Gay Marriage

Marriage, in the legal/federal definition, completely lacked gender specific terms until 1996, when marriage was, in effect, redefined.

 

What are you referring to when you repeatedly mention "agency?" Either this is political/technical/academic/professional jargon, in which case needs to be translated into general terms, or it is a generally recognized concept, that many posters, including myself, have never heard of.

 

^ This. I think if you defined the term "legimate agency", people might argue it. You've mentioned the phrase repeatedly, and I have yet to work out what it actually means. Do it now, and I'll continue.

 

The assumption that child rearing is an integral part of marriage is not evident in our culture. Heterosexual couples are not required to undergo medical tests, determining fertility or genetic problems, before they can be issued a marriage license. Chemical, barrier, and hormonal birth control methods are top selling categories at every nearly drugstore, supermarket, and mass merchandiser in the country, suggesting a strong desire for sexual activity exists simultaneously with the explicit desire to not reproduce, among married and single people alike. Women marry and remarry well beyond their fertile years, and both men and women marry and remarry well beyond their usefulness as primary parents. Also, marriage is not prerequisite for child rearing. Marriage is also permitted between civilians and prisoners, and even among prisoners, which often or largely precludes any ability to procreate.

It seems to me, as an outside observer, that the only requirements for marriage, as it is currently defined are: only two, opposite sex, non-familial adults (or adolescent w/ adult consent), who will love and support each other (validated only by the public vows).

 

We very much have paused to think about it. The issue of gay marriage is not a new one, even if it has endured something of renaissance of late.

I've not read any theoretical model. What I base my theories on is the study of that which has already happened.

And I'm sorry if this upsets you, but the fact is, society has undergone far greater change than this in the past, and it has never crumbled or been shaken to its foundations. I guess it's a question of perspective. You think there is no reason to extend the right to marry to homosexuals. I think there is no reason not to. We are probably both be correct. But you choose to be more conservative about it, I would assume because it doesn't affect you as much.

 

Perhaps, then, we need a working, sociological definition of marriage (as opposed to an imposed legal definition) to continue this debate.

This is what I would offer: (subject to change somewhat, this is a first attempt)

To understand what marriage is, we first need to know what it is not. Marriage is not about sex. It is also not confined to places of worship. In the absence of marriage, one has no right to: automatic permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation, qualification to live together at a facility for the elderly, award of child custody in divorce proceedings, in-vitro fertilization coverage, property inheritance, spousal support, or disclosure of vital statistics records, just to name a few. Marriage is not a union between relatives, nor is it a union between more than two persons. Marriage is a powerful legal and social institution and contract that protects and supports intimate family relationships, by providing a unique set of rights, privileges, and benefits, in addition to imposing certain responsibilities.

 

I would also add this commentary:

Because of these attributes, allowing a greater number of individuals access to marriage should serve to strengthen it as an institution, as opposed to being a detriment to it.

 

The only thing history has proven about marriage is that it is a changing, and discriminatory institution. It was in 1967, just thirty-seven years ago, that the Supreme Court struck down miscegenation prohibition laws. Traditionally, women were property of their husbands, and had little or no rights of their own. Historically, one could correlate changes to traditional marriage with the weakening of marriage, but one should not assume causation. Many things correlate with the weakening of marriage, such as increased oil consumption, space travel, and urban sprawl. It is futile to assume that these absurd correlations caused the weakening of marriage, just as it is futile to assume causation from women's liberation, miscegenation, or proposed same-sex marriage.

In other words, the study of what has already happened suggest that to "redefine" marriage to include same-sex marriage will be of great benefit to a distinct segment of the population, and will be of little effect to the population at large.

 

For any person legitimately concerned with protecting the institution of marriage against immoral unions, there are other, more appropriate, targets for their indignation. Under Virginia law, for example, a man who rapes and impregnates a 14-year-old girl can be relieved of his crime if he then agrees to marry the girl and her parents consent. Such a rapist marriage would then be recognized in other states. Why not defend against rapist and child molestation marriages?

 

To be honest, if all it takes to weaken marriage as an institution is to give those involved more freedom, maybe it's not a worthwhile institution in the first place.

The main thing about this is, marriage isn't the issue. The issue is equality. Gay people want the right to do whatever heterosexuals can. I personally am not waiting to be able to get married legally. That is not why I am interested in the debate. I support gay marriage because I do not believe that homosexuals can be considered equals until they have equal rights, and I do not trust society to treat us as equals if they are not forced to.

 

The adultery argument assumes that gay males are in fact more promiscuous than straight males, and an increase in adultery, resulting from legalization of same-sex marriage, will further weaken the already feeble institution of marriage. Even if these assumptions were true, this argument provides a profound problem of its own. If we believe that men are naturally more promiscuous than women are, then it follows that lesbian marriages will in fact be more monogamous than an opposite-sex marriage. Any alleged, theoretical damage to marriage itself resulting from adultery in male-male marriage would be offset by the good example set, and subsequent reduction in adultery in female-female marriage.

 

Agreed...

 

This is not an equality issue.

 

Care to explain why not?

 

Gays are equal to straights under the law.

Equating this issue to an equality issue would be like a child screaming "Inequality" after realizing I have more rights than they do. (They are not given the right to apply to drive until they are 16)

 

Sorry, but no, the analogy doesn't fit. Not if you believe (like most homosexuals, psychologists, and a hell of a lot of heterosexuals) that homosexuality is not just phase, but something that you can not change about yourself.

So try harder. Come up with a legitimate reason why denying gay people the right to marry isn't discriminating against them legally on grounds of sexuality.

 

i'd come up with another seemingly simple concept but you would only beg me to dumb it down.

 

I say that because it simply doesn't matter if they are in a phase or not. One doesn't call a 12 year old unequal to me under the law.

 

Rights are based on an assumed equality. Only if gays are indeed equal under the law can they say they deserve such and such a right.

 

I am sorry that my analogies don't fit. It is only because you either do not understand them or refuse to read any further into them.