Best Arguments For and Against Gay Marriage?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm sorry if I'm completely failing to understand what you are on about but I'm not sure the fault is all mine.

Dessi said.

Quote:

1) There is NOT a requirement to have children, or even an expectation, in order to marry. Never has been, never will be, has no legal precedent in anything.

I disagreed with that statement. I think parents always expected grandchildren.... and society..... ask any new couple that has been married how many times they have been asked about kids.

Caper thinks Dessi is wrong on that point does not equal Caper is against gay marriage.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Caper

...ask any new couple that has been married how many times they have been asked about kids.

Nope, been married for two years now and no one has asked us when we are going to have kids....because they KNOW we are too old to have them naturally!

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by RandFan

....Yep, and that fact is entirely irrelevant. What matters is inequality....

Right. I get that. That's what matters to you.


I have a little bit different view myself. I think the most important thing is defining what marriage is and why, or if, we want to have it as a civil institution.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Nope, been married for two years now and no one has asked us when we are going to have kids....because they KNOW we are too old to have them naturally!

Sorry, I should have stressed "new".

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

I disagreed with that statement. I think parents always expected grandchildren....

People always had expectations about marriage. That's neither here nor there. Dessi is right. From the view point of the state (state interest / compelling interest) there is NO expectation.

Since "compelling interest" / "state interest" has been argued ad infinitum against gay marriage I assumed that you were arguing against gay marriage like the others. If not then that is fine, and while I cannot speak for Dessi, if her point was to counter "states interest" arguments then she is absolutely right. There is no such expectation from the state. There may have been at one time but certainly not now.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I think you meant "faith" there. A Freudian would say it was a subconsious slip--that perhaps you believe in soppily romantic predestined Disney-style True Wuv! :-)

Could very well have been. Our actual marriage ceremony wasn't good. It was to be outside and it rained all morning, the sun eventually came out and we got married on the beach, which was nice. Later I learned that she didn't really want to marry me then and still wasn't over her ex. Yeah, we worked it out eventually.

Quote:

And for every realist about their relationship you get how many idealistic dreaming morons? Who grow up fed on the idea that there's one (exactly one, no more, no less) Perfect Match for them? And wind up rejecting all suitors because they aren't THE ONE? Or they "settle", consciously deciding "good enough" but secretly resenting that for the rest of their marriage?

Well then maybe the problem is not with marriage per se, but with the expectations that come with marriage. There is no "perfect match", there is no "soul mate" there is just someone that you enjoy waking up with in the morning even if you wanted to smother him or her with the pillow the night before.

Quote:

I think it would be impossible to get the numbers on it because people aren't honest with themselves, much less people taking polls of such things, but I'd be unsurprised to discover that most marriages occured just because people felt they ought to, to not be alone, because it's what's expected, because they got scared they'd never find anybody, because they want kids or to feel like grownups or to show up Suzy or to prove something.

You don't have to get married to just not be alone, there are many, many couples that live together and have kids without getting married. Perhaps my marriage, being a gay one, is in another category. My parents were dead when we married (they would not have approved), Mrs. Alt's mom wasn't happy about. This was nothing expected of us, most didn't like it...and we did it anyway.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Caper

Sorry, I should have stressed "new".

Nope, you got it right. Our marriage was/is new. We have been married now for two years and change, I still consider it new. We were both to old to have children and didn't want them anyway (she has an adult daughter). Children had nothing to do with it. Her mother, a widow, re-married at 50, her marriage is just as legitimate as our or two 18-year olds with a baby on the way.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Anyway, here's the best argument for recognizing only man-and-woman marriage:

The purpose of the government-recognized marriage is to incentivize relationships for producing and raising children. This is why marriage is traditionally limited to adults of opposite gender that are not too closely related, and why failure to produce children is a traditionally-accepted grounds for annulment or divorce.

Children are the expected result and consequence of allowing a couple to build a home together, and marriage is designed to be permanent enough to continue to provide the family environment that children need.

I take it, then, that you do not recognize the family issues in actual modern life, in which gay parents, those marrying for the first time and those marrying after conventional hetero marriages, end up, as so many do, with children? I urge you to consider the reality of how families are arranged now. You may well think it's a sin and disapprove of it, but you cannot reasonably say that gay based family units have no children. There are lots of children involved, and it is, as I keep pointing out, this argument in part that led to civil unions in the first place: the rights of families with children to enjoy equality of benefits.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yes, it is. Yay for modern redefinitions, but the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.

So if that's the case, you should have no argument with modifications to civil marriage, which was never what you consider "real" for any couples, straight or gay. If you are honest about this, you should realize that this is simply not your fight at all.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Right. I get that. That's what matters to you.


I have a little bit different view myself. I think the most important thing is defining what marriage is and why, or if, we want to have it as a civil institution.

I thought marriage was pretty well defined by the extensive pages and pages of marriage related laws and clauses, but I think on the latter point we have an impasse. I don't think we'll ever agree on whether the benefits of marriage outweigh the disadvantages. I hope we can be content to agree that as long as such a terrible/wonderful institution exists, it ought to be applied more fairly.

[AvalonXQ]

Yes, that's the standard counter-argument to the "marriage equals breeding argument" - the fact that, in the 21st Century, that's no longer what marriage is about for a lot of people. The people who make this argument (often Catholics) also tend to see the current treatment of marriage as being an unfortunate departure from long tradition.
Personally, I think we've departed way too far from the traditional purpose and view of marriage (which, contrary to Dessi's assertion, is primarily about starting a family to raise children, and lack of issue has historically been one of the primary grounds for dissolution) for this to still work as a strong argument today. Secondary benefits relating primarily to the couple, without any real connection to children, have become very important even when completely separated from child benefits.
So, unless we're going to prune government recognition of marriage back to its breeding roots, I think we need to recognize that the institution now is just a shorthand for a bundle of inheritence and property rights and treat it accordingly. Which means not limiting it to married couples but opening it up to any two people who want to receive the same legal benefits.

The best example, in my opinion, is eliminating limitations to marriage based on incest. Those laws are silly and entirely out-of-date when marriage is understood primarily as an inheritence and property relationship which close siblings who live together have every right to take advantage of.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.

Yeah yeah. God this, religion that. Snore.

I haven't heard any good argument about why same-sex marriages shouldn't be recognized. Most of them either are based entirely on faith (see above) or false facts.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The best example, in my opinion, is eliminating limitations to marriage based on incest.

Creepy! Is it your mom, dad, brother or sister that you want to marry and have sex with?

As for me, I prefer the marriage that I'm in - to another adult over age 18 who is in no way related to me. What sex we are doesn't matter in the least.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yes, that's the standard counter-argument to the "marriage equals breeding argument" - the fact that, in the 21st Century, that's no longer what marriage is about for a lot of people. The people who make this argument (often Catholics) also tend to see the current treatment of marriage as being an unfortunate departure from long tradition.
Personally, I think we've departed way too far from the traditional purpose and view of marriage (which, contrary to Dessi's assertion, is primarily about starting a family to raise children, and lack of issue has historically been one of the primary grounds for dissolution) for this to still work as a strong argument today. Secondary benefits relating primarily to the couple, without any real connection to children, have become very important even when completely separated from child benefits.
So, unless we're going to prune government recognition of marriage back to its breeding roots, I think we need to recognize that the institution now is just a shorthand for a bundle of inheritence and property rights and treat it accordingly. Which means not limiting it to married couples but opening it up to any two people who want to receive the same legal benefits.

The best example, in my opinion, is eliminating limitations to marriage based on incest. Those laws are silly and entirely out-of-date when marriage is understood primarily as an inheritence and property relationship which close siblings who live together have every right to take advantage of.

Avalon, I assume from the position of your post above that you're responding to my post, but it seems that you are utterly and entirely ignoring my point. I am not making the oft-repeated point that many hetero marriages lack children, which is obvious enough. I am making what basically amounts to your argument, over and over, month after month, post after post, and using, to do it, a part of the argument the Vermont Supreme Court used when it commanded the legislature to come up with a scheme whereby government benefits would be applied fairly: gay couples constitute the core of families, often of families with children. A rather large number of gay couples are formed by former members of straight marriages, and before there were civil unions and gay marriages, the right of gay couples to adopt children was established (like it or not, it was!), and it is not so uncommon now for members of such families to rely on surrogates to provide children. In short, gay couples DO rather often involve children, and denying family rights to the children of these families is to deny rights to the children too. Obviously other arguments can be summoned and other factors brought in, but the bottom line remains: denying the benefits of marriage to gay couples is to deny the benefits of marriage and of legally married parents to their children. You may think it's a sin and a shame, or like Meadmaker that it's a pile of crap, but if you have a constitution that (Like Vermont's) has an "equal benefits" clause, then that constitution says gay based families must get a piece of that action.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

...the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.

codswallop.....in your dictionary, perhaps.
thankfully, most of the world holds different views.

welcome to the 21st century.
you should join us.
we have great fair trade chocolate!

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Personally, I think we've departed way too far from the traditional purpose and view of marriage...

You mean women as property and the right of men to marry lots of wives?

Those distinctions, while important historically are meaningless. Just because women were treated as property for centuries does not mean that we ought to do so now. And just because polygamy was sanctioned by god in his holy book does not mean we should do that now.

In short, your overly sentimental concern about the past is irrelevant and pointless.

[RandFan]

God's view of and purpose of women and marriage: Hint, no premarital sex.

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 22:20-21

²⁰ But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

²¹ Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Still amazes me that humans can read that verse and think "yeah, that was okay back then".

[Jodie]

Obviously I'm going to burn in hell for being an adulterer and fornicator. Thank God it's not up to these people when everything is said and done so I will sleep easy tonight.

I really don't care about the marriage part or who sleeps with who. The main issue for me is the benefits that one receives when married. Why not just eliminate the whole issue and let everyone pick who they want to support be that an elderly parent or an adult child living at home?

To me this is one of those issues that becomes a bigger deal than it needs to be in order to distract from the real political issues of the day like the economy.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

I haven't heard any good argument about why same-sex marriages shouldn't be recognized. Most of them either are based entirely on faith (see above) or false facts.

Read post #173 again. It's the primary argument that I know of for the man-and-woman-only position.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Personally, I think we've departed way too far from the traditional purpose and view of marriage...

You mean women as property and the right of men to marry lots of wives?

This is the most dishonestly I've been snipped in a long time. Quote the whole sentence next time, please.

"Personally, I think we've departed way too far from the traditional purpose and view of marriage (which, contrary to Dessi's assertion, is primarily about starting a family to raise children, and lack of issue has historically been one of the primary grounds for dissolution) for this to still work as a strong argument today."

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Read post #173 again. It's the primary argument that I know of for the man-and-woman-only position.

Read post #191 again. The argument is absurd on its face. To begin, even if we assume the premise there is no reason to assume that having a man and woman only position would have any effect whatsoever.

Like I said, the judge in the prop 8 trial wanted evidence that such a position would have an effect. None was given. Do YOU have any evidence?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

This is the most dishonestly I've been snipped in a long time. Quote the whole sentence next time, please.

"Personally, I think we've departed way too far from the traditional purpose and view of marriage (which, contrary to Dessi's assertion, is primarily about starting a family to raise children, and lack of issue has historically been one of the primary grounds for dissolution) for this to still work as a strong argument today."

That's NOT the traditional purpose of marriage. The traditional purpose of marriage was property. And it's dishonest to pretend that women as chattel and polygamy were NOT part of the traditional purpose of marriage.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

This is the most dishonestly I've been snipped in a long time.

Poor baby...cry a little more for us, woncha?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Read post #191 again.

You're doing some silly form of Rick-rolling now, huh? Terrific.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RandFan

That's NOT the traditional purpose of marriage.

Fine, then that's the point you make. You don't dishonestly paint me as claiming that marriage isn't as traditional as it should be by cutting off the second half of my sentence.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

You're doing some silly form of Rick-rolling now, huh? Terrific.

First off, I'm sorry, it's been fixed or see here. That said, unlike you I provided a link to my post. It was a good faith mistake. You could always go and find post 191, right?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Fine, then that's the point you make. You don't dishonestly paint me as claiming that marriage isn't as traditional as it should be by cutting off the second half of my sentence.

Oh knock it off. Had I not put in an ellipse and had I actually altered your sentence instead of simply inserting an elipse then you would have a point and I'd be publicly apologizing. Not a soul on earth had any confusion that what I wrote was not what you said or meant. The link was there and they could always check on it.

Edit: In the future I will include the entire sentence and highlight the point I wish to respond to instead.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RandFan

First off, I'm sorry, it's been fixed or see here. That said, unlike you I provided a link to my post. It was a good faith mistake.

Just a cut-and-paste error then? Fair enough, no problem.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RandFan

In the future I will include the entire sentence and highlight the point I wish to respond to instead.

Thank you.

[Arcade22]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Read post #173 again. It's the primary argument that I know of for the man-and-woman-only position.

And recognizing same-sex marriages somehow decrease whatever incentive there is to raise kids? I find that hard to believe. Especially considering how little same-sex marriages take place even where it's legal.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

And recognizing same-sex marriages somehow decrease whatever incentive there is to raise kids? I find that hard to believe. Especially considering how little same-sex marriages take place even where it's legal.

No, the idea is that the man-woman-requirement exists because the goal is to incentivize breeding behavior.

An analogous provision might be a tax break for farmers if they apply for "breeder's status," with the requirement that the farm has to include one bull for every fifteen cows. Non-breeders might want the tax break, but the requirement still makes sense if the purpose is really to incentivize breeding. And even if some ranch out there fences the bulls off and still gets the tax break without actually breeding, that doesn't suddenly mean the requirement is silly or arbitrary.

In my mind, the main weakness in this argument (as I tried to say before) is that there are now plenty of benefits to marriage that aren't linked to breeding behavior at all. So we either have to trim those back or just recognize that the legal relationship we've created has broader applicability than just human breeding pairs. If we do the latter, we should really eliminate the incest provisions, because one situation where the legal relationship makes a lot of sense is unattached siblings who live together.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Dessi is right. From the view point of the state (state interest / compelling interest) there is NO expectation.

I still disagree. Throughout history the state and religion were very intertwined... and I'm pretty sure the state had expectations on almost every aspect of a persons life.

But I will plead guilty to nit piking.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

I still disagree. Throughout history the state and religion were very intertwined... and I'm pretty sure the state had expectations on almost every aspect of a persons life.

But I will plead guilty to nit piking.

Well, we can always agree to disagree.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by bruto

I thought marriage was pretty well defined by the extensive pages and pages of marriage related laws and clauses, but I think on the latter point we have an impasse. I don't think we'll ever agree on whether the benefits of marriage outweigh the disadvantages. I hope we can be content to agree that as long as such a terrible/wonderful institution exists, it ought to be applied more fairly.

I suppose it is defined by the laws that exist, but the second part of the question was the "why" part. Why bother with it?

AvalonXQ has suggested one reason that it could be worthwhile. It incentivises breeding. If you like that, it's a legitimate reason for the state to get involved. I don't think there are other possible reasons, and I'm not sure we actually want to incentivize breeding as such, but at least it frames the question in proper terms. It states the benefit society can expect as a consequence of establishing the civil institution of marriage.

"I want my roommate to get health insurance from my employer" is a benefit to the individuals, but I'm not sure it's something that we, as a society, ought to honor. There are certain benefits that we provide out of tradition, but if there's no return benefit to society, we ought to stop.

[joobz]

The original purpose of marriage was to have sex with one's rib made human or something like that.

When discussing legal definitions of marriage in the US, it is best to avoid using religious arguments. Those are nonstarters.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I suppose it is defined by the laws that exist, but the second part of the question was the "why" part. Why bother with it?

AvalonXQ has suggested one reason that it could be worthwhile. It incentivises breeding. If you like that, it's a legitimate reason for the state to get involved. I don't think there are other possible reasons, and I'm not sure we actually want to incentivize breeding as such, but at least it frames the question in proper terms. It states the benefit society can expect as a consequence of establishing the civil institution of marriage.

"I want my roommate to get health insurance from my employer" is a benefit to the individuals, but I'm not sure it's something that we, as a society, ought to honor. There are certain benefits that we provide out of tradition, but if there's no return benefit to society, we ought to stop.

So it's reasonable, as many people would agree, that you can't just name your roommate as a recipient of your health benefits. But your roommate in this case presumably does not raise your children, and has not, for example, agreed to stand by you and take care of you and so forth. Granted, some of the benefits of marriage are less important in this day of two income families, but there are still plenty of families, especially those with kids, in which one of the two persons is fully elmployed and the other stays home and rears kids, fixes meals, and all that housewifey sort of stuff. Your approach would appear to leave that person without health insurance, or having to pay so much for private insurance that the position can no longer make sense. Is society really better off that way?

A marriage law that addresses the issues of child welfare does not have to :"incentivise breeding." There is at least a little interest here in what happens to children after they're born! Most of us would surmise that society's interest in children includes how they are raised when they already exist.

Other issues exist. You continue not to mention them. Perhaps they are unimportant to you, and perhaps you think they should be ignored, but this does not mean they do not exist. Marriage determines a lot of issues that have to do with who is allowed or required to do what with relation to others. Who can decide what shots your kid gets, who can take him home from school, and where to? Whom may the school call when the child is injured? Who gets notified, and who can visit whom in the hospital? Who can turn off the respirator when you're brain dead? Whom can you designate to know your medical history? Who can live in the house when you die? Who can throw your lover out of a house? Who can throw your lover out of the country? Can one of a child's parents afford to stay home and raise them?

Sure, some of these issues, perhaps all of them, can be addressed one at a time, negotiated in other ways one at a time, resolved in a court case if you can afford it. But marriage is a hell of a lot more efficient.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Anyway, here's the best argument for recognizing only man-and-woman marriage:

The purpose of the government-recognized marriage is to incentivize relationships for producing and raising children. This is why marriage is traditionally limited to adults of opposite gender that are not too closely related, and why failure to produce children is a traditionally-accepted grounds for annulment or divorce.

Children are the expected result and consequence of allowing a couple to build a home together, and marriage is designed to be permanent enough to continue to provide the family environment that children need.

yet more codswallop.
sure...tell that to all the single parents in the world, or kids without parents.
...step into the 21st century.

who marries whom is none of your *********** business, unless you are one of the consenting adults entering into it.
same sex homes are better for kids than no home.
same sex parents do raise kids now, whether you like it or not.

your ideas are quaint, but outdated.

[qayak]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Anyway, here's the best argument for recognizing only man-and-woman marriage:

The purpose of the government-recognized marriage is to incentivize relationships for producing and raising children. This is why marriage is traditionally limited to adults of opposite gender that are not too closely related, and why failure to produce children is a traditionally-accepted grounds for annulment or divorce.

Children are the expected result and consequence of allowing a couple to build a home together, and marriage is designed to be permanent enough to continue to provide the family environment that children need.

"If that's your best, your best won't do..."

You're just regurgitating the c1930-1969 Catholic view on marriage. That puts you, at best, 33 years out of date.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by bruto

...........A marriage law that addresses the issues of child welfare does not have to :"incentivise breeding." There is at least a little interest here in what happens to children after they're born! Most of us would surmise that society's interest in children includes how they are raised when they already exist.

Other issues exist. You continue not to mention them.

I didn't mention any issues at all, but there's plenty of opportunity to mention them, and others have said (paraphrasing) "Who cares as long as everyone gets it equally."

The truth is that I believe it's none of the government's business who I sleep with, except for one problem. Sex causes babies, and babies are in fact the government's business.

I think marriage law should be based on that fact. I think that our current attitude toward marriage is based on the feelings of the married couple and making it easy for that couple to cooperate economically so long as they continue to share their mutual feelings, and make it easy for them to equitably separate when those feelings disappear. I think that's a lousy approach to marriage law. Your romantic inclinations really are none of my business. I think marriage law should be centered on the desire to create stable relationships in which children can be raised, and I think that's the reason there is legitimate role of government in becoming involved in the sexual relationships of adults.

But in order to fashion a reasonable approach to marriage law, you first have to figure out that that is your goal, or, if that's not your goal, you have to figure out what your goal is, and fashion your marriage law appropriately.

It may even be that we would come up with more than one type of legally recognized long term relationship. "One size fits all" might not be right for marriage anymore.


Oh, and should gays be able to enter into these things, once we figure out what they are? Ummm....sure....why not? Whatever. It's not something I think is the most important question, although I recognize that other people feel much more strongly about it. In my opinion, allowing gays to get married doesn't diminish heterosexual marriages, but the focus on the issue of gay marriage distracts from a more important issue.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I didn't mention any issues at all, but there's plenty of opportunity to mention them, and others have said (paraphrasing) "Who cares as long as everyone gets it equally."

The truth is that I believe it's none of the government's business who I sleep with, except for one problem. Sex causes babies, and babies are in fact the government's business.

I think marriage law should be based on that fact. I think that our current attitude toward marriage is based on the feelings of the married couple and making it easy for that couple to cooperate economically so long as they continue to share their mutual feelings, and make it easy for them to equitably separate when those feelings disappear. I think that's a lousy approach to marriage law. Your romantic inclinations really are none of my business. I think marriage law should be centered on the desire to create stable relationships in which children can be raised, and I think that's the reason there is legitimate role of government in becoming involved in the sexual relationships of adults.

But in order to fashion a reasonable approach to marriage law, you first have to figure out that that is your goal, or, if that's not your goal, you have to figure out what your goal is, and fashion your marriage law appropriately.

It may even be that we would come up with more than one type of legally recognized long term relationship. "One size fits all" might not be right for marriage anymore.


Oh, and should gays be able to enter into these things, once we figure out what they are? Ummm....sure....why not? Whatever. It's not something I think is the most important question, although I recognize that other people feel much more strongly about it. In my opinion, allowing gays to get married doesn't diminish heterosexual marriages, but the focus on the issue of gay marriage distracts from a more important issue.

So we need to get rid of things like spouses getting social security benefits, preferential status for greencards and exemptions from inheritance tax?

Do you want there to be no legal recognition of a relationship other than between parents and children?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I didn't mention any issues at all, but there's plenty of opportunity to mention them, and others have said (paraphrasing) "Who cares as long as everyone gets it equally."

The truth is that I believe it's none of the government's business who I sleep with, except for one problem. Sex causes babies, and babies are in fact the government's business.

I think marriage law should be based on that fact. I think that our current attitude toward marriage is based on the feelings of the married couple and making it easy for that couple to cooperate economically so long as they continue to share their mutual feelings, and make it easy for them to equitably separate when those feelings disappear. I think that's a lousy approach to marriage law. Your romantic inclinations really are none of my business. I think marriage law should be centered on the desire to create stable relationships in which children can be raised, and I think that's the reason there is legitimate role of government in becoming involved in the sexual relationships of adults.

But in order to fashion a reasonable approach to marriage law, you first have to figure out that that is your goal, or, if that's not your goal, you have to figure out what your goal is, and fashion your marriage law appropriately.

It may even be that we would come up with more than one type of legally recognized long term relationship. "One size fits all" might not be right for marriage anymore.


Oh, and should gays be able to enter into these things, once we figure out what they are? Ummm....sure....why not? Whatever. It's not something I think is the most important question, although I recognize that other people feel much more strongly about it. In my opinion, allowing gays to get married doesn't diminish heterosexual marriages, but the focus on the issue of gay marriage distracts from a more important issue.

You can't quite say, having stated that children, and specifically, the incentivizing of child bearing, are issues, that you have not mentioned any issues.


Although I favor marriage for a number of reasons you do not, I agree that creating a family unit that is conducive to raising children is a major issue in what marriage needs to be, and that if you think about what that entails, you may realize that a number of the other benefits, which might be considered free lunch for the childless couple, are important for that.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So we need to get rid of things like spouses getting social security benefits, preferential status for greencards and exemptions from inheritance tax?

Do you want there to be no legal recognition of a relationship other than between parents and children?

That's not a reasonable inference from anything I said.

The motivation for regulating sexual relationships between adults is based on the fact that those sexual relationships can result in babies. Sex can result in babies on purpose. Sex can result in babies by accident. Sex can result in babies whether or not you are married, and you can even make a baby with one person while you are married to a different person.

Our marriage law should be centered on that fact. Government should not give a hoot about you being in love with anyone. That's your business. However, because of the baby issue and a whole host of correlated issues that are all associated with baby making, government has a legitimate role in interfering with adult sexual relationships.

But enough about me. What do you think? Why is it that there ought to be this thing called "marriage"? What purpose does it serve? Should government be concerned about love and sex? If we choose to have something called marriage, should it be the same for every married couple?

Or do you not care, as long as there is no discrimination?