Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

clark · 2004-09-21 08:56:23

Ah, how I do love the ever inventive monikers that Cindy takes great pains to assign me. I thank you from the bottom of my heart and hope to hear from you at your convenience. It is always a sweet pleasure to have your attention. Many thanks.

Now, with that mundane task aside, let us continue on with the discussion at hand, but please, all, feel free to diverge as often as you like, as Cindy here has done.

Cobra, you say that the choice offered to gay men is equal, they are free to marry a woman just like you or I. It is their choice not to. On a certain base level, I agree. If the only choice was simply to marry the opposite gender, and that choice was available to all, then it would indeed be equal.

So let me try another option, as it is now, we are not allowed the choice to marry whom we wish. We must choose from a proscribed list of acceptable choices. A or B, but no option ever of C.

As a heterosexual male, I would be unable to marry another man if the desire ever overtook me. It is a choice denied me, a free man, for no other reason than others would not have me have that choice. I ask you why? What danger is there in me, or any other, in uniting in holy matrimony with another of my choosing?

We could even say that women are forced to choose a man to marry, and men forced to choose a woman to marry- but never do either gender have the same right to choose as the opposite gender. In the battle of the sexes we have come so far, but look now how we still retain the last vestiges of this double-standard. One law for men, one for women.

How is there equality between men and women when neither gender is allowed to make the same type of choice as the opposing gender?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-21 09:03:03

Which goes back to the prime underlying reason for marriage, the raising of children in a stable environment. Every reason that is ever given for homosexual marriages pertain to things that don't require marriage.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, that's the definition. "Gay marriage" is a corruption of the term because it cannot ever encompass the core of what marriage is.

clark · 2004-09-21 09:16:07

The prime underlying rationale for marriage is the creation of a stable environment for the rearing of children?

Says whom?

If this were the case, then shouldn't children be a prerequisite prior to the marriage of two individuals? Wouldn't this also require tha any and all marriages that do not produce offspring be null and voided, seeing as it does not meet the prime underlying rationale of it's exsistence? If this were the case, wouldn't some refrence, however slight, be mentioned somehwere in the wedding vows which traditionaly act as the basis of a verbal contract between two individuals who choose to share their lives?

At no point is anyone declaring that they promise to make the other one fat with babies.

If this were the case, wouldn't all marriages that actively, or through no fault of their own, that do not fufill their obligation of child rearing be an abomination and should be met with scorn or disolution of the marriage? (Cindy, your thoughts on the matter?)

You say marriage is about raising kids. I say it's about loving another individual and promising to build a shared life together, in whatever way suits you both. Many choose children to build and cement that life together, many others choose different, but just a valid paths to the same end.

Go reread your vows. There ain't nothin about some snot nosed brat in there.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-21 09:28:56

You say marriage is about raising kids. I say it's about loving another individual and promising to build a shared life together, in whatever way suits you both.

But you don't need marriage for that, and that's the point.

Again, marriage exists as a social institution in order to bind a couple together so that they can raise their offspring. This is not to say that people get married for this express purpose.

Digging up an old comparison: Many people join the Army to get money for college. Armies exist to kill people and destroy things. Focusing on 'getting people into college' at the expense of 'killing and destroying' is contrary to the purpose of the institution in question.

"Gay marriage" is essentially saying that "armies exist to send people to college," it corrupts the foundation of the institution by severing it from its underlying reason for being.

Again, if homosexuals can't possibly have children they don't need marriage. Unless this is all really about homosexual adoption in which case we have some meatier issues to attend to and some valid objections.

clark · 2004-09-21 09:36:37

So if homosexuals can have children of their own, without adoption, then they would have a need for the instution of marriage?

The problem is greater for homosexual men, being that they would need a surogate mother to carry their seed to term, but it is less so for female homosexuals. They just need a willing donor, and there are banks...

Seeing that science has now developed to the point where homosexuals can produce their own biological offspring, I would surmise that you would agree they now have a need for the instution of marriage. It, afterall, meets your own criteria.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-21 09:42:09

Seeing that science has now developed to the point where homosexuals can produce their own biological offspring, I would surmise that you would agree they now have a need for the instution of marriage. It, afterall, meets your own criteria.

With the help of numerous other people in an effort to bypass the natural functioning of the human species, and still you do not have the biologic offspring of both "parents." Are they all in this hypothetical "marriage" you speak of?

clark · 2004-09-21 09:47:26

The courts have long ruled that biology is not the sole determinit in a childs patronage. Many heterosexuals use the same means to produce offspring when they are naturally, for one reason or another, unable to. We don't hold them to the standard that they must include these surrogates within the family unit, so I fail to see your point.

Many people take a hand in the arrival of any offspring, be it a doctor, breathing coaches, surrogates, grandparents, interested well wishers, family, etc. etc.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-21 11:00:55

Hmm... Marriage laws came about as a means for the state to take over a role previously filled by religion. Religion is already scurrying to catch up to modern reproductive technology. Maybe it's time for the law to do so as well?

Incidentally, the comment was made that two (or more) people in a committed relationship don't need marriage to maintain that relationship. I disagree on one point: they don't need the legal status of marriage. Quakers, the Amish, old-school mormons and other groups get married without benefit of the law all the time.

clark · 2004-09-21 12:00:34

Which is why ultimetly that the law must conceed to this point, it must be available to all who seek it, and all who are imposed upon by it.

I agree, no one really needs the benefit of a government sanctioned marriage if all they seek is to affirm their devotion to one another. The only people that matter in such regards are the two individuals who make that commitement.

However, there are those who wish to seek the legal protections and rights accorded those who do attain a government sanctioned marriage, and I see no reasonable argument to deny these individuals due access to such legal protections which are given to any other two individuals who happen to be of opposing genders.

Gay couples can readily procreate and there is little we can do about it, thanks to modern science. Gay couples can often find ways to adopt as well, and there is little we can do about it. Gay couples can form unions between one another, dedicate their lives to one another, and their familes (if they choose), all without the benefit of a marriage liscence stamped by some clerk.

They can live as married couples in action, but not in name, and I fail to see why we need to make a stint about letting them call their union whatever they want. It dosen't diminish us one iota, and it takes nothing from us.

A duck is a duck, so call it what it is. But I'm sure my esteemed colleagues here will continue to hammer away, declaring that the duck does not quack. :laugh:

C M Edwards · 2004-09-21 13:50:57

Which is why ultimetly that the law must conceed to this point, it must be available to all who seek it, and all who are imposed upon by it.

The law need concede to homosexual marriage no more than it need concede to polygamy, but it sure does need to make a decision if the county clerks of court want to keep receiving regular marriage license fees.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-21 15:19:25

Gay couples can readily procreate and there is little we can do about it, thanks to modern science.

And two people who've never met can produce their biological offspring and billionaires can clone themselves. Which if we follow your reasoning here implies not that marriage should be expanded but that it's obsolete and should be scrapped as a legal concept which is precisely what my position has been.

It looks like we might have agreement here.

tweak the tax code (which I'm up for anyway), let the market figure out insurance issues and send the divorce lawyers off to the unemployment line. Everyone gets the same deal and we get government out of the bedroom, oh happy day!

John Creighton · 2004-09-21 15:56:20

So, we get rid of marriage and if people want to form a partnership they sign some common law partnership? Why not.....although.....I think more people would rather include homosexuals then give up on the institution completely.

clark · 2004-09-22 05:57:30

It's not my reasoning Cobra, it's your very own.

You stated that, "if homosexuals can't possibly have children they don't need marriage."

Yet homosexuals can possibly have children, therefore they meet your basic requirement for the neccissity of marriage. :laugh:

See guys, even Cobra agrees with me. I can part the waters.

C M Edwards · 2004-09-22 13:54:21

I like that part about sending divorce lawyers to the unemployment line!

An institution is not automatically outdated just because 1% of its membership deviates from the norm. (No, nor even 10%.) However, if its membership plummets and suddenly develops a 50% turnover, then it's time for a change. IMHO, the increased divorce rate is a much more pressing reason to change the institution of marriage than the threat of legally recognizing homosexual relationships.

The decline and watering down of the institution of marriage does seem to be a real threat to our social structure. But recognizing homosexuals will be a flash in the pan compared to the no-fault divorce.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-09-21 08:56:23

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#52 2004-09-21 09:03:03

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#53 2004-09-21 09:16:07

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#54 2004-09-21 09:28:56

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#55 2004-09-21 09:36:37

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#56 2004-09-21 09:42:09

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#57 2004-09-21 09:47:26

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#58 2004-09-21 11:00:55

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#59 2004-09-21 12:00:34

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#60 2004-09-21 13:50:57

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#61 2004-09-21 15:19:25

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#62 2004-09-21 15:56:20

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#63 2004-09-22 05:57:30

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

#64 2004-09-22 13:54:21

Re: Same-Sex "Marriage" - Carried over from the old 'Kerry' thread

Board footer