2-to-1 against gay marriage

Various species of fish, (and other land animal, tho I don''t recall the name now) that switch genders to accomodate the current population?

Which still involves a male and a female. They don''t mate same sex and adopt, do they?

I have no idea what your point is here. For an articulate person to respond to a direct question with ""figure it out for youself"" doesn''t particularly lend confidence to the hope that you actually have much of an argument.

Which is why I didn''t say that, though I actually did hope you''d figure it out for yourself instead of stubbornly sticking to a pretty weak position. Your argument is that marriage is only incented to promote children. I provided a counter to that indicating that marriage is still incented to millions of those who do not or can not have children. Further, I''d add that if you tried to limit the incentives of marriage for those who don''t have children, I''m pretty sure you''d have a sum total of zero allies. You said, essentially, ''meh, I don''t recognize that, because I can''t think of another reason why governments would give incentives if not for children.'' I then, encouraged you to perhaps explore other reasons why we recognize the legitimacy of marriage.

Then you got snippy.

There is no reason for the state to provide financial and property benefits to married people, unless it is for the support of children. please fel free to enlighten me otherwise.

I''d think the myriad incentives to non-child-bearing married couples makes your argument indefensible. There are liteally thousands of individual reasons, a few pretty obvious ones off the top of my head include, from economic trends of married couples, to social reasons promoting monogomy, to religious reasons (because, as you point out, the religious tenets of our heritage play a part in many of our laws), to productivity reasons - married couples are more likely to hold long term jobs, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Marriages, and unions, do a lot more to benefit our society than just raise children. And, the government has no shortage of reasons to encourage such behavior. I''d think that was pretty obvious.

Certain species of toads I believe are able to switch genders.

One might argue logically for extending certain benefits to same-sex couples, but marriage isn''t necessary to that end. Surely next-of-kin issues for corporate and death benefits can be managed outside of marriage.

Which, I''d like to point out, I agree with. My position is that homosexual couples should be allowed access to the same priviledges and protections afforded heterosexual couples. I don''t think the institution of marriage necessarily has to be particularly involved.

Though, I questions the notion of the sanctity of marriage in our culture. When the events of this past weekend - namely Britney''s tryst - don''t seem uncommon, I wonder if this sanctity of marriage position really has a lot of strength any more. I''m not saying marriage shouldn''t be revered. I''m just wondering if it is.

Making homosexual unions equal to heterosexual unions - the superior natural order of which cannot be disputed - is not just a small step for equality. It is a gargantuan leap from a natural order that has served mankind throughout civilized human society.

First, I want to say how much I enjoyed the thoughtful and rational position of your post. I think in a debate often of extremes, you spoke well. However, I think it''s an exaggeration to call homosexual unions a gargantuan leap. The natural order of things is a nice sentiment - if an idealized worldview (zing) - but there''s very little of our lifestyle that matches this so called natural order, if we can presume there even is such a thing. Consider our discussion, done digitally across thin wires buried underground, communicated through a written language over hundreds and thousands of miles. The tools of humanity defy the natural order of things, and even the institution of marriage itself rejects such a notion. Pairing male and female I can see, but many would argue even monogomy runs counter to the natural order of humanity, much less establishing a tradition and ceremony by which to solidify and protect that union through laws.

Pairing male and female I can see, but many would argue even monogomy runs counter to the natural order of humanity, much less establishing a tradition and ceremony by which to solidify and protect that union through laws.

Quite often in wild (nature) you see very brutal acts. Male lions for instance, will kill another males cubs just so the lioness rearing them will go into heat sooner.

I watched a special on polar bears over christmas. Polar bears are largely loners. They travel sometimes up to 60 miles to find a mate. The male then leaves the female to raise the cubs. During lean months and harsh weather, Males sometimes follow a mother and her cubs hoping that a cub will succumb to the elements and make an easy meal.

I think nature''s order is anything but.

But your very comments on the fact that the natural order is so chaotic only gives weight to the argument that marriage as a social institution exists to facilitate the raising of children.

If man''s nature is so counter to marriage, what other reason could there have been for the creation of marriage to begin with?

Marriage is a social construct to foster the creation and development of children. Its very survival over thousands of years points to its success in that role. Until only recently, that was never questioned. The fact that some heterosexual marriages might not produce children doesn''t invalidate the justification for marriage to begin with.

I provided a counter to that indicating that marriage is still incented to millions of those who do not or can not have children.

So the exception is the reason for the rule? Doesn''t follow. Yes, the sterile and elderly marry, but they are hardly representative. Most marriages, especially in the context of history have been long-term relationships forged between people with the intention of creating a family.

There are liteally thousands of individual reasons, a few pretty obvious ones off the top of my head include, from economic trends of married couples, to social reasons promoting monogomy, to religious reasons (because, as you point out, the religious tenets of our heritage play a part in many of our laws), to productivity reasons - married couples are more likely to hold long term jobs, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

The positive economic trends from marriage and the likelihood of married couples to hold long-term jobs arise because people want either a better life for themselves, or because they want to support a family. If people want a better life for themselves, marriage isn''t much of a financial incentive. People - including couples - who want comforts aren''t more likely to work for them simply because they get married.

As for religion, as JMJ pointed out, marriage in most religions is inextricably tied to the bearing and raising of children. And the reason societies promote monogamy - regardless of particularly ironic statements by George Michael - is to maintain the family unit and make a stable environment for children.

So you suggest thousands of reasons, but the four that occur to you immediately all support my thesis that marriage creates a stable environment for children and this is the reason that the State incents and rewards marriage. What else ya'' got?

Marraige came about as a way for men to protect their property. For many years, wives were considered the property of men. Marraige was/is a legal way for a man to aquire women as a possesion or property.

I would also submit that it wasnt necessarily for child rearing but for protecting lineage. It was for male heir creation.

For many years, wives were considered the property of men. Marraige is a legal way for a man to aquire women as a possesion or property.

So who would be the property in a gay marriage? Maybe this explains the ""Mr. Slave"" character on South Park... Also, does this mean that lesbian couples are completely made up of property, kind of like human salvage? Can I grab up a few?

So the exception is the reason for the rule? Doesn''t follow. Yes, the sterile and elderly marry, but they are hardly representative. Most marriages, especially in the context of history have been long-term relationships forged between people with the intention of creating a family.

The exception is the reason for the rule in most liberal hot button issues. 93 percent of abortions are performed as birth control, but nothing whatsoever can be done to regulate this because of the 7 percent done for other reasons.

I would also submit that it wasnt necessarily for child rearing but for protecting lineage. It was for male heir creation.

I would love an explanation of how ""heir creation"" is not ""child rearing"".

Rearing implies guidance and a continued commitment to teach the child to maturity.

Heir creation is just that. The woman is a tool who''s only function is to convert the males sperm into a male infant.

Heir creation is just that. The woman is a tool who''s only function is to convert the males sperm into a male infant.

Sound like everybody wins. And people say patriarchical societies are bad.

I think the problem is that no one is really sure what the hell marriage is for. I think when you answer that, you''ve got your answer as to why homosexual marriages are right/wrong/useless.

Why does the state need to recognize that two people have a civil union? I don''t think the state cares about ""love"".

If man''s nature is so counter to marriage, what other reason could there have been for the creation of marriage to begin with?

I''d submit that the creation of marriage as an institution has no relationship to the plurality of reasons it''s supported as an institution by our current society or government.

I''d submit that the creation of marriage as an institution has no relationship to the plurality of reasons it''s supported as an institution by our current society or government.

That is a fair assessment and the point my statements were trying to get at.

Nicely worded, verbage king!

I''d submit that the creation of marriage as an institution has no relationship to the plurality of reasons it''s supported as an institution by our current society or government.

I would beg to differ. I think that contrary to your opinion, or the best efforts of some elements of society to undermine the value of marriage, the vast majority of Americans hold marriage with the same level of reverence as previous generations. That is one of the reasons that there is such strong resistance to the concept of gay marriage.

I''m not saying they don''t revere it, but we need to specify whether we''re talking about why the government supports marriage or why the people do. Government support of marriage is not limited to encouraging child rearing. I still don''t think you guys have ever really explained how it is the government incentives for marriage are limited to a state''s compelling interest in just providing stable environments for children. Honestly, I really haven''t seen anyone refute my position that the incentives for marriage extend to dozens of societal advantages, where child rearing is just one of a great many.

Further, the reverence of marriage - which I also think remains contested and unsteady at every turn - is not limited to or really even connected with children. After all, a marriage that does not produce offspring is not looked down upon.

I don''t mean to be ironic, but I think you''ve got one of those idealized worldviews that run counter to the real world we were talking about somewhere else. Everything I see suggests that marriage as it actually is doesn''t connect to the picture you paint of it.

Hey, that''s ok. Like I''ve said before, I like a good idealized worldview. It smacks of optimism, and that''s a good thing.

Honestly, I really haven''t seen anyone refute my position that the incentives for marriage extend to dozens of societal advantages, where child rearing is just one of a great many.

I did, and I guess this is reflected in the fact that you asserted there were thousands of reasons earlier, but are now down to dozens.

Ely, I think I have stated pretty clearly that the purpose of marriage is to create a stable environment to raise children. Society, and therefore government, reward that behavior with benefits.

Let me ask you your own question: if not for the raising of children, what reason would the government have for sanctioning marriage at all?

Marriage as a predecessor to children was never questioned until recently. Same sex couple are saying that just because their relationships cannot result in procreation, they shouldn''t be penalized. But they aren''t penalized. They are afforded the same rights and benefits as any other single person.

Getting and staying married and providing a stable home was the original motivation for creating societal rewards for marriage. Those rewards are significant enough that people are willing to enter into a marriage just to get access to them, including heterosexual couples that have no desire to procreate. Now homosexual couples are saying ''why not me''?

The simple reason is that their union cannot ever create chilren without the introduction of a third party, and is not the preferred environment for the raising of children.

Yes, some gay couples are capable of raising children that turn out just fine. And yes, some hetero couples cannot or will not produce offspring. However, both of these are exceptions, and you don''t create the rule based on the exceptions.

If that is unfair, well...so is life.

I did

Nah, but you did make some really good attempts at changing the discussion to one you thought you could win.

Your spurious claim that the four reasons I listed that occurred to me off the top of my head somehow supported your thesis was an interesting conclusion to me. Particularly since none of them did.

I guess this is reflected in the fact that you asserted there were thousands of reasons earlier, but are now down to dozens.

Thousands are still dozens, just a whole hell of a lot of them.

ok let''s take them one at a time:

How does marriage create monogamy, and why is this something government rewards?

You guys are much more tenacious than I am. If we were sitting having drinks talking about this, I''d hang with you, but I just don''t have the endurance. I start to wish I was doing something else.

Besides, I got a kid. I can''t sit here all day doing this, you know! I''m supposed to be rearing him or something.

If I were to answer your question, I would have said something about sexually transmitted diseases, health care, productive work environments, the trend of married couple to act in a more socially responsible fashion, among a few others I haven''t really fleshed out.

Civil Unions should be legal. ''nuff said.

Those rewards are significant enough that people are willing to enter into a marriage just to get access to them, including heterosexual couples that have no desire to procreate. Now homosexual couples are saying ''why not me''?

If hetero couples who dont want to have children can legally take advantage of this system then why cant same sex couples who either want to or do not want to have children take advantage also?

If the benefits were solely to encourage child rearing, wouldnt their be precautions to prevent hetero couples who didnt want children from taking advantage of the governments generosity?

If marraige is really only to make a stable environment to raise children, does that mean that devoted couples who dont want children shouldnt get married? Maybe they should also be forced into ""Civil Unions"" to protect the child rearing sanctity of marraige?

How does marriage create monogamy

It doesnt. There are several cultures still alive today that support polygamy.

The only reason marraige ever got associated with monogamy in ancient times was because a poor man could not afford more than one wife. Since the poor outnumbered the rich who could afford more than one wife and wanted the societal status that went along with it, the relationship between marraige and monogamy began.

If the benefits were solely to encourage child rearing, wouldnt their be precautions to prevent hetero couples who didnt want children from taking advantage of the governments generosity?

If marraige is really only to make a stable environment to raise children, does that mean that devoted couples who dont want children shouldnt get married? Maybe they should also be forced into ""Civil Unions"" to protect the child rearing sanctity of marraige?

My point has never been that the only point of marriage is to raise children. But I do think the only compelling interest for the state to subsidize it is children. People are going to get fall in love and have children regardless of the existence of marriage, but in my opinion, marriage''s benefit to society is to create long-term, stable relationships - and society doesn''t give tax breaks and property rights to couples because the state is trying to slow the spread of syphilis...

I''ll still maintain that the idea of marraige and monogamy is a relatively new one. Even if you credit Christianity with the foundation of this ideal some 2000 years ago, that''s still new by world standards. Most recorded histories start at around 6000 years ago. (Hebrew calendar is 5764)

Also monogamy is still not overwhelmingly prevalent in modern society. In western society it is but not globally.

marriage''s benefit to society is to create long-term, stable relationships

I agree. That is the intent of civil unions as well, and they should gain the same benefits allotted by the government.

Look, I''ll be the first to admit I''m a bit of a homophobe since I do feel a little threatened/creeped out when in the company of gay men. But how can I not applaud them and support them if they choose to seek the responsibility of a state sanctioned monogamous relationship? Doesnt that creep you out far less than a wildly promiscous homosexual?

Also monogamy is still not overwhelmingly prevalent in modern society. In western society it is but not globally.

Neither is freedom, but we keep it around for some reason.

What are these myriad governement benefits that have been referenced for all these posts? The only one I can think of is it is now slightly cheaper to file jointly on taxes than as a single person. This is only true since the Bush tax plan and once that has been repealed there won''t be any benefit. If this is all about sharing insurance plans (which I strongly suspect it is), I think there are a great many people who need to get a life.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Just because people do things that we may find gross (i.e. ''take it in the pooper'') doesn''t mean that they should not enjoy the equal protection from taxes granted by the state to hetero couples.

If they can reinterpret the constitution to allow for gun control, they should be able to let this one pass.