Right: and in that case, there’s no reason whatsoever to deny same-sex couples marriage. Got it now?

Never it said it should be forbidden by law.

Oh, do quit backtracking on this: you’ve said all along that it ought to be forbidden by law. It’s been the backbone of your argument, beginning ten days ago and not changing since, that people ought not to marry either the person they love, or the person they’re making love with - that the government needs to forbid it by law.

Yes, you did. Ten days ago you asserted: There’s no denial of “equal civil rights”. A gay man has as much civil right to marry a woman, gay or straight, as straight man does. Same with women. And you have said nothing since to indicate that you’ve changed your mind on this blanket assertion that people ought not to marry for love.

Okay, valid point.

….you argue that people ought not to marry for love:

No, not at all. I did not say they ought not to marry for love. People marry for a variety of reasons, and yes I grant you that love is leading significant motivator, however from the state’s standpoint, romantic love, is not required.

you’ve been arguing, all along on this thread, that marriage in the US ought to be set up so that legally people cannot marry the person they are in love with.

Millions of people every year marry the person they are in love with. Some also marry for other reasons, or in addition to love. What is it about those marriages that is of interest to the state?

Little backtrackings don’t mean much when your whole argument is that loving the person you marry ought to be forbidden by law.

Never it said it should be forbidden by law. What you are arguing for is romantic love based, governemnt sanctioned, relationship, regardless of it’s role or function to society. Marriage is a sexual union, as I mentioned in a previous post (149). It is the potentionally conceptional nature of sexual intercourse that the government has an interest in. So in a sense, Jes, love, or to be precise, makin’ love, is what marriage is all about. Perhaps it should be don’t marry the one you love, marry the one you’re making love with. Now, I know, if that’s the case then why do we let Grandma, and Grandpa marry, when there’s no way they’ll ever make a baby again, or even make love for that matter. It would seem, to take a trip down memory lane say thirty to forty years ago, no one seriously thought that because we allow elder marriage, that somehow marriage is not about makin’ love and babies. No one ever really felt the need to delink marriage and procreation, at least from a legal recognition standpoint, until SSM came along. In order to argue for ssm, one must do just that. Marriage then must be nothing more than means by which the participants live what they perceive to be an emotionally satisfying life complete with government benefits. Gee is it any wonder that the divorce rate is so high.

No. Nor was equality for black people, or for women, or indeed for Native Americans. Nor were any of a thousand other concepts. Your expectation that “the white settlers didn’t do it in the 17th century” means “we shouldn’t do it now” is… well, we’ve already gone through what it is, many times over.

Never said it wasn’t important

Oh, I’ll concede you keep right on trying to claim that. But far more persistently and consistently you argue that people ought not to marry for love: you’ve been arguing, all along on this thread, that marriage in the US ought to be set up so that legally people cannot marry the person they are in love with. Little backtrackings don’t mean much when your whole argument is that loving the person you marry ought to be forbidden by law.

That couple should be, absent abuse, their biological mother and father. Would you agree with that?

I think it far more important that the people who raise a child should be loving and caring towards the child and towards each other, than to emphasise the biological connection. There is certainly a strong case for arguing that, if at all possible, an infant ought to be primarily cared for by the mother who gave birth to her: but it has also been shown that for father, aunt, uncle, grandparent, or unrelated friend of the family, bonding with the child takes place after birth, not before, and isn’t dependent on degree of biological kinship to the child. A man who is not the biological father of his wife’s child can (and has - blood tests show this happens maybe 1 in 6) can and does develop the parental fondness that a baby needs, ideally from more than one adult (babies are exhausting, toddlers hardly less so). As can a woman partnered with the biological mother. As can adoptive parents with no biological connection.

You decry love as a reason to get married, and it shouldn’t surprise me that you think love is less important for children than the biological connection. You are quite, quite wrong about this.

We wouldn’t want to discriminate against alternative families, simply because they don’t fit the norm, now would we?

Well, you evidently do, don’t you? The argument about polygamous marriage is a separate one from same-sex marriage, and not one I choose to get into.

Would that also include couples comprised of first cousins, or brother& sister, two brothers/sisters, etc.?

If you want to argue for or against incestuous marriage, please do: again, this is separate from same-sex marriage, and not one I choose to get into.

And if they wish to marry based on economic factors, companionship, or perhaps even immigration reasons, would you also agree with the government that they be allowed to marry for those reasons as well, or instead of, love?

You are the one who is arguing that, whatever else, couples should not be allowed to marry the person they love. (The government, by the way, as Edward from Obsidian Wings points out, wishes to make sure that a couple - one of whom is immigrating - did in fact marry for love, and not purely for immigration reasons.)

then surely those involved in trinary relationships with children, deserve the same recognition free of discrimination? Agree or disagree?

Separate argument from same-sex marriage, and one I choose not to have.

You really don’t want to defend your certainty that loving the person you marry is just wrong and ought to be forbidden by law, do you? Instead you raise extraneous arguments about multiplying the number of people in marriage (to three, or above), you raise the issue of incestuous marriage, you harp back to the 17th century and say “if the white settlers didn’t do it then, we ought not to do it now” - you do anything other than sit down and try to defend your argument that it’s wrong for the government to allow two people who love each other to get married.

Why’s that?

And therefore, a state needs to demonstrate a very strong justification for maintaining gender-discriminatory marriage.

And what is the justification for a state to introduce and maintain gender exclusionary marriage?

At a minimum, that means heightened scrutiny; in many states, gender-based classifications require a compelling interest. “Tradition” is not, by itself, a compelling interest.

True, but what is the compelling state interest in promoting gender exclusionary marriage ?

Please note that many states have removed the issue of “conceptional” from their laws.

Have these same states removed the issue of “consumation” from their laws as well?

Also, that marriage as an entity where the wife is subordinate to the husband is older than the Republic.

You are correct, and your point is?

You have been provided with examples of societies that did allow SSM. Can you give me an example of one society that mandated equality between husband and wife?

Did not those same indigeounous North American tribal societies provided for me, not have equality between husband and wife? As for other societies, I confess I am unclear as to your use of the word “equality”? Are you asking if there were societies that felt one gender was irrelevant to the marital relationship? Or that husband and wife were of equal worth to the marital relationship?

I was going to link this as a seperate post. I thought it was interesting, particularly the mention of a 1878 USSC case Reynolds v. United States, a case that dealt with polygamy. It also noted that polygamy is present in 78% of the world’s cultures, including some Native American Tribes. Interesting, is the presence of ssm among the worlds cultures equally as high?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2004-10-03-turley_x.htm

And, older than the union, the concept of same-sex or berdache marriage was common over large parts of what is now the US. So, historically, same-sex marriage wins. :-)

So the concept of various North American indigineous peoples incorporating androgynous males into marital relationships prior to a sustained European presense on the continent is the basis for your assertion that same sex marriage pre dates the union. Okay. However despite that technicality, such a practice was not prevalent among Europeans who would eventually form colonies in the New World, including among those who would later break from Mother England, and form a republic.

Was polygamy also practiced by the same indigineous peoples?

[Hellcat]“this “love” you state is so vital for marriage”

and which you think is unimportant and irrelevant. Yeah, got it.

Now you’re taking my words out of context, which we both know is intellectually dishonest. Never said it wasn’t important, simply that we do not require a declaration of “love” as a legal requirement for marriage. Similar to the lack of a procreational requirement that SSM advocates like to point out.

I think it beneficial to children, and so to society, that children should be brought up by a caring, stable couple who love each other and who love their children.

Absolutely! That couple should be, absent abuse, their biological mother and father. Would you agree with that? Absent that nuclear family structure any number of alternative including polygamous, equally loving, family forms can, and do provide, children with a stable home enviroment. We wouldn’t want to discriminate against alternative families, simply because they don’t fit the norm, now would we?

I think this is sufficiently beneficial to society that it is certainly appropriate that any couple who want to marry should be allowed to do so:

Why limit it to couples? Would that also include couples comprised of first cousins, or brother& sister, two brothers/sisters, etc.?

it would be impossibly intrusive in most cases for the government to get to decide which couples will have children and which won’t. (Even in cases where it looks absolutely certain that they won’t, as when a woman in her seventies marries a man in his eighties: you might argue that since this couple can’t procreate and will never be able to foster or to adopt, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married, but I think that if they love each other, why not? And the government agrees with me on this one, not you.)

And if they wish to marry based on economic factors, companionship, or perhaps even immigration reasons, would you also agree with the government that they be allowed to marry for those reasons as well, or instead of, love?

Your arguments make sense if applied to all couples who have children. The argument that same-sex couples who have children or who want to have children should not be allowed to marry is effectively an argument that the children of same-sex couples deserve to be discriminated against. This is not beneficial to society.

Is it not also beneificial to society not to discriminate against those who wish to form a family based on a trinary adult relationship? If same sex couples who have children are deserving of recognition free of discrimination, then surely those involved in trinary relationships with children, deserve the same recognition free of discrimination? Agree or disagree?

(getting this out of the way first) And, older than the union, the concept of same-sex or berdache marriage was common over large parts of what is now the US. So, historically, same-sex marriage wins. :-) Not that this is relevant to the issue of whether there should be same-sex marriage now, as has been explained to you many times already using the analogies of slavery and wife-beating.

this “love” you state is so vital for marriage

and which you think is unimportant and irrelevant. Yeah, got it.

I think it beneficial to children, and so to society, that children should be brought up by a caring, stable couple who love each other and who love their children. I think this is sufficiently beneficial to society that it is certainly appropriate that any couple who want to marry should be allowed to do so: it would be impossibly intrusive in most cases for the government to get to decide which couples will have children and which won’t. (Even in cases where it looks absolutely certain that they won’t, as when a woman in her seventies marries a man in his eighties: you might argue that since this couple can’t procreate and will never be able to foster or to adopt, they shouldn’t be allowed to get married, but I think that if they love each other, why not? And the government agrees with me on this one, not you.)

Your arguments make sense if applied to all couples who have children. The argument that same-sex couples who have children or who want to have children should not be allowed to marry is effectively an argument that the children of same-sex couples deserve to be discriminated against. This is not beneficial to society.

Why is trianary marraige a seperate issue from same sex binary marriage? Both are a significant change from our prevailing legal and cultural view of marriage as one male one female sexual union. Arguments for one can be used for the other. There’s no question that both are practiced without legal recognition, except in Mass, for ssm. Both relationships can, and do, consist of adults raising children. Both are subjected to societal discrimination. Etc. Certainly if laws can be crafted to recognize same sex relationships, surely the same can be done for trianary relationships. Are same sex relationships superior to the trinary relationships?

Jesurgislac

Hellcat: Didn’t I acknowledge both love and procreation in a previous post?

Possibly you thought you had, but you see, by persistently asserting that love is unimportant and irrelevant, and decrying it as a basis for marriage, you undermine any acknowledgement of love in marriage that you make in passing.

Waitamint here. I am merely pointing out that this “love” you state is so vital for marriage, is not is not legally required. I didn’t say it was unimportant from a emotional psychological perspective, but rather like procreation, which you are so fond of pointing out, IS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF MARRIAGE. All I ask is acknowledge of such. Is there anything else, while vital to marriage from an emotional psychological perspective, that is not legally required? Cohabitation?

Is it beneficial to society in general, and marriage in particular, if people are in love before they get married?

Is also beneficial to society that if people are going to engage in sexual intercourse they do so within the marital relationship?

Is it also beneficial to society that men and women who choose to procreate do so as a married couple? Do children benefit when conceived, and raised by, their own biological married mother and father, in a low conflict marriage?

I find the marriage- slavery comparison interesting. I’m sure there was at one time, and perhaps even today, some married women who commented that marriage was a form of institutionalized slavery. From an historical perspective, do you think that the founding fathers debated same sex marriage during the constitutional debates? I know slavery was debated, and even incorporated into the constitution, but I’m not sure if George Washington ever said, “you know I think Thomas Jefferson, and John Hancock should be able to marry”? Slavery has been debated since the birth of the republic, and was only ended after a bloody civil war. Even the issue of women’s rights dates back to at least the 19th century. Wives gained greater marital legal rights as women in general gained greater rights within society. Even bans on interracial marriage did not exist in every state. The concept of marriage as a sexual union of a man and a woman was common in every state in the union, from the original thirteen, to the final fifty, until 2004, of course. Why?

Uh, Amp, “number of people” is not a protected class; the government only need meet a rational-basis test to prevent polygamy.

Point well taken. Thanks for the correction.

Uh, Amp, “number of people” is not a protected class; the government only need meet a rational-basis test to prevent polygamy.

Of course its a gender based classification.

And therefore, a state needs to demonstrate a very strong justification for maintaining gender-discriminatory marriage. At a minimum, that means heightened scrutiny; in many states, gender-based classifications require a compelling interest. “Tradition” is not, by itself, a compelling interest.

The basic concept of marriage as a male female ,sexual, potentionally conceptional, union is as old as the republic

Please note that many states have removed the issue of “conceptional” from their laws. Also, that marriage as an entity where the wife is subordinate to the husband is older than the Republic.

You have been provided with examples of societies that did allow SSM. Can you give me an example of one society that mandated equality between husband and wife?

Possibly you thought you had, but you see, by persistently asserting that love is unimportant and irrelevant, and decrying it as a basis for marriage, you undermine any acknowledgement of love in marriage that you make in passing.

I want to address the historical aspect one more time if you will permit me.

No, because we’ve dealt with it pretty thoroughly, and as I’ve consistently said (and Mythago has pointed out) it’s irrelevant. Slavery was as old as the Republic, and was far more universal in the world’s history than cultures that had abolished slavery: that was used as an argument for retaining slavery in the US, and it was a bad argument. So is this.

One can argue that both are important parts of marriage from a sociological and/or psychological standpoint, and still acknowledge neither is required by law.

So why are you trying to have it both ways? If procreation cannot be required by law, then the legal right to marry cannot be dependent on being a procreative couple. Therefore, bringing up “same-sex couples can’t procreate” as a reason against same-sex marriage is tedious and irrelevant. Why bother?

If you’re going to use the “not set in stone” argument for SSM, then you can’t argue against its use for trinary marriage, or any other marital change the people, or courts, so desire. Capisce?

That’s fine with me.

If there’s a real and legitimate reason to oppose legal polygamy, then let that be the compelling government interest preventing it from becoming legal. If, on the other hand, there are no real and legitimate reasons, then why shouldn’t polygamy be legal?

However, this is logically a separate issue from SSM. Both SSM and polygamy should rise or fall on their own separate merits and flaws.

The basic concept of marriage as a male female ,sexual, potentionally conceptional, union is as old as the republic.

And until we changed them, laws saying that husbands could not be charged with rape for raping their wives were as old as the Republic. Until we changed them, coverture laws were as old as the Republic.

The fact that something is “as old as the republic” doesn’t have anything to do with whether it is just or not.

It creates a gender-based classification. You cannot marry somebody of your own gender; you can only marry somebody of the opposite gender. That, as you would know if you had a tenth of the legal knowledge you pretend to, is a prima facie classification.

Of course its a gender based classification. Its based on the logical incorporatiion of both sexes, each of whom offers complimentary emotional, physical, and sexual, characteristics, to the other. In this sense marriage stands alone among legally recognized human relationships. If there are others which acknowledge the participation of both sexes, please provide an example. We agree that marriage is a gender based classification but disagree on the rationale for such classification.

You can insist all you want that there is a Platonic, fixed definition of marriage that no law can change. You will still be incorrect. You will still look dishonest for failing to explain why you are OK with jettisoning millenia of marital tradition in all other areas (e.g. the supremacy of the husband).

The basic concept of marriage as a male female ,sexual, potentionally conceptional, union is as old as the republic. While the laws have changed the status of the wife in relation to her husband, putting her on equal legal footing, it has not altered the male female compostion of the relationship. The idea of same sex marriage is relatively new in this country dating back only with the past twenty five year s or so. You know that, and I know that. There was a time when certain sexual practices were illegal even for married couples. Our common collective body of marital law contains a presumption that marriage is a sexual union, thus the expection of consumation of the marital relationship, engaging in “marital relations” (sexual intercourse), and yes conception, a natural logical result of both conusmation, and marital relations, physcial obstacles to the contrary not withstanding.

Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, I will agree with you that marriage laws are not set in stone. It’s what the people want. Hey if in ten years there’s a groundswell of support for trinary marriage, I’m sure state legislators will be tripping over themselves to enact trinary marriage legislation. No different than SSM. If the support is there the people will demand the laws change to reflect that desire. If you’re going to use the “not set in stone” argument for SSM, then you can’t argue against its use for trinary marriage, or any other marital change the people, or courts, so desire. Capisce?

If there are other reasons by all means educate me.

Hellcat: Its interesting that SSM advocates primarily stress the “love” and “benefits” motivations, over all others.

It’s interesting that people who are anti same-sex marriage decry love in marriage and argue that people ought not to aspire to marry someone they love, isn’t it? It’s fairly consistent, too: someone who opposes same-sex marriage will almost certainly also oppose love in marriage.

Quick, purely scientific note, Hellcat: creating children does not require a marriage certificate. You would be wise not to assert that it does.

“…love in marriage is something to be decried and opposed.”

Didn’t I acknowledge both love and procreation in a previous post? Oh here it is:

I do believe that those qualities are necessary, from a psychological emotional perspective, for a successful marriage. In a legal context there is no requirement for it. To put it another way. SSM opponents will state that marriage is about procreation, thus SSCs cannot marry. SSM advocates counter, not only is there no legal requirement to procreate to marry, the law allows couples (elderly for example) who are incapable of physically procreating or even having sexual intercourse, to marry. Marriage then is about love. Well the counter argumnent to that is that love, and sexual fulfillment, is not a legal requirement to marry. As I pointed out previously, people marry for a variety of reason, including love, sex, and procreation, preferably in that order.

Why do you point out that there is no legal procreational requirement to marry to counter the argument that “marriage is about procreation”, but will not acknowledge that there is no legal love requirement, thus countering the “marriage is about love” argument? You can’t have it both ways. One can argue that both are important parts of marriage from a sociological and/or psychological standpoint, and still acknowledge neither is required by law.

Quick, purely scientific note, Hellcat: creating children does not require a marriage certificate. You would be wise not to assert that it does.

Further, now that you’re on our side of the argument, you should realise that trying to make claims that marriage must be restricted to procreative couples means that (a) no woman past the menopause can be allowed either to get or to remain married (she can’t procreate: end of privilege) (b) no man who has had a vasectomy can be allowed to get or to remain married (he can’t procreate: end of privilege) (c) couples proven infertile cannot be allowed to get or to remain married (they can’t procreate: end of privilege) (d) couples who do not intend ever to have children may not be allowed to get or to remain married (if marriage is dependent on procreation….)

And of course, if you allow couples who intend to have children by AID, or to foster, or to adopt, to get married… you will have to permit same-sex couples to do so, too.

Simpler, on the whole, even if you argue that couples only get marital benefits because of the children of the marriage, to just allow all couples who wish to marry to do so without going through this whole rigamarole about proving they either can physically have children or at least intend to do so.

Once again, Hellcat, one man/one woman marriage is not a “universal practice” throughout time and place. Why try to repeat an argument that’s already been shot down?

However, I will acknowledge, that same sex couples entering into marriage can mirror their opposite sex counterparts by , pledging mutual fidelity, in sickness and in health, and to death do them part. In that sense they can marry

…and get all the legal benefits of marriage, of course. Good: I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen an opponent of same-sex marriage give up opposing it and just admit that same-sex couples can (and do) indeed get married. ;-)

It creates a gender-based classification. You cannot marry somebody of your own gender; you can only marry somebody of the opposite gender. That, as you would know if you had a tenth of the legal knowledge you pretend to, is a prima facie classification.

You can insist all you want that there is a Platonic, fixed definition of marriage that no law can change. You will still be incorrect. You will still look dishonest for failing to explain why you are OK with jettisoning millenia of marital tradition in all other areas (e.g. the supremacy of the husband).

Not so. Couples are still getting married in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, the state of Massachusetts, and so on and so forth. Why try to claim what you can see is not so?

What they are entering into is a legal redefinition of the word marriage, certainly not the relationship that is, or has been, universally practiced throughout time and place. Accepted common characteristics of this universally practiced relationship called marriage is publicly acknowledging each other as husband and wife, consumating the relationship, maintaining marital relations, and raising any children that may result from such consumation and maintainence.

However, I will acknowledge, that same sex couples entering into marriage can mirror their opposite sex counterparts by , pledging mutual fidelity, in sickness and in health, and to death do them part. In that sense they can marry, as for the rest, marriage requires a man and a woman, because from that we get boys and girls, including some gay ones.

It’s interesting that people who are anti same-sex marriage decry love in marriage and argue that people ought not to aspire to marry someone they love, isn’t it? It’s fairly consistent, too: someone who opposes same-sex marriage will almost certainly also oppose love in marriage.

(The matchup between opposing same-sex marriage and opposing the 1000+ federal benefits of marriage is not quite so certain - some people do not object to the 1000+ federal benefits of marriage, they just object to same-sex couples having equal access to them - but it does run fairly close.)

You will find, I think, that apart from the opponents of same-sex marriage, there is virtually no one else who thinks that the federal benefits that married couples acquire are a bad thing, or that love in marriage is something to be decried and opposed.

I would say that a heterosexual man would not aspire to be in any type of marriage, happy or otherwise, with another man.

Then why are you arguing for that kind of marriage?

You acknowledge, after all: I do believe that those qualities are necessary, from a psychological emotional perspective, for a successful marriage.

Even if you then argue: I don’t see government as sabotaging romantically and sexually relationships by prohibiting ssm, nor by prohibiting trinary marriage.

But if you see those qualities are necessary for a successful marriage, then by prohibiting marriages with those qualities from taking place, then - if anything - the government is sabotaging, by denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

That’s if you’re being consistent. As we have now got on to the endless doublethink that occurs when opponents of same-sex marriage start trying to claim that “the procreational aspect of sex” is why only mixed-sex marriages ought to be allowed, I think this discussion can end.