I understand that that is the effect, but is that the reason people have kids? I honestly have a hard time believing that.
Well, first of all, I think you are confusing object and effect. I don’t think that most people have kids because they are trying to pass on their genetic heritage; the have kids because they want to have kids. And even if people do have that incentive, it is irrelevant to marriage - the institution of marriage existed long before Mendel or Watson and Crick.
Second of all, the individual’s desires in this matter are of no moment. The issue is whether society should recognize gay marriages. And society has absolutely no interest whatsoever in whether particular genetic heritages get passed on. Indeed, such an interest is specifically dismissed, both in law and in civic values, by our disgust at anything that smacks of eugenics.
Actually, the only one I address is the social value - the benefit to society of having children raised with the protections that marriage of their parents afford them. And I indeed agree that there is a strong social value in raising a child in wedlock. Whether that child was born (or conceived) in wedlock is of lesser importance, and always has been. Indeed, the traditional remedy to bastard children has been marriage - to “make an honest woman” out of the mother and to give the kids “a name.”
The religious sphere of marriage, while distinctly important in its own right, is irrelevant to whether civic society and the law should permit gay marriage. If it does so, religious organizations will still have the right to choose whether or not they will perform such marriages.
The contractual sphere of marriage is, I think, beyond the scope of this discussion. What should be the terms and benefits of marriage is an interesting issue, but this debate is about whether gay couples should be able to share in those terms and benefits, before we decide what those should be.
Sua
I truly am boggled by this. I didn’t think this was in the least contrivertible. Do we think that the drive to pass on ones genes only happens to lesser creatures? How saintly we are.
It’s funny, though. Perhaps it’s not fully articulated for most people – but if you work in a hospital, don’t try this: swap babies, and claim raising a kid is just as good as any other. The jury will buy that, I’m sure.
Well, here is precisely where you are causing this confusion. Humans have the same imperative to pass on their genes as lesser creatures, certainly. However, you wrote that the “primary object” was to pass on said genes. Both eris and I interpreted that to mean conscious intent, and we both disagree with that.
Sua
Ah, I see. No, you’re quite right. People are driven by their biological clocks – Have Kids! Have Kids! Have Kids! But the reason for that imperative is fundamentally a genetic one – just as we crave lunch, but we fundamentally need certain nutrients.
My bad on the poor formulation, I agree for most this is not conscious, but I’m standing by the primacy of genetic transfer over value raising. Consider this question: Would you rather father multiple children but raise none, or raise multiple children but father none? (No nephews, pets or other substitutes.)
It should be noted that I’m not Christian, AND I think gays should have all the rights ANYONE has. Someone else showed why the Old Testament condemned homosexuality, now I’ll quote the New Testament just to get this straightened out.
ROMANS 1:26-27 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. MEN COMMITTED INDECENT ACTS WITH OTHER MEN, AND RECEIVED IN THEMSELVES THE DUE PENALTY FOR THEIR PERVERSION.”
Like I said, I think gays should have all the rights in the world, but don’t tell me the Bible is against it. The other quote is in Leviticus, btw.
Iteki(actually): I’m so glad you found someone and are happy! That was a BEAUTIFUL story, and as an unmarried gal, I’m quite jealous!
The Bible may have that in it, but those words are not Jesus’. Where did Jesus himself condemn homosexuality? (HINT: Nowhere.)
Esprix
Mangetout; your comment on marrieds being only allowed the “missionary” position remidned me / theres a religion that condemns oral sex within marriage.
I can’t help but fidn that funny.
How would they ever know?
Its because its unnatural.
I really do not understand why some folks (and I do know lots of fundies who think so) that gay marriage will destroy society, much less hetero marriages.
Why?
I would think the more marriages the better!
Ah well.
But how is this ‘equal protection’? All this means is that gay people can marry people they would never want to marry, and can’t marry those they do want to marry.
All equal protection requires (to simplify) is that all peoples have the equal right under the law to marry - all persons may marry a member of the opposite sex. The fact that certain persons have no desire to exercise that right is irrelevant to whether the right equally exists for all persons.
And yeah, it makes no practical sense. But it does make legal sense.
Sua