3 ms·

>I don't see why government should define marriage at all. If anything, it seems we could do with a little discouraging of heterosexual relationships. Sure, th

>I don't see why government should define marriage at all. If anything, it seems we could do with a little discouraging of heterosexual relationships. Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense. >But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage. wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism". Further, from the referenda that keep saying "no" to gay marriage, I think "everybody's definition of marriage" may be better aligned with the predominant religious view anyway...

jlarocco 14y ago
>Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense. You know what, I'm not sure I see the downside there? The concept that certain people should get special privileges from the government is a concept that should be destroyed, IMO. > wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism". You've got it backwards. Marriage started out as a religious thing, dating back thousands of years. Only recently has the government stepped in and had anything to do with it. So if the government wants to be involved in the religious matter of marriage, they need to be more accepting of other religions that may define marriage differently.
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  >You know what, I'm not sure I see the downside there? The concept that certain people should get special privileges from the government is a concept that should be destroyed, IMO. The downside is that it results in overall diminished social stability and cohesion. Marriage helps families by providing heavy incentives for partners to settle their differences and stay coupled rather than get frustrated and split. It provides a foundation of stability for and an obligation to children. It protects a dependent spouse (say, a mother who chooses to stay home and care for her children instead of producing her own income) from abandonment by supplying the dependent with legal recourse for support even if the breadwinner decides to blow it. It creates a default set of conditions for emergencies, death, etc., that would otherwise have to be defined contractually. It creates a social pressure for young couples to settle down and start having children. I understand much of this is diminishing in the face of no-fault divorce and concerted efforts to make alternate lifestyles appear glamorous or beneficial (when in reality they are filled with despair, confusion, and turmoil), but that is the promise and benefit of legal marriage. Simply deleting the term "marriage" and making everything a "civil union" for the sake of the feelings of religious people is ultimately vain. The same net negative effects occur from the equivocation of permanent heterosexual coupling and permanent homosexual coupling. Or did you mean we should do away with any default legal benefit and do all marriage-type relationships individually through contracts, etc.? >You've got it backwards. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_b..., where the first line contains "the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history", and then expands on implementations in "ancient Israel", "Europe", and "China". See also "Marriage in Ancient Egypt": http://www.kingtutshop.com/freeinfo/Marrage-in-Ancient-Egypt.htm http://www.kingtutshop.com/freeinfo/Marrage-in-Ancient-Egypt... , etc.
  - jlarocco 14y ago
    First, every negative thing you mention there happens all the time, and it's done by straight people in heterosexual marriages. Where's the gay connection? All of the positive things you mention are generic arguments in favor of marriage that could be applied just as well to gay marriage. You're completely leaving out the part about why one group of people can marry, but another group can't. Edit: Also, your Wikipedia link actually backs up my argument that marriage has historically been a religious institution, so I'm not sure what you're going for there, or how it explains why the government needed to get involved.
Arelius 14y ago
Not an argument against your primary point, really just semanitcs, but: "everybody's definition of marriage", is very different than what you may suggest is more in line with "the general/average definition of marriage" If you accept "everybody's definition of marriage" You need to accept what everybody things marriage is, which does include people that think it can be homosexual in nature. While it also includes people that think it cannot be, it stands to reason that accepting most forms of marriage would be less harmful, since that government recognition of marriage doesn't mean that I, or my religion has to recognize the marriage. I will not however comment on the validity of "accepting everybody's definition of marriage" only trying to bring coherency to the discussion so that we aren't just arguing semantics.

jlarocco 14y ago

>Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense. You know what, I'm not sure I see the downside there? The concept that certain people should get special privileges from the government is a concept that should be destroyed, IMO. > wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism". You've got it backwards. Marriage started out as a religious thing, dating back thousands of years. Only recently has the government stepped in and had anything to do with it. So if the government wants to be involved in the religious matter of marriage, they need to be more accepting of other religions that may define marriage differently.

cookiecaper 14y ago
>You know what, I'm not sure I see the downside there? The concept that certain people should get special privileges from the government is a concept that should be destroyed, IMO. The downside is that it results in overall diminished social stability and cohesion. Marriage helps families by providing heavy incentives for partners to settle their differences and stay coupled rather than get frustrated and split. It provides a foundation of stability for and an obligation to children. It protects a dependent spouse (say, a mother who chooses to stay home and care for her children instead of producing her own income) from abandonment by supplying the dependent with legal recourse for support even if the breadwinner decides to blow it. It creates a default set of conditions for emergencies, death, etc., that would otherwise have to be defined contractually. It creates a social pressure for young couples to settle down and start having children. I understand much of this is diminishing in the face of no-fault divorce and concerted efforts to make alternate lifestyles appear glamorous or beneficial (when in reality they are filled with despair, confusion, and turmoil), but that is the promise and benefit of legal marriage. Simply deleting the term "marriage" and making everything a "civil union" for the sake of the feelings of religious people is ultimately vain. The same net negative effects occur from the equivocation of permanent heterosexual coupling and permanent homosexual coupling. Or did you mean we should do away with any default legal benefit and do all marriage-type relationships individually through contracts, etc.? >You've got it backwards. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by_culture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_b..., where the first line contains "the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history", and then expands on implementations in "ancient Israel", "Europe", and "China". See also "Marriage in Ancient Egypt": http://www.kingtutshop.com/freeinfo/Marrage-in-Ancient-Egypt.htm http://www.kingtutshop.com/freeinfo/Marrage-in-Ancient-Egypt... , etc.
- jlarocco 14y ago
  First, every negative thing you mention there happens all the time, and it's done by straight people in heterosexual marriages. Where's the gay connection? All of the positive things you mention are generic arguments in favor of marriage that could be applied just as well to gay marriage. You're completely leaving out the part about why one group of people can marry, but another group can't. Edit: Also, your Wikipedia link actually backs up my argument that marriage has historically been a religious institution, so I'm not sure what you're going for there, or how it explains why the government needed to get involved.

Arelius 14y ago

Not an argument against your primary point, really just semanitcs, but: "everybody's definition of marriage", is very different than what you may suggest is more in line with "the general/average definition of marriage" If you accept "everybody's definition of marriage" You need to accept what everybody things marriage is, which does include people that think it can be homosexual in nature. While it also includes people that think it cannot be, it stands to reason that accepting most forms of marriage would be less harmful, since that government recognition of marriage doesn't mean that I, or my religion has to recognize the marriage. I will not however comment on the validity of "accepting everybody's definition of marriage" only trying to bring coherency to the discussion so that we aren't just arguing semantics.