ARTICLE: What's Wrong with Same-Sex Marriage?

[STR Ambassador]

Western civilization is shuddering under a tidal wave of activism in favor of same-sex marriage. Here is a careful response to their most compelling arguments.

Same-Sex Marriage—Challenges and Responses by Greg Koukl

American is entangled in the most heated battle of the culture wars to date. Many consider it a Waterloo. State supreme courts and city governments, senators and congressmen, community leaders, celebrities, and even clergy all have mounted a powerful offensive in support of gay “marriage.” What follows is a point-by-point reply to those who are demanding this revision of civilization.

Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights

“We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination.”
There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don't have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don't have the same legal benefits as married couples.
The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.
I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.
Let me illustrate. Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, “Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have.” No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.
The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike. Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection clause.
The second complaint is more substantial. It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals—non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers—share those benefits, either. Why should they?
If homosexual couples face “unequal protection” in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?
The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she—and they—are still covered).
These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilize” the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council sums the issue up nicely:

“Gay citizens” already have the same right to marry as anyone else—subject to the same restrictions. No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is the nature of marriage itself.

“They said the same thing about interracial marriage.”
This challenge has great rhetorical force, but it is a silly objection.
Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. “That’s the same thing you said about the last guy,“ he snaps. “Yes,” the clerk replies. “We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke.”
In the same way, it simply is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.
Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.
This approach won’t work to justify polygamous or incestuous unions (“In the past people wouldn’t allow interracial marriages, either.”). It is equally ineffectual here. The objection may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different.

“We shouldn’t be denied the freedom to love who we want.”
Columnist Ellen Goodman writes, “The state is on shaky ground when it tries to criminalize sexual relations of the consensual living arrangements of adults.” In San Francisco, a giddy newly “married” lesbian celebrates, “Now we’re not second-class citizens; now we can have a loving relationship like every other married couple we know.” Another opines, “Anybody who is in love and wants to spend the rest of their life together should be able to do it.” [emphasis added in all]
These remarks reflect a common misconception: Same–sex marriage will secure new liberties for homosexuals that have eluded them thus far. This will not happen because no personal liberty is being denied them. Gay couples can already do everything married people do—express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any of these things.
Homosexuals can even have a wedding. Yes, it's done all the time. Entire cottage industries have sprung up from Hollywood to the Big Apple serving the needs—from wedding cakes to honeymoons—of same-sex lovers looking to tie the knot.
Gay marriage grants no new freedom, and denying marriage licenses to homosexuals does not restrict any liberty. Nothing stops anyone—of any age, race, gender, class, or sexual preference—from making lifelong loving commitments to each other, pledging their troth until death do them part. They may lack certain entitlements, but not freedoms.
Denying marriage doesn't restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage license doesn’t give liberty; it gives respect.
And respect is precisely what homosexual activists long for, as one newly licensed lesbian spouse makes clear: “It was a moving experience after a truly lifelong commitment, to have a government entity say, ‘Your relationship is valid and important in the eyes of the law.’” Another admits, “This is about other people recognizing what we have already recognized with each other for a long time.” And another: “I didn’t start out feeling this way, but that piece of paper, it’s just so important I can’t even put it into words. It’s so important to have society support you….It’s about society saying you’re recognized as a couple.”
Ironically, heterosexuals have been living together for years enjoying every liberty of matrimony without the “piece of paper.” Suddenly that meaningless piece of paper means everything to homosexuals. Why? Not because it confers liberty, but because it confers legitimacy. Note this telling passage from Time magazine’s “Will Gay Marriage be Legal?”

Ultimately, of course, the battle for gay marriage has always been about more than winning the second-driver discount at the Avis counter. In fact, the individual who has done most to push same-sex marriage—a brilliant 43-year-old lawyer-activist named Evan Wolfson—doesn’t even have a boyfriend. He and the others who brought the marriage lawsuits of the past decade want nothing less than full social equality, total validation—not just the right to inherit a mother-in-law’s Cadillac. As Andrew Sullivan, the (also persistently single) intellectual force behind gay marriage, has written, “Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form social approval imaginable.” [emphasis added]

Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant. Columnist Jeff Jacoby summed it up this way in The Boston Globe:

The marriage radicals…have not been deprived of the right to marry—only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a “marriage.” They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically—by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights.

The Meaning of Marriage

The controversy about same-sex marriage churns principally around the definition of marriage. Activists deny the traditional view, that marriage is about children. Instead, marriage is an ever changing, socially-constructed institution constantly being redefined by society. There is no essential connection with children. Rather, at the core of the enterprise are two people in love.

“Marriage is about love.”
Understandably, love is a predominant theme in discussions about marriage. “As long as people love each other,” one person asserted, “it shouldn’t matter whether they are the same sex. What’s important in marriage is love.”
Initially, this seems hard to deny. In our culture, love is often the immediate motivation for marriage. On reflection, though, it’s clear that love and marriage don’t always go together. In fact, they seldom do.
If marriage were about love, then billions of people in the history of the world who thought they were married were not. Most marriages have been arranged. Love may percolate later, but only as a result of marriage, not the reason for it.
Further, if love were the sine qua non of marriage, no “for better or for worse” promises would be needed at the altar. Vows aren’t meant to sustain love; they are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.
The state doesn’t care if the bride and groom love each other. There are no questions about a couple’s affections when granting a license. No proof of passion is required. Why? Because marriage isn’t about love.
Yes, love may be the reason some people get married, but it isn’t the reason for marriage. It may be a constituent of marriage, but it isn’t the purpose of marriage. Something else is.

“Marriage is constantly being redefined.”
The definition of marriage has not been in flux in the way people suggest. In fact, marriage itself has not been redefined at all. Because there have been variations on the theme does not mean there has been no theme. From the dawn of civilization marriage has always been between men and women.
There have been changes. Historically some have been denied marriage (e.g., the young, the genetically aberrant, and interracial couples). Others were allowed to marry more than once, either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy). Spousal rights have altered and traditions have evolved. But marriage has still been marriage. And spouses have always been male and female.
To say something has changed is to say some core thing has remained the same. When an old curtain is changed into a work smock, or an irresponsible bachelor becomes a conscientious dad, something stays the same, the cloth and the man, in these two cases.
In the midst of these obvious changes in marriage, what feature remains the same? What is the essential core that makes marriage distinct from any other relationship? In spite of the variations, spouses have always been male and female. Why? What is unique about this human pairing?

“Not all marriages have children.”
Initially it is easy to resist any suggestion that “marriage” and “family” are essentially connected with “offspring.” Clearly, not all families have children. Some marriages are barren, by choice or by design.
This proves nothing, though. Books are written by authors to be read, even if large ones are used as doorstops or discarded ones help ignite campfires. The fact that many lie unread and covered with dust, or piled atop coffee tables for decorative effect doesn’t mean they were not destined for higher purpose.
In the same way, the natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions prove the rule, they don’t nullify it. Marriage is intrinsically about and for children.
Ironically, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike confirmed this while lining up to wed at city halls on Valentines day. “After seven years and the birth of a baby,” the L.A. Times reported, “Robert Manzo and Anna Parker decided to make their union official for 9-month-old Kyle, who they believe should have the legal protection that a marriage gives to a family.”
More than 300 miles away, Kathy Palmer-Lohan stood in line in San Francisco with her partner, Laura, who was seven months pregnant. “We’re having kids,” Palmer-Lohan said, “and [marriage] gives some formality to the relationship and the family structure.

“Marriage is a social construction we can redefine as we please.”
What is marriage? There are only two possible kinds of answers to this question: Either marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose (a natural “teleology”) or they do not. If not, marriage is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture like knickers or bow ties, fashions that change with the times. Marriages defined by convention can be anything culture defines them to be. No particular detail is essential.
It is not possible, however, that marriage is a social construction. Here’s why.
Columnist Dennis Prager has observed, “Every higher civilization has defined marriage as an institution joining members of the opposite sex.” I agree with Prager’s position on marriage, though I take exception with one of his words.
I don't think marriage has been defined by cultures. Rather, I think it has been described by them. The difference in terms is significant. If marriage is defined by culture, then it is merely a construction that culture is free to change when it desires. The definition may have been stable for millennia, yet it is still a convention and therefore subject to alteration. This is, in fact, the argument of the those in favor of gay marriage.
The truth is, it is not culture that constructs marriages or the families that marriages begin. Rather, it is the other way around: Marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. Bricks aren’t the result of the building because the building is made up of bricks. You must have the first before you can get the second.
Societies are large groups of families. Since families are constituent of culture, cultures cannot define them. They merely observe their parts, as it were, and acknowledge what they have discovered. Society then enacts laws not to create marriage and families according to arbitrary convention, but to protect that which already exists, being essential to the whole.
Why has civilization always characterized families as a union of men and women? Because men and women are the natural source of the children that allow civilized culture to persist. This is the only understanding that makes sense of the definition, structure, legitimacy, identity, and government entitlements of marriage. This alone answers our question, “What is marriage?”
Marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of cultures. Families—and therefore marriages—are logically prior to culture.
If the definition of marriage is established by nature, then we have no liberty to redefine it. In fact, marriage itself wouldn’t change at all even if we did. Philosopher Francis Beckwith has wryly observed, “Just because you can eat an ashtray doesn’t make it food.” Linguistic tricks can’t change what nature has already determined something to be. Neither ashtrays nor same-sex marriage provide the nourishment intended by food or families, respectively.
The fact that same-sex couples can legally adopt changes nothing. This, too, subverts the purpose of marriage by robbing families (and children) of a vital ingredient: mothers and fathers. By licensing same-sex marriage, society declares by law that two men or two women are equally suited to raise a child, that mothers and fathers contribute nothing unique to healthy child-rearing. This is self-evidently false. Moms and dads are not interchangeable.

Marriage begins a family. The purpose of family is to produce the next generation. Therefore, family is designed by nature for children. This description alone is consistent with our deepest intuitions, which is why every culture since the birth of time has recognized this. No other characterization fits what societies have been doing for millennia.
Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. That’s why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids.
Government has no interest in affirming any other kind of relationship. It privileges and sustains marriage in order to protect the future of civilization.
Same-sex marriage is radically revisionist. It severs family from its roots, eviscerates marriage of any normative content, and robs children of a mother and a father. This must not happen.
Homosexuality is broadly tolerated in this country. Gays are allowed to pursue their "lifestyles" without reprisal, even to the point of forming committed, monogamous unions. They may not be universally respected or admired, but they have the liberty to live as they choose. This is all they have the right to demand.


Stand to Reason - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - For more on this issue see “When the Bride Is a Groom,” at www.str.org

[Queen]

Western civilization is shuddering under a tidal wave of activism in favor of same-sex marriage. Here is a careful response to their most compelling arguments.

Same-Sex Marriage—Challenges and Responses by Greg Koukl

American is entangled in the most heated battle of the culture wars to date. Many consider it a Waterloo. State supreme courts and city governments, senators and congressmen, community leaders, celebrities, and even clergy all have mounted a powerful offensive in support of gay “marriage.” What follows is a point-by-point reply to those who are demanding this revision of civilization.

Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Rights

“We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination.”
There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don't have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don't have the same legal benefits as married couples.
The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.

It is really silly that you can NOT marry the one person you love. Yes they have a right to have a heterosexual marriage, but that is such a weak argument. They do not marry only because to have the same legal rights, they marry out of love. But if their partner die, they do not have the right to even see him or be with him (or her) because legally they are not family. It is just insane to force them in a marriage where there is no love...at least not love they have for someone of the same gender. I had no idea that gender, color, creed or whatever was a reason not to be legally married. Last time I looked around people are all the same and have a GOD given right to be treated as equals....no matter who you are. Simply a false argument and a statement that is too ridiculous for words.

I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.
Let me illustrate. Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, “Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don’t get to vote [in France]. That’s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have.” No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.

Well :tongue: What has this to do with love? If he goes to live in France and get's the french citizenship he is allowed to vote there.

The marriage licensing law applies to each citizen in the same way; everyone is treated exactly alike.
Yes, in Holland......what about the land of the "free"?

Homosexuals want the right to do something no one, straight or gay, has the right to do: wed someone of the same sex. Denying them that right is not a violation of the equal protection clause.

:doh: If I was a heterosexual I would not want to marry someone of the same gender...:lol: I never in my whole life heard such weak excuses....This is really a :lmbo: argument.

The second complaint is more substantial. It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals—non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers—share those benefits, either. Why should they?
If homosexual couples face “unequal protection” in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?

Because any other couple is allowed to get married if they want and get all these legal benefits.......Gays and Lesbians don't have that right.

The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she—and they—are still covered).
These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilize” the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.

Aha, the kid factor....well, ever heard of adoption? Or any other way to have kids like a surrogate mother. There are many ways to have kids and therefor the right to take care of them. And Dad can stay home as well. Weird, in Holland I know a gay married couple that adopted two babies from America (The USA)....as long as they don't live next door it is allowed....but oh man....someone could see a gay married couple with children......Shocking. On the other hand......no one chooses to have kids. I also know couples who don't want to have kids....they got married........so?

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council sums the issue up nicely:

“Gay citizens” already have the same right to marry as anyone else—subject to the same restrictions. No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex. However much those restrictions may disappoint the incestuous, pedophiles, polygamists, and homosexuals, the issue is not discrimination. It is the nature of marriage itself.

If you talk about the nature of marriage as mammals we should not even be engaged in long term monogamous relationships....We should have groups with one ruling male and a lot of females. We should be living in a more natural way......Marriage is NOT natural (Well, for some birds it is)!

“They said the same thing about interracial marriage.”
This challenge has great rhetorical force, but it is a silly objection.
Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. “That’s the same thing you said about the last guy,“ he snaps. “Yes,” the clerk replies. “We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke.”
In the same way, it simply is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.
Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman. Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.

You don't lack fantasy, I have to give you credit for that. Sex is indeed part of marriage and guess what: Homosexuals can have sex....GOOD sex. Like they say, if a woman wants to please her husband, she has to ask a gay man....:wink:. I also know that in the USA married couples who have different color are not allowed to do a in bed scene and that it is cut out of the movie.....or just shown on video or dvd. So even on interracial marriage there is still a taboo....from both sides!

This approach won’t work to justify polygamous or incestuous unions (“In the past people wouldn’t allow interracial marriages, either.”). It is equally ineffectual here. The objection may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different.

If it are all consemting adults and they know what they get in.......why not?

“We shouldn’t be denied the freedom to love who we want.”
Columnist Ellen Goodman writes, “The state is on shaky ground when it tries to criminalize sexual relations of the consensual living arrangements of adults.” In San Francisco, a giddy newly “married” lesbian celebrates, “Now we’re not second-class citizens; now we can have a loving relationship like every other married couple we know.” Another opines, “Anybody who is in love and wants to spend the rest of their life together should be able to do it.” [emphasis added in all]
These remarks reflect a common misconception: Same–sex marriage will secure new liberties for homosexuals that have eluded them thus far. This will not happen because no personal liberty is being denied them. Gay couples can already do everything married people do—express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any of these things.
Homosexuals can even have a wedding. Yes, it's done all the time. Entire cottage industries have sprung up from Hollywood to the Big Apple serving the needs—from wedding cakes to honeymoons—of same-sex lovers looking to tie the knot.
Gay marriage grants no new freedom, and denying marriage licenses to homosexuals does not restrict any liberty. Nothing stops anyone—of any age, race, gender, class, or sexual preference—from making lifelong loving commitments to each other, pledging their troth until death do them part. They may lack certain entitlements, but not freedoms.
Denying marriage doesn't restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage license doesn’t give liberty; it gives respect.
And respect is precisely what homosexual activists long for, as one newly licensed lesbian spouse makes clear: “It was a moving experience after a truly lifelong commitment, to have a government entity say, ‘Your relationship is valid and important in the eyes of the law.’” Another admits, “This is about other people recognizing what we have already recognized with each other for a long time.” And another: “I didn’t start out feeling this way, but that piece of paper, it’s just so important I can’t even put it into words. It’s so important to have society support you….It’s about society saying you’re recognized as a couple.”
Ironically, heterosexuals have been living together for years enjoying every liberty of matrimony without the “piece of paper.” Suddenly that meaningless piece of paper means everything to homosexuals. Why? Not because it confers liberty, but because it confers legitimacy. Note this telling passage from Time magazine’s “Will Gay Marriage be Legal?”

Ultimately, of course, the battle for gay marriage has always been about more than winning the second-driver discount at the Avis counter. In fact, the individual who has done most to push same-sex marriage—a brilliant 43-year-old lawyer-activist named Evan Wolfson—doesn’t even have a boyfriend. He and the others who brought the marriage lawsuits of the past decade want nothing less than full social equality, total validation—not just the right to inherit a mother-in-law’s Cadillac. As Andrew Sullivan, the (also persistently single) intellectual force behind gay marriage, has written, “Including homosexuals within marriage would be a means of conferring the highest form social approval imaginable.” [emphasis added]

Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant. Columnist Jeff Jacoby summed it up this way in The Boston Globe:

The marriage radicals…have not been deprived of the right to marry—only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a “marriage.” They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don't want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically—by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn't civil rights.

I can go on and on and on about this, but you will bring up the same arguments. What YOU want is that marriage between homosexuals is not allowed because it is considered a sin in the bible.......You have read that God is seeing it as a deadly sin. THAT is why you come up with all these so-called excuses. But why beat around the bush (:lol:) and try to find a "good" reason that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry legally? Do you really think that God will come down and strike us all dead like Sodom and Gomorra? What happened to the words:"All humans are created equal......which means (in my book anyway) that every single human being on this planet is FREE to make a choice.....Marriage or no marriage......and that they have the SAME benefits as any other couple.

The Meaning of Marriage

The controversy about same-sex marriage churns principally around the definition of marriage. Activists deny the traditional view, that marriage is about children. Instead, marriage is an ever changing, socially-constructed institution constantly being redefined by society. There is no essential connection with children. Rather, at the core of the enterprise are two people in love.

“Marriage is about love.”
Understandably, love is a predominant theme in discussions about marriage. “As long as people love each other,” one person asserted, “it shouldn’t matter whether they are the same sex. What’s important in marriage is love.”
Initially, this seems hard to deny. In our culture, love is often the immediate motivation for marriage. On reflection, though, it’s clear that love and marriage don’t always go together. In fact, they seldom do.
If marriage were about love, then billions of people in the history of the world who thought they were married were not. Most marriages have been arranged. Love may percolate later, but only as a result of marriage, not the reason for it.
Further, if love were the sine qua non of marriage, no “for better or for worse” promises would be needed at the altar. Vows aren’t meant to sustain love; they are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.
The state doesn’t care if the bride and groom love each other. There are no questions about a couple’s affections when granting a license. No proof of passion is required. Why? Because marriage isn’t about love.
Yes, love may be the reason some people get married, but it isn’t the reason for marriage. It may be a constituent of marriage, but it isn’t the purpose of marriage. Something else is.

And why (if you did) did you get married? Because you didn't love the woman but she was fertile? Arranged marriages are not about equality! Sometimes the couple falls in love during the marriage, but you know as well as me that people also can stop loving someone......or that they find out that they are too different to share their lives together. And heterosexuals do divorce as well 1 in 3 or even 1 in two marriages end.

“Marriage is constantly being redefined.”
The definition of marriage has not been in flux in the way people suggest. In fact, marriage itself has not been redefined at all. Because there have been variations on the theme does not mean there has been no theme. From the dawn of civilization marriage has always been between men and women.
There have been changes. Historically some have been denied marriage (e.g., the young, the genetically aberrant, and interracial couples). Others were allowed to marry more than once, either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy). Spousal rights have altered and traditions have evolved. But marriage has still been marriage. And spouses have always been male and female.
To say something has changed is to say some core thing has remained the same. When an old curtain is changed into a work smock, or an irresponsible bachelor becomes a conscientious dad, something stays the same, the cloth and the man, in these two cases.
In the midst of these obvious changes in marriage, what feature remains the same? What is the essential core that makes marriage distinct from any other relationship? In spite of the variations, spouses have always been male and female. Why? What is unique about this human pairing?

Nothing is unique......Look around you. This pairing is just about procreation and with 6 billion people in this world (and only a small percentage is homosexual.....the rest is bisexual, they just don't believe it...:wink:) we are not going to extinct because homosexual marriage is going to be allowed.

“Not all marriages have children.”
Initially it is easy to resist any suggestion that “marriage” and “family” are essentially connected with “offspring.” Clearly, not all families have children. Some marriages are barren, by choice or by design.
This proves nothing, though. Books are written by authors to be read, even if large ones are used as doorstops or discarded ones help ignite campfires. The fact that many lie unread and covered with dust, or piled atop coffee tables for decorative effect doesn’t mean they were not destined for higher purpose.
In the same way, the natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions prove the rule, they don’t nullify it. Marriage is intrinsically about and for children.
Ironically, heterosexuals and homosexuals alike confirmed this while lining up to wed at city halls on Valentines day. “After seven years and the birth of a baby,” the L.A. Times reported, “Robert Manzo and Anna Parker decided to make their union official for 9-month-old Kyle, who they believe should have the legal protection that a marriage gives to a family.”
More than 300 miles away, Kathy Palmer-Lohan stood in line in San Francisco with her partner, Laura, who was seven months pregnant. “We’re having kids,” Palmer-Lohan said, “and [marriage] gives some formality to the relationship and the family structure.

It is not about kids. Kids can grow up very well in one parent families, polygamous families and gay families. Not all people WANT kids......The society forces this upon us. If you don't have kids, something must be wrong......well, not all child-free couples are barren or have a wrong design. They just don't want to raise kids........simple. They choose carreer or even freedom.

“Marriage is a social construction we can redefine as we please.”
What is marriage? There are only two possible kinds of answers to this question: Either marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose (a natural “teleology”) or they do not. If not, marriage is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture like knickers or bow ties, fashions that change with the times. Marriages defined by convention can be anything culture defines them to be. No particular detail is essential.
It is not possible, however, that marriage is a social construction. Here’s why.
Columnist Dennis Prager has observed, “Every higher civilization has defined marriage as an institution joining members of the opposite sex.” I agree with Prager’s position on marriage, though I take exception with one of his words.
I don't think marriage has been defined by cultures. Rather, I think it has been described by them. The difference in terms is significant. If marriage is defined by culture, then it is merely a construction that culture is free to change when it desires. The definition may have been stable for millennia, yet it is still a convention and therefore subject to alteration. This is, in fact, the argument of the those in favor of gay marriage.
The truth is, it is not culture that constructs marriages or the families that marriages begin. Rather, it is the other way around: Marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. Bricks aren’t the result of the building because the building is made up of bricks. You must have the first before you can get the second.
Societies are large groups of families. Since families are constituent of culture, cultures cannot define them. They merely observe their parts, as it were, and acknowledge what they have discovered. Society then enacts laws not to create marriage and families according to arbitrary convention, but to protect that which already exists, being essential to the whole.
Why has civilization always characterized families as a union of men and women? Because men and women are the natural source of the children that allow civilized culture to persist. This is the only understanding that makes sense of the definition, structure, legitimacy, identity, and government entitlements of marriage.


Marriage indeed is an "invention" of society. Why do we need to get married? And if we get married, why are we not allowed to choose our partner for life......who decided this anyway? Church.....but DANG.....80 % (give or take a few) of the married people are unfaithful........WHY is that? Because people can love more than one person......Our hearts are big enough for that.

This alone answers our question, “What is marriage?”
Marriage begins a family. Families are the building blocks of cultures. Families—and therefore marriages—are logically prior to culture.
If the definition of marriage is established by nature, then we have no liberty to redefine it. In fact, marriage itself wouldn’t change at all even if we did. Philosopher Francis Beckwith has wryly observed, “Just because you can eat an ashtray doesn’t make it food.” Linguistic tricks can’t change what nature has already determined something to be. Neither ashtrays nor same-sex marriage provide the nourishment intended by food or families, respectively.
The fact that same-sex couples can legally adopt changes nothing. This, too, subverts the purpose of marriage by robbing families (and children) of a vital ingredient: mothers and fathers. By licensing same-sex marriage, society declares by law that two men or two women are equally suited to raise a child, that mothers and fathers contribute nothing unique to healthy child-rearing. This is self-evidently false. Moms and dads are not interchangeable.

Marriage begins a family. The purpose of family is to produce the next generation. Therefore, family is designed by nature for children. This description alone is consistent with our deepest intuitions, which is why every culture since the birth of time has recognized this. No other characterization fits what societies have been doing for millennia.
Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. That’s why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids.

All laws put upon our society by the church and government. Not a natural law

Government has no interest in affirming any other kind of relationship. It privileges and sustains marriage in order to protect the future of civilization.
Same-sex marriage is radically revisionist. It severs family from its roots, eviscerates marriage of any normative content, and robs children of a mother and a father. This must not happen.
Homosexuality is broadly tolerated in this country. Gays are allowed to pursue their "lifestyles" without reprisal, even to the point of forming committed, monogamous unions. They may not be universally respected or admired, but they have the liberty to live as they choose. This is all they have the right to demand.

Tolerated? In the USA? HA!


Stand to Reason - Training Christian ambassadors in the areas of knowledge, wisdom, and character - For more on this issue see “When the Bride Is a Groom,” at www.str.org

Nah, I have read enough.......This article lacks a few things: compassion, respect and love.....how hard you try, in between the lines this is still smelling like homophobia.....Sorry to say it, but it does.

But one day we will change. In parts of this world homosexuals are put to death, they are put in the luny bin for the rest of their lives or are forced to live a heterosexual life.....with a great change that they commit suicide. I feel sorry for those who suffer and for those who can not live with the idea that homosexuality is as normal as any other form of adult relationship. Poor people who have to live in a world like this...

I will pray that one day we see what is really true: That all men are created equal!

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[OneFollowingHim]

Koukl nails the issue perfectly, as usual.

[Queen]

Koukl nails the issue perfectly, as usual.

Yea, Right!!! He is a real Samatarian :doh:

Why doesn't he just say what he thinks? Be honest instead of beating around the Bush?????Sheesh :rant: :glare: :eh:

[C. D. Ward]

If Mr. Koukl has "nailed it perfectly" and the objections he offers are the best there are, then opponents of same-sex marriage are indeed in trouble...

“We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination.”

There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don't have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don't have the same legal benefits as married couples.

The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.

I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.This is, of course, a strawman. The legal liberty or "right" that proponents argue is being denied to homosexuals is not strictly speaking a right of marriage. It's the right to marry the person they choose. This is a "right" enjoyed by heterosexuals that is indeed being denied to homosexuals.

And lest it be claimed that this is not a "right", let the opponent consider: if it were to be law that all marriages must be arranged, that a woman can only marry a man chosen for her by her parents, would we consider a person so restricted to be equally free as one without that restriction? IOW, is a woman free to marry any man chosen by her parents as free as a woman who may marry any man she chooses? Clearly not. Mr. Koukl is, in effect, arguing that adults who are constrained by the government as to whom they may espouse are as equally free as adults who are free to choose their own spouse, without government restriction. It is obvious that this is not the case.

The second complaint is more substantial. It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals—non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers—share those benefits, either. Why should they?

If homosexual couples face “unequal protection” in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?

The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she—and they—are still covered).

These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilize” the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.Mr. Koukl asks, "Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?" Setting aside for a moment the apparent attempt to "poison the well" by suggesting that gay relationships are only about sex, one might indeed ask why any committed relationship should receive governmental recognition/benefits. Mr. Koukl attempts to answer this by pointing to the procreative nature of the marital relationship. Unfortunately, this is a non sequitur. As governmental recognition/benefits currently apply to marriages without regard to whether or not there is even the possibility or desire for children, and considering that marriage is completely ancillary to procreative ability, it is clear that procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient to the definition of marriage. Mr. Koukl states, "Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It's meant to build families." But of course, the second sentence does not necessarily follow the first. Marriage may indeed not be meant as a short cut to economic benefits, however it is clearly not meant to build families or these economic benefits would only be available to those who do build families. As this is not the case, Mr. Koukl's objection collapses.

“They said the same thing about interracial marriage.”

This challenge has great rhetorical force, but it is a silly objection.

Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. “That’s the same thing you said about the last guy,“ he snaps. “Yes,” the clerk replies. “We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke.”

In the same way, it simply is not relevant that the same objection has been used to deny both interracial and homosexual marriage. It’s only relevant if the circumstances are the same, regardless of the objection. They are not.

Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman.
Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage. This approach won’t work to justify polygamous or incestuous unions (“In the past people wouldn’t allow interracial marriages, either.”). It is equally ineffectual here. The objection may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different.Mr. Koukl is again attempting to distance the current situation from any semblance to a civil rights issue, but once again he fails to do so convincingly. He states "There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial." Ignoring for a moment the historical fact that advocates of slavery and racism have often ascribed moral evil to skin color and "race mixing" (and thus to them skin color was not "morally trivial"), this clearly begs the question of whether or not homosexuality is "morally trivial". To many advocates of same-sex marriage, it is and therefore Mr. Koukl is in fact begging the very question he is intending to argue: that there is a fundamental difference between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. Namely, he is arguing that one (interracial marriage) is a moral triviality and that the other (same-sex marriage) is not. But of course, to proponents of same-sex marriage they are, by and large, morally identical. Add to that the historical fact that interracial marriage was very much a moral question to many opponents and once again Mr. Koukl's objections are seen to be without foundation.

Mr. Koukl also states, "sex is fundamental to marriage." But so far Mr. Koukl has failed to provide any reason why this should be the case. As we've already seen that procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient to ground the current conception of marriage, Mr. Koukl has some additional work to do if he wants us to validate his assertion.

“We shouldn’t be denied the freedom to love who we want.”

Columnist Ellen Goodman writes, “The state is on shaky ground when it tries to criminalize sexual relations of the consensual living arrangements of adults.” In San Francisco, a giddy newly “married” lesbian celebrates, “Now we’re not second-class citizens; now we can have a loving relationship like every other married couple we know.” Another opines, “Anybody who is in love and wants to spend the rest of their life together should be able to do it.” [emphasis added in all]

These remarks reflect a common misconception: Same–sex marriage will secure new liberties for homosexuals that have eluded them thus far. This will not happen because no personal liberty is being denied them. Gay couples can already do everything married people do—express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any of these things.This objection is simply false. Gay couples do not have the same ability as married couples to achieve the social benefits of which Mr. Koukl speaks. The public record is full of examples where gay partners are denied one or more of these basic rights because of the lack of legal standing. The following is only a partial list of the social rights/benefits enjoyed by married couples that are either not available to same-sex couples or problematic for them (from here (http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex2a.html)):

The right to receive, or the obligation to provide, spousal support and (in the event of separation or divorce) alimony and an equitable division of property
Preference in being appointed the personal representative of an intestate decedent, that is, someone who dies without a will
Priority in being appointed guardian of an incapacitated individual or in being recognized as acting for an incapacitated person in making health care decisions
All manner of rights relating to the involuntary hospitalization of the spouse, including the right to petition, the right to be notified, and the right to initiate proceedings leading to release
The right to bring a lawsuit for the wrongful death of the spouse and for the intentional infliction of emotional distress through harm to one's spouse
The right to spousal benefits statutorily guaranteed to public employees, including health and life insurance and disability payments, plus similar contractual benefits for private sector employees
The right to invoke special state protection for "intrafamily offenses"
The right to visit one's spouse on furlough while incarcerated in prison
The right to claim an evidentiary privilege for marital communications
A presumption of joint ownership of real estate as a tenancy in common and a right not to be held to a mortgage or assignment of rights to creditors without the spouse's written permission
A right to priority in claiming human remains and to make anatomical donations on behalf of the deceased spouse
Various inheritance rights, including priority in inheriting the property of an intestate decedent, the right to a family allowance, and the right to dower
The right for one's non-American spouse to qualify as an "immediate relative" (i.e., receive preferential immigration treatment) and become an American citizen under federal law
The right to receive additional Social Security benefits based on the spouse's contribution
Survivor's benefits on the death of a veteran spouse
Even for those rights in this list that are possible to obtain with legal documentation, without legal recognition of relationship, the ability of same-sex partners to enjoy these rights, among others, is easily compromised by individuals who possess legal standing; namely blood relations, to whom the law generally gives preference in such matters. Mr. Koukl deceives himself if he believes these inequities not to exist or to be less than material.

The remainder of Mr. Koukl's remarks pertaining to this objection are rhetorical devices apparently directed at those who already agree with his opinion, so there is no reason to comment here. Mr. Koukl next embarks on some objections related to what he calls, "The Meaning of Marriage."

The controversy about same-sex marriage churns principally around the definition of marriage. Activists deny the traditional view, that marriage is about children. Instead, marriage is an ever changing, socially-constructed institution constantly being redefined by society. There is no essential connection with children. Rather, at the core of the enterprise are two people in love.Mr. Koukl states that "Activists deny the traditional view, that marriage is about children." But again, this is a strawman.

The reality is that the statement "marriage is about children" isn't a traditional view at all in civil society. As civil society has long recognized and affirmed marriages between adults who have no intention or ability to produce children, it is clear that civil marriage is not about children. This view is only "traditional" to members of certain religious groups. What proponents of same-sex marriage "deny" is that the definitions or traditions regarding marriage held by religious groups should be in any way relevant to how civil society should define marriage. Mr. Koukl has yet to provide any reason to believe they should be.

“Marriage is about love.”

Understandably, love is a predominant theme in discussions about marriage. “As long as people love each other,” one person asserted, “it shouldn’t matter whether they are the same sex. What’s important in marriage is love.”
Initially, this seems hard to deny. In our culture, love is often the immediate motivation for marriage. On reflection, though, it’s clear that love and marriage don’t always go together. In fact, they seldom do. If marriage were about love, then billions of people in the history of the world who thought they were married were not. Most marriages have been arranged. Love may percolate later, but only as a result of marriage, not the reason for it.

Further, if love were the sine qua non of marriage, no “for better or for worse” promises would be needed at the altar. Vows aren’t meant to sustain love; they are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.

The state doesn’t care if the bride and groom love each other. There are no questions about a couple’s affections when granting a license. No proof of passion is required. Why? Because marriage isn’t about love.

Yes, love may be the reason some people get married, but it isn’t the reason for marriage. It may be a constituent of marriage, but it isn’t the purpose of marriage. Something else is.Mr. Koukl is obviously attempting to buttress his argument that "marriage is about children." Unfortunately, his attempt here derails badly. He states, "The state doesn’t care if the bride and groom love each other. There are no questions about a couple’s affections when granting a license. No proof of passion is required. Why? Because marriage isn’t about love."

What this demonstrates, of course, is that marriage isn't about having children either. Not only does the state not require "proof of passion," it also doesn't require "proof of procreative intentions." Why? Because marriage isn't about having children.

“Marriage is constantly being redefined.”

The definition of marriage has not been in flux in the way people suggest. In fact, marriage itself has not been redefined at all. Because there have been variations on the theme does not mean there has been no theme. From the dawn of civilization marriage has always been between men and women.

There have been changes. Historically some have been denied marriage (e.g., the young, the genetically aberrant, and interracial couples). Others were allowed to marry more than once, either consecutively (divorce and remarriage), or concurrently (polygamy). Spousal rights have altered and traditions have evolved. But marriage has still been marriage. And spouses have always been male and female.

To say something has changed is to say some core thing has remained the same. When an old curtain is changed into a work smock, or an irresponsible bachelor becomes a conscientious dad, something stays the same, the cloth and the man, in these two cases.

In the midst of these obvious changes in marriage, what feature remains the same? What is the essential core that makes marriage distinct from any other relationship? In spite of the variations, spouses have always been male and female. Why?All that needs to be said here is that Mr. Koukl is just flatly wrong. Formally, he has committed the fallacy of reification, assuming that "marriage" is some sort of monolithic entity that exists for one purpose and one purpose only.

Unfortunately, it just isn't so. In reality, the definitions of marriage vary across time and culture. In some cultures, notably some native American ones, even same-sex relationships have been granted status equal to that of opposite-sex ones.

“Not all marriages have children.”

Initially it is easy to resist any suggestion that “marriage” and “family” are essentially connected with “offspring.” Clearly, not all families have children. Some marriages are barren, by choice or by design.

This proves nothing, though. Books are written by authors to be read, even if large ones are used as doorstops or discarded ones help ignite campfires. The fact that many lie unread and covered with dust, or piled atop coffee tables for decorative effect doesn’t mean they were not destined for higher purpose.

In the same way, the natural tie of marriage to procreation is not nullified because in some individual cases children are not intended or even possible. Marriage still is what it is even if its essential purpose is never actualized. The exceptions prove the rule, they don’t nullify it. Marriage is intrinsically about and for children.Here Mr. Koukl faces directly the most salient objection to his prime argument, that "all marriages are about children." He attempts to do so by analogy, stating "The fact that many lie unread and covered with dust, or piled atop coffee tables for decorative effect doesn't mean they were not destined for higher purpose."

Unfortunately Mr. Koukl's example vitiates his own argument. He is arguing that the teleology of an existent has no bearing on the validity it's actual use. IOW, the fact that books were intended to be read doesn't demean their status as books given that they are not being read. The implications for marriage should be clear: whether or not a marriage actually has or is open to children doesn't demean it's status as a marriage. However, if that's the case then why necessarily must the participants be of different biological sexes? If the validity of "marriage" doesn't depend upon it's "higher purpose", then why is biological sex important? Clearly it's not.

In addition, Mr. Koukl once again commits the fallacy of reification; assuming without argument that "marriage" has only one purpose. As has been shown, this is simply not the case.

“Marriage is a social construction we can redefine as we please.”
What is marriage? There are only two possible kinds of answers to this question: Either marriage and family have a fixed, natural purpose (a natural “teleology”) or they do not. If not, marriage is some kind of social construction, an invention of culture like knickers or bow ties, fashions that change with the times. Marriages defined by convention can be anything culture defines them to be. No particular detail is essential.In answering this objection, Mr. Koukl immediately employs the fallacy of false dichotomy. Even if marriage does have a "natural purpose", why can it be only the one he describes? Mr. Koukl also ignores the very real distinction between sacred and civil marriage.

It is not possible, however, that marriage is a social construction. Here’s why.

Columnist Dennis Prager has observed, “Every higher civilization has defined marriage as an institution joining members of the opposite sex.” I agree with Prager’s position on marriage, though I take exception with one of his words.

I don't think marriage has been defined by cultures. Rather, I think it has been described by them. The difference in terms is significant. If marriage is defined by culture, then it is merely a construction that culture is free to change when it desires. The definition may have been stable for millennia, yet it is still a convention and therefore subject to alteration. This is, in fact, the argument of the those in favor of gay marriage.

The truth is, it is not culture that constructs marriages or the families that marriages begin. Rather, it is the other way around: Marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. Bricks aren’t the result of the building because the building is made up of bricks. You must have the first before you can get the second.

Societies are large groups of families. Since families are constituent of culture, cultures cannot define them. They merely observe their parts, as it were, and acknowledge what they have discovered. Society then enacts laws not to create marriage and families according to arbitrary convention, but to protect that which already exists, being essential to the whole.Mr. Koukl quotes conservative "talking head" Dennis Prager to the effect that, "Every higher civilization has defined marriage as an institution joining members of the opposite sex." Ignoring for the moment Mr. Prager's clearly expressed bias ("Every [b]higher civilization..."), the fact is that Mr. Prager is simply incorrect. There is a lengthy history of same-sex marital relationships from both within and without Western culture. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of information available on the internet, but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage) has a rather broad summary.

Additionally, Mr. Koukl focuses on families as the defining unit of culture. He states, "Since families are constituent of culture, cultures cannot define them." But isn't that what Mr. Koukl, contra his stated intent, is actually attempting to do? To write into law that a family isn't this, but that? If that's not attempting to define a family, I'm afraid I don't recognize an attempt to do so. If it is in fact families that define culture, then shouldn't culture follow how families themselves define families? And for better or worse, same-sex families define themselves as families just as opposite-sex ones do.

Mr. Koukl next returns to the "teleological" argument, but as this argument has already been vitiated, there's no need for repetition. Let me close by reflecting on Mr. Koukl's last few sentences.
Families may fail to produce children, either by choice or by accident, but they are about children, nonetheless. That’s why marriages have always been between men and women; they are the only ones, in the natural state, who have kids.The biological necessities of procreation are clearly irrelevant to the question of marriage as marriages are neither necessary or sufficient for procreation.

Government has no interest in affirming any other kind of relationship. It privileges and sustains marriage in order to protect the future of civilization.By Mr. Koukl's own argument, the "protection of civilization" has nothing to do with non-procreative marriage, therefore, this statement falls.

Same-sex marriage is radically revisionist. It severs family from its roots, eviscerates marriage of any normative content, and robs children of a mother and a father. This must not happen.One at a time:

Only ignorance of history could deem same-sex marriage "revisionist."
Families define families, by Mr. Koukl's own argument. How can a family sever itself from its own roots?
Mr. Koukl assumes without foundation that his definition of marriage is "the" definition of marriage. This has already been shown to be false
This is a non-sequitur. How can a same-sex marriage "rob children of a mother and a father" in any way differently than the already permitted non-procreative opposite-sex marriage?
Homosexuality is broadly tolerated in this country. Gays are allowed to pursue their "lifestyles" without reprisal, even to the point of forming committed, monogamous unions. They may not be universally respected or admired, but they have the liberty to live as they choose. This is all they have the right to demand.Well, to begin with, if Mr. Koukl really believes that "Gays are allowed to pursue their 'lifestyles' without reprisal...", then I would invite him to actually seek out homosexual persons and see how many might agree with this statement.

Finally, Mr. Koukl states that the "liberty to live as they choose" is "All that [homosexuals] have the right to demand"? But don't we all have the right to be treated equally before the law? Mr. Koukl has employed several broad themes in his attack on same-sex marriage, but all have been shown to provide no actual support for his position. At its heart, the question of whether or not the state should sanction same-sex marriages is really a question of the rights individuals should enjoy in a free society. In offering marriage and the benefits accruing therefrom only to heterosexual couples, the State has created a situation in which some individuals are not being treated equally before the law. That is clearly a violation of the rights all citizens of the United States should enjoy as guaranteed by the 14th amendment. Further, the 9th amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Clearly, the burden of proof is on those who wish to restrict the exercise of rights, not vice versa. IOW, it's up to the opponents of same-sex marriage to demonstrate why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, not the other way round. I've yet to see a cogent argument that meets this burden of proof. Mr. Koukl's is no different.

[Queen]

Well C.D......I wish I could say it as you just did......:smile:

Lots of love and sunshine,
Queen

[OneFollowingHim]

Clearly, the burden of proof is on those who wish to restrict the exercise of rights, not vice versa. IOW, it's up to the opponents of same-sex marriage to demonstrate why homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, not the other way round. I've yet to see a cogent argument that meets this burden of proof. Mr. Koukl's is no different.
(emphasis added)

Sorry, C.D. You've conflated two mutually exclusive ideas. Rights are very different from what someone should or should not be allowed to do. Where does the right of persons of the same sex to marry come from? That is where the burden of proof rests.




More and more laws are being passed in this country to protect people from even the hint of censure about their actions. And so, it was either in Wisconsin or Minnesota, a woman handed a tract to a homosexual-- a Christian tract regarding homosexuality-- and she was convicted under the city's "hate crime" laws. That Christian was forced to go to re-education classes. Why? Because she expressed her politically incorrect view.



You see, this isn't about us forcing our view on them . This is about conservatives and morally-minded people being allowed to express their moral point of view and act on it. This isn't about homosexual liberties; it's about our liberties.



Friends, homosexuals have every right any other American has. I don't have the right to live anywhere I want. I don't have the right to be employed by anyone I want. I don't have the right to marry anyone I want. There are laws and rules and moral restrictions that govern all of those things.



This is not about rights, ladies and gentlemen. This is about approval. This is about a small group of people working to force the majority to approve of behavior that the rank and file believes is morally objectionable. Source... (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/homosexuality/equalrig.htm)

[dizzle]

Spot on!!!!

This is not about rights, ladies and gentlemen. This is about approval. This is about a small group of people working to force the majority to approve of behavior that the rank and file believes is morally objectionable.

[C. D. Ward]

Sorry, C.D. You've conflated two mutually exclusive ideas. Rights are very different from what someone should or should not be allowed to do. Where does the right of persons of the same sex to marry come from? That is where the burden of proof rests.
Um...no. While I agree that rights != oughts, the Constitution is quite clear on where the burden of proof rests. The ninth amendment explicitly states that there are unenumerated rights that exist. All that is necessary to claim such a right is to assert it. If the government wishes to curtail the exercise of that right, it is necessary for the government, not the individual to demonstrate why such a right should not exist.

That is the very basis of the freedom we share; that governments do not define rights, individuals do. It is the responsibility of the State to codify rights into laws, to preserve them when attacked, but the creation of laws cannot create rights, it can only reify or nullify them. In this case, it is up to the State to demonstrate why the right of same-sex couples to enjoy all the benefits and privileges accorded opposite-sex couples through marriage should not exist. To argue the opposite (that same-sex couples should somehow prove themselves worthy of such a right) is to argue against the concepts that are the very foundation of the nation in which we live.

Finally, in response to both you and DD, whether or not Mr. Koukl is correct in his assessment of the motivation of those seeking gay marriage (that they truly desire societal approval) is ultimately irrelevant to the issue. Approval is not created by law. There are many activities that are legal and yet of which we may not all necessarily approve; I disapprove of smoking and getting drunk, yet both are perfectly legal. In addition, whether or not homosexuals are seeking societal approval has nothing necessarily to do with the claim that rights are being infringed. I have no doubt that many African-Americans hoped that the Civil Rights bill would lead to greater acceptance and opportunity in society, but that had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that institutionalized segregation and discrimination were (and are) wrong. And so it is here as well.

[Queen]

This is not about rights, ladies and gentlemen. This is about approval. This is about a small group of people working to force the majority to approve of behavior that the rank and file believes is morally objectionable.

This is about being accepted and respected by the vast majority instead of discriminated by those who still think like people in the dark age. We are indeed not evolved a lot......we have larger brains but we sure as hell don't use them....:doh:

uh.....too emotional?

well.........:tongue:

"Love each other as I love you. This is my commandment" ~Jesus~

[rlj51]

This is about being accepted and respected by the vast majority instead of discriminated by those who still think like people in the dark age. We are indeed not evolved a lot......we have larger brains but we sure as hell don't use them....:doh:

uh.....too emotional?

well.........:tongue:

"Love each other as I love you. This is my commandment" ~Jesus~

Apparently you think Jesus "thinks in the dark ages" because he was against homosexuality as well.

BTW, loving someone does not mean you have to approve of their lifestyle or actions.

[rlj51]

C.D. I have read many of your posts, and I usually find them to be well argued, even we I disagree with the conclusions. I mean this as a legitimate compliment. Unfortunately this post does not qulaify for that opinion. You are using the same tired, emotional arguments that everyone on the pro-gay marriage side uses.

If Mr. Koukl has "nailed it perfectly" and the objections he offers are the best there are, then opponents of same-sex marriage are indeed in trouble...

This is, of course, a strawman. The legal liberty or "right" that proponents argue is being denied to homosexuals is not strictly speaking a right of marriage. It's the right to marry the person they choose. This is a "right" enjoyed by heterosexuals that is indeed being denied to homosexuals.

Hetrosexuals cannot marry any person they choose, so your statement is patently false. A hetrosexual person enjoys the same priviledges that homosexual persons do, which include NOT being able to marry someone of the same-sex, someone under-age, someone already married, or somebody who does not consent to marrying you. So there is no "right" enjoyed by hetrosexuals that is indeed being denied to homosexuals.

And lest it be claimed that this is not a "right", let the opponent consider: if it were to be law that all marriages must be arranged, that a woman can only marry a man chosen for her by her parents, would we consider a person so restricted to be equally free as one without that restriction? IOW, is a woman free to marry any man chosen by her parents as free as a woman who may marry any man she chooses? Clearly not. Mr. Koukl is, in effect, arguing that adults who are constrained by the government as to whom they may espouse are as equally free as adults who are free to choose their own spouse, without government restriction. It is obvious that this is not the case.

Unfortunately I just showed how all adults are equally free to choose whom they marry. The government cares not whom you marry. I have never heard of any government official saying "are you sure you want to marry this person?" when they apply for a marriage license. However if you try form a "marriage" that does not conform to the definiton of marriage you will be denied a license, just like a business would if they applied for non-profit license. They are violating the definition of what they are applying for. This is not a civil rights issue, it is a definitions issue.

Mr. Koukl asks, "Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved?" Setting aside for a moment the apparent attempt to "poison the well" by suggesting that gay relationships are only about sex, one might indeed ask why any committed relationship should receive governmental recognition/benefits. Mr. Koukl attempts to answer this by pointing to the procreative nature of the marital relationship. Unfortunately, this is a non sequitur. As governmental recognition/benefits currently apply to marriages without regard to whether or not there is even the possibility or desire for children, and considering that marriage is completely ancillary to procreative ability, it is clear that procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient to the definition of marriage. Mr. Koukl states, "Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It's meant to build families." But of course, the second sentence does not necessarily follow the first. Marriage may indeed not be meant as a short cut to economic benefits, however it is clearly not meant to build families or these economic benefits would only be available to those who do build families. As this is not the case, Mr. Koukl's objection collapses.

So then what is the purpose of marriage? You have told us what it isn't, but you haven't given us a clue as to what it is. Either it is something in particular, with a definition, or it isn't, and you can make it up as you go. And you haven't addressed Mr. koukl's pont that the government isn't obliged to hand out benefits to any and every human coupling out there. You also didn't respond to his point that if homosexual couple are being discriminated against, so are non-married couples as well.

Mr. Koukl is again attempting to distance the current situation from any semblance to a civil rights issue, but once again he fails to do so convincingly. He states "There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial." Ignoring for a moment the historical fact that advocates of slavery and racism have often ascribed moral evil to skin color and "race mixing" (and thus to them skin color was not "morally trivial"), this clearly begs the question of whether or not homosexuality is "morally trivial". To many advocates of same-sex marriage, it is and therefore Mr. Koukl is in fact begging the very question he is intending to argue: that there is a fundamental difference between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. Namely, he is arguing that one (interracial marriage) is a moral triviality and that the other (same-sex marriage) is not. But of course, to proponents of same-sex marriage they are, by and large, morally identical. Add to that the historical fact that interracial marriage was very much a moral question to many opponents and once again Mr. Koukl's objections are seen to be without foundation.

You miss the point. Interracial marriage still fits into the definiton of mariage: one man and one woman. Whether its a black man and white woman, or a white man and black woman, etc. makes no difference to whether it fits the definition of "one man, one woman", does it? Hence his label of "morally trivial". Your skin color is morally trivial to whether you are one man and one woman, isn't it? I'm sure you would agree. However two people of the same sex makes a HUGE difference on whether it fits the defintion of "one man, one woman" doesn't it? It doesn't fit the definition at all; it violates it. Hence comparing the two is like apples and oranges. They are completely different circumstances, as Mr. Koukl points out. Besides even the moral issue of whether homosexual relationships are wrong or right, they are certainly different than hetrosexual relationships, just as men are different than women. They do not fit the definition of marriage. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron, even if you don't consider it morally wrong.

Mr. Koukl also states, "sex is fundamental to marriage." But so far Mr. Koukl has failed to provide any reason why this should be the case. As we've already seen that procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient to ground the current conception of marriage, Mr. Koukl has some additional work to do if he wants us to validate his assertion.

He means sex as in gender, not sex as in the act. So you are attacking an argument he isn't putting forth.

This objection is simply false. Gay couples do not have the same ability as married couples to achieve the social benefits of which Mr. Koukl speaks. The public record is full of examples where gay partners are denied one or more of these basic rights because of the lack of legal standing. The following is only a partial list of the social rights/benefits enjoyed by married couples that are either not available to same-sex couples or problematic for them (from here (http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex2a.html)):

The right to receive, or the obligation to provide, spousal support and (in the event of separation or divorce) alimony and an equitable division of property
Preference in being appointed the personal representative of an intestate decedent, that is, someone who dies without a will
Priority in being appointed guardian of an incapacitated individual or in being recognized as acting for an incapacitated person in making health care decisions
All manner of rights relating to the involuntary hospitalization of the spouse, including the right to petition, the right to be notified, and the right to initiate proceedings leading to release
The right to bring a lawsuit for the wrongful death of the spouse and for the intentional infliction of emotional distress through harm to one's spouse
The right to spousal benefits statutorily guaranteed to public employees, including health and life insurance and disability payments, plus similar contractual benefits for private sector employees
The right to invoke special state protection for "intrafamily offenses"
The right to visit one's spouse on furlough while incarcerated in prison
The right to claim an evidentiary privilege for marital communications
A presumption of joint ownership of real estate as a tenancy in common and a right not to be held to a mortgage or assignment of rights to creditors without the spouse's written permission
A right to priority in claiming human remains and to make anatomical donations on behalf of the deceased spouse
Various inheritance rights, including priority in inheriting the property of an intestate decedent, the right to a family allowance, and the right to dower
The right for one's non-American spouse to qualify as an "immediate relative" (i.e., receive preferential immigration treatment) and become an American citizen under federal law
The right to receive additional Social Security benefits based on the spouse's contribution
Survivor's benefits on the death of a veteran spouse
Even for those rights in this list that are possible to obtain with legal documentation, without legal recognition of relationship, the ability of same-sex partners to enjoy these rights, among others, is easily compromised by individuals who possess legal standing; namely blood relations, to whom the law generally gives preference in such matters. Mr. Koukl deceives himself if he believes these inequities not to exist or to be less than material.

I am sure these can be obtained through legal means. California has domestic partnerships, which hetrosexual couples take advantage of as well (I personally know a couple who live in Berkeley who do this). I know for sure it gives them insurance rights. I am sure other things are included as well.


Mr. Koukl states that "Activists deny the traditional view, that marriage is about children." But again, this is a strawman.

The reality is that the statement "marriage is about children" isn't a traditional view at all in civil society. As civil society has long recognized and affirmed marriages between adults who have no intention or ability to produce children, it is clear that civil marriage is not about children. This view is only "traditional" to members of certain religious groups. What proponents of same-sex marriage "deny" is that the definitions or traditions regarding marriage held by religious groups should be in any way relevant to how civil society should define marriage. Mr. Koukl has yet to provide any reason to believe they should be.

And you have yet to provide us a definition of what marriage is, or why we should change it form what it already is, except "a few people want it that way". Thats not a very good reason.

Mr. Koukl is obviously attempting to buttress his argument that "marriage is about children." Unfortunately, his attempt here derails badly. He states, "The state doesn’t care if the bride and groom love each other. There are no questions about a couple’s affections when granting a license. No proof of passion is required. Why? Because marriage isn’t about love."

What this demonstrates, of course, is that marriage isn't about having children either. Not only does the state not require "proof of passion," it also doesn't require "proof of procreative intentions." Why? Because marriage isn't about having children.

Than what is it about? We are waiting...

All that needs to be said here is that Mr. Koukl is just flatly wrong. Formally, he has committed the fallacy of reification, assuming that "marriage" is some sort of monolithic entity that exists for one purpose and one purpose only.

Unfortunately, it just isn't so. In reality, the definitions of marriage vary across time and culture. In some cultures, notably some native American ones, even same-sex relationships have been granted status equal to that of opposite-sex ones.

Any variations were at the extreme, and were not the norm, nor practiced by the majority. His point stands that there is theme that stays regardless of variations.

Here Mr. Koukl faces directly the most salient objection to his prime argument, that "all marriages are about children." He attempts to do so by analogy, stating "The fact that many lie unread and covered with dust, or piled atop coffee tables for decorative effect doesn't mean they were not destined for higher purpose."

Unfortunately Mr. Koukl's example vitiates his own argument. He is arguing that the teleology of an existent has no bearing on the validity it's actual use. IOW, the fact that books were intended to be read doesn't demean their status as books given that they are not being read. The implications for marriage should be clear: whether or not a marriage actually has or is open to children doesn't demean it's status as a marriage. However, if that's the case then why necessarily must the participants be of different biological sexes? If the validity of "marriage" doesn't depend upon it's "higher purpose", then why is biological sex important? Clearly it's not.

Would we produce books that could never be read or we were absolutely sure that NO ONE would ever read?

In addition, Mr. Koukl once again commits the fallacy of reification; assuming without argument that "marriage" has only one purpose. As has been shown, this is simply not the case.

He never said it has only one purpose. He is listing several of the purposes. Besides he has given us more purposes than you have, which is 0.

In answering this objection, Mr. Koukl immediately employs the fallacy of false dichotomy. Even if marriage does have a "natural purpose", why can it be only the one he describes? Mr. Koukl also ignores the very real distinction between sacred and civil marriage.

Civil marriage, if not fitting the definition of marriage is then not marriage. It is a civil union or domestic partnership.

Mr. Koukl quotes conservative "talking head" Dennis Prager to the effect that, "Every higher civilization has defined marriage as an institution joining members of the opposite sex." Ignoring for the moment Mr. Prager's clearly expressed bias ("Every [b]higher civilization..."), the fact is that Mr. Prager is simply incorrect. There is a lengthy history of same-sex marital relationships from both within and without Western culture. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of information available on the internet, but Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage) has a rather broad summary.

Additionally, Mr. Koukl focuses on families as the defining unit of culture. He states, "Since families are constituent of culture, cultures cannot define them." But isn't that what Mr. Koukl, contra his stated intent, is actually attempting to do? To write into law that a family isn't this, but that? If that's not attempting to define a family, I'm afraid I don't recognize an attempt to do so. If it is in fact families that define culture, then shouldn't culture follow how families themselves define families? And for better or worse, same-sex families define themselves as families just as opposite-sex ones do.

No he want to write into law society has always recognized a family to be, so other cannot change it. Thats not the same as arbitrarly making up a new type of family, and then demanding recognition of it.


The biological necessities of procreation are clearly irrelevant to the question of marriage as marriages are neither necessary or sufficient for procreation.

Hardly irrelevant. Society has always recognized a father and mother as the best environment in which to raise children. Some couples choose not to have children. So be it. No one is going to force them. It doesn't change the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to start a family, procreate, and raise children. Always has been, and hopefully always will be.

By Mr. Koukl's own argument, the "protection of civilization" has nothing to do with non-procreative marriage, therefore, this statement falls.

As if non-procreative marriage were the norm? What if there were NO procreative marriages? Then where would society be? Not in a very good spot.

[C. D. Ward]

C.D. I have read many of your posts, and I usually find them to be well argued, even we I disagree with the conclusions. I mean this as a legitimate compliment. Unfortunately this post does not qulaify for that opinion. You are using the same tired, emotional arguments that everyone on the pro-gay marriage side uses.Your opinion is duly noted :wink: (and appreciated!) Although I should also note that I take exception to the statement that I'm using "emotional" arguments. There are simply no appeals to emotion in any of the arguments I've employed; it's just not necessary. Reason is more than enough to demonstrate the poverty of the opposing position. :teeth:

Hetrosexuals cannot marry any person they choose, so your statement is patently false. A hetrosexual person enjoys the same priviledges that homosexual persons do, which include NOT being able to marry someone of the same-sex, someone under-age, someone already married, or somebody who does not consent to marrying you. So there is no "right" enjoyed by hetrosexuals that is indeed being denied to homosexuals.Not quite, although your objection makes it obvious to me that my argument was unclear.

I was making that point in the context of consent, in that heterosexuals are free to marry any adult they desire who has the capacity and desire to consent to the relationship; homosexuals are not (Obviously a heterosexual will not choose to marry a member of the same sex, so that potential objection is moot). My example using arranged marriages played on this context. Would we say that an individual restricted to one potential partner is as free as an individual restricted to one out of 100? Obviously not. Thus it is clear that homosexuals do not in fact share the same liberty in marital choice as heterosexuals.

Unfortunately I just showed how all adults are equally free to choose whom they marry. The government cares not whom you marry. I have never heard of any government official saying "are you sure you want to marry this person?" when they apply for a marriage license. However if you try form a "marriage" that does not conform to the definiton of marriage you will be denied a license, just like a business would if they applied for non-profit license. They are violating the definition of what they are applying for. This is not a civil rights issue, it is a definitions issue.It is very much a civil rights issue in that the definition appears to infringe on someone's civil rights. Or do you believe that previous definition of marriage that excluded interracial couples was also not a civil rights issue?

So then what is the purpose of marriage? You have told us what it isn't, but you haven't given us a clue as to what it is. Either it is something in particular, with a definition, or it isn't, and you can make it up as you go. And you haven't addressed Mr. koukl's pont that the government isn't obliged to hand out benefits to any and every human coupling out there. You also didn't respond to his point that if homosexual couple are being discriminated against, so are non-married couples as well.As I was answering Mr. Koukl's objections specifically, it's not incumbent upon me to offer a definition of my own.

I don't need to address Mr. Koukl's points regarding government benefits because they're moot. His claim is that they are related to procreation but as the government provides those benefits without regard to the presence of children, this is obviously false. The only salient point with regard to those benefits is that it is being provided to some couples and denied to others and the current failure to meet a burden of proof regarding why this should be the case. That I did indeed address.

As non-married heterosexual couples do have the option to marry, that objection is moot as well (IOW, if they want those benefits, they actually have a way to obtain them).

You miss the point. Interracial marriage still fits into the definiton of mariage: one man and one woman. Whether its a black man and white woman, or a white man and black woman, etc. makes no difference to whether it fits the definition of "one man, one woman", does it? Hence his label of "morally trivial". Your skin color is morally trivial to whether you are one man and one woman, isn't it? I'm sure you would agree. However two people of the same sex makes a HUGE difference on whether it fits the defintion of "one man, one woman" doesn't it? It doesn't fit the definition at all; it violates it. Hence comparing the two is like apples and oranges. They are completely different circumstances, as Mr. Koukl points out. Besides even the moral issue of whether homosexual relationships are wrong or right, they are certainly different than hetrosexual relationships, just as men are different than women. They do not fit the definition of marriage. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron, even if you don't consider it morally wrong.I don't think I've missed anything. The definition of marriage was not "one man, one woman". The definition of marriage was "one man of race A, one woman of race A". The issue of "moral triviality" is, as I showed, actually question begging, regardless of whether or not I personally find skin color to be morally trivial.

And in terms of "one man, one woman", that's exactly the issue being discussed, so to claim that the "definition" of marriage is "one man, one woman" is also begging the question; that's the very issue in contention. The question is WHY should marriage be defined as "one man, one woman"? This is exactly analogous to the previous question of "why should marriage be defined as 'one man of race A, one woman of race A'?" That's the burden of proof to which I allude in my post and that's the burden of proof that has yet to be met by opponents of same-sex marriage.

He means sex as in gender, not sex as in the act. So you are attacking an argument he isn't putting forth.Um, no. When I use the word "sex", I always mean "biological sex". The word "gender" is actually a semantic term used to denote a sexual identity given to a noun as a part of speech (as in romance languages). It has come to be a "euphemism" for biological sex, but I generally avoid using it in that way.

I meant that Mr. Koukl has as yet provided no rationale why marriage should be restricted to members of opposite sexes.

I am sure these can be obtained through legal means. California has domestic partnerships, which hetrosexual couples take advantage of as well (I personally know a couple who live in Berkeley who do this). I know for sure it gives them insurance rights. I am sure other things are included as well.Domestic partnerships are insurance entities, provided by employers to their employees for insurance coverage purposes. The state of California, as an employer, provides this coverage to state employees. These benefits are NOT applicable to the citizens at large; to my knowledge the state has no law creating a civil union for those purposes.

And it is incorrect to state that these benefits are always obtainable through legal means. In particular, these are impossible to gain through any other legal recourse:

The right to receive, or the obligation to provide, spousal support and (in the event of separation or divorce) alimony and an equitable division of property
The right to bring a lawsuit for the wrongful death of the spouse and for the intentional infliction of emotional distress through harm to one's spouse
The right to spousal benefits statutorily guaranteed to public employees, including health and life insurance and disability payments, plus similar contractual benefits for private sector employees
The right to invoke special state protection for "intrafamily offenses"
The right to visit one's spouse on furlough while incarcerated in prison
The right to claim an evidentiary privilege for marital communications
The right for one's non-American spouse to qualify as an "immediate relative" (i.e., receive preferential immigration treatment) and become an American citizen under federal law
The right to receive additional Social Security benefits based on the spouse's contribution
Survivor's benefits on the death of a veteran spouse
In other cases where it may indeed be possible to receive some of those benefits via current legal means, the status of non-marital partners is, in many cases, subject to question and invalidation at the request of blood relatives (siblings, parents, etc) who are almost always given preference in legal proceedings.

And you have yet to provide us a definition of what marriage is, or why we should change it form what it already is, except "a few people want it that way". Thats not a very good reason.But of course I don't have to provide a definition; I merely have to note that Mr. Koukl's definition is wanting in that it restricts the right of some individuals to marry without sufficient cause. The U.S. Constitution places the burden squarely on the State.

Any variations were at the extreme, and were not the norm, nor practiced by the majority. His point stands that there is theme that stays regardless of variations.If the "theme" can be said to remain regardless of the "variations", then it is crystal clear that the "variation" of same-sex unions does not contradict the "theme" of marriage. If it were in fact otherwise, then the "variation" would override the theme; you wouldn't be able to hear it anymore, it would no longer be a "variation."

Would we produce books that could never be read or we were absolutely sure that NO ONE would ever read?As Mr. Koukl argued, the actual use of the book was irrelevant to the fact that it was still a book. Whether or not the book was ever intended to be read thus has nothing to do with whether or not it's a book. It's his argument, not mine!

[qote]He never said it has only one purpose. He is listing several of the purposes. Besides he has given us more purposes than you have, which is 0.[/quote]In reading Mr. Koukl's argument, I was unable to discern arguments for any purpose to marriage other than procreation. I will take another look, but in reality, such an admission would only help my position and hurt his.

Civil marriage, if not fitting the definition of marriage is then not marriage. It is a civil union or domestic partnership.I suppose this might go to the difference between "sacred" and "civil" marriages. I care not about how religious groups define "marriage". The issue is how "civil" marriage will be defined; the two do not have to concur, although they may well intersect.

No he want to write into law society has always recognized a family to be, so other cannot change it. Thats not the same as arbitrarly making up a new type of family, and then demanding recognition of it.1. "Society" has not always defined "family" as one man/woman/children
2. "Society" does not now define "family" as one man/woman/children

In fact Mr. Koukl and his fellow travelers want to write their particular definition of "family" into secular law.

And who is "arbitrarily making up a new type of family"? To suppose that people are aligning themselves "arbitrarily" seems to suggest that there is no particular reason why the alignments are as they are. But this is absurd; you only see it as without reason because you are convinced that there is only one possible reason and this alignment falls outside of it.

Hardly irrelevant. Society has always recognized a father and mother as the best environment in which to raise children. Some couples choose not to have children. So be it. No one is going to force them. It doesn't change the fact that one of the purposes of marriage is to start a family, procreate, and raise children. Always has been, and hopefully always will be.And you concede my point: "...one of the purposes of marriage..." I agree; that is one of the purposes of marriage, but not the only one. The question remaining is "why do the other purposes necessarily exclude same-sex couples?"

As if non-procreative marriage were the norm? What if there were NO procreative marriages? Then where would society be? Not in a very good spot.And what if everyone on earth decided to become a lawyer? Where would we go for medical assistance or to buy food? Then where would society be?

What if everyone on earth decided to stay single? Where then would society be? Obviously single adults are immoral! :teeth:

Do you see that this is a classic slippery slope? Obviously what any individual or group of individuals chooses to do with their lives cannot be held to be right or wrong based on an argument where every individual were to choose to do the same.

[Hoosier]

If Mr. Koukl has "nailed it perfectly" and the objections he offers are the best there are, then opponents of same-sex marriage are indeed in trouble...

If Mr. Koukl has "nailed it perfectly" and the objections he offers are the best there are, then opponents of same-sex marriage are indeed in trouble...


[Quote:
Originally Posted by STR Ambassador


“We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination.”

There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don't have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don't have the same legal benefits as married couples.

The first charge is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.

I realize that for homosexuals this is a profoundly unsatisfying response, but it is a legitimate one, nonetheless.



from Contributor Ward:
This is, of course, a strawman. The legal liberty or "right" that proponents argue is being denied to homosexuals is not strictly speaking a right of marriage. It's the right to marry the person they choose. This is a "right" enjoyed by heterosexuals that is indeed being denied to homosexuals.

No. There is no "of course" to this being a strawman. In fact, the STR embassador offers it as only one --- not the only one --- argument in support of homosexual marraige. For it to be a straw man it would have to be presented as the only, or at least major, argument for homosexual marraige, and would also have to be a FALSE argument --- in other words, one never brought to the table. This was the argument the embassador presented, then answered:

“We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination.”

I believe this is the exact case often argued, and that our Contributor Ward in fact reitterates the very claim, which demonstrates the speciousness of any "strawman" label.

Perhaps there are other logical faults with the repondent argument, but calling it a strawman would seem to be well poisoning of the first degree



And lest it be claimed that this is not a "right", let the opponent consider: if it were to be law that all marriages must be arranged, that a woman can only marry a man chosen for her by her parents, would we consider a person so restricted to be equally free as one without that restriction? IOW, is a woman free to marry any man chosen by her parents as free as a woman who may marry any man she chooses? Clearly not. Mr. Koukl is, in effect, arguing that adults who are constrained by the government as to whom they may espouse are as equally free as adults who are free to choose their own spouse, without government restriction. It is obvious that this is not the case.

Actually, that answers Koukle's argument not at all. It simply begs the question of what marraige is, carrying the conclusion of it being a right confered by some authority rather than a description of an existing institution within the premesis of the so called argument.

Imight decide to call my hand a foot, and certainly if I'm "free" I can do so. It would not, however, make my hand a foot under any conventional understanding of the term. I may even insist that I'm free to have my hand considered a foot, but, quite frankly, that really only means that I'm free to consider my hand a foot. It doesn't mean that you have to agree with me(and I hope you don't).

[rlj51]

Not quite, although your objection makes it obvious to me that my argument was unclear.

I was making that point in the context of consent, in that heterosexuals are free to marry any adult they desire who has the capacity and desire to consent to the relationship; homosexuals are not (Obviously a heterosexual will not choose to marry a member of the same sex, so that potential objection is moot).

The law is not based in what people will choose to do. That is only speculation, unless you speak for large groups of people. The law is based on what people can choose to do. A homosexual OR a hetrosexual can marry anyone who fits the following criteria:

1. Of the opposite sex
2. Of legal age
3. Who is not already married
4. Who consents

So strictly logically speaking, rights are equal. Homosexuals have the exact same pool of people to choose from as hetrosexual people. Its quite large too; literally millions of people in just our own country. The fact that they may not want to marry anyone inside the definition of marriage is irrelevant. That is not the governments problem. There are hetrosexual people who don't want to get married for various reasons as well. The problem is that this is not a logical argument. This is an emotional plea. Its a "Whaaa I don't like how it is! I want it my way!" argument. The government is under no obligation to make laws based on these sort of demands.


My example using arranged marriages played on this context. Would we say that an individual restricted to one potential partner is as free as an individual restricted to one out of 100? Obviously not. Thus it is clear that homosexuals do not in fact share the same liberty in marital choice as heterosexuals.

This is not a valid analogy. Homosexuals are not restricted to 1 person, vs. hetrosexuals having 100 people to choose from. Everyone has the same pool to choose from, as I already pointed out. The fact that someone doesn't want to marry anyone in the pool is not the government's problem. There are many hetrosexuals who can't find anyone in the pool to mary either. We don't make special laws for these people.


It is very much a civil rights issue in that the definition appears to infringe on someone's civil rights. Or do you believe that previous definition of marriage that excluded interracial couples was also not a civil rights issue?

I just showed how it was not a civil rights issue, as access is equal to all people. For the record, laws that exclude interracial marriage were a civil rights issue, and were right to be struck down. Unfortunately for pro gay-marriage advocates the situation is not at all analagous, as many black leaders have recently pointed out.

As I was answering Mr. Koukl's objections specifically, it's not incumbent upon me to offer a definition of my own.

Well that fine for attempting to defeat his argunments, but if you want to make a positive case for gay-marriage you need to provide a definition so we can see how it fits. Gay-marriage doesn't win by default just because you have defeated a critique. There has to be good reasons for changing the law, not just a lack of bad reasons.

I don't need to address Mr. Koukl's points regarding government benefits because they're moot. His claim is that they are related to procreation but as the government provides those benefits without regard to the presence of children, this is obviously false. The only salient point with regard to those benefits is that it is being provided to some couples and denied to others and the current failure to meet a burden of proof regarding why this should be the case. That I did indeed address.

So then why does the government give benefits to certain couples, or couples at all? And should all types of couples be eligible? Is there a difference between any of them? None of these questions have you answered.

The government doesn't provide benefits to "some couples and not others". Rather they provide benefits to certain types of couples and not others. There is a big difference. IMO the first describes interracial marriage, while the second desribes gay marriage. Why do you ask? Because certain types of couples provide a service to our society which ought to be protected and ecouraged (hence the benefits).

As non-married heterosexual couples do have the option to marry, that objection is moot as well (IOW, if they want those benefits, they actually have a way to obtain them).

This is not quite true. First of all, a non-married hetrosexual couple do not have the option to marry if they are under age, or if one or both partners are already married. Secondly they may not want to get married (same as a homosexual couple). Thats their decision, and they do not deserve extra special benefits because of it. Thirdly a homosexual couple could get married of it was a gay male, and a lesbian female. That would still be a homosexual couple would it not? Fourthly, there are ways to obtain benefits, such as domestic partnerships ( a la California), civil unions ( a la Vermont), and other legal arrangments.

I don't think I've missed anything. The definition of marriage was not "one man, one woman". The definition of marriage was "one man of race A, one woman of race A". The issue of "moral triviality" is, as I showed, actually question begging, regardless of whether or not I personally find skin color to be morally trivial.

Ahh but it was still always a man and woman. That was never questioned. Through the entire civil rights issue, no one was ever worried that same-sex couples were getting the shaft. An interracial marriage is a particular instance of the tradition of "one man, one woman". A same-sex marriage is not. So there is a huge difference between the two.

And in terms of "one man, one woman", that's exactly the issue being discussed, so to claim that the "definition" of marriage is "one man, one woman" is also begging the question; that's the very issue in contention. The question is WHY should marriage be defined as "one man, one woman"? This is exactly analogous to the previous question of "why should marriage be defined as 'one man of race A, one woman of race A'?" That's the burden of proof to which I allude in my post and that's the burden of proof that has yet to be met by opponents of same-sex marriage.

Ok first its not like we are starting from neutral, as if we just invented marriage and are now trying figure out the definition. Marriage (certainly in our culture) is and always has been a opposite sex institution. So while I agree that "why should it be one man and one woman?" is a valid question, so is "Why should we change it?". I will not let proponents of same-sex marriage get away with not shouldering any of the burden of proof. They have to prove their case just like we have to prove ours.

Marriage has and is defined as one man, one woman, as that is the natural (pysically speaking) and most healthy (emotionally, socially) way to produce/start/have/raise a family. People have realized that what race you are from makes no difference in this structure, hence it is fine to have a mixed race marriage. However society is very much unconvinved that having two mother or two fathers as opposed to a mother and father doesn't make a difference.

Um, no. When I use the word "sex", I always mean "biological sex". The word "gender" is actually a semantic term used to denote a sexual identity given to a noun as a part of speech (as in romance languages). It has come to be a "euphemism" for biological sex, but I generally avoid using it in that way.

I meant that Mr. Koukl has as yet provided no rationale why marriage should be restricted to members of opposite sexes.

Actually he has, and if I have just mentioned similar idea. Try foundation for our society, natural and best way to raise a family.

Domestic partnerships are insurance entities, provided by employers to their employees for insurance coverage purposes. The state of California, as an employer, provides this coverage to state employees. These benefits are NOT applicable to the citizens at large; to my knowledge the state has no law creating a civil union for those purposes.

Well I know a non-married couple who live in Cali, where the man works for a private company, and the woman is on his health and car etc. insurance. I was told it was because California has domestic partnerships.

And it is incorrect to state that these benefits are always obtainable through legal means. In particular, these are impossible to gain through any other legal recourse:

The right to receive, or the obligation to provide, spousal support and (in the event of separation or divorce) alimony and an equitable division of property
The right to bring a lawsuit for the wrongful death of the spouse and for the intentional infliction of emotional distress through harm to one's spouse
The right to spousal benefits statutorily guaranteed to public employees, including health and life insurance and disability payments, plus similar contractual benefits for private sector employees
The right to invoke special state protection for "intrafamily offenses"
The right to visit one's spouse on furlough while incarcerated in prison
The right to claim an evidentiary privilege for marital communications
The right for one's non-American spouse to qualify as an "immediate relative" (i.e., receive preferential immigration treatment) and become an American citizen under federal law
The right to receive additional Social Security benefits based on the spouse's contribution
Survivor's benefits on the death of a veteran spouse
In other cases where it may indeed be possible to receive some of those benefits via current legal means, the status of non-marital partners is, in many cases, subject to question and invalidation at the request of blood relatives (siblings, parents, etc) who are almost always given preference in legal proceedings.

I am entirely for looking at each one of these and seeing if they apply to same sex couples, and then passing the necessary laws. I am OK with some type of civil unions of thats what peopel need. I think some of these types of benefits were created specifically for instances, for isntance where (traditionally) the wife in a marriage might not have professional skills, therefore if the husband dies, or there is divorce there needs to be ways of protetcting and helping the woman who can't easily support herself, i.e. alimony, child support, etc. We would need to look at these individually and see how they would apply to same-sex couples.

But of course I don't have to provide a definition; I merely have to note that Mr. Koukl's definition is wanting in that it restricts the right of some individuals to marry without sufficient cause. The U.S. Constitution places the burden squarely on the State.

No rights have been restricted; therefore the burden is squarely on same-sex advocates as to why the law should be changed.

If the "theme" can be said to remain regardless of the "variations", then it is crystal clear that the "variation" of same-sex unions does not contradict the "theme" of marriage. If it were in fact otherwise, then the "variation" would override the theme; you wouldn't be able to hear it anymore, it would no longer be a "variation."

Umm interacial marriages contradicted the theme. So variations do contradict the theme.

As Mr. Koukl argued, the actual use of the book was irrelevant to the fact that it was still a book. Whether or not the book was ever intended to be read thus has nothing to do with whether or not it's a book. It's his argument, not mine!

I agree, and I don't see how this works to your advantage. Hetrosexual couple are still the best environment to start a family, regardless of whether inidividual instances actually do start a family. The analogy works well.

I suppose this might go to the difference between "sacred" and "civil" marriages. I care not about how religious groups define "marriage". The issue is how "civil" marriage will be defined; the two do not have to concur, although they may well intersect.

I think (and I think most Americans do as well) that marriage is not something defined, as if its made up. Its recognized as the natural order, and best way to do things. I see no problem with the government codifying it into law. In fact the government already has, and its been that way for a long time. Its called simply "marriage" and its already civil, in the sense that there need be no religious component, although many do include it. I think the way our civil marriages are defined right now works well, and ought to stay that way. You are free to be religious or not religious in you marriage, but the government still recognizes the natural order of things. Its a great compromise.

1. "Society" has not always defined "family" as one man/woman/children
2. "Society" does not now define "family" as one man/woman/children

Not sure what you are getting at here. Sure there are extended familes, grandparents count as part of my family. And in less than ideal situations, a single person may be left in charge of a family without the help of a spouse, which is very sad. But no one want these less than ideal circumstances, they want the ideal, or at least they should.



Hate to break it to you, but its already written into law, at both the state and federal levels.

[quote]And who is "arbitrarily making up a new type of family"? To suppose that people are aligning themselves "arbitrarily" seems to suggest that there is no particular reason why the alignments are as they are. But this is absurd; you only see it as without reason because you are convinced that there is only one possible reason and this alignment falls outside of it.

Well they need to prove their motives good, and their actions beneficial. They question is not do they have reasons; everyone has reasons for the things they do. They question is do they have good reasons, and what are the affects of their actions? We shouldn't go around codifying into law new types of families just because someone invented a new one.

And you concede my point: "...one of the purposes of marriage..." I agree; that is one of the purposes of marriage, but not the only one. The question remaining is "why do the other purposes necessarily exclude same-sex couples?"

Well they can't have natural sex (as our bodies were intended to), they can't complement and complete each other in the way that a man and woman can, they can't produce children, they are not the ideal situation in which to raise children, they can't provide the male and female role models children need, and the list goes on. Where exactly are they similar to traditional marriages? The only similarity is that they involve two people living together, but hey that desribes roommates as well.

[Gilgaron]

Well they can't have natural sex (as our bodies were intended to), they can't complement and complete each other in the way that a man and woman can, they can't produce children, they are not the ideal situation in which to raise children, they can't provide the male and female role models children need, and the list goes on. Where exactly are they similar to traditional marriages?
There are traditional marriages that also fail all of those conditions.

[ajohnson]

There are traditional marriages that also fail all of those conditions.

True, but that would be the exception to the rule. With non-marriage unions (that is homosexual) it is immposible to take place. A large difference.

Regards,

Alan

[Anitra]

Up front: I think that Greg Koukl is a good and kind and serious man; I do not think that he hates homosexuals or want to mistreat them; I think he is speaking from his conscience and must live by what he thinks is right. I disagree with him: I do not intend to bash him. It is a challenge to disagree with someone on such a sensitive issue without bashing them: therefore, if I fall short at any point and say something that feels offensive, please correct me. I will appreciate it: I do not intend to offend.
The first charge [that homosexuals don't have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have] is simply false. Any homosexual can marry in any state of the Union and receive every one of the privileges and benefits of state-sanctioned matrimony. He just cannot marry someone of the same sex. These are rights and restrictions all citizens share equally.
"The law, in its infinite majesty, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges or to beg for bread." That something "affects everyone equally" is insufficient argument to prove it just.

At one time all citizens of the American colonies were equally subject to search and siezure. This was declared to be an infringement on our liberties. Not all colonists were searched or their person or property siezed, so not all colonists did have their liberties infringed -- only those who had done something to arouse the suspicion of authority. The infringement on some, however, was still an injustice to all.

For the government to legally direct and control who can and cannot marry whom, beyond that required for legitimate protection of the equal rights and well-being of all which is a legitimate role of government is an infringementupon the civil liberties of us all that cannot be justified under the principles of democratic self-government, and is totally unacceptable to any political conservative.

Religious conservatives may find it acceptable. Religious conservatives may disapprove of democratic self-government and the principle that any individual has the right to do whatever he or she considers good with no legal let or hindrance except that which is minimally necessary for the avoidance of demonstrable harm to others that they have a right to be protected from, or demonstrable loss of a good they have the right to expect. Religious conservatives, however, live in a country founded on those principles, and must relate to their fellow citizens, in public life, within the framework of those principles -- whatever other principles you hold.

If a man can marry a woman, and a woman cannot marry a woman, then the law is limiting the right to associate freely with the adult of our choice on our own terms, solely on the arbitrary basis of gender. This is already recognized as illegitimate.

Something is universally just only when it is equally just regardless of exactly where you stand in the equation. If a law is unjust, it is unjust, whether or not that injustice affects you personally.
It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals—non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers—share those benefits, either. Why should they?
This is far too general a statement, for one thing. If I were married to another woman, my sister could indeed visit me in the hospital, as close kin, but my wife could not. Many employers would give me leave to visit a family member in an emergency, that would not give me leave if my wife had the same emergency. If a non-spousal family member -- my elderly father, or my disabled siister, for instance -- were living with me and dependent on me, I could declare that on my taxes, and some employers woould even put that dependent on my health plan. If I were married to a woman, however, I could not claim her as a dependent on my taxes or health plan, even if she were disabled and in fact dependent on me. If I wrote a will legally declaring her to be my heir, and I had a genetic family antagonistic to her, they could in many places have an easy time breaking that will in court. There are, in other words, many relationshios that DO share many benefits legally denied to same-gender couples.

As to the whether the legal benefits and status of same-gender couples should legitimately be the saem as opposite-gender couples: if it is not, then that limit is being set solely on the attribute of gender, and that is an illegitimate limitation.

All societies, from the first kinship bands, have recognized the unique status of pair-bonds, "marital" pair-bonds. These are not defined by sexual activity or by breeding status. They are defined by a particularly intense level of intimacy and commitment, of taking responsibility for each other and for yourselves as a unit. It is not the same as brothers and sistes taking care of each other or roommates taking care of each other or mother and daughter taking care of each other, and it is recognized as not the same. There have been same-gender couples with this bond, and there will be again. It happens.
The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children.
False. The reason that societies have always supported mate-bonds, from the earliest kinship bands, is that couples are taking a soecial level of responsiibility for each other and toward the group. The care they give each other os of benefit to the community, therefore it is to the community's benefit to support it.

Not all marriages result in progeny -- even very early pair-bonds, before the word "marriage." Not all marriages even involve active sex. But all marriages do involve mutual commitments that benefit each other, and the community, in material ways. All marriages involve the sharing of property.

It is true that the social recognition of pair-bonds does make establishing inheritance easier -- in some societies. That is not, hiowever, the reason for the social recognition and support of pair-bonds. Pair-bonds are recognized even when inheritance of property goes through the sisters of the father, or the brothers of the mother, or some other tradition. "Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny" is a false statement.
No one may marry a close blood relative, a child, a person who is already married, or a person of the same sex.These restrictions exist for the protection of others from demonstrable harm -- the only legitimate basis for legal restriction.

That has been pointed out often enopugh that to continue to make the same shopworn argument becomes unethical and offensive.
Same-sex marriage and interracial marriage have nothing in common. There is no difference between a black and a white human being because skin color is morally trivial. There is an enormous difference, however, between a man and a woman.
This is glaringly offensive. Are men morally different than women? Does skin color not affect moral worth -- but gender does? I would expect Greg Koukl to be far more careful in his arguments!
Ethnicity has no bearing on marriage. Sex is fundamental to marriage.No, it is not. What is the conservative obsession with sex, anyway?

My husband and I are 54 and we both have health problems; we're both "retired early" on Social Security, do to disability. We rarely have active sex. Is Greg Koukl going to disallow our marriage, and that of every elderly couple? There are other married couples who never have sex together -- because they married for political or business reasons, or because they choose to refrain from sex for religious reasons, or because they are physically separated for reasons beyond their control, or for other personal reasons. Should all their marriages be disallowed by law? Shall the law direct every married couple to have sex, and prove that they have sex? How many political conservatives are you going to get to go along with that one?
]quote]This approach won’t work to justify polygamous or incestuous unions (“In the past people wouldn’t allow interracial marriages, either.”). It is equally ineffectual here. The objection may be the same, but the circumstances are entirely different.[/quote]
The circumstances are different because polygamy and incest can be demonstrated to be harmful to the rights and well-being of others. "Miscagenation" could not. If you make a case that same-gender mariage is materially harmful to the rights and well-being of others, then it goes iin the same category as polygamy, incest, and bestiality -- legitimately limited by law. If you cannot make such a case, then it goes in the same category as interracial marriage -- not legitimately limited by law.
Gay couples can already do everything married people do—express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any of these things.
There are hundreds of rights legally denied to same-gender couples. Same-gender couples can be also denied housing, fired, and in other ways have their civil liberties denied by other citizens, without legal recourse. Factual accounts of these things are available to anyone's research. To not be aware of them, at this point, is flat intellectual laziness.
Denying marriage doesn't restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it.
You have freedom of conscience to disapprove of homosexual relations, and if you were being forced to publicly approve of homosexual sexual activities I would call that it legitimate to object to that. I would object to it.

But you are not being asked to approve. You are just being told that you cannot legally forbid what you morally object to, unless you can demonstrate a material harm.

Those that do approve of a same-gender mariage are not necessarily approving of homosexual sex, either. There are many who do consider homsexuality wrong and homosexual activity wrong, but who approve of same-gender couples acting responsibly, living in committed realtionships, and taking care of each other and any dependents.
He [Evan Wolfson] and the others who brought the marriage lawsuits of the past decade want nothing less than full social equality
And even if you regard someone as a sinner, you are still required to give them full social equality, by Christianity itself.

You do not have to "validate" someone's behavior in order to give them full social equality. Giving them full social equality does not validate their behavior.

I do not approve of alcoholism, or of smoking tobacco. Unlike homosexuality, I can make a documented case that there is no level of "responsible" alcoholism or tobacco-smoking that is actually [b]good[/b[ forp you and everybody around you -- both do documented harm, and that is not even a controversial claim, even alcoholics and tobacco smokers agree with it.

But alcoholics and tobacco smokers are my full social equals and have full legal rights. Even law can only limit their behavior to the extent required to safeguard the rights and well-being of others. They cannot be legally forced to stop drinking or smoking. We tried that, under Prohibition, and it was a moral disaster for the entire country that we haven't fully recovered from yet.

I do not have to accept alcoholism or tobacco smoking in order to accept alcoholics and smokers as my social equals, treat them resepctfully, and guard their good and their rights as I would my own.
The marriage radicals…have not been deprived of the right to marry
We sure haven't. Martin Luther King Junior supported equal rights for gays -- and was a married heterosexual. Corretta Scott King supports equal rights for gays. I support equal rights for gays -- and I am a married heterosexual. My husband supports equal rights for gays. King County Executive Ron Sims, who is a married heterosexual, begged gay couples to sue the county, take the law against isuing them marriage licenses to court and get it overturned -- because he supports equal rights for gays.

A whole bunch of "marriage radicals" -- and all heterosexual, all married.

It may serve the conservative argument to portray all supporters of the right to same-gender marriage as homosexuals, but it is a dishonest portrayal.

That is all that I have time for at the moment. I would appreciate it if the opponents of same-gender marriage would take the time to reflect an understanding of these points -- you do not have to agree, just show that you understand what you are disagreeing with.

If I have misunderstood any of the conservative points, please correct me.

[Gilgaron]

True, but that would be the exception to the rule. With non-marriage unions (that is homosexual) it is immposible to take place. A large difference.

Regards,

Alan
Then they are only sufficient conditions, not necessary conditions. Meaning that they are useless for disqualifying homosexual marriage.

Personally, I still like my argument in favor of homosexual marriage I posted up a while back http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=408724#post408724

It would certainly help our "herd immunity" to STDs.

[Panoplia Soljah]

There are traditional marriages that also fail all of those conditions.
I have never heard a pro-homosexual marriage proponent say how homosexual marriage differes from marriage between 1st cousins or marriage between an adult and a child, or poligamy. Since these forms are also legally proscribed, as well as being morally reprehensible to Christians, why should we allow homosexual marriage, but refuse the others?

[ajohnson]

:popcorn:

:popcorn:

:popcorn:

:popcorn:

[Anitra]

I have never heard a pro-homosexual marriage proponent say how homosexual marriage differes from marriage between 1st cousins or marriage between an adult and a child, or poligamy.In that case, you haven't read many of the threads yet, have you? :smile:

Being "immoral" is not an adequate reason to make anything illegal, or else alcohol, caffeine, meat, and dancing with a member of the opposite sex would all be illegal, being "immoral" under various people's standards. We all have freedom of conscience, and the only right the state has to regulate any of the rights of individuals, including the right to marry, is in order to protect the equal rights and well-being of all.

Making a law authorizes force against someone who breaks the law. Unless an activity is one that you would feel legitimate about stopping by force personally, it is not legitimate for you to apply force by proxy, using the powers of the state, to stop it.

All of us have things we consider immoral that we would not use force to stop. We will make our disapproval known; we will refuse to cooperate or assist; we will vocally attempt to discourage; but we will not use force. We may boycott a movie we disapprove of, but we will not steal the film reel and burn it. We will tell people about the dangers of smoking, but we don't knock cigarettes out of their hand. We may stage interventions with friends or relatives who are alcoholics, but we don't go into a stranger's house and forcibly stop him from getting drunk.

All of us, I hope, would intervene by force to prevent a child from being sexually molested by an adult. Making sexual exploitation of a child, including marriage to a child, illegal, is therefore a legitimate use of state force.

Our reason for prohibiting polygamy has, historically, been that an overwhelming number of polygamous marriages are exploitive and abusive of the women involved. This may not be fair to the polygamous realtionships that are not exploitive or abusive, but the main reason for the way the law now stands is that a great many of them have been. I should hope, and I expect from experience, that most people would be willing to use force to protect a woman who was being abused, or exploited against her will.

The reason that marriage between close relatives is forbidden by law is that it is genetic roulette, with a high risk of severe hardship on innocent offspring from the union. This rationale may be challenged by same-sex relatives, or by relatives who are willing to submit to a genetic scan, but the law now stands as it does in order to protect potential children from genetic damage, as well as to protect our community from such damage.

For all these things, and for bestiality, and marriage to inanimate objects, and marriage to one's grandmother, there are arguments against them on the basis of the rights of other individuals, and harm to other individuals.

Opponents of same-sex marriage aren't going to win on the argument that it is "immoral" or "not traditional." Slavery was traditional. Tradition is not an adequate argument for legislation. If anything that a large enough group decides is immoral can be made illegal, the freedom of consicience of all of us is held hostage to the political whim of our neighbors. Impose your own morality on marriage this year, and prepare to get somone else's morality imposed on your eating habits next year. So "morality" is not an adequate argument for legislation.

The only possible defense for legislation against same-sex marriage is if opponents can credibly demonstrate that it is directly harmful to the rights or well-being of others.

[sprky777]

...Being "immoral" is not an adequate reason to make anything illegal, or else alcohol, caffeine, meat, and dancing with a member of the opposite sex would all be illegal, being "immoral" under various people's standards. We all have freedom of conscience, and the only right the state has to regulate any of the rights of individuals, including the right to marry, is in order to protect the equal rights and well-being of all.
...
Our reason for prohibiting polygamy has, historically, been that an overwhelming number of polygamous marriages are exploitive and abusive of the women involved. This may not be fair to the polygamous realtionships that are not exploitive or abusive, but the main reason for the way the law now stands is that a great many of them have been. I should hope, and I expect from experience, that most people would be willing to use force to protect a woman who was being abused, or exploited against her will.

I understand that the media seizes upon any opportunity to sensationalize a polygamous marriage that goes bad. (the same husband could have also been abusive in a mono marriage). The media is in the business to sell and controversy sells. But how many good polygynous marriages do you read about? None. There are thousands of poly families in the united States alone but they keep mostly quiet to avoid persecution.

I would like to see legitimate statistics on the ratio of abusive mono marriages to the ratio of abusive poly marriages.

Abusive monogamous marriages don't get alot of media attention and of course, divorce for reasons of abuse don't get much attention either. Then if you write a book on 'I survived a polygamous marriage' it will become a best seller. hmmm... perhaps I could write a fictional book and become famous.... but I wouldn't want to do that and put polygyny in bad light.

I understand that some relationships may be abusive. It is the abuse that should be punished, not the choice of marriage lifestyle.

The reason that marriage between close relatives is forbidden by law is that it is genetic roulette, with a high risk of severe hardship on innocent offspring from the union. This rationale may be challenged by same-sex relatives, or by relatives who are willing to submit to a genetic scan, but the law now stands as it does in order to protect potential children from genetic damage, as well as to protect our community from such damage.

So.... you should prohibit anyone with genetic damage from reproducing? Women should be prohibited from bearing children after age 40 just to reduce the chance of downs syndrome? Why not just sterilize anyone that could be a 'risk' of producing genetically defective offspring?

Even if it were prohibited for a genetically defective person to marry, the law will not prevent them from having sex and reproducing out of marriage.

The only possible defense for legislation against same-sex marriage is if opponents can credibly demonstrate that it is directly harmful to the rights or well-being of others.
As a libertarian would say... no victim, no crime.

[Anitra]

I understand that some relationships may be abusive. It is the abuse that should be punished, not the choice of marriage lifestyle.I do not disagree with this. As I've said elsewhere, I think you may have a case. There are other cultures where polygamy does not seem to have been unfavorable to women. However -- you've got an uphill battle. I'm not saying you're in the wrong, I'm just pointing out that you're going to have as long and difficult a struggle as blacks or women or non-heterosexuals in convincing society that you are in the right.

If you "would like to see legitimate statistics on the ratio of abusive mono marriages to the ratio of abusive poly marriages" you're going to have to go out there and do the studies yourself, or work with people who can do them, in a statistically credible way. I understand the reluctance of people with "good" polygamous relationships to expose themselves, but youare going to have to get around that if yyou want public recognition. Simply claiming, "I have see healthy polygamous marriages" is not enough, any more than my claiming "I have seen purple playpuses" would be enough to prove their existence.

I am not trying to imply that I consider the likelihood of a healthy polygamous marriage as doubtful as the likelihood of a purple platypus. I am just using an example of something for which there is no hard data, in order to demonstrate that personal testimony alone is not enough for a credible argument. Personal testimony is valuable; it just isn't sufficient.

Blacks exposed themselves to public scrutiny in order to win recognition as equal human beings; non-heterosexuals have exposed themselves to public scrutiny in order to win recognition as equal human beings. Mixed-race couples and smae-sex couples exposed themselves to public scrutiny, and to hardship, in order to win legal rights and recognition. If polygamists want to win their case, they will have to take the same risks and do the same work -- and it will be the same long, hard slog for them.
As a libertarian would say... no victim, no crime.
I do like the idea of no trials of "State versus Accused." If there is a crime, it should be tried as "Victim versus Accused" with the State as third-party mediator with the power of binding decision. The aim should be disclosing the truth in order to bring about recompense and reconciliation, and prevent further occurrences.

[sprky777]

...If you "would like to see legitimate statistics on the ratio of abusive mono marriages to the ratio of abusive poly marriages" you're going to have to go out there and do the studies yourself, or work with people who can do them, in a statistically credible way. I understand the reluctance of people with "good" polygamous relationships to expose themselves, but you are going to have to get around that if you want public recognition....If polygamists want to win their case, they will have to take the same risks and do the same work -- and it will be the same long, hard slog for them.
I tried to do an online poll once and the host banned me. It is difficult to gather information when people get hostile and are not willing to accommodate mere discussion of a topic. Even non-religious people seem to be stuck on the 'I don't want my taxes to pay welfare to take care of a guy that has 15 kids' issue. The media has made a strong impression that polygamy breeds irresponsibility (pun intended).
I do like the idea of no trials of "State versus Accused." If there is a crime, it should be tried as "Victim versus Accused" with the State as third-party mediator with the power of binding decision. The aim should be disclosing the truth in order to bring about recompense and reconciliation, and prevent further occurrences.
Exactly. Some polygamy trials are the 'State against Mr. Wrong' when the families involved do not have a problem with the arrangements.

The government should restrict it's operations to constitutional necessities. Thereby reducing both expenses and intrusions on personal liberties. Punish criminals don't create them.

Same sex marriage and polygynous marriages alike create no victims. Third parties on the outside of these relationships, government included, assign victim status to willing parties. The courts generally require first party status to bring a damage suit to trial. You must show personal loss or damage to be recognized. But, how do you quantify 'abusive relationship, manipulation, restriction, oppression, disruption to society, conflicting with societal norms...' or a number of other conditions people or the state use to justify persecuting a consensual relationship?

[Anitra]

I tried to do an online poll once and the host banned me. It is difficult to gather information when people get hostile and are not willing to accommodate mere discussion of a topic.That is regrettable -- but web forums are not the appropriate place to do a real study, anyway. I'd recommend talking to ethnologists at a local university. They are more likely to be able to be intellectual about it, and may be highly interested in doing such a study. They would also be able to point you to any studies that already exist.