CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day – Marriage

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Gay parent — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:58:14 -0000

Robert..thank you for asking...I am a State worker with great insurance and a pension. I can't cover our child on my insurance nor if something happens to me will she get my pension benefits. Just to name a few things that worry our family .

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

the Other Anonymous — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:09:27 -0000

Robert Goellner writes:
The inheritance and visitation while sick and not cognizant could be dealt with in a will or living will.

This concept that gay couples can have all the rights of married couples through contracts, wills, etc., is somewhat inaccurate.

In addition to the burden and expense it creates on gay couple, there is a qualitative difference between the two. Take, for example, a medical emergency. The magic words, "That's my husband" or "That's my wife" are immediately understood to entail a series of rights and responsibilities.

Saying, "I have a contractual arrangement/power of attorney/legal documents" does not open the same doors.

The same concept applies to financial dealings, parent-teacher conferences, and hundreds of other daily transactions.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Robert Goellner — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:12:20 -0000

Gay parent,
Are you speaking of
inheritance rights
health insurance reciprocity like with married couples

The tax system does not necessarily favor married couples.
Many governmental agencies and corporations give benefits for same sex and heterosexual partners/significant others even non married heterosexuals were children are involved and same sex.
The inheritance and visitation while sick and not cognizant could be dealt with in a will or living will.
although I certainly believe that adults should give whatever benefits, inheritance to who they wish and not just blood relatives eg partner, lover, friend etc.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Robert Goellner — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 01:05:42 -0000

Did you take a post down?

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Michael Tanze — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:40:32 -0000

Pot calling kettle,
The reason you are looking for (although may not agree with) is that homosexual behavior is immoral and homosexual attraction may be intrinsically disordered. This may not be politically correct but it does answer your question and is the reason that there is an objection to same sex marriage.

There is a belief that is no considered by an assumption by many as a-priori that homosexuality is natural, good and equal to heterosexuality in orientation and act.
This belief assumes that homosexuality is inherent, intrinsic and biological. It also assumes that as a basic assumption that previous beliefs stating homosexual acts are immoral are just plain wrong. The final conclusion is that homosexual marriage is a civil right and is the same or should be the same legally as heterosexual marriage.

To discuss this issue rationally is very difficult as there is a core belief by those supporting homosexual marriage that those that oppose homosexual marriage are inherently bigots and that homosexual marriage is inherently the right thing to do and a matter of civil rights and equality. There is a Blogger on the linked site to this named "Dan L" who calls people insane, nuts, f-ck-ng nuts, Homophobes, Cristo-faciscts etc. There is an assumption that those who are against homosexual marriage do not have any valid arguments and are equal to Nazis or at least to those who opposed civil rights based on race in the South and should be excluded from civil discourse or maybe society.

Advocates of homosexual marriage should at least recognize that many of those who oppose gay marriage (and most polls indicate that is a majority of Americans at least at this time)are sincere and are based on spiritual and logical beliefs. There is a legitimate danger in demonizing those with a traditional religious viewpoint on issues of human sexuality and even limiting their free speech or role in deciding issues based on a-priori assumptions on human sexuality. Basically, there is an underlying belief that is taken as absolute that these traditional religious viewpoints are wrong. These traditional religious viewpoints should be changed or at least these traditional religious viewpoints should not be taken into account concerning public policy.

If marriage is (or supposed to be): 1) Monogamous 2) Permanent 3) Heterosexual and 4) (at least in most cases) for the purposes of reproduction, a mechansim for raising children, and love and mutual support of both the couple and the family--than should any of that be reflected in the law? is it even right? What role does religion or tradition play if any? What role should it play?

The first issue that underlies this is: Is Homosexual behavior immoral? But to some to even ask this question is wrong and bigoted and the answer is obvious and inherent. Homosexual behavior is not wrong (according to advocates) and the individual has an absolute right to do what he or she pleases so long as it is with consenting adults and it does not hurt others including but not necessarily limited to homosexuality. Is any sexual behavior immoral or wrong? Should any sexual behavior be limited?
But if marriage, by definition, is between a man and a woman than there cannot be marriage between a man and a man by definition. The definition of marriage needs to be changed. Marriage is not and has not been defined as anything other than between a man and a woman thus to have a same sex marriage would be inherently impossible based on the definition both in substance and semantics. You need to change the elements of marriage both in law and by definition.

One reason cited as demonstrating why homosexual behavior is not wrong is stating that homosexuality is inherent based on genetics. Now, even if homosexuality is genetic that does not necessarily mean that homosexual behavior is right. Many inherent characterestics may be wrong (eg pedophilia, necrophilia--not to say they are equal to homosexuality but to demonstrate that an inherent charaterestic may not be moral and may at least possibly be regulated by law) Also, if it is inherent it may not be genetic or biological per se. The scientific evidence that homosexuality is inherent is not as clear as some advocates claim and that it seems more as propaganda than science. No gene has been isolated (at least not as of yet) There are logical and scientific arguments against a homosexual gene. This does not mean that there is not an argument that homosexuality is genetic but that the conclusion is far from made based on science.

The reasons from logic, history, tradition will be viewed as a bigoted way to deny rights from a certain class of people by some. However, it is interesting to note that until the modern age that almost every society had prohibitions in varying degrees against homosexual behaviors and in some cases against homoexuals themselves. There is evidence of widespread homosexuality and even pedophilia or more accurate ebophilia in some cultures in the South Pacific and no doubt homosexuality has been present in society since early civilization but besides the higher levels of society there has never been widespread acceptance of homosexuality in any civilization outside some elite circles and an isolated example in the South Pacific. This does not mean that there were not homosexuals or homosexual behavior or hypocrites in these societies but that it was not accepted and curtailed by culture and law. To wit:
1) Old Testament Jewish culture prohibits homosexuality.
2) Modern Orthodox Jews still subscribe to those prohibitions.
3) While some will argue that ancient Greeks and the great philosophers like Socrates and Plato were homosexual that was not true as a universal practice and certainly Aristolte was not and condemned it. Without debating this question, the homosexuality was young boys and older men in an initiatic homosexual relationship and was not present in every level of society but was fairly proscribed to the higher classes.
4) Roman society did not allow it and Roman (non and pre-Christian and certainly Christian) writers contemporaneous at the time viewed it as decadent although certainly some Emporers "married" multiple eunuchs and gay partners but again it was not a wide spread practice nor common or accepted but viewed as decadent and indulging in an unhealthy side.
5) Christian civilization clearly condemns homosexual acts and the Catholic catechsim still calls the orientation disordered. This does not contradict that many priests etc are homosexual as the practice or even orientation does not preclude Christian participation per se. The Eastern Orthodox (Greek, Russian etc) and Oriental Orthodox (Copt, Armenian etc--non Chalcedon)all condemn homosexual behavior. Most mainline Protestant demonintations did until the last 50 years or less. So there is a consensus in Christian thought against homosexuality even with some modern permutations and historical and theological justifications by writers like Boswell.
6) Islamic civilization from the Qu'ran to the Hadiths, Sunni and Shia (notwithstanding some practice of homosexuality in some very repressed socieities and an allegation that the great Sufi mystic and poet Rumi was gay) all do not allow homosexuality.
7) Oriental civilization of the three great civilizations of China, Korea and Japan (and their permutations) including dissertations on human sexuality in Confucian and Taoist treatises beleive that homosexuality is unnatural and disordered. Even the now popular Kundun Tibetan Dalai Lama stated that homosexuality was a spiritual and psychological disorder much to the dismay of his Hollywood followers.
8) I am not as familiar with Indian (primarily Hindu) culture but there are laws on the books and one Hindu Raj (prince) who came out the closet was disowned by his parents and was technically violating Indian laws in his region.
9) Communism, many liberals had a strained relationship with Cuba because of persecution of homosexuals. Yeltsin decried the state of his great mother Russia because of the increase of prostitution, homosexuality, crime etc as a result of a liberalization of social mores in the post heavy handed communist era.
10) Until recently, the Anglo-American quasi Protestant (with strong secular and Diestic influences) had a strong consensus against homosexual behavior with laws still on the books against sodomy in many states and until recently Supreme Court decisions upholding those laws.
This was not the Catholic Church but a patchwork of a common value system with a myriad of Churches and philosophical influences that did not allow homosexual behavior.

The advocates of homosexual marriage will respond that many things were allowed in other cultures: slavery, torture, child labor, forced women labor, and even today there is stoning of adultering women in Nigeria, or honor killings in Jordan, slavery in the Sudan etc.
So, just because every religion and culture historically and traditionally has had some prohibition on homosexuality and had restrictions on sexuality does not necessarily make it right (or wrong). However, it is interesting and at least instructive as the various philosophical premises of these societies are the basis of culture and law.
Is there not a common thread regarding homosexuality in all cultures on the planet?
Is this merely a negative heritage and residual issue like oppression of women?
Or maybe it is more?

This debate raises a lot of passion and uncivil discourse. However, I think it is possible to present evidence (and contrary evidence) that could possibly demonstrate that homosexuality is not natural nor positive. Also, that homosexual acts have negative consequences by statistic(s).

Underlying the homosexual "movement" seems to be a "pansexual" and very hedonistic philosophy that directly contradicts traditional spiritual views and at least possibly could be dangerous for society and the lack of restraint on issues of human sexuality that do affect human life in the biological aspect of reproduction and society through the family unit in a sociological aspect.

Maybe Homosexual behavior is wrong? Is that not at least possible?

Maybe Marriage inherently be definition is between a man and woman? That would not be that crazy to state in absolute terms just 10 or 20 years ago.

Maybe the homosexual orientation is disordered or unnatural? Maybe, just at least possibly?

Maybe homosexuality can be developed through non biological means like early sexual activity, or lack of male father figure, or warping the mind through sexual materials? The position of the Medical Psychiatric/Psychological established community a mere 40 years ago was that homosexuality was a psychological disorder--why did they change? for medical or political reasons? If psychiatrists believed that orientation could be changed and was psychological what changed that that is heresy today?

Maybe the changing social morality has lead to more divorce, out of wedlock early births, and other problems?
What if homosexual marriage did radically change the definition of the family and caused a breakdown of the nuclear family as we know it in society?

What if traditional religious views are right?

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Pot calling kettle — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:22:34 -0000

Absolutely no intelligent reason. Sorry.

WWJD? He'd probably say the vows for you. Love is sacred.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Gay parent — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:07:05 -0000

I have a child with my partner that is not allowed to get the benefits of married parents. One day when she's older she'll want to know why?

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

King of the Night Time World — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:48:46 -0000

As Gene Simmons of Kiss has said...and I quote...marriage is a financial arrangement that primarily benefits the woman.

The average marriage burns out after seven years (the itch? It relates to the fact that children no longer need total supervision at age 7, plus our biblical obsession with the number 7.)

They say that 50% of marriages end in divorce; go to the Domestic Relations courtrooms any morning...it has to be 80% at least.

The women's movement did more to kill the institution of marriage than all the perceived bogeymen referred to here and elsewhere combined.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Lyrl — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:54:59 -0000

I agree with several other posters that the legal relationship the government offers two people should not be called marriage, and that marriage should be reserved for religious institutions to decide.

I also agree that the historical argument the author makes is weak to misleading. There is no historical example of a state offering the legal benefits we associate with marriage without calling it marriage.

Not all good ideas for modern society existed in Ancient Greece or Medeival Europe.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Pot calling kettle — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:29:34 -0000

I can't stop thinking about this...

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Pot calling kettle — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:49:30 -0000

I keep hearing this "Traditional marriages and families exist for a reason and are important building blocks of society...," but I don't get how that rules out same sex couples. What is the reason? Don't beat around the bush, be short and specific.

Recognizing a legal bond between two adults benefits society; by making a commitment, the two partners accept mutual legal responsibility for debts, medical decisions, child rearing, etc. How does that rule out same sex partners? Please clearly express the benefit society derives from limiting this to man-woman and excluding man-man or woman-woman.

(I think most everyone agrees that a minor cannot enter into this type of legal relationship and multiple partners could, arguably, confuse the legal relationship. So stay focused. Why do the two partners need to be of the opposite sex?)

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Profamily — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:45:00 -0000

Support of a form of civil marriage is good policy for many of the reason above and one more that has not been mentioned. There are two same-sex households on my street that have children. Letting their parents into civil marriage protects those children in ways that only marriage can.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Bookworm — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:23:43 -0000

Actually I do agree with VM on this one. I am NOT personally in favor of same-sex or multiple marriage. Traditional marriages and families exist for a reason and are important building blocks of society, alongside churches and other private associations. That should not be lightly tossed aside because it doesn't agree with our current notions of "freedom" (primarily sexual freedom).
But... given the current state of our civil law and court system, which places individual rights above all else AND has taken over many of the functions families, religious organizations, neighborhoods, fraternal clubs, etc. used to perform (assisting the poor, teaching children, caring for the elderly, etc.), I personally think that maybe it is time to re-privatize marriage. It may be the only way to balance the protection of individual rights with the need for social order and the rights of religious and cultural groups to their own beliefs.
The government hasn't done a very good job of defending marriage and family these days. Maybe it should just get out of the way and let other institutions handle that job. I would think a lot of social conservatives would agree with that sentiment and maybe consider it a step in the right direction.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

VanillaMan — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:56:42 -0000

There is nothing new under the sun. We have tried a variety of marriages over the course of mankind and society. There is a reason we have monogamous heterosexual marriages legally recognized by governments. I find it unbelievable that we are so arrogant that we believe we can just change our societal underpinnings because we have this mythical belief in a governmental Santa Claus to bail us out when we screw up. We are so rich and have been rich for so long as a society, we have forgotten the basic reasons behind why we are so successful.

Gay marriage is not a new concept. There is a reason it has died out. If we only recognize the "love" part of the institution, we are blinding ourselve to the other reasons marriage exists in the traditional form it has taken in western society.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

YouNeverSawMe — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:44:54 -0000

I agree with VANILLAMAN on this one. The author's view works i we are talking about matters of the heart, but it fails to make clear what is to be done with matters of property.

Not to mention, we live in a day and age where you don't trust no one at there word. Even the dollar bill we use as currency proclaims in "God We Trust." Not man!

If this is a play to say legalize gay/lesbian marriage, I think more case studies and statistics would be credible than ideology at this point. The author just sounds like a "love-struck" idealist on this one.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

kimsch — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:28:52 -0000

I was married the first time (didn't work out) in Germany. We were both in the Army. The chaplain couldn't marry us legally as he could have in the States (by the power vested in me by God and the State of Illinois, I now pronounce you man and wife)

In Germany, the bride and groom are married in a civil ceremony (the clerk wears robes, it's very nice) and then the bride and groom are married in the Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Whatever on another day (generally the next day).

Like in the United States, Bride and Groom don't have to be married in the Church. Unlike in the United States, Bride and Groom can't legally be married in a Church/Synagogue/Mosque/Whatever...

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Bookworm — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:15:38 -0000

Under the system I proposed, there would be nothing stopping Mormons, Muslims, etc. from having more than one wife if they chose; but they would have to choose one to be the official, legal next of kin.
Also, such registration would be open only to adults (18 and over) who are NOT already one another's next of kin by blood. There would be no legal approval or sanction for child marriages, and all current criminal laws against sexual abuse and incest would remain in effect.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Rich Miller — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:11:38 -0000

===She conveniently ignors the families created, the civil foundations established, the traditions honored, the costs and penalties, the long-term benefits, the fiscal stability, and the very basic benefits marriage has towards survival.===

Except for the "traditions" part, I don't see how any of this would disprove the notion that gays should be allowed to marry. Just sayin'

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

VanillaMan — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:08:49 -0000

â€œMarriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage,â€

That is her title. What does it say?

First off it says that her book is recognized by her as not being authoritative. What she is saying is based on a belief that marriage should be reviewed based because the emotional ties of love as being more important than all the other reasons supporting the institution.

So all you people debating every form of marriage are doing so free from completely understanding the entire picture. She has given you license to do so by claiming that all that matter is the love, not the commitments or the institution itself. She conveniently ignors the families created, the civil foundations established, the traditions honored, the costs and penalties, the long-term benefits, the fiscal stability, and the very basic benefits marriage has towards survival.

To her, it's all about "Love"!

Utter crap and nonsense. And she knows it. Her premise is a faulty way of viewing the subject her opinion is based upon. It is unworthy of supporting most of the arguments I am reading on this web page.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Loop Lady — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:41:03 -0000

gosh VM, just say what you feel...I think this is how people deal with their relationships for the most part anyway ...I think common law marriage should be on the books across the US...it protects both parties and will avoid costly trials where the attorneys make a ton of dough from other people's relationships that have gone south...I cannot let anyone say a bad thing about anything printed my beloved liberal rag the NYT and get away with it...

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Randall — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:37:34 -0000

Why should marriage be between two consenting adults?

As one poster noted earlier, go to Utah, Arizona, Qatar or Yemen. Man is not inherently monogamous and the current marriage laws represent a Christian understanding of marriage.
This inherently discriminates against Muslims, Mormons, and many Animists who practice polygamy.
Since we have a strong and justified Feminist movement than Polyamory would be justified also.
It may seem radical explicitly or in writing but is not that what we have today anyway with conservative Republican well educated candidates swinging, cheating, multiple partners, promiscuity.

We already have serial polygamy or maybe it should be called serial monogamy with divorce and multiple (even if at different times) spouses.

If there is a Separation of Church and State that should disallow heterosexual exclusivity in government sanctioned marriages and benefits than why should there be monogamy or permanence or any other Christian influenced aspect of marriage.

Polygamy existed in human civilization for millenia. Polygamy was more accepted than homosexuality in Arab pre-Islamic, African, Islamic, much of pre-Christian Europe, and modern US at least with Mormons and other sects.
There is no intrinsic reason outside of religion to make marriage only for two adults.
In fact, an established polygamy may stabilize families and provide institutionalized support greater than the current flawed child support process. Of all races and cultures, but especially in the African American community you have a high rate of out of wedlock births (as established by statistics not stereotype and without conclusion per se) with many males who have babies through different women (creating a pop culture phenomenon that is called even in some academic research "my baby's mama") There is not a tie nor financial support outside government coercion or the perhaps more important (or at least important) father figure role in the life of the child--thus polygamy could establish a family tie with multiple women (in Islam it is up to 4 at any given time)and thus necesitate involvement in their family.
Many males, especially in lower income and minority divorce or non married situations do not feel involved (perhaps by choice no doubt) as it is not their family and the care of the child is taken outside the male and separate from him. If the male, allowing his natural inclinations, could have that child's mother in a relationship but also other women--that would be good for the child by establishing a formalized relationship.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

VanillaMan — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:30:47 -0000

The opinion expressed by the author is wrong. It is based on a slanted, biased history created to support the authorâ€™s preconceived views. It fails to understand marriage beyond the emotional commitment being made. The author fails to understand the very subject the opinion is based upon.

How poorly done!

Instead the author gives us a bunch of half-baked pop notions that deny reality. An utterly stupid opinion from a utterly stupid person passing as an expert.

Typical crap!

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Pot calling Kettle — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:25:43 -0000

Doesn't a "traditional" marriage include multiple wives? That's the Bible's take on it.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Bookworm — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:17:51 -0000

To Mr. Atsaves, that's one reason I believe the whole notion of civil marriage should be abolished.
The law should concern itself simply with who is recognized as one's next of kin -- not endorsement or sanction of a sexual relationship (which the very concept of marriage implies and indeed requires).
Under the system I propose, there would be nothing to prevent a person from having a close relative who is not their next of kin by blood (first cousin, sibling, aunt/uncle, former in-law, etc.) become their next of kin legally.

Re: Question of the day – Marriage

Anonymous — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:06:06 -0000

Another thought I have had on this issue is that the whole same-sex marriage debate is not framed properly right now. We ought to be debating constitutional amendments to LEGALIZE same-sex marriages or civil unions, not ban them.
No one can honestly argue that the founding fathers intended to permit same-sex marriage, any more than they intended to outlaw slavery, let women vote, levy income taxes or ban alcohol. All those things had to be accomplished by constitutional amendment. I believe the same is true of same-sex unions.
The notion of traditional marriage advocates having to pass "amendments" to state something that the founding fathers would have regarded as obvious (marriage is between a man and a woman) strikes me as ludicrous.
Granted, such an amendment would be hugely controversial and would probably not gain approval for years or decades (I myself would hesitate to vote for it). However, the debate would be properly framed, and if such an amendment passed, it would be done "fair and square" through the democratic process, and have a stronger foundation than court rulings by unelected judges.