Same Sex Marriage from Conservative buddy thread...

I don't see how George's opinion is based on reason. He talks about two becoming one in flesh. How is that reason? Seems like religious prose. For him to reduce it to procreation is very limited. What about heterosexual couple who have no intention of having children? Or people beyond child bearing years who choose to marry. Since when did having kids become a requisite for marriage? I have two kids, my fiance has two kids. We are going to marry but we are NOT having any kids together.

Plus he acknowledges right up front that his statement is the traditional understanding. Traditions change. Marriage means different things in different cultures and in different times in history. I say it's now time to make history and allow same sex marriage.

Opinion not changed.

I was reading the other thread and I just can never figure out the above reasoning.. I"m not attacking you or saying it's wrong..just that I don't understand it...
it seems that whenever someone says something that they either have some sort of , well lack of a better word ..proof, or  Facts/figures some sort of documentation. which leads to my question,
Has there been a country where we can judge over a certain length of time <decades+> that same sex marriage has helped, hurt or had no lasting effect on that culture or society.?     And why is the burden of proof on someone else that basically doesn't agree with you??

I don't know that I like the whole "burden of proof" idea either,  but I have not heard any logical secular argument as to why same sex marriage is a bad thing. Not saying anyone has to offer one, I've just never heard one.

 I do see you point but that logic goes both ways  one side saying yes it will have a negative effect and the other side saying "no it won't  which is why I"m asking throughout history has this ever been part of a region/country/nation/society and if so what was the effect.  so are you saying that "no" you dont' know of anywhere where it is legal??

Right now I can't marry my dog <animal> a tree <non living object> multiple women regardless if I"m in love with all of them, or be a part of a group of people that marry.   Using you logic of no one can say why it's wrong isn't in my opinion the best way of saying that it's ok,  that's all

So is it boiled down to the ability to procreate?  I don't have time to dig thru other threads, but that's what I am gleaning from this.

Aside form simply choosing not to have children, what if one of the spouses is sterile, from, whatever involuntary cause?   Is that union any less of a marriage?

 I do note however that no one has taken up the challenge of defining what the "sanctity" of marriage is with regard to someone who is not religious

Here is my stance....I am married to a wonderful man.  Rickey and I never thought we would see the day in our lifetimes where two men would be allowed to marry, but we are, legally in the state of Ca.  Where we live and have lived most of our lives.  We have been together 12 years, we met 11/14/1996 and knew that night that we would spend the rest of our lives together.  He is my other half, and my life would mean nothing with out him and our past.  We said till death do us part, and we meant it.  When we got married, it was not as a public statement or as a protest.  We did not set out to get married to demean or change anyone elses lives but our own.  But somehow, people are offended by it.  They seek to personally strip this away from me.  I call this a personal attack.  We did nothing to harm them, if they feel they were harmed, it is unintentional....but they are doing something to harm me...and I take that very personal. 

Don, as always, I respect your possition, but how would you solve the problem...I am here...I am not a christian, I am not going away.  Do you think we should just ignore me, praying I will just go away.  Do you think that I shouldn't be allowed any rights...maybe I should be shipped off to some island someplace, swept under a rug...is that common sense?  My relationship is no less valuable than yours.  My relationship has out lasted most of my straight friends marriages...So what is the solution...How do I get treated with civil respect and equality and still make you happy.  What is the answer?

As for those afraid that their children will be taught that gay marriage is right or normal...I was taught about hanukkah in school and Kawanza and other world religous holidays...and later in school, I was taught other aspects of world religions.  And at home, my parents taught me what they felt was right and wrong.  Are we saying, that a public school teaching about other religions and learning how to live with people following those religions is wrong also.  Are you also worried that your child will come home a budhist?  or Muslim or Jewish, because they learned the dradle song at school?  If it is taught as a fact of life, not right or wrong, but as a fact that is there and needs to be dealt with how is that sooo wrong.  And what about the child that is either gay (whether they know it then or not) or who has a gay family member...should they not be acknowledged at all. 

Ok...sorry...this is a subject very much close to my heart...and tomorrow we will probably loose the right to marry...and I am uncertain as to what that will mean to my existing marriage....If it does loose, it will start all sorts of law suits and appeals, costing lots of money...all because people are somehow afraid of me and for no reason.

As of right now,m as the 'woof points out, gays have the right to marry in California.  I would think the burden is on those who wish to remove that right to substantiate that denial.  Art least in California

I'd be interested to see if the argument in California is different from a generic one.  The ads here are all scare mongering that our kids will learn about gay people.   Ooooooohhhhh, the horrah!   Maybe they'll dress better.

Canada, Belgium, Norway, South Africa, Spain and the Netherlands have had same sex marriage for about 3 years now.  I'm still waiting for all hell to break loose.

Thank you for sharing your love story with us, Mike.  As you and I have discussed briefly offline, this is also something that I feel very strongly about, even though I would probably be the last person to get married, to either a man or a woman.  But whatever my beliefs about sex, marriage, religion, etc., I will fight tooth and nail to protect EVERYONE'S right for equal treatment under the law.

If churches want to ban marriages between two people of the same sex, so be it.  I really don't care what they do within the confines of their church.

But the state is not there to enforce any one religion's view on anything. 

And I don't buy the "separate but equal" argument.  And neither did the State Supreme Court of California.  Tomorrow, the voters of California will be asked to decide whether they should override the justices and change the constitution.  If Prop 8 passes, it will be a very sad day for California, and for the freedom that so so so many people keep talking about.

Hey thank you ....even though 3 years isnt' that long of a time.. ( i was hoping that somewhere in Europe it was 20-30yrs)  has it really made a big difference.. besides giving people something to get upset about..

I'd go off on a tanget that it seems like society anymore is really looking to find the difference in each other as a way to seperate us and attempt to control people more, but maybe another day..

Here's the bones of the argument put forth by Robert P. George of Princeton. BTW, if Prop 8 passes and is eventually challenged and taken to the SCOTUS, it may be George, or at least his argument, that will argue for the defense at the court.

As I understand it, the legal defense may be that marriages between one man and one woman can be considered a separate class under the 14th ammendment.

I took this from here if you want to read the full article:

So, then, how should we understand what marriage is? Marriage, considered not as a mere legal convention or cultural artifact, is a one-flesh communion of persons that is consummated and actualized by acts that are procreative in type, whether or not they are procreative in effect. It is an intrinsic human good, and, precisely as such, it provides a more than merely instrumental reason for choice and action.

The bodily union of spouses in marital acts is the biological matrix of their marriage as a comprehensive, multilevel sharing of life: a relationship that unites the spouses at all levels of their being. Marriage is naturally ordered to the good of procreation (and is, indeed, uniquely apt for the nurturing and education of children) as well as to the good of spousal unity. At the same time, it is not a mere instrumental good whose purpose is the generating and rearing of children. ­Marriage, considered as a one-flesh union, is intrinsically valuable.

To understand how it can be the case that, on the one hand, the generating and rearing of children is a perfection of marriage and not something merely incidental to it, and, on the other, marriage is not a mere means to the good of generating and rearing children, it is important to see that the procreative and unitive goods of marriage are tightly bound together. The one-flesh unity of spouses is possible because human (like other mammalian) males and females, by mating, unite organically—they form a single reproductive principle.

It is a plain matter of biological fact that reproduction is a single function, yet it is carried out not by an individual male or female human being, but by a male and female as a mated pair. So, in respect of reproduction, albeit not in respect of other activities (such as locomotion or digestion), the mated pair is a single organism; the partners form a single reproductive ­principle: They become one flesh.

 

Great I've been snipped.. now it looks like I'll never get married 

So, he writes as well:

"By contrast, the sterility of spouses—so long as they are capable of consummating their marriage by fulfilling the behavioral conditions of procreation (and, thus, of achieving true bodily, organic unity)—has never been treated as an impediment to marriage, even where sterility is certain and even certain to be permanent."

So..... because I can perform the behavioral conditions of procreation - i.e., to put it coarsely, I can screw-  even if I have a low sperm count, and can't father, I am allowed to marry.  gee... thanks

Still deosn't make sense to me

No.

The core of the argument is that bodily union of spouses becomes a two-in-one flesh union. They become a single organic principle. This is not possible with any other type of sexual act, including an act with three or more people.

 To me, this sounds like a very religious definition of marriage and reasons behind marriage.   Others asked but what about those that don't have the ability to procreate that get married?  (either can't or are too old)  What about those that choose not to procreate?  I also believe there are laws allowing (close) cousins to get married as long as they can't procreate. 

My (quasi catholic) mother said to me one day "Why get married if you aren't going to have children?"  It never occurred to me to think that children were a requirement as part of getting married.  Marriage is two people wanting to be bonded together by law (and possibly by religion).  Who cares if those two people are of the same sex or not?

Yes, a spiritual bond can exist between people who who not and will become one organic principle. However, in marriage the spiritual dimension is only one part of the total matrix that constitutes the "marriage".