How legalizing gay marriage undermines society's morals

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | December 09, 2003 | Alan Charles Raul

[mcg1969]

Luis, I've waded through this whole thread and haven't quite figured out your position. While I understand you support the notion of gay marriage, I'm not sure where you would move the government "line" to. Would you please illumnate that for me?

Must there be exactly two persons in a marriage?
Must they be over a certain age?
Must they be a certain genetic "distance" apart? (i.e., can they be brother and sister? Mother and son? First cousins? Second cousins?)

And can you perhaps summarize your basis for imposing these restrictions on marriage? In other words, why shouldn't the full legal status of marriage (even if we call it civil unions) be extended to any mutually consenting group of persons who wishes to acquire it?

Thanks.

[mcg1969]

Sorry JohnO, I replied to the wrong post. Ignore...

[NutCrackerBoy]

You should let the taxpayer marry whom they want to marry.

Your use of the word "let" or "allow" is misleading. No liberties are being denied. The individuals are free to pursue happiness.

The state's definition of marriage, fixed for centuries, follows the traditional definition. The question is whether the state's definition should be changed. Why should it?

(Having an "alias" called civil unions is almost the same thing as changing the definition, if all legal structures of marriage apply to civil unions as a matter of principle.)

I certainly don't think my marraige or anyone else's is under attack because the women down the street got married. My marraige is strong and doesn't need defending from homosexuals.

My main concern is that I know this profound change will affect the next generations. I cannot predict what that change will be, but noone has yet enunciated a satisfying reason why the change is needed.

If such a law was proposed, I would debate against it, and the law would then be passed, or not. This is not what happened in my state (Massachusetts) - four people with robes "passed the law" - and I am very angry about that. Do you blame me?

[NutCrackerBoy]

I believe this sub-thread came from my #74, which follows:

The great majority of those who are strongly opposed to gay marriage are motivated by their religious beliefs.

All the "reasons" and "statistics" they cite are really just a cover to hide the true basis for their opposition. -WackyKat

I've got a statistic. Number of homosexual unions which has produced a child: zero. -NutCrackerBoy

What I meant was to highlight the original reason for government's involvement in marriage: to protect the children that naturally come from the sexual union of one man and one woman.

I personally don't use the bioligical argument when defending my stance against gay marriage. -mcg1969

I don't wish to quibble about artificial semination. A repeated fallacy of the anti-traditional-marriage folks is to cite individual exceptions as if they negate the broad sweep. Men and women procreate, and the state, for the good of civilization, involves itself. Without marriage law, chaos would likely have resulted from men abdicating their responsibilities to their wives and children.

The "biological argument" is a generalization yes, but a profoundly true and important one.

[ArGee]

regarding 156 I explained that earlier. The stats cannot be accurate since the police and child social workers say much pedophilia within families isn't reported.

Not to be a buttinski, but it's rather convenient to base your argument on stats that "by definition" can not be accurate and therefore can not be verified.

I believe in G-d, but I don't base my arguments against homosexual marriage on that belief with atheists because G-d can not be verified.

Shalom.

[breakem]

It would seem one of the purposes of marriage might be security and property distribution. It gave security for women and a method to legally ensure their residence etc since men were living longer and women weren't working.

I think the traditional argument which is commonly mentioned on these threads doesn't hold much sway. The age requirements and definition of marriage has changed over the years and in various cultures. Hard to rely on the good old days.

I also don't think I would agree that marriage is under "attack" because more people want to do it. Seem to me that's a good sign.

[breakem]

What I cannot counter is the civil union point. I don't know much about what they do. I think it's important to point out, even counter to my own position, that with a will and living trust it would seem you can do much of what it takes to ensure your "partner's" financial security and your status if seriously ill.

I take somewhat of a libertarian view, get governement out.

However, if government is in, then it would seem to be the obligation of those who want to exclude others to make their case, as opposed to the other way around.

[breakem]

Of course the child is not biologically both of theirs.

Did you see the custody case in the news last week? One woman gave her eggs, which were carried by the other. Now they're both claiming to be the mother. Oftentimes I long for simplier days.

[mcg1969]

You know I agree with you on this, NutCrackerBoy. And when you read the original article that started this thread, it would have us believe that we are somehow preventing two men from standing in front of their religious leader and performing a solemn ceremony of commitment. Hogwash! We are preventing them from acquiring the same legal status, yes, but nothing is preventing them from pursuing their private commitment.

[mcg1969]

The "biological argument" is a generalization yes, but a profoundly true and important one.

I don't deny this. I guess I should clarify and say that I don't use the specific biological argument that only a man and a woman can physically produce a child. Rather, I use the more general argument that the ideal family structure for the raising of a child is a stable marriage between a man and a woman. This argument certainly has a common-sense biological basis, but since it also has sociological and psychological support it still applies even when the purely bioligical does not---sperm donation, surrogate motherhood, adoption, and so forth (even cloning, if that ever becomes possible).

[mcg1969]

breakem,

You may be interested in my promotion vs. prohibition argument, which I made in another thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032027/posts?page=497#497

You may not agree with the argument, of course :) But it illuminates my reasoning as to why it is at least legally acceptable for the government to restrict marriage to a man and a woman.

Also note that the government is not just "discriminating" against gay couples with its marriage policy, but also incestuous couples and polygamous unions as well.

[breakem]

I don't think promotion is the automatic result of not prohibiting something. Painting my house purple may be legal, but that doesn't mean the government is promoting purple paint. In the case of government it is a case of whats the need to restrict and the governmental power to do something. Governmental power should not be used just arbitrarilly and I do not believe the majority can just vote away the participation of the minority.

[mcg1969]

Of course an absence of prohibition is not automatically promotion. But we're not talking about just a lack of prohibition! The government is actively promoting marriage by affording it certain legal recognitions and benefits.

[breakem]

I don't agree with that, maybe the tax code, however. so, let's get government out. I'm out. Honeydos calling.

[mcg1969]

Have fun! :-)

[breakem]

was set to go, but my boss wasn't ready.

My point of the pedophilia stats is that people post them and they become reality here on the ole FR. When those who work with the problem are telling us thay dodn't know the real numbers, this LITTLE point needs to be made. It is intellectually dishonest to post numbers that you know are not accurate or thorough, without some disclaimer.

I think John O is out looking for his post proving homosexuals are mentally ill and incapable of entering into contracts. You don't have a comment on that little bit of info do you or are you just selective in your inquiry?

[breakem]

The fun has been postponed until "she who must be obeyed" is ready.

Thanx for the level-headed exchange.

[weegee]

What do "guns" have to do with the adequacy of 2 people being parents and whether the government should have a say? That was the point of discussion.

You seemed to take the bait that the government could stop to blood related people from getting married/having kids because it would somehow intrude on your rights.

Then again 2 lesbians "father shopped" so that they could bias the odds at having deaf children (and got their evil wish). The government did not intrude in that wicked bit of child abuse.

[weegee]

Then again, thanks for yet one more example proving that "society" has no interest in preserving the institution of marriage.

Sounds like anarchist BS to me.

[NutCrackerBoy]

It would seem to be the obligation of those who want to exclude others to make their case, as opposed to the other way around.

The law, precedent, and tradition all agree on what individuals are eligible for marriage or any legal equivalent. Those who want to change it have the greater obligation to state persuasively why the change is necessary.

But naturally it is also fair to ask why things are the way they are. That is very straightforward. I repeat my statistics:

Number of people on this planet born of heterosexual unions: billions and billions
Number of people born of homosexual unions: zero.

The idea that we are somehow beyond the need for the state to involve itself in the regulation of procreation is laughable. Marriage is the institution around which this regulation centers.

To stop excluding gay couples from the legal structures of marriage is tantamount to stating that, as a matter of principle, procreation is irrelevant to marriage.