then why not apply the same rights to same sex partners who want to adopt? they are still trying to provide a stable environment for a family?
You mention benefits, but Marriage benefits are the same for hetro couples who don’t have children as they are for hetero couples who do.
Honestly, people, get a fuckin’ grip. If your child is smart enough to grasp concepts such as language, math, and gym, then she’s probably smart enough to grasp the concept of James and Clarence being married. It ain’t rocket science. On the other hand, if your child is not this smart, perhaps gay marriage is not your biggest problem.
Redefining marriage to be about children? Passing a constitutional amendment? Wishing to do away with marriage altogther? Threatening the life of a mayor? Honestly, some people will go to amazing lengths to prevent something that I’d expect any child to be able to handle.
Yeah, first cousins can marry in VT, too.
It’s really funny, that in all my years growing up and even now, the first time that I heard the “marriage is for making babies” thing said by anything other than a very strict religious fundamentalist (I’m not even sure what religion she was from) was last year.
If it is supposed to be some sort of ingrained thing, it must have skipped me.
My sister is planning on getting married soon, and if she has another kid, then great. If not, that’s okay too. I was brought up to look on it as a… a sort of blessed numbers game, I guess. If it happend, that was wonderful. If not, it’s not like you didn’t have fun trying.
Or not trying, as the case may be, of course.
The simple fact is millions of children, including our very own Seven, were able to figure out what two men being in love meant without their brains exploding. Indeed, children seem to accept it better than adults.
So, as Jesus said, be like the little child.
I’m not saying that married couples should be forced to have children. But without the inconvenient fact of little kids running around, the government would have no interest in marriage at all.
And relevant to this discussion is this article Deep-rooted myth of cousin marriage based on poor research that appeared today in my local newspaper.
Nitpick: Matt Ridley in The Red Queen argues that humans are (and have always been) monogamous but adulturous - they have marriages but cheat on each other (like now), or have polygamous societies where men have harems, but still one main ‘wife’ whose kids get all the status (like a remarkably large number of societies in the past).
Thus I would argue that the woman has always been deemed to belong to one and only one man (either her husband (or ‘harem-master’) or her father), but men have never had those limitations.
Agree that marriage is about property. Ridley argues that for wealthy families (who were generally the ones to make rules about marriage) it was a way to hang on to their wealth: if my son is going to get all my stuff when I die, I had better make sure he doesn’t share it with just anyone, one wife will do. (Note this doesn’t preclude harems, where he shares his reproductive products but not social status or wealth.) Interestingly, many families have encouraged marriage between first cousins or other close relatives in order to concentrate the family’s wealth. [On preview: great article, Spiff!]
Ridley also discusses possible evolutionary pressure in favour of homosexuals - why the gene (if there is one) would persist in the population. Very interesting.
The Savage Love letter seems to think that making a zygote is the same as making a person, but come on. To make a proper person takes many years of love, attention, resource investment, patience, and self-sacrifice. (Assuming that the goal here is a happy, contributing member of society, or at least the sort of hermit that doesn’t mail bombs.) Can even the most aggressive of anti-gay-marriage advocates deny that there are kids growing up in America without families? The foster care system is overwhelmed. To start a person takes boy bits and girl bits, generally. But to raise them takes heart and mind, and that’s not exclusive to any orientation.
As long as some heterosexual couples are getting rid of kids they can’t manage, it seems fair and even advantageous for gay couples to raise these kids. They are a vital part of the baby-raising industry!
Remember the good old days when women were property? And of course the more recent good old days when people of different races could not marry.
If marriage is the bedrock of our society, then we are built on a swamp.
No, even without kids the government would still be involved, as it has an interest in division/inheritence of property and in knowing who should be considered legal next-of-kin. One major benefit of marriage is that it settles those issues with one simple stroke of a pen.
Marriage is about WAY more than kids. Any two idiots with functional reproductive systems can manage that.
Marriage is about WAY more than love. I have known people who loved each other terribly, but couldn’t stand to be in the same house more than three days running.
Let us agree, though, for the time being, that the reason the government is interested in marriage is to provide stable nesting environments for childrearing.
…and this lets out the faygelahs how? True, gay people cannot reproduce. Oh, wait, yes they can. They have the necessary equipment. All they need is samples of someone else’s genetic material, and a cooperative hostmother (and not even that if the gays in question are female).
So… why do we let the faggots reproduce? Shouldn’t we just exterminate them all, for, like, being a threat to our society, and all that?
But no. We let them live, and we cannot stop them from reproducing. Any number of gay people out there with biological offspring of their own.
Therefore… wouldn’t it serve the government’s purpose to let these gay people get married, so to provide a stable nesting environment for childrearing?
And if not, shouldn’t we immediately move to terminate the parental rights of all gay people, since we seem to feel they’re not suited to marriage by reason of inappropriateness for childrearing or whatever?
Man, the more I kick this argument around, the less sense it makes. I find myself thinking about how my great-grandad used to bitch about how the minute we gave them (persons of color) the vote, they’d be voting themselves free liquor, and then we’d never keep 'em off the white women… and just because it hadn’t happened by the time I was born, well, that didn’t mean it WOULDN’T…
How is this right, and racism wrong? I don’t get it.
There was a great picture (I think it was in this week’s Time) of some anti-SSM protesters, and in the middle of it someone managed to sneak in a sign that said “protect marriage–ban divorce”.
Elwood, the cynic in me thinks that whoever was holding that sign may have been serious, not sneaky.
There are societies with varying levels of polyandry, however. One of the Himalayan mountain cultures, I believe, has it in full-on marriage; in the Amazon basin there’s a culture where a pregnant woman should have sex with as many different men as possible, as that’s considered to lead to the healthiest baby. (That’s off the top of my head.)
Wait, now racism is wrong too? For the love of…
Next thing you’re gonna tell me is that I can’t torture little animals and kill the elderly.
(Do I really need to add the smiley?)
I know anecdotes are poor evidence, but this topic came up in a bar the other day and to my astonishment I listened while about 15 good 'ole boys stood around and said “What do I care? They want to get married, let 'em, no skin off my back.” Progress may be slow, but it is being made.
Wow, this would be so goddamn funny if only it wasn’t.
Why is homosexuality evil?
It hurts the fabric of society?
How does it hurt the fabric of society?
It’s evil!
Repeat until depressed.
The worst thing about this is, while we naturally want to think of this as a funny whoosh, one just can’t tell. Man.
Hiya, Spiff - you all ready for the killer storm headed our way in the cities? Eep!
Anyway - yeah, point well taken about the myths and such… my point simply was that if marriage, according to the fundies, is about making babies - then why allow for cousin marriage IF AND ONLY IF one of the two is proven sterile? I mean, doesn’t that defeat the purpose of marriage (assuming, of course, that the purpose is producing offspring). Isn’t cousin marriage an abomination, then?
Whee!