Marriage is:

[Ansgar Seraph]

The current "Culture" is the determining factor for what is right and what is wrong. Is that what you are saying?

No, the current culture is the determining factor on what is socially acceptable. Some things that aren't socially acceptable will still be moral. Many things that are socially acceptable will still be immoral. Your job, if you want the definition of marriage to be exclusive, is to demonstrate how the excluded unions are systematically detrimental to the individuals involved or society as a whole. You're not able to do that with same-sex marriage and so you rely on hypothetical arguments about the birth rate dropping to the point of unsustainability or equivocating same-sex marriage with types of marriages that actually are harmful to individuals.

—Sam

[OtherCheek]

No, the current culture is the determining factor on what is socially acceptable. Some things that aren't socially acceptable will still be moral. Many things that are socially acceptable will still be immoral. Your job, if you want the definition of marriage to be exclusive, is to demonstrate how the excluded unions are systematically detrimental to the individuals involved or society as a whole. You're not able to do that with same-sex marriage and so you rely on hypothetical arguments about the birth rate dropping to the point of unsustainability or equivocating same-sex marriage with types of marriages that actually are harmful to individuals.
—Sam

Are you saying that studies and science then determine what is morally wrong? Or do you believe homosex is morally wrong despite what science and studies may have to say? Is there ANYTHING you believe is morally wrong despite what science and studies may have to say?

[Conductor42]

Group marriage where the group does not exceed 100 members.

Wouldn't that be more like a commune?

Parents and their children as long as those children are older.

Children older than their parents? Whoa. I guess times are changing!

Female minors old enough to get an abortion w/o parental consent in the state of residence.

I thought we were talking about definitions of marriage?

Adults and minors as long as it can be shown that the minor demonstrates better judgment than some 21 year-old.

That would have done wonders for me when I was that age.

Politicians and staffers may marry.

Oh good, I wouldn't want to see good ole Gingrich locked up. He's a swell guy.

Prisoners may marry and share prison cells.

That, in all seriousness, might be a good idea.

Jurors and defendants may marry.

That could create an akward situation

But consenting adults may not marry where a teachers/student relationship exists.

As long as they're not caught, right?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Are you saying that studies and science then determine what is morally wrong? Or do you believe homosex is morally wrong despite what science and studies may have to say? Is there ANYTHING you believe is morally wrong despite what science and studies may have to say?

I didn't say that and, at this point, I shouldn't have to explicitly lay it out. The government isn't supposed to be incredibly concerned with the moral strictures of a given religion or creed. What the government of a society should look for is whether a given action systematically harms individuals or communities. The government then has to weigh whatever harm it finds against the individual rights that would be violated or restricted. Some of these are easy: in Hobbes' philosophy, I've got a natural right to kill you and take your assets (i.e., land, family) for myself. Since this is harmful to individuals, families and communities on a drastic scale, nearly every government (and certainly every functional government) has laws against murder. Some are more difficult: it's not very clear, for example, that the individual right to privacy extends as far into the Internet as we'd like it to — the government tries to balance its need for protecting individuals and communities from physical or economic harm (e.g., terrorism and piracy) against every citizen's right to freely associate and experience electronic communication without government inspection.

Same-sex marriage is clearly in the middle between these two extremes of certainty. We have plenty of evidence that same-sex marriage doesn't systematically harm other individuals, families or communities. There is very little weight on the prohibition side of the equation, making the decision to grant equal rights relatively simple and sure.

The question of morality does not factor into the equation, unless it can be applied to the question of harm or the question of equal rights. Morality is the purview of theologians and philosophers and is not contingent on social acceptability.

—Sam

[Psychic Missile]

And if a group wanted to change the definition of "biological adult" because they felt discriminated against, would you support that?

A biological adult is determined by scientific inquiry, not consensus. That's like a group changing the definition of gravity.

What if a group of 100 people representing both sexes wanted to have a group marriage and have that marriage grow like a church, adding members regularly to their marriage. Would this be OK for the government to endorse?

That would be more like a corporation than a group marriage. I don't see any reason there can't be a limit to the number of partners. After a certain extent the purpose of marriage is defeated.

[OtherCheek]

Same-sex marriage is clearly in the middle between these two extremes of certainty. We have plenty of evidence that same-sex marriage doesn't systematically harm other individuals, families or communities. There is very little weight on the prohibition side of the equation, making the decision to grant equal rights relatively simple and sure.

—Sam

The one study you presented that was actually reviewable, had serious flaws. I imagine others would be similar. And so I doubt the conclusions you seem to have drawn.

[Conductor42]

So.... OtherCheek, if you don't believe the definition of marriage can be changed, then you're Mormon and not LDS, right?

[Ansgar Seraph]

The one study you presented that was actually reviewable, had serious flaws. I imagine others would be similar. And so I doubt the conclusions you seem to have drawn.

And, again, I'm not too concerned about your personal conclusions on this matter: I cited numerous studies, including meta-analyses, and you could not properly read the articles that you yourself cited, let alone the article I cited. If you can't manage to accurately summarize what the study actually involves, you're gonna have a bad time critiquing it.

In any event, the onus is certainly on those who claim that same-sex marriages are damaging to individuals, families and communities — and on that front, you've got nothing of academic substance. And so we've been teetering from "Same-sex marriage is bad for families" to "Same-sex marriage is acceptable, so long as it's not called 'marriage'" to "What mere anarchy will be loosed upon the world if we redefine marriage?"

—Sam

[rogue06]

Politicians and staffers may marry.

It isn't the fact that politicians marry that bothers me. What keeps me awake at night is knowing that they breed as well [*SHUDDER*]

[OtherCheek]

In any event, the onus is certainly on those who claim that same-sex marriages are damaging to individuals, families and communities — and on that front, you've got nothing of academic substance. And so we've been teetering from "Same-sex marriage is bad for families" to "Same-sex marriage is acceptable, so long as it's not called 'marriage'" to "What mere anarchy will be loosed upon the world if we redefine marriage?"

—Sam

The single study that you were able to dig up that could actually be analyzed was glaringly flawed. The rest were simply abstracts.

I would say the onus is on those who want to change the definition or marriage, and change what the government support, promotes, and adds to the public school curriculum. And they should have to convince many more than a few activist judges. The onus is on homosexual advocates to show that promoting homosex is good for the prosperity, and longevity of a nation for now and for future generations.

[Ansgar Seraph]

The single study that you were able to dig up that could actually be analyzed was glaringly flawed. The rest were simply abstracts.

Well, OtherCheek, when you show that you can accurately read a sociological article and get the conclusion and scope straight, I'll probably start putting more weight on your critiques. The other articles were indeed abstracts . . . but then, I took the effort to read, in full, every article whose abstract you cited.

I would say the onus is on those who want to change the definition or marriage, and change what the government support, promotes, and adds to the public school curriculum. And they should have to convince many more than a few activist judges. The onus is on homosexual advocates to show that promoting homosex is good for the prosperity, and longevity of a nation for now and for future generations.

Equal rights are not respected because the victims of prejudice show that they are not drains upon society, OtherCheek. If you want to deny someone equal rights, it's on you to show why that restriction is necessary. But you're manifestly unable to do that and tracking through this across multiple threads isn't churning up any new material.

—Sam

[OtherCheek]

Well, OtherCheek, when you show that you can accurately read a sociological article and get the conclusion and scope straight, I'll probably start putting more weight on your critiques. The other articles were indeed abstracts . . . but then, I took the effort to read, in full, every article whose abstract you cited.

And I've read your abstracts and the one study that you actually did find that COULD be read (more than just an abstract), I DID read, in full. And that was more reading than a few short little articles. And the flaws of that study you presented were glaring. The study was not a double-blind study. Lesbian couples' children were hand picked, and the parents knew beforehand what the study was for, while heterosexual parented children were selected blindly from a previously conducted study. If you want to be truly fair, then either alert both sides beforehand that the purpose of the study is to prove which parenting structure is better for children, and let parents from both sides of the heated issue volunteer to prove their own side is superior, or do it double blind. That was just one of a number of flaws that you brush under the rug as if it were not a problem. So stop trumpeting farcical studies. There are no studies that are both longitudinal and fair that compare all the pertinent effects on children as children, as maturing adults, as adults, and as parents themselves. If there are any, then present them for review if you can.

Equal rights are not respected because the victims of prejudice show that they are not drains upon society, OtherCheek. If you want to deny someone equal rights, it's on you to show why that restriction is necessary. But you're manifestly unable to do that and tracking through this across multiple threads isn't churning up any new material.

It isn't about rights. That has been established. Homosexual advocates are simply jealous of the exclusive definition of a word. THAT is the issue here. If it were about real, actual rights and all, then those can be granted without destroying the definition of an ideal.

[Ansgar Seraph]

And I've read your abstracts and the one study that you actually did find that COULD be read (more than just an abstract), I DID read, in full. And that was more reading than a few short little articles. And the flaws of that study you presented were glaring. The study was not a double-blind study. Lesbian couples' children were hand picked, and the parents knew beforehand what the study was for, while heterosexual parented children were selected blindly from a previously conducted study. If you want to be truly fair, then either alert both sides beforehand that the purpose of the study is to prove which parenting structure is better for children, and let parents from both sides of the heated issue volunteer to prove their own side is superior, or do it double blind. That was just one of a number of flaws that you brush under the rug as if it were not a problem. So stop trumpeting farcical studies. There are no studies that are both longitudinal and fair that compare all the pertinent effects on children as children, as maturing adults, as adults, and as parents themselves. If there are any, then present them for review if you can.

How do you propose having a double-blind study where the adolescents and their parents have to be interviewed, OtherCheek? A double-blind study is where neither the subject nor the tester have any idea what prescription that particular subject is receiving — how do you propose doing that in a study where one has to ascertain a subject's psychosocial quality of life, based partially on interviews? Of course, none of the articles that you referenced in support of your position were double-blind, either. But you couldn't know that, not having read them!

Of course the studies' participants were "hand-picked" — both the group of same-sex and opposite-sex families were chosen to be representative of the national sample. If the same-sex parents were hand-picked to give superior results, why are the demographics virtually identical across the three groups? Here, you didn't even craft an objection that would be valid in a clinical study — you just saw that there was a selection mechanism and assumed that it must have been biased to stack the deck.

You can't read these studies and abstracts without bungling them; your inability to deal well with the evidence, however, is hardly a sufficient reason to stop pointing out that the evidence exists.

It isn't about rights. That has been established. Homosexual advocates are simply jealous of the exclusive definition of a word. THAT is the issue here. If it were about real, actual rights and all, then those can be granted without destroying the definition of an ideal.

It is about rights and that has been established across many threads now. You want the government to offer stratified access to marriage for no other reasons than sexual orientation. Marriage is a "fundamental right" according to SCOTUS and it's something that you would have the government continue to restrict from same-sex couples.

—Sam

[Nathan Poe]

No other qualifications other than "consenting" and "adults" Right?

Why not more than two? Would you not support that?

Between siblings? You would support that?

Between a father and his 21 year-old daughter? You would support that?

Among the many benefits of marriage are visitation rights in hospitals, inheritance rights in the event of death, end of life decisions (pull the plug or not, etc.), certain tax benefits, etc... My understanding is that these are the sort of benefits that gay couples are looking for in regards to marriage.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't marriage between siblings and the father and his 21-year old daughter be unnecessary and redundant, since they, by law, already possess these rights?

[rogue06]

Among the many benefits of marriage are visitation rights in hospitals, inheritance rights in the event of death, end of life decisions (pull the plug or not, etc.), certain tax benefits, etc... My understanding is that these are the sort of benefits that gay couples are looking for in regards to marriage.

From what I understand all these things are available to those involved in civil unions already.