<p>"The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. "</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s see… marriage equality will, in the short term, stimulate the economy via the large number of marriages. Look at CA 2004, in the brief time Gavin Newsom legalized marriage equality, look at how many marriages there were. Or the ones in 2008? 18,000 marriages in just a number of months. That’s cash flow, a LOT of cash flow. Some place like CA could use that to stimulate the economy and maybe break the depression we have going on here right now.</p>
<p>LGBTs with equal rights could adopt kids, giving deserving kids a loving home with good parents while freeing up space in cash-strapped orphanages and adoption centers. </p>
<p>Longer-term benefits would be that these kids would grow up in a more tolerant society. Weren’t we more American after we stopped being hypocrites and freed the slaves? After we figured out that it was wrong to judge others by the color of their skin? Yeah it took a generation or two before the hate died down, but now look at how tolerant our society has become in comparison to how tolerant it used to be. </p>
<p>I don’t really see anything negative coming out of this, honestly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>HOW is that ANY different from “marriage is for pro-creation” exactly? It’s still bumpin’ uglies, it’s just not producing a kid in one of them. Marriage /= Sex. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pause. Logical fallacy - slippery slope argument. Those don’t work. But 2 things:
- your example is polygamy, it doesn’t work because there’s more than two in the group. (although I’m not opposed to polygamy in certain cases, that’s an argument for some other time). Note: marriage USED to be about polygamy back in the older days, but it was redefined to the current 2-person form.
- Your second argument is incest, almost all societies have an incest taboo although they’re not always founded on the same reasons. Both of these are invalid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you can ensure they’ll all love each other equally, then there isn’t a reason, and you just argued successfully for polygamy in an agreeable way. But oftentimes one or more of the members gets exploited or left out. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Marital chaos” eh? I haven’t heard that buzzword before, that’s nice. Again, the only difference here is one of these produces kids, the other doesn’t. Both times you’ve reduced marriage to just being about the sex. There’s more to love than sex, why is that hard for people to grasp? If marriage is ONLY for procreation, then we have to ban infertile couples, asexual couples and anyone who’s gone through menopause from marrying, and nullify the ones who have. We have to perform fertility tests at the altar to get a license, and give couples a grace period to start bumpin’ out babies. This makes no sense, QED marriage /= procreation. Unless… you’d like to argue those groups, small as they are, don’t deserve marriage either.</p>
<p>"I don’t really see anything negative coming out of this, honestly. "</p>
<p>I quoted from the secular argument article in an above post to counter this point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE IS NOT PROCREATION. Otherwise post menapausal woman couldn’t get married. Infertile people (1 in 3 is affected by infertility) couldn’t get married. Birth control would be illegal. </p>
<p>Marriage in our society is not for procreation. It just isn’t.</p>
<p>In addition, as somebody with slight libertarian leanings, I do not have a problem with polygamy so long as there are all consenting adults. I would be nervous about people abusing polygamy for insurance benefits though.</p>
<p>Then marriage is of no value to this society.</p>
<p>^That is your opinion. I believe marriage does have value, but legal marriage is certainly not only for the purpose of procreation. Different religions may state that and that is acceptable, but a marriage by the justice of the peace is not for child bearing.</p>
<p>"Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children. "</p>
<p>A small minority of couples are not infertile. 1 in 3 have fertility problems. We do not require them to undergo fertility treatments in order to legitimatize their marriages. Gay couples can still have biological children. Post-menapausal marriages are NOT rare. Elderly, maybe, I don’t know. But marriages of women in their late 40s and early 50s is incredibly common. Your argument is not grounded in fact.</p>
<p>The marriages between people in their 40s and 50s are normally made between people who were previously married, and then divorced. That is actually a bad side effect of the notion that marriage is about sex for pleasure, not sex for procreation. </p>
<p>"Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation. "</p>
<p>^Doesn’t work like that, the argument is basically “well, it’s kinda costly and we’re gonna let them slide but it’s okay cause they’re man and woman” you admit right there that “the restrictions are not absolute” well… there you go. That opens the door for “redefinition” because the restrictions are no longer absolute. That entire paragraph just identified the argument about those couples and then dismisses it with a handwave. There’s no evidence for why it’s being dismissed as “oh well… these people are an acceptable minority who we deem it okay to marry… cos… well one has boobies and the other has a dickie.” I’m sorry to be crass but that’s your argument there, in a nutshell.</p>
<p>So you are now acknowledging that marriage isn’t for procreation…interesting. But you don’t like that that’s the way it is. So why instead of singling homosexuals out, don’t you work to recreate an 1800s version of marriage prior to birth controls and modern feminism. That seems like a more fruitful use of your time.</p>
<p>You are distorting the argument. Definition of marriage: 1 man, 1 woman. There is no special exception for the infertile minority. The argument clearly explains why they are not prohibited from being married, and you ignored the facts of that argument.</p>
<p>"So you are now acknowledging that marriage isn’t for procreation…interesting. But you don’t like that that’s the way it is. So why instead of singling homosexuals out, don’t you work to recreate an 1800s version of marriage prior to birth controls and modern feminism. That seems like a more fruitful use of your time. "</p>
<p>WRONG</p>
<p>I quoted from an article which shows how marriage, when it is not used for procreation has a negative effect on society.</p>
<p>You guys aren’t arguing straight anymore, and are completely misrepresenting what I have been saying.</p>
<p>Why is the definition of marriage 1 man and 1 woman? You said it was because of procreation. Marriage isn’t about procreation, thus the definition of 1 man and 1 woman needs to be revised.</p>
<p>You specifically stated that marriage is for the purpose of procreation when it obviously is not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually… until very recently, marriage has been about getting a wife as property to her husband, using daughters in arranged marriages to benefit their families, with siring of kids (read: sons) being the other factor. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And it was so much better when they just kinda shut up and stayed in bad marriages? In loveless marriages? I agree, divorce is not a good thing for a kid. But you’re advocating a “shut up, keep your head down, deal with it” attitude. That’s tied into an antiquitated value that women belong in a home, subservient to men. I fully agree the kids have to be taken into account too, nobody sane would disagree about that. But what exactly is wrong with “the couple’s own happiness” exactly? You’re saying people have no right to happiness in their married lives if that does not exist already?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The world is overpopulated – this is a problem how exactly?</p>
<p>I feel the need to repeat, AGAIN, that the “1 man + 1 woman” definition is a relatively new concept. The original concept for marriage was 1 man, women are property. That kinda segued into "1 man and as many females as he could own and care for (which included little girls so… that’s arguing for pedophilia and ephebophilia, btw)</p>
<p>“When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.” </p>
<p>The meaning of that quote is: when marriage is not used for procreation, it loses its meaning and there is no reason to regulate or restrict marriage since, why should the state care about who is having sex with who? If marriage is pointless for society as a whole, (procreation is important to society as a whole by maintaining the nation’s population whereas sex for pleasure doesn’t benefit society, just pleases individuals) then why should the government be involved in it? If it has nothing to do with the welfare of the nation, then there is no reason for the government to have any sort of involvement in marriage.</p>
<p>I agree wholeheartedly. Religions should control marriages. States should provide legal unions of individuals.</p>
<p>Except… governments confer legal benefits via marriage… which, in addition to Love, is what this is about. Equal rights.</p>
<p>Also… you’re shifting your argument between “Definition of marriage = 1 man + 1 woman” and “Marriage is for Procreation” and then criticizing raiderade when he corners you on one of the arguments by saying you mean the other. You mean both, so stick to both, okay?</p>
<p>Love raiderade and Itachirumon. Don’t really have much in the way of content to add, just feel like I should throw in my support for your arguments.</p>
<p>^Thank you! Though I will say I am a girl (though my username would lead everyone to believe otherwise).</p>