Has anyone ever stopped a moment to consider just what this much battered and abused institution we call marriage actually is? Seriously.

In this country, it is perfectly legal to have sex with as many consenting adults (or in some states, livestock) as you wish. You can buy a home with one, two, three, or as many title holders as you wish. You can put anyone you want in your will (hell, it's rumored that Michael Jackson named a pig his heir) and name anyone you want as having privy to your medical records. It is no longer a requirement that you are married to adopt a child, and women are no longer legally subordinate to men.

So, what is it that makes marriage special? Is it really just inheritance and hospital visitation hassles? Because those laws could be changed and you wouldn't hear a peep from cultural conservatives. But that isn't what gay rights advocates really want, is it?

No, what makes marriage special is that it still conveys, despite all the abuse heaped upon it, society's (and God's) BLESSING of a certain sexual union. Not tolerance. Tolerance everyone already has to boink anything over the age of 18 that breathes.

No, marriage is special because it says that this particular type of relationship is a positive good to be encouraged, not just one to be allowed. And if you want to violate the received wisdom of the entire recorded human race up until maybe the last 15 years or so, you'd better have a darn good argument in your favor. Because marriage is (or at least should be) about more then just hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

No, marriage is special because it says that this particular type of relationship is a positive good to be encouraged, not just one to be allowed. And if you want to violate the received wisdom of the entire recorded human race up until maybe the last 15 years or so, you'd better have a darn good argument in your favor. Because marriage is (or at least should be) about more then just hospital visitation and inheritance rights.

Yeah, except for those societies that encouraged bigamy, marrying your relatives, pre-arranged marriages among strangers, etc, etc. Marriage between "one man and one woman" is not a concept the was the "received wisdom of the entire recorded human race until maybe the last 15 years or so". State-sanctioned marriage is about property rights and contractual obligations, it's not about God's preferred method of cohabitation, as you seem to think. If you want to keep gays from marrying in your church, that's your choice, but the state has no cause or compelling interest to keep things the way they are.

Well said. Church's have every right to deny a religious marriage. Fine, whatever. What's at contention in this argument is STATE marriage. People who go get married in a church have essentially two "weddings"--one at the courthouse/civic building and then at the church. Fascinatingly enough, I believe it's the civic marriage that's actually legally binding--so the "religious sanctity" of marriage really is a moot discussion--all these congress persons, etc chiming in are talking out of their league and area of legistlative influence. And as previously decided, we don't have the right to exclude members in our society from accessing the same governmentally granted privileges as others based solely on sexual preference.

[And as previously decided, we don't have the right to exclude members in our society from accessing the same governmentally granted privileges as others based solely on sexual preference.]

Okay, what if my sexual preference was to marry two women? What if they both agreed? Would you exclude me from accessing these governmentally granted privileges based on my preferences? If not, why not?

[State-sanctioned marriage is about property rights and contractual obligations, it's not about God's preferred method of cohabitation, as you seem to think.]

A little history lesson (I know, you libs hate actual history) would clear up this misunderstanding very quickly. State marriage is the late comer to this field. Until the early 20'th century, you couldn't get married by the state seperate from being married by a clergyman (or ship captain). Civil-only marriages are a recent accommodation to the reality that a small minority today do not want an explicitly religious ceremony. But, contrary to your unsupported assertion, yes state marriage IS about the state concurring with the religious position on marriage.

I fail to see how your argument supports your claim and refutes mine? Bottom line--state-sanctioned marriage is a new phenomenon and it's about civil rights and responsibilities. Your initial claim is that it's God's preferred way. I said the same things--state-sanctioned marriage, as it is currently, IS NOT the prevailing view of marriage "in the entire recorded history up to the last 15 years or so" AND that it does nothing to challenge the Church's view of, practice of or participation in the institution of religious marriage. So you agree with me, then? Religious marriage is different from state-sanctioned marriage, and just as the church has no business deciding what a state marriage looks like, the state has no business deciding what a religious marriage looks like...and the state is supposed to treat everyone equally under the law, ipso facto gay marriage should be legal. Great! We agree on something!!

Okay, what if my sexual preference was to marry two women? What if they both agreed? Would you exclude me from accessing these governmentally granted privileges based on my preferences? If not, why not?

Easily refuted. It's not the same issue, because the state sanctioned marriage "contract" is between two people and confers rights and responsiblities from one to another, i.e. I am my husband's automatic POA and he is mine, etc, etc. When you add a third person into the mix, then the automatic contractual provisions become more muddled--if I become incapacitated, who is my POA, husband #1 or husband #2. What if they disagree? What if one of them gets incapacitated, is it automatically me as POA, or can they choose the other? What about property? Is the value split three ways? What if one person wants to exit the union? Is the "contract" between the other two not valid? Etc, etc, etc. The state DOES have a compelling interest to keep marriage between 2 PEOPLE, but it should not matter the gender of those people. Just goes to prove that this particular line of argument is a straw-man and completely unrelatable to the matter at hand.

As are some of the other popular arguments against gay marriage--adult/child marriage? Marriage, and other contracts need to be between consenting ADULTS. Man/animal marriage? Invalid for the same reasons. I am not remebering any more of the popular deflective, and insulting, counter-arguments for gay marriage, but present them and I am sure I can easily refute them, too. And if you would like to know why some of the prevailing arguments for one man/one woman marriage (for procreation, etc) are BS, then let me know, and we can debate that, too.

The bottom line is that some folks view marriage as a religious issue. State sanctioned marriage is a contractual issue and religion should not enter into contractual agreements. Period.

[and the state is supposed to treat everyone equally under the law]

The state already does! Anyone can get married who so desires it. What you are asking the state to do is not grant equal rights. You are asking the state to change the definition of words so that those who don't want to get married can pretend that they are.

It would be no different then someone wanting to use the title "doctor" without getting a degree. Of course you can CALL yourself whatever you like. But for the state to recognize you as a doctor you have to meet certain criteria. It's not discriminatory. Anyone can earn the title. You just have to actually do it.

[

Easily refuted. It's not the same issue, because the state sanctioned marriage "contract" is between two people and confers rights and responsiblities from one to another, i.e. I am my husband's automatic POA and he is mine, etc, etc. When you add a third person into the mix, then the automatic contractual provisions become more muddled--if I become incapacitated, who is my POA, husband #1 or husband #2. What if they disagree? What if one of them gets incapacitated, is it automatically me as POA, or can they choose the other? What about property? Is the value split three ways? What if one person wants to exit the union? Is the "contract" between the other two not valid? Etc, etc, etc. The state DOES have a compelling interest to keep marriage between 2 PEOPLE, but it should not matter the gender of those people. Just goes to prove that this particular line of argument is a straw-man and completely unrelatable to the matter at hand.]

None of those practical legal concerns would be hard to sort out. Not one of them in any way is related to your assertion that the state has a compelling interest in restricting marriage to between two people. Why? We could easily add a few lines to the legal code that addresses any of those issues.

None of those practical legal concerns would be hard to sort out. Not one of them in any way is related to your assertion that the state has a compelling interest in restricting marriage to between two people. Why? We could easily add a few lines to the legal code that addresses any of those issues.

Then maybe we should! All I am saying is that your argument is apples v. oranges. A state-sanctioned marriage is a contract between two people--the people must be adults and must be of sound mind. They could be any age, any age difference, they don't have to know each other before the day of the wedding, they don't even have to live in the same place, they don't have to be the same income/education/socioeconomic levels, etc. The fact that those people must be "one man and one woman" is a completely arbitrary and unnecessary condition. That contract could just as easily be between two women or two men.

So what your saying is that gays should not be allowed to marry because it doesn't line up with what your God says? Does that mean that a muslim could petition the government to pull all legal status from christian marriages because they don't line up with Allah?

I'm not so sure that cultural conservatives would keep there mouths shut if those laws you mentioned were changed, but gay marriage is about granting gay couples the same legal benefits that the government grants straight couples. Cultural conservatives for the most part either want to deny this right to them altogether or they seem to want to quible about what it is called. As far as I can see, the last excuse is completely baseless.

fightthetheocracy!:

So what your saying is that gays should not be allowed to marry because it doesn't line up with what your God says? Does that mean that a muslim could petition the government to pull all legal status from christian marriages because they don't line up with Allah?

I'm not so sure that cultural conservatives would keep there mouths shut if those laws you mentioned were changed, but gay marriage is about granting gay couples the same legal benefits that the government grants straight couples. Cultural conservatives for the most part either want to deny this right to them altogether or they seem to want to quible about what it is called. As far as I can see, the last excuse is completely baseless.

You're still missing the point. You want to redefine what the word marriage means to allow it to include two people of the same sex. But, the whole basis of marriage is biological, a man and a woman coming together to form a family unit. If you are going to destroy that neccessity, what logical reason is there remaining to restrict marriage to just two people?

For that matter, why ban incest either? If two consenting brothers want to get married, why stop them? They clearly are not at risk for having children with birth defects.

If you desecrate the sacred uniqueness of marriage, there is nothing left.

You're still missing the point. You want to redefine what the word marriage means to allow it to include two people of the same sex.

And your point is?

But, the whole basis of marriage is biological, a man and a woman coming together to form a family unit.

Based on whose definition?

If you are going to destroy that neccessity,

It never was a neccessity

what logical reason is there remaining to restrict marriage to just two people?

Well, for one thing, this country already had a history of bigamy and it didn't work out so well. Children were being forced to marry adults against their will.

For that matter, why ban incest either? If two consenting brothers want to get married, why stop them? They clearly are not at risk for having children with birth defects.

Good question: so what would be a good reason to stop them?

If you desecrate the sacred uniqueness of marriage, there is nothing left.

How would gay marraige desecrate the sacredness? You seem to be relying on your faiths definition and applying it to everyone else.

[How would gay marraige desecrate the sacredness? You seem to be relying on your faiths definition and applying it to everyone else.]

Because, if you redefine marriage to allow it to include any combination of two or more people who want the title applied to them, then it becomes meaningless.

the true conservative:

Because, if you redefine marriage to allow it to include any combination of two or more people who want the title applied to them, then it becomes meaningless.

How so?