Sorry Kirth, I didn't mean to be confrontational. I put up with a lot of anti-Christian rhetoric on these boards and I sometimes get a little oversensitive.
No apology needed, Gary -- I should probably thank you. I used very strong language too loosely and without thinking. I sort of count on you to call me on it, when I do that.
There is a difference between predators and horny teenagers. It is the duty of a judge presiding over sexual based trials to keep punishments within the spirit of the law not the wording.Granted there is a part of me that was gladdened by the idea of executing child molesters. Bt it would haveto be expanded to pedophiles of all stripes.You do understand by that language that two teenagers having gay sex can both be put to death right? It doesn't specify that the person engaging in the act has to be over the limit for under-age.
...I'm pretty sure the spirit of this law is 'gay people are evil.' So, yeah I think sentencing a couple of under age gay kids to death would be in keeping with that spirit.
...I'm pretty sure the spirit of this law is 'gay people are evil.' So, yeah I think sentencing a couple of under age gay kids to death would be in keeping with that spirit.There is a difference between predators and horny teenagers. It is the duty of a judge presiding over sexual based trials to keep punishments within the spirit of the law not the wording.Granted there is a part of me that was gladdened by the idea of executing child molesters. Bt it would haveto be expanded to pedophiles of all stripes.You do understand by that language that two teenagers having gay sex can both be put to death right? It doesn't specify that the person engaging in the act has to be over the limit for under-age.
The spirit of the law is, did the evil gay boy force the other evil gay boy to have evil gay sex or was it consensual, if not death sentence to the predator.
Kirth, you'd have a hard time finding Evangelicals in America going along with this so please just don't go there, ok?
You might think you're kidding about Evangelicals, but...
I can think of one: Rick Warren. He doesn't quite say he's in favor of the law, but for some reason he can't take a side. This is a game he likes to play. He can't take sides (but he was for Prop 8). He can't take sides (but abortion is a holocaust). All of this not taking sides is seems to involve a lot of side taking.
Of course Warren doesn't speak for evangelicals at large. But he's hardly the fringe nobody that Fred Phelps is. He's a bestselling author (The Purpose-Driven Life. Your purpose is to give his church free labor.) and was sufficiently prominent to get to host a presidential debate at his church and got the invite to speak at Obama's inauguration.
No. You should know that the concept of Natural Law is found in Ancient Greek Philosophy.
Yes, indeed, but it was then co-opted by Augustine of Hippo and especially Thomas Aquinas. In any event, it's an intellectual construct, rather than an empirical observation -- "proper ends" are hypothetical, and vary depending on who's doing the thinking -- and the concept is one that ancient Greeks, I might add, would certainly not have used to condemn homosexual behavior! Also, the "Natural Law" that Thomas Hobbes later wrote about bears little to no resemblance to the one you're talking about.
It seems to me that several 'great minds' were not all in agreement concerning Natural Law. It also seems that to use Natural Law as an argument against same-sex marriage you must also be against any sexual relationship which does not produce offspring in a stable environment.
Wouldn't that mean that nuns and celibate priest are violating Natural Law since they are not going forth and multiplying? Also, is not divorce far more damaging to the stability of children? Or am I completely misunderstanding Natural Law?
|
The spirit of the law is, did the evil gay boy force the other evil gay boy to have evil gay sex or was it consensual, if not death sentence to the predator....I'm pretty sure the spirit of this law is 'gay people are evil.' So, yeah I think sentencing a couple of under age gay kids to death would be in keeping with that spirit.There is a difference between predators and horny teenagers. It is the duty of a judge presiding over sexual based trials to keep punishments within the spirit of the law not the wording.Granted there is a part of me that was gladdened by the idea of executing child molesters. Bt it would haveto be expanded to pedophiles of all stripes.You do understand by that language that two teenagers having gay sex can both be put to death right? It doesn't specify that the person engaging in the act has to be over the limit for under-age.
Considering that having more than one gay sexual experience means death, I'm pretty sure the spirit of the law is kill them before they become gay adults.
|
Ah, you got me on that Indian one. However, the reason why Stalin's anti- gay law was there was due to human bigotry. People fear others who are different from themselves. Let's face it, people use the Bible to target gays because of their own prejudices, not because of Holy Scripture. Jesus said nothing on the subject of gays and there are only 2 to 3 references to homosexuality in the Old Testament. If it wasn't for bigotry these references would have gone the way of the shellfish prohibition.India ha[d] wors[e] prohibitions than the USA when it comes homosexuality. However, there is nothing in their religion that prohibits homosexuality.The Indian Penal Code (IPC), of which Section 377 forms a part, was drafted in 1860 by Lord Macaulay as a part of the colonial government:
377. Unnatural offences: Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
So we're looking at law drafted by Christian colonials -- a law which did not exist prior to their arrival, and which was recently (7/2/09) struck down in their absence.
Stalin's anti-gay laws are indeed another matter entirely, but as near as I can tell, everyone except high party officials were technically guilty of some crime or other during that time, so maybe that was just part of a laundry list to make sure no one slipped through the cracks of State control.
Actually Paul did right that none of these shall enter the kingdom of heaven, thieves, prostitutes, Idolaters, homosexuals, and blasphemers. I think it was in corinthians but it is the only new testament reference to homosexuality.
Not that I support such writings. Hate literature is hate literature no matter who wrote it or when it was written.
See here.
I like this part of what you linked:
"Yet this argument requires drawing how marriage is an important good in a very particular way, since it puts procreation at the center of marriage as its 'natural fulfillment' (George, 1999, 168). Natural law theorists, if they want to support their objection to homosexual sex, have to emphasize procreation. If, for example, they were to place love and mutual support for human flourishing at the center, it is clear that many same-sex couples would meet this standard. Hence their sexual acts would be morally just.
"There are, however, several objections that are made against this account of marriage as a central human good. One is that by placing procreation as the ‘natural fulfillment’ of marriage, sterile marriages are thereby denigrated. Sex in an opposite-sex marriage where the partners know that one or both of them are sterile is not done for procreation. Yet surely it is not wrong. Why, then, is homosexual sex in the same context (a long-term companionate union) wrong (Macedo, 1995)?"
As a person in a heterosexual marriage who has no children, I guess that Natural Law argument makes me the same as those in a homosexual relationship -- viz. "unworthy" to be married. If that's what people think, to hell with them. So I strongly support gay marriage, in order to support my own heterosexual one.
|
|
Actually Paul did right that none of these shall enter the kingdom of heaven, thieves, prostitutes, Idolaters, homosexuals, and blasphemers. I think it was in corinthians but it is the only new testament reference to homosexuality.
Not that I support such writings. Hate literature is hate literature no matter who wrote it or when it was written.
In the original text of Paul's letter to the Corinthians it actually says sodomites, which specifically refers to male prostitutes. Perhaps in the many translations it has been changed as an excuse to hate homosexuals but in Paul's letter he is discussing prostitutes only.
Edit: I got a Latin Bible with a side by side English translation for Christmas a few years ago. It's really good for times like this. My next goal is to get a copy of the Torah with Hebrew and English together.
Actually Paul did right that none of these shall enter the kingdom of heaven, thieves, prostitutes, Idolaters, homosexuals, and blasphemers. I think it was in corinthians but it is the only new testament reference to homosexuality.
Not that I support such writings. Hate literature is hate literature no matter who wrote it or when it was written.
Current topic aside I find it odd that murderers aren't on that list. I can kill a guy and still get into heaven so long as I didn't steal from him?
Actually Paul did right that none of these shall enter the kingdom of heaven, thieves, prostitutes, Idolaters, homosexuals, and blasphemers. I think it was in corinthians but it is the only new testament reference to homosexuality.
Not that I support such writings. Hate literature is hate literature no matter who wrote it or when it was written.
In the original text of Paul's letter to the Corinthians it actually says sodomites, which specifically refers to male prostitutes. Perhaps in the many translations it has been changed as an excuse to hate homosexuals but in Paul's letter he is discussing prostitutes only.
Edit: I got a Latin Bible with a side by side English translation for Christmas a few years ago. It's really good for times like this. My next goal is to get a copy of the Torah with Hebrew and English together.
Try Romans 1:26 through the end of the chapter.
Actually Paul did right that none of these shall enter the kingdom of heaven, thieves, prostitutes, Idolaters, homosexuals, and blasphemers. I think it was in corinthians but it is the only new testament reference to homosexuality.
Not that I support such writings. Hate literature is hate literature no matter who wrote it or when it was written.
In the original text of Paul's letter to the Corinthians it actually says sodomites, which specifically refers to male prostitutes. Perhaps in the many translations it has been changed as an excuse to hate homosexuals but in Paul's letter he is discussing prostitutes only.
Edit: I got a Latin Bible with a side by side English translation for Christmas a few years ago. It's really good for times like this. My next goal is to get a copy of the Torah with Hebrew and English together.
I am a Latinist. I'm looking at my Vulgate, Corinthians 1 6:9. I have the linguistic skills, but not really the cultural and historical knowledge to put it all in context or comment on connotations. But, translating as literally as I can:
Do you (plural) not know because the wicked (ones, men) will not possess the kingdom of God (?) Do not be mistaken.
Not fornicators
Not those serving idols
Not adulterers
Not effeminate (ones) [this is one is interesting. The word is 'molles' a substantive from the adjective meaning tender, soft, or effeminate, which in some translations is rendered as male whores. KJV simply renders as effeminate (men)]
Not those who lie with men [it is 'concubitores masculorum,' which means bedmates of men]
Not thieves
Not greedy (ones, men)
Not drunkards
Not bad-sayers [KJV says 'revilers']
Not snatching/grasping/greedy (ones, men) [KJV says 'extortioners']
will possess the kingdom of God.
|
|
Actually Paul did right that none of these shall enter the kingdom of heaven, thieves, prostitutes, Idolaters, homosexuals, and blasphemers. I think it was in corinthians but it is the only new testament reference to homosexuality.
Not that I support such writings. Hate literature is hate literature no matter who wrote it or when it was written.
In the original text of Paul's letter to the Corinthians it actually says sodomites, which specifically refers to male prostitutes. Perhaps in the many translations it has been changed as an excuse to hate homosexuals but in Paul's letter he is discussing prostitutes only.
Edit: I got a Latin Bible with a side by side English translation for Christmas a few years ago. It's really good for times like this. My next goal is to get a copy of the Torah with Hebrew and English together.
Try a Strongs exhaustive Concordance, has the original greek, hedrew and aramaic conjigation it's like 80 bucks but ifyou insist upon learning the bible in dead languages it will help.
...will possess the kingdom of God.
Thank you for that post, jocundthejolly. I find that very interesting.
... So I strongly support gay marriage, in order to support my own heterosexual one.
Kruelaid became a father before getting married. Knows many single parents. Does not see the special relationship between marriage and procreation.
Kruelaid became a father before getting married. Knows many single parents. Does not see the special relationship between marriage and procreation.... So I strongly support gay marriage, in order to support my own heterosexual one.
But you and they aren’t going to hell for some arbitrary reason. If you're going to hell because of the way god made you then obviously you can't be married and if you can't be married then you can't be a good parent. Now do you see the special relationship between marriage and procreation.
I am still not sure I understand the Sanctity of Marriage argument. Do they think if you legalize same-sex marriage, all the heterosexuals who were going to get a heterosexual marriage suddenly run out and get a same-sex marriage instead?
I am still not sure I understand the Sanctity of Marriage argument. Do they think if you legalize same-sex marriage, all the heterosexuals who were going to get a heterosexual marriage suddenly run out and get a same-sex marriage instead?
Well one issue is the slippery-slope argument. Basically any argument made to justify same-sex couples can also be made to justify multi-spousal marriages as well. In that case the argument to limit it to just one and one is just as silly as the argument to limit to just one man and one woman. As stated by many people in support of same-sex marriage [but clearly not all], this not a problem in their eyes. And many people who claim to worry about the "sanctity of marriage" do not view multiple-spouse marriages as something desirable.
Also consider the issue with incest. Why is incestual marriages wrong? The Greek gods did it, certainly the idea is not unknown in cultures, so why the ban on it? Because it makes the rest of us feel icky? That is not a legitimate reason if we accept the same-sex marriage proponents arguments. To reduce the number of offspring with genetic disorders? But remember, marriage is no longer about offspring, so that can no longer be an argument against it. And clearly, if there was same-sex marriage, one couldn't even argument against that for two brothers who are married, or two sisters who are married since they clearly can not have offspring together. Do we continue to ban incestual marriages for opposite-sex couples (I don't want to say heterosexual couples, because many homosexual individuals have been in opposite-sex marriages), but not for same-sex couples. But now we have different standards for marriages, we are back to discriminating on sexual orientation/preference.
Thank you, pres man. That is an interesting point, but does it not qualify as a straw man argument?
Thank you, pres man. That is an interesting point, but does it not qualify as a straw man argument?
Which, the one about multi-spouses or the one about other restrictions on marriage?
To be clear (I was going to post an edit but since you responded already I'll just respond here), I am not comparing same-sex marriages with incestual marriages, clearly you could have opposite-sex incestual marriages which are currently not allowed. Merely that if we are going to argue that (a)child bearing isn't an issue with marriage anymore and (b)people should be able to marry whoever they want, then would that extent to other issues as well (number of participants, relationships of participants to one another).
Turn around the same "slippery slope" argument. If we make churches tax-exempt and don't let the government interfere with them, where does it stop? Aren't we opening the door for some church to take over the entire government and force us all to speak in tongues or go to re-indoctrination centers?
In a word, no, we're not.
In any situation where a line can be drawn in various places, moving that line slightly does not automatically mean erasing it. Allowing gay marriages in no way, shape, or form allows people to forcibly marry packs of underage dogs or whatever. The "slippery slope" argument would seem to have little validity, if any.
Merely that if we are going to argue that (a)child bearing isn't an issue with marriage anymore and (b)people should be able to marry whoever they want, then would that extent to other issues as well (number of participants, relationships of participants to one another).
So, as a long-term happily married heterosexual with no children, I shouldn't be allowed to be married. Nor should many of my friends. Because if we are, then obviously we're allowing porpoises to marry troupes of circus clown siblings.
Turn around the same "slippery slope" argument. If we make churches tax-exempt and don't let the government interfere with them, where does it stop? Aren't we opening the door for some church to take over the entire government and force us all to speak in tongues or go to re-indoctrination centers?
To be clear, churchs have some limitations on how "free" their speech can be if they wish to maintain their tax-exempt status. For example they can endorse positions, but not candidates or political parties.
In a word, no, we're not.
In any situation where a line can be drawn in various places, moving that line slightly does not automatically mean erasing it. Allowing gay marriages in no way, shape, or form allows people to forcibly marry packs of underage dogs or whatever. The "slippery slope" argument would seem to have little validity, if any.
You'll notice I didn't mention animal marriage or underage marriage, because clearly those are not issues because they can't be entered in by adults. Multiple-spousal marriages can be limited exclusively to adults and thus any argument currently being made in the support of same-sex marriages, has to applicable to multiple-spousal marriages as well if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves.
With the number of unwed couples with children and divorced couples with children, I fail to see how the current marriage laws are a benefit to child rearing? In addition, simply allowing same-sex marriages would not affect child rearing at all, not until you factor in adoption. I believe that is an entirely different topic that would need to be addressed on its own.
Merely that if we are going to argue that (a)child bearing isn't an issue with marriage anymore and (b)people should be able to marry whoever they want, then would that extent to other issues as well (number of participants, relationships of participants to one another).So, as a long-term happily married heterosexual with no children, I shouldn't be allowed to be married. Nor should many of my friends. Because if we are, then obviously we're allowing porpoises to marry troupes of circus clown siblings.
CourtFool, if you are interesting in seeing a straw man argument, Kirth has graciously supplied one here.
Still, I'll respond Kirth with what the court said in the court case I refered to earlier.
And while you do not have children now, can you say with 100% certainty that you will never have children, perhaps unplanned children? Even older couples, women have been able to take hormone treatments to have children at ages previously thought in possible, and men can continue to father children well into their old age. Besides if we banned older women from getting married and not older men, that would clearly be an issue of sex-discrimination which is on a higher order legally than sexual preference discrimination.
Multiple-spousal marriages can be limited exclusively to adults and thus any argument currently being made in the support of same-sex marriages, has to applicable to multiple-spousal marriages as well if we are being intellectually honest with ourselves.
The argument may be applicable, but the issue still remains same-sex, one spouse. Multiple spouse marriages would have to be viewed on its own merit.
The problem with polygamy is that it has a nasty history of being forced on non-consenting and/or brainwashed women. If we can make sure this isn’t the case, and some idiot wants to make it so that three women can each take half of his belongings if he pisses them off, then I say let him. It’s like financial natural selection.
Opposite-sex marriages will not suddenly stop offering whatever benefit they do to children with the inclusion of same-sex marriages. Same-sex couples who wish to adopt is a different topic.
With the number of unwed couples with children and divorced couples with children, I fail to see how the current marriage laws are a benefit to child rearing?
Are you suggesting here that the current marriage laws are indirectly reinforcing people to have children while unwed or to divorce? Or is the current marriage laws an incentive not to do those things? People will still make poor choices, but that doesn't mean you can't put in place incentives for them to make better choices, don't you agree?
Off-topic: I see our culture occasionally giving incentives, unintentionally to be sure, to make poor choices. When we pay for the entire college cost for a single mother, but we make a woman who didn't get pregnant have to pay for her entire college costs out of pocket or from loans, aren't we making an incentive to make a poor choice (to not be careful about not getting pregnant)? Of course, what is the alternative? To support the woman making good choices and making the woman who made bad ones suffer and probably not go to college in the first place? There is no good choice unfortunately, well there is but we can't afford it (pay for both of them). The welfare system in the 80's was a horrible example of this, where it was "smarter" to be a single mother in that system, then to be married to the father of your children. That particular system was a real "attack" on marriage. As is the "marriage tax". Those are real disincentives to marriage.
... and some idiot wants to make it so that three women can each take half of his belongings if he pisses them off, ...Mathematically, I found this funny.
Yeah, I paused when I was writting that for a moment. But nothing says all three women leave at the exact same time. His belongings would be halved each time.
Just because we allow same-sex marriage does not mean we will have to allow incestuous or multiple-spouse marriage. We allow opposite-sex marriage while excluding same-sex marriage, so it seems pretty obvious we are capable of drawing the line wherever we want.
The problem with polygamy is that it has a nasty history of being forced on non-consenting and/or brainwashed women. If we can make sure this isn’t the case, and some idiot wants to make it so that three women can each take half of his belongings if he pisses them off, then I say let him. It’s like financial natural selection.
But, at least in this country, how much of that is due to it not being legal? When push something into the dark corners, don't be surprised if it turns out ugly.
Just because we allow same-sex marriage does not mean we will have to allow incestuous or multiple-spouse marriage. We allow opposite-sex marriage while excluding same-sex marriage, so it seems pretty obvious we are capable of drawing the line wherever we want.
But if the argument is (a)children are not an issue of marriage rights and (b)adults should marry any other adults they wish. They how can those arguments not also apply? Yes, we currently draw the line, and we see from this thread how happy people are with that idea of "arbitrarily" drawing the line to fit the "majority's" ideas of what a "legitimate" marriage should be. Let's turn it around, if you are ok with the law being drawn to exclude multiple-spousal marriages and incestual marriages, why is the line being drawn to exclude same-sex marriages suddenly irrational?
|
Yeah, I paused when I was writting that for a moment. But nothing says all three women leave at the exact same time. His belongings would be halved each time.... and some idiot wants to make it so that three women can each take half of his belongings if he pisses them off, ...Mathematically, I found this funny.
If that's really the way it works, there seems to be some benefit to being the first one "off the sinking ship".
CourtFool, if you are interesting in seeing a straw man argument, Kirth has graciously supplied one here.
Actually, just following your own logic to its inevitable ridiculous conclusion. You CHOOSE to draw the line at hetero, 2-person marriages between non-closely related Homo sapiens. Others CHOOSE to draw the line at 2-person marriages between non-closely related Homo sapiens. And what the court case you continue to reference fails to take note of is that the current line has been drawn in an arbitrary position; moving it to another arbitrary position doesn't change that.
And shifting the line by one step does not automatically erase it, nor does it autmoatically shift it two steps or risk being dubbed "dishonest." The line is a construct of society; it rests wherever people set it.
The fact that some people differ in opinion from you as to where it should be set does not make them dishonest or immoral.
Or is the current marriage laws an incentive not to do those things? People will still make poor choices, but that doesn't mean you can't put in place incentives for them to make better choices, don't you agree?
I agree we should place incentives for people to make better choices. Let's support a ban on divorce.
Or is the current marriage laws an incentive not to do those things? People will still make poor choices, but that doesn't mean you can't put in place incentives for them to make better choices, don't you agree?I agree we should place incentives for people to make better choices. Let's support a ban on divorce.
The question is then, is staying in a marriage 100% of the time always the best choice? I don't think that is an argument anyone is making (well perhaps the Pope).
CourtFool, if you are interesting in seeing a straw man argument, Kirth has graciously supplied one here.Actually, just following your own logic to its inevitable ridiculous conclusion.
Nope. No one is agruing that individuals incapable of making a choice would ever legally be able to marry. So your porpoise marrying suggest was pointless (at least until we uplift them).
You CHOOSE to draw the line at hetero, 2-person marriages between non-closely related Homo sapiens. Others CHOOSE to draw the line at 2-person marriages between non-closely related Homo sapiens.
It is not a matter of where I choose to draw the line, it is a matter where the culture has drawn the line.
And what the court case you continue to reference fails to take note of is that the current line has been drawn in an arbitrary position; moving it to another arbitrary position doesn't change that.
Exactly, it is arbitrary. Thus if we are not ok with this position, and we claim that it is ok to move because it was arbitrary in the first place, then why would that not extent to moving it again and again? As long as they are all arbitrary distinctions (unlike your porpoise example, since being capable of making a choice to marry is not an arbitrary distinction).
And shifting the line by one step does not automatically erase it, nor does it autmoatically shift it two steps or risk being dubbed "dishonest." The line is a construct of society; it rests wherever people set it.
EXACTLY. People have set it to rest excluding same-sex couples, why is that not ok then? If the distinctions are arbitrary anyway? You can't say it is ok if we arbitrarily exclude multiple-spousal marriages, but not ok if we arbitrarily exclude same-sex marriages. If being arbitrary isn't ok, then it isn't ok. If it is ok, then it is ok.
The fact that some people differ in opinion from you as to where it should be set does not make them dishonest or immoral.
*looks around* Who are you posting this in reference to? I have never suggested anyone here is immoral, I have no idea where you are getting this.
|
The issues is. should we draw a line? Has this line already been drawn? Is where the line been drawn a benificial place or does the change in current views mean we should redraw it? Should it remain in the place it is now for historical or traditional reasons?
Obviously many people have different views.
Some that no line shoudl be drawn at all.
Some that it has been but it shoudl be redressed because of how it affects them.
Some that it has and never has had a benifit. Somethat it had a benifit at one time and does not now.
Some people hate historical reasons others point out that history and how we percieve it changes.
I for one think that soem traditions are valid and usefull to society in general. I do not see a benifit in allowing same sex marriages. I do see possible repercussions but not generally the ones others complain about. Nothign that I wish to share either. Thankfully it does not fall unto me to make these descisions for if I were global dictator, no one would be happy.
|
|
The question is then, is staying in a marriage 100% of the time always the best choice? I don't think that is an argument anyone is making (well perhaps the Pope).Or is the current marriage laws an incentive not to do those things? People will still make poor choices, but that doesn't mean you can't put in place incentives for them to make better choices, don't you agree?I agree we should place incentives for people to make better choices. Let's support a ban on divorce.
The Pope doesn't even go there. "Marriage is the best option but not always the right one. We should not ban Divorce but rather change the circumstances that many times cause it."
But if the argument is (a)children are not an issue of marriage rights and (b)adults should marry any other adults they wish. They how can those arguments not also apply?
I never said they did not apply.
Yes, we currently draw the line, and we see from this thread how happy people are with that idea of "arbitrarily" drawing the line to fit the "majorities" ideas of what a "legitimate" marriage should be.
I am not happy with drawing the line arbitrarily. And yet, it has been.
Let's turn it around, if you are ok with the law being drawn to exclude multiple-spousal marriages and incestual marriages, why is the line being drawn to exclude same-sex marriages suddenly irrational?
If you are o.k. with the law being drawn to exclude same-sex marriages, why is the line being drawn to exclude anyone not white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant suddenly irrational?
The question is then, is staying in a marriage 100% of the time always the best choice? I don't think that is an argument anyone is making (well perhaps the Pope).
It seems to me that is exactly the argument being made. The argument is that marriage is for the benefit of the children. Is it 100% all of the time better that a child grow up in 'the system' than be adopted by two loving adults who can provide for that child but happen to be of the same sex? And again, this is an entirely different topic.
OK, I'm trying to see the various arguments here, and there are a number -- I'd like to try and list them -- help me out if I'm forgetting any, or if you think I'm misrepresenting them. I'm also including where I personally see the state of that argument (others may or may not agree with these assessments):
1. "Marriage is for procreation and child rearing!"
With 7 billion people on Earth, I hardly feel that it's a strong imperative to birth as many more as possible -- adopting and rearing those already here who lack good homes would seem a greater priority. With research indicating that infertile and same-sex couples can rear children as effectively as fertile hetero couples, it seems that, logically, we should be encouraging gays to marry and adopt, rather than banning it. The real child-rearing issues are single parents (whom research has conclusively demonstrated are, in general, not as effective in child-rearing). Therefore, gay marriage should logically be no issue, but single parents should be outlawed, and as CourtFool alludes, divorce would have to be looked at very closely.
2. "Natural Law!"
See (1), above.
3. "Gay marriage hurts traditional marriage!"
Thus far, I have yet to see any reason proposed as to why this should be the case.
4. "My religion says it's wrong/immoral/an abomination."
Each church should ALWAYS have the right to choose whom they perform the rites for, and have right of refusal for any reason. No argument there. The question is whther the churches have the right to push those criteria on the state. I choose to agree with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, among others, that church doctrine should not dictate secular U.S. law.
5. "It's not traditional!"
This has been answered as nauseum, with examples. CourtFool has again sagely noted that "tradition" =/= "perfection." What this argument amounts to in the end is an appeal to bigotry.
6. "Slippery slope!"
That's been answered as well. Each change must be evaluated on its own merits. Gay marriage does not equate to polygamy. If one day research indicates that triumvariates can rear children and remain a happy unit and resolve property issues as well as couples, then at that time the numbers issue can be re-evaluated. It doesn't have any part of the current issue, however.
"While same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples are easily distinguished..."
See, here's the problem I have with this entire argument -- if the issue of bearing/raising children isn't really the reason for the definition (or can't be used fully, since it can't be applied without discriminating against older couples, etc.), what is the point of distingushing same-sex from opposite sex at all?
If the government is unwilling to limit marriage to opposite sex couples likely to have children, but has no problem limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, why draw the line there?
I do agree that the government has in several instances, created incentives for folks to make poor decisions (having worked in both Child support and social services, I could site several); frankly, I think this is one of them.
"Oh, gee, I'm a gay man, and can't get legally married, and since society has made it clear my biologically driven desires are unacceptable, I guess my relationships should stay a secret; guess I'll just continue to sleep around on my wife (ala. Brokeback Mountain), have multiple partners I meet in drinking establishments, public parks and bathrooms, etc", -- tell me, how is this culturally driven "incentive" helpful to our society? If the anti-gay marriage folks really want to cut down on same-sex... well, sex, seems to me letting them get married would be the best approach.
(Certainly has done wonders for reducing sexual activity for straight men...) ;)
It is not a matter of where I choose to draw the line, it is a matter where the culture has drawn the line.
So we are back to tradition?
It is not a matter of where I choose to draw the line, it is a matter where the culture has drawn the line.So we are back to tradition?
Yes. By which logic mixed-gender marriages and women voting should also be illegal.