Not on the basis of sexual orientation on the basis of sex. I don’t want two straight men or women to be married and don’t care if a gay man marries a lesbian. I can understand why they would not want to, but that is beside the point.
Would it be okay with you if two straight men or women got married?
Once a concept with a purpose is defined, can it only be used for that specific purpose?
Not that I recognize this “purpose” argument as anything but nonsense, but I’m curious if original voting laws that had the “purpose” of letting white land-owning males express their preference in electing officials lost that purpose when women, non-whites and non-landowners were allowed to vote, too.
For that matter, if a current speeding law’s “purpose” is to limit the movement of vehicles in school zones to 25 miles per hour, is the purpose lost if that number is changed to 20mph or 30 mph? How rigidly are we to cling to purposes, once defined?
The original purposes of marriage had more to do with property and inheritance and preserving bloodlines and making sure your children were your own (if you were a man) than “a stable environment for children.” Marriage is a human institution and it’s evolved a great deal. It’s preposterous to act as if it had always been one thing until the last couple of decades.
Hey, no one asked for *good *arguments, just ones not specifically based on faith.
Sure. Whether or not they have or are interested in sex with each other is not my concern. I gather some marriage laws have language regarding “consummation”, but I’m curious if this will exclude paralysis victims or the elderly or any other couple who cannot have (or is disinterested in) sexual relations.
You are drawing a very strange distinction - why do you care if a married couple has two penises or two vaginae? Why should the state care?
Well, in that case, we should oppose gay marriage because gay marriage causes leprosy.
I read that somewhere.
As the paper itself points out, the decline is probably due to the fact that gays are less likely to feel pressured into entering a heterosexual marriage, and then bringing the children from that marriage into their subsequent homosexual relationships.
I’m also attracted to lesbians (granted, just the ‘cute’ ones), and I’m very comfortable in a (my) man’s body. 
D&R
You say that like you think they’re two different things.
The purpose of restricting voting was to maintain good government. Expanding the franchise actually served that purpose. How does changing the defintion of marriage help the purpose of marriage.?
The definition of marriage has been changing and what has been the result? Fewer children raised in intact families. Currently about one third of all children are not living with both parents. Children who grow up in intact families are more likely to attend college, less likely to be physically and sexually abused, less likely to break the law, and less likely to be teen parents.
If changing the speed limit from 25mph to 30 mph was causing unsafe outcomes, would the solution be to raise it to 35 mph or to try to get it back to 25 mph?
Lookat this report by Pew about the changing nature of marriage and the family. Fewer people getting married and more people having kids out of wedlock. More emphasis on love and personal fulfillment and less on having kids and staying together.
They restricted voting to maintain good government which was actually served by expanding voting? So their act was completely opposite of the purpose.
By the same token, restricting marriage to heterosexuals is opposite of the purpose of ensuring children grow up in married households.
Note: Your identified “purpose” of marriage is ahistorical, but heck, I’ll work with it.
How does limiting the number of people who can get married reduce the number of kids born out of wedlock? Seems like it would have the opposite effect, to me.
There have been responses to this already, but I’d like to, well, nitpick is probably the best description. I’d say it’s more accurate to say that the purpose of marriage is to protect family finances. [Marley23 got in ahead of me.] And that those finances were traditionally controlled by men.
I think that the old, original purpose of marriage included: taking care of women, when women were not employed outside the house and had other social restrictions; producing or adopting children to support one in one’s old age, which sometimes included forbidding one or more children from marrying in order to look after you; and identifying who (which man) was responsible for paying for children when they were young and unproductive, including social and legal sanctions against unsupported children (bastards) and the women associated with them.
Marriage did provide an environment to corral children into, but it was as much to protect society, financially, from uncontrolled children as to help children out. Oh, and as late as the 1700s 40% or more children died before reaching adulthood. And not all who reached adulthood would or could reproduce. So it was necessary to give fertile women a sheltered place to crank out the ten to eighteen children needed to keep a population going. It was also necessary to staple the children into both sides of the family in case Mother died in childbirth. You can’t keep the family finances whole if you end up with no heir.
Traditionally, if you wanted a wife, you asked her father. You negotiated with him. Sometimes you paid him. Sometimes you, or your father, negotiated a dowery to be turned over to you. Those pesky emotions have never been absent from the process, though. Sometimes they drove choices and sometimes they caused trouble in what was supposed to be a stable plan. Darn those emotions.
If you’re lobbying for keeping emotions out of marriage, then you’re going to be out of luck. That ship has sailed. There may still be people who marry because they want to go into the baby making business and think they found a sound candidate for a partner, but nobody will admit to that. Everyone will say that they’re in love.
What has destabilized or, rather, changed marriage?
- Working for wages instead of going into the family business (which has historically been farming).
- Prosperity (which allowed the nuclear family to become the norm).
- Improvements in medical practices and public hygene.
- Birth Control.
- An increase in jobs requiring little physical labor.
- Labor saving devices and products for the home (remember baking day? washing day? ironing day?)
- Mobility (I was born in southern CA. I live in northern CA, while my sisters live in NY and LA. My kids aren’t as spread out, but none live in the same city.)
- Divorce reform.
- Women working outside the home.
There’s more. The point is that marriage between heterosexual people has become so much like what you’re describing as gay marriage that forbidding anyone to share it just sounds needlessly exclusionary. We’re no longer protecting the family farm (the two older boys can marry, because we need new blood to keep us going, but the three younger ones can’t, because we don’t have the room or the crops and young Nelly can’t because she’s the only one who can get Grandpa and old Aunt Nelly to eat . . .), we’re creating smaller financial units (marriages) that depend more on wages than on collected family wealth/resources.
One destabilizing factor is, I believe, less likely to pertain to gay marriages. I’d guess that fewer gay marriages are rushed into because they got knocked up. That’s a big destabilizing factor, there.
I can’t think why they would, but, apart from that, I can’t think why they shouldn’t.
Nonsense. That is the case with laws, but with behavior, and for that matter with institutions, a great deal of it just happens.
We don’t test people’s sexual orientation before they get married.
For the heck of it, can anyone explain how the 19th amendment was crucial to the continued existence of good government in the U.S.? Puddleglum is partly basing his conclusions on the assumption that it was (and thus suffrage is good, gay marriage is not).
I thought all sexually transmitted diseases were tested for.
Stoic philosophy – or any pre-scientific school, really – is irrelevant here.
Straight people can have government recognized marriages without having children, and gay people can have children. Enough already about thinking of the children.
The government has already changed the definition of marriage from being between a man and woman of the same race to between a man and woman. The whole country did not fall apart then.
It amazes me that some people who think gay adoption is child abuse because “a child needs a mother and father” also think it’s okay for a single woman to give birth and keep the child. If a child needs a mother and father, isn’t single parenthood child abuse?