razz

The answer of course is that it doesn't, but I'd love to hear your thoughts nonetheless. To me, this issue is saddening, it's sort of like debating whether or not women should vote...it's a pathetic waste of time and money (LDS anyone?).

The worst part about this entire scenario, for me at least is the preaching of the "separate but equal" status. Have we, as a country not learned from the Jim Crow laws? Why do we keep repeating the same mistakes of our ancestors? Do the bigots of today not realize that in 50 years they'll be looked at the same way we, as citizens of 2009 look at the supporters of white supremacy?

Also, the argument of "it's changing the definition" is quite pathetic...no? The definition of marriage originated as a way of securing property rights and lines of succession...the "one man-one woman" concept comes directly from the Bible, and since the United States is not a theocracy why is that definition brought into play?

If you want to live in a theocracy (with "ironically" some people who are fervently against homosexuality) then perhaps Saudi Arabia or Iran would be some good destination points...

RiverDad

The fact that you're so committed to your bias and can't see the answer doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Look, marriage evolved around heterosexual relationships. When homosexual relationships are included, then "the one size fits all" concept of marriage must start accommodating the unique interests of homosexual couples. This concept is applicable across a number of situations. Perhaps you'd have an easier time understanding if, oh I don't know, how about track and field. Male runners are running on a specific track with specific dimensions, but now wheelchair athletes and blind athletes want to compete with them. How could the traditions and form and practice of track and field change by including these new athletes who simply want to partake of the same activity? Well, for one, the width of each lane will change, and so too might the high friction track surface, for while it is designed to prevent the distance runner from slipping, most of the time actual foot contact only comprises a small percentage of the distance traveled but for the wheelchair athlete, their wheels will have continuous contact with the surface and the high friction surface will pose an unfair handicap for them. In order to accommodate them the width of the track and the surface characteristics have to be changed. Now the normal runners are slipping more often and they lose the sense of immediacy from having their competitor next to them in a narrow lane because the lane is now wider.

When homosexuals try to cram their own unique lifestyle into an institution designed for heterosexual partnerships, the fit isn't going to be perfect and they'll soon start wanting to tweak the laws on marriage to make it just a little more accommodating to the peculiarities that they bring to their partnership. Those tweaks are going to affect heterosexual partnerships.

It would be discriminatory for a divorce court judge to treat heterosexual partners differently with respect to alimony than if the couple were homosexual.

The state shouldn't have any interest in fostering homosexual marriage for the state really doesn't, and shouldn't, give a damn about the celebration of personal love. Marriage serves a purpose in society in that it fosters support for creating a stable environment within which to raise children and it models desired behavior, though not perfectly, far better than the alternative lifestyles that compete with the institution of marriage.

Lastly, the benefits that the state confers on married couples must be subsidized by unmarried people. When two dudes who love each other want to get married, there is no compelling reason why they deserve any subsidy or preference from the state when a father and his daughter, living together in a non-sexual relationship, cannot claim the same benefits, or why two best friends can't claim the same benefits.

1.) The comparison of homosexual marriage restrictions to interracial marriage restrictions is built on a definitional fallacy and thus is an invalid comparison.
2.) From point #1, it follows that we're not repeating the same mistakes.

Alternatively, if you want to experience homosexual marriage, then you can go live in the culture that gave historical rise to this long lived cultural practice. My memory slips and I can't quite remember where homosexual marriage has been practiced for these many thousands of years, but I'm sure that you'll remind me. Regardless, if this is your argument, then you should probably go live there and be happy.

Arch Enemy

You might need to explain this a bit to me. Are you saying that the alternative options for an environment for child raising cannot compete with the concepts of the institution of marriage? That a married man and a woman promote the best results for child-raising and it is the institution that deserves credit for this?

__________________
"I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

CaptainCourtesy

Nothing here answers the question. Firstly, your analogy doesn't work. There is no difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship, with the exception of the sex of the partners involved. No extra accommodations are necessary, as they would be in you wheelchair example.

Secondly, you are correct. The state's vested interest in marriage is to provide a stable environment for children to be raised. And since all evidence shows that children raised by homosexual parents function as well as those raised by heterosexual parents, the state has a vested interest in homosexual marriage. So, this point of your is debunked.

I've never been one to adhere to the interracial argument. The homosexual marriage position is strong enough to stand on it's own.


Neither your comments or his make any sense nor apply. All they are, are straw men.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

RiverDad

Best results? Absolutely. That's not saying that a living together couple are going to ruin their children, but, on average, marriages provide a better environment for raising children.

The role of government is to discriminate in favor of desired policy outcomes. Government couldn't function if we withdraw from it the power of discrimination.

The role of the government isn't to validate the feelings of the living together couple so that they feel "equal" to the married couple. If the living together couple wants the benefits associated with marriage, then they should get married.

If homosexual partners want some benefits for raising children, then they should partake of civil unions which are tailored to best fit the unique conditions of homosexual partnerships.

CaptainCourtesy

You and I both know that's not true, Arch, but I'd love to see his answer to your question. Then I will post "Proof that Homosexual Parents and Heterosexual Parents Yield Equally Functional Children, Post #3".

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

CaptainCourtesy

Post evidence that heterosexual couples provide the best outcome for raising children.

Post evidence that heterosexual couples provide the best outcome for raising children.


Actually, this is precisely why the government should sanction homosexual marriages. Since children of gay parents function as well, creating governmental stability is logical.

My position is that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. It was a church instituted concept, anyhow. All unions, hetero or homo should be civil unions. Only the church can sanction "marriage". All civil unions come with identical governmental benefits, regardless of the sexual orientation of the partners.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

Arch Enemy

You are wrong.
The best results are when the parents, regardless of what sexual organ they favor, are the best parents. A true Dickens' "it depends on the heart" ordeal. I am not scarred and I grew up having parents separated-- they're both good parents. Tell me, what blemishes to my pscyhe am I supposed to be undergoing? I would like to know your diagnosis of me being raised in two different homes.

__________________
"I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

RightinNYC

That's a worthwhile topic.

__________________
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Arch Enemy

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

womens suffrage = mens suffering.

oh man. I kid I kid.

__________________
"I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann