Posted on 06/20/2025 8:20:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
On the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges (federally mandating “marriage equality”), it’s proper to ask whether same-sex marriage is a good idea. One reason to think that it’s not is the existence of an epistemic oddity, an oddity which strongly undermines any argument for same-sex marriage (hereafter “SSM”). The oddity in question is characterized by what may be called an "underdetermination asymmetry."
Start with the following very simple observation.
There are two ultimate positions in the SSM debate, and only two. On the one hand, there’s love or care as the basis of marriage, as in the view of SSM’s supporters. On the other hand, there’s procreation as the basis of marriage, as in the view of traditional marriage’s defenders. Any apparent exceptions will turn out to be folded into either love or procreation -- for example, commitment, which is parasitic on love and/or procreation. (I’ll henceforth ignore care -- the radical marriage reformers’ favorite criterion of intimate personal relationships -- because it cashes out similarly to love.)
The reason why SSM is supported by so many people is that everyone can see the salience of love. If marriage exists for romantic or erotic love rather than for procreation, as many people think, and if David and Ted love each other, then why not let them marry in a civil ceremony, with the full approval of the state? Conversely, if marriage exists for procreation rather than love, then why grant civil marriage at all to same-sex couples, who can’t procreate?
This is where the idea of underdetermination can help us to see the truth about marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
To some degree, yes, but the core value of marriage from the earliest days of human existence was that men could be sure children were their own legitimate heirs. Paternity tests in modern times removed such concerns and opened the door to things like homosexual "marriage."
That’s right, N-O.
Exactly.
At all!
That’s absolutely correct!
The Supreme Court would need a test case. What would be test case? That would be a state passing a new law defining marriage, and seriously attempting to enforce it. Can such a thing happen short of revolution? I hope so, but not optimistic.
How would that work with government having zero awareness/recognition of marriage while making it a state issue?
If I was a state legislator, I’d be sponsoring a bill to eliminate any legal recognition of “marriage” from the books — and let state contract law govern relationships between consenting adults.
What happens when that family moves to a different state?
What about federal employees and military people, how does the government recognize if they are married or not and what is the status of their family and marriage from one state to another?
2. I don’t understand the second point about the federal government recognizing marriages involving government employees and military personnel. The federal government has no compelling reason to recognize any such thing, does it?
This is a situation that will resolve itself. The left believes in Darwin and evolution as well as “the survival of the fittest”.
Since homosexuals do not (generally) reproduce their numbers have to be replaces by some other means.
Homosexuals face the same problem as the Shakers, since they don’t reproduce their numbers will dwindle until they become insignificant.
Beginning after the Civil War the KKK reaching their zenith in the 1920s when over 25,000 marched in Washington DC. They had many supporters, until they didn’t. The KKK still exist but they are hiding deep “in the closet”.
The same dynamics are at play here (and for the same reason, they are the shock troops of the Democrat party). Their current political power will also fade over time. If they are lucky they will blend back into society before the public has had enough and they loose what ever gains they had made to that point.
They did this to themselves. They “won” the cultural war, they got what they wanted but they left the door open so anyone (or anything) could walk in and p*ss on everyone and everything.
It is not a sustainable situation. It is a culture that most Americans don’t accept but are (or were) willing to tolerate.
As I said, it is a situation that will eventually be resolved.
Apply for recognition of your marriage in every one of the 50 states you move to, and what if they don’t recognize it? Who is going to make all 50 states even agree to your plan?
As far as the feds, marriage is huge in federal employment and in military service related to housing and moving and pay, base housing, widow benefits, marriage and military service goes back to at least 1780..
It was never a good idea. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Full stop.
Indeed
Start with the following very simple observation.
God answered that question TWICE - in Sodom and in Gomorrah.
You’re not applying for recognition. You’re signing a contract between two people — no different than signing a contract to buy a home or hire an electrician to work on it. I don’t know of a single state that doesn’t recognize contracts. You don’t apply for “recognition.” You just sign the contract and it stands on its own unless there is a legal dispute in court.
As far as the feds, marriage is huge in federal employment and in military service related to housing and moving and pay, base housing, widow benefits, marriage and military service goes back to at least 1780.
Marriage shouldn’t be “huge” in federal employment. Employees are individuals, not couples. And everything related to military deployment should be done without regard to marital status. If that makes military service less appealing to some people, then so be it. The U.S. was never designed to have a large permanent military force anyway, under the Constitution.
You don’t think the military has to deal with wives, widows and families? You can’t be serious, yes it would be hard to get people to join, much less to stay for a lifetime career if their family isn’t recognized and considered as part of their life and if 250 years of pensions for their widows quit being recognized.
So far you are calling for the end of marriage, an America where marriage doesn’t exist, just government recognized business contracts between whoever and whatever, of course first you have to turn the Americans into that kind of people and convince 50 states to agree with you.
Just think about that last point for a moment. Could you ever envision a scenario where you sign a legally binding contract to buy a home, and you go through the closing process and get the property title in your name … and then two months, two years, or two decades later, the seller can come back and file a lawsuit to get it back from you? And then you have to negotiate a settlement with the seller about how much (if anything) he will repay you for it?
You wouldn’t even place a $25 online order with Amazon under those conditions. And yet that’s how comical government-recognized “marriage” has become in the U.S. today.
Those are just divorce laws that have changed constantly over the centuries and will continue to change, with all 50 states making their own contract laws regarding marriage which would be the same under the idea of 50 states making their own definitions of marriage and their own contract laws regarding whatever the new name for marriages that aren’t called marriages would be.
Thomas Jefferson even handled divorce law as an attorney.
Gays and lesbos are already ‘wrong’ without the marriage issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.