# Gay marriage - non-religious objections? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098 "2004-02-13T20:47:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/181 "2004-02-22T16:41:31Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Once again you’re wrong, **Wierd\_Al**. You’re arguing from the specific to the general and not making any type of rational arguement why the specific makeup of a singular relationship should affect the general understanding of the concept of legal marriage. > > Let’s ignore the topic of homosexuals getting married for a bit. Your reasoning still doesn’t hold up. Straight couples can and do marry even when they have no interest in having sexual relations - and this is especially true historically and places where arranged marriages are common. So sexual compatibility is not even an essential characteristic of legal marriage. > > It is totally irrelevant to the discussion whether I as an individual prefer a male partner or you as an individual would prefer a female partner. The things that make up a legal marriage in the general concept are independent of any particular relationship. That being the case, there is no logical reason for a ban on allowing same-sex couples to be legally married. > > For a legal marriage, right now, all it requires is for a man and woman to go fill out the paperwork and have a Justice of the Peace sign the papers. There are no questions about if they love each other. There are no questions about whether they’ll even live together. Only that they are of legal age, aren’t certain family relations and are citizens. Interesting. I count in your post three instances of the phrase “legal marriage”, and one variation of it. I’d be very interested to hear your response to the questions I put to **Joe Random** above, about the existence of marriage apart from the state sanctioning of it, or to my own replies to **TeaElle** below, on the same subject. **TeaElle** : We are clearly not on the same page here. We have strong…dare I say, _irreconcilable_ differences. But I will do what I can… > [@TeaElle](#): > > I deny that marriage in its legal form – which is the only form in discussion Here we have a necessary starting point. I deny quite strenuously that marriage in its legal form is the only form in discussion. The fact that marriage has an existence independent from the state sanctioning of it is in fact integral to the discussion. Perhaps I have not made this as clear as I should. If you disagree with me about this, then that is what we should be debating. > [@TeaElle](#): > > – is about sexuality in any way, shape or form. The presumption of sexual involvement between spouses certainly exists, but it has no bearing on the legality of a marriage in any fashion. That is…quite an extraordinary claim. Restricting ourselves for a moment to legal marriage…“no bearing”? But wait, there’s more… > [@TeaElle](#): > > For the umpteenth time, there is no requirement that a couple make any vow of any kind whatsoever in order for their marriage to be legal and valid. Whatever vows a couple may take together are incidental to whether or not they are married in the eyes of the law. Now it gets even more extraordinary. I submit to you a hypothetical: Let’s say I get married, using this no-frills approach…just signing some papers in the presence of a justice of the peace. In the course of time, I proceed to have an affair. My wife finds out. She sues for divorce. Not a no-fault divorce. Rather, she claims I am at fault, for having had an adulterous affair. I protest to the judge, saying I have broken no vow. There was none of that “forsaking all others” stuff, we didn’t specifically discuss sexual fidelity before we got married (assume this is true), and even if we had, there was no publicly recited _marriage vow_. So…what’s the problem? What do you think the judge would say to me? > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > 3-Some small percentage of people who get married don’t really love each other, either. Do we then conclude that love and marriage have nothing to do with each other? > > No, we conclude, because it is factually correct, that the emotional status of the participants in a marriage are irrelevant with regard to the legal status of said marriage. Again, staying strictly with legal marriage…another hypothetical: Same as above, except that instead of having an affair, I simply tell my wife that while I did once love her, by the time we got married I had fallen out of love with her, and she is citing fraud. Again, what would the judge say? > [@TeaElle](#): > > The marriage isn’t invalid in such cases because the couple didn’t have sex. The marriage is invalid because the couple says – or at least one half of the couple says – that the marriage was entered into without good faith, for one of any number of reasons which vary from state to state. I am very interested in hearing what these reasons might be, again assuming that there were no formal spoken vows, just the no-frills thing. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > 2- For the umpteenth time, I am not arguing that they “should be given separate status under the law”. Only seperate labels. Men and women have seperate labels, and are still treated equally under the law. > > The only reason why there should be separate labels for same-gender marriages and opposite-gender marriages is if the two are materially different in the law. Once again I dispute this, and see no reason why it should be considered so. I see no reason why the state cannot apply two different labels and at the same time treat the two things so labeled materially equally under the law. > [@TeaElle](#): > > What you are arguing is that a same-gender couple and an opposite-gender couple get blood tests, fill out an application, pay a fee, engage in whatever ceremony they wish (if any), sign a certificate, have witnesses sign a certificate and file that certificate with a state in different ways, That certainly is not what I am arguing. Where do you think I have argued this? > [@TeaElle](#): > > because that is the legal process of marriage, and that’s all that’s in debate here. Again, not true, not by a long shot. > [@TeaElle](#): > > We’re not talking about how couples relate to one another or behave with regard to one another or what their day to day lives are like, we’re simply talking about the legal means by which a couple becomes officially registered as having a marriage. So explain, please, what portion of that process is sufficiently different in a same-gender couple to merit a different title? Nothing about the “process” is, or need be, different, except, as I said earlier, checking one of two different boxes. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > I’m going to have to ask for a cite for this. Specifically the part about how “(t)he law demands no promises or vows”. I am aware that there may be no necessity for people to stand up and recite vows in a wedding ceremony in order to be married, but I don’t see how that has any bearing on the way that the state views the marriage contract it is bound to enforce. > > What part of it don’t you understand? You do not have to make any specific promises to be married. The only thing you have to do is meet the criteria of the state and affirmatively confirm – by your signature – that you do wish to be married to your partner. That’s not a vow, that’s not a promise. See my hypotheticals above. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > The word “friend” describes a person with whom you do not want, or do not necessarily want, an intimate, sexual relationship. You might find a particular friend attractive of course, but that is not a necessary precursor to that person being your friend. > > > > The words “spouse”, “husband”, “wife”, etc do typically describe a person with whom you have, or wish to have, an intimate sexual relationship. > > Typically. But that doesn’t change the fact that the word friend covers relationships regardless of gender as does the word spouse. You’re the one who put forth the assertion that when the genders of the players are different, then there must be different labels applied to relationships, but then you turn around and point out that even in the case of marriage, there is the word spouse which is gender neutral. So which is it? Are gender-specific labels a necessity or not? You seem to be imputing a position to me here that I have not taken. I can’t think of any word in the english language that is a _necessity_, that we couldn’t get along without if it were somehow abolished or redefined out of existence. That does not mean that it is not worth defending any particular one from attempts to expand its meaning by government fiat. If people feel they need a gender-specific word for “friend”, they’ll come up with one. And if they feel they can let the words “husband” and “wife” fall into disuse and just use “spouse”, they’ll do that too. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Oh no it did not. Unless you are prepared to argue that the law forbade any racial combination in it’s participants…white and asian, white and hispanic, etc. No, the law has always held that both participants in a marriage be human, and what changed was that black people came to be accepted as fully human under the law, when before they were not. Nothing about the nature of marriage itself was changed. > > You’re arguing strictly from ignorance here. You’re not even familiar enough with the timeline of racial equality in marriage for your attempt at a point to have the smllest shred of merit. > > Here’s a hint – the first antimiscegenation law on this continent was written in 1705 and the last was struck down by Supreme Court decision in 1967. Think about what that means and why your “what changed was that black people came to be accepted” as anything is a ridiculous commingling of two separate issues which have never coincided in any legal decision. Well. At the risk of having a full-blown hijack here…if what I have put forth is “ridiculous”, then I do look forward to you enlightening me, as I haven’t the foggiest idea what you are alluding to here, or what those two dates you cited have to do with the issue. > [@TeaElle](#): > > > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > > > Whether or not the change has already occured is another debate entirely. You think it has, I disagree. But even assuming you are right, what does it matter that the state fails to catch up to the populace on the matter of labeling as long as there is equality under the law between opposite-sex “marriage” and same-sex “civil unions”? > > Simply put, even if we ignore that separate but equal isn’t, Do you dispute that the state treats men and women seperately in some instances, without violating (at least legally) the principle of equality under the law? Do I really have to provide examples? > [@TeaElle](#): > > maintaining the division in the law maintains the division in the societal mindset and it is a division which is false, dangerous In saying that the division is false, you are simply asserting what you set out to prove in the first place. Simply saying it is so does not make it so. Furthermore, if marriage is strictly a creature of the law, then the law _defines_ this division, and so it clearly _is_ a true division, right now anyway, in 49 of 50 states. Of course, by talking about “societal mindset”, and about how the division is “false” irrespective of what the law says, you seem to be buying into the idea that marriage actually is more than just a creature of the state, which leaves me somewhat confused as to where you are coming from, exactly, after all your insistence that marriage in its legal form is the only form we are talking about. > [@TeaElle](#): > > and most importantly, has no reason for existing other than the continued placation of people who have yet to wrap their minds around the fact that their preferences or beliefs are not sufficient foundation for the law. I’m not sure what to make of this, either. Whose “preferences or beliefs” _are_ sufficient foundation for the law? ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/182 "2004-02-22T17:57:33Z")
> [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > Now it gets even more extraordinary. I submit to you a hypothetical: Let’s say I get married, using this no-frills approach…just signing some papers in the presence of a justice of the peace. In the course of time, I proceed to have an affair. My wife finds out. She sues for divorce. Not a no-fault divorce. Rather, she claims I am at fault, for having had an adulterous affair. I protest to the judge, saying I have broken no vow. There was none of that “forsaking all others” stuff, we didn’t specifically discuss sexual fidelity before we got married (assume this is true), and even if we had, there was no publicly recited _marriage vow_. So…what’s the problem? > > What do you think the judge would say to me? See my previous post about the non-role of fidelity in divorce proceedings. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/183 "2004-02-22T18:30:13Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > See my previous post about the non-role of fidelity in divorce proceedings. I don’t see what in your post was relevent, **KellyM**. Remember we are not talking about a no-fault divorce, or about the custody of any children. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/184 "2004-02-22T19:34:30Z")
> [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > I don’t see what in your post was relevent, **KellyM**. Remember we are not talking about a no-fault divorce, or about the custody of any children. What I clearly elaborated, and which you ignored, is that “fault” plays no role in determining property distribution in most states. **Nobody** files for divorce anymore on grounds other than the no-fault ground, because there is **no** reason to do so other than spite. Filing for a “fault” divorce only increases your costs by forcing the petitioner to prove fault, which is stupid when the exact same results can be had by filing a non-fault petition. So when you talk about divorces other than “non-fault” divorces, you are talking about a nearly extinct breed. Can we limit this discussion to the actual state of matrimonial law as it exists today, and not some false perception of it based on forty-year old movies and television shows? ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2004, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/185 "2004-02-22T23:28:40Z")
> [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > Interesting. I count in your post three instances of the phrase “legal marriage”, and one variation of it. I’d be very interested to hear your response to the questions I put to **Joe Random** above, about the existence of marriage apart from the state sanctioning of it, or to my own replies to **TeaElle** below, on the same subject. In short, I don’t care one whit about religious marriage. Only the legal aspects are at issue for equality. That being said, as I’ve repeatedly stated, the gender of the participants is irrelevant to the nature of the relationship in a general sense. Yes, **MrVisible** and the **Visihusband** are just as married as are my parents in the non-legal aspects. They should be allowed the same legal protections also. ---
**Author:** ![jkim78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@jkim78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jkim78)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/186 "2004-02-23T02:43:04Z")
As I recall, the OP wanted non-religious reasons for the banning of homo-sexual marriages. Right? And you’re all talking about the morals of the thing? You all sound like a pack of idiots to me. Especially the ones defending homo-sexual marriage. Firstly, I’d like to ask the reason for sex? Reproduction! NO OTHER REASON! You may THINK you have a different reason, but biologically, our bodies are made so that we want sex for the sole purpose of continuing the species. I’d say that one of you out there would argue that under this claim “No marriages and rampant orgies are good” then? I’d answer “who’s to say? that’s just from the differing personal values of the individual.” Is it moral? Is anything moral? Is moral scientific? Take those morals out and dump it in the toilet before making your arguements. Dont forget to flush… Next, I’ll ask why we need this institution known as marriage? Many reasons come to mind, all having to do with non-moral reasons. Actually, the biggest of these reasons has to do with sex. It limits who you can have sex with. Hence it also limits who you can have children with. It reduces the child custody problems that may arise in the case of unmarried or divorced couples with child. It helps somewhat identify the biological parents of the offspring. It also reduces the spread of STDs. Why do gays want to get married? Do they need to get married? NO. They aren’t going to get pregnant from their gay sex. They just want to get married to receive ‘benefits’. A purely financial reason. Nothing more. Gay marriages is justly banned because they cannot have biological children. That’s the only reason one needs to justify it. And I know your going to come back at me with ‘infertile couples’ and such… and I’m going to say try a little harder. Travel the world, and view ALL of human society, not just that little pond you call the States, and then tell me what marriage is. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/187 "2004-02-23T03:58:43Z")
> [@jkim78](#): > > As I recall, the OP wanted non-religious reasons for the banning of homo-sexual marriages. Right? And you’re all talking about the morals of the thing? You all sound like a pack of idiots to me. Especially the ones defending homo-sexual marriage. Welcome to the Straight Dope. I’m sure you’ll go far with us idiots. > [@](#): > > Firstly, I’d like to ask the reason for sex? Reproduction! NO OTHER REASON! I’m married. We have zero desire for children. Zero. We have sex. It is just as much fun (likely more) than the sex you have. > [@](#): > > You may THINK you have a different reason, but biologically, our bodies are made so that we want sex for the sole purpose of continuing the species. Marriage isn’t a biological term. If anything, this argument goes against fidelity and marriage. > [@](#): > > I’d say that one of you out there would argue that under this claim “No marriages and rampant orgies are good” then? I’d answer “who’s to say? that’s just from the differing personal values of the individual.” Is it moral? Is anything moral? Is moral scientific? Take those morals out and dump it in the toilet before making your arguements. Dont forget to flush… I have no clue what that was all about, so I’ll let you attempt to clarify it once you’ve finished flushing. > [@](#): > > Next, I’ll ask why we need this institution known as marriage? Many reasons come to mind, all having to do with non-moral reasons. Actually, the biggest of these reasons has to do with sex. It limits who you can have sex with. Wait a second, all reasons for marriage are not based on morality, but the biggest reason for marriage is to limit who you can have sex with? Sounds like a morality based reason for me. > [@](#): > > Hence it also limits who you can have children with. Not really. Monogamy limits who you can have children with, not marriage. Monogamy is definitely a moral issue. > [@](#): > > It reduces the child custody problems that may arise in the case of unmarried or divorced couples with child. Yes, it does. Sounds like one good reason to allow same sex couples to marry. After all, quite a few of them are raising children. > [@](#): > > It helps somewhat identify the biological parents of the offspring. While the doctor can immediately tell who the mother of the baby is, marriage is not in any way an indicator of who the father is. > [@](#): > > It also reduces the spread of STDs. Once again, you’re confusing marriage with monogamy. > [@](#): > > Why do gays want to get married? I’m going to guess for the exact same variety of reasons that straights want to get married. > [@](#): > > Do they need to get married? NO. Not any more than straights need to get married, but just as much. > [@](#): > > They aren’t going to get pregnant from their gay sex. My wife won’t get pregnant from our straight sex. I’ll stay married, thanks. > [@](#): > > They just want to get married to receive ‘benefits’. A purely financial reason. Nothing more. I get zero benefits out of being married. My wife is unemployed, so I support both of us. I’d be much better off financially if I were single. Once again, I’ll stay married, thanks. > [@](#): > > Gay marriages is justly banned because they cannot have biological children. That’s the only reason one needs to justify it. While it’s been beaten to death a million times before, since you’re new, I’ll say it again. This would rule out marriages for every woman past menopause, all couples who have no desire for children, all infertile people, and anyone who is not supposed to become pregnant for health reasons. > [@](#): > > And I know your going to come back at me with ‘infertile couples’ and such… and I’m going to say try a little harder. Travel the world, and view ALL of human society, not just that little pond you call the States, and then tell me what marriage is. “Try a little harder” is not a rebuttal, so feel free to come up with a valid one. I’ve likely seen more of the world than you have, and all that did was reinforce the fact that all people of all nationalities and sexual orientation are humans, and deserve the same opportunities as you and I. ---
**Author:** ![Lilairen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8491ac/32.png) [@Lilairen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lilairen)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/188 "2004-02-23T04:15:24Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > I’m married. We have zero desire for children. Zero. We have sex. It is just as much fun (likely more) than the sex you have. I believe one of the purposes for sexual activity in Judaism is strengthening the bonds of the couple. ;j (But there I go dragging -morals- into it again. Or at least religion.) > [@](#): > > Not really. Monogamy limits who you can have children with, not marriage. Monogamy is definitely a moral issue. Highly disputable. I’d call it an issue of preferences, myself, no more intrinsically a moral issue than a preference for chocolate ice cream. Keeping one’s promises or oaths is something I’d consider a moral issue. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/189 "2004-02-23T05:35:28Z")
> [@spectrum](#): > > Nor is a dog sentient. ``` :confused: ``` **sentient** 1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2 : aware 3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling You’ve never owned a dog, have you? ---
**Author:** ![jkim78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f17d59/32.png) [@jkim78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jkim78)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/190 "2004-02-23T06:10:45Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > I’ve likely seen more of the world than you have, and all that did was reinforce the fact that all people of all nationalities and sexual orientation are humans, and deserve the same opportunities as you and I. Yes you’ve been around the world more than me _note sarcasm_ and that’s why you think this way. How about we have arranged marriages for gay couples… just as we have arranged marriages for straight ones… but then you havent actually been around the world as much as you think you have, so you’d be against this one. > [@DMC](#): > > I’m married. We have zero desire for children. Zero. We have sex. It is just as much fun (likely more) than the sex you have. Then your just as much of a weirdo as those gays are. And YES they ARE weirdoes. For reason being that our genes WANT to propegate in the form of a child. > [@DMC](#): > > Marriage isn’t a biological term. If anything, this argument goes against fidelity and marriage. I was talking about sex not marriage at this stage… learn to read. And sex and all ‘feelings’ associated to it ARE infact biological. > [@DMC](#): > > I have no clue what that was all about, so I’ll let you attempt to clarify it once you’ve finished flushing. … > [@DMC](#): > > Wait a second, all reasons for marriage are not based on morality, but the biggest reason for marriage is to limit who you can have sex with? Sounds like a morality based reason for me. Limiting who you can have sex with is not a ‘moral’ thing. You may think it has but then you think gay marriages is justified… Limiting who you can have sex with leads to: 1. less probability of who you can have children with and hence child custody problems (bastard childs) 2. less probability of STD 3. higher probability of ‘controlled’ gene propegation 4. less probability of incest in future generations due to 1 and 3 (and incest is forbidden for non-moral reasons too, but that’s another story.) > [@DMC](#): > > Not really. Monogamy limits who you can have children with, not marriage. Monogamy is definitely a moral issue. Err… read my first paragraph of this post… and my next next paragraph. Also… get around more… atleast out of the USA. > [@DMC](#): > > Yes, it does. Sounds like one good reason to allow same sex couples to marry. After all, quite a few of them are raising children. By artificial insemination and such? … > [@DMC](#): > > While the doctor can immediately tell who the mother of the baby is, marriage is not in any way an indicator of who the father is. It’s supposed to… that’s why history is rife with 1m:1f or 1m:xf marriages but not xm:1f or xm:xf marriages. So that even without DNA testing, all parties concerned ‘know’ exactly who the parents are. > [@DMC](#): > > Once again, you’re confusing marriage with monogamy. Not confusing anything. > [@DMC](#): > > I’m going to guess for the exact same variety of reasons that straights want to get married. So that they can have sex, get pregnant and raise their biological child in their gay feetstep? > [@DMC](#): > > Not any more than straights need to get married, but just as much. No reason at all actually. > [@DMC](#): > > My wife won’t get pregnant from our straight sex. I’ll stay married, thanks. I really dont get why your married then… > [@DMC](#): > > I get zero benefits out of being married. My wife is unemployed, so I support both of us. I’d be much better off financially if I were single. Once again, I’ll stay married, thanks. You havent exactly been following this thread, have you? Re-read the entire thread before answering. > [@DMC](#): > > While it’s been beaten to death a million times before, since you’re new, I’ll say it again. This would rule out marriages for every woman past menopause, all couples who have no desire for children, all infertile people, and anyone who is not supposed to become pregnant for health reasons. So? Your point being? You ever thought that maybe they should be ruled out too? I’m not against ruling them out… ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/191 "2004-02-23T07:10:19Z")
> [@jkim78](#): > > So? Your point being? You ever thought that maybe they should be ruled out too? I’m not against ruling them out… Hm. It _appears_ that **jkim** is in favor of denying marriage certificates to all women past menopause, the infertile, couples that don’t want to bear children etc. Moreover, “ruling it out” would also imply _revoking_ marriage certificates from, among others, the elderly. Interesting. I guess that’s what happens when you require marriage to be synonymous with reproduction instead of love. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/192 "2004-02-23T11:45:22Z")
> [@KellyM](#): > > What I clearly elaborated, and which you ignored, is that “fault” plays no role in determining property distribution in most states. Well then, we can just place the hypohetical in a state where it does. > [@KellyM](#): > > **Nobody** files for divorce anymore on grounds other than the no-fault ground, because there is **no** reason to do so other than spite. We can say she’s spiteful too. Heaven knows she has a right to be, I did cheat on her. > [@KellyM](#): > > Filing for a “fault” divorce only increases your costs by forcing the petitioner to prove fault, which is stupid when the exact same results can be had by filing a non-fault petition. Ooo-kay, we’ll say she’s stupid, too. She did marry me, after all. Perhaps I should have used a hypothetical person for my hypothetical. I’m not coming out of this looking too good… > [@KellyM](#): > > So when you talk about divorces other than “non-fault” divorces, you are talking about a nearly extinct breed. Now you contradict yourself…first “nobody” does it, now it’s “nearly” extinct. > [@KellyM](#): > > Can we limit this discussion to the actual state of matrimonial law as it exists today, and not some false perception of it based on forty-year old movies and television shows? Well actually, this whole thing is a bit of a sidetrack. At this point I’m more interested in what people think of marriage as something existing independantly of the law. But, while we are on the subject of the law, perhaps you can tell me, I didn’t think of it earlier…how many states still have actual laws on the books making adultery a crime? I’m not asking about enforcement, mind you, I’m sure they are seldom enforced. I just want to know where they are still on the books. > [@Homebrew](#): > > In short, I don’t care one whit about religious marriage. I wasn’t asking about religious marriage. In fact I’ve never raised the subject of religion in this thread > [@Homebrew](#): > > Only the legal aspects are at issue for equality. That being said, as I’ve repeatedly stated, the gender of the participants is irrelevant to the nature of the relationship in a general sense. Indeed. And I’ve repeatedly stated that it is relevent. Clearly, we disagree. > [@Homebrew](#): > > Yes, **MrVisible** and the **Visihusband** are just as married as are my parents in the non-legal aspects. They should be allowed the same legal protections also. I’ve also repeatedly stated that I don’t have a problem with them having those legal protections. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/193 "2004-02-23T15:02:32Z")
> [@Wierd\_Al](#): > > Indeed. And I’ve repeatedly stated that it is relevent. Clearly, we disagree. But I’ve given you reason I think it is irrelevant to the question of marriage in general. You’ve given nothing as to why you think it’s relevant except to say you don’t want to marry a man. The genders of the people involved in a relationship is relevant ONLY to the people involved. It makes no difference to the nature of the relationship. > [@](#): > > I’ve also repeatedly stated that I don’t have a problem with them having those legal protections. The easiest and most reliable way to get those protections and benefits is to allow legal same-sex marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Robbbbb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9a140/32.png) [@Robbbbb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robbbbb)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/194 "2004-02-23T17:52:47Z")
> [@jkim78](#): > > Yes you’ve been around the world more than me _note sarcasm_ and that’s why you think this way. How about we have arranged marriages for gay couples… just as we have arranged marriages for straight ones… but then you havent actually been around the world as much as you think you have, so you’d be against this one. I don’t know if I’m as well-travelled as you, but I can tell you: 1. I’ve been to countries where gay marriage is legal and accepted. In fact, I have a good friend in the Netherlands who is marrying his same-sex fiance in a couple of months. So by your arguments, if you’d been to the Netherlands, you’d support gay marriage? 2. I’ve been to countries where a man having multiple wives is legal and accepted. So much for monogamy. 3. I’ve been to countries where AIDS (I’m assuming that was the STD you were referring to) is common among the entire population… where 1 out of every 4 men, women and children have HIV. Mostly straight people, by the way. 4. While I don’t think I’ve been anywhere where arranged marriages are commonplace, I also don’t think they’re a good thing, and neither does a majority of the population of the United States. So if you’re trying to argue that we should be doing things the way they’re done in whatever country you’re talking about, I think you’re going to lose a lot of your audience. In most of the world, people get married because they love each other. Heh, just rereading your previous posts, I noticed the word “love” doesn’t appear in any of them. While love may not be important in your marriage, I can tell you that it is important in most around here. And a same-sex couple can love each other just as much as an opposite-sex couple. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2004, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/195 "2004-02-23T18:09:20Z")
**Weird\_AL\_Einstein** , Sorry for the delayed reply. > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > I’ve actually said that more than once. You’ve never specifically agreed or disagreed, but the statements I quoted from you above lead me to think that you disagree. Rather, you seem to think that the only thing that actually makes a marriage is a marriage license issued by the state, and that all a marriage really is is a piece of paper issued to two people entitling them to certain priviliges and benefits. Is that accurate? I believe that the pairing off of individuals is an actual phenomenon that exists, However, what we call “marriage” these is more of a legal and social contract. It’s true that a couple can love each other, pair up, have children, remain faithful and all that good stuff. But do you think that society (well, Western society, since that’s what I’m familiar with) would consider them married? Of course there would be some people who would consider them married, but I’d wager that the majority of people would instead keep asking them, “So, when are you two going to get married?” > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > Consider Britney and Jason and their 55 hour wonder in Las Vegas. It’s brought up a lot in gay marriage threads. Where they, in fact, married? You might say that’s a stupid question, they had a marriage license, duly issued by the State of Nevada. Of _course_ they were married. But when I say “married” here I am referring to my own conception of marriage as something that exists independantly of the state sanctioning it. In _that_ sense, were they married? Or do you not agree that marriage has such an existence? In that sense, they _weren’t_ married. In the legal sense, they were. I don’t deny that marriage somewhat exists in the sense you are referring to, but I feel that that sense has taken a backseat to the legal sense in modern times. > [@jkim78](#): > > Firstly, I’d like to ask the reason for sex? Reproduction! NO OTHER REASON! You may THINK you have a different reason, but biologically, our bodies are made so that we want sex for the sole purpose of continuing the species. Incorrect. The fact that wanting sex leads to reproduction is the reason that wanting sex was a genetic trait that was selected for. However, there is no “reason” or “purpose” for wanting sex, other than the fact that our ancestors who _didn’t_ want sex tended not to pass on their genes. > [@jkim78](#): > > Why do gays want to get married? Do they need to get married? NO. They aren’t going to get pregnant from their gay sex. An infertile heterosexual couple isn’t going to get pregnant from their strait sex, either. Do you agree that infertile heterosexual couples should not be allowed to marry? > [@jkim78](#): > > They just want to get married to receive ‘benefits’. A purely financial reason. Nothing more. First of all, not all benefits of marriage are financial in nature. Second of all, I would wager that many (most?) gays want to get married because they want their relationships to be viewed as being just as legitimate as any strait relationship. Third of all, so what if a gay couple _is_ only interested in the benefits? Can you say that no straight couples get married solely for the benefits? > [@jkim78](#): > > And I know your going to come back at me with ‘infertile couples’ and such… and I’m going to say try a little harder. Travel the world, and view ALL of human society, not just that little pond you call the States, and then tell me what marriage is. What does traveling the world have to do with this? You claim that gay marriage is unnecessary because they cannot have children. I point out that infertile couples, being also incapable of having children, should likewise not be allowed to marry. Looking at society in other nations is irrelevant to this point, because it is a point of pure logic. You are stating that the inability to have children is a valid basis for disallowing marriage, yet you are not advocating that _all_ infertile couples be disallowed from marrying. Thus you are committing the logical fallacy of Special Pleading. > [@jkim78](#): > > Then [**DMC** is] just as much of a weirdo as those gays are [for not wanting children]. And YES they ARE weirdoes. For reason being that our genes WANT to propegate in the form of a child. Our genes don’t “want” anything at all. Genes are not anthropomorphic. They don’t have wants or desires. It just so happens that evolution has tended to select for genes that code for a biological urge to procreate. But not everyone wants children, and there’s nothing particularly odd about that. > [@jkim78](#): > > > [@DMC](#): > > > > Yes, it does. Sounds like one good reason to allow same sex couples to marry. After all, quite a few of them are raising children. > > By artificial insemination and such? Or by sexual relationships with a member of the opposite sex in the past. Or by adoption. It’s not like it really matters where the child came from. What matters is that the people now raising it are being denied the benefits of an institution which _you_ claim exists for the benefit of children. > [@jkim78](#): > > > [@DMC](#): > > > > My wife won’t get pregnant from our straight sex. I’ll stay married, thanks. > > I really dont get why your married then… Maybe because he loves his wife and wants to spend the rest of his life with her and wants society to acknowledge that fact? > [@jkim78](#): > > > [@DMC](#): > > > > While it’s been beaten to death a million times before, since you’re new, I’ll say it again. This would rule out marriages for every woman past menopause, all couples who have no desire for children, all infertile people, and anyone who is not supposed to become pregnant for health reasons. > > So? Your point being? You ever thought that maybe they should be ruled out too? I’m not against ruling them out… That’s not enough. To be logically consistent, you must be _for_ ruling them out. Otherwise, you are placing more emphasis on the sexes of the couples than on your supposed reason to deny them marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/196 "2004-02-25T14:01:19Z")
> [@Joe Random](#): > > I don’t deny that marriage somewhat exists in the sense you are referring to, Well, that’s something. From one person, at least. What I’m thinking now is that I need to start a thread along the lines of “What exactly is marriage, anyway?” in order to lay the foundation for what I’m trying to say here. Having looked through some of what’s been posted on this board, though, escpecially since the announcement about the amendment, I do have to wonder whether very many people here really want to engage in a polite and reasonable discussion, rather than the dance of 10 “Gays are sexual deviants and abominations before God!” 20 “Shut up you hateful bigoted homophobe!” 30-90 (Some variation of 20) 100 goto line 10 etc etc. Have you ever sat at a table and tried to talk in a normal, conversational tone of voice when everyone else is shouting? ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/197 "2004-02-25T15:06:27Z")
> [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > At this point I’m more interested in what people think of marriage as something existing independantly of the law. But this debate is entirely over the interface between the cultural institution of marriage and the law. Seems kinda pointless to ignore the law. > [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](#): > > But, while we are on the subject of the law, perhaps you can tell me, I didn’t think of it earlier…how many states still have actual laws on the books making adultery a crime? I’m not asking about enforcement, mind you, I’m sure they are seldom enforced. I just want to know where they are still on the books. About fifteen, as I recall. Enforced? None. A judge in Oregon tried to enforce the law there against fornication and was all but shot from the bench by the backlash. The simple fact is that, as a culture and with some notable exceptions (mainly, Utah), we have decided that breaches of the (implied) promise of fidelity in marriage are not worthy of either civil or criminal sanction. That promise, even when it is made, is of no real legal significance, and there is no legal obligation to abide by it. ---
**Author:** ![Seven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Seven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seven)\ **Post date:** [February 26, 2004, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098/198 "2004-02-26T08:29:32Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > And you can have sex without being married. You’re not making sense. > > So your list for a marriage is > [ol] > [li]Sex[/li][li]???[/li][/ol] I think that should read: [ol] [li]Sex[/li][li]???[/li][li]Profit![/li][/ol] _ducks_ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gay-marriage-non-religious-objections/229098.md?page=9)