[lysol]

No, let's. If homosexuals should be allowed to experience their sexuality than why not permit them to fulfill their emotional, romantic, and other needs? It's such an artificial line to draw and we certainly can discuss both gay marriage and the legality of homosexuality in the same discussion.

[eeky]

The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families. There's nothing that stops homosexuals from fulfilling their emotional, romantic, and other needs. But when you involved tax deductions because children are such an expensive commitment, it gets hairy. I do support civil unions (but not gay adoption), and I am tolerant of gays (I discuss these issues with friends who are gay), but to change the very definition of marriage goes too far - and ends up confusing everyone.

[dragonwriter]

> The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families.

The current legalities around marriage are mostly based directly on the idea that a marriage is a special bilateral promise of mutual support, and not much on other features of "traditional" families.

They've also changed a lot over the two centuries to remove most of the vestigious of the older model of the wife being legally subordinate to the husband. Marriage legalities, and the underlying model of the relationship in marriage on which they are based, aren't the product of some long-static "traditional" model that had been undisturbed for an extended period of time before the same-sex marriage debate.

> There's nothing that stops homosexuals from fulfilling their emotional, romantic, and other needs.

Actually, not having access to the legal rights involved in marriage does prevent that.

> But when you involved tax deductions because children are such an expensive commitment, it gets hairy.

The tax deductions on that premise require you to have children that you are responsible, they aren't an automatic consequence of marriage. So I don't see how they are relevant. The situation in which marriage has tax benefits is if, as part of a couple's arrangement of mutual support, one focuses more on work outside of the house (which is taxable) supported by the other taking on a heavier load of the domestic duties, since married couples pay lower taxes than two individuals when there is a significant disparity of income.

So I'm not sure how your statement above has anything to do with marriage. It seems to have something to do with not wanting people to get tax deductions or credits that come with raising children without actually raising children, which is sensible but completely irrelevant.

> I do support civil unions

Given your statement above about the "legality of marriage" and that "civil unions" as opposed to "domestic partnership" is usually the term given for providing the legalities of marriage under a different name, why?

> (but not gay adoption)

Why? Is it that you prefer children to have less chance of having permanent families and spend more time in foster homes? Or just because you dislike homosexuals?

> and I am tolerant of gays (I discuss these issues with friends who are gay)

And I'm sure they appreciate your magnanimity in deigning to discuss with them the reasons why you think they should receive unequal treatment under the law.

> but to change the very definition of marriage goes too far - and ends up confusing everyone.

"The very definition of marriage" has been pretty much continuously changing throughout all of history. Its not all that confusing, and, to the extent it is, your desire to avoid dealing with the confusion of changing social institutions isn't a reason other people ought to suffer discrimination.

[thejsjunky]

> The problem arises that the legality of marriage was designed around traditional families.

This premise is debatable, but assuming it is true it's still not a particularly strong argument. The law was designed to be flexible and evolve with society's needs and desires.

Allowing gay marriage is a minor adjustment of what we in the US currently understand marriage to be - not a "changing of the very definition". If we were talking about polygamy that would be a much stronger case.

Society encourages and allows marriages for a variety of reasons - involving tradition, encouraging general stability, families, etc. It also has a certain understanding of marriage - a partnership between two people. Homosexual marriage vis a vis heterosexual marriage is the same in all these respects in practical terms.

To be clear, there are difference in say how gay couples reproduce (in general)...but there are differences in how heterosexual marriages reproduce too. The supposed fundamental "differences" in gay couples are already tolerated (or entirely unproblematic) in the hetero population so banning gay marriages as a means to discourage them is not a valid argument. It's an artificial distinction.

Let's be honest - opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, ignorance, or personal aesthetics. Hey, that's fine - we're all entitled to our beliefs ...but let's be explicit and honest about it instead of kidding ourselves and each other.

If you really do want to stick to this farce, then at least be consistent and start demanding people must pass fertility and mental health exams before they can be married - to prove that they can produce children and raise them in a healthy environment.

[eeky]

You arguments are good but not airtight. I'll pick out the ones I disagree with.

> To be clear, there are difference in say how gay couples reproduce Straight couples can reproduce with their spouse - gays cannot. That's not just a difference, but a complete opposite.

>Let's be honest - opposition to gay marriage is based on religion, ignorance, or personal aesthetics.

I agree that most people oppose gay marriage because of religion, but religion may have underlying logical reasoning for it. I don't think ignorance/personal aesthetics is a reason, because if someone is intuitively disgusted by two males sodomizing, there may be a biological reason for it. Ignorance is better than false beliefs.

The reason I'm against gay marriage is that I don't want the definition to change, and I don't want my children having gay propaganda pushed on them. That's it. These are good reasons in my opinion.

[dragonwriter]

> Straight couples can reproduce with their spouse - gays cannot. That's not just a difference, but a complete opposite.

Not really one relevant to much of the legality around marriage. About the only thing it even remotely connects to is the presumption of paternity (the default assignment of legal parental responsibility to the spouse of the biological mother of any child born during the marriage.) And, even then, its not really a problem. There are two different forms of the presumption, and which is adopted varies by jursidiction.

Rebuttable: In this model, the concept of rights and responsibility of biological parents as preeminent is maintained, but the spouse is presumptively assigned parental rights and responsibility, but this can be reversed if there is evidence that the spouse is not the parent. Obviously, in the case of same sex marriage, this is resolved simply, as the evidence is readily available to rebut the presumption in all cases.

Conclusive: This model is based on the priority of the marital relationship over biological parenthood for raising children, and in jurisdictions adopting this this model the spouse of the biological mother is conclusively assigned parental rights and responsibility with regard to any children born during the marriage. Obviously, there works just fine in same-sex marriage.

So, the same-sex-couples cannot reproduce with their spouse thing is a difference, but not one which seems especially problematic with regard to the legalities around marraige.

> The reason I'm against gay marriage is that I don't want the definition to change

That's not much of a reason.

Why do you think the current definition of marriage, the result of continuous change over an extended period of time, is so perfect that it should not continue to change?

> and I don't want my children having gay propaganda pushed on them.

What does that have to do with equal marriage one way or the other? You think that continuing to deny equal marriage is going to make gay rights advocates less vocal and omnipresent?

[thejsjunky]

> Straight couples can reproduce with their spouse - gays cannot. That's not just a difference, but a complete opposite.

You're just stating explicitly the implicit argument I was refuting, but ok:

The difference is immaterial for our purposes. The fact that one or both parents in a family do not have a biological link to their children is irrelevant. It's a curiosity of genetics that has little-to-nothing to do with how a family functions on a social level, which is the level marriage laws operate on.

Are we banning adoptions and step-children now? Society has no reason to outlaw couples that can't reproduce together. Homosexuals can adopt, they can use surrogates, they can have children from previous marriages (ended in divorce, or death, etc). As long as we're think-of-the-children-ing it would be better all around to let those children grow up in families if possible.

More importantly, that's not a difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples - it's a difference between couples. Many straight people can not or will not reproduce with their spouse either - are we going to ban marriages between infertile people? Force people to have children?

The point is this: if you pick at random a married gay couple...and then pick at random a married straight couple....the difference between them will be no greater than the difference that we already tolerate between heterosexual couples. Therefore, you cannot argue that we must ban gay marriage on the basis of preventing some problematic aspect of gay marriage - any "problem" gay marriage is one heterosexual marriage also has. It's a largely artificial distinction. If not being able to have children together is SUCH a big deal, then argue against that and let gay couples be banned under that banner.

If you're going to ban it on the basis that a gay couple is statistically much more likely to have quality X, then quality X must be a VERY serious thing. Infertility is not serious enough to qualify.

Note too this situation may change. The science of reproduction is ever evolving and changing.

> These are good reasons in my opinion.

> is that I don't want the definition to change

This is either silly and arbitrary, or begging the question.

You don't want it to change why? Because you believe laws should never change? You're afraid of all the paper we'll waste printing out new forms? You don't want to have to memorize new legislation?

No, let's be honest - you don't want it to change because you don't agree with the proposed change. That's fine...but just state that instead of coming up with some silly dodge like "I don't want the definition to change".

> I don't want my children having gay propaganda pushed on them

Here I suspect is your most honest; you are against it because you don't like homosexuality. Fine, that's your right to feel that way. However you should just be honest with yourself and others and admit that, instead of providing silly and flimsy rationalizations which fall apart under any scrutiny.

[mynameismonkey]

In your previous comment, you took the view that your sentiments reflected a global representation, and you short-changed the person who replied to you for being so silly as to think you were talking about the USA when in fact you were talking about the entire planet. Now, in this thread, you hearken to "traditional families". You speak of a country that has "tax deductions". May I ask you to hone your platform and let us know from what level of generality you wish us to perceive your commentary?

[jackmaney]

You do realize that if the definition of marriage had never changed, then interracial marriages would still be illegal, right?

[dragonwriter]

If the definition of marriage had never changed from biblical times, polygamy would still be legal.

If the definition of marriage had never changed from the 19th century, married women owning separate property wouldn't be legal.

If the definition of marriage hadn't changed from what is one in any particular time and place in the past leading up to modern marriage laws, either much broader or much narrower restrictions on consanguinity would exist.

Marriage laws change all the time, and understanding of the relationships underlying marriage on which those laws are based also change all the time. Sure, same-sex marriage is a change -- but lots of other things that we consider fairly firmly entrenched in our idea of marriages were themselves changes, some fairly recent, to pre-existing models of marriage. The whole idea that there is some single "traditional" model of marriage that has been static for an extended period of time and which is now threatened by same-sex marriage is ludicrous.

[tome]

To be fair, that's a rather US-centric viewpoint. Interracial marriage was not ever (as far as I am aware; I may be wrong) forbidden in the UK, for example.

[bcgraham]

Your stated reason for opposing gay marriage is that it involves tax deductions because children are an expensive commitment. Then, in the very next sentence, you say you don't support gay adoption. So you oppose gay marriage because they can't have the kids you want to keep from them?

Let me guess: You don't support gay adoption because gay parents can't afford it, what with not having marriage-related tax breaks?

[corin_]

Child-based tax deductions should be based on what children a couple have, not on what gender the couple are.

And why do you oppose gay adoption? That's nothing to do with changing the definition of marriage, or tax issues...

[jlgreco]

> Child-based tax deductions should be based on what children a couple have, not on what gender the couple are.

Should... and are. You can receive child-based tax deductions even if you are not married at all. Whenever I hear the "deductions are for the children" thing brought up I take it as a clear sign that the person saying it has very limited life experience.