End Government Recognition of Marriage

16 July 2004 | Me

[Siamese Princess]

Well then let's just drop all requirements for marriage. I'm sure there are quite nice polygamous folks and probably few decent incestuous relationships out there too. Who needs culture and tradition, anyway?

The next move is the legalization of polygamy and "polyamory," which is I think is group marriage. Incest is legal, or at least decriminalized, in Sweden.

[conserv13]

The wording is the difference. Straight couples can have marrige, gays have civil unions. To me, this is only to keep straight couples happy, I really don't care either way.
I don't see how letting gay couples participate in marriage hurts anyone.

[asmith92008]

Look at the break down of the family structure in the Western and Scandinavian countries. Then you'll see how destroying the basic building block of society hurts anyone.

[asmith92008]

If folks trying to get married were not men and women, no marriage. If there were multiple partners, those with guilty knowledge go to jail. That pretty much preserves the traditional family.

Indeed, when government has tried to take a hands off approach, like with no fault divorce, it has led to a radically increased break-up in families.

[asmith92008]

So are you trying to say that post-Revolutionary America was a theocracy or a totalitarian regime?

BTW, we still do have to pay taxes to the King, legal sovereign, in the form of the sovereign states and the federal government. Is this sign of a "totalitarian" regime in today's America?

[Critter]

For government to simply turn aside as the forces of secular hedonism destroy it would be slow motion suicide for our civilization.

Government policy: Fix it til it's broken.

Ever notice that anything government touches gets screwed up? Name one thing in our society, that government touches, that isn't screwed up.

[Critter]

Government has already destroyed marriage and the family unit. Or haven't you noticed?

This is the first piece I read on the subject that actually makes sense.

[conserv13]

Divorce leads to the breakdown of the family structure. Letting gays get married would add to the number of married people.

I personally know 4 gay couples, 2 men and 6 women. Two of the Lesbian couples have children. I have seen no evidence that they are not normal, healthy families. They have the same love as straight couples, and they have the same problems as stright couples do too.

[FormerLib]

Government has already destroyed marriage and the family unit. Or haven't you noticed?

I've noticed that Left-wing actions via government have damaged marriage, yes. But it isn't in my nature to surrender. You can do as you please, but don't expect us to follow.

[asmith92008]

Marriage was broken fairly recently, in terms of government's recognition of it. It's been recognized and honored by the government for centuries. Only in the last 40-60 years has the government stopped looking at it as a sacred union but instead a contract that can be dissolved with incredible ease.

As to something that government has touched but not screwed up, I like atomic bombs. Our government was able to marshal forces together to build a weapon to win World War Two. Landing on the moon was pretty good, too.

[asmith92008]

So you honestly think that mothers and fathers are simply fungible and offer no special benefits to a child? As to evidence that they are not normal, healthy families, children raised in homosexual households have shown trends in more acting out sexually. I'll grant there still aren't perfectly definitive numbers but I think that's probably more a function of the fact that up until now, we haven't been stupid enough to try and replace the traditional family with an anything goes pot-luck.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Stripping the primary family unit of any legal protections would guarantee the end of our society as we know it. Look to the Democratic National Convention coming soon in Boston (or a "Gay Pride" parade) for a concrete look at the society that would rise in its place. -FormerLib

Government has already destroyed marriage and the family unit. Or haven't you noticed? -Critter

I've noticed that Left-wing actions via government have damaged marriage, yes. But it isn't in my nature to surrender. You can do as you please, but don't expect us to follow. -FormerLib

Many traditionalists just want out. Fatalism is weakening our side. It is much wiser to fight the good fight. The ordinary governmental protections are still necessary and still working for what they are intended to do. It is important to stop gay marriage, but please don't go rhetorically nuclear.

Who are the folks who subscribe to radical egalitarianism to force all of civil society to recognize gay marriage as equal in every way to traditional marriage? Very few of them think of it as radical. Some are mainstream conservatives and/or civil liberties fanatics.

[conserv13]

I think that a man and a woman raising children together in a loving stable relationship is the best thing everyone involved, and the best thing for society in general.

The problem is that how often does this happen anymore? Half the time, basically.

Divorce is a major problem. I think it would be better for a child to be raised by two women in a loving relationship than by a single mom, or by a dysfunctional father and mother.

[asmith92008]

I agree that divorce is a big problem. However, the problem comes from the notion that any family unit is okay, so long as the adults are happy. It's that same attitude that tries to say that homosexual "marriage" is the functional equivalent of a mother and father.

[freedumb2003]

How would allowing homosexuals to marry in any way influence heterosexual marriage?

Quite simple. If any part of marriage is up for grabs, then every part of marriage is up for grabs. In the same way as asking "why a man and a woman" then we open up "why 2 people"? "why the same species"? "why not father-daughter or mother-son"? Reproduction answers are excluded since homosexuals cannot reproduce. Any mechanism they use is available to siblings, peers and even species.

The only one of these models of co-existance that can be justified in any way besides "because I wanna" is the unrelated Male-Female union, which forms the basis for the nuclear family which forms the basis for our society.

So, if we open it up, then it cases to exist. Period.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Divorce leads to the breakdown of the family structure.

Right.

I think it would be better for a child to be raised by two women in a loving relationship than by a single mom, or by a dysfunctional father and mother.

I am not prepared to concede this, but willing to stipulate it.

Letting gays get married would add to the number of married people

Not at all clear, conserv13. Forcefully changing the culture to accept homosexual marriage will subtly but definitely cause marriage to evolve away from being an institution motivated by children and families. It is likely that over time, fewer and fewer children will have two parents (of either orientation) who are married.

Have you read Maggie Gallagher's work? It is easy to find in Weekly Standard and National Review. I think it bears studying.

[RobRoy]

Maybe you're unaware of the fact that gay couples can adopt nearly everywhere in the US, and that lesbians can always find a sympathetic friend and a turkey baster. Quite a few have kids from a previous straight relationship. I hope that all of them are trying to raise their kids as good citizens. In any case, are you going to make the kids in these relationships suffer because of the circumstances of their parents? And no, you're not going to be able to take all of these kids out of those homes and put them with Ozzie-and-Harriett families, there just aren't enough of them out there waiting to adopt non-infants.

Your trying to add too much to the scope of my post. What I said was:

"Then again, neither can possibly produce kids, and would not be considered a married couple and family - Which is why marriage exists, and why the state has a vested interest in preserving and nurturing the next generation of good citizens."

The key word here is produce. When you adopt, yout take custody of the result of sexual contact between a male sperm and female egg. In a homosexual relationship, you must go outside the relationship to come up with both of these items.

[Blzbba]

"They don't have the guts to say that homosexuality is a filthy and evil perversion and not only shouldn't be approved by the government, but should be vigorously stamped out. "


Substitute "homosexuality" with "Judaism" above and you have almost paraphrased Hitler's Final Solution.

[Blzbba]

"The institution of marriage is terminally ill and not long for this world."


I agree with you. Many heteros screaming about how harmful to hetero marriage the idea of homo marriage is conveniently forget that -- without homo marriage -- heteros have managed to make give marriage a 50%+ divorce rate.

Not to mention the millions of Britney Spears / Vegas-type debacles that have left millions of children behind in their wakes of devastation. But that's OK because it's hetero?

[Batrachian]

I oppose a behavior, not a people. I guess we can't enforce any morality otherwise we're Nazis. Someone else accused me of being Stalin and the Taliban. I didn't realize I was such a terrible person. Oh, wait a minute, I'm a conservative. Never mind.