction". Ergo your position boils down to stating that homosexuals cannot marry because homosexuals cannot marry - unless you will offer other reasons unrelated to procreation. Again, "thats just the way it's always been and changing would automatically be negative" is a valid answer - it's certainly simpler and less prone to circular reasoning than trying to come up with these procreation-based justifications for who can marry and and who can't.

No. Let me make it clear. Civil Unions != Marriage. You're confusing two distinctly different things as far as I am concerned.

Perhaps, but by your own definition, from the government's standpoint marriage would be a superset of civil unions only by a very thin margin - "a few extra privileges" would be the only difference. At that point, as I've indicated, I don't believe we're very far off on what an acceptable end state would look like - there may be some contention over what the few extra privileges are, but that's probably it.

To be brief, I'm saying that if you're ruling out marriage for a homosexual couple on the grounds that such a partnership cannot produce children, then you need to explain why you don't rule it out for a heterosexual couple on the same basis.

And again it's not me ruling it in/out. And second (two people, heterosexual, non-related) are enough. The lack of "fertile" does not decouple marriage from pro-creation because infertility at marriage for a heterosexual couple is an exceptional circumstance - not so for homosexuals.

That's it.

If I build a 3ft wall to fence in cattle knowing that 2% of bulls can jump over a 3ft fence, the lack of the extra one foot in the fence's height doesn't mean I built the fence for something other than fencing in cattle, or that the fence isn't sufficient for its purpose.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

You really need to go and revise your original argument then, which directly connected the "heterosexual couple" part solely with an ability to procreate:

Only people of opposite sex can be in a marriage contract. This is because only opposite sex couples can produce children.

I don't know what exceptions have to do with any of this. If procreation is the primary reason for the rules you give that restrict marriage (clearly you thought it was for two, arguably all three, of the rules), then you're the one carving out an exception when you permit people who cannot procreate to marry - although you still refuse to state why you're making that exception.

To put it in the form of your rule above, why can people of opposite sex who cannot or will not procreate be in a marriage contract? Because only opposite sex couples can produce children? Thats nonsensical. Given the exceptions you're willing to make re: procreation the only reason you have left to assert that only people of opposite sex can be in a marriage contract is that only people of opposite sex can be in a marriage contract - status quo for status quo's sake.

You made the claim that:

Allowing any two people to get married poses a threat to the institution itself. It completely decouples marriage from pro-creation and ultimately will alter it into no more than a financial arrangement.

Yet when confronted with the example of the post-menopausal woman, suddenly you were no longer so certain that purely financial (and/or sexual) relationships pose a threat to marriage:

Because her getting married does no damage to the institution of marriage. It doesn't alter it, or decouple it from pro-creation.

And again you never explain why the post-menopausal marriage doesn't create an ill ripple for the institution although you maintain the homosexual marriage will invariably harm the institution.

You're all over the place and lack any real consistency in your positions, let alone a defense of them - and if procreation is irrelevant then all you're repeating for us is that homosexuals cannot marry because homosexuals cannot marry. I'm not trying to beat up on you, I just wish you'd bring a better argument.

That said I do appreciate your engaging the discussion, thanks!

Exactamundo! Thanks. I've been too busy the last couple of days to respond to so much I want to respond to on this thread, so I'm glad someone else is taking on and exposing the glaring inconsistencies in some of the arguments here. It's kind of funny to see someone present the argument that we must retain the current legal definition of marriage for the sake of producing and rearing children in a good environment (and also the benefit to society of such children), presuming that somehow allowing gays to marry will reduce the number or quality of heterosexual marriages by decoupling it from reproduction, and then when the weakness of that argument is exposed via the menopausal woman example, that person reverts back to saying that the latter is ok to allow because that won't redefine marriage. It's like an Abbot & Costello "Who's on First" routine. But it's not surprising to see opponents of equal marriage rights for gays trot out one indefensible argument after another, because the whole argument re: children is just cover for what they don't want to admit (perhaps even to themselves), which is that their bottom line is that they consider homosexuality to be a sin and they want the government to maintain the implicit position (by denying equal marriage rights) that homosexuality is immoral.

I think those making the argument re: children believe what they're saying (I'm not accusing anyone of saying something they don't believe), but whether they realize it or not, they are struggling to come up with a secular justification for what is really a position based on religion. I wish they'd just say that they believe that it's sufficient in this case for the majority will to prevail even if that will is based on religious beliefs (and drop all the bogus arguments about children's welfare and societal benefit). Then we could focus on that position and debate the real issue.

... to impose on other people what you believe the origins or motivations for their positions on issues are. If I, for example, make no mention of religion (and I am indeed very strongly into my religion) please do not just shriek that my positions are based on religion and proceed to dismiss them on that basis.

Stanley Kurtz, among others, over at National Review has made and continues to make excellent explicitly non-religion based arguments against gay marriage. So please, let go of this attitude that your refusal to accept or comprehend another's argument renders it "bogus", "religious" or otherwise illegitimate.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

As we've reached retina-damaging indentation levels I also plead my case with the powers that be to excuse my full response at the bottom of the page, newly aligned to the leftmost border.

See below ...

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

trade in their 50 year old wife for 2 twenty-fives? (grin)

I know a couple (happen to be heterosexual) who were together for more than 10 years. They lived together and were committed to each other. Family and friends accepted them as a couple. They had no plans to have children.

Out of the blue, they announced they were getting married. Why? They were getting older, and realized marriage was the only way to guarantee that they would have the right of survivorship, etc.

This says, to me the mostly uneducated in these matters ;), that there's a legal issue here. Why can't a person of sound mind declare legally that Person A is his legal and financial beneficiary without marrying them? If you are unmarried, why can't you be the judge of who can be with you in the hospital, who can legally speak for you, and who can inherit your property?

It seems to me that rather than create a new institution, we should look at laws that establish an unmarried person's right to name their legal and financial beneficiary...a right that cannot be struck down by unhappy lawsuit-filing relatives.

The only other thing that gays would possibly want besides this is medical benefits and tax savings. Surely this can be considered, and if necessary dealt with, without civil unions?

When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail. -- Abraham Maslow

A Power of Attorney
and
A Will.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

Good point re: fertility. And I would agree that the best environment for a child is two parents of different genders. But that is only possibly an argument against giving gays equal marriage rights if doing so would substantially reduce the number of children who grow up in such an environment. I have to think that most gays are not likely to end up in a heterosexual marriage even if they are not able to marry someone of the same gender, so marriage by gays would not deplete the pool of heterosexual parents. Granted, some married gay couples would want to adopt, but I don't think you are saying that you'd be ok with gay marriage as long as they can't adopt would you? Also, if your concern is that children grow up in a household with a mother and father, a much, much greater threat to that environment is divorce, so why not seek to ban divorce, starting with banning no fault divorce but why not ban all divorce based on this concern?

I really think the whole children-focus is a red herring. I believe that people who are passionately opposed to gay marriage are so because (1) they believe, based on their religion, that homosexuality is immoral and inferior to heterosexual relationships, (2) they believe that if government recognizes marriage between gays, it will constitute a statement that gay relationships are not immoral and inferior (which such recognition wouldn't necessarily mean), and (3) they prefer that government, by NOT providing equal marriage rights to gays, is maintaining an implicit statement that gay relationships ARE immoral and inferior.

By the way, while "SSM" or "gay marriage" would be a useful shorthand, I generally don't use such terms because it feeds into the notion some have that gays want "special" rights. They don't want "gay marriage". They want "marriage" and they happen to be gay people.

that I think gay "marriage" is morraly inferior to hetoro-sexual marriage. Much of the reason is because of spiritual reasons, but there is also the issue of children. We need to ask is there any reason for government to be involved in marriage in the first place. I would say that one such reason is the relationship provides a nurturing structure for children, that as you admit yourself is more valuable than the structure provided by gays. Now, if this structure has superior value to society ( that of raising or nurturing children) what is wrong with the government recognizing this, and giving it more benefits including the name marriage?
This may mean that gays don't get as much as hetero-sexuals, but that isn't just the governments fault that is just the ability they were born with. For example, the government isn't being unfair in that it gives extra benefits to the president, even though not everyone can be president. The inequality is decided by nature not the government. In other words the government isn't being unequal on the basis of what a person is, but on the basis of what they do. What you do may be affected by what you are, but that's not the governments fault.

by Mary Bernstein and Renate Reimann, it has a few journal articles about the acceptance of the children of their homosexual parents, and that they are raised ethically fine. The problem I find with your argument is that you're assuming that homosexuals are guilty of being bad parents, without actually collecting evidence, and that laws should reflect their predetermined guilt. What happened to the premise that people are innocent until proven guilty?

For the government to deny equal rights (or "equal opportunity under the law", if you prefer), there has to be a very strong argument that great societal harm would be done by granting equal rights. And even then, such an argument is not necessarily sufficient. Denying gays equal marriage rights does not come close to meeting that standard, any more than denying that right to interracial couples. In fact, there would be an even stronger argument against allowing mixed RELIGION couples (however narrowly or broadly defined) to marry than allowing same sex couples to marry, because denying the former is more likely to lead to substantially larger number of same-religion couples (and increasingly so the narrower the definition of "religion" -- e.g., a Baptist only able to marry Baptist would be narrower than a Catholic and a Protestant or a Christian and a Jew or Christian and Hindu). If mixed religion marriage were not possible, many (probably most) people who would otherwise have married across religious lines would instead marry within their religion. Thus allowing mixed religion couples reduces the number of same-religion couples (whereas allowing gays to marry would hardly put a dent in the number of heterosexual marriages). And an argument can be made that same-religion parents are a better environment for children than mixed religion. Given the above, why not ban mixed religion couples, however defined? (and let's leave out First Amendment issues, because I want to discuss principles of equal rights as a matter of philosophy).

Also, what is your answer to my question: If married gay couples could not adopt children, would you be ok with letting gays marry?

Also, why not ban divorce if that would preserve the two-parent environment to a much, much, much greater degree than denying marriage rights to gays?

You view is that the government recognizing marriage is a right and that it should be proved that one doesn't deserve it. While it seems to me that one should rather prove that there is a reason that there marriage qualifies as something for government benefits. One doesn't have a right to government benefits, of course the government should be fair, but if one relationship is of more value to society than another relationship than government can reward that relationship.
You say,
"For the government to deny equal rights (or "equal opportunity under the law", if you prefer), there has to be a very strong argument that great societal harm would be done by granting equal rights." But obviously this doesn't apply to the government giving more to those who provide a valuable service. For example, you get benefits for being in the military. This is not a matter of not granting equal rights to those who don't have the ability to be in the military, it's a matter of the government rewarding that which benefits society.

"Also, what is your answer to my question: If married gay couples could not adopt children, would you be ok with letting gays marry?"
No. I don't think they provide the same benefit as what other couples do to society.
I have to go. Maybe I can say more tommorow night.

You know I like you and respect your opinions, but it seems to me like you're presenting red herring after red herring, while the bottom line is simply that your objection to allowing gays to marry is based on your desire for the government to maintain an implicit position that homosexuality is immoral and inferior.

As for rights, the point is that SOME couples have the right to marry (i.e., legally recognized) so why shouldn't others have that same right? You presented one red herring argument that it is bad for children, and I've presented arguments and asked questions (which you haven't answered -- please do) that reveal the weakness in that argument. You say that government should base its marriage laws on which marriages provide benefits to society that compensate for financial advantages a married couple receives. Well, should we not allow people in certain income groups or other classifications to marry if some government study shows that they will consume more incremental resources than they'll yield (resources and other societal benefits) as a result of getting married? And what about your infertile couple -- deny marriage to them?

Let's face it. You are trying to come up with practical arguments to justify a position that is based on religion (perhaps more broadly on philosophy, but I think it's mainly or solely religion). Why bother, when these practical considerations are really not the source of your objection to marriage rights for gays? I'm not saying you don't believe in the practical arguments you're making, but I think they are a bit disingenuous in the sense that, if all the practical arguments were proven invalid, you'd still oppose marriage rights for gays, correct? I could debate with you the validity, relevance or weight of all the practical arguments you could present, but it seems like a silly exercise since the bottom line is that you simply oppose marriage by gays for the reasons I've stated. Right?

What it really comes down to, from a philisophical (not Constitutional) standpoint, is whether or not your religious views and/or social mores should trump equal rights. I say no, just as I would have said no to those who presented arguments of religion or "tradition" as a justification for denying interracial marriages (and some, such as Falwell, did present religious arguments against racial integration, saying God separated the races for a reason). I would also say have said no to those who defended anti-sodomy laws on similar grounds.

Just to drive home the point that the practical argument regarding government benefits is a diversion, let me ask a couple more hypothetical questions:

1. If legislation for civil unions for gays with all the benefits of marriage, but without the word "marriage", were being debated, would you:
a) oppose it as strongly as you would "marriage" for gays.
b) oppose it, but prefer it to "marriage"
c) be indifferent
d) support it (not as an alternative to "marriage" but as something that deserves support on its own)

2. Would you support marriage rights for gays if benefits were adjusted to reflect some lower value to society, since they can't reproduce? (for example, if tax benefits were removed)

3. If you answered "yes" to #2 (which I doubt), should infertile couples also be denied those same benefits?

I don't think that government recognition of marriage is a neccesity, and I don't think it's a right. One does have a right to be treated equally. But only equally according to the services provided. Therefore if gay marriage is judged as not providing the same services as hetero-sexual marriage then the government is not under obligation to provide recognition to gay marriage. Government not endorsing gay marriage does not have to be taken as the government condemning gay relationships - it is just the government seeing more civil value in other relationships.
Now, your question seems to be - what would my response be if it was shown that gay "marriage" was equal to hetero-sexual marriage in it's contribution to society. If you were able to show me that the only difference between gay marriage and other marriage was a spiritual difference, and not a difference in it's contribution to society - I would be in favor of the government not recognizing any marriage. The only reason government should be involved in marriage is because of it's civil aspect, if marriage is shown to only have a spiritual importance than I think the government should get out of it.
Finally, your question about cross religion marriages. Cross religion marriages are generally not a good idea. However, they do fall under the definition of marriage, and the government may still find sufficient reason that they are of benefit to society and should have marriage. The problem with regulating against it is that in doing so the government would have to make a judgement about people's religion and this isn't a position I wan't the government in.
As to your question about tightening divorce laws, I actually have thought this would be a good idea when children are invlolved. It doesn't seem right to let parents mess up kids lives for no reason. But we would need to be sure that the goverment didn't trap kids into bad homes.

I have to request again that you answer my questions. I hope you're making a good-faith effort to do so, but, intentionally or not, you constructed your own question and answered that one instead of mine. In case additional clarity is needed, let me add the following:

You can assume for the sake of argument that you are correct that heterosexual marriage benefits society more than SSM due to the bearing and raising of children, doing so in a better environment for children, or any other reason.

Now, please re-read my questions above (#1 - 3) and please answer directly.

As for your comment above, and additional questions I have
Cross religion marriages are generally not a good idea. However, they do fall under the definition of marriage, and the government may still find sufficient reason that they are of benefit to society and should have marriage. The problem with regulating against it is that in doing so the government would have to make a judgement about people's religion and this isn't a position I wan't the government in.

First, considering that the welfare of children and the benefit to society of children (particularly if raised in a good environment) is the basis for your opposition to "redefining" marriage, it's a bit circular to respond to my (hypothetical) argument re: the harm to children (and by extension, harm to society or at least significantly lower benefit to society) of cross-religion marriages by saying that such marriages are more permissible than SSM because they "fall under the definition of marriage". As for _the government" making "a judgement about people's religion", well, people could just be required to sign a statement as to what their religion was. Yes, government would have to decide on how narrowly to define the "same" religion, but "the people" could do that via legislation.

So let's say cross-religion marriages produce children that benefit society less than same-religion marriages (a premise I don't accept, but just for the sake of argument here). Would you favor lower marriage benefits for cross-religion couples, perhaps with a sliding scale depending on how close to same religion (assuming just for the sake of argument that there's no First Amendment violation since I want to keep this philisophical, not a Constitutional debate). And if you concluded that the impact of cross-religion couples (or of interracial couples or of couples exceeding a certain age gap or education levels or type of occupation or any other combination of characteristics or behaviors) were somehow far inferior in terms of benefit to society to some ideal, would you favor banning legal recognition of such marriages? Why apply this calculus only to SSM (and polygamy)? We could do all kinds of studies and find some minimum acceptable likely contribution to society and deny all other marriages. Why not, if you think that that should be the determinant of who should be allowed to marry?

Please don't forget to answer my first 3 questions from the previous comment.

I still say that it is bad idea for the government to get involved in religion. If the government banned cross religion marriages, then people would feel presure from the government to change religion. They would change religions not from a change of heart, but from government pressure. This would far outweigh any societal benefit that would occur from encouraging same religion marriages. I don't want the government to come close to religion, and I would sacrifice other ideas before letting the government get entagled with religion.

Cross-religion was just one example, and since that seems to raise particular complications, let's discard it. What about any other type of combination that could be demonstated to be of much lower benefit to society than some ideal, or that could even be deomonstrated to be, on balance, a net harm to society? Let's say it's shown that children of interracial marriages or of marriages of someone from the South and the Northeast or a Yankee fan and a Red Sox fan or different recreational preferences or whatever could be shown to have such consequences. Should we deny such marriages? Why not? Or is benefit/harm to society really not the point after all?

And by the way, what about a post-menopausal woman (I don't recall if you've addressed that one) -- deny her the ability to marry, since the purpose of marriage is procreation?

I tend to think that the difference in genders probably makes a pretty big difference as far as contribution to society. Perhaps contrary to pop culture Men and Women are quite a bit different. When you have the relationship of a man and a woman, there is a balance that is much more valuable to nurture and raise children than the balance of a man man couple or a woman woman couple. I doubt that the difference between a Yankee fan and Red Sox fan getting together and the union of two Red Sox fans is nearly the same level of difference between a hetero relationship and a gay relationship. If any such relationship was found to harm society than the government would have the right to discourage. But I imagine the harm of the goverment being involved would be much greater than the harm of such a relationship. I already addressed the post menopausal woman scenario below and above. I don't think the pro - creation argeument is convincing.

Disregard question re: post-menopausal woman. I see now you raised and addressed that question above.

1. B, I oppose the government recognizing something that is immoral, but if the government isn't changing the definition of the word marriage I oppose it less. If there were broad civil unions as mentioned in this post that would give rights to any two people - not just two people in a sexual relationship- than I could possibly support that.

2. No. As stated above I don't support calling gays married. If they want to call themselves married and a church wants to call them married than they can call themselves married. But I don't want the government to give them some piece of paper saying they are married.

3. No. As I said before I tend to think the whole fertility argument is a dumb argument. Marriage has meant much more than producing babies.

Finally I don't see a right to have the government recognize marriage. Perhaps government should get out of the business. The only right is a right to equal treatment, but if the relationships are not equal than they don't require equal treatment. If it comes down to the gay relationship being equal in all things accept that which is spiritual, than I agree that they must recieve equal treatment. However, I am still going to be opposed to the goverment handing out a piece of paper that condones their behavior. Therefore, I would in favor of the government getting out of marriage entirely.

Thanks. I think you are more in touch (or ultimately more open) with your real reasons for your position than most opponents of marriage rights for gays. Hopefully I can draw out even more frankness.

1. B, I oppose the government recognizing something that is immoral, but if the government isn't changing the definition of the word marriage I oppose it less. If there were broad civil unions as mentioned in this post that would give rights to any two people - not just two people in a sexual relationship- than I could possibly support that.

Exactly my point. THAT is the real objection of opponents. Now, I think you'd have a hard time making a case that homosexuality is immoral in any sense other than religious (i.e, making a case that it substantially harms them or others, unless you point out that they are harmed due to lack of acceptance, which would be somewhat circular), so really you are saying that you don't want government recognizing as acceptable something you consider a sin based on your religion, right? And why would you oppose it less if it didn't use the word "marriage"? I presume it's because that, in your view, would constitute an even clearer recognition of homosexuality at NOT "immoral", right?

2. No. As stated above I don't support calling gays married. If they want to call themselves married and a church wants to call them married than they can call themselves married. But I don't want the government to give them some piece of paper saying they are married.

I thought your argument was that they shouldn't have legally recognized marriage because there are government benefits provided in exchange for the societal benefit that heterosexual couples provide via reproduction and child-rearing (in a better environment). But when I present the option of taking away some or all of those government benefits you still object to allowing them legal marriage. It really wasn't about government benefits provided vs. societal benefit returned, was it?

3. No. As I said before I tend to think the whole fertility argument is a dumb argument. Marriage has meant much more than producing babies.

Remind me, if you are (apparently) disagreeing with others here that the raison detre for marriage is producing and rearing children, then what, if anything, other than the "immorality" argument, is your objection to letting gays marry?

The only right is a right to equal treatment, but if the relationships are not equal than they don't require equal treatment. If it comes down to the gay relationship being equal in all things accept that which is spiritual, than I agree that they must recieve equal treatment. However, I am still going to be opposed to the goverment handing out a piece of paper that condones their behavior. Therefore, I would in favor of the government getting out of marriage entirely.

I appreciate your recognition of the importance of equal rights, whether or not you think marriage is or should be a right for anyone. I would only ask this: If "government getting out of marriage entirely" is not a realistic possibility (treat it as a hypothetical if you want, but I think it's also a realistic assumption) and if a gay marriage would be "equal in all things accept that which is spiritual" (or I would add, if differences in the value to society could be balanced out by lower government benefits -- e.g., taxes), what then? You would have to choose between violating the principle of equal rights and having government recognize gay marriages. Which would be more important to you, which the higher principle?

that my opposition to gay marriage is based on morality. But this doesn't make all my arguement about the heterosexual relationship being a greater benefit to society null. My arguement there should be considered an arguement for why hetero - sexual marriage perhaps should be recognized even though I would not be in favor of recognizing gay marriage. In other words it is an explanation of why the government could go ahead and recognize marriage, when it doesn't recognize gay marriage, and still be equal. My last paragraph probably made all this clearer than what this paragraph is making it so basically you need to read my first two paragraphs in the context of my last paragraph. Make sense?
As to your last hypothetical, I suppose maybe I would be in favor of the government still not recognizing gay marriage. I don't think the harm caused to gays by not having the government recognize their marriage is all that great, and I would see the moral harm to society as being greater. But, I don't know for sure.
Finally, I have never made the point that the reason for marriage is the production of children. One of the benefits of marriage is that it provides a place where children can be nurtured and/or raised. This is can happen with a menopausal woman and her husband. It may not be a parent child relationship- it might be an aunt, uncle relationship, or it might provide a Grandma and Grandpa relationship. The point is I think the relationship between a Man and a Woman may very well provide a special kind of balance where people especially children can come to find nurture and guidance. I think that the whole arguement about the biology of reproduction proving something by itself is wrong.

I don't think the harm caused to gays by not having the government recognize their marriage is all that great, and I would see the moral harm to society as being greater. But, I don't know for sure.

I think there's a very important point to be made here. Leaving aside whether or not your assessments of the magnitudes of costs to some and benefits to others is valid, and leaving aside the question of some potentially suffering more for a smaller benefit to many, I don't think it's appropriate to consider questions of equal rights, or denial thereof, simply by weighing harm to some vs. benefits to others. Equal rights is a high principle. I'm not saying it can never be overriden for society's benefit, but the burden should be extremely high, and not simply a matter or looking at the supposed magnitude of benefit of taking advantage of the right in question. For example, there may be certain narrowly-defined types of political speech that, if banned, probably would not detract from much from the lives of those who wish to express it, but I would be very, very reluctant to let the government ban it, even if the case were made that there were some societal benefit. In my view, flag-burning fits that description, but that need not be the example and I sure don't want to shift to that debate (it could by, hypothetically, a ban on calling any politician "unpatriotic" because that is divisive to our society -- there really could be a zillion hypothetical examples). I think the point is clear. Our commitment to the principle of equal rights should not be a simple calculation that leads us to say "Oh, they won't miss it all that much so no pressing need to give them equal rights".

my opposition to gay marriage is based on morality.

I would argue that your view is based on religious doctrine. If you equate that with morality, or see it as sufficient in itself to brand something as immoral, we have a very different definition of the concept of morality (to me it's a matter of helping or harming others). If you are -- as I think you are -- calling homosexuality immoral based solely on it being considered a sin per your religious views, I think it would be more straightforward to say you oppose homosexuality, and by extension, equal marriage rights for gays, because homosexuality is a sin.

But this doesn't make all my arguement about the heterosexual relationship being a greater benefit to society null. My arguement there should be considered an arguement for why hetero - sexual marriage perhaps should be recognized even though I would not be in favor of recognizing gay marriage. In other words it is an explanation of why the government could go ahead and recognize marriage, when it doesn't recognize gay marriage, and still be equal.

It seems you are back to (or still) making the argument that this inequality of opportunity to marry is justified based on the practical impact on society (which I assume is rearing children and doing so in a good environment as opposed to gay couples assuming they shouldn't adopt or bear children in the case of lesbians via in vitro fertilization or other means). Forgive me if you and I have covered any of this already, but just so I'm clear:

1. Are you contending that recognizing gay marriages would reduce the quantity of heterosexual marriages (I really hope your answer is "no") or cause some other societal harm? If so, on what basis do you believe so?
   
2. If "no" above, are you saying that the benefits government provides married couples (tax advantages, etc.) are essentially in exchange for the benefit that heterosexual couples provide society by rearing children (in a presumably better environment with heterosexual parents), and perhaps also in exchang for the cost to the parents of doing so? If "yes", then why would you still object to letting gays marry even if such benefits were removed or reduced to compensate for a lower contribution to society?
   
3. Is the real "benefit" to society that if homosexuality is frowned upon, more people are likely to join or stay within your religion and abide by its rules, thus gaining whatever benefits accrue to all who do so (e.g., the emotional benefit of faith vs. missing out on it, or eternity in paradise vs. burning in hell)?

One of the benefits of marriage is that it provides a place where children can be nurtured and/or raised. This is can happen with a menopausal woman and her husband. It may not be a parent child relationship- it might be an aunt, uncle relationship, or it might provide a Grandma and Grandpa relationship. The point is I think the relationship between a Man and a Woman may very well provide a special kind of balance where people especially children can come to find nurture and guidance.

4. So it's the prospect or reasonable possibility of child rearing and the advantages of a heterosexual couple doing so that makes all the difference? What about an elderly couple in a nursing home, clearly unable to care for children -- deny them the opportunity to marry?

I have to say, as I've said elsewhere on this thread, that, while I believe you believe what you're saying and that you believe they are important arguments, I really think that all these practical arguments are just the result of a desire to come up with secular arguments rather than acknowledging that this is really all about religion. I poke holes in one objection after another from various opponents of equal marriage opportunity for gays, but more keep coming, or some people (not you, generally) refuse to concede that there argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny (i.e., usually because there is no consistency of principle), or some arguments have some plausibility to them, even if far from convincing, but the common denominator is that they all come across as fairly obvious red herrings. I really wish folks on your side would just say that you don't want government giving equal marriage rights to gays because you consider homosexuality a sin, that you want government to continue sending an implicit message, via this discrimination, that homosexuality is a sin, and that you think that if you can get marriage law to reflect your religious preferences via the political process, doing so is not inappropriate and is a proper balance of the wishes of the majority vs. equal rights/opportunity for minorities. Then we could debate what this is really all about instead of spending all this time on these "for the children" or "societal benefit" diversionary arguments. I'm being very frank with you because I respect you and I think you make a good-faith effort to listen and understand and respond. Hope none of the above is offensive.

I don't see the issue as a matter of not letting gays marry. As I am in favor of allowing them to have a ceremony and call themselves married, I just don't want the government to recognize it. Therefore, for what it's worth, it wouldn't be a matter of nagative discrimination, but of positive discrimination, still not right, but maybe not quite as bad. For example, let's say the government gives out a reparation to the Indians for the harm done to them, but doesn't pay reparation to the blacks, I wouldn't think this kind of discrimination is as bad as not letting Blacks vote. Still, I agree that positive discrimination is wrong also.
In the hypothetical that you presented where there are only spiritual reasons to differentiate between gay marriage and marriage, I wouldn't really view the government not recognizing gay marriage as being an issue of equal rights, rather I would view the problem as being that the government was getting involved in spiritual matters. I still wouldn't view the relationships as being equal therefore they are not entitled to equal status, it's just that I don't want the government involved in issues that are strictly spiritual issues. However, in your hypothetical it was neccesary to choose between the government being nagatively involved in religion and being positively involved in religion, I guess I would be forced to choose for the government to be positively involved. Even though I think any government involvement is ultimately a nagative. But I think that government encouraging the right spiritual behaviour would be better than it encouraging the wrong spriritual behavour.
Now to your questions.
1. No. I am not arguing that. I wouldn't say this is impossible. For example, people of faith could decide that if the government recognizes gay marriage, than goverment recognition doesn't mean anything, and therefore they wouldn't seek it. But this hasn't been one of my reasons for being against gay marriage.
2. Sort of, One of the reasons for government benefits would be rewarding parents for raising children, but it is also the societal benefit of the relationships that is explained in my last paragraph.
No, I am not for giving gays marriage without the benefits. There is no reason for the government to change the definition of marriage. As I have said before I don't think somebody is entitled to have the government call them somehting what they aren't just because others are called that. The government shouldn't be in the business of changing words. So even if I was in favor of the goverment recognizing gay marriage I would think that it should be called civil unions.
3. I would say that the spiritual benefit to abstaining from homosexuality would be better understanding God. As one can tell from reading the Bible, God constantly likens himself to a husband and his people to a bride. This is a theme throughout the Bible. In participating in a commited and loving heterosexual relationship one is able to understand this love of God better, and also the love of mankind towards God. Other sexual relationships dilute this understanding. However, as I keep saying I am not in favor of the government favoring marriage for these spiritual reasons. One of the worst things that can happen to religion is for the government to get involved. But if the government recognized gay marriage then the government would be involved. This is why if it was proved that the only reason for government recognition of marraige over gay marriage was spiritual, than I would be for the government getting out of marriage all together.

4. As I think I made clear in the paragraph you quote, it isn't just child rearing, but also that of mentoring - such as a Grandma and Grandpa relationship. The elderly couple in the nursing home may not help any children out. But those who see their relationship will still be benefitted by seeing an example of love and thus marriages that do have children can be benefitted, and also the couple can still provide mentoring and/or love even to adults. My point is, the heterosexual relationship provides a special kind of balance that helps provide love and guidance to other people especially chilldren. Homosexual relationships don't provide this balance.

Finally, no I don't think these arguements are totally red herrings. As I have repeatedly said, if it was proved that the only reasons for the difference marriage and gay marriage was spiritual than I would be in favor of the government getting out of maraige. I should also make it clear that I think it is okay if government policy is based on the word of God. It just needs to be that the reasons are more than spiritual reasons. So if the word of God says that something has such and such a bad effect on people and it is not talking about an effect that is only related to one's relation to God, than it would be okay for government to make a rule based on that. However, I think it would be a huge mistake for government to regulate matters that are only matters of one's relation to God.
Also on matters that the Bible says have an effect on other people, one would expect to find reasons outside of the Bible for these effects. We don't neccesarilly need to see those effects because we believe the Bible, but it helps to find them for those who don't believe.

Thanks. See reply below.

Those who wish to change it need to show that either that tradition/institution was:
1) a bad idea in the first place as it is currently set up
2) a good idea at first but is now a bad idea
3 will be fundamentally improved by the changes

The institution of marriage has been at the core and is the founding principle of all civilization as we know it. You want to change that, you have some high standards to meet...

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

No, the burden is on those who wish to deny equal rights to some. What about anti-miscegenation laws? If law and tradition considered marriage legitimate only if between members of the same race, would opponents of anti-miscegenation laws have the burden of making the case per your outline or would the burden be on those who wished to continue denying interracial couples an equal right to marry?

... whether or not one buys into your obviously fervent belief that there is no qualitative difference in either degree or kind between the characteristics of race and gender.

I, for one, do not. Therefore I can see a difference between not allowing two people, a man and a woman, but of different races to enter into a definitionally pro-creative institution ... and not allowing two men or two women to do the same.

... the burden is on those who wish to deny equal rights to some.

We do not issue driver's licenses to blind people - that's not a denial of equal rights. And when it comes right down to it, your position meets its doom when confronted with a brother and sister, both adults, who decide they want to be married to each other. The burden of proof is on you ... why should they not be issued with a marriage license?

[1] Because it's icky? Exactly what was being said about gays within living memory?

[2] Because they may have deformed children? They just as likely may not. And according to gay marriage advocates anyway - what do children have to do with marriage? What if it were a brother and brother?

If law and tradition considered marriage legitimate only if between members of the same race

Well, that has really never been the case worldwide, not even in America (given that many white folks were marrying Native Americans, Asians and "mullatoes" in the 1800s - interracial is not just limited to black and white). Remember that marriage is a (perhaps the) universal institution and I in the OP identified the three basic rules that underpin the institution around the world. Does that mean that individual cultures around made no additions (including stupid ones)? No.

Marriage between castes in India - still considered a travesty. Marriage between royalty and commoners was cause for fainting spells. A marriage between adherrents of two different religions can cause in many parts of the world. Heck, I know a village in West Africa that prohibits its sons and daughters from marrying anyone from a particular nearby village on account of a feud.

... would opponents of anti-miscegenation laws have the burden of making the case per your outline or would the burden be on those who wished to continue denying interracial couples an equal right to marry?

The very name of these laws i.e. "anti-miscegenation" is a little revealing, don't you think? Why would laws banning marriages between people of different races be called "anti-miscegenation laws?" I think it very nicely illustrates the centrality of procreation in the institution of marriage, don't you?

After all, is there any threat of "miscegenation" happening when a white man and a black man "have sex?"

Think about it; was the reason why marriages were banned between people of different races (i.e. white and black) because it made any definitional changes to the marriage institution ... or because of a desire to ward against biracial i.e. "miscegenated" children?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Your entire argument's validity rests on whether or not one buys into your obviously fervent belief that there is no qualitative difference in either degree or kind between the characteristics of race and gender. I, for one, do not. Therefore I can see a difference between not allowing two people, a man and a woman, but of different races to enter into a definitionally pro-creative institution ... and not allowing two men or two women to do the same.

Interesting. My “entire argument’s validity” rests on something I never said or implied. Not every comparison that is drawn to test a principle implies that all is equal between the two. There are relevant aspects to the comparison and extraneous aspects. The principle here is your contention regarding changing the legal definition of marriage that:

Those who wish to change it need to show that either that tradition/institution was:
1) a bad idea in the first place as it is currently set up
2) a good idea at first but is now a bad idea
3 will be fundamentally improved by the changes

I asked if you thought those who opposed anti-miscegenation laws, if such laws defined marriage as between members of the same race and/or of such marriages were the tradition, should have to meet that burden, or if the burden is on those who wish to deny marriage to interracial couples. Don’t you see? You laid out a principle regarding who has the burden of argument and what burden they must meet in a situation in which they were seeking a change in the legal definition or traditional practice of marriage, and I presented another example of such a situation. Now you are saying that the interracial marriage example doesn’t apply because procreation is possible, which is a an argument totally distinct from your argument above re: who has the burden in what situation and what that burden is. Hopefully you can see what I mean. I don’t think I can spell it out more clearly.

We do not issue driver's licenses to blind people - that's not a denial of equal rights.

Right, because sufficient harm to society could be expected. We have a test to get a license and they couldn’t pass it. But if statistics showed that women or Asians (as the stereotypes go), or for that matter Catholics or whatever were more accident-prone or otherwise bad drivers, there would have to be some pretty strong evidence of pretty severe impact on society before we denied them licenses on that basis.

And when it comes right down to it, your position meets its doom when confronted with a brother and sister, both adults, who decide they want to be married to each other. The burden of proof is on you ... why should they not be issued with a marriage license?

“Meets its doom”? That’s funny. Yeah, you really dealt me a death blow...NOT. See my response to your comment re: incestuous marriage elsewhere in this thread. No, burden of proof is on those who wish to deny the same legal right/opportunity, and the burden (harm to individuals or society) for allowing discrimination should be quite high.
Re: my line of “If law and tradition considered marriage legitimate only if between members of the same race”, you write:

Well, that has really never been the case worldwide, not even in America (given that many white folks were marrying Native Americans, Asians and "mullatoes" in the 1800s - interracial is not just limited to black and white).

Cop out, big time. First, the LAW in many states, in effect or explicitly, defined marriage as between members of the same race, so allowing mixed race couples would require a “redefinition of marriage” under the law. Second, you are deliberately setting up an artificially high standard for tradition. If a tiny percentage of people in some or all parts of America married across race lines that hardly means that the tradition wasn’t to marry within one’s race. Third, even if intermarriage across one particular race line (white and asian or native american) occurred it doesn’t mean that another mixed race marriage (e.g., black and white) wouldn’t have been untraditional. Fourth, my question was a hypothetical – if there had been zero history of interracial marriage in the U.S. throughout most of its history instead of a tiny percentage, would that change your view?

Marriage between castes in India - still considered a travesty. Marriage between royalty and commoners was cause for fainting spells. A marriage between adherrents of two different religions can cause in many parts of the world. Heck, I know a village in West Africa that prohibits its sons and daughters from marrying anyone from a particular nearby village on account of a feud.

Thanks for bringing that up. And of course, as we’ve discussed, our own country used to ban interracial marriages, and those who opposed changing those laws invoked both tradition and religion. What would you have said to those people? Would you have limited your arguments to a debate over their interpretation of tradition and/or religion, or would you tell them that if two people of different races want to marry, the presumption should be that they should have that equal right, unless there is an extraordinarily good reason to deny them that right, even IF it breaks with tradition or one’s religious beliefs?

The very name of these laws i.e. "anti-miscegenation" is a little revealing, don't you think? Why would laws banning marriages between people of different races be called "anti-miscegenation laws?" I think it very nicely illustrates the centrality of procreation in the institution of marriage, don't you?

Obviously irrelevant. Even if you’re right about their perspective and motivation, big fat so what?

Think about it; was the reason why marriages were banned between people of different races (i.e. white and black) because it made any definitional changes to the marriage institution ... or because of a desire to ward against biracial i.e. "miscegenated" children?

Again, irrelevant, but one point you (inadvertently) raise is that perhaps they put forth some practical argument – that such children would be harmful or at least not benefit society as much as supposedly racially pure children. In fact, someone can make a plausible argument that a child of a mixed race couple does often face particular social problems and perhaps identity problems with which other children wouldn’t have to contend. So we could have an argument that interracial marriage is bad for the children that are produced. Even if any or all of the above had some truth to it, wouldn’t the burden of argument be on those who wish to deny equal marriage rights to interracial couples to prove substantial harm to individuals and/or society?

If you reply, please do so after carefully reading and considering my comment so you don’t confuse what I’m saying.

The problem here is that you confuse what QueenOfCups nicely describes here as "add-ons" as part of the core definition and from that mistake, proceed to treat them as equivalents. i.e. the temporary American restriction of marriage to people of the same race is equivalent to the constant universal restriction of marriage to people of the opposite sex.

Yes, some cultures restrict(ed) marriage to people of the same caste, race, religion, age group, etc. Not to mention the fact that individuals have restricted their choices to people of the same political party, sports team, educational background, hair color or even just the way they smile.

But these are all "add-ons" unique to each culture (sometimes at unique points in time) and on down to the individuals involved. The core, worldwide (I repeat, worldwide, universally, around the world) has remained (and mostly remains) the same.
   [1] two people
   [2] opposite sex
   [3] sufficiently non-related.

These are the three rules shared by each and every single culture and civilization in which the institution exists. The core three that have remained unchanged from the dawn of the institution - making them entirely different beasts from transitory (i.e. racial, caste, age-group, religious, etc.) restrictions and variations across cultures that you place so much stock in.

So you can point to fifty years ago in the United States and say that marriage was restricted to [core]two people, of opposite sex, non-related[/core] and [add-on]of the same race[/add-on] and make believe that that is "traditional marriage". You can also point to India and say that marriage was/is restricted to [core]two people, of opposite sex, non-related>[/core] and [add-on]of the same caste[/add-on] and call that "traditional marriage." You can also then proceed to point to medieval Europe and say that marriage was restricted to [core]two people, of opposite sex, non-related[/core] and [add-on]of the same religion[/add-on] and call that "traditional marriage."

Heck, it even works if there are more than four restrictions i.e. [core]two people, of opposite sex, non-related[/core], [add-on]of the same tribe, who is not from XYZ village[/add-on].

But at the end of the day, try as hard as you might, curse humanity and God as you will, you will still not find a place where marriage exists where two people of the same sex can get married and/or more than two people can get married and marriage is allowed between siblings and parents with their children. i.e. the three core rules exist in every single one and that means they are all that is needed to make a marriage meet the definition of "traditional."

In other words, once you comprehend that marriage is a universal institution, one that has been in existence for longer than probably any civilization (and most religions) present today ... and yet these three rules have remained constant throughout, it turns out your hypotheticals and interesting twists and turns are what are irrelevant.

PS: Can you answer my questions to zroxx?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

My goodness. You really are missing the point and not understanding my arguments. I don't know how much more time I can devote to continuing to try, probably in vain, to get you to understand, when the chances are low and in any case there is zero chance of convincing you of just about anything because you are committed to your position for religious reasons and all the secular arguments and related princples are just cover. Once the principles are exposed as inconsistent as you yourself would apply them, and therefore invalidated, you'll either fail to see it, refuse to acknowledge it openly, or you'll shift to some other supposed reason for your position. It's a big Abbot & Costello "Who's on First" routine and I feel like I'm wasting my time with you.

... because you are committed to your position for religious reasons and all the secular arguments and related princples are just cover.

Of course :-)

You've made use of this cheap tactic at everyone on the other side of this argument in every thread you've engaged in on this issue so I'm not exactly surprised to see you level it here. Usually it's reserved for the abortion threads but you've given it a good workout here.

Either way, if it helps you sleep to make believe that anyone and everyone opposed to gay marriage is arguing from irrationality and religious bigotry, of which you, being uniquely clear-minded and dismissive of that "opiate of the masses" are blessedly free of, go ahead.

Once the principles are exposed as inconsistent as you yourself would apply them, and therefore invalidated,

Nope. :-) Just because you say so doesn't mean it is so.

... you'll either fail to see it, refuse to acknowledge it openly, or you'll shift to some other supposed reason for your position.

My reasoning has been consistent; marriage exists for the purpose of providing the ideal environment for the procreation and raising of children. I have not deviated, qualified nor altered my argument in any way. You obviously believe different - that's cool.

But I do admire your tenacity; I mean, I've never seen anyone attempt to prove that marriage traditionally, in every part of the world, was restricted to people of the same race - remember Othello? - before. Nice ... except for all that history getting in the way, of course.

I also admire your attempts to come up with interesting hypotheticals i.e. what if aliens come down and genetically alter humanity so there are now three sexes so it would now require a three-way copulation between a male, a female and an x-male at the same time to produce a child? What if all the women on Earth suddenly became barren?

I feel like I'm wasting my time with you.

No disrespect intended but I came to that conclusion about you a long time ago. But I continued nonetheless because I am aware that there are other people who are reading this, and maybe I'm convincing some of them.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

I forgot to mention that another thing you do is misrepresent my arguments:

But I do admire your tenacity; I mean, I've never seen anyone attempt to prove that marriage traditionally, in every part of the world, was restricted to people of the same race.

I guess it's not surprising that someone who gets so confused over the principles in others' arguments also misconstrues (and misrepresents) others' assertions regarding facts.

As for religion being the bottom line here, well, if my girlfriend wants me to go clothes shopping with her (Hell on earth anyway) during the Super Bowl and I give her one excuse after another -- some logistical reason why I can't or some conflicting obligation to someone else, etc. etc. -- and she provides a solution to one after another after another, at some point it's reasonable for her to conclude that the real issue is that I just want to watch the Super Bowl.

Oh, and the fact that you have a problem with my hypotheticals is yet more evidence (as if any were needed) of your inability or unwillingness understand and sensibly discuss principles. Hypotheticals, realistic or not, are a perfect device for testing principles, provided of course that those discussing them have the capacity to understand the principles involved and distinguish one principle from another.

Oh, and just for kicks, to answer those questions per your request:

_[1] Why has marriage always and everywhere been limited to two people?_

That premise is only accurate because of your emphasis on two-person contracts in a polygamous situation. Obviously polygamy is and has been quite common in some parts of the world. So are you for legalization of polygamy as long as each marriage contract is between two people?

_[2] Why has marriage always and everywhere been limited to people of opposite sex?_

Even if correct, so what?

_[3] Why has marriage always and everywhere been limited to non-related people?_

_Historically incorrect_

_[4] Why, do you believe, marriage exists? Why is it, perhaps the only, consistent social institution of mankind?_

It probably emerged from the need to have a binding contract -- for economic/practical reasons -- to ensure adequate provisions, security and care for children and perhaps also of women. So what?

It's quite funny that you present these questions as if they carry such weight. Some of your premises are invalid, and the rest are just starting points for arguments that fall apart under scrutiny as I've demonstrated on this thread.

So what?

At last, we come to the soul of your position. You just want marriage for same sex couples, you want it now and damn the consequences, history or the views of your opponents (which are all religious and therefore invalid anyway). So why not just say so in the first place?

You're like the guy who comes across a fence in the middle of a field - you have no idea who built it, why it was built and even how it was built. Yet you proceed to destroy it. A wiser person would want to find out the answer to those questions first before he picks up his mallet.

But you say; "So what? It was probably built for religious reasons anyway!" {swing}

... are you for legalization of polygamy as long as each marriage contract is between two people?

I've lived in Muslim (and other) nations where this doesn't even raise eyebrows. This already exists ... unlike marriage between two people of the same sex. In fact, unlike most here, I'm fine with polygamy. It's not as if it never existed in the United States in the first place.

Some of your premises are invalid ...

I'll agree to that once you show me a recognized marriage in any culture, anywhere in the world, that either shows [1] more than two people in the same marriage contract [2] two people of the same sex (other than Massachusetts et al) or [3] involve blood members of the same natal and/or conjugal family.

... and the rest are just starting points for arguments that fall apart under scrutiny as I've demonstrated on this thread.

Your scrutiny involves a lot of weird hypotheticals, a steadfast refusal to acknowledge history and in the end, shriekingly telling other people that their arguments are "really" based on religion - which supposedly automatically renders it invalid.

Some scrutiny.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

I know I've said this before, but MY GOODNESS! You really have difficulty understanding the statements and arguments of others and you consistently misunderstand and proceed to misrepresent. I'd say it's baffling, but I guess some people lack either the will or the capacity to see arguments for what they are and to distinguish one argument or one principle from another. I say "so what?" in response to those questions and you characterize that as my saying I don't think consequences have any relevance and I'm not willing to consider the views of opponents? What the heck are you talking about?? Forget it, don't bother. You are just so confused and so incapable (or unwilling) to engage in a discussion or debate that makes any sense that it's ridiculous for me to waste more time with you on this issue. You're conducting yourself here as if you're presenting a theatrical parody of debate, like if someone were pretending to be utterly confused over what I was saying and reach misunderstanding after misunderstanding just to get under my skin. I wish I could at least consider it humorous but I just don't, at least not at the moment.

Oh sorry ... you do consider the views of your opponents ... thusly:

... you are committed to your position for religious reasons and all the secular arguments and related princples are just cover.

Or is this just a "cover" for my "real" position?

:-)

Last word is yours.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Well, at least there's one thing you're consistent on: misunderstanding and misrepresenting (actually two things). News Flash: There's a difference between reaching a conclusion that someone is presenting red herring arguments AFTER engaging them and exposing those arguments as fundamentally flawed vs. starting with that presumption and not giving them a chance to logically defend their arguments. Get it? Probably not. Why break your consecutive misunderstanding streak.

They would.

And they did even before there was a tradition and they succeeded.

Your turn.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

I'll need elaboration to make any sense of what you said.

Marriage has existed for thousands of years and is at the very Core of human civilization as a union between a man and a woman for the express purpose of raising a family.

A few decades ago, as you noted, the anti-miscegenation laws were put in place to prevent cross-racial marriage.
The opponents of these laws were able to prove that they were a bad idea. They did so even before any significant precedent or tradition of single-race marriage had been set.

Elaborated enough for you?

The opponents of anti-miscegenation laws met the requirements for changing "tradition" even without there being a tradition to change.
However, as was pointed out the Last time you brought this incredibly weak argument up, anti-miscegenation laws had no basis in tradition so your entire point is not only moot, it's retarded.

Your turn: Show us why the multi-thousand year old tradition of marriage as a heterosexual union was a bad idea originally or has since become a bad idea.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

The anti-miscegenation laws were a product of the Reconstruction/Jim Crow Era in the former slave states. They weren't relevant prior to the 13th Am. because Blacks did not have the legal right to marry - even marry other Blacks. I've never really delved into the legal status of marriage between free Blacks in the Slave South or in the North, but even among Whites, marriage was much less legally formal then than now; the state sanction and marriage license is a pretty recent phenomenon.

Anti-miscengenation laws, and they weren't limited to the former slave states were just what they look like: racism, and they had a pretty short life.

The government school mythology poses the whole edifice of slavery and Jim Crow as some longstanding permanent state. It was, in fact, quite transitory. At the time of the Constitution, there were only about 400K slaves in the US and slave based agriculture, largely long staple cotton, tobacco, rice, and indigo, was a dying enterprise. The last slaves were legally imported in 1807, though there may have been some smuggling. The slave population in 1860 was some three millions, almost all the increase having been natural. Whitney invented the mechanical cotton gin in, best I recall, 1793, which made the upland short staple cotton an economically viable product and the gin was in widespread use by the second decade of the 19th Century and it was here that the Cotton Kingdom began. Through the first quarter of the 19th Century the Indians were pushed out of the upland Southeast and were replaced largely by commercial cotton plantations. Small holders were interspersed, but the domain of the Southern smallholder was largely as the second occupant of land that the commercial cotton farmers had used up and moved on to the West. Commercial cotton rapidly depleted the soil and it was much cheaper to buy and bribe to the West than to do anything to restore the fertility of the soil. To the extent that the slavery of Uncle Tom's Cabin existed at all, it was on these large commercial cotton farms that moved accross the South like locusts between 1800 and 1860. There were no large towns in The South, only New Orleans really could be called a city. Charleston only had about 25K people in 1860. All life was rural, and the towns were the 12-15 mile apart county seats where there was a court house, maybe some lawyers, doctors, a merchant or two and little else. The farms and plantations were almost totally self-sufficient and people went to town to sell their cotton and tobacco, go to court, and for little else.

With the end of The War and Emancipation, the rural, Black agricultural workforce was cast loose from the farms and plantations and many began to congregate in the towns and cities. It was from this that the Jim Crow laws sprang in the 1870s and '80s. In sum, slavery in the US, the Constitutional US, not the colonies or the Confederation, lasted only about seventy years and Jim Crow as a legal state lasted about the same time. C. Vann Woodward's "The Strange Career of Jim Crow" is a good survey level read about the era, though even Woodward came to admit that some of it is not strictly accurate. How it came to be written and its influence on the Brown Court is its own good story though.

In Vino Veritas

It went pretty much like I described it...

anti-miscegenation laws were put in place and then shot down due to good arguments as to why they were a bad idea...

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

You and Martin seem to have the same mental block on this issue. You just aren't grasping the principles involved and are not understanding my arguments. I don't think I can make them any clearer, so I guess I'm wasting my time with you, too.

And your "arguments" are entirely prevalent on the desire to twist "equal rights" into such a pretzel as to make them apply to same-sex "marriage" where no such thing is fundamentally possible.
You are also trying your hardest to void all religious arguments in the defence of Marriage as is, which is fundamentally impossible, seeing as the definition of Marriage was born within the precepts of religion in the first place.

And don't try to conduct a psychological evaluation on me on any topic, least of all one in which I have fully explained to you Exactly how you may convince me of your views only for you to either totally ignore that offer or for you to deride the very simple requests I have put forth on the topic.

It is fairly obvious that any problem here lays not with me.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

Marriage is currently defined as a legal relationship between a man and a woman. Everyone has an equal right to avail themselves to that institution. You are asking for special rights, to change the definition to include your circumstance.

And as for your example about race... the institution of marriage being between a man and a woman was the orignal law, any anti race laws were add-ons and probably not very long ago, historically speaking. and the prove the argument about repealing a bad law.

Let's see if I understand you. A change in the definition of marriage to include a different kind of couple constitutes the granting of a "special right"? A simple yes or no will suffice. That seems to be what you're saying. I just want to be sure.

to accomdate special needs then yes, it is constituting a special right.

Well, by definition, a "special need" is anything that would require a change in the definition of marriage, so you answer is a simple "yes", right?

Also, to me morality is a matter of the extent to which an act or behavior is intended to help or harm others (roughly speaking). To fail to apply such criteria in judging the morality or immorality of an act or behavior and instead rely on scripture or other religious doctrine, is an abrogation of responsibility that is itself immoral. We should ask who gets hurt and who gets helped, and what other principles are involved (e.g., merit vs. compassion; individual liberty vs. collective interest, etc.), not just turn to some rule book that is supposed to be accepted wholly and unquestioningly.

People are willing to accept homosexuals in their family, in their work place and even in their neighborhoods as equals. I think where a lot of people get off the train is at the Gay Pride parade where every manner of sexual perversity (notice I did not say perversion) is celebrated openly for all the world to see. Most people are willing to accept gays as individuals, given that it is not a choice, but are getting off the train when it comes to accepting behavior that is not acceptable for heterosexuals to engage in, but excuse it when gays do. When we hear things like San Fransisco has appointed a police commissioner who is a transexual that owns a sex shop, we cringe. Because we are homophobic? No, it is because we know that no straight person who owns a sex shop would ever even be appointed dog catcher. And here is why... in straight culture grownup sexuality is supposed to be discreet, which is why people who violate those mores make the news and are fodder for gossip. There is a general feeling among straights that many gay people do not respect or practice those mores. Beyond that I think many people feel that it is not enough for the gay community that we merely accept homosexuality because some people are born that way, as some people are born left handed, or blind or deaf. No, we are not even allowed to think it is preferable to be heterosexual. And there are those who feel we should not have any sort of judgment on it when it comes to our children. And furthermore, while we can love our gay brothers and sisters, we are still conservative and by our very nature are loathe to change laws that have served the majority well for millenium.

Hoo boy! Got a bag for that load of crap? OK, that was not nice. I'm getting a little tired of some of this silliness. Anyway, I'm not going to bother commenting on all that except to say that you're right: the best way to stop all this gay promiscuity and decadence is to DENY them the ability to marry. You are soooooooo sensible.

By the way, I'm disgusted by those things you mentioned, too. (I was sickened at the sight of a big, fat, scantily clad transvestite on the subway the other day.) I just don't think my personal feelings justify denying others equal rights. But that's just me, and what do I know -- I don't make wild, irrelevant arguments either. So we're just different, you and me.

who ruin it for everyone. And you know what I'm saying is true. You know this.

It isn't about stopping the promiscuity, it is about stopping the encroachment. Homosexuality is looked upon as an aberation of the norm - if it weren't, it wouldn't even be an issue, it would have been accepted as normal centuries or milennia ago, and we would not even be talking about it today. In nearly every culture it is and has been taboo. Are there cultures that openly practiced it still in existence? Is there a a connection? I don't know. But in today's world it is an aberation most are willing to accept in our modern rational way of thinking; however, I think many people feel that in doing so, now heterosexuality is under attack. And one of the fears is that our most basic institution is going to be hijacked and made a mockery of. Despite the current marriage failure rates, people still have hope for it and each new marriage is entered into with that hope it will succeed. They do not feel comfortable lightly handing it over to the Gay Pride crowd.

And just so you know, I personally don't care one way or the other. I'm just trying to explain the way I know a lot of people feel, right or wrong. If you want to further your argument and your cause, those are the feelings you are going to need to break through to get it, which is why I said earlier, unfortunately the extrenmists ruin it for everyone.

It's a double edged sword, the whole coming out thing - it's not just the coming out that society has a problem with, it's everything that came out with it that people are unwilling to accept.

I think many people feel that in doing so, now heterosexuality is under attack.

And is that your view? It's hard for me to tell which are your views and which are just the views of others you are describing. Anyway, anyone who believes and delivers that line above (heterosexuality under attack) should be laughed off the planet.

I'm not the one you need to convince. Here's the thing - you are offering all kinds of logical arguments, and the resistence is emotional/spiritual in nature.

Fine. Some people out there are gay/bi/trans/whatever.
They can have their relationships, their bars, their clubs, their whatever.Not too many people are going to object to this.

What we DO object to is being forced to Participate in their lifestyles and activities.

We don't want the parades, the Gay Pride Month or any of the rest of that schlock.

And unless they can present compelling arguments sufficient to change several THOUSAND years of precedent and tradition, they can make do with government recognized unions that are NOT Marriage.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

What about a heterosexual couple who have no desire to pro-create? Is their marriage somehow morally inferior or less authentic than others?

Sums up the entire argument in your last sentence.

(I think) I've said repeatedly in this thread that I was making a philisophical argument regarding equal rights, not a Constitutional argument. I think there may be a Constitutional argument, per the 14th Amendment and some precedent, but I really don't want this discussion to get diverted into that area -- it's a whole other can of worms and there's enough to discuss and debate on a philisophical level without trying to to both at the same time, and frankly, I don't want people to have that escape route or diversion as opposed to defending their arguments in this philisophical debate.

Explicitly stated that you were arguing Philosophical Equal Rights despite the fact that every time you bring up your position of Equal Rights, the arguments shot back your way have been Constitutional Arguments. We are arguing Legal, US Constitutionally granted rights.

Philosophy notwithstanding, Constitutionally, you have no leg to stand on.

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

If your points and arguments can convince the people of each state (and Congress for federal purposes), then so be it. Then you will have done it the right way. You will have won a fair fight. Well, maybe it wouldn't be fair, since you'd have the media, most of the educational institutions, and virtually all of pop culture incessantly championing your side, but it would still be legitimate. As few as five judges declaring it so is not legitimate.

And I'm sorry, but there is no basis for using the 14th Amendment for imposing gay marriage/civil unions. Again, not one word in that Amendment was ever intended or understood as demanding a court-imposed alteration of marriage laws. You must buy into the Living Constitution to get there, just as you must for most other court decisions that have no constitutional merit. As far as precedent goes; well, I don't know which decisions you are thinking of, but again, there is nothing in our legal tradition that supports such a radical departure from the actual Constitution. And even Anthony Kennedy went out of his way in the Lawrence vs Texas case to say the case and decision had nothing to do with marriage. I didn't believe a word he said, and still don't, but he did say it.

Carry the torch of logic forward, zroxx. My patience with this whole Abbot & Costello "Who's on First" routine is just about exhausted.

In case anyone's unfamiliar with "Who's on First" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEaKjRyPjVY

haven't always been or are at least debateable. Rule number 1 has possibly been broken more often than not. I know your arguement is that polygamy is just a matter of one person being in several marriages. But how would one marriage that had several people look any different. As far as contracts, and there being a contract for each wife the guy has, I doubt they even had contracts.
Rule number 3 could be true if you didn't say always and everywhere. Clearly Egypt, as I think you admitted in your original post, blows away the "always and everywhere". Also if you happen to believe in creation and the flood like I do, than there were two times in earth history when close relatives had to intermarry. If Adam and Eve were the first couple than their children would have had to marry - which would mean the marrying of brother and sister, and than it could be the marrying of cousin to cousin, and than second cousin to second cousin and so on. The same thing happened at the flood. If you believe in the Bible than we also have the case of Abraham marrying a half sister, and Isaac, and Jacob marrying cousins. The Bible doesn't talk about any of these marriages being out of the usual. Even if you didn't believe in the Bible this would seem to be evidence that such relationships were not totally out of the ordinary.
You speak with such dogmatism that these things have been "always and everywhere", but you don't present any evidence and obviously they haven't been.

Half of your four rules for marriage

Three.

I know your arguement is that polygamy is just a matter of one person being in several marriages. But how would one marriage that had several people look any different.

Polygamous Marriage
Husband A
   | -> Wife A
   | -> Wife B
   | -> Wife C
   | -> Wife ..
   | -> Wife x

Multilateral "Marriage"
Husband A
   | -> Wife A
such that Husband B
   | -> Wife B
such that Husband A
   | -> Husband B
such that Husband A
   | -> Wife B
such that Husband B
   | -> Wife A
such that Wife B
   | -> Wife A

As far as contracts, and there being a contract for each wife the guy has, I doubt they even had contracts.

:-)

I'm not touching this one. Let's just say you put a smile on my face, and ask you to take a more expansive view of the word "contract". Here's a hint; contract may also mean "accord", "agreement" or "promise."

Clearly Egypt, as I think you admitted in your original post, blows away the "always and everywhere".

Yep, the exception that proves the rule. And they had all sorts of genetic issues which I pointed out in the OP. PS: Note that same sex marriage is so exceptional it doesn't even rise to the level of us pointing at a destroyed ancient civilization where it was practiced.

If you believe in the Bible

Not being a Christian but somewhat familiar with it I point out that despite all this, it is expressly against the Bible's teachings to sleep with members of the same conjugal or natal family. Am I wrong?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

which have been used most of the time through most of the world, and when they weren't used it didn't work" than I wouldn't have had that much reason to challenge you. But you didn't say that, you said these rules were everywhere, every time. Apparently you misunderstand the meaning of every time everywhere. You challenge people to show an exception to your rules, and then when I show an exception you basically say, " well that's just an exception". Of course it is an exception; you had implied there were no exceptions.
I admit I was stupid about saying that you had four rules, and possibly about the polygamy thing. Anyway I admit when I'm shown wrong, you seem to just change the goal-post - unless we have a different understanding of the meaning of the word every time, everywhere.
As to the teaching of the Bible regarding inter-family marriage, there is some writing in the book of Moses that perhaps forbids this. However, before this in the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob it seems to be accepted to a great extent. And it seems that God would have expected it in the time of Adam and Eve, and the Flood. If the earth just started with Adam and Eve then they had to have marriage between brothers and sisters, and after the flood there had to be marriage between cousins. It seems that God forbade this kind of relationship later on when it became more dangerous.

Martin if you had said, that "these are three rules which have been used most of the time through most of the world, and when they weren't used it didn't work" than I wouldn't have had that much reason to challenge you.

I agree.

My bad. I tend to forget that this is the first time for a lot of people. I've gotten into this argument and I've actually made that point in the threads where Redstaters have discussed this in the past. I thought it was unnecessary to (yet again) go into expounding on how humanity's history is just as much a history of trial and error - which I alluded to in my original post - almost empirical proof that civilizations who failed to learn from the mistakes of their (and others') past usually ended up perishing.

Coming from a religious point of view, marriage is the way it is because that is how God decreed it. But this ignores the fact that there are no two religions that are alike, and that there are sects within religions that separate them even further. Hindus and Christians (for example) do not even share the same concept of God.

This does not even include culture and the influence it has on everything, even religion, making Islam, for example, as practiced in Malaysia somewhat different from that practiced in Chad. I tend to avoid religious based arguments against same-sex marriage for that reason.

Yet with all the natural diversity of humanity in culture and creed, does it not strike you as remarkable that somehow, up until within the last seven years (I am referring to Canada, Spain, South Africa, etc.), every single culture developed an institution in which a man is legally (and implicitly sexually) bonded to a woman and all her children thenceforth are considered his as well?

Whatever my beliefs, I find it far more surprising that you can count the exceptions on one hand and still have fingers left. And what is even more surprising is that you may not even need one hand to count those which are still in existence. I personally believe, from a strictly anthropological standpoint, religion aside (as much as I can manage, that is), that marriage as an institution came about through trial and error.

I sure as heck would not be surprised to find out that in the distant past, at the dawn of civilization all around the world, people of the same sex were allowed to bond sexually with each other, brothers and sisters, and parents and their children regularly copulated without raising eyebrows, and people exchanged sexual partners on a daily basis even as they organized, hunted and farmed together.

But somehow, through observation and adjustment, i.e. trial and error, somehow every single culture seemed to have come to the same conclusion (most likely at different times) about one social arrangement, all choosing to accord it certain unique privileges and recognition, even as they differed on almost everything else; and that would be marriage. And in each and every single one of these cultures; it eventually was restricted to two people in one bond, of opposite sex, not of the same blood.

Tradition is said to be often the solution to a problem that has worked so well, that the descendants of those who came up with the solution have no memory of why that solution was needed in the first place.

So why is there no culture or civilization today (until 21st Century Spain, Canada, etc.) that blesses sexual unions between people of the same sex? Between people of the same natal/conjugal family? I firmly believe that social institutions have a purpose, they do not just exist for the fun of it. And I also believe that a great deal of that purpose is defined by the requirements necessary for one to be said to be eligible for entry into that institution.

Marriage is so fundamental an institution that the idea that one, like BrooksRob, can dismiss its provisions as they have been for millenia so cavalierly with "So what?" is something I find profoundly disturbing. If marriage were simply about financial arrangements and sexual companionship, as BrooksRob obviously believes, why is it restricted so? Brothers, sisters, parents and their children, and friends and lovers of the same-sex are no more or less capable of sharing finances and a sexual relationship. Heck, opposite sex members of the same nuclear family can produce offspring, so why are they universally barred from the institution?

So why was marriage invented? How come it exists in every culture around the world (it was not the Christian Columbus who brought it to the non-Christian Native Americans; it was there when he arrived)? How come these restrictions (two, opposite sex, non-related), at the very least, are always present?

Was it simply to spite the polyamorous, the homosexual, the incest inclined? Was marriage invented worldwide by some giant homophobic conspiracy to deny homosexuals (in BrooksRob's words) "equal rights?"

Being a conservative, I think we really need to answer the raison d'etre question before fundamentally altering this incredibly remarkable (and I do mean that) institution, because I honestly believe marriage ultimately represents the hard learned lessons of countless generations ... and the possible negative consequences (and they indeed could be immense) may not be seen for generations to come.

"So what?" doesn't cut it.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Best post I've seen on this topic since I've been reading RS. Nice job.

Marriage is so fundamental an institution that the idea that one, like BrooksRob, can dismiss its provisions as they have been for millenia so cavalierly with "So what?" is something I find profoundly disturbing.

Oh, pleeeease, Martin. As I've already explained, you read into that "so what?" all kinds of things I didn't say or imply. I just meant that just because a custom practiced in a particular way is widespread and has been throughout history (granting you those premises for the sake of argument) doesn't automatically mean that any change is bad (or is bad on balance). My point was that that case has to be argued, not presumed, especially when changing it in this case doesn't mean taking away that custom as practiced (heterosexual marriage) from anyone and when NOT changing it constitutes a denial of equal rights. Etc. Etc. That's all. My "So what?" just meant you had to make an argument that you hadn't yet made (and never did at all convincingly). Geez.

As for the rest of your comment, I won't bother.

... when NOT changing it constitutes a denial of equal rights.

That's the problem, Brooks ... we simply do not agree here. I fail to see a continuum between allowing interracial couples to marry and allowing gay couples to marry. One does not imply, or relate to the other as far as most of the folks on my side, are concerned.

The other problem is that once one rejects your "equal rights" dogma, by definition the person has also rejected your contention that the burden on proof is on anyone other than you and other gay "marriage" supporters.

I guess time will tell.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

No offense, but I don't see much use in continuing our dialogue on this issue. I was just responding before because you had mischaracterized what I said (yet again).

ME: Why has marriage always and everywhere been limited to people of opposite sex?

YOU:Even if correct, so what?

ME:Why, do you believe, marriage exists? Why is it, perhaps the only, consistent social institution of mankind?

YOU:It probably emerged from the need to have a binding contract - for economic/practical reasons - to ensure adequate provisions, security and care for children and perhaps also of women. So what? ... It's quite funny that you present these questions as if they carry such weight.

Whether or not I have been mischaracterizing you is for the readers of this thread to decide for themselves.

Thanks anyway ... I don't know about you, but I actually enjoyed this.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Exactly. You then mischaracterized that quote repeatedly, but you still don't see how. It's like you jump from one premise to a conclusion without filling in -- and arguing and defending -- all the necessary steps in between. The point is that those premises alone, even if take as true arguendo, are at best just the starting point for making some argument about how recognizing gay marriages would be harmful or bad in some way and that denying them this recognition is justified. Just to take the first analogy that pops into my head, if someone was arguing for a ban on people sitting in parked cars and eating, and they said (rightly) that the purpose of creating a car was for transportation, I would say, "yeah, even if you're right about that, so what?". In other words, that premise does not, in itself, make your case for your position. See?

I know your arguement is that polygamy is just a matter of one person being in several marriages. But how would one marriage that had several people look any different.

I think it would be different as follows: in most polygamous marriages that I know of there are a series of parallel contracts. A is married to B; A is also married to C; But B is not married to C. This is rather different from all being married to eachother. The easiest way to measure this is what happens when A divorces B? Answer, he (most polygamy is polygyny, as you will know) is still married to C. B is now unrelated to C. Equally, if A dies, B and C are now single, not married to eachother.

I agree it might look that different. After all, when A dies B and C might jointly inherit property and continue to live together. There are all sorts of reasons why they might want to bring up their children together. But if they separate, there is no need for them to divorce.

Hope that helps.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

You may have offered the above just as an FYI, but if (repeat, IF) you're making some assertion as to substantial implications for this debate, please elaborate.

It is an important part of Martin's argument that all marriage contracts are one man-one woman. I am suggesting that the only polygamous marriages I know of don't actually break that rule.

I don't actually agree with Martin's argument.

You can judge for yourself whether _you_ think this point has implications for the debate.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

First of all, you persist in taking one rule (that of restriction to heterosexuals) in isolation from all the others, thereby stripping my argument from its context, and demanding that I argue from that position. I freely admit that I cannot do that.

Actually, what I've done is asked you multiple times to defend and explain the contradictory position you took; again, in your own words:

Allowing any two people to get married poses a threat to the institution itself. It completely decouples marriage from pro-creation and ultimately will alter it into no more than a financial arrangement.

Because her getting married does no damage to the institution of marriage. It doesn't alter it, or decouple it from pro-creation.

The former is your rationale for disallowing homosexual marriage. The latter is your statement - without explanation - as to why you wont apply the same rationale to the post-menopausal woman's marriage, which by any definition would be no more than a "financial" (and/or sexual) relationship completely devoid of procreative potential. Yet somehow that doesn't pose the same threat - according to you it poses no threat whatsoever. The only difference at this point is that one couple is heterosexual, and the other homosexual.

Your continued lack of defense and explanation led me to conclude that procreation actually isn't your reason for disallowing homosexual marriage. Instead, I have concluded that you are basing your position solely on tradition, devolving into the circular argument that homosexuals cannot marry because homosexuals cannot marry. You pretty much reinforce this in your comment here, in which you provide no basis for your "three rules" other than that's the way it's always been - a great departure from how you opened this thread when you justified the rules thusly: "This is because only opposite sex couples can produce children." and "That is because a child can only be the product of sexual contact between two people.".

Like I've said, the traditionalist viewpoint is a perfectly valid position to take. Embrace it, flaunt it, proudly assert that any change would be bad, period. Just don't try and argue for status quo because of procreation and then retreat, claiming that I've "chosen not to bother with, or are incapable of understanding [your] argument" - I understood it, disagreed with it, and demonstrated why the argument from procreation that your original posting put forth is bunk.

I'd be much more interested in answering your questions if you'd answered mine. Nevertheless...

Go to any part of the world. Ask anyone there if more than two people can be in a single marriage contract. Ask then if two people of the same sex can get married. Ask again if one can marry from within his natal or conjugal family. Every single time, the answer would be in the negative. Please answer; do you disagree?

To my knowledge there are now five countries that have homosexual marriage: Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Spain. Sweden evidently allows (if the government grants permission) marriage between siblings who share one parent. Most Muslim countries that hold to Sharia law allow polygyny and have for centuries (the Quran allows up to four wives). If you were Tibetan, you might be demanding that the Chinese relent and allow the traditional polyandrous marriages that were practiced there for centuries and only recently prohibited in 1982. So, yes, I disagree - the answer would not be negative every single time, would it?

If you're hung up on the whole pair-vs-group contract thing then I guess it would be appropriate to ask why you think a traditional absence of "genuine group marriage" contracts has something to do with two-partner homosexual contracts? For those following, here is an interesting article on different forms of marriage throughout history.

You are still obviously arguing solely from tradition here - the way things used to be for long periods of time in most of the world. To me, that you use the factually incorrect mantra of "always and everywhere" as an embellishment confirms your reliance on tradition as your only real position here. Again, that's fine with me!

So, if I don't agree that, in your words (though not supported by your actual positions), "the definitional purpose of marriage is providing the ideal environment for the pro-creating and raising of children", you'd like to know what I think "the primary purpose of the institution" is? I'll say now that "primary purpose" in and of itself betrays what I think is a significant problem with your viewpoint on marriage, but it's an interesting question that I'm thinking would be best taken up through my attempting to write another new thread. I'm happy to give it a shot later.

Any chance you might try to explain your inconsistency or just come clean and confess to having a purely traditionalist position on this, instead of trying to convince us that procreation is the lynchpin on which we should be regulating who can or can't? I guess you could also satisfy me by taking a consistent position and simply asserting that the marriage of a heterosexual couple who cannot procreate "poses a threat to the institution itself [and] completely decouples marriage from pro-creation and ultimately will alter it into no more than a financial arrangement" no differently than you assert the marriage of a homosexual couple would.

See my comment below (for your amusement), starting with "Well said". (I forgot to use Reply function.)

Suffice it to say it is my position that the absence of a uniform universal rule demanding that a married heterosexual couple must pro-create does not mean that the other three uniform universal rules do not serve to establish marriage as a fundamentally pro-creative institution.

I freely admit that if such a rule did exist, it would have established it beyond the shadow of doubt, even though I'm pretty certain that BrooksRob (and yourself) would still be in favor of marriage being extended same-sex couples no matter what.

That said, the three rules I continue to stress constitute a blunt instrument that has done the job rather effectively for practically all of human history, before the arrival of modern medicine, finances, etc. even if women are not fertile for all their lives, and some are destined never to be fertile. Note that some cultures have sharpened this "instrument" with add-ons that emphasize fertility (like the woman falling pregnant before the ceremony), while others have not.

This doesn't mean there is no difference, either biologically and/or socially, between a man and a barren, post-menopausal or otherwise sterile woman - an implicit assumption of yours in our back and forth.

My final attempt to illustrate is this; the taboos against incest are challenged by instances like qlangley's story above where two non-related people both carry a genetic disorder such that it would have been much better, genetically for their potential offspring, if either the father and mother had married their siblings.

Does that mean that due to the fact that people who are non-related can indeed produce genetically compromised children, therefore the taboos and strictures against incest are for some other reason other than preventing the birth of genetically compromised children? I think not - notwithstanding the fact that there are important social reasons why sex between members of the same nuclear family is a bad idea.

I tire of this. I've given it my best shot, for good or ill, whatever you think of it. So if I have still failed to convince you, well, so be it.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

For my part, although I have mostly kept out of this discussion, I have enjoyed reading. Also (again for my part alone) you have failed to convince me. But you have raised some important and interesting arguments.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I appreciate your debating it.

I would have been satisfied on this point if you'd just taken a consistent stand and agreed that the marriages of sterile heterosexuals, or heterosexuals who decide not to have children, pose an equal threat to marriage as you suggested homosexual marriages did... or that they de-couple marriage from procreation and turn it into no more than a financial arrangement, as you suggested as true of homosexual marriages. The point of contention for me is the inconsistency - the carving out of exceptions and then making no attempt to justify them.

The lesser point of contention was whether or not procreation is (and ever was) really the primary purpose of marriage - I've tried to address that issue further in my other posting.

Thanks

The reason the principles they present as the ostensible basis for their position don't stand up to scrutiny (i.e., inconsistencies are easily revealed -- well, easily if they actually respond directly and substantively to questions) is that those principles are not really their bottom line reasons for their position (for opposition of equal marriage rights for gays). They simply believe that homosexuality is a sin (based on their religion) and, even if government recognition of gay marriages would not really harm anyone, they want government to maintain it's discriminitory policy because that policy constitutes an implicit position by government that homosexuality is not acceptable behavior (even though no longer illegal anywhere since the Supreme Court ruled anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional a few years ago) and such a statement is an affirmation of their religious beliefs, and such discriminatory laws may prevent sinful behavior in some cases. Because most of them won't admit that their real objection is just religious and instead try to offer whatever secular arguments they can come up with, it's not surprising that they cannot defend those arguments. I'm guessing you probably already suspect this, but just in case you didn't and were pulling your hair out wondering why the heck you couldn't get direct answers that made sense, that's why.

I usually refrain from responding to your arrogant posturing - flyerhawk is a much better, if equally obnoxious, troll. But let's make this simple: if fifty percent plus one of the people of a given jurisdiction CHOOSE not to sanction homosexual marriage, that is the end of the discussion. There are no inherent or unalienable rights involved; this is a choice that society has made for itself because society has concluded that it is in its best interest to make this choice.

In your superior and trollish way, you always make this a question of religion, which it is clear you equate to ignorance. There's certainly not enough evidence to convict me of being religious. I'm sure that a prayer for my salvation was among my mother's last thoughts; she could have put them to better use. One needs only utilitarianism. The domicile and the family are the fundament of civilized society. All that we are is predicated on the quiet enjoyment of our domicile and creating and raising children within that domicile. Without that, we are beasts in the wild, and man is a superior beast. We are not fallen angels, we are risen apes; apes who by some mysterious means that I don't pretend to comprehend learned to use tools and weapons and impose our will on our environment and on other risen apes. The last century has graphically demonstrated the depths of depravity of which we remain capable when we allow the beast to rule us.

Homosexual relationships are simply about sex. They are indistinguishable from the relationship between a rich old guy and his mistress or that of a John and a whore. I do not deny that there are often bonds of some greater affection between homosexual partners, but the sex part is what distinguishes them from roomates or just good friends. We do not give legal sanction to the relationship between a man and his mistress, at times we have criminalized it. We almost universally criminalize the relationship between a John and a whore. We give no special legal sanction to the relationship of good friends or roomates, though we do provide means by which they can enter into legal contracts.

Legal sanctioning of marriage between one man and one woman secures the property of that couple and thereby secures the means by which they provide us with and provide for our future generations. Ted bobbing on Bruce's knob provides nothing for society, no matter what it may provide for Bruce and Ted.

So, Ted and Bruce's relationship serves no utility to the greater society, and the greater society chooses not to give it any specific legal sanction. I think that's the way it should be. But I could get interested in giving Ted and Bruce a tax break if they'd promise to support legislation to allow me to claim the next comely stripper I fall temporarily in love with as a dependent.

In Vino Veritas

First, as for your erroneously applied “troll” label, you know where you can stick it. I’m a Defense conservative, a true fiscal and economic conservative, and on social issues I’m conservative on some (e.g., affirmative action, crime) and “other” on some other issues (marriage for gays, which to me simply means not letting religion trump equal rights, and abortion, on which I am neither pure pro-choice nor pure pro-life and I point out the flaws and weaknesses in the arguments of both).

As for your annoyance at my post and characterization of it as arrogant and of me as obnoxious, I can understand that reaction, although you are certainly guilty of a double standard, given the very similar tone of a great many comments on RedState (I guess a comment can only be arrogant if you disagree with it, and a person can only be obnoxious if you generally disagree with him).

Now on to the substance of your comment, although “substance” is probably not the best descriptor.

But let's make this simple: if fifty percent plus one of the people of a given jurisdiction CHOOSE not to sanction homosexual marriage, that is the end of the discussion. There are no inherent or unalienable rights involved; this is a choice that society has made for itself because society has concluded that it is in its best interest to make this choice.

(1) What is your principle here – that whatever the majority decides should settle any questions of equal rights? Whether we are talking constitutionally (which I wasn’t) or philisophically (which I was), such a principle is absurd, and certainly not reflective of an America anyone would recognize. You can say that government-recognized marriage is not a right, but if it’s offered to anyone but not others than there is certainly at least the question of equal rights, or if you prefer “equal opportunity” under the law, whether or not you think denial of this equality is justified. And that exact argument could have been used (and probably was) to defend anti-miscegenation laws under which interracial marriages were not recognized. (2) Does that mean banning interracial marriages would not be a denial of equal rights? If not, what happened to your clear principle stated above, buddy? (and pleeeeease don’t say “Oh, but race is different”. That would miss the point. You stated the “simple” principle above. Either it holds up under scrutiny or it falls apart, revealing that it’s not an appropriate rule.). Moreover, something you seem to have missed throughout my comments in this thread (if you’ve bothered to actually read them) is that I’m asking people about what they think is right and how they arrive at that position, not making an argument about how the issue should be decided (majority opinion via the political process vs. a constitutional right). I’ve emphasized repeatedly that I’m not making a constitutional argument here (i.e., not arguing that majority shouldn’t decide the issue), but rather a philisophical argument about equal rights/opportunity and what is a legitimate basis (or not) for denying such equality in this case.

There's certainly not enough evidence to convict me of being religious. I'm sure that a prayer for my salvation was among my mother's last thoughts; she could have put them to better use.

I referred to “most” people who oppose equal marriage rights for gays, not all. You may be the exception (or not).

One needs only utilitarianism. The domicile and the family are the fundament of civilized society. All that we are is predicated on the quiet enjoyment of our domicile and creating and raising children within that domicile.

And did I ever suggest that destroying heterosexual marriage or the family unit could not or would not have terrible consequences?? (3) Is it not appropriate to question the supposed causal link between letting gays marry and the severe diminishing in quantity and/or quality of heterosexual marriages, and to be skeptical of this highly counterintuitive theory. (4) Is it not appropriate to ask why, if that is truly the objection to letting gays marry, opponents don’t apply the same principles they claim as their rationale (that the purpose of marriage is procreation or the rearing of children) consistently in other cases (infertile couples or couples that don’t intend to raise children but who are allowed to marry)? (5) Is it not appropriate to ask why, if there is no such effect on the quantity or quality of heterosexual marriages, there is still a justification for the law denying rights/opportunities to some that others are given?

Homosexual relationships are simply about sex. They are indistinguishable from the relationship between a rich old guy and his mistress or that of a John and a whore. I do not deny that there are often bonds of some greater affection between homosexual partners, but the sex part is what distinguishes them from roomates or just good friends. We do not give legal sanction to the relationship between a man and his mistress, at times we have criminalized it. We almost universally criminalize the relationship between a John and a whore.

Huh? (6) Are HETEROSEXUAL relationships simply about sex if they don't involve child-rearing? You say gay relationships are simply about sex, then go on to say that they are more than that ("bonds of some greater affection" -- ooh, better not say "love", or do you think that's impossible in a gay couple??), but then in some bizarre twist of attempted logic, you say that gay relationships are still simply about sex -- even though you just acknowledged that they're not -- because sex is what distinguishes them from roommates or just good friends. (???) (7) Is the relationship of a heterosexual couple, married or with the possibility of getting married, in which the couple does NOT plan to raise children simply about sex? Heck, they may be an elderly couple who aren’t even HAVING sex!) (8) Is such a heterosexual relationship “indistinguishable from that of a John and a whore”? (9) Should we criminalize any relationship that includes sex that is not intended to lead to raising children.?

Legal sanctioning of marriage between one man and one woman secures the property of that couple and thereby secures the means by which they provide us with and provide for our future generations. Ted bobbing on Bruce's knob provides nothing for society, no matter what it may provide for Bruce and Ted.
So, Ted and Bruce's relationship serves no utility to the greater society, and the greater society chooses not to give it any specific legal sanction.

Again, apply your principle consistently. (10) Should we deny marriage rights to any couple that does not intend to raise children? Also, as I’ve discussed with someone else (someone more willing to engage in real discussion than you), if we accept arguendo the assumption that marriage brings government benefits (e.g., tax break) in exchange for societal benefit of raising children and that heterosexual married couples provide society a greater benefit than gay married couples would, what if we reduce or eliminate government benefits for gay married couples to restore that equilibrium? (11) Still against it? You probably are, but what’s your reason now? Probably that even if there’s no benefit and no harm to society (i.e., neutral), government/society has no obligation to give them legal recognition. Well, if the law offers a right/opportunity to some but denies it to others, it takes a heck of a lot more than a neutral effect to justify such unequal treatment.

But I could get interested in giving Ted and Bruce a tax break if they'd promise to support legislation to allow me to claim the next comely stripper I fall temporarily in love with as a dependent.

You seem to repeatedly equate gay relationships with what you consider immoral or at least merely self-gratifying behavior of some seedy nature (patronizing a prostitute or a stripper) as distinct from a heterosexual relationship not involving child-rearing. (12) Are you saying homosexuality is immoral or wrong or bad in some way? (13) If so, are you saying it harms someone? (14) If not, on what basis is it immoral/wrong/bad? (15) And if you’re not saying it’s immoral/wrong/bad, why do you repeatedly draw those comparisons?

Just to clarify something I said above and to be more precise, I said above "Well, if the law offers a right/opportunity to some but denies it to others, it takes a heck of a lot more than a neutral effect to justify such unequal treatment."

It IS possibly to legitimately argue that if government creates a legal status (in this case, marriage) to people with particular characteristics (different gender couples) for a particular sole purpose that can only be fulfilled by people with those particular characteristics (raising children, and doing so in a way that only heterosexual couples can), then government need not (and possibly should not) offer that legal status to people without those characteristics (same gender couples) even if doing so would not cause harm to society. The problem that occurs is that you don't apply the concept consistently when it comes to heterosexual couples with no intention of raising children, since (I presume) you would not deny them the opportunity for legally recognized marriage. That's where the denial of equal rights comes in, even if I grant you the assumptions above.

you are one of those posters whose primary aim is to try to show how smart you are. I guess that's Ok if you're the geeky kid in high school who's still trying to figure out how to get noticed, but the hot girls still won't date him.

I'm not much on moral or religious arguments or judgements; I'm batting less than a hundred on the Ten Commandments - never killed anybody, but it wasn't for lack of wanting to and trying to in a few instances. So, your one trick pony act of always resorting to characterizing opposition to your position as a moral or religious opposition, thus an ignorant, superstitious opposition, doesn't really obtain to me.

I really, really like really, really bad girls. If I'm looking for self-indulgent pleasure, titty bars and other places frequented by ladies of negotiable virtue are a nice place to start. You seem to like boys. OK, whatever gets you off. I don't ask any societal sanction for my sport, and I don't think you are entitled to any for yours. And, homosexual relationships are for sport, pure and simple. If there is another man who is your soul mate, you can live with him, work with him, buy property with him, vacation with him, visit him when he's sick, all that stuff. But your having sex with him does not give you equal status with a heterosexual relationship that has as its primary purpose the continuation of the species and the society.

Now, I'm done with you. If I just wanted to engage in a masturbatory exercise of trying to keep up with the arguments that flit from logical line to logical line, and illogical lines as well, Flyerhawk is more entertaining and, remarkably, less obnoxious.

In Vino Veritas

I must say you are the LAST person to be giving lectures on posters being "obnoxious". Of course, I find you last comment more ammusing than annoying. Can't believe you're not embarrassed yourself by it.

you are one of those posters whose primary aim is to try to show how smart you are. I guess that's Ok if you're the geeky kid in high school who's still trying to figure out how to get noticed, but the hot girls still won't date him.

LOL, so my primary aim is to try to show how smart I am, eh? And your basis for this conclusion is what? Nothing except that I present strong arguments and expose the weakness in the arguments of others, something that every other RedStater trys his best to do, some better than others (our dialogue being a good example). So why do you make that comment about me and not others. Again, a double standard for those with whom you disagree, or perhaps with those who express a view contrary to the majority view on RedState on a particular issue or two. As for your reference to geekiness, trying and failing to get noticed, inability to get the hot girls, that is just so funny. Which one of us is resorting to a high school...or rather junior high level of attempted ridicule? YOU, buddy.

your one trick pony act of always resorting to characterizing opposition to your position as a moral or religious opposition, thus an ignorant, superstitious opposition, doesn't really obtain to me.

First, I think you mean to say "pertain" to you, and again, I said I was referring to "most" not all those with your position on this issue and that you may be the exception (or not). Secondly, I haven't simply stated that such is my belief, I have given others opportunity after opportunity to show me that I'm wrong, and none have done. No one has presented secular arguments that hold up under scrutiny. Yes, that leads me to suspect that the real reason in the case of most people is a religious or "moral" objection rather than the secular reasons offered. It's called testing a hypothesis and process of elimination, combined with logic and common sense.

I really, really like really, really bad girls. If I'm looking for self-indulgent pleasure, titty bars and other places frequented by ladies of negotiable virtue are a nice place to start.

Is someone supposed to be impressed. ARE you a high school kid?

You seem to like boys. OK, whatever gets you off.

You are SOOOOOO immature. No, I'm 100% heterosexual and believe it or not, have been all my life! Additionally, when I occasionally see a gay couple here in NYC holding hands it makes me a bit nauseaus. I also feel a bit nauseaus when I see on someone on some TV show eating an insect. Doesn't make either immoral just because it disgusts me. And I actually force myself to keep those feelings from distorting my judgment on issues like this. But you seem to lack that maturity and/or that level of commitment to principle.

I don't ask any societal sanction for my sport, and I don't think you are entitled to any for yours.

I don't think gays want any more "sanction" for homosexuality than heterosexuals want "sanction" for heterosexuality. They just don't want to be discriminated against. I guess that hadn't occurred to you.

And, homosexual relationships are for sport, pure and simple. If there is another man who is your soul mate, you can live with him, work with him, buy property with him, vacation with him, visit him when he's sick, all that stuff. But your having sex with him does not give you equal status with a heterosexual relationship that has as its primary purpose the continuation of the species and the society.

Go ahead and pretend to have missed my points. You aren't for taking away marriage rights from any couple that doesn't intend to procreate are you? Or more broadly from any couple that doesn't intend to raise children? And is any heterosexual relationship that is not intended to lead to raising children just "for sport"? I guess you'll continue to ignore my questions and just spew more nonsensical rhetoric.

Now, I'm done with you. If I just wanted to engage in a masturbatory exercise of trying to keep up with the arguments that flit from logical line to logical line, and illogical lines as well, Flyerhawk is more entertaining and, remarkably, less obnoxious.

Actually, I'm rather glad you don't wish to use me as a source of inspiration for your masturbation. As a matter of courtesy, I think you should ask Flyerhawk if he's ok if you use him in that way before taking the liberty of doing so.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

The discussion does not have to occur in religious terms at all. Religion generally, and Christianity specifically, has given the imprimatur of sanctity to marriage, but human society had adopted "marriage" simply for its social utility long before it adopted any religion that we would recognize today.

And we are certainly not alone in having adopted it. One of my great joys is watching the "families" of eagles that live near my marina. Eagles mate for life and live either as a couple raising their brood or in clans, the clan members usually related, at least in part. Just as in human society, there isn't enough room for all the young males, so they have to strike out on their own to find a mate from another group and start the process all over again. Most of the higher animals, especially the predators live this way. And they appear to be far better at the "faithful" part than we are.

In Vino Veritas

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Guess what? We ALL agree that heterosexual marriage has been very beneficial to society and to the individuals involved. Of course, that's rather obvious and, in itself, doesn't make much of a point in this debate (i.e., it would have to be followed by several related arguments to form a meaninful point re: this issue), and is certainly not something I ever disputed. But I'm glad Achance gave us the wonderful story so we can sit back and enjoy the picture.

Zroxx, if you're interested, and have the patience that I lack at this point to engage in more back-and-forth, I see at least three avenues you could take to challenge this argument that granting equal marriage rights to gays would substantially reduce the number of heterosexual marriages:

1. The validity of the claim that granting gays equal marriage rights would reduce the number of heterosexual marriages (or increase divorce rate or whatever), and do so to the extent that is claimed.

2. Even if granting equal marriage rights would have that effect, is that sufficient justification for denying equal rights?

3. For the sake of argument, if granting equal marriage rights would NOT have that effect, would opponents still oppose it? (I'll go way out on a limb with this prediction: Yes, they would) If so, why still oppose it, if the number of heterosexual marriages (and all the societal and individual benefits that derive from them) will not be diminished?

I'll probably (not certainly) leave it to you to discuss any responses to the above, so feel free to take it from here.

Above was meant in response to zroxx' comment here http://www.redstate.com/blogs/martinaknight/2007/aug/10/i_could_be_in_fa...

That you convince us as to WHY we should break with tradition.

Got 1, single, good reason?

"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction

I answered above, but just to cover it again here to make sure no one misses it, here it is....this will be a shocker to you since OF COURSE you've been paying attention and certainly wouldn't lack a grasp of the obvious....ready?

For the same reason it was right to redefine marriage to include interracial couples (getting rid of anti-miscegenation marriage laws): because current law discriminates and denies some people equal rights. Yowza! Hey, no way you could have seen that coming! I've only been saying it throughout this entire thread and others. How could you possibly have known that was my fundamental argument?

... race == sex, you'll see where he's coming from.

Otherwise ... your opposition is based on religion {lightning, thunder and ominous music} and is therefore, invalid.

Easy, no?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Are you trying to set a record for the number of times one can misrepresent another's arguments in one thread? You apparently have a problem understanding the use of hypotheticals to examine and discuss principles. That, and general presumptuousness regarding what I'm saying (the whole "so what?" thing) are leading you to misunderstand and misrepresent my views repeatedly. Maybe you should give it a rest, at least until/unless you re-read what I wrote and really think about it before claiming to know what I'm saying. In the case of hypotheticals and analogies, ask yourself "What is the principle he is raising, the consistency of which he is testing? What are the relevant elements in this analogy vs. the irrelevant/extraneous?"

Some recommended reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

An example of your type of hypothetical goes like this:

Q: If a man had a revolutionary operation so now he could give birth, would you be in favor of him being able to marry another man?

A: WTF???

PS: Throughout this thread you've dogmatically refused to answer or even consider anyone else's hypotheticals, basically insisting that we all must argue starting from your own perspective without you even bothering to try seeing it from other people's point of view or even acknowledging that the limits of your imagination as to the consequences of your position becoming law is not the same as the limits of reality.

Personally I think your position is just as based on religious-like fervor as any of the people you've leveled this charge at. You just want gay marriage, you want it yesterday, and I don't think there's any possible argument that would give you a moment of pause or reflection on it.

This discussion has been over for a while. Let's just drop it.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

I only commented because I noticed yet another case of you misrepresenting my view (as you continue to do yet again here), for the viewing of others who may see your misrepresentation. Believe me, I'm not interested in discussing the issue further with you.

And your entire comment above is erroneous and absurd.

Either way, you might be interested in this ...

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

Thanks. I'll read it later.

I want to step back and give you credit for one thing here, despite how I feel about your argumentation and your (mis)representation of my arguments. I've seen instances in which moderators/contributors throw their weight around in ways I consider unfair, blamming or threatening to blam people who disagree with them (or with others with the majority view here) by applying a double standard to the latter's conduct (holding them to a higher standard than other RedStaters re: responsiveness, etiquette, offensiveness, etc.). You have not done so despite my strong disagreement with you and the tone to which our dialogue evolved (or perhaps "devolved" is more descriptive). So kudos for not having thin skin and for not exercising your power unfairly.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

ok, I AM interested in asking you one last question. This key question just occurred to me, and I checked most of your comments to see if you had answered it and you didn't, so I'm curious.

You have said that your opposition to recogintion of marriage of gay couples is NOT based on the presumption that doing so would lead to lesser quantity or quality of heterosexual marriages (and all the benefits derived from them in terms of children and otherwise).

So let me ask you, HYPOTHETICALLY (I can see you wincing) if it could be proven to your satisfaction that recognizing such marriages would NOT reduce the quantity or quality of heterosexual marriages, would you still oppose it? If so, why? Would there be some harm done? I've heard you state the typically talking points about harm to the "institution" of marriage and decoupling marriage from procreation, yadda, yadda, but spell it out for me: Where does the harm occur if the quantity and quality of heterosexual relationships are not adversely affected?

Sometimes I have to get clients of mine to spell out product BENEFITS in marketing communications rather than just pointing out features, if all the benefits of those features may not be evident to their target segments who receive those communications. So I'm asking you to do something similar to that. Spell it out for me. Harm to the "institution" of marriage and "de-coupling marriage from procreation" are the equivalent here of FEATURES. Tell me what HARM would be done. And if no harm is done, tell me what is the basis for your opposition? Hopefully it's not simply that tradition should be maintained for its own sake -- that any deviation from tradition must be bad whether we have any idea why or not.

Typo correction. Above should read:

You have said that you don’t think gays getting married would reduce the number of heterosexual marriages, so no harm there.

and the term marriage as being part of the same package. Both are something that if the government gave to gays, they would be recognizing a certain lifestyle as being good and acceptable - I want the government to at least be neutral on the issue. The term marriage in some ways is even more valued as a symbol of acceptance than the benefits are. There is value to the term, which obviously you know or you wouldn't care about the term. I don't think gay relationships have the same value that deserves this term.

You say,

"That may be true to some extent, but if we’re no longer talking about the parents rearing the children but rather that elderly couple getting married and being able to advise a great-grandchild in a more beneficial fashion than a gay couple, we’re getting to a thinner (possible) incremental benefit, and remember, to deny equal rights on the basis of unequal societal benefit, the bar for differences in such benefit should be set very high (and still may not suffice).

also, just a reminder, your reply to question #1 renders the argument of incremental benefit from heterosexual marriages moot, since you are not arguing that gays getting legally married would reduce the number of heterosexual marriages."

See, I think equal rights only requires the government to give benefits equal that are roughly equal to the benefit that society is getting. ( and by benefit I include any good that the government might bestow on a heterosexual couple including calling their relationship marriage) If the government is giving a higher benefit to heterosexual relationships for the higher benefit that such relationships provide to society, then the government isn't being unequal. Since the government isn't being unequal they don't have some high standard of harm done to society if they don't recognize gay marriage - it's like equal pay for equal work. The government isn't being unequal, so they don't have to prove there is a great good done to society by not recognizing gay marriage. But the heterosexual relationship being a little better than the gay relationship would mean that it was okay if they got a little more benefit than the gay relationship. I don't see why the heterosexual relationship has to be a lot different before the government shows any difference in benefits.

Then you say,

"and since we’ve identified no harm to society (or to individuals other than spiritual) from letting gays legally marry, the only remaining objection is spiritual."

As explained above, I don't think you need to demonstrate harm to society, rather you need to demonstrate that heterosexual marriage is of enough of a higher quality that the government can give it higher benefits for that higher quality - one of those benefits would be the government calling it marriage.
If it was a matter of just "letting gays legally marry", I guess I would agree. Gays perhaps should be able to have a ceremony and call themselves married. But I don't want the government to have anything to do with it.
Then you say,
"To hold your position, you have to be holding that your religious doctrine (or perhaps that of whatever the majority is, although I don’t know how pleased you’d be if your religion were not the majority and this approach were taken) is sufficient to deny others equal rights. I disagree because that’s not consistent with the high value I place on equal rights, one of the things that makes me so proud of America."

You see, as I said before I am not denying equal rights. Even if it is on a spiritual basis the unions are not equal. I don't want the government to be involved if it is only on a spiritual basis, because to me a very important principle is the government being spiritually neutral. However, in your hypothetical the government being spiritually neutral is not an option. The government is either going for something spiritually bad or going against. In that hypothetical, I am forced to be in favor of the government going against that spiritual bad.
Finally you say:
"Well said. I agree. Problem is that you are contradicting this principle as I’ve explained in my previous paragraph."

True, but as I explain in the above paragraph, in your hypothetical I am going against my principals (which once again I should stress is not the principal of equal rights because I don't think the relationships are equal, rather it is the principle of government neutrality in spiritual matters.) one way or the other, because government neutrality is not an option.

I have to say I’m disappointed in your reply because I know you’re an intelligent guy and I think/hope you’re trying to make a good-faith effort to understand what I’m saying and address my arguments directly and in a valid manner. I’m going to try again and ask you to really think about it.

1. You have said that you don’t think gays getting married would reduce the number of heterosexual marriages and related benefits to society, so there’s no argument that loss of such benefits to society is a justification for denying legally recognized marriage to gays. Nor have you made an argument for other societal harm / loss of societal benefits, other than (supposed) loss of (supposed) spiritual/religious benefits.

2. You claim (not implausibly) that heterosexual married couples provide higher benefits to society than would gay married couples, and therefore it is not a denial of equal rights to deny marriage to gays (or presumably also civil unions if they had the same rights, but that’s another matter) because they would receive government benefits for which they don’t sufficiently compensate society. So offering marriage (and I mean legally recognized marriage and by that name) WITHOUT these government benefits would solve that problem, and denial of marriage would then constitute a denial of equal rights (because there is no longer the justification of a difference in government benefits vs. returned benefit to society, which was your explanation as to why denial them marriage is NOT denial of equal rights).

3. OK, so now we have a situation of denial of equal rights, unless you are going to come up with a new, different reason why it is not.

4. You said you still object because it would require government to redefines a word, which I explained is not only an arguable premise, but more importantly can’t possibly really be a serious objection (just the idea that the definition of a word evolves and changes, as happens with words all the time, in laws and language in general).

5. So we’re still left with a situation in which there is a denial of equal rights, when allowing equal rights would not harm society other than in some spiritual sense according to your religious view.

6. You say you believe (as I do) that it’s wrong for government to deny equal rights if the only rationale for doing so that allowing equal rights would conflict with spiritual (we can go ahead and say religious) doctrine. But you violate this principle by taking the exact position that you say would be wrong, since we see at this point that, if government benefits were removed, we would have a denial of equal rights, and since there is no loss of benefits to society (provided by married heterosexual couples, whose quantity would not be reduced), other than what could be argued based on religious doctrine (e.g., people not benefitting from accepting Jesus). Well, you can’t take a position that you are saying is wrong, right?

7. Lastly, you present the option of government getting out of civil marriage altogether, but given the (realistic) assumption that that isn’t going to happen, and facing the choice of denying equal rights for purely spiritual reasons vs. allowing equal rights, you opt for the former, which, again, you say is wrong.

So you have to help me out here. I know if you take a moment or two to really think about what I’m saying you’ll understand it and be able to address my argument in a more valid manner. If I’m missing something along my logical chain, tell me. But I hope you’re really trying to do so in a valid way, because your last comment reflected apparent misunderstandings that are uncharacteristic of you.

I think you need to consider the possibility that you do not fully understand what I am saying. Anyway I will try to understand what you are saying and frame this so you understand what I am saying.

1 and 2. Here what you seemed to miss of what I said is that the word marriage is part of the benefit heterosexual relationships get for their added benefit to society. Let’s imagine that we have a scale that measures benefits given to gay relationships and benefits given to heterosexual relationships. What you seem to be saying is that we could pile the benefits up on the heterosexual scale, and not put any benefits on the gay scale to the point where we could give gays recognition of their marriage and the scale would balance. Now, the question that comes to my mind when you say this is : why? Why not put a small enough amount on the heterosexual scale that we don't have to put anything on the gay scale, and the scales still balance out. See, this way we would still have equality and we could avoid the government giving recognition to gay marriage. Now, read over this paragraph a couple times before proceeding to the next paragraph in which I take on the detective work of trying to find what you know you are trying to communicate to me and yet I miss.
I notice that you keep referring to the government not recognizing gays as an active negative thing, rather than as a passive action. I keep considering it as a passive action, like the government not recognizing me as POTUS. But you keep thinking of it as an active action by the government like the government taking land away from Indians, but not taking it away from everybody else. Hence we seem to not understand each other.
If you think of the government action as a passive action than it makes sense to weight the scale low enough on the heterosexual side so that the government can remain passive - so that the government stays neutral in not recognizing gay marriage. If OTOH you consider the government action to be a negative action, then it makes sense to weight the scale high enough on the side of the heterosexual so that we can put government recognition on the gay side, thus the government doesn't have to take the negative action against gay relationships of not recognizing their relationships. I have been viewing it as the former and you have been viewing it as the latter. Make sense? If it doesn't, read it over a couple times, because I think this is important in understanding our differences.
Now, I have considered why you think, the government not recognizing gay marriage is an active action by the government, and not a passive action. Perhaps, you think that the government giving recognition of marriage is a way of the government saying that if your marriage is not recognized by us it isn't a marriage. Thus the government engages in a negative action of condemning all relationships that are not recognized by it. Here is what I think I might be a good way out of this. A proclamation by the government that says this:
"We do not control what is or is not marriage we will give certificates to marriages that we deem deserving of benefits and which should fall under government guidance for the good of children and the rest of society, but these certificates do not mean that we consider other marriages to not be valid, we remain neutral on this issue."
Thus, with a simple proclamation the government not recognizing gay marriage is no longer an active act of condemnation by the government. The government would not recognize gay “marriage” while recognizing heterosexual marriage, but this would not be a violation of equal rights because the recognition of heterosexual marriage by the government would be part of the extra benefit they received from being of a higher benefit to society. And the recognition of heterosexual marriage would no longer be a statement by the government that gay marriage was not marriage. The government could actually be neutral on whether gay marriage was marriage, still recognize marriage, and still be fair.

3. Again this is only a denial of equal rights, if the hetero side of the scale is weighted so that gays need to get the government recognition in order for the scale to balance. Now, I have it figured that you want to balance the scale that way so that the government doesn't wrongly condemn gay relationships. However, under my proclamation the government wouldn't be condemning gay relationships, and thus it would make sense to have the scale weighted low enough on the hetero side that the government would not have to recognize gay marriage and thus the government could truly be neutral.

4. As I have explained the word is part of the benefit - it weighs on the scale.

5 - 7. What you fail to see here is that my problem is not that I see a denial of equal rights due to religion. It is that I see the government basing it's decision of what is equal on the spiritual. I don't think the government is being unequal it is just that the government is making a decision based on encouraging the spiritual, and I want the government to be neutral. But your hypothetical did not allow neutrality. Therefore, while I would say my decision is unfortunate it is the lesser of two evils I am faced with in such a hypothetical. However, I think my above government declaration is a good way to get around your hypothetical.

Now, obviously we don't have scientific scales to weigh benefits. This is a subjective judgment made by society on what benefit a heterosexual couple is to society and what benefits they deserve for what they give. As I have said before I am not against using religion as a guide in such things. I just don't think the government should make rules that are based on a man's relation to God. If it makes rules based on God's guidance this is okay - it just needs to be a law that relates to his fellow man. And in this case since we are talking about benefits such as love and guidance and such, we are not going to have science to always reflect the wisdom of our religion.

if I don't come around to your point of view.

I am indeed disappointed (further now), but by no means is it just because you have not "come around to [my] point of view". It's because I have doubts now about whether or not you are truly making a good-faith effort to examine and understand your arguments and mine and respond accordingly. I'm NOT saying that you are saying anything you don't believe, but you do seem to be responding with thoughts that avoid directly addressing my points by various means (while appearing to do so). And now you construct a couple of elaborate cop-outs as a way out of acknowledging that, in the case of my hypothetical, you have to either (1) change your position, (2) acknowledge that you believe government should deny equal rights based purely on religious beliefs, or (3) show me where my logic chain was flawed in terms of premises or deduction (and do so in a sensible, reasonable way, and without offering some supposed solution that forms your own hypothetical to avoid addressing mine).

Maybe later or tomorrow I'll discuss the specifics of your comment, or maybe not. You would be the last person on this issue that I'd say this about, but I have to consider the possibility that I'm wasting my time. I still hope not, but perhaps if I request it again you'll respond to my comment (that enumrated logic chain) instead of constructing your OWN hypothetical and answering that instead. Can you please do so?

Just to be clear, I still like and respect you, but I am disappointed.

I did address your seven points. That's why I numbered my post 1 - 7 and in some places I addressed more than one point at a time. If I was just posting my own thing off the top of my head I wouldn't number a section of the post " 1 and 2".
I made an effort at explaining what our differences were. This was important in showing why I didn't think your points were totally valid. But not only that I went so far as to try and understand why you made the points you did - I figured it might be due to the fact that you considered government action on gays to be an active thing rather than a passive thing. I than constructed a hypothetical that had the possibility of solving our differences, by making the government action a passive one. I admit that my piece may have been so long that you were unable to see the connection of my piece to your piece. However, it is very unfair for you to accuse me of not making a good faith effort. I tried to understand where you were coming from, show you where I was coming from, and explain a possible solution. I worked very hard on that comment.
But you don't seem to be happpy unless I follow you point by point into your trap.
I have always admired the fact that you aren't someone that is just happy with making knee jerk conclusions, and that you logically think through your positions. However, on this post I am not impressed with your people skills. You seem to be incapable of recognizing that you may not be understanding what other people are saying, and that you are not a perfect communicater and thus others may not always know where you are coming from. It seems rather arrogant to suggest that I didn't make a good faith effort, without even considering the fact that maybe you didn't understand what I was saying. All this said I will make a comment above that will briefly explain the problems I see in you seven points, thus maybe I can make it clearer what I am trying to say.

I didn't say that I had concluded that you were not making a good-faith effort, I said I "have doubts" about whether or not you are making a good faith effort, and given that you have repeatedly avoided direct answers to MY hypothetical questions in this thread (as opposed to constructing your own and answering THEM), and since I think you're an intelligent guy and are putting an effort into this dialogue, the only place where I can have doubts is in the good-faith part, and having doubts at this point is not unreasonable, in my opinion, whether my expressing them is pleasant for either of us or not (and as for people skills, you may be right, or perhaps it was necessary to point out to have any chance of getting real, direct responses to MY statements/questions). And as for numbering your responses per my numbers, that's what I meant by "appearing" to answer.

I look forward to your direct responses to my enumerated (#1 - 7) statements/questions, which I hope are forthcoming.

I only skimmed most of your conversation but this much stuck out:

...we will give certificates to marriages that we deem deserving of benefits and which should fall under government guidance for the good of children and the rest of society.
[...]
The government would not recognize gay “marriage” while recognizing heterosexual marriage, but this would not be a violation of equal rights because the recognition of heterosexual marriage by the government would be part of the extra benefit they received from being of a higher benefit to society.

Just something to take under consideration - when you base marriage restrictions, or in your case marriage benefits, on a perceived benefit to society in exchange for procreation (or child rearing), the time that society should grant the benefit is not at the point of marriage, but at the point of child birth (or adoption). Otherwise society is getting bilked everytime a non-procreating couple gets married - and that's bad for society as a whole, right?

The implications of that sort of more accurate benefit exchange are: homosexual couples who adopt should be entitled to the benefits no differently than their heterosexual counterparts - at least heterosexual couples who adopt. And heterosexuals who cannot or choose not to procreate (or adopt) should be denied the benefits - unless and until they meet the requirement by producing or adopting children.

Not sure I particularly agree or disagree with you - it is a reasonable proposition to consider. But it's worth pointing out a clearer picture of just what you're proposing.

I don't think the only good quality to marriage is the production of babies. Nor do I think the only purpose is the raising of children. I think a heterosexual relationship provides a special kind of balance that provides guidance and love in all kinds of relationships - not just parent child relationships

Hey, they both start with a z.

1. So far so good, at this point I don't see any harm that gay relationships cause other than spiritual - there may be harm that I don't see at this point, but for now we will assume there isn't.

2. Here is where you run into a problem. You seem to be suggesting that we weight the scale (benefits on the hetero side, no benefits on the gay side) so that the government in order to be fair would need to give government recognition to marriage on the gay side. Now, as I have explained I don't want government recognition of gay marriage, therefore I would want to weight the scale (low enough benefits on the hetero side) so that the government doesn't need to put recognition of gay marriage on the gay side, and it would still balance. Now I assumed ( based on the way you have phrased things) that your problem with weighting the scale so that the government didn't recognize gays was that you consider such action an act of condemnation by the government of gay relationships - my declaration took care of this. Since you weren't' happy with my explanation, you need to explain to me why you want to weight the scale so that gay relationships must be recognized.

3. Once again it is only a denial of equal rights if we weigh the scale in such a way (enough benefits on the hetero side none on the gay side) that the government must give recognition of marriage to gays in order to be equal with the benefits of heterosexuals. I oppose weighing the scale in this manner.

4. Obviously the word has value; otherwise gays wouldn't want the government to call them that. I want the scale weighted low enough on the hetero side that heterosexual relationships can still get government recognition as part of the benefit for what they give to society. Thus we have equality without the government recognizing gay marriage.

5. Once again we only have a denial of equal rights if we weight the scale how you want too.

6. And yet once again I am not denying equal rights if I don't weight the scale the way you think it should be weighted. And if for some reason it was weighted the way you think it should be weighted than the government would be forced into making a negative spiritual decision or a positive one, and I would have to opt for the positive one, even though I want neutrality.

7. I think this is a false choice. Even if I was faced with this choice, it would be the choice of government encouraging spiritual good or encouraging spiritual bad, it would not be the case of the government denying equal rights - it would be the case of the government having to make a spiritual judgment. In this scenario I opted for the lesser of two evils.
However, if we don't weight the scales the way you want them we avoid this dilemma altogether. We can weight the scales so government recognition of marriage is part of the benefits that heterosexuals get for their added benefit to society. Thus the scales are balanced - people are treated equally, and the government gets to stay neutral on gay marriage.

So let's see if I can summarize this clearly. The broken chain in your points of logic is number 2. In number two you suggest that we give such benefits to heterosexual relationships without giving any to gay ones so that it will only be fair for the government to give gays recognition of their marriage to balance things out. My problem with this is that I want to balance things on the hetero side so that we don't need to give gays recognition of their marriage thus the government can remain neutral.
So the question you need to answer is this: why must the scale be balanced in such a way that it would require gays getting government recognition for rights to be equal?

Re: #2, Once again, PLEASE don’t create your own hypothetical to avoid addressing mine. I don’t know how I can make that (perfectly appropriate) request any more plainly. You have introduced a hypothetical of reduced government benefits for heterosexuals combined with some proclamation. Please put those hypotheticals aside for now and address MY hypothetical. Assume no change in government benefits for heterosexual married couples and no proclamation of the sort you presented. You can always bring up whatever hypotheticals of your own later, but should not do so as a means of avoiding responding to mine. When you do so it gives the impression that you are simply trying to avoid really responding, or as you seem to view it, to avoid a “trap”. Remember, you're only responding to my hypothetical; if you arrived at the conclusion that, given the assumptions in the hypothetical, not recognizing marriage of gay couples would indeed be a denial of equal rights purely for spriritual/religious reasons and that, faced with that choice (and to be consistent with your own principles) you'd favor recognition of these marriages, you can still then (i.e., subsequently) say that you have a preferred solution (lower heterosexual marriage benefits, etc.) rather than doing so. You can also, of course, challenge assumptions in my hypothetical at that point.

Re: #4, I think you know that I was responding to your argument that one reason gay marriage should not be recognized is that government should not alter the definition of a word, which, as I’ve explained, could not have been a serious objection.

So again, please respond to MY hypothetical.

The reason I don't want the government to factor spiritual reasons into it's judgements is that I want the government to be spiritually nuetral. In your hypothetical, if the government recognizes gay relationships than the government would not be factoring spirituality into their judgements - this normally would be a good thing. However, they would not be spiritually nuetral, because they would be encouraging a spiritual bad. Therefore, the reason for the government to not judge on spiritual issues is taken away. If the government does factor spirituality into it's judgement than it can make the decision to not recognize gay marriage, this would be the government encouraging a spiritual good. So in your hypothetical I would favor judging on the basis of spiritual factors ( the reason to not do so - nuetrality- has been taken away) thus the government can encourage the spiritual good rather than the spiritual bad by not recognizing gay marriage. I perfer government nuetrality, but your hypothetical does not allow this.
If the scale can be weighted so that both relationships are treated equally for what they give to society without gays relationships recieving recognition, then the government can remain nuetral on gay marriage - not recognize it. Thus the government doesn't have to make a decision as to the morality of the gay relationship. Thus, the whole issue of the religous quality of the relationships can be ignored without the government being nagative on gay relationships or positive. So now you need to answery my question what would be wrong with the scales being so weighted?

In your hypothetical not recognizing gays would be a spiritual condemnation, because the reason for doing so is spiritual. In mine the reasons are civic thus thus the government gets to remain spiritually nuetral about the issue.

If the scale can be weighted so that both relationships are treated equally for what they give to society without gays relationships recieving recognition, then the government can remain nuetral on gay marriage - not recognize it.

Again, for now, please put aside your own hypothetical(s) and respond to mine. Assume no reduction in government benefits for heterosexual marriage. If I say I'm offering you vanilla or chocolate ice cream and your choices are one, the other, or neither, please don't keep saying (at this point) that you'll choose strawberry if it's offered. As I've said, that would be appropriate to suggest later, after truly addressing my hypothetical as a whole.

Also, it seems now that, with regard to my hypothetical and related logic chain, you have no objection until we get to #6, in which I state what I believe to be your position that government should not deny equal rights on a spiritual/religious basis alone. It seems that you are now accepting that we have a situation of a denial of equal rights, but that you now consider spiritual/religious reasons to be sufficient to justify denying equal rights. But you are not being explicit about that. Please be explicit. Are you accepting everything #1 - #5 and if not, why not? Are you accepting now that in my hypothetical we do have a situation of denial of equal rights? And that you are now saying that spiritual/religious reasons alone are sufficient to deny equal rights? If you are, that's fine -- I disagree, but at least then we can then debate the real issue here instead of all the other stuff like excessive government benefits or objections to word definitions evolving, etc.

However, they would not be spiritually nuetral, because they would be encouraging a spiritual bad. Therefore, the reason for the government to not judge on spiritual issues is taken away.

Whoa! Wait just a minute. It sounds like you're actually saying that, while you have stated that spiritual reasons are not sufficient to justify the denial of equal rights, if a change in the law facilitates people doing something that you consider spiritually/religiously "bad" (i.e., a sin) then it's ok, because that is somehow different than a spiritual rationale. Am I missing something or does that make no sense? The rationale is still spiritual/religious (trying to prevent a sin per your religion), is it not?

And by the way, what if the law now recognized marriages of gay couples and we were debating whether or not to change that law (i.e., the same issue, but requiring a change to have your preferred policy). Would that change your position or arguments re: neutrality or anything else?

One quick, but important note re: your comment that "you don't seem to be happpy unless I follow you point by point into your trap." I think your use of the word "trap" reveals a mindset here that I'd encourage you to change. If someone challenged a position of mine and asked me some hypothetical questions and then presented a related set of statements that he claims reflect the principles and premises that I've stated and challenged me with the conclusion he reached, I would not view it as a "trap", but rather either a faulty set of statements for one reason or another or an opportunity to examine my views and possibly modify my position to better fit my own principles. The only reason to view it as a "trap" is if my goal is not to consider whether or not my position conflicts with my own principles, but rather to stick with my position, period, for some reason other than the principles I've stated as the rationale for my position. So again, I encourage you to step back and not view this as adversarial, as some kind of threat. By all means, argue what you see fit, but I think we'll have a much more efficient and productive discussion if you get away from the mindset that you must find ways to avoid a "trap". I think it's that mindset that has led to some avoidance behavior re: my hypotheticals and enumerated (#1-7)statements.

that was what the whole first paragraph, the paragraph you quoted was given after I addressed your hypothetical in the first paragraph. I unerstand that your hypothetical is this: " if the only reason to not give marriage to gays when one was giving marriage to heterosexuals, was a spiritual reason than should the government give marriage to gays" I answered no, the principal behind the government not judging on spiritual reasons ( nuetrality towards spiritual matters) has been taken away, and there is a good reason to judge based on spiritual matters ( encouraging the spiritual good rather than the bad) so we have the reason to not judge on spiritual matters taken away, along with a good reason to do so, so leaves us with the decision to judge on spiritual matters. We are now judging based on spiritual matters so we judge that gay relationships are not equal to hetersexual one's and therefore still not entitled to marriage.

Also now you say,
"Also, it seems now that, with regard to my hypothetical and related logic chain, you have no objection until we get to #6, in which I state what I believe to be your position that government should not deny equal rights on a spiritual/religious basis alone. It seems that you are now accepting that we have a situation of a denial of equal rights, but that you now consider spiritual/religious reasons to be sufficient to justify denying equal rights. But you are not being explicit about that. Please be explicit. Are you accepting everything #1 - #5 and if not, why not? Are you accepting now that in my hypothetical we do have a situation of denial of equal rights? And that you are now saying that spiritual/religious reasons alone are sufficient to deny equal rights? If you are, that's fine -- I disagree, but at least then we can then debate the real issue here instead of all the other stuff like excessive government benefits or objections to word definitions evolving, etc."
What you don't understand here is that if the government factors spirituality into their judgement then it isn't a denial of equal rights. They aren't spiritually equally therefore when the government judges on this basis it can treat the relationships differently and still be fair. Equal rights is about the government treating everybody the same for what they do that is the same. Sort of the equal work, equal pay principal. Now, in your hypothetical if the government doesn't include spirituality we are seeing equal work, therefore we have equal pay - government recognition of the gay marriage. However, what I'm arguing now is that the reason for the government to not factor in spirituality has been taken away. Therefore, the government can factor in spirituality in which case we don't see equal work and gay couples don't get recognized.

Then you say,

"Whoa! Wait just a minute. It sounds like you're actually saying that, while you have stated that spiritual reasons are not sufficient to justify the denial of equal rights, if a change in the law facilitates people doing something that you consider spiritually/religiously "bad" (i.e., a sin) then it's ok, because that is somehow different than a spiritual rationale. Am I missing something or does that make no sense? The rationale is still spiritual/religious (trying to prevent a sin per your religion), is it not?"

What your're missing is that government not factoring in spirituality is not a principal by itself - it has another principal behind it, that of spiritual nuetrality. The government recognizing gay marriage is certainly not spiritual nuetrality, therefore the principal behind the government not judging on the basis of religion has been taken away.

1. Once again no problem here.
2. Here we still have a little difference - you're right that it is denial of equal rights, but only if we continue to not judge on the basis of spirituality, but as I said at this point I think I would have to be in favor of judging on the basis of spirituality.
3. See above
4. let's drop the whole word issue for now.
5. Once again it is only a denial of equal rights if we don't factor in spirituality.
6. "You say you believe (as I do) that it’s wrong for government to deny equal rights if the only rationale for doing so that allowing equal rights would conflict with spiritual (we can go ahead and say religious) doctrine." Once again the reason for not judging based on religous reasons has been taken away.
7. Once again were not denying equal rights on the basis of spiritual reasons. Rather we are factoring in spirituality to the judgement which makes it not a denial of equal rights.

I have to say, either I'm missing something that you're saying regarding "neutrality" or it doesn't make any sense, and I'm not presuming either one at this point so I'm seeking clarification.

You wrote previously:
I should also make it clear that I think it is okay if government policy is based on the word of God. It just needs to be that the reasons are more than spiritual reasons. So if the word of God says that something has such and such a bad effect on people and it is not talking about an effect that is only related to one's relation to God, than it would be okay for government to make a rule based on that. However, I think it would be a huge mistake for government to regulate matters that are only matters of one's relation to God.

It now seems like you are saying that, although government should not base its decisions solely on spiritual/religious doctrine, on any government decision that you think can affect the level of what you consider sinful ("spiritually bad") behavior, it is not possible for government to be spiritually neutral, and given that neutrality is impossible, it's ok for government to base its decision solely on spiritual/religious doctrine, and furthermore, doing so cannot be considered a denial of equal rights. If that's what you mean, then your point regarding government policy that it "needs to be that the reasons are more than spiritual reasons" is rendered absolutely meaningless, because in any case in which it would apply (where the only reason for or against a policy is it's impact on "spiritually bad" or "spiritually good" behavior), spiritual neutrality is impossible, and then basing policy solely on spiritual reasons is appropriate.

So you tell me. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying now, have you changed your principle since the quote above (or am I misunderstanding that), or are you not making sense.

And let me ask this question: Let's say a government is deciding on whether or not to outlaw some sin per your religion (or the majority religion or whatever religious doctrine), and the ONLY reason for outlawing would be because it is a sin (no harm to society is evident other than potentially whatever people lose by lacking the related spirituality/religion). Let's say it's a law that prohibits Jews and Muslims from eating pork, but allows others to do so. Or that prohibits anyone from using the Lord's name in vain or not honoring the Sabbath or whatever. Would it be appropriate for government to pass such a law (and I don't mean constitutionally)? It seems that you're saying that it's impossible for government to be neutral whenever its actions can lead to more or less "spiritually bad" behavior, and that being the case it's ok for government to base it's decision solely on spirtual/religious reasons -- to choose the "spiritually good" over the "spiritually bad". By the way, would it make any difference to you if such a law were already on the books and the question was whether or not to revoke that law? (i.e., does passive vs. active matter to you or affect this supposed "neutrality" issue?)

It seems (again, unless I'm really misunderstanding you) that the bottom line is really that you DO think that it's appropriate for government to make laws (or not) for solely religious reasons, even when such laws deny some people equal rights (or in your view, denying someone an opportunity solely because you consider what they want to do a "spiritual bad" is NOT a denial of equal rights, even if it is bad in no way other than spiritual). Isn't that really the bottom line of your position here? You say government should base policy solely on spiritual reasons, but if a case comes up that can impact the amount of "spiritually bad" behavior (but not bad in any non-spiritual way), government neutrality is impossible, in which case government SHOULD base policy solely on spiritual reasons. Again, either I'm not getting what you're saying or you're not making sense. Please help me out with this because I've read your comments on this "neutrality" thing more than once and I still don't see the sense in it unless you're position is the bottom line position I've described above.

Government nuetrality is where the government doesn't do an action that would condone the bad religous behaviour, or an action that would condemn it. As I have explained nuetrality is entirely possible, if we balance the scales the way I suggested than the government does not have to judge on the basis of religion and can still not recognize gay marriage. Therefore, the government does not recognize gay marriage - they aren't condoning it. And their reasons for doing so aren't religous - they aren't condemning it. Therefore, the government is nuetral on that spiritual issue. So you can see that my principle is not rendered uselsess everytime it might be applied. My principle would lead us to balance things so that the government could be nuetral.
Now, I supose my previous statement sounded like I wanted the government to be blind to spiritual issues, in which case the government wouldn't know to be nuetral. However, I supose a better way to state is, I want the government to be nuetral.
Take the observance of the Sabbath, I don't want the government to make some kind of statement that Sabbath observance is a good thing, nor do I want to make a proclamation that it is a bad thing. as you can see there are definitely scenarios where religious nuetrality can be used.

No offense, but I still cannot make sense of what you're saying unless you're agreeing with me that you simply believe that religious reasons alone are a sufficient justification for a law that denies equal opportunity, and that if the opportunity denied is "spiritually bad" behavior, this denial of opportunity does not constitute a denial of equal rights.

I'm going to use letters instead of numbers to avoid confusion with my #1 - 7 above.

A) It seems that in MY hypothetical (not yours with reduced heterosexual marriage benefits and some proclamation), we are left with ONLY spiritual reasons to deny recognition of marriage of gay couples (i.e., it would encourage or enable sinful behavior per some religion). Can we agree on that? If not, what are the non-spiritual reasons based on MY hypothetical (full government benefits for heterosexuals, none for gays, and government NOT getting out of marriage altogether), not yours.

Government nuetrality is where the government doesn't do an action that would condone the bad religous behaviour

B) First, what if "gay marriage" was already the law of the
land (and let's assume gay married couples received no government benefits). Would you want it to be revoked even if the only reason for doing so is that such marriages are a "spiritual bad"? Would that be spiritually neutral? Does passive vs. active ("an action") really matter? (it shouldn't)

C) If the law of the land were already that it was a crime to take the Lord's name in vain, would your principle re: neutrality call for that law to be revoked, maintained or what? If it were revoked, wouldn't that be "government [taking] an action that would condone the bad religous behavior"? Doesn't that mean we should keep the law (constitutional problems aside)? And by the way, you did it again: I asked you a hypothetical question and rather than answering it, you created your own hypothetical of a fundamentally different nature (declaring observance of the Sabbath good or bad). Please stop doing that. At best, it creates the appearance that you're trying to avoid answering my question, as I've pointed previously. Feel free to add a hypothetical IN ADDITION to an answer, but not IN LIEU of an answer.

Let's say it's a law that prohibits Jews and Muslims from eating pork, but allows others to do so. Or that prohibits anyone from using the Lord's name in vain or not honoring the Sabbath or whatever.

D) It sounds like you're saying that if a law leads to more or less "spiritually bad" behavior, then that alone justifies adopting/maintaining or rejecting/revoking that law, and if that law entails the denial of equal opportunity to some for purely spiritual reasons, if the denied oppotunity is a "spiritual bad" then this denied opportunity is NOT a denial of equal rights. Please tell me if that's what you're saying

E) Would giving gays equal marriage rights be "condoning" homosexuality or just saying that there is no justification for discriminating against homosexuals by denying them a right that heterosexuals have? Is allowing people to say hateful things about America without getting arrested "condoning" such speech or just taking the position that those people have an equal right to political speech? On the other hand, if we start from the presumption of equal rights and we know that a man has a right to marry a woman, the question we have to ask is why it would be appropriate to deny a woman that same right to marry that woman -- and whether or not your religious doctrine should suffice as the sole justification for denying her that right. I don't want to get too lost in this question because we're having enough trouble already, but I had to bring it up.

FYI, I accidentally pasted the paragraph below into the comment above. It's from my prior comment and contains the hypotheticals I posed then, so still a useful reference:

Let's say it's a law that prohibits Jews and Muslims from eating pork, but allows others to do so. Or that prohibits anyone from using the Lord's name in vain or not honoring the Sabbath or whatever.

A. "If not, what are the non-spiritual reasons based on MY hypothetical (full government benefits for heterosexuals, none for gays, and government NOT getting out of marriage altogether), not yours." If heterosexual marriage has a high enough benefit, that in order to be fair you need to give gays recognition than yes you are right.

B. Recognizing gay marriage is not spiritually nuetral no matter how you're changing the law, because everytime you pass out a marriage license your saying " this is morrally good".

C. Nuetrality would call for the law to be revoked. Obviously the law calls a religous bad, bad. As I think I said my principal of nuetrality is that the government neither calls a spiritual issue bad or good. If the government revoked this law it would not be making a statement that this is now acceptable moral behaviour it would just be returning to a position of nuetrality. This isn't hard.

D.If the government does make a judgement on the basis of spiritual quality, and it judges something that is less spiritual usesfull as being less spiritually usefull than yes this is not a denial of equal rights.
You say,
"it sounds like you're saying that if a law leads to more or less "spiritually bad" behavior, then that alone justifies adopting/maintaining or rejecting/revoking that law," No, I'm not neccesarilly saying that if a law simply incidently leads to less spiritual behaviour it is justification for throwing the law out. But if a law condones spiritual behaviour that is a reason for throwing it out.

E. Allowing people to do something is not condoning that behaviour, but giving a license that call that thing something that has been recognized for millenia has sacred activity is condoning the activity. I did this fast without proofreading so sorry if I made any mistakes. I got to go. Maybe I will be back tommorrow night.

So tell me if I'm correct (and have been all along) about your position, and I guess I'll resume with letters:

F) Homosexuality is a sin ("spiritually bad" per your religion and/or some other religions).

G) Therefore, homosexuality is "immoral" (even if it does not harm anyone other than in that it deprives them of some beneficial spirituality).

H) Recognizing marriage of gay couples would constitute a statement by government that homosexuality is not spiritually bad behavior.

I) (At least to the best of your knowledge or at least arguendo) Government denying equal marriage opportunity to gay couples would not cause any decrease in the quantity or quality of heterosexual marriages, nor cause any other harm to anyone other than spiritual.

J) In my hypothetical with no government benefits for the gay couples and full benefits for the heterosexual couples, there is no longer the justification for different treatment on the basis of different levels of contribution to society.

K) Therefore, you object to recognizing such marriages because (1) it would constitute a non-neutral spiritual/religious statement by government, and (2) it would enable an increase in "spiritually bad" behavior.

L) You have said that the latter (#2 in preceding paragraph) is not, in itself (i.e, without an effect other than spiritual), a justification for government policy. Again, you wrote:
I think it is okay if government policy is based on the word of God. It just needs to be that the reasons are more than spiritual reasons. So if the word of God says that something has such and such a bad effect on people and it is not talking about an effect that is only related to one's relation to God, than it would be okay for government to make a rule based on that. However, I think it would be a huge mistake for government to regulate matters that are only matters of one's relation to God.

M) Yet you say that if a law denies equal opportunity for no other reason than to prevent spiritually bad behavior (i.e, sins per religion), then such a law does NOT constitute a denial of equal rights, AND such a law can be justified on that basis alone. And I can't understand how the previous sentence in this paragraph is consistent with the previous paragraph. If a law can affect the level of spiritually bad behavior or spiritually good behavior, and if that alone can justify that law, then you can't say that preventing spiritually bad behavior is a reason to adopt or revoke that law, right?

N) It really seems to boil down to what I've been saying all along: You believe that preventing sin and government continuing to make the implicit statement that something (homosexuality) is a sin (or at least NOT now saying that it's NOT a sin) are, all by themselves, enough of a justification for a law that denies equal opportunity under the law (or as I would put it, equal rights, since I don't think your religious rules and opinioin on what is "spiritually bad" is any legitimate rationale for saying that offering one person a right and denying it to another is not a denial of equal rights -- and I'd be interested to see if you stuck with that distinction if you found yourself living somewhere where what those in power considered "spiritually bad" included giving you the same rights others enjoyed, such as denying YOU the right to marry because you're a Christian. I think all of a sudden you'd consider it a denial of equal rights. Really wish you'd just call it what it is -- denial of equal rights -- and then argue that it's justified for spiritual reasons. Really, if a law prohibited me from using the Lord's name in vain would that NOT be a denial of equal rights simply because it was "spiritually bad" behavior???? Come on, John.).

I'm done for tonight. Please let me know where I've got your position and arguments correct, where not, what your answers to questions are, etc. Please address my points as directly and clearly as possible, preferably by letter unless for some reason that wouldn't work for you.

ok, one more, just to drive home my point about how ridiculous it seems to me that you are contending that denying equal rights is not really denying equal rights if granting equal rights to someone enables "spiritually bad" behavior, even if there is no other justification for denying that person that right. Or as you put it:

If the government does make a judgement on the basis of spiritual quality, and it judges something that is less spiritual usesfull as being less spiritually usefull than yes this is not a denial of equal rights.

Do you realize what that means?? Let's say some government considers the practice of any religion other than Islam to be spiritually bad and criminalizes it. Muslims can practice their religion but others can't practice other religions. Is that a denial of equal right? Or is it just a denial of equal rights if granting equal rights leads to spiritually bad behavior based on what YOU think YOUR religions says????? Please at least call a spade a spade and then make your case why denying equal rights is justified based on spiritual reasons. A man can marry a woman. A woman can't marry that same woman. No harm would be done to anyone if she could (other than loss of your supposed spiritual benefits). Denial of equal rights. Call it what it is.

If Islamic worship contributed more spiritually than Christian worship, than I don't suppose it wouldn't be a denial of equal rights for the government to treat the religions differently. The government would still be giving equal treatment to equal contribution. However, such a decision would still go against the principal of nuetrality. As long as the government can remain nuetral on religion, I don't want government adding religion into it's computation of contribution to society that gets rewarded.
Also your hypothetical violates another principal that is extremely important, and that is the right to worship God as you choose. If for some very strange reason I had to choose between outlawing Islam, or giving gays government recognition of marriage. I would have to choose giving gays marriage. The right to freedom of worship is not simply an equal rights issue. The government could forbid everyone from practicing their religous beliefs and the government would be equal, but I think both you and me would disagree with the government doing this. So there is more reason to stand against an Islamic denial of religous freedom than the issue of equal rights.

ok, yet another one (1:32am, girlfriend's asleep, nothing to do)

Some states used to have anti-sodomy laws until they were ruled unconstitutional a few years ago. While not enforced much, technically I think the police could have arrested someone for having homosexual sex in his/her own home. Constitutionality aside, would you have wanted to keep those laws, assuming that no one is harmed by homosexual sex other than in some supposed spiritual sense? Wouldn't revoking those laws be condoning "spiritually bad" behavior?

Neutrality is the government not condemning or condoning. I think your problem is that you're thinking the principal involves the government condoning whenever there isn't a law in place that condemns. Therefore, you view nuetrality as impossible. However, I would say if there is no law in place on the issue than, all factors being equal, the government is being nuetral. Currently, I am against anti - sodomy laws. If the only reason for their existence was a spiritual reason than the law would be a law that was just condemning spiritually bad behaviour - a clear violation of nuetrality. The government taking the laws off the books didn't condone the behaviour, but simply returned the law of the land to nuetrality. Gay marriage on the other hand would involve constant condoning by the government of the gay relationship.

Thanks for all your replies. The soonest I'll have a chance to consider and respond will be tomorrow afternoon (since I think I'll have to read and re-read several of your comments to possibly understand your concepts of neutrality and equal rights. I'll try to get to it by tomorrow night.

F. Yes
G. Yes
H. Yes
I. Yes. willing to accept that for the sake of arguement. I haven't fully explored the issue, but yes for the sake of arguement we can say this.
J. This seems to just be telling me what your hypothetical is.
K. 1. Yes, 2. Probably. But 2 cannot stand alone without 1 as a justification, in other words I don't want a law that comprimises spirtual nuetrality just because it encourage a spiritual good. The only way I am in favor of the government encouraging a spiritual good is if nuetrality has allready comprimised.
L. Yes, see above
M. Let's break this one up. "Yet you say that if a law denies equal opportunity for no other reason than to prevent spiritually bad behavior (i.e, sins per religion), then such a law does NOT constitute a denial of equal rights," Yes, only I would put neccesarilly between "not" and "constitute". If the government judges on the basis of religion than they can judge that something that isn't spiritually equal is not equal.

"AND such a law can be justified on that basis alone" No, not if the law isn't spiritually nuetral. I wouldn't want a law against taking the name of the Lord in vain simply because I consider that to be a spiritual bad. Banning gay marriage is banned on the basis of spiritual nuetrality not just on encouraging a spiritual good. I don't want a law just on the basis of discouraging spiritually bad behaviour, but if my choice is either discouraging it or encouraging it, I have to chose discouraging it.

N. The government preventing sin is certainly not justification for a law. The government remaining spiritually nuetral - not calling the sin good or bad is justification for a law. Once again I don't consider it a denial of equal rights. It might not be government nuetrality, but your hypothetical didn't seem to allow for that. I still think government nuetrality can be struck, but it didn't seem possible in your scenario. As far as the law forbiding you to take the name of the Lord in vain, I don't know if it's denial of equal rights, but's it's a case of the government not being nuetral which I am against. I would oppose any such law, at least partly because I think the government not being nuetral on religion - even if it's positive will cause more harm than good to the religion.

Thanks for your response above. Since I'm still having some trouble understanding your concept of "neutrality" and "equal rights", could you respond to my other comments above? Maybe that will help me understand. In any case, if you wouldn't mind doing so, I'd like to read your response(s) and re-read your other comments re: "neutrality" and "equal rights" and try again to understand your definitions/usage of those terms and the distinctions you are making.

The illustration is a very good one.

If I were to try and merge this discussion with it, I guess the fence is the set of all regulations regarding marriage - some people are let through the fence and others are not.

I've come along and asked the fencekeeper why homosexuals are not allowed through. The fencekeeper responded that marriage is for procreation and that naturally eliminates homosexuals. After observing the traffic through the fence, I noted a number of persons getting through who cannot procreate - the aged, the infertile and sterile, and those who are planning to never have children.

I asked the fencekeeper why these people are allowed through, and didn't get an answer. After observing the operation of the fence for some time, I've concluded that the fence is remarkably simple: it lets any non-closely-related opposite-gender couple of legal age through, and denies passage to all same-gender couples regardless of familial relationship or age.

I asked the fencekeeper again why non-familial same-gender couples of legal aren't being allowed through the fence since it obviously isn't related to producing children, and he replied that it must work that way for some really good reason, because its been working that way for a long long time and that other fences work the same way just about everywhere else he's ever been, so whats with all my fuss, anyway?

So I say well, that sort of sounds like a compelling argument and he has a point, afterall I really ought to understand what that really good reason is that the fencemakers had for making the fence work the way it does before I go questioning whether we might change it to restrict passage in some other manner.

So I ask the fencekeeper - ok then, for what really good reason does the fence allow passage to almost any opposite-gender couple and deny passage to all same-gender couples?

And the fencekeeper says...

"Young man, I have been here for thousands and thousands of years. And until very recently, the average man and woman died while still fertile and capable of producing a child. The length of life was not always as it is now.

Furthermore young man, one cannot tell, simply by looking, which is all we had prior to the last half of the last century, that a young woman is barren and destined never to have children, that older woman there is not, that young man is sterile while that old man there is not, and whether or not that couple there intends to have children. I do not ask and it is pointless because I cannot tell whether or not they would change their minds somewhere down the line.

What I do know is that when a man and a woman who are sufficiently non-related come to this gate, I will open it for them because it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they will pro-create. Two men, on the other hand, are a different matter.

Note again, young man, that I am only the first gatekeeper, for some of these couples that I have let in have to pass other gatekeepers (who check for age, for tribe, for nobility, for religion, for fertility) and satisfy them before they are finally admitted."

My thinking is that another reason why so many civilizations (but not all) allow a man and woman, whom, upon first sight, are apparently incapable of procreation could be simply to provide an example to emulate for younger generations; any man and woman intending to enter any sort of sexual/romantic relationship should be married.

The worldwide ideal (not reality) is obviously that all children are born within a marital union. And I think it is for that reason that so many cultures place so many taboos on pre-marital and extra-marital sex. A lot of those that do not seem to have all created customs that saddle some male with the responsibility along with the woman.

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

That provides an explanation for why a procreation-based fence - prior to modern medical capabilities - only let through heterosexuals: we were previously unable to accurately differentiate those couples unable to have children.

It doesn't provide a really good reason for the procreation-based criteria by which you assert the fence operates in the first place.

And it doesn't provide a basis on which to reject an improvement in the procreation-based fence given that we are now much more capable of discriminating between couples who are and are not procreation-capable.

Indeed, if we assume that there is a really good reason that only couples capable of procreating are allowed to pass, then should we not use the capabilities we have today to strengthen the fence's rejection of all non-procreating couples?

The worldwide ideal (not reality) is obviously that all children are born within a marital union.

I agree...

And I think it is for that reason that so many cultures place so many taboos on pre-marital and extra-marital sex.

Except that I don't necessarily think that is the (main or primary) reason for cultural disapproval of pre/extra marital sex. The early emphasis on female purity/virginity and "female-as-property" seem to have just as much or more to do with that, and from another angle many cultures had no issue with concubines or sex with slaves.

Just a note: The mores against pre-marital sex most likely had very sensible, practical origins in economic and survival needs. A woman with an unsupported child could be in big practical trouble, and birth control is a relatively recent arrival. Many moral and religious rules have similarly practical origins which may or may not apply today. For example, the Jewish and Muslim rule against eating pork probably started as a means of avoiding trichinosis (or other health threat).