Well, I disagree with your point, while it is true some couples don’t have children, as someone posted above
“Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.”
So the married poeple have ties to each other because of the potential of having children. Just because some don’t doesn’t change the basic purpose.
In my opinion.
Good responses. Let me add a little more to the discussion. Equal rights are properly accorded to relationships which are identical in benefit or burden except as to some irrelevant factor. Thus, most laws violate equal rights when they discriminate between races, for example. The same-sex relationships, however, cannot claim the same benefits to the state as do heterosexual relationships because of the procreation matter. When a man and woman marry, they legally unite into one what were before that time two “tribes”. As children come to the marriage, the tribes are further united. Even if the original marriage breaks up, the genetic offspring of the tribes keeps them united into infinity. This is a distinct benefit to the state in that it stabilizes society and helps to avoid competition between tribes. Therefore, society has a right to encourage and grant benefits to such relationships. Same-sex relationships might benefit society but it is not the same as that of heterosexual married couples. There is no indissoluble binding of the tribes through the offspring and the benefit to society or the state lasts only so long as the original homosexual relationship (which I believe studies show averages about 18 months). To the extent that same-sex couples have children, those children are forcibly separated from at least half their “tribes”. Now people can argue that same-sex couples bestow benefits on society in terms of caring for each other and raising children, but those benefits are not the same or as extensive as that offered by heterosexual couples and therefore the state has no obligation to treat them identically under any interpretation of equal protection.
Incidentally, here in California, same-sex couples first argued for domestic partnerships as a way of ensuring they could visit each other in the hospital. In the grip of the aids tsunami, people were persuaded it was compassionate to allow such visits. As soon as the law was passed to allow visits, every session of the Assembly has passed laws to expand on those rights to the point that in California. anyway, there is no difference in benefits between civil unions and marriage. It was the stealth camel’s-nose-under-the-tent tactic and it worked. People rightly expect this same tactic will be used on the marriage issue to amend all the hundreds of laws involving husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, to the point that such terms won’t even be allowed legally anymore. And if anyone thinks this loss at the ballot box will mean anything to the gay rights groups, I have a few Boy Scouts who can tell you legal vindication means nothing to the activists.
One more matter (and I am shooting with a shotgun here because I know you have not raised these issues by yourself) is whether religions will be forced to recognize gay marriages, a group of protesters at the Oakland LDS Temple a week or so ago chanted something to the effect of “Tax their lands, tax their investments”. This will be one approach to forcing churches to recognize their relationships. Another which I might predict is to challenge the right of clergy to marry legally. I believe clergy hold licenses from the state to legally marry and it would not surprise me to see those licenses from the state challenged in the case of clergy who refuse to marry same-sex couples. The gay agenda has been laid out in the open for anyone to see. Anyone who believes it won’t be applied full-force to churches is being naive.
That might be a good theory as to why marriage has developed and is a near universal social convention, but that's nothing to do with its legal status.
It's a given that it is a common social convention. The existence of marriage precedes laws about marriage. The laws are there to recognize the convention and convey certain legal rights to it, which do not have to do with promoting children.
Two hetero people that choose to get married and have no intention of ever having children are just as legally married as anyone else.
If gays shouldn't get married because they can't have children, then sterile couples shouldn't get married for the same reason. Nobody thinks that, because nobody really believes marriage is just about children.
Marriage is the union of two people because those two people choose to bind themselves to each other. Humans are natural social creatures, and in most societies tend to form long-term monogamous relationships. The institution of marriage flows from that, not from children.
I agree that there should be no "right" to marriage, for anyone. Marriage is a social convention, and if society chooses to recognize marriage with a formal legal status, that is fine.
By the same token, if marriage between gays became an accepted social convention there is no rational reason why the law shouldn't recognize that too.
I agree that it shouldn't be imposed by judges. It is purely up to society to choose what to recognize. In a democracy like ours that means it should be up to the voters to decide, and they have spoken. But it is difficult to see a rational reason why gays shouldn't be as able to get married as anyone else. It's only a matter of tradition.
"Tradition" is a value neutral word, like "change". It can be good, it can be bad, but it is not a reason.