gay marriage ban (Page 4)

Well yes of course it was in jest... However we do have quite a cozy medical plan for anyone interested ... It may take you 5 years to get a hip replacement though...  

ASA22 has asked a good question that a few have attempted to answer, “what is the fundamental interest of the state in regulating marriage.”  Most everyone has passed on this; some indicating that they can't think of any reason the State would need to regulate marriage.

The state is interested in regulating marriage in that it establishes responsibilities for children born to married couples.  Without this “civil contract” there would be no legal responsibility for the care and upbringing of children by both parents.  Thus, the cost of this would be borne by the state (hence it is interested), if the parents would choose to abandon the responsibility.

The benefits given to married couples (better tax status, access to each other’s benefits, and the others mentioned above) appear to be directly related to this ability to procreate.  The purpose of marriage is not to endow these benefits on the couple; the benefits are to help the couple with the purpose of perpetuating society through reproduction.  It also appears that love, feelings, etc are not what the state is interested in.  Perhaps then the reason that the same-sex initiatives have not been real successful in state legislatures.

Sorry…no sources to document.  Just a summary of my internet searches.  :-)

GatorJamie has hit the nail onthe head.  The proper question to ask is what is Marriage...not what are rights to get married.  Depending on how you look at it, Marriage doesn't have to be for love or to procreate.  I think originally, in the US, Marriage was a bible based entity that was Holy, good, allowed you to have sex...etc.  Marriage is not that anymore.  Now it's a legal contract that lets you get a lower tax bracket, get social security benifits, joint bank accounts, better & cheaper health care, etc.

Take away the government "incentive" to marriage and then you can have your Bible based One Man one Woman marriage and let everyone else have a civil union (insert your name for it here).  That's the ONLY way that the bible thumpers should be able to "save" the Institute of Marriage.  Until then, I say don't let the word Marriage get in the way.  Call it what it is...a contract.

My boss is very conservative and he says it's not natural...same sex couples can't have kids so the marriage isn't right.  I countered with, "My wife and I aren't going to have kids...should we be allowed to be married?"  Still haven't gotten an answer there.

Here is my mantra on this:  I married for LOVE...not SEX.

I want that on a bumper sticker!  Now that man + woman crap one.

Actually, it's both of those things. In the context of the church, it still is very definitely about a contract with God. In the context of the state, it's about property rights and tax benefits. And while the state is obligated to recognize marriages performed by the church, the church is not obligated to recognize marriages performed by the state.

It's that last statement that should alleviate any fears or concerns of people opposed to gay marriages based on religious conviction. But for some reason, in many many cases, it doesn't. I don't understand why that is.

Quote - Jim Christian -  

]Actually, it's both of those things. In the context of the church, it still is very definitely about a contract with God. In the context of the state, it's about property rights and tax benefits. And while the state is obligated to recognize marriages performed by the church, the church is not obligated to recognize marriages performed by the state.

**********************************************

 The state is only obligated to recognize those marriages that it has already pre-approved via a marriage applicaiton and license.  At least in our denomination, we cannot perform a marriage without the state's approval.

As far as marriage being about property rights and tax benefits in the context of the state; I'm not sure that's totally correct.  Those things apply to a married couple, but the states interest in marriage doesn't seem to be as much about giving tax breaks as it does about regulating families and procreation (see my post above).

But then again....I'm not expert :-)

(sorry...tried to quote that; but my ineptness in technology once again shows through)

I'll take a stab at this.

And rather than put this into my own words, as I am still in the stage of trying to understand both sides of the argument, I'll quote Robert P. George, professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton.

"Here is the core of the traditional understanding: Marriage is a two-in-one-flesh communion of persons that is consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type, whether or not they are reproductive in effect (or are motivated, even in part, by a desire to reproduce). The bodily union of spouses in marital acts is the biological matrix of their marriage as a multi-level relationship: that is, a relationship that unites persons at the bodily, emotional, dispositional, and spiritual levels of their being. Marriage, precisely as such a relationship , is naturally ordered to the good of procreation (and to the nurturing and education of children) as well as to the good of spousal unity, and these goods are tightly bound together. The distinctive unity of spouses is possible because human (like other mammalian) males and females, by mating, unite organically - they become a single reproductive principle. Although reproduction is a single act, in humans (and other mammals) the reproductive act is performed not by individual members of the species, but by a mated pair as an organic unit."

That paragraph is a lot to work through in one sitting. Here are the key points in my mind:

Marriage is the union of two persons in a multi-level way. These levels include the emotional, the spiritual. And it includes the bodily, whereby the two persons become one biological organism.

This union is ordered toward the good of procreation, even if the union does not effect procreation.

But the curch sure as heck can refuse to perform a marriage, even with the state's approval. That was my point. 

Because the proposal on the table is to change the definition of marriage. The burden of proof is on proponents of gay marriage to show why that change should take place.

[edit] as to why not, go back up three posts to the quote from Robert P. George and show why that definition of marriage is not true. 

Google Robert P. George and you'll find that while he is indeed a lawyer, his definition isn't exactly based in law. So to say that definition of marriage isn't true based on George's definition isn't exactly fair. You could say that it's different from George's opinion on what marriage is.

Jim, earlier in this thread you posted

Fine. I posted an argument based on logic. Work through it, or find someone who has, and show me where his logic is in error.

My problem with this is that it's put forth as "the traditional" understanding of marriage. This is dependent on who's tradition we're discussing. A view of marriage as an inter-family transaction in which a girl or young woman was essentially sold outright can also be considered a "traditional" understanding of marriage. There were laws on the books in some U.S. states that outlined the rules under which husbands could beat their wives. This can also be considered a "traditional understanding of marriage" in which one of the defining acts was state sanctioned brutality. 

I would say Prof. George puts forth a traditional understanding of marriage, not the traditional understanding.

Still, as a point of discussion, what if the focus on procreation is replaced with a focus on nuturing an already extant child? In other words, what if we modify Prof. George's description to define marriage not as a means of creating children, but raising them?

This is a really fascinating discussion.

Edit: before anyone decides to view this post as an obvious bias in any one direction by the admin, I ask this question as an adoptive parent.

Maybe we're talking about apples and oranges. My argument is about civil marriages. George's definition is in a religious context. 

Marmadaddy brings up some interesting points. I'm heading out in a minute and will check back in later.

But I just wanted to address this one point.

George's argument is not a religious argument. Show me where in that argument he appeals to a god.

It is a rational argument based largely in biology.

He doesn't, in his definition, specifically mention God, but c'mon...his language is *clearly* biblical in nature. The combining of two people into one biological organism? That's nothing more than Genesis paraphrased.

If it's based in biology, then Mr. George needs to spend some time in a biology class. Show me where in nature two vertebrate individuals become one biological organism.

George's definition is to the biblical definition as intelligent design is to creationism.

My point is that the church can NOT even perform a wedding without the state's permission....showing it has a real interest in marriage.  The interest having mostly to do with family and child relationships not tax benefits or property rights..

However, I do understand your point....

Heh.

In return, feel free to discuss penis-and-vagina sex. 

is that what makes you heterosexual, Jim?  Are you heterosexual even when you aren't having sex?  what does sex have to do with legal marriage anyway?  And I'll not be as rude as a previous poster by saying that even the thought of that "grosses me out."  Oh wait, I just said it.  I apologize to reducing who you are to what you do with your penis

Nah...what makes me heterosexual is my love of interior design...no...wait...my dislike of NASCAR. No, that's not it either. Hmmm...I may have some soul searching to do.

No...I was just making a flip comment and trying to think of a subject you'd be as qualified to discuss as I am of gay marriage. That was the only thing I could think of.

(and I'm pretty sure that's a compliment) 

It's flawed for the same reason I believe Intelligent Design is flawed.  It starts with a supposition and treats it as fact when it is more accurately described as the opinion of the originator.

Can you "prove" that "procreation is the natural order of marriage"?  I believe that to be false and do not agree with the definition you quoted.

-Chris 

swoon.

this whole thing makes me yawn.  pass the popcorn. it is fascinating to watch the degree of specificity that you (pl) are seeking, the semantics, etc.  this is not a math problem, it's my life.  But keep at it, I am entertained.