[quote=ewmayer;133792]OK, feeling straw-mannish here ... I claim that historically speaking, the institution of marriage [as practiced in all its various ways in hugely diverse cultures] was always ultimately about "stable social structure within with to have and raise children." Commitment of partners to each other was a proxy for the "stable" part of that equation. If anyone violently disagrees, please provide evidence for your claim to the contrary.[/quote]

Dr. Silverman will no doubt answer for himself, but I hope you don't mind if I chip in again since I happen to be looking at this forum right now. I don't disagree with your historical definition, I think it can also reasonably still apply now, and I also don't feel that it is in any way an argument for not including same sex couples in the definition. The requirement for the pair to produce the offspring themselves is not a part of current heterosexual marriage either: foster children are routinely placed with straight married couples. It has also been shown in numerous studies that established gay couples make just as good parents as straight ones. I presented a link to a good summary of these studies in post #44 of this thread and here it is again: [URL]http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/lgpsummary.html[/URL]

[quote]... So let's say that for all of lives me and my [hypothetical] sister Trudy have had a very close bond, beyond that of normal siblings. We would like to formalize our commitment to each other in some way beyond that of mere sibling-ness, by getting married. We are willing to aver under oath that our union will be loving and committed, but asexual. In fact, to allay any possible fears about us ever suffering a moment's drunken indiscretion and me knocking Trudy up with a child at much higher risk of birth defects than normal, I'm even willing to have a vasectomy as a condition of the marriage. What possible objection could the state have to this?[/quote]

As far as I'm concerned no objection at all. Such a brother-sister relationship might well also be a great basis for a stable environment for adopted children if it really is loving and committed in the sense that you and she would want to spend the rest of your lives together.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;133795]As far as I'm concerned no objection at all. Such a brother-sister relationship might well also be a great basis for a stable environment for adopted children if it really is loving and committed in the sense that you and she would want to spend the rest of your lives together.[/QUOTE]

OK, I'm going to have to come clean at this point - I was afraid of a stigmatizing backlash, so wanted to test the waters first. So here's the scoop: Trudy and I are indeed committed to one another, and I still intend to have that vasectomy, but we in fact plan on having sex - quite a lot of it hopefully.

But it's actually a little more complicated - in fact Trudy has a daughter from her first marriage [divorced 10 years] who moved in with us a few years ago after finishing college. The aforementioned daughter, my niece Suzy, is a very sweet girl, and well ... we've fallen in love. But we are completely committed to one another, just as Trudy and I are, and intend to make a stable home together. So I'd like to marry Suzy, as well, and adopt Suzy's 3-year old son Rudy as my own. Any objections?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;133791]Times change and we need to change laws[/QUOTE]

OK, I can certainly accept that position.

However, I see it very differently from my view of any "right" to have that change recognized without any explicit acknowledgement that such a change is being granted.

[quote=ewmayer;133798]OK, I'm going to have to come clean at this point - I was afraid of a stigmatizing backlash, so wanted to test the waters first. So here's the scoop: Trudy and I are indeed committed to one another, and I still intend to have that vasectomy, but we in fact plan on having sex - quite a lot of it hopefully.

But it's actually a little more complicated - in fact Trudy has a daughter from her first marriage [divorced 10 years] who moved in with us a few years ago after finishing college. The aforementioned daughter, my niece Suzy, is a very sweet girl, and well ... we've fallen in love. But we are completely committed to one another, just as Trudy and I are, and intend to make a stable home together. So I'd like to marry Suzy, as well, and adopt Suzy's 3-year old son Rudy as my own. Any objections?[/quote]
You won't hear any objections from me. However once we start broadening the definition of marriage to include marrying more than one person or marrying close blood relatives we are providing the law-makers with extra headaches to cope with all kinds of new complications. When it is finally the norm for same sex couples to marry as well as opposite sex couples there will still certainly be many injustices left to solve involving other people/groups who are not allowed to marry but whose marriage would be quite genuine and would cause no-one any harm. Having said that, I'm not prepared to see the opening of marriage to gay couples - which is long overdue and around which the arguments have long been discussed with the opposition found based only on religious dogma or bigoted ignorance (yes, now I'm being controversial I know...) - delayed or cancelled due to agonising about other types of marriage. The current ban on polygamy and marrying close blood relatives - while undoubtedly of dubious justification - is not specifically discriminatory which the ban on gay marriage is. Let's establish some priorities in what needs to be done and legalize gay marriages first.

[quote=Wacky;133805]OK, I can certainly accept that position.

However, I see it very differently from my view of any "right" to have that change recognized without any explicit acknowledgement that such a change is being granted.[/quote]
No doubt the adult female population was also required to acknowledge the change when they received the right to vote, and human slaves had to acknowledge that their freedom was a new privelege when slavery was abolished. I don't want to sound facetious but I find it hard to understand the significance of what you're saying. There's been an injustice since time immemorial whereby same sex couples have been - at best - officially ignored as a social unit. Let's acknowledge that we've got that wrong up until now.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;133792]...sanctioning gay marriage implies [among other things] that the state is saying in effect "procreation is no longer crucial - we extend the same benefit to by-definition-nonprocreative-unions as we do to heterosexual ones." [I ignore the technicality of lesbians having children by way of IVF or "live sperm donor" - gay male unions don't have that option, so they satisfy the non-procreative aspect.] [/QUOTE]Strangely enough, a very similar concept has been debated in the British parliament over the last few days. The context is fertility treatment --- are same-sex couples to be treated the same as others? The decision is that they should be.

You, and UK commentators, correctly observe that lesbian couples may use IVF. You appear to have overlooked, however, the use of surrogate mothers by gay males.


Paul

[quote=ewmayer;133798]OK, I'm going to have to come clean at this point - I was afraid of a stigmatizing backlash, so wanted to test the waters first. So here's the scoop: Trudy and I are indeed committed to one another, and I still intend to have that vasectomy, but we in fact plan on having sex - quite a lot of it hopefully.

But it's actually a little more complicated - in fact Trudy has a daughter from her first marriage [divorced 10 years] who moved in with us a few years ago after finishing college. The aforementioned daughter, my niece Suzy, is a very sweet girl, and well ... we've fallen in love. But we are completely committed to one another, just as Trudy and I are, and intend to make a stable home together. So I'd like to marry Suzy, as well, and adopt Suzy's 3-year old son Rudy as my own. Any objections?[/quote]

Who was that movie producer that actually did that? Well The first wasn't his sister but her daughter was indeed the follow up and he wasn't married to both at the same time (not legal). It didn't make him happy. His comment was life for him is just going from one project to another and drudgery at best. I don't remember names that well and most of his movies struck me as neither relevant nor funny although many seem to think so. By relevant I don't mean this thread.

[quote] Originally Posted by [B]R.D. Silverman[/B] [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=133774#post133774"][IMG]http://www.mersenneforum.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/IMG][/URL]
However, [B]truth[/B] is not a concept that is applicable in this debate.
This is a debate about equal rights. Whether one definition or the
other is [B]true[/B] is meaningless nonsense
[/quote]

If truth is not part of a debate then you can never come to a valid conclusion. Truth and validity go hand in hand, Hmmm, that would be a parallel to a happily married couple. One can be happy or content and at the same time not be happy about some given situation.

If I were homosexual I can't see why I would want marriage since heterosexuals don't seem to value it very much.

nelson

[QUOTE=Wacky;133789]Brian,

It is interesting that you bring up the right to vote. I think that there is a significant parallel to be observed. As you note, the right to vote was originally limited to males. (Actually, as I recall, it was even further restricted to "landed" gentry). As society changed its values, NEW laws were passed to extend the right to additional groups. In fact, the Constitution was amended in order to accomplish this.[/QUOTE]

Slavery used to also be legal - but these are in my opinion specious analogies, because the legal justifications for both voting rights restrictions [whether to the landed gentry or to men only] and slavery rested on objectively false premises - "women are too emotional" [or similar stuff] in the former case, "blacks are mentally and morally inferior" [or similar] in the latter case. On the other hand, I could argue along similarly "procreationally fundamentalist" lines as I use above [i.e. that historically marriage has always been fundamentally about procreation, and in fact that is society's only legitimate compelling interest in the matter] that denying the rights and benefits of marriage to gay couples is different, because it is objectively true that same-sex couples cannot produce offspring without the intervention of a third party or of modern medical technology. Sure, some heterosexual couples must also avail themselves of the same [or adopt] in order to have children, but the vast majority do not - in other words in the case of heterosexual couples we don't mind that not all unions are naturally procreative, because those are the exception, not the rule.

In other words, I would argue that a better analogy than denial of voting rights to women or slavery might be the perfectly legal "discrimination" which is used to deny children the full rights of adulthood. Children aren't allowed to marry because (a) they are not considered mature enough to do so [that of course is not at issue in the case of adult same-sex partners], and (b) they cannot procreate.

It seems the argument in the end boils down to the question of "what is the purpose of the institution of marriage, and why does civil society have an interest in the matter?" I'm not saying there is only one cut-and-dried answer to the question, but it seems to me that the advocates of gay [and other nontraditional] forms or marriage invariably gloss over that very fundamental issue.

[quote=ewmayer;133873]In other words, I would argue that a better analogy than denial of voting rights to women or slavery might be the perfectly legal "discrimination" which is used to deny children the full rights of adulthood. Children aren't allowed to marry because (a) they are not considered mature enough to do so [that of course is not at issue in the case of adult same-sex partners], and (b) they cannot procreate.[/quote]
Maybe there is no perfect analogy, but sadly I don't like yours at all. Every adult has to go through childhood first so everyone is "discriminated" by not being allowed to marry in their younger years - which means that it isn't discrimination. The situation where straight couples may marry but gay ones may not most certainly is discrimination considering that we don't choose our sexual orientation and have little or no means of controlling who we fall in love with.

Your main point about marriage being already available to those who are able to procreate without surrogacy, IVF or fostering programs, has been dealt with earlier in the thread. Dr. Silverman, I think (I'm too lazy to search through and check), made a point along the lines that if you're going to use that argument, then you should ban marriage to infertile couples too and to couples who marry without any intention of having children (and a lot fall into that last category). This would of course be virtually impossible to achieve and not satisfactory even if successful, so I think it's simpler to alter our out-dated definitions of marriage and regard the rearing of children as a possible function of marriage but not a necessary one.

[QUOTE]Dr. Silverman, I think (I'm too lazy to search through and check), made a point along the lines that if you're going to use that argument, then you should ban marriage to infertile couples too and to couples who marry without any intention of having children (and a lot fall into that last category). This would of course be virtually impossible to achieve...[/QUOTE]

Okay, let me try to rephrase how I reading everyone so far. Ewmayer claims that, from a historical perspective marriage is about raising children (along with protecting women who will raise said childrem, whom historically couldn't get jobs, etc...). Dr. Silverman and Brian-E believe that if this is the case then if there isn't a ban on non-fertile couples then it is discriminatory. In other words, marriage should be *restricted* to only those who can *prove* that they are able to, and actively trying to, satisfy the goal given by government, of having and raising children.

I just see a lot of speaking past each other here, so let me interject a few clarifying thoughts.

Consider the following. Suppose government wants to promote child-bearing. Having and raising children is a costly enterprise, and requires (modulo modern technologies) two adults. At least in our species, children have a better chance at survival when the parents form a caring, stable home. [Arguably, there are more secure evironments. But this one has worked well for a long time.] So, goverment offers incentives (in terms of joint taxes, inheritance laws, etc...) to opposite-gender adults to form lasting contracts with one another.

Someone says, "Hey! Some of the people getting the benefits of marriage are not procreating!" To get around this, further benefits are given when children come (further tax breaks, etc...). But still, some are not satisfied.

On one hand, some argue that the purpose is to promote child-bearing, not require it. On the other hand, some would say that the purpose is child-bearing, and if people are not actively engaged in it, they should lose their benefits. The problem is, by adding requirements, one actually *undoes* the benefits. People are LESS likely to enter marriage and have children. If you knew that at menopause (or possibly after your last child leaves the home) your government given benefits of marriage will be terminated because you have "served your purpose", you might be a little less likely to enter marriage. Further, at least historically, whether or not one was able to bear children was in many cases "virtually impossible" to tell (as Brian-E hinted).

On the other hand, some sort of requirement should be made of the individuals. They should (for example) agree to try and stay together. (At least historically, this was the case.)

So, the question becomes (from this standpoint) which requirements are too restrictive, which are not restrictive enough, and which violate other principles (like discrimination). Should we restrict marriage from those who are unfit to be parents (like ax murderers)? Should we restrict marriage from people who have been castrated? What about same-gender unions? etc...

[b]If[/b] the rational basis for government intrusion into marriage is to promote child-bearing then there are two questions we have to ask.

1. If marriage benefits are given to same-gender couples, will this further promote child-bearing, or demote it?

2. If marriage benefits are withheld from same-gender couples, because it is easy to verify same-gender couples are not going to have children naturally, what other behaviors should be used as measuring sticks to restrict marriages and yet still promote child-rearing? (Implicit in this question is the assumption that "discrimination" (in the non-hate-filled meaning) is rational in certain cases. [e.g. having bathrooms labelled "men" and "women" is rational, even though "discriminatory"]) Clearly, other "easily verified" qualities should be on the table. Other conditions should be judged on their relation to the goal (of *promoting* child-bearing) and not on the related goal (of actually having child).

I hope this gives people a jumping off point, and helps Dr. Silverman and Brian-E understand why one might believe that restricting marriage from same-gender couples can promote child-bearing, whereas requiring too much can similarly damage the institution.

Cheers,
Zeta-Flux

P.S. In my opinion, in terms of the political side of things, sometimes marriage isn't about having children, or even encouraging having children. Sometimes it is about encouraging others to enter into a relationship which encourages child-bearing. This, of course, can have social aspects.

I don't believe it's true, but I heard this blond woman on a news report talking about how same sex couples shouldn't have the right to marry because it might "force people to do what they know to be wrong in their own minds" and then she gave an example about some church or religious body being sued because they refused to perform a same sex marriage in their church building and they lost. That's the part I don't believe. I don't think any church group could be forced by law to have a marriage ceremony and preside over it under protest in their church building.

Given that our planet is suffering from massive over-population shouldn't we be promoting same-sex marriage as a means of population control? Eh, Ernst? :razz:

More seriously, from a global perspective, I really really don't think that we need to worry about preserving procreation within the sanctity of marriage for at least a couple of hundred years. So all this stuff about marriage is meant for procreation and the survival of our species is hogwash and utterly irrelevant to our present situation as a species. So give us a better argument than that.