Tranquil Madness

The question you ask comes down to the definition of marriage. Several of the state laws passed recently ban gay marriage on the basis that marriage is defined as one man being married to one woman. By this definition of marriage, gay marriage is unacceptable and against the legal definition. However, most of these same laws specifically allow for gay civil unions, since these do not pretend to be something they're not; namely, a true marriage. I have to say that I, personally, do not see a problem with a state passing a law that limits marriage to one man and one woman, as long as it leaves the right for gay civil unions.

Homosexuals have the same right to marry that I do - the right to marry anyone of the opposite sex they choose and can convince to marry them.

A minority does not have the right to change a traditional definition of a word, one that goes back thousands of years.

But does tradition matter in this realm? As Randy pointed out, this is not a theocracy. What matters is the law, and in 4/5 or so of the states, marriage is not clearly defined in the law. My opinion hasn't changed (see above comment), but you can't argue that they do not have the right because of religious tradition.

I can argue that changing legal tradition demands extensive justification. You don't fool with something as fundamental as marriage without a darn good reason.

Daniel,

The argument you made about homosexuals having the right to marry someone of the opposite sex only emphasizes the fact that their relationships are not seen as valid under the law. A married heterosexual couple has a number of rights and priviledges that a commited homosexual couple will never have with the current system.

While many states allow civil unions, these unions do not come with the same rights as a marriage. These rights are much harder to enforce. Some states have banned civil unions altogether.

To wrench a quote out of context, "separate-but-equal is never equal."

Why is marriage "fundamental"? Single parents abound in modern society. The "traditional" family is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

Your legal argument is nothing more than shouting "tradition," as far as I can see.

Single parents abound in modern society. The "traditional" family is quickly becoming a thing of the past.

And this is supposed to be a good thing? The 'traditional family' is still worth fighting for.

When I've debated this topic elsewhere, I've made the suggestion that government stop recognizing marriages altogether and just recognize civil unions as having all the priviledges that go with marriage. The government can still give "civil union" status to all marriages (and to whoever else they want), and marriage remains a religious sacrament, which is how I view it. I don't have a problem with such a solution.

"We can not pass laws that legalize discrimination against a man or woman because of race, religion, or gender. Why can we pass laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation?"

I'd say that this is because "sexual orientation" exists as an act of volition. Of course, so does armed robbery, love, Christianity, Islam, rape, consensual sex, investing in the stock market, flying a plane, marriage, and first-degree murder (That is a random list by the way).

Acts of volition may or may not be restricted, however to recognize and assign benefits to them under the law should be the option of the voter.

Incidently, I thought of another problem that might arise were the definition of marriage extended to same-sex couples.

Do you know what a common-law marriage is? I believe the requirements for having one consist merely of living together with a person of the opposite sex for a period of time.

Now imagine if the requirement for the persons involved to be of opposite gender were changed--you could end up in a common law marriage to your roomate. :) Wouldn't that be just awful?

"I'd say that this is because 'sexual orientation' exists as an act of volition."

An "act of volition"? That claim has been the subject of a large number of scientific and psychological arguments. The issue is a lot more complicated that just flipping a switch in the mind.

True, but not enough research has been done on the subject to say definitively what "causes" homosexuality. As a matter of fact, homosexual activists often oppose such research if it looks like it's going to turn up an answer they don't like.

But, even if homsexuality is an unchangeable trait (which, for many homosexuals, it seems to be), homosexual behavior is not. My desire to pulverize and murder my little brothers when they teased me seems to be a relatively unchangeable trait - but one that needs control. I'm not sure about whether society should have sanctions against homosexual behavior. I doubt it. But for it to recognize homosexual relationships as equivalent to marriage goes beyond "toleration" to "sanction."

"I'm not sure about whether society should have sanctions against homosexual behavior. I doubt it. But for it to recognize homosexual relationships as equivalent to marriage goes beyond 'toleration' to 'sanction.'"
----

Once again, this shows that a relationship between two consentual adults of the opposite sex is seen as more valid than a relationship between two consentual adults of the same sex.

Why is this? What is special between a man and a woman that they can have an official marriage and gain all the benefits that come with it?

It can't be kids. The US has a number of infertile married couples and married couples that choose not have children.

It can't be religion. Monotheists, polytheists, and atheists can all get married if they so desire.

So, what is it? Why should gay relationships only be "tolerated" and not "sanctioned"?

Genesis.

1) You didn't actually answer my question.

2) You can not make the argument that a relationship is (legally) inferior simply because it does not fit with your religion.

Randy, I don't have time (or the inclination) to make this a proper debate. If I did, I would probably have to take back everything I said and start again from ground zero and do it right.

That said, why can't my religious inclinations inform my opinion of what ought to be legal? What if we rephrase that and said that my "ethical" inclinations shouldn't inform my opinion of what ought to be legal? Or my "rational" inclinations?

Why should "ethical" and "rational" trump "religious," particularly since they both spring from it?

[ deleted at the request of the author ]

Randy, please delete the previous posts ... at least the last one. I'm sorry for the tone I used in writing them. I'm really not equipped to debate you on this issue; my own thoughts are too confused on it. I still don't like it, but I can't rationally defend my dislike yet. Sorry for making a fool of myself.

Daniel,

There is a big difference between a conservative and a stupid conservative. I consider you one of the former.

There is also a rather large difference between letting religion influence your political arguments and letting religion be your political arguments.

You can argue that you don't believe something should be legal because you believe it will be detrimental to the country in light of your beliefs. Studies can even provide evidence to support this belief.

However, you can not argue that something should not be made legal because it contradicts a verse from the Bible. (double negative, yikes!) While it may be true, it is not a legal or political argument. It is a claim that your religion trumps the legal system. This is part of the reason why we have a separation of church and state.

It is a claim that your religion trumps the legal system

heh, heh, heh ... but for me, it does :-)

You are quite right that the case needs to be made on grounds other than religious. But I don't know how to make that case - not very well, anyway. My first and primary and personally convincing rationale is all religious.

You didn't respond to my earlier suggestion that government cease recognizing marriage at all and instead confer all its benefits that currently go towards marriage to "civil unions," which it can give to anyone it likes. That would do a great deal to ease my "religious" nerves so I could think more rationally and less defensively.

Let me see if I have this straight. From a secular point of view, marriage is definable any way we like, and homosexual activists are making the case that to define it as a union of a man and a woman is discriminatory, since it favors heterosexual attractions over homosexual attraction, essentially saying that we as a society sanction heterosexual attraction to the exclusion of others.

Obviously, one could rely on tradition - homosexual marriage has never been permitted anywhere that I am aware of (I know that many ancient civilizations tolerated open homosexuality, but I'm not aware of any marriage customs involving it), and we seem to have gotten along fairly well, why change it?

This argument does not hold up, because tradition is no argument against "evil" (tradition made a great argument against slavery and separation of races), and activists say that it is actually "wrong" for government to sanction heterosexual attractions over homosexual attractions.

One can then look at child-rearing arguments - children should grow up with a female and male figures as vital parts of their lives, to teach them how to relate to both sexes. Marriage encourages such things (though childless couples are permitted, of course), and homosexual marriage doesn't encourage this at all.

At the moment, I think the best secular argument I can raise is that "marriage" functions as a basic child-rearing unit in our society. Permitting homosexual marriages does not further this end. Society has a legitimate stake in its children.

I don't think it's a strong enough argument. My opposition to homosexual marriage is rooted in

1. A conviction that marriage is a God-ordained, not society-engineered, institution. We didn't make it up, and we can't change it even if we want to.
2. A conviction than at an active homosexual lifestyle is immoral and, at a minimum, should not be actively endorsed by a society I claim to be a part of.

Those are the things I care about. Both of those are religious objections and do not hold up to secular scrutiny. Sue me.

I suppose a reply to my "child-bearing" argument is that marriage can also serve a "commitment" function - that society is better off encouraging permanent commitments between people.

Fine. Stop recognizing marriage, start recognizing "partnerships," and support them with appropriate tax breaks and other things that marriage had.

I still think it's a bad idea. That's because I think Christian ideas are literally true and actually good, and that a society gains by embracing them and loses by rejecting them. I think that societies should encourage permanent, life-long commitments between men and women for the purpose of raising children and supporting one another. I think that's best. But my reasons for believing this are, first and foremost, religious.

The way it looks to me, you could argue that government recognizing marriage violates the First Ammendment because it recognizes an establishment of religion. I know that virtually every culture practices marriage, so people don't see it as an establishment of any particular religion. But, like I said before, marriage is God's idea, and I want to stick with it the way He intended it. If government permits homosexual marriages, it moves one more step away from it. That's bad.