That last bit is perhaps the biggest non sequitur I’ve seen on these boards in some time, and that’s saying something. Logically, your position demands that those who cannot have children should not be permitted to marry. The fact that it’s “accepted” that some people are in that position has no bearing on the matter.
Your arguments in this regard come across as unconvincing ad hoc attempts to escape when some untenable implication of your position is pointed out to you. The result is to leave your credibility in the same state as the plot arcs of The X-Files after several seasons of Chris Carter painting himself into corners and then breaking through walls.
You exceed again. But to point out what should be obvious, homosexual murderers, rapists, and child molesters should not be allowed to marry. See, perfectly fair. Perfectly consistent.
You’re assuming that when it comes to societal mores that a proposition need be true in all cases. More important, it is not my position that gays be denied the opportunity to marry solely due to their inability to procreate. If it were, you would be correct. But that is not my position. Rather, the correlation between the ability to procreate and people that have been married is been extremely high. So, naturally, the concept we have of marriage is tied to procreation. Not 100%. But the two are closely associated.
And they’ll still be closely associated when we have marriage equality. We are, after all, a minority. But more importantly, we’re a minority who has reproductive and adoptive options.
Agreed, but I’ll point out that you said “two adults”, not “a mother and a father” - because the fact is, two incomes are always better, and non-traditional familial arrangements including same-sex parenting or community parenting model (ie. a single parent with help from relatives/friends) also fit the bill here.
I wasn’t speaking of marriages which are childless as a result of infertility, though, as the intent to have children is still there and would meet your criteria. What I was speaking of, however, are marriages which are intentionally childless because the couple have opted to take measures not to get pregnant, or have gotten married past an age where they would be considered fertile.
My father and his second wife got married in their late 50s… but since she’s already a grandma and well past menopause, I guess they probably shouldn’t have been allowed to get hitched either, right?
And why the need to qualify an “openly open” marriage as a threat, as opposed to a “secretly open” marriage? Both violate the monogamy clause equally, since the fact that it’s happening behind closed doors doesn’t make it magically okay.
OK, so we get to the root of your claim, then - that marriage exists solely to provide children with a “pedigree” based on the assumption that they are the result of that monogamous union of a heterosexual couple. Gays are good enough to raise adopted kids, but until they can breed, marriage is off the table.
So again… what’s with the distinction between a marriage between same-sex partners who are incapable of having biological children as a result of their sexual preferences, as opposed to a marriage between a man and a woman who are incapable of having biological children as a result of other factors? And wouldn’t adultery (consensual or otherwise) be a problem so long as it’s kept behind closed doors?
I’d also point out that if this is the true purpose of marriage, then heterosexual couples have done a terrible job of preserving the sanctity of the institution all by ourselves.
There are stats floating around that indicate that 15% of men named on a child’s birth certificate are not the child’s biological factor… that’s not to far from other status that suggest that between 10%-20% of people will cheat on their spouse. Score one for Team Hetero, huh?
Sorry I missed this, AG, and I appreciate both the quality and tone of your post. If I had to chose between the two options you mention, I would have to choose to to remain against SSM. It’s not an easy choice. But my reasoning is that legalizing SSM is crossing a Rubicon of sorts. That (short-term legal maneuvering aside) there’s no turning back from that. Granting legal rights, on the other hand is more easy to fix and tweak. I also think that this, being a much more reasonable position, i.e., compromise, can actually be instituted. As much as I can put myself in someone else’s shoes, if I were gay I honestly believe this is what I would be pushing for. I’d be advocating legal language along the lines of:
“All rights and privileges afforded individuals and couples involved in a marriage and afforded by the existence of that marriage shall immediately and henceforth be extended to same-sex couples…”
I agree with all of this. Two people are better than one. It’s better yet if those two people are in a committed long-term relationship and not merely living together for a time. And having those two people in that committed relationship be a man and a woman is better still. An extended family or close close community (village) is a plus regardless.
I addressed this in my response to Steve MB.
If you meant legally, then you’re right. I thought you meant the public face of marriage. In which case if a marriage was secretly “open”, then people wouldn’t even know about it.
I don’t know where you get this from. The first part seems to come out of the blue for me. The last line is just semantic gamesmanship. Come on.
Again, I’m confused as to what you’re asking me. Can you clarify?
Not good stats, no. But what is your point? Are you arguing to do away with marriage?
You do realize that Rubicon is going to be crossed and you’re advocating delaying the inevitable (and just) outcome for the sake of quibbling over a word. Words change meaning over time and it does not harm society in any meaningful way, while denying people equal rights most definitely does. It seems so extremely petty to me to cling to this word while people in this country are experiencing discrimination that’s downright unAmerican. Yes, I said it-- it’s unAmerican to favor legislation to take away meaningful legal rights from law-abiding citizens whose only goal is the pursuit of happiness. It’s more important to give people equal rights than it is to preserve the illusory sanctity of a word, because I guarantee you that the institution itself will be unaffected, as heterosexuals have done as much harm to it as it could possibly receive.
The bigotry shown towards gays by denying them the right to marry will be looked back upon as shameful in the same way segregation is now looked on as shameful. Did the majority of people in Alabama want integration? No, and it’s a good thing their wishes were not respected in this matter. I hope the judicial system enforces the Constitution here over the objection of the retrograde, as it has in the past. Some things cannot be compromised on, including basic rights such as this one.
Want to protect the sanctity of marriage? Ban divorce, because marriage has traditionally meant a PERMANENT union between a man and a woman, hasn’t it? If we’re going to be literal about terminology. Yeah, I don’t hear any conservatives calling for THAT.
Criminalize adultery, too. And I’m not talking about a fine or grounds for divorce. I’m talking about prison time for both participants.
If we really want to go the whole “preserve marriage” route, the better path to it seems to be to try to discourage the things that actually ENDANGER marriage, rather than a minor redefinition that would only add couples to the list of “people who are enjoying the institution of marriage”.
And frankly, magellan01, I find the idea that you’re denying me and other LGBTetc. people equal marriage rights in an attempt to quibble over semantics to be very, very insulting. You apparently care more about a word than you do about other human beings.
It appears to me that (and not just from this), one of the more important factors you’re against calling gay marriage marriage (if not the most important) is that it erodes the traditional institution of marriage by stretching the definition that’s been known for many years. Would you say it was the case that the value of the institution in this case that you see comes from a mix of the many years it has been around along with the amount of people who have believed in it and supported it?
It may happen and I’ll live with it if it does. But I think it is a bad idea so I argue against it. should I act differently. I realize you don’t agree with my position, but shouldn’t I engage and hope to help steer the country in a direction I think is most beneficial? And I wouldn’t be so sure about the future. The article linked to above gives me hope.
The fact that you see hope in ignorance, bigotry and a mingling of church and state well beyond what it should be says all I ever need to know about you.
Look you can take this as personally as you want. But I don’t know you and harbor no ill feelings toward you. I see it as more beneficial to our society that there is a distinction reserved for the traditional concept of marriage. It’s as simple as that. Let me ask you a question: if I paid you one million dollars, could you give a good argument for my position?
No, I couldn’t. Because I don’t believe in argument by tradition. I don’t believe that something can only be one way forever because it’s been one way in the past. I don’t believe in your argument…it looks like smoke and mirrors to me.
Simply put, I find your argument to be all but nonexistent. Or, at the very least, completely irrelevant. Tradition is doing things the way dead people did them. I’m not a dead person. Life is change. I can’t even imagine how or why someone would tie themselves so tightly to “the way things have always been” that they would throw people they claim to otherwise support under the bus on this issue.
We’re looking at this from positions so far apart that neither one of us is ever going to see things the way the other one does. But as far as I’m concerned, I’m right and you’re wrong, because at least my position on it doesn’t deny anyone anything.