Prop. 8 passed.

[*zeo]

The passing of Prop 8 was by vote, not the authorities, it was the people who passed it. It's the advocates who want to ignore the vote and the will of the people.

under what authority do you state that the institution of marriage may not include 2 men and 2 women relationships. ( please limit your answer to maximum 2 sentences.)

There are many reasons but since you want it limited to two...

1) Because the American system, I'm not making assumptions on yours, of Marriage is based on a man and woman based family structure, reasons have been listed in previous posts, and has been since its founding. We do have a system of tolerance, like freedom of religion, etc. But the factors that helped make this country what it is was based on that traditional family structure.

2) Marriage, in all its forms has always been to promote the growth and regulation of society and its people. The purpose of the American system is not served by extending it to same sex couples, when that alters all the priorities and system of check and balances that regulate marriage. You change marriage and it changes its role in society and how it effects its growth and regulation.

For example, the right of parents would be effected. People who are not blood relatives can suddenly have as much rights over a child as blood relatives. The issue has far more reaching ramifications than I think most ever consider.

I'm not trying to be rude, but your posts are becoming a mess of random information as far as I can see. this is how it seems to me, I'm not attacking you, I'm explaining how this is effecting me. it's quite dsitressing because i feel like you're not listening to anyone, you are just attacking every single sentence they put down.

Everything I've stated has been to the point, and nothing has been random or off topic. I've even included all points of contention and put them into perspective, which shows I have been listening. Explaining how all points effect each other is not an attack but an illumination of the true dynamics of the subject matter. Point is this is not a simple subject and some things in life do require you consider all the factors if you are to be anything close to fair and want to have a valid opinion on the matter.

This is a subject that effects the very foundations of our societies and how we both have and will shape them. Please just take the time to read through it all if you really want to understand what is at stake.

The Weekly Standard: Beyond Gay Marriage

The American Spectator: Going Beyond Same Sex Marriage

PublicSquare.net: Neither a Marriage Nor a Civil Right (Non-Partisan Site)

The American Civil Rights Union: A Supreme Constitutional Showdown (Non-Partisan Site)

[*Jess♥]

There are many reasons but since you want it limited to two...

1) Because the American system, I'm not making assumptions on yours, of Marriage is based on a man and woman based family structure, reasons have been listed in previous posts, and has been since its founding. We do have a system of tolerance, like freedom of religion, etc. But the factors that helped make this country what it is was based on that traditional family structure.

2) Marriage, in all its forms has always been to promote the growth and regulation of society and its people. The purpose of the American system is not served by extending it to same sex couples, when that alters all the priorities and system of check and balances that regulate marriage. You change marriage and it changes its role in society and how it effects its growth and regulation.

For example, the right of parents would be effected. People who are not blood relatives can suddenly have as much rights over a child as blood relatives. The issue has far more reaching ramifications than I think most ever consider.

I appreciate you reducing the amount of material in your post and keeping to the point.

I am afraid i am failing you on your answer. you flunk this time, but I will give you another chance. please read my question more carefully and answer accordingly. and i asked to keep it to two sentences not 2 paragraphs.

I'll put it down here again for convenience.

under what authority do you state that the institution of marriage may not include 2 men and 2 women relationships. ( please limit your answer to maximum 2 sentences.)

I should note that while some of your posts, if read through fully and if one had the mental capacity, would actually get the answer, but I am taking this as a matter of mutual respect in responding to a question that has been asked.

also, many people who are reading this thread may not have arrived at the conclusion that i have just managed to glean from this.

[*zeo]

There is such a thing as over simplifying a subject matter Ryuki. Unlike the situation of Wyrm this isn't a matter of simple making these easy for everyone. This is an important issue that will effect everybody. If there was something blatantly obvious to support either view then it wouldn't be a matter of such controversy. But I'll give you the two main points.

1) Traditional Marriage in the US has always been between a man and woman, aka the nuclear family, is the foundation of the American society since its beginning. (There's a ton of information that goes with this mind you)

2) Same-sex Unions do not serve the societal purpose of marriage to stabilize the foundations of American society and provide the structure that shapes each and every generation of this society (again a lot more information goes with this).

For those actually interested in my reasoning and want a better understanding of the subject matter it goes as follows...

The argument by advocates is that this should fall under civil rights but as an institution this is not a civil rights issue. Everyone has the right to get married, but like any institution there are rules and regulations. For example it is almost universal that a father can't marry his daughter, or a mother her son. The rules do vary according to each soceity but the common factor is what that soceity values morally and how they shape their society with those values.

The reason polygamy is outlawed in so many places is not just because of religious reasons but because it promotes promiscuity. For example 44% of men polled in polygomist societies in Africa have admitted to having sex with women other than their wives. But in those societies such behavior is accepted as normal and is often brought about when there is a population disparity in which women outnumber the men. But is ultimately driven by sex, which is why the conversal situation of women with multiple husbands is so rare, since the burdern of family ultimately falls on women as the ones who actually have to get pregnant and give birth.

The consequence of polygomy is thus a lessening of the bonds between couples as they have to share their mates, but they suffer from jealousy and desire just like anyone and thus ultimately such societies are much less stable than monogamy based societies.

While America was founded on monogamy based principles of relationship in which promiscuity is looked down upon. This has served us well in stabilizing family structure and ensuring the most opportunity for each generation, while most situations in which this policy was not followed just results in broken families.

It's just with the last half century the institution of marriage has suffered with ever increasing divorce rates and an increasing number of unmarried single parents. Same-sex marriage will only serve to further erode the institution of marriage. Since unlike traditional marriage there is even less to base these relationships on, ultimately this will only add to the divorce rate. The lack of biological procreation for example means the responsibility for child rearing becomes lessened and thus a lesser factor to keeping couples together. Even the ability to procreate is a factor in this respect since the lack of this ability in same-sex relations means there isn't the responsibility to be as careful as heterosexual couples, almost risk free cheating for example, and the role of child raising is all but removed from the equation of family and even lineage would become unimportant.

Conversely this can pose problems such as protecting women who bear children produced from the union between a man and a woman (legitimacy, assumed paternity), whether one or both parents are bi-sexual or gay and just wanted a child for example. Same-sex marriage would open the door to all types of relationships. The advocates for same sex marriage even make a point of including transexuals and other non-traditional relationships. Among the many other scenarios in which paternity is an issue would become literally undone as the rights of parents get subverted in the redefining of marriage. Essentially forcing us to put the welfare of our young on a completely different system from what it has been traditionally.

Before we continue with that line of thought the ramifications should be considered, the breaking down of the family structure has resulted in an increasing number of broken homes. With more and more children being raised in unstable conditions and a lessening of opportunities. It is also true a same sex couple can not provide a child with the traditional balance that a father and mother provide.

The consequences of same-sex marriages on a society can be drawn from those societies that have decided to allow it such as Scandinavia,

The Weekly Standard: The End of Marriage in Scandinavia

Half of all children are now born out of wedlock in Scandinavia. By contrast, in the US, that figure is around 30-35%. This number has been relatively stable over the past 8 years. Source

Now some may claim I'm making an "assumption" that children are the fundamental basis of marriage, let's examine a concept once known as the "shotgun wedding". Why would a father, whose daughter becomes pregnant out of wedlock, force the future father to marry his daughter. Of course, there are various rationales, including ensuring that someone other than himself is financially responsible for the new baby, but the key point is that having children and getting married were once considered hand-in-glove. That is, having children was once considered almost equivalent to being married.

This is no longer true because of the way marriage has eroded over the last half century. We need to ask ourselves whether or not the child raising aspect of marriage should be emphasized more, or discarded. In Scandinavia, where the importance of marriage between parents has eroded, we see the results: a majority of children are born out of wedlock. We have not seen the social implications of this, but Scandinavia certainly will over the next decade or two. I doubt anyone is encouraged by the trends there.

Ultimately, in order to emphasize marriage's importance in child rearing, it is important to stress the male-female bond which occurs in marriage. By de-emphasizing this aspect of the relationship we call marriage, we devalue it and therefore invite a further deterioration of the institution from what has already occured. We de-emphasize this by watering down the institution first off by reducing the social stigma of out-of-wedlock births, something that has already progressed to alarming levels, and second by encouraging those who cannot, by definition, conceive children to become married and thus remove the association of child rearing from the equation.

It is not as simple as saying that allowing same sex relationships to be termed "marriages" creates a unique stress on the institution itself. However, it does add additional pressure on an institution that has been weakening over the past few decades. That weakening has caused real and measurable societal problems. Weakening it further may cause the institution to become a thing of the past, a quaint institution that used to be the framework of the family. Worse yet, it may morph into something wholly separate from child rearing, which would be a tragedy.

Essentially we should remember that both sexes bring different elements to raising a child and having just one type of parent doesn't provide that balance. Then there is the parental rights, redefining marriage means also a redefining of parental rights. No longer will just your biological family have rights but anyone who took part in the relationship. Ultimately what is best for the child would get lost in the maze that opening marriages to really any type of relation will only serve to make an already chaotic system even more chaotic and the children will be the ones to ultimately pay the price for that.

Consequently, same sex marriage also will effect other rights like property and inheritance. The role of traditional family will all but be gone if this is allowed to come about. To the extreme Ryuki has joked about someday people will be allowed to marry their dog, to which I should point out that historically human and animal marriages have occured. More recently on May 1998 - The Jerry Springer Show had an episode titled "I married a horse", about a man who had a long standing relationship with a horse. It wasn't aired because of the controversy of the subject matter but the man was later part of another documentary. So just like with the examples already given of cultures like the ancient Roman Empire, it all depends on what kind of society do we want and just what we are willing to allow based solely on what makes people happy.

This shows the issue will not just effect individual choice but our entire society as a whole.

The idea to be tolerant is fine, most American are open to the idea of Civil Unions to give the same legal rights and recognition as marriage. But this is being confused with the institution of marriage, which in American society has been designed for a specific purpose of not only interpersonal relations but the family structure upon which the American society is based. Even people who are for gay rights are not all ready to just throw away tradition for many of the same reasons I am listing.

A popular argument is that same-sex unions can in no way be the cause of any injustice to others. As a civil law, however, they cannot help but play a decisive role in shaping both the thought and behavior of individuals and society. Legal recognition of same-sex unions would act to obscure basic moral values causing a devaluation of the institution of marriage. It is therefore somewhat naive to suggest, as do a number of proponents of same-sex marriage, that religious institutions will not be forced to perform same-sex marriages in the future if same-sex marriage becomes law. If a government can redefine the term "marriage" they can also redefine any existing laws to which the term marriage is related.

Now mind you, Men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation. Nonetheless, same sex is counter productive to the sexual act to the gift of life. Procreation, while not the only purpose of marriage, is nonetheless essential to the institution. The fact that some married couples do not have children either because of infertility or personal decision does not determine the purpose of marriage. Exceptions do not invalidate but prove the rule; individual practices do not invalidate the objectives of an institution; variations do not nullify a norm.

From the very beginning the founders of this country wanted a system that would produce the ideal citizen. So the system of marriage in America was created to provide both a stable family system but also one that would instill American values and ideals into each generation.

To an extent this is why we are in the situation we are now since an over riding concept behind this system was that we are free thinkers and seek equality and the betterment of all. This is why the civil rights revolution was possible and one social injustice after the next has been overcome. But people are now confusing civil rights with the right to marriage when in fact marriage isn't a right any more than being an elected official of government is a right.

Marriage is an institutional system created for a specific purpose in our society but with the decline of that system people have lost touch for the reasons why that system was established in the first place and why it is still revelant even today. At least to anyone who understands the ramifications of the system and how changing it will effect the future of this country.

In all the changes that marriage has gone through in the history of American, the core has always remained the same and changing that core represents a fundamental change that will forever change it from what it was.

And believe it or not all that is just a summary of the complexities that plague this issue. Like how advocates want to force this change upon us by subverting the law system to bypass the will of the people.

But durendal probably best summed it up by pointing to "responsibility", as ultimately this breaks down to responsibility and how our choices effect not only ourselves but others in a society.

[*YoungGuyver]

Roman armies for example actually encouraged gay love among their troops under the thinking that you were more likely to protect your lover than your buddy, they also liked to have orgies. So do you really want to use them as an example to justify an alternate point of view? Remember the Roman Empire eventually collapsed. Ultimately this is an issue of what kind of society we want to live in and whether our society can survive such restructuring of its basic value system.

I'm sorry, that kind of sounded like the Roman Empire collapsed because of the values of same sex relationships. I know that wasn't what you were saying, but it skews the point that was being made originally. The point was that marriage is more than just the limited scope of men and women getting together to pop out babies. And it wasn't the gays that collapsed the Roman Empire. It was a few factors, such as corruption. The guilds had influenced law so much in order to maximize their profits that the economy was hit incredibly high with inflation and inefficiency(red tape and tariffs). The rich elite started buying positions of high rank in the military because it streamlined a good political career, but it meant that high ranking military officers lacked real skill, and they saw a military decline. Didn't help that every nation had to donate soldiers-so the foreigners were trained and saw the decline and knew that it was getting to be a good time to attack. Trade routes were easily hit by.... I'm digressing. Whole other topic, sorry.

You can love anyone enough to consider them family but you can never make someone a blood relative, they have to be born that. An institution has requirements that has to be fulfilled in order for you to join that institution. Like you have to adopt someone to make them officially a part of your family, but adoption has regulation and rules. Not everyone can adopt and not every can be adopted

I don't think very many people that get married are blood relatives. But once they are married, it is usually considered a bond that makes them family. And yes, adopting children also brings them into the family, despite no blood ties.

You brought up legal questions of inheritance. What do the already existing laws of adoption say regarding inheritance? The scenerio is already there.

You say that same sex marriage would devalue marriage even further than it already has. Perhaps it was sexual equality that helped to increase the divorce rates. Women started fighting for their freedom, fighting back and not just obeying whatever a husband would tell them to do. Marriage wasn't as easy for men after that. No amount to same sex relationship is going to change that. If a marriage is going to work, Durendal's epic word 'Responsibility' must come into play. Along with other such words as 'honor, respect, honesty. Simply being a boy and a girl is not enough. In fact, in a modern realm of equality, it probably has very little bearing at all.

Name one trait that a husband or father provides in a marriage, that a woman or mother can not provide. Be specific. Teach a child honesty? Integrity? Help with homework? Provide income for the family? Show the child how to tie their shoes, use a computer, or play soccer?

I agree that marriage is an institution. I have no argument with you there. And yes, there are rules and conditions for that institution. You had the analogy of people entering the senate. You are right, not everyone can join the senate, they must gain the approval of the people. Not everyone can get married, you must find someone you are compatable with first. But you are restricting same esx relationships from marriage just as you would restrict black people from the senate.

[*zeo]

Note this response is only for YoungGuyver, to directly address his concerns and to clarify what I consider misconception.

But you are restricting same esx relationships from marriage just as you would restrict black people from the senate.

That comparison is completely invalid, being gay or lesbian has nothing to do with race. And last I checked both black and gays were allowed to be in government. They just all have to be citizens! Now are we going to claim citizenship is a discrimination too because it is required to run for office? If it is then you should have no problem with an American becoming the leader of your country without first becoming a citizen.

Government issues marriage licenses, which means there is regulations involved. Like for example we can compare to drivers licenses, would you call it discrimitory to not give a license to a blind person? Just because a blind person can't fulfill all the requirements to drive, using the same logic you just used to compare same sex marriage to racism we should give a license to the blind person anyway because it discriminates on their disability. Do you really think that makes sense?

No what you are failing to realize is letting same-sex marriage is more equavalent to letting someone who is not a citizen of a country run for office in that country. There is no basis of civil rights involved in this issue. The problem is that gay marriage advocates are refusing to acknowledge that marriage is primarily the state's regulation of individuals' conduct. For them it is a "right". How can someone have a "right" to have their conduct regulated? Regulation by the state necessarily implies that the state is regulating for a purpose.

Like my other example, a woman wishing to join a gentleman's club can never join no matter what because it is a gentleman's club. Her rights aren't violated because it isn't a right to be a part of a club, it is elective, and she is free to join or create her own club. She just can't call it a gentleman's club if women are members. It's calling something other than what it is. The same is true for the reverse.

Institutions have form and function, not to mention the simple matter of practicality and differentiating what is from what is desired. There are fundamental differences between heterosexual unions and same-sex unions.

Same-sex unions will not have all the same issues that plague heterosexual unions. For example, there can be no accidental pregnancies in a same-sex union but there can be in a heterosexual union. Like the shotgun wedding example, the institutionalization of marriage happened for specific reasons. Thus one of the reasons governments recognize marriage is to protect the children, legally providing for children if the parents for whatever reason can not. Ultimately, the relationship between a man and a woman is indeed unique because it is the only relationship that has the potential to produce children. To call marriage discriminatory is thus absurd, since unlike same sex unions this is a matter of biological fact for heterosexual unions.

Same-sex unions do not provide traditional lineage even if a child does become a part of their family. Male couples for example can only adopt (at least without violating a gay only relationship), while female couples can get pregnant but not ever with their spouse and thus the praternity of the child gets lost. A male child in a lesbian family for example will have no father figure to relate to and thus can claim his parents can't understand him and be right in doing so, while the lack of male role model for a boy should also be considered and the same for the reverse for a girl with male only parents. Consequently same sex unions are invariably based primarily on sex and emotion. They wouldn't have the same range of reasons to staying together as heterosexual couples would, which then brings up how we could ever call them the same and ultimately how they will effect divorce rates if they have less reasons to stay committed to each other.

The above just demonstrate a few aspect in which same-sex unions do not equal the same thing as a heterosexual union. The only way they could is if you remove procreation entirely from the equation of marriage. Thus ultimately allowing same-sex marriage will result in a redefining of family and how soceity deals with it. Never mind the arguments the advocates are using can easily be applied to all other unions.

If we redefine marriage to include same sex couples, it affects society as a whole. School children will be taught that John and Jim's marriage is on an exact par with John and Mary's marriage. But guess what-- it's not. John and Jim can't produce children. That may not bother you but it bothers me. The primary reason for marriage in my mind is to create a family. And although some people marry that can't have kids or don't want kids, that doesn't change the fact that most people do indeed marry so as to build a family and this is the primary interest of government to regulate it.

Marriage also has a quid pro quo, the government doesn't just give the rights of marriage without responsibilities attached to those rights. Such as forcing the responsibility of fatherhood to both his child and wife, which ultimately means only heterosexual unions serve the purpose of the government in regulating marriage at all. Also assumed paternity is still an obligation. Even if a man is found to not be the biological father of a child born during his marriage-- many states still place the burden of raising that child on him.

Again showing marriage is an institution based to support the traditional family. Tax laws themselves are evidence of this, because they favor only the stay-at-home-with-one-working-partner marriage arrangement, as well as general child tax breaks. While two working spouses carry the marriage penalty. The hard work of raising the next generation is also the obligation of married couples in general. The law understands that it must provide support for children brought into the world. It chooses marriage as the means by which to establish a support network for these children. Its purpose and aim is to insure and support the next generation. Thus, marriage does indeed obligate most of the participants.

While praternal rights also puts an emphasis on the father's responsibility even in divorce and usually leans towards giving the mother costudy of the child but a same sex couple would not have this leaning. So regardless they wouldn't be judged in court the same way as hetero couples are and thus court cases involving them will be more complicated, especially since most won't have a biological child to contest. Further illustrating the differences and why they can never be the same.

Regardless of religious persuasion, many people in America simply do not want their children coming away with the idea that marriage is not intimately linked with raising a family. The logical conclusion that would be drawn by the kids (and rightfully so) is that it doesn't matter that John and Jim can't have their own kids. But, what is important is that they are sexually attracted to each other. It is all about fulfilling one's individual desires and not about the responsibilities that come with children that are usually inevitably produced from heterosexual unions. In essense this shows how same sex marriage advocates are just playing on the growing disassociation of sex with responsibility in our society but ignoring how this same trend is destabilizing the American society.

Advocates for example will try to point out that procreation should no longer be considered a part of marriage, siting events like the removal of the block to contraceptives or abortion. But that just illustrates that they want to redefine family and point to control as a validation that procreation should be irrevelant when it isn't. If it was then the human race would pretty much end as then we wouldn't be having any kids or not enough to maintain the population. And accidental pregnacies still happen despite the ability to control it.

While presently we have the situation that...

(1)Marriage is defined by law as between two people of the opposite sex. This is the primary reason it is even being debated, while 11 States outright have outlawed same sex marriage because the wording is precise in those states.

(2)Gay advocates argue that the law should be changed and extended to include a two people of the same sex, but use legal arguments that would both redefine the relationship of marriage to family and open the way for other sexual unions to become validated under the same arguments use for opening marriage to same sex.

(3) The court (or legislature) must examine the reasons why the existing law should be changed, but advocates want to force the issue and bypass any considerations. Legalizing it in California for example would force other states to accept same-sex marriage. Gay couples for example could go to California, get married and thus force their home state to accept them as married.

(4) Included in that examination, they must also ask whether the reasons for extending/changing the law could apply equally to another group -- polygamists to just name one example.

(5) If there is no principled reason why marriage should be extended to gays but not polygamists, then the court/legislature needs to understand that the further extension is coming down the road.

For example, if advocates go through the courts saying it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to ban same sex marriage, we have the slippery slope problem in a magnified form. Courts will be hard pressed to draw a principled distinction between gay marriage and other types of unions. Second, if it is arrived at through the legislature, the slope is not as "slippery" but it still provides people favoring polygamy or any other type relationships the opportunity to argue further expansion and ultimately redefine marriage to have no real limit at all and thus cease to be an institution.

What Marriage is For

As the article states: why does every culture on earth have an institution of marriage? Because sex between men and women results in children and the raising of those children is vitally important for the continuance of any society.

Wedding Bell Blues

I'm sorry, that kind of sounded like the Roman Empire collapsed because of the values of same sex relationships. I know that wasn't what you were saying, but it skews the point that was being made originally. The point was that marriage is more than just the limited scope of men and women getting together to pop out babies. And it wasn't the gays that collapsed the Roman Empire. It was a few factors, such as corruption.

Yes there were many reasons and no I wasn't saying it was the sole reason but as listed here, Reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire, the Decline in Morals and Values is listed among the reasons. It is true how a society shapes itself ultimately determines how stable that society is, though same sex relations had little to directly do with this decline it along with all the other forms of sexual unions practiced in ancient Rome contributed to the overal decline in morals and values. Practices such as orgies, prostitution, etc.

Ultimately same sex unions do promote promiscuity over monogamy, the roman soldiers for instance also had wives and had sex with both the wife and their fellow soldiers while out in the field. The social structure of the Roman Empire made this normal for them. Such conditions however do not promote monogamy and thus opens a society up to other forms of sexual relations. So the argument can be made that the end result was a corruption of the Roman society that at least helped contribute to its eventual fall.

Remember we are talking about a society that through most of its history allowed many pagan beliefs, including the ceremonial marriage to animals that represented a given diety, etc. Though it should also be noted gay unions were mostly temporary and not as binding as heterosexual marriages, which was still required for lineage and to insure the growth of the population. But was an example of how open the romans were sexually and why ultimately things like orgies became almost common place as the culture as a whole continued to become more and more corrupt till its final collapse.

The only real key to stability the empire ever really had was its military might, giving it a fairly constant influx of new resources and slaves that in turn replaced older slaves as those slaves gained citizenship, and both corruption and eventually civil war left them open to its final collapse.

Thus why I basically said that it was a bad example to compare to modern society, even though most modern societies haven't yet been around as long as the Roman Empire had been. Besides which the American system was founded much more recently, being this is still a relatively young nation compared to the long established European nations. And our society is very different from the Roman Empire. So pointing to them as an example was flawed to begin with.

More relevantly, we should consider the issues that effect us now.

For example here's an article, "Why should I care whether same-sex couples can get married?" "How will that affect me or my family?" "Why not just live and let live?", by Mary Ann Glendon, Professor of Law at Harvard.

If these social experiments go forward, moreover, the rights of children will be impaired. Same-sex marriage will constitute a public, official endorsement of the following extraordinary claims made by the Massachusetts judges in the Goodridge case: that marriage is mainly an arrangement for the benefit of adults; that children do not need both a mother and a father; and that alternative family forms are just as good as a husband and wife raising kids together. It would be tragic if, just when the country is beginning to take stock of the havoc those erroneous ideas have already wrought in the lives of American children, we should now freeze them into constitutional law.

That philosophy of marriage, moreover, is what our children and grandchildren will be taught in school. They will be required to discuss marriage in those terms. Ordinary words like husband and wife will be replaced by partner and spouse. In marriage-preparation and sex-education classes, children will have to be taught about homosexual sex. Parents who complain will be branded as homophobes and their children will suffer.

Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and openly discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuits if they refuse to compromise their principles.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110004735

Same Sex marriage could also lead to the further erosion of monogamy in marriage, City Journal: Redefining Marriage Away

[*Jess♥]

1) Traditional Marriage in the US has always been between a man and woman, aka the nuclear family, is the foundation of the American society since its beginning. (There's a ton of information that goes with this mind you)

2) Same-sex Unions do not serve the societal purpose of marriage to stabilize the foundations of American society and provide the structure that shapes each and every generation of this society (again a lot more information goes with this).

this does not answer my question.

I will ask again.

under what authority do you state that the institution of marriage may not include 2 men and 2 women relationships.

under what authority

I will include the definition of authority

authority

1.

1. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.

2. One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.

2. Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.

3. A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority.

4.

1. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.

2. A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.

you keep saying things like "Same-sex Unions do not serve the societal purpose of marriage" but you have yet to justify your source for determining the "societal purpose of marriage"

you keep saying that same sex unions doesn't fit in with hte institution of marriage, but you have yet to provide anything CONCRETE to back this up. (and I won't accept links as concrete justiication, that's ignorant)

you keep saying "it's not that simple" yet you are stating things like this as thought they are written down plain as day. as if there is some rulebook sitting somewhere.

writing paragraphs of examples from past court proceedings, past events, different situations, philosophy will not so. if you want to say something in such a definite way, you need some government clause, or some institutional rulebook or similar. until such a thing is produced, the matter is still one for debate and we can draw no definite conclusions. you must then cite these things as your own opinion. and make it absolutely clear that it is your own opinion instead of saying it like it is a fact.

I do not have time to read all of that.

I debate with my own views and teh personal views of others. I don't debate with a wad of research. I relate to humans, not internet sources.

[*zeo]

The role of government is to serve the purposes of the people Ryuki, one of the purposes of which is the regulation of how the society is allowed to interact and grow. This consequently means marriage falls under the perview of government and the intentions upon which that government was founded.

Thus my answer did answer your question, since as this country was founded the ideal family has always been based upon one man and one woman. The very structure of the American family has always been based on this since the country's founding and the purpose it was set that way is as valid now as it was then. To provide the best conditions upon which our children can be raised and the best conditions of stability to instill American values of free thinking.

Same-sex marriage does not serve this purpose since same-sex marriages do not represent the type of family that can procreate and thus help the country grow. Marriage as an institution is not a right but a responsibility, it has benefits from government only because marriage benefits the country by benefiting our children.

Essentially, this debate is centered around the rights of individuals over the rights of a society. Those who argue for the change only think of the individual to the exclusion of the impact on society, while those who wish to keep things the way they were think of the impact on society and what these changes will ultimately mean to us all.

Really, I could easily put the question back to you. What authority do you have to redefine marriage if your redefining ignores the original intent and purpose of the institution?

But consider these two points on the rights of a society. . .

1) Society has the right to be run the way it sees best, the American society still sees marriage as only between a man and woman for the purpose of child rearing.

2) Society has the right to expect responsibility of every citizen to the basic needs of the soceity they live in, if individual desires overruled societal responsibilities then we would live in anarchy without concern of how individual decisions effected the rest of society.

[*Jess♥]

The role of government is to serve the purposes of the people Ryuki, one of the purposes of which is the regulation of how the society is allowed to interact and grow. This consequently means marriage falls under the perview of government and the intentions upon which that government was founded.

Thus my answer did answer your question, since as this country was founded the ideal family has always been based upon one man and one woman. The very structure of the American family has always been based on this since the country's founding and the purpose it was set that way is as valid now as it was then. To provide the best conditions upon which our children can be raised and the best conditions of stability to instill American values of free thinking.

Same-sex marriage does not serve this purpose since same-sex marriages do not represent the type of family that can procreate and thus help the country grow. Marriage as an institution is not a right but a responsibility, it has benefits from government only because marriage benefits the country by benefiting our children.

Essentially, this debate is centered around the rights of individuals over the rights of a society. Those who argue for the change only think of the individual to the exclusion of the impact on society, while those who wish to keep things the way they were think of the impact on society and what these changes will ultimately mean to us all.

Really, I could easily put the question back to you. What authority do you have to redefine marriage if your redining ignores the original intent and purpose of the institution?

But consider these two points on the rights of a society. . .

1) Society has the right to be run the way it sees best, the American society still sees marriage as only between a man and woman for the purpose of child rearing.

2) Society has the right to expect responsibility of every citizen to the basic needs of the soceity they live in, if individual desires overruled societal responsibilities then we would live in anarchy without concern of how individual decisions effected the rest of society.

you need to refine your methods of communication.

still you did not give a straight answer. why will you not give a straight answer? is it some genetic condition or something?

what you seem to be implying is that the authority you are using to define the institution of marriage is the government? why can't you just say "the authority i am using is the government" ? is this because you simply want to be awkward and cause confusion and misunderstanding?

but hold on, you continue to say in a further sentence. "...ignores the original intent and purpose of the institution?" now... sigh, here we go again.. on what authority are you claiming that this ignores the original intent and purpose? what authority are you using for your definition of the original intent and purpose of marriage???

because we have shown quite clearly that in hte roman empire, the purpose of marriage was clearly to join 2 people INCLUDING 2 males, that was until it was outlawed. but note, very carefully, it HAD TO BE OUTLAWED, which means before that, it was considered lawful and most likely very normal.

I almost regret asking this because i have this terrible feeling you're gonna post another slew of information that skirts around teh issues i have paid meticluous attention to. please prove me wrong.

anyway

Really, I could easily put the question back to you. What authority do you have to redefine marriage if your redining ignores the original intent and purpose of the institution?

what the hell is this suposed to mean? why would you ever put the question back to me? I'm not the one that has been stating left right and centre that "marriage i this", "marriage is that".

if you realy want me to answer it?

I will. you see, I CAN answer questions that are put to me. with minimum fuss and quite clearly.

first authority i use is teh original records of gay marriage in the roman empire.

second authority i use is the legislation of the US states where gay marriage is accepted.

thrid authority i use is the polls on that link i gave you that show a majority of support for gay marriage.

fourth authority i use is uk law.

I could go on, but i believe i have answered the question quite sufficiently.

and i didn't need to type out 8 paragraphs to do so.

and you know, I am sick of this, so I will actually answer the question for you that i asked in hte first place.

teh answer is "proposition 8". yes the title of this thread.

I figured that out a small while ago. that you could use that as justification for your views .

but then. that only applies to california so actually it is still a grey area, so you just can't go around saying that it defies teh institution unless teh institution is defined in the government. i assume it is since that was your answer, correct?

or if it isn't.....

I think you should be ashamed.

[*zeo]

you need to refine your methods of communication.

still you did not give a straight answer. why will you not give a straight answer? is it some genetic condition or something?

I have given you a straight answer, you just refuse to realize it. Try looking at the last two lines of my last post!!!

No you are simply asking for a simple in your face answer to a subject that has no simple in your face answer. It would be neither honest nor correct to over simplify this subject to any single points.

It is not simply government as you put it, society includes both government as well as the responsibility of each citizen to every other citizen.

Saying government only gives one side and not the whole picture, there is also rights of the citizens. Same Sex marriage would also effect the rights of heterosexuals to identify marriage with procreation and child rearing. But neither do we want to impune the rights of individuals to the right to live life as they see fit, which is also at stake.

So there is no outright your're wrong and I'm right answer!!! Only a concensus of the pro's and con's of both viewpoints. Only by considering both can we really see which is right and which is wrong but it's not an obvious in your face answer.

what the hell is this suposed to mean? why would you ever put the question back to me? I'm not the one that has been stating left right and centre that "marriage i this", "marriage is that".

To get you to realize the answers aren't simple, if it was it wouldn't be so controversal.

Also you couldn't answer with just two sentences either!

Speaking of which, lets clear some of the points you brought up...

1) The Roman Empire has no rights in America, and it doesn't represent any modern day society. So invalid answer! It's like comparing the Roman's practice of crucification to modern death penalty, there is no direct comparison.

2) The legislation of the US states where gay marriage is accepted is not clear, in most states it is defined as between a man and woman. The states that have accepted it never said gay marriage was a part of the law, only that the law did not specifically exclude them. But that's because the founders never thought it would ever be questioned, big difference. This answer also ignores the fact this is still being debated and thus does not support your answer. Prop 8 was a vote to affirm a previous passed law to specify that marriage is between a man and woman that had been knocked down by the state legislature but applies only to California.

3) The majority of Americans DO NOT support same sex marriage, the vote was 70% to >30%!!! The majority only support same sex unions such as civil unions or other similar practice. The majority doesn't approve of redefining marriage.

4) You have a lot of gull to say I should be ashamed. You can't even be bothered to know everything that is involved in this issue.

Edit>

If you had been paying any attention you would realize that in the US there is a separation between state law and the federal law, because of this each state has its own wording of matters of state concern like marriage. There isn't a real federal definition of marriage other than IRS tax law. Thus the reason for the debate since each state worded marriage description differently. Some specifically outline between man and woman while others kept it simple and just said union. It's because it was vague in those states that advocates argued in court to have same sex included because it wasn't specifically excluded.

Since law follows precident but there was no precident on the marriage laws, since they had never been questioned before other than civil rights. But this is like question whether a woman should be allowed to join a gentleman's club just because the charter of the club never specifically said women would be excluded, even though it is a gentleman's club.

Legally you could argue anything if the law doesn't have the language to contest your claim.

One of the reasons there are nutty warning labels on products is because legally those companies can be sued unless they specifically word the warnings for all possible situations. But marriage is something that has existed since the country's founding and has never really been question before and thus never before had the wording needed to be specific to cover all possible interpretation.

However there are 1000's of laws that do in fact impart and show the intent of the institution of marriage as those laws are overwhelming centered to the protection of children and the ability to raise them.

Property rights for example are originally for the family, to ensure that in case of the death of the father that the child and mother would be provided for and not left destitute. This back when the father was the primary financial income for a family.

Similarly the rights of custody of children are predominantly to regulate and protect the interests of family.

So again big picture versus micro-interpretation.

The advocates know they can't change the law in all states because not all states have vague definitions. So their tact is to change the laws in some key states and use the protection clause that presently allows marriages from other states to be respected in all states to then essentially make it legal in all states regardless of local laws. Thus forcing this redefinition upon the entire country.

This is why there is talk of making a constitutional amendment to once and for all define marriage for the whole country. Something that may come about if the Advocates get their way in the California courts and have Prop 8 overturned. But people on both sides do not like that option as it imposes the will of the federal government on the states and thus would violate the normal separation of federal and state government in the US.

With such big stakes, I hope you can understand why this can't ever be an over simplified subject.

[durendal]

Wow, "it's getting hot in here. (So take off all your clothes)"

Ok, before this discussion gets any hotter, I would like to get something straight. I'm actually confused as to which stand you guys are on. Because as far as I understand it, what we are debating here is whether you are anti gay marriage or pro gay marriage.

Obviously Kenji is pro gay marriage because of how he showed his distaste to proposition 8.

Of course there is the grey area, meaning remaining neutral. But if you are neutral, then there is really nothing to debate about.

And from the way I understand the posts above, Zeo is in the grey area explaining the principles of marriage while Ryuki misconstrued Zeo's post as anit-gay marriage. Is this correct?

[*zeo]

Yes, I am for gay rights, just not the redefining of marriage because of its role in society and how it would impact the rights of non-gay couples.

I would be all for any alternative that would give them the rights they are entitled to.

[*Jess♥]

so you're saying it's not government. you're saying it's government and society.

and since society is rather big and opinion changes often, then so do the definitions of what the institution of marriage is.

so you are spreading falsehoods around.

you're describing it as if it is set in stone, when it isn't.

and yes there is a simple in youer face answer to hte question i asked. i don't care how many different issues are at stake. i asked for an authority.

that is a simple thing.

as i already showed.

To get you to realize the answers aren't simple, if it was it wouldn't be so controversal.

I know this is controversial. I am not the person stating marriage definition as an undisputed fact.

I asked you the question to try and highlight that your undisputed definition of marriage was wrong and that this is a subjective issue.

1) The Roman Empire has no rights in America, and it doesn't represent any modern day society. So invalid answer! It's like comparing the Roman's practice of crucification to modern death penalty, there is no direct comparison.

america is not the world. you have been trying to pidgeonhole marriage. marriage is a universal thing across culture and throughout history.

the roman empire DOES NOT need jurisdiction in hte USA to bring definition to a WORLDWIDE instituition that belongs to ALL OF HUMANITY.

since you say that the roman empire is not allowed to contribute to the definition of marriage, then are you suggesting I also do not qualify to contribute to hte definitiion? since marriage is defineed by society, it seems you are suggesting anybody oustside your country is not part of society? are you claiming that we are not civilised? you need to be very careful the things you say. I take great offence at this.

But that's because the founders never thought it would ever be questioned, big difference.

give me a piece of irrefutable evidence for this and it can be accepted as gospel. othewise it's hearsay and not admissable.

3) The majority of Americans DO NOT support same sex marriage, the vote was 70% to >30%!!! The majority only support same sex unions such as civil unions or other similar practice. The majority doesn't approve of redefining marriage.

the point was to show that i could claim authority over a statement. besides, there are many polls on that link, not just one. many of them support gay marriage, and many don't. it's not so clear cut.

[*Jess♥]

Wow, "it's getting hot in here. (So take off all your clothes)"

Ok, before this discussion gets any hotter, I would like to get something straight. I'm actually confused as to which stand you guys are on. Because as far as I understand it, what we are debating here is whether you are anti gay marriage or pro gay marriage.

Obviously Kenji is pro gay marriage because of how he showed his distaste to proposition 8.

Of course there is the grey area, meaning remaining neutral. But if you are neutral, then there is really nothing to debate about.

And from the way I understand the posts above, Zeo is in the grey area explaining the principles of marriage while Ryuki misconstrued Zeo's post as anit-gay marriage. Is this correct?

not quite.

I am for the rights of the individual to lay claim to their own views.

I view zeo's strict defining of marriage as an attack on peoples liberties.

since there is no strict definition for marriage, it is a cultural phenomenon that spans many cultures and first needs to be accurately labelled and linked to hte appropriate authority if it can be defined properly.

like for example 'western style registry office wedding' , or 'married in vegas' wedding. or 'japanese western style wedding'

[*zeo]

so you are spreading falsehoods around.

you're describing it as if it is set in stone, when it isn't.

You are misrepresenting what I've said! No, I am not spreading falsehoods. Falsehoods would mean there was nothing to back what I said when there is in fact a lot to back up what I said if you just read everything that I had posted. I am spreading the truth by specifically stating the viewpoints of both sides and showing how they compare to each other. You just want a straight answer to a subject that doesn't really have a straight answer no matter how much you try to distort the situation to your own views.

and yes there is a simple in youer face answer to hte question i asked. i don't care how many different issues are at stake. i asked for an authority.

that is a simple thing.

as i already showed.

No, it is not a simple thing and with all due respect you have shown nothing but your own personal bias in this situation. You seek to over simplify a situation that is far more complex than you seem to comprehend or wish to take account for. And demand answers be made to your liking to satisfy just your concerns. Really, who cares that this will effect millions of Americans, let's drop everything and just address your concerns.

I know this is controversial. I am not the person stating marriage definition as an undisputed fact.

I asked you the question to try and highlight that your undisputed definition of marriage was wrong and that this is a subjective issue.

I never said it was undesputed, every time I point out the controversies involved I point out that it is in dispute.

What I actually said is that it was not the intent of what this country was founded on and outlined all the factors that help show that intent and ultimately what separates a traditional marriage from a same sex union. Really, it is not in contention what the founders of America intended for the institution of Marriage in America. It is ony in contention whether it should still be valid in modern America.

You do not know the history of this country, not even many Americans bother to read the full history of this country. But I have and it is from that perspective that I bring my points and analysis.

america is not the world. you have been trying to pidgeonhole marriage.

Sorry but Prop 8 is America!!! I have said time and again I am not making assumptions about your society. Whether same sex marriage is allowed in America or not has no effect on your country. For example Canada has legalized gay marriage but that has no effect on America.

the roman empire DOES NOT need jurisdiction in hte GRAND OLD USA to bring definition to a WORLDWIDE instituition that belongs to ALL OF HUMANITY.

Totally false and shows how you completely do not understand the meaning of the institution of marriage is intricately linked to the society it is based on. America is not the Roman Empire, our values are not the romans. You can't use Roman values to compare American values.

Really, just because the Roman's had orgies should I then compare it to the fairly recent trend in England that has some couples having sex in public places? Where anyone in England raised in Roman soceity?

The only aspect of marriage that is world wide is religion and that is totally separate issue from whether any form of marriage should be legal in any particular country or state.

since you say that the roman empire is not allowed to contribute to the definition of marriage, then are you suggesting I also do not qualify to contribute to hte definitiion? since marriage is defineed by society, it seems you are suggesting anybody oustside your country is not part of society? are you claiming that we are not civilised? you need to be very careful the things you say. I take great offence at this.

With all due respect, No, you just need to get over yourself. You have no right to dictate how people in my country live their lives anymore than I have right to judge how people in your country live their lives. You are pushing your values onto my country.

You can voice your opinion but you can't tell me how American's should run our own country.

If you want to discuss marriage in your own country then fine open a topic on some law or bill that you have problems with and we'll discuss it. But don't confuse the fact that marriage may be a world wide practice from how each country uses it to shape their society.

Really, islamic nations legally allows polygamy, should my country legally allow polygamy just because islamic nations allow it?

You're comparing apples to oranges and expecting them to taste the same because they are both fruit.

We can argue the history of marriage ad nausium and never come to an concensus but we're not discussing the history of marriage of the world we're discussing marriage in the US. See the difference?

[*zeo]

not quite.

I am for the rights of the individual to lay claim to their own views.

I view zeo's strict defining of marriage as an attack on peoples liberties.

Then you don't understand anything I've said. The only way you can see this as an attack on liberties is if you ignore those same liberties effects the liberties of other groups.

No rights are limitless, every right is limited to whether or not it effects the rights of another. For example you can voice your opinion all you want but you can't slander someone else because you are effecting the rights of that other person.

So it's not just the rights of Same Sex Couples at stake, but also the rights of Heterosexual Couples as well and which is in the best interest of the society they are a part of.

This is what the American people are now struggling with, should we remove the responsibility of family from the institution of marriage and redefine it as just a proclaimation of love or should we reinforce the link to family and exclude other forms of unions that do not fulfill that responsibility.

The ramifications go beyond just same sex couples, since if we redefine marriage as just a proclaimation of love that anyone who loves each other then can get married.

Including and not limited to, mothers and daughters, fathers and sons, polygamists, etc.

For example marriage between blood relatives is only really barred because of the moral implication of procreation between blood relatives and the problems it can cause. But same sex blood relatives would not have this problem and can successfully argue they have the same right as other same sex couples to marry if the only requirement is a declaration of love.

Similarly, if we can't limit marriage to specific sexes to define procreation then we can't barr polygamy either, as what right do we have to tell someone how many people they can fall in love with.

What then of the value of traditional family, if marriage is no longer about procreation then what then the value of lineage, of family beyond two or more lovers?

Where will this ever stop? That's all I ask everyone involved to consider, because the argument that this will only effect those who choose to be married is totally false.

[*V Guyver]

Zeo seems to of gone through a lot of effort to try and prove that the majority of the public and thus the government are against gay marriage. He's gone through lots of websites and written a ton of stuff that is almost hard for my tired feeble brain to digest. I'm not sure if he's just trying to support the governments actions and function through logic, or is simply against gay marriage as a "Marriage" instead of under another term.

Ryuki's been trying to point out that very bluntly that the terms of marriage and even current family values aren't concrete as they often do indeed change over time. I tend to agree with him on that, though I can also certainly understand Zeo's attempt to preserve marriage as he knows it since I too find gay relationships a bit foreign to me.

In my case, I really just see the current passing of a the law as a futile attempt at attempting to stop social changes. not that movements for social changes always happen in the here and now, but eventually they do as history has shown repeatably. Outlawing it just means it will go through the courts again (I believe there have already been 6 different challenges issued thus far that are yet to hit the courts) and it may be repealed, and public sentiment is indeed divided as show cased today. Already thousands have protested in the streets of California today alone on 11/9/08 (Making note of the date so not as to forget it in train of thought). Considering how small a minority Gay's are, it's a pretty impressive number, especially since many people who are protesting are not gay. Here is the article. Zeo stated that the country isn't divided over the issue, if that were the case then it wouldn't be an issue, none the less one that would be constantly on the news over states and federal bills attempting to either ban or legalize gay marriage.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/2...agemarches.html

Zeo was correct though in pointing out that people don't have a right to get "married", it's instead a privilege. It's not in the constitution so his statement is technically true... but if that is indeed the logic behind it, then we may as well note that under that train of thought that we can thus deny people the privilege to have children, houses, pets, or even be able to divorce. Try to say it in as many different was as one wants, the result that we can only get marred as dictated by the country, but what Zeo has failed to prove is that this is what the country wants, a no same sex marriage ban. Otherwise it would of been implemented by if not for two things:

1. A fairly large number of people who want it.

2. Equal rites. Denying people the ability to do the same things as other people is disruptive of their civil liberties.

I've already made what I think is a logical argument about the population. Now when it comes to civil liberties, some say it doesn't trample their rites, just deny's them the privilege that traditional couples have. Well people used to say the same about Jim Crow laws. For those of you outside the US, Jim Crow Laws were laws that allowed segregation and second rate quality of living for minority blacks. The idea was that the law would allow equal standards of living while still keeping people separated, it wasn't the case. The reality was that blacks were practically abused by the majority. Now you can see where I am heading with this... the ban on gay marriage is in many regards the same thing, you could be denying someone the same privileges that the common folk have simply because they are gay. Thus they aren't equal under the constitution, and according to the constitution you have to have equal privileges and rites. So eventually you are going to have to change the laws to allow them to either get married, or have an equivalent otherwise you are breaking federal law at the core and any law of a lower level like the state law, will have to be repealed.

Now you can argue that it's also unnatural, that being homosexuality. Well it feels unnatural to me, and probably to most too. It doesn't fit with our biological makeup since we can't reproduce. But if you think about it, gay love isn't about reproduction... It's simply love, a common human emotion and concept virtually all human beings understand and feel what love is. Note that I said most, there are a few individuals who suffer from mental illness's that hamper the ability. But we really can't count them I guess. It serves a different biological function then reproduction, since love is indeed something that extends to family, friends, pets, and even objects. So logic applied to the illogical that is love would suggest that it's actually natural as a function both homosexuals and heterosexuals (and bisexuals for that matter too.)

My view on marriage and how some of the states in the USA see it is that nothing more then contract stating you are in love and thus will devote yourselves to one another exclusively. Whether or not the term "Marriage" will be exclusively presented as a union of love between man and woman and exclude same sex is yet to be seen. I honestly see little reason to make it exclusive though since marriage has already been used for gays in history. So an argument saying that it's always been between a man and a woman is usually out of uninformed ignorance.

One also can't argue that homosexuality threatens society or a culture. So far it's expanded into popular culture, it's helped lead an American TV series into many awards. Many gay's are role models who have done great things like Elton John. I recall Zeo arguing that polygamy just like homosexuality disrupts and damages society... his argument for polygamy was that it helped with over population... wouldn't having gay couple's counter that? Also, there is no evidence that a gay couple can't raise a child properly. There's evidence against single couples, but as it stands a gay couple is in better ground then a single parent thanks to the many points to the single parent having a less viable invoriment for the child. Examples include:

The likely two income's, two rolemodels, a balance of authority, better time share's for bonding and raising the child, something a single parent would have to do less of, and of course, double the effection then a single parent.

Besides, what's wrong with gay adopting a parentless child, far better then them being bounced around in the public system and state (provided they pass the screening like regular couples) Also people seem to forget the benifits of a gay marriage too:

Married couples pay higher taxes. Poeple with stable relationships like marriage tend to be more stable and productive to society. Married couples tend to raise children better then single parents thus likely producing a more production member of society in the future. Their financial situation is likely to be better then in a singles situation, thus they contribute to the economy as well. I can keep going on and on...

Like Zeo, I would actually prefer if marriage in terms remained as a man and woman union, but that's just my upbringing. Having looked over the subject, I really don't see for all purposes and intents in any attempts to make this an exclusive form of a relationship in which a gay couple can share in. Feel free to poke any holes in my logic. But please try to keep it simple though, and I'm sorry if my points weren't simple or short.

[durendal]

Married couples pay higher taxes. Poeple with stable relationships like marriage tend to be more stable and productive to society. Married couples tend to raise children better then single parents thus likely producing a more production member of society in the future. Their financial situation is likely to be better then in a singles situation, thus they contribute to the economy as well. I can keep going on and on...

Really? In our area, married couples pay lesser tax, and having dependents will grant you tax exemptions. While having children will give you more exemptions. Based on the tax process in our region, one would conclude that the government is pro-life. Meaning that the more you have children (up to four), the more benefits you will have. Perhaps the main reason why proposition 8 was passed was because of the limitation on procreation. I'm not saying that gay couples can't have a family. That would depend on what kind of society they have. If the goal of gay marriage is simply to live together basing on love to for another, I fail to see the point why a marriage should occur. However, if the gay couples wants to take up the responsibility to take care of one another and make a family, like adopting a child, then I can say that a marriage would work. Laws governing gay marriage is just a paper and simply represents a physical manifestation of that union. In olden times, marriage contract does not exists.

[*V Guyver]

yeah, older marriages were like a handshake. Later it became a religious mark, and now a contract.

As for the paying of higher taxes, I don't know why they do that, but once you married you tend to pay an extra thanks to the "marriage penalty" actually some married couples don't have a difference, and other even get tax breaks, but only if their income is not around the same range of income. If you are around the same range of income (which is pretty common) then you will get taxed more. Pretty silly...

http://www.savewealth.com/news/9905/marriagepenalty.html

Here is an example.

__________________________________________Married Couple_____Individual

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AGI (Adjusted Gross Income)__________________$100,000//////////////$50,000

Minus exemptions and standard deductions______-$12,500//////////////-$6,950

Taxable income_____________________________$87,500///////////////$43,050

Federal tax_________________________________$19,002///////////////$8,766

($17,532 for two individuals)------------------------------------------------------------

Marriage penalty_____________________________$1,470///////////////$00

Sources Used: IRS Tax Code, USA Today

Edited November 10, 2008 by V Guyver

[*zeo]

Hmm, that link doesn't work for me V Guyver. Here's the wiki on Marriage penalty

The general thinking behind the tax penalty was to to make it easier for couples with unequal income and especially for couples with one member staying at home with the kids. Mind you this was put in place in '69 before women became a major force in the work force and incomes were still predominantly male orientated. So essentially those more likely to have one parent spend more time withe the family got the benefit while those most likely to spend the least time with the kids got the penalty. Still it is not a system reflective of modern reality, with valid problems that need to be addressed, and so major changes are in store as many of the statutes have to be reviewed around 2010.

Anyway, to address your previous post VGuyver... I appreciate your honest assessment but not everything you are asserting is entirely true. My efforts are to show that this is not an issue of discrimination and the question of gay marriage effects everyone and not just gays. (If it helps, you can skip to the summary at the end if you're not interested in a full analysis)

It is true polling data is subjective but trends shown by how people vote are not and in this respect it is true since the majority have voted in favor of not redefining marriage.

Several thousand protesters have indeed been seen advocating gay marriage, but under the same note over a million people signed and put Pro 8 on the ballot and it was passed by the same voters who elected Obama president.

Under the same observation it is also true the majority of Americans support adopting of civil unions or some other alternative. Some polls just confuse this distinction. Americans are reasonable people in general and just because people may be oppose to redefining marriage does not mean they are against gay rights. Saying so is just a way to polarize the issue and dismiss the valid concerns many Americans have over this issue.

As it presently stands, the US federal government does not recognize same sex marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act and only 3 states actually have made it legal (though that may drop to 2 if California accepts Prop 8 ) out of all 50.

Overall, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage." A small number of about 11 states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage. At least 41 states have statutes and/or constitutional provisions that prohibit same-sex marriage, with many of these statutes voted in with the people's support.

While advocates are trying to circumnavigate this trend and make same-sex marriage issue a civil rights issue. Something that since slippery slope arguments are indeed valid in a court of law has let them gain ground through this tactic but this is not a representation of the will of the people but legal action to force this change.

The difference is thus the rights of Americans to continue to define marriage as a system of procreation from the right to redefine it as simply a sexual relation and divorce it from the act and responsibility of procreation.

Remember marriage has not always been about love, most of the reasons for marriage were financial in origin. Or political like marriage between royal families to form alliances or to gain benefits like citizenship. Reasons and practices of course varied throughout history. It's just in the modern world the old traditions have been glazed over by the concept of love dominating all other reasons, though the old truths are still also valid since love is still not the only reason to get married, and it is just a question of whether marriage should still be linked to procreation or should procreation become an after thought.

the ban on gay marriage is in many regards the same thing, you could be denying someone the same privileges that the common folk have simply because they are gay.

The problem with this is the assumption that we can give them what they don't already have. They do not have the ability to procreate naturally with their chosen companion. Giving them the right to call their unions marriage will not give them this ability. All it will do is redefine marriage to no longer associate it with traditional family unit for the purpose of procreation.

Thus you will be taking away the foundation upon which the right of protection for procreation is given to heterosexuals. You have to see both sides to this argument before you can make claims of rights abuse.

To compare...

Are men second class citizens for not being able to join an all women's club?

Are Christians second class citizens if they aren't allowed to join a Mosque?

Are Muslims second class citizens if they aren't allowed in join a Church?

Are babies second class citizens for not being able to do adult only activities when they aren't even physically at the stage they could?

Are men second class citizens for not being able to get pregnant and give birth?

If none of these examples are examples of bias then neither can you claim bias on Marriage.

So logic applied to the illogical that is love would suggest that it's actually natural as a function both homosexuals and heterosexuals (and bisexuals for that matter too.)

This is a confusion, Marriage as it stands is not solely about love. People get married for all sorts of reasons and traditionally love was not highest among those reasons. Like the shotgun wedding example marriage has been predominantly been about responsibility. Responsibility because it invariably involves procreation and thus responsibility for the children produced by such unions.

Contrary, people do not need to be married to feel love or otherwise care for each other. So you are confusing romanticism with marriage, its a plus if love is involved in marriage but it is not a requirement. The whole "For Better or Worse" and "Until Death do you Part" are the key parts.

Emotions are personal, no one can give or take your right to feel emotions. Thus it is not logical to use that as part of this debate.

I honestly see little reason to make it exclusive though since marriage has already been used for gays in history. So an argument saying that it's always been between a man and a woman is usually out of uninformed ignorance.

This is a opinion that has little to do with reality and takes no account of the context of the societies being referred as examples for justification. I have already pointed out that ancient cultures do not represent modern cultures.

But to play devil's advocate, since some seem to want to justify this debate from a historical perspective and because it keeps popping up. It may help to actually bother to check your examples. For example Ancient Roman Law on marriage was not an open acceptance of same sex couples but rather a tolerance that belies the social stigma that such practices had in their culture.

The earliest Roman law regarding homosexuality appears to have been the Lex Scantinia that was passed by the Roman assembly at some point in the Roman Republic (perhaps in the second century BC). Although the text of this law itself has not survived, later Roman jurists of the second and third century AD describe how it outlawed the homosexual rape of young male Roman citizens. Consensual male or female homosexual unions apparently were not legislated against. Although there is scholarly debate, Roman literature of the republic and early empire suggests that men who engaged in consensual liaisons were often mocked as unmanly, but consensual homosexual sex itself was not illegal.

The reasons for which should be noted had a lot to do with Czars like Nero.

The so-called "evidence" for homosexual marriage comes primarily from small, isolated pre-literate tribes. A great many of the primitive societies deemed to be tolerant of same-sex marriage ... have also been known to engage in other practices, such as cannibalism, female genital mutilation, massacre or enslavement of enemies taken in war, and other practices which was once held to be the duty of the civilized to extirpate. Some for example included human sacrifice as part of the ceremony. Frankly, comparing any modern society to these primitive examples defies common sense. Just because something may or may not have happened in the past does not denounce or justify it to a society not based on the same principles.

Furthermore, what most take for homosexual marriage are actually male bonding rituals that have been mistakenly eroticized. Like in some parts of India they still practice some old traditions including a mock gay marriage in which men marry other men dressed in drag. But it is only a ceremony and the men go back to their wives afterward. Alleged examples from ancient Rome, such as Nero and Elagabalus, only reveal the degree to which homosexuality was held in contempt by Roman society. In referring to Nero's homosexuality, Tacitus wrote that the emperor "polluted himself by every lawful or lawless indulgence, [and] had not omitted a single abomination which could heighten his depravity." This hardly constitutes an endorsement of homosexuality in ancient Rome.

Roman law ultimately dramatically changed when Christianity became a force in the Roman Empire and then people caught with such relations could be burned at the stake. Not exactly an acceptance of gay unions I would say. The Greeks before them simply had an acceptance of all forms of sexual intercourse. So people using Roman law as an example are really picking and choosing which era they are looking at. Never mind the invalidity of comparing such an old and long gone culture to any modern society literally makes no sense. Also many of those practices were based on pagan religions and thus we would have to ignore our present separation of church and state to even consider them for examples.

As to what polygamist think of all this...

One prominent advocate of polygamy, David Chambers, professor of law at the University of Michigan, argues: "By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more."

Or in other words they are already getting ready to expand the definition even further.

Mind you, even if there was some clear case to point to. It should be noted that no one who has referred to any historical reference of gay marriage has ever mentioned how those practices effected those societies. You have simply justified something by its mere existence without question as to whether the practice was beneficial or detrimental to those societies. Without such contextual information for comparison makes such statements nothing more than pure opinion.

Back to the present... Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens--including the right to marry.

However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.

Essentially nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman and conversely that a woman is not a man. There is then undeniable that a heterosexual couple brings two essentially complimenting but different sexes together that same sex couplings do not. Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally.

For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly regulate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are not allowed to fly an airplane. On the other hand, discrimination would occur if properly credentialed pilots are refused hiring simply because of the color of their skin. In this case such individuals have been denied employment simply because of their race.

It is no fault of heterosexual couples that same sex couples aren't capable of natural procreation. So there is no bases for describing a bias where there is none. Since bias requires a choice and we have no choice over our biology after birth.

For legal precedent...

The issue of alleged discrimination was addressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, when it rejected the argument that denying a same-sex couple the right to marry was the equivalent of racial discrimination. The court found: "In common sense and constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."

The likely two income's, two rolemodels, a balance of authority, better time share's for bonding and raising the child, something a single parent would have to do less of, and of course, double the effection then a single parent.

This reasoning is flawed since there is not really a balance of authority. A same sex couple can only present one sex to the child, they do not represent both.

Same sex couples could benefit from the same safe guards that presently protect heterosexual couples. However, the difference you are ignoring though is that a heterosexual couple could produce more children and thus additional safe guards are need to protect the potential children. Such safeguards aren't necessary for a same sex couple, since a child can only enter their relationship by choice and planning. The majority of protection of children afforded to married couples are thus not needed for same sex couples. Extending the institution of Marriage to same sex couples would not change this.

The issue of gay adopting children is thus separate than the issue of marriage. Though it is true the larger the family the more resources can be shared but if that is your argument then we might as well justify polygamy for the more the better argument. But this also bring us back to the issue of what society deems best for children and how they should be ideally raised.

Unfortunately, most of this debate is about possibilities and which we consider valid. Most on either side will argue many of the points already brought to light but without context as I have shown. Ultimately we only have one country we can really compare to and that is Scandinavia, having had gay marriage legalized the longest the impact on their society is the most evident and that impact shows a massive decline in the institution of marriage.

In Scandinavia the actual percentage of gay marriages dropped significantly after getting the right, was this because it was more of an ideal than something they really wanted? Or was their goal not to be treated equally but to destroy the institution upon which traditional values were embedded into society and thus recreate society into a form in which traditional morality no longer had a place?

In either case it is hard to argue with the results as marriage has become essentially meaningless in Scandinavia. Whether this will be true for America is not certain but it should be a concern.

As I have stipulated from the beginning this is not a simple issue. I do not claim to have all the answers and there are issues which I have not covered. My fears of the negatives may indeed be less of a concern than I may think but I think they should be considered before we make changes that can't be unmade.

I have tried to outline the concerns of both sides and show how they compare. With which concerns are valid and which are imagined. Since the majority of opinions voiced have been only to one side of the debate I have shown more of the opposing view. Consequently this has confused some into thinking my only concern is the opposing view when in reality I only seek a compromise based on the concerns of both sides. Same sex Unions should enjoy many of the benefits of marriage, but they neither represent all the reasons why those benefits exist or require all of those benefits to fulfill their needs. Neither are the responsibilities of marriage entirely theirs to take on.

I think I have proven this isn't just a simple issue of giving same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, for in fact they already have those rights, but rather what people think the institution of marriage is for versus what they want it to be. The future of American society is at stake and the choices we make will effect all the generations to come.

[*Jess♥]

With all due respect, No, you just need to get over yourself. You have no right to dictate how people in my country live their lives anymore than I have right to judge how people in your country live their lives. You are pushing your values onto my country.

This is blatantly insulting.

I have never tried to push any of my views on anyone. that is precisely why i confronted you on your statements, because you seemed to be forcing your views onto everyone else. you were pushing your own views of marriage and trying to set the definition of marriage by it.

I have never had any intention of debating anything with you. My views are irrelevant in this topic. I have not wanted to make my views known or argue my own views in any way.

My entire content in this topic is to get you to either explain why you can define marriage so surely or to admit that it is simply your own opinion.

I have asked you time after time why you think you can define marriage so surely and you have avoided my questions.

stating that it is a complex subject does not answer my concerns. it blurs the edges more and seems to seek to confuse me into submission.

I don't care how complex teh subject is.

if the issues involved are complex and inconclusive, then you must admit that there is no conculsive definition and you must rebuke your statement.

if there has been a wide degree of study and an authority has come to a conclusion then that is an authoritative definition.

either there is an authority that has given a definition or there is no authority and therefore no conclusive definition.

that matter is not up for debate.

if you are wanting to provide paragraphs of explaination to try and explain why your definition is cast in stone, then no, it is not acceptible. your defintion is invalid. it is not cast in stone if it is a complex issue.

that would be classed as original reasearch. either here is an authority or there is not.

I required an answer that is simple. that is my requirement as a member of staff who asked you this question as a way to prevent bullying of other members.

this matter is closed. you have no authority to say that gay marriage does not satisfy the definition of marriage.

marriage as a single word is an all encompassing term to describe marriage all over the world and throughout time.

you may say that gay couples do not satisfy the definition of marriage in california and whatever place has deemed it unlawful.

we shall assume that we are talking about modern day of course.

[durendal]

Well, I'm really not sure about how debates go on in the other thread in this sub forum, but I sure would like to remind everyone about something that is posted right at the top of this page. And to quote:

I think it goes without saying you have to have an open mind.

If your mind is closed or you are devoutly faithful to your own beliefs it is advisable to skip this area.

This place is a discussion board.

If you show a repeated refusal to listen to others views, it ceases to become discussion. You will then be barred from this area.

So discuss your ideas, think up new possibilities, be creative and have fun!

What I think Zeo was pointing out was marriage in terms of it's natural origin. I mean to have a union, you need a man and a woman. Yes, history does show us there have been gay union as far back as the Roman Empire. But at the begining wasn't there only Adam and Eve? (Let's not throw in Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution as we need another thread for that).

Well, I have to admit, the references Zeo made are something I see as "too much information to process", which sometimes deviate from the original intent of the message.

Based on the discussion that I can comprehend, everyone is traveling in the same direction, except on a different path. Can't we all just... get along?

[*Jess♥]

Well, I have to admit, the references Zeo made are something I see as "too much information to process", which sometimes deviate from the original intent of the message.

that's part of the issue.

I'm all for duscussion, after all, I wrote that bit at the top.

but it is very important before discussion continues that facts are separated from opinion.

you or anyone else shouldn't have to decode masses of information to discover if something is fact or opinion.

your own words, durendal, illustrate this perfectly

What I think Zeo was pointing out was marriage in terms of it's natural origin

you guys are guessing and you really shouldn't have to.

[*V Guyver]

I can definitely understand your points and concerns with marriage. Just like You I don't have all the answers, but I still have to point out the flaws in your argument as much as you have done with mine arguement. Oh and worry not Durendal. I suppose a few of us may get a little heated over the matter, but I doubt we'll be at each others throats anytime soon. In the end, i'm sure we'll all remain friends.

Hmm, that link doesn't work for me V Guyver. Here's the wiki on Marriage penalty

The general thinking behind the tax penalty was to to make it easier for couples with unequal income and especially for couples with one member staying at home with the kids. Mind you this was put in place in '69 before women became a major force in the work force and incomes were still predominantly male orientated. So essentially those more likely to have one parent spend more time withe the family got the benefit while those most likely to spend the least time with the kids got the penalty. Still it is not a system reflective of modern reality, with valid problems that need to be addressed, and so major changes are in store as many of the statutes have to be reviewed around 2010.

The systems still in place though, and oddly enough people tend to still pay these higher taxes. With the rising single Parent and pre-teen parent's rates, the system is still useful. Just odd that the government in the end taxes many of us more, ironic since that wasn't the purpose of behind that bill.

Anyway, to address your previous post VGuyver... I appreciate your honest assessment but not everything you are asserting is entirely true. My efforts are to show that this is not an issue of discrimination and the question of gay marriage effects everyone and not just gays. (If it helps, you can skip to the summary at the end if you're not interested in a full analysis)

No need buddy, you broke it up enough that I could digest it easily. Read the whole thing, so thanks for the effort as i can tell you tried to condense your points a bit.

It is true polling data is subjective but trends shown by how people vote are not and in this respect it is true since the majority have voted in favor of not redefining marriage.

Several thousand protesters have indeed been seen advocating gay marriage, but under the same note over a million people signed and put Pro 8 on the ballot and it was passed by the same voters who elected Obama president.

Under the same observation it is also true the majority of Americans support adopting of civil unions or some other alternative. Some polls just confuse this distinction. Americans are reasonable people in general and just because people may be oppose to redefining marriage does not mean they are against gay rights. Saying so is just a way to polarize the issue and dismiss the valid concerns many Americans have over this issue.

As it presently stands, the US federal government does not recognize same sex marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act and only 3 states actually have made it legal (though that may drop to 2 if California accepts Prop 8 ) out of all 50.

Overall, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage." A small number of about 11 states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage. At least 41 states have statutes and/or constitutional provisions that prohibit same-sex marriage, with many of these statutes voted in with the people's support.

While advocates are trying to circumnavigate this trend and make same-sex marriage issue a civil rights issue. Something that since slippery slope arguments are indeed valid in a court of law has let them gain ground through this tactic but this is not a representation of the will of the people but legal action to force this change.

The difference is thus the rights of Americans to continue to define marriage as a system of procreation from the right to redefine it as simply a sexual relation and divorce it from the act and responsibility of procreation.

That's the thing, aren't we arguing about how we define gay marriage? Though that has been one of the common associated views in marriage in the last 100 years, it's in the crossroads of society in choosing weather or not to change it, preserve it as it is. It's almost as much of a debate itself as those who want to ban or approve gay marriage in the first place.

Remember marriage has not always been about love, most of the reasons for marriage were financial in origin. Or political like marriage between royal families to form alliances or to gain benefits like citizenship. Reasons and practices of course varied throughout history. It's just in the modern world the old traditions have been glazed over by the concept of love dominating all other reasons, though the old truths are still also valid since love is still not the only reason to get married, and it is just a question of whether marriage should still be linked to procreation or should procreation become an after thought.

The problem with this is the assumption that we can give them what they don't already have. They do not have the ability to procreate naturally with their chosen companion. Giving them the right to call their unions marriage will not give them this ability. All it will do is redefine marriage to no longer associate it with traditional family unit for the purpose of procreation.

Thus you will be taking away the foundation upon which the right of protection for procreation is given to heterosexuals. You have to see both sides to this argument before you can make claims of rights abuse.

The Nuclear family concept is fairly new, it wasn't until just this past century that we started to advocate it. Before hand it was marriage to one lady, then with some mistress's here and there and divorce was a new ability to. Before that multiple wives and divorce being being unneeded. I don't see a change in our current tradition and view of family units all that bad or unwanted. Besides, in the here and now, Gay's have been the target of biased abuse, prejudice, and segregation. You can't possibly argue that protecting one's current traditions doesn't constitute as being biased or abusive to someone different or gay. May I remind you that Native Americans, blacks, and Jews were all targeted with lynches at one point or another in the last 2 centuries to protect the then traditions of "expansion" "black submission", and "barbarian cultures".

To compare...

Are men second class citizens for not being able to join an all women's club?

actually man clubs have been targeted for being biased against other social groups. Same goes for both a women's club and men's club. Many times both have been sued against and even been made the subject of movies for social movements. You just don't see them often enough enough these days to warrant notice because of the progress in equal rights, as well as the fact that women's clubs and men's clubs tend to have major differences that each other's parties have no interests in. Even gay's have their own social clubs as well. I understand the point you were trying to make, but it doesn't apply IMO.

Are Christians second class citizens if they aren't allowed to join a Mosque?

What business does a christian have in joining a Mosque if he doesn't convert or vice-versa. There's a reason why they are treated as second class citizens in some countries. Look at Afghanistan, they sentenced a man to execution for converting to Christianity 11 years ago... If not a second rate citizen... then a dead one. I also don't see the point in this comparison.

Are Muslims second class citizens if they aren't allowed in join a Church?

Same as above. If you don't convert you have no reason to join a church.

Are babies second class citizens for not being able to do adult only activities when they aren't even physically at the stage they could?

This is confusing, this offers no logical point at all. Babies are too young to make choices in the same level as an adult, and babies also lack the same physical traits that would allow them to be on the same. Level, and if you are to talk about disabled people, some of them do consider themselves second class or specialized citizens depending on the point of you. Trying to compare people who are incapable of doing things that the average human being doesn't constitute as being biased against or second class citizens. If anything, they are just in situation preventing them from certain functions. I'm not sure why you'd try to use babies as a point in this manner.

Are men second class citizens for not being able to get pregnant and give birth?

If none of these examples are examples of bias then neither can you claim bias on Marriage.

Second class citizens for a limited biological function? No, but the same can be argued about women, men used to say that women were biologically inferior and this is why they actually were second class citizens. In fact women still are in many regions of the world, simply because they tend to be smaller, weaker, and function differently. I also fail to see the logic in this, sorry.

sorry about splitting the posti n half, but I reached the quote limit. lol

This is a confusion, Marriage as it stands is not solely about love. People get married for all sorts of reasons and traditionally love was not highest among those reasons. Like the shotgun wedding example marriage has been predominantly been about responsibility. Responsibility because it invariably involves procreation and thus responsibility for the children produced by such unions.

Contrary, people do not need to be married to feel love or otherwise care for each other. So you are confusing romanticism with marriage, its a plus if love is involved in marriage but it is not a requirement. The whole "For Better or Worse" and "Until Death do you Part" are the key parts.

Emotions are personal, no one can give or take your right to feel emotions. Thus it is not logical to use that as part of this debate.

Then I suppose my logic is flawed, I don't think it is though. The concept of Romance has only been around for only some hundreds of years, and marriage thousands. But marriage wasn't about responsibility either. If anything it was about practicability to survive and gain human needs like emotional support. I suppose you are right in people not needing to be in love to be married, but I can argue you don't need it to be same sex either. You are going about this in ancient and dark ages periods in which marriages were used as bartering tools in trade and politics. If some so desired, they could of traded off their sons to be married, even to a gay man if it would help reach a goal (and trust me they did according to certain ancient peoples.) But times have changed since then, haven't you noticed that love is now one of the primary reasons for marriages today? You can't ignore love, it's part of human social functions and it helps in finding a desirable long life partner weather it be man or woman. Emotions are not just personal, they also serve a function into social interaction in allowing us to judge the others feelings, without it there would be many misunderstandings. it makes totaly sense to me in my logic, but we don't seem to use the same form of logic, so I doubt you'll accept it.

This is a opinion that has little to do with reality and takes no account of the context of the societies being referred as examples for justification. I have already pointed out that ancient cultures do not represent modern cultures.

But to play devil's advocate, since some seem to want to justify this debate from a historical perspective and because it keeps popping up. It may help to actually bother to check your examples. For example Ancient Roman Law on marriage was not an open acceptance of same sex couples but rather a tolerance that belies the social stigma that such practices had in their culture.

If that is the case, then the points of your older traditional cultures don't hold merit to current changing culture. But my point wasn't that they represent our current culture, no it was to point out that there have been changes over time that removed gay marriage, and it may very well be reversed into allowing gay marriage in this turn of the century.

The reasons for which should be noted had a lot to do with Czars like Nero.

Alas poor Nero, ever a sufferer of biased historians over the centuries. It wasn't until recently that he's began to be viewed in a favorable light. He's been vilified by Christians for rumors of him burning Rome down and killing Christians and thus being associated with the devil. To top it off, even roman historians wrote about him negatively about him, and some even admitted to being biased against him. You should second guess all that is said about him. Tiberius was a far more vile being, who made Caligula the mad emperor he became. Nero on the other hand was treated like a pawn by his family and thrust into politics and tried to survive this while reforming Rome... He actually tried to end poverty in the Roman empire. Sorry for the detraction.

The so-called "evidence" for homosexual marriage comes primarily from small, isolated pre-literate tribes. A great many of the primitive societies deemed to be tolerant of same-sex marriage ... have also been known to engage in other practices, such as cannibalism, female genital mutilation, massacre or enslavement of enemies taken in war, and other practices which was once held to be the duty of the civilized to extirpate. Some for example included human sacrifice as part of the ceremony. Frankly, comparing any modern society to these primitive examples defies common sense. Just because something may or may not have happened in the past does not denounce or justify it to a society not based on the same principles.

What's wrong in comparing older societies to ourselves? It took us more then a thousand of years to relearn how to make concrete like the Romans. The Aztecs had much more advanced astrological then we did fairly recently, not to mention incredibly accurate calendars that makes our current calendar look like a joke. Some societies and cultures have been devoid of war and famine unlike us (sadly we wiped some of them out). Heck, the ancient Chinese built a device that could detect earthquakes long before modern technologies. I think we should keep an open mind. Oh and I can name a number of primitive and even advanced societies that practiced all of the above, look up Baal, now there was a god who was worshiped by the most advanced iron makers in the world, but required having children burned alive inside a statue...

Furthermore, what most take for homosexual marriage are actually male bonding rituals that have been mistakenly eroticized. Like in some parts of India they still practice some old traditions including a mock gay marriage in which men marry other men dressed in drag. But it is only a ceremony and the men go back to their wives afterward. Alleged examples from ancient Rome, such as Nero and Elagabalus, only reveal the degree to which homosexuality was held in contempt by Roman society. In referring to Nero's homosexuality, Tacitus wrote that the emperor "polluted himself by every lawful or lawless indulgence, [and] had not omitted a single abomination which could heighten his depravity." This hardly constitutes an endorsement of homosexuality in ancient Rome.

We have police officers and firemen who parade themselves in drag as a joke as a yearly joke. Online MMORPG marriages, so it's not that different and not really related to actually homosexuality. But you said it was mistaken, but I have to point out yet again that Nero was biased against, so I wouldn't take the slanders written about him with full conviction.

Roman law ultimately dramatically changed when Christianity became a force in the Roman Empire and then people caught with such relations could be burned at the stake. Not exactly an acceptance of gay unions I would say. The Greeks before them simply had an acceptance of all forms of sexual intercourse. So people using Roman law as an example are really picking and choosing which era they are looking at. Never mind the invalidity of comparing such an old and long gone culture to any modern society literally makes no sense. Also many of those practices were based on pagan religions and thus we would have to ignore our present separation of church and state to even consider them for examples.

The persecution and murder of gays was due to the change of power and infulence held by christians. At this point, Rome wasn't Rome anymore, it was a new anti-pagen, anti-gay, anti-polygamy empire based off the single minded beliefs of early christians. It doesn't count as an example of roman intolerance to gays, if anything it just shows more anti-catholic/orthodox (before the two churches split) policies.

Back to the present... Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens--including the right to marry.

Neither was it written that minorities nor women should be excluded, but it still happened at one point. You are right though in saying that it won't deny them the rights... but it can lead to that situation if they close off other venues too. Like I mentioned before, I would prefer marriage being defined as only a man and woman union, but I can tolerate it not being defined like that too.

[*V Guyver]

However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.

No argueing there. However, those have been dealt with by law, and the current federal laws are still in question about gay marriage. So it's not a point so much as distinction that gay marriage hasn't been placed in yet or ever.

Essentially nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman and conversely that a woman is not a man. There is then undeniable that a heterosexual couple brings two essentially complimenting but different sexes together that same sex couplings do not. Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally.

For example, FAA and airline regulations rightly regulate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to "discrimination" because they are not allowed to fly an airplane. On the other hand, discrimination would occur if properly credentialed pilots are refused hiring simply because of the color of their skin. In this case such individuals have been denied employment simply because of their race.

No qualifications are not to be confused with one's practices of sexual intercourse or skin color. So this is true.

It is no fault of heterosexual couples that same sex couples aren't capable of natural procreation. So there is no bases for describing a bias where there is none. Since bias requires a choice and we have no choice over our biology after birth.

Where the bias comes from is of little indifference if it actualy accurs. But if you insists, the bias doesn't come from the faultless biological urge homosexuals have. But there is a ton of Bias that does come from:

-Religious beliefs

-Cultural values

-superstitions

-long existing prejudices passed on from one generation to another

-and people who simply hate other people for being different (and as absurd as that is, it's common)

This reasoning is flawed since there is not really a balance of authority. A same sex couple can only present one sex to the child, they do not represent both.

You'd get the same result from only one parent, but it's two parents, with two incomes, and two different sources of ideals, and other variances. If anything it's still better then a single parent and close enough to a stable to parent household. You shouldn't dismiss it just because there are two same sexes raising a child. Otherwise single parents who have uncles and aunts for their children would be meaningless if some followed your view.

Same sex couples could benefit from the same safe guards that presently protect heterosexual couples. However, the difference you are ignoring though is that a heterosexual couple could produce more children and thus additional safe guards are need to protect the potential children. Such safeguards aren't necessary for a same sex couple, since a child can only enter their relationship by choice and planning. The majority of protection of children afforded to married couples are thus not needed for same sex couples. Extending the institution of Marriage to same sex couples would not change this.

I'm not sure what you are getting at... are you saying that they gay couples would be less effective because they can't give birth to a second child? They could simply adopt another one. Also if there is no difference between the security of a normal married couplewith a single child to that of a married same sex couple with a single child, then there really is no issue here.

The issue of gay adopting children is thus separate than the issue of marriage. Though it is true the larger the family the more resources can be shared but if that is your argument then we might as well justify polygamy for the more the better argument. But this also bring us back to the issue of what society deems best for children and how they should be ideally raised.

I can't see it as a seperate issue since you and others have made the point about gay marriage being a problem to family structure and the standard nuclear family. If you have to bring that up as a point, then we can't ingore this subject either.

Unfortunately, most of this debate is about possibilities and which we consider valid. Most on either side will argue many of the points already brought to light but without context as I have shown. Ultimately we only have one country we can really compare to and that is Scandinavia, having had gay marriage legalized the longest the impact on their society is the most evident and that impact shows a massive decline in the institution of marriage.

In Scandinavia the actual percentage of gay marriages dropped significantly after getting the right, was this because it was more of an ideal than something they really wanted? Or was their goal not to be treated equally but to destroy the institution upon which traditional values were embedded into society and thus recreate society into a form in which traditional morality no longer had a place?

In either case it is hard to argue with the results as marriage has become essentially meaningless in Scandinavia. Whether this will be true for America is not certain but it should be a concern.

You sound like you are suggesting it's a conspiracy against marriage. I seriously doubt gay wanted the right to marry just so they can weaken the institution of marriage. Gay's are a minority in every country. If they gain the right, and suddenly the rate of marriage goes down, you can't blame them it on them solely, also if they are also declining in marriage numbers, doesn't that mean it's a common national problem that is extending to gays as well as the more common folk? One may as well argue that gays are responsible for the birthrate drop in many countries in recent years if that were the case.

As I have stipulated from the beginning this is not a simple issue. I do not claim to have all the answers and there are issues which I have not covered. My fears of the negatives may indeed be less of a concern than I may think but I think they should be considered before we make changes that can't be unmade.

I have tried to outline the concerns of both sides and show how they compare. With which concerns are valid and which are imagined. Since the majority of opinions voiced have been only to one side of the debate I have shown more of the opposing view. Consequently this has confused some into thinking my only concern is the opposing view when in reality I only seek a compromise based on the concerns of both sides. Same sex Unions should enjoy many of the benefits of marriage, but they neither represent all the reasons why those benefits exist or require all of those benefits to fulfill their needs. Neither are the responsibilities of marriage entirely theirs to take on.

I think I have proven this isn't just a simple issue of giving same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples, for in fact they already have those rights, but rather what people think the institution of marriage is for versus what they want it to be. The future of American society is at stake and the choices we make will effect all the generations to come.

It certianly isn't a simple issue, we all are having problems trying to understand the social problems, but I can't follow your logic on too many points. You said "Same sex Unions should enjoy many of the benefits of marriage, but they neither represent all the reasons why those benefits exist or require all of those benefits to fulfill their needs. Neither are the responsibilities of marriage entirely theirs to take on." This is true, in that they can't reprisent all the same reasons that a normal couple should, but they shouldn't it's a different type of couple. One not typicaly concerned with child birth. If anything they are just as capable and justified to get married as a normal couple, and would would simply reprisent a point of marriage. It doesn't have to be about biological functions or child birth, it could simply be a model of adults in union from love. I can see no horrible consequence in that.

I think I lost some of my text in the replies because of errors with the board.

[*zeo]

but it is very important before discussion continues that facts are separated from opinion.

Ryuki, this was the intent of what I was doing. I was arguing to separate opinions from reasonings.

The problem is there are many issues at stake in this discussion, basically not everyone will use the same reasons for the stance they take. Thus I see limiting the reasons that can be listed as to why people on either side believe what they do is exclusionary and just polarizes the discussion to stereotypes.

Consider...

What of the views of Atheists who disagree with the arguments to redefine marriage?

What of the views of the religious and spiritual to fight for what they believe is right under their beliefs?

What of the views of gays who don't want to redefine marriage, or even be associated with heterosexuals?

What of the views of heterosexuals who want to protect their rights of procreation and the institution that they associate those rights with?

What of the views of those who want to protect the institution by the same rules that all other institutions are judged?

What of the views of those who argue for the right of uniqueness and see the redefining of an institution as just a blurring of the lines that makes each of us unique?

Does everyone's reasonings all fall under the same definitions? Aren't you excluding and thus performing reverse discrimination by excluding all the reasons involved in this discussion?

More to the point, I disagree with the implied assertion that associates logic and reason with bullying. Bullying is imposing your opinions, wants, and/or desires upon someone(s) else without any concern but your own. While logic and reasoning is the neutral imperative to test the validity of ideas and concepts, these can be your own or those of others. Thus stating the logic and reasoning behind one's stated opinion can't be called bullying.

Like how V Guyver and I have our back and forth, we both have reasons and we compare those reasons. Testing each others logic to show just how valid our reasonings are. We aren't imposing our views, we're discussing them.

While I see telling someone they should be ashamed, that they're biased, that they aren't telling the truth without even repudiating what has been stated with anything but counter opinions is both negative language and forms of bullying.

I don't expect everyone to agree with all my points, as the one point we do agree on is this is not a simple issue. But this is how I view it and believe that viewpoint should be accorded the civil respect of the right of anyone to voice their ideals just like anyone else's viewpoint.

Like V Guyver, you can either agree or disagree, I'm not instigating anyone to do anything except think and I never considered that a crime.