The best marriage between two poor people falls short of the best marriage between two rich people when it comes to raising kids. Does that mean that when poor people get married it is an insult to the institution of marriage too?
Who gives a shit what the best situation is? You don’t allow/disallow marriage for any two people based on what might be the best situation that could come from it. You allow it for two people who want to do it – you know, that whole freedom thing.
If marriage needs to be protected from gays (for the children), shouldn’t it also be protected from criminals, philanderers, liars, cheats and other bad parents? Why shouldn’t prospective brides and grooms have to undergo a background check or some sort of testing?
Sure it has - you didn’t feel it? Every time two gays get married, a straight marriage dies. It’s like a ripple in The Force.
In seriousness, the idea that marriage was about nothing more than the possibility of children was swept aside a long long time ago. Straights have been getting married with no intention or possibility of having children for a long time. Gays didn’t change it, straights did.
Don’t forget fertility tests! After all, if there’s no possibility of children…
(And screw the orphans who need adoption).
But you keep hearing it because that’s the only argument the antis can come up with that isn’t simple bigotry on its surface.
Well, that’s going a bit far. Marriage didn’t come about so that two people who love each other can get extra goodies for it. That may be what it is now, but the state didn’t set up this special thing just because people tend to fall in love and live together and it wanted to give them a Valentine for it.
If it were just about “freedom” we’d let people marry more than one person, for instance, since they “want to do it.” Which we might eventually decide to do, but there’s no consensus yet.
I know.
I support gay marriage myself. I’m just uncomfortable with the idea that it’s a right in the same sense as other rights. If something is a right, the state wouldn’t license it in the first place. It’s a right only within it’s qualifications. It was quite clear to most people for a long time that only male-female couples would qualify - it was a no-brainer to them. Gay marriage is a function of acceptance of gays in general and our decision to broaden the qualifications, not just undoing an injustice.
I’m not sure you can say the state set up marriage at all. The state recognizes marriages and the “goodies” are an important part of marriage as it currently exists. The goodies are there because we’ve decided stable relationships are a good thing for our society. And Jack Batty is correct that we don’t pass laws based on those kinds of ideal circumstances. The idea that heterosexual marriage is ideal because of the opposite-sex parent thing is not supported by any solid evidence and makes no sense, but even if it were true, it wouldn’t be relevant.
It isn’t, as such. The right in question is the right to equal protection under the laws. And we’ve pretty much settled that it applies.
So anyone can marry anyone? No restrictions?
Yes - so it’s conditional. It’s for a purpose. It’s not just to give out goodies.
I support gay marriage so I agree. I’m just saying it’s not ludicrous to have once believed that the state really had no interest in stable gay relationships. Who cares about gays, they don’t have children (because we don’t let them adopt). That’s my point - gay marriage is the product of greater acceptance of gays and our changing idea of what marriage is. It does redefine marriage, and that’s okay.
No. Just that restrictions must have a rational basis.
Nobody said it had no purpose or existed just to give out goodies. State-recognized marriage comes with some extremely important benefits. That’s why gay couples have fought so hard for those benefits.
I’m not sure who you are arguing against.
Perhaps more like no unjustifiable restrictions? For example, as a society we have collectively decided that children are not qualified to make important life decisions. They can’t vote or sign contracts, and we don’t consider that a violation of the right to equal protection. Polygamy is another example. I don’t personally see anything inherently wrong with someone who wants to marry more than one person, but traditionally polygamy has been used in a way that was harmful to women, and can create complications if the marriage was dissolved (property distribution, custody agreements, etc). If those issue can be solved, I wouldn’t have an issue with someone marrying more than one person.
Obviously I am not magellan01, and so cannot speak for him, but I do not believe that’s what he’s saying.
He’s saying that marriage between one man and one woman is the societal ideal because of its fundamental basis in protecting children and raising them to be healthy and productive citizens. Further, the model of one man + one woman in a committed relationship is the best way to do this, and therefore that model should be protected and encouraged by the State, even in situations where the specific actors cannot, or do not wish to, have children.
It’s not intended only for people with kids, IOW, but as an aspirational approach to enforce on a societal level the best family structure.
Maybe I missed the proof being given, but there are several unsupported assumptions there.
So what? Why can’t we create a new custom can’t we? Or is Melchior right about the immutability of society based on customs?
In any event, Marley is probably right, we are never going to “downgrade” marriage. So all we really can do is support SSM (I guess we can keep trying to create a separate class of marriages called civil unions (and I don’t think we’ve ruled ont hat yet) but I think civil unions arenot likely to pass constitutional muster considering where recent case law has gone in.
Oh ghod, are there ever.
To be clear, I didn’t mean to imply that you agreed with that statement. 
There’s no point in pushing for civil unions. Sooner or later they’ll just be replaced with SSM that’s called SSM, whether that’s by newer laws or the courts. I know people felt years ago that maybe civil unions would be an acceptable between SSM and nothing, but that’s not how it worked out. The states that oppose gay marriage won’t allow civil unions either.