Devil's Advocate

I believe the concept of marriage is worth maintaining as is, and I've given enough examples to support my position. And let's not play semantics with the term "property"; if you believe children aren't legally recognized as belonging to their biological parents, then it doesn't really matter what you think the proper role of marriage is in a capitalist (or any other) society.

I think it's worth understanding what something actually is, prior to turning it into something you want it to be.

I touched on this earlier, and again Eiuol may have a better historical perspective to offer, but essentially marriage is intended to sanction the creation of families. The performance of the ceremony usually involves establishing the clear title of the man and woman getting married: "We are gathered here today in the face of this company, to join together this man and this woman in matrimony; which is an honorable and solemn estate and therefore is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently and soberly. Into this estate these two persons present come now to be joined. If any one can show just cause why they may not be lawfully joined together, let them speak now or forever hold their peace." ~ Traditional ceremony Being willing and available, the family names of the bride and groom are announced for the public record; both families releasing guardianship of their child so that a new family may be legally recognized. The bride and groom express their intent to share a long term ('til death do us part), monogamous (I offer you my solemn vow to be your faithful partner...) relationship with each other, as a socially autonomous unit (even the police are reluctant to get involved in marital squabbles). The presumption of course, is that the future husband and wife will produce and raise children, thus providing future members of their community, who in turn will provide future members to their community. Politically, marriage combines individual rights into family rights (of husband and wife) to govern the raising of their children (as their property until they become adults). For the most part, traditional marriage is about the ownership and transfer of property (don't cringe Eiuol, *snicker*). Of course these days it apparently "takes a village" to raise a child, so the politics are shifting from respect for family autonomy, to respect for the "beneficent" concerns of a community of interlopers. Children are still property, but they are in the process of becoming the property of the State... but that's for another topic... Pertaining to this topic, legal marriage is expressly for long term, monogamous relationships that create property in the form of children. Why? Because that's what happens when men and women shack up, and frankly that (the creation of children) doesn't happen when members of the same sex shack up. The language, e.g. bride, groom, husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter, specifically highlight the necessary roles of gender within a marriage. So there's no question of the context or concept of what a marriage is, and there's no question that it isn't legally structured to accommodate the biological offspring of same sex relationships. As to heteros who don't marry, it's a choice, not a legal necessity. mdegges, et al, may object to marriage and divorce entitlements, but those who choose to marry don't, because obtaining legal security to have and raise children is a good thing. So, if your objection to marriage entitlements is some form of Eiuol's, "well, that's not nice for nonhetero relationships, let's not exclude them", my response is, "cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it". All those "benefits" you covet can be obtained legally by other means, but no restructuring of marriage will ever address the legal needs of biological offspring of same sex couples; only adoption does that. This isn't a civil rights issue, because not getting married certainly doesn't prohibit the sexual pairing of consenting adults, nor does it prohibit them from adopting children. Marriage only reflects the biological reality of what happens (accidentally or intentionally) when boys and girls choose to spend the rest of their lives together.

No, because in the case of lesbians, as of gay men, any "outside source" of procreation requires a non-marital solution to establish legal guardianship of conceived children; it creates a 3rd partner that conventional marriage doesn't provide for. Heterosexual couples using outside sources also create 3rd partners, and marriage doesn't provide for that either, so it certainly isn't the case that marriage is better suited for gays... just the opposite in fact.

You're welcome. It's gratifying to know that hopeless romantics like ourselves still exist to challenge today's bleak vision of political correctness in certain terms (but not as a referent to the actual thing)... taste like chicken (but not actually chicken)... it was really the same thing except that (then it wasn't the same thing)... Of the responses to this thread so far, I'm in closest agreement with yours and Eiuol's; but whereas Eiuol identifies marriage for what it is in order to reject it, and you advocate making it something other than it is, I say embrace it for what it is, or pursue some other kind of relationship. But for pity's sake, don't reduce marriage to some form of virtual (kind of, sort of, almost like) reality. Go real, or stay at home

It's not my position that marriage facilitates adoption; that remains a separate legal issue. Marriage sanctions heterosexual relationships that create children, and that's very different from sanctioning relationships that acquire children from biological parents outside a marital relationship. In this regard, the sexual preference of gays isn't relevant to marriage, because the biological children of gays MUST fall without the legal union marriage creates, therefore requiring adoption. That implies that while marriage is suited for long term, monogamous heterosexual relationships, it's neither necessary, nor discriminatory regarding gay relationships that acquire children via adoption.

Yes it does, but the claim to be proven is that non-heterosexual unions are the same as heterosexual marriages. Points 1-3 are essentially appeals to guilt, or as Eiuol put it, "well, that's not nice for nonhetero relationships, let's not exclude them!" In the spirit of quid pro quo, I'll give you point 4; I'm not claiming that marriages and civil unions represent "separate but equal" romantic legalities. But my response to your remaining points is, "cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it". Marriage vows speak to heterosexual relationships, identified by Eioul as: "longterm/monogamous/heterosexual". Why? Because the reality is that a heterosexual relationship produces children (intentionally or by accident), and homosexual relationships don't. The creation of children is the threshold that you, et al, need to cross in order to establish that gays have a right to marry. A right is a freedom of action, but the sexual action of gays (with their partners) doesn't produce children, therefore they don't require the same legal security (or social recognition) that sexually active members of the opposite sex do, or that children created by their biological parents need to have. This is not to say that gays (or heterosexuals) can't acquire children, but that isn't an essential function of marriage. Being married doesn't allow for the automatic adoption of children; that requires a separate legal process, and one that is already available to gay couples. So put away your genetic pity cards and get real. The bottom line is, marriage and divorce entitlements address social and biological realities that exclusively occur as a consequence of heterosexual activities sanctioned by marriage; not gay activities. Heterosexuals have no civil duty to embrace alternate lifestyles and share benefits that are derived from creating children (naturally delivered), as opposed to acquiring them (adopted). finis

Just had to take a moment to add this mood lightener: We can all agree that everyone deserves to feel unregulated passion

LOL, seriously... and what about single discrimination? Just look at all the twofers they miss out on... I know, let's call single people married too, so they can receive all the entitlements given to selfishly married and bigoted hetero couples! I never realized the statement A=A, and the process of identification was so inherently discriminatory... A=?

No, my issue is with recognizing the custom from the regulation. As a legal matter, any contract between consenting adults ought to be valid so long as it doesn't coerce the lives of other non-participants. Again, civil rights issues are legitimately addressed by asserting individual rights, not by identifying all genders and races to be the same thing; Brunettes don't have more fun by claiming to be blonde. Equal justice for diverse lifestyles is rational; claiming that all lifestyles are the same (not diverse) isn't a rational observation. Blaming the custom of marriage for the unjust regulation of it, misrepresents the actual abuser of rights, and calling any living arrangement between individuals a marriage only makes the application of existing regulations more ambiguous.

I can't get my head around this notion of gender being a non-essential contextual element of marriage but hey, whatever floats your boat... I hear claims that living together is just like being married, or that having a dog is just like being a parent, or that alligator tastes just like chicken, and I have to chuckle, because I know better. I have to say though Spiral, I liked your earlier comments (from the perspective of a practicing Objectivist) as to why you chose to marry.

This is a very good point; marriage is a choice, not a necessity. The bottom line is, if marriage (as defined) doesn't suit your needs, find some other arrangement. Why force those who specifically choose marriage as a lifestyle to accept a different definition of what they value most. Let's put it this way... stripped of its legal entitlements, would marriage be desirable to anyone not choosing the convention it represents? "I take you, to be my husband (wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love and honor you all the days of my life." This vow is specifically addressed to the opposite sex for a good reason. Until recently, "shacking up" (aka fornication or adultery) was considered a social offense worthy of banishment or stoning. Committed bachelors and spinsters (regardless of their sexual orientation) flew under the radar, but men and women were strictly forbidden to set up house without the sanction of marriage. In terms of discrimination, marriage offered relief from social persecution. Eiuol's knowledge on this topic may provide greater clarity here as well, if I've misrepresented the historical context. Apparently this custom has worked so well that now it's viewed as discriminating against gays, who believe the sanction of marriage will deliver social recognition and acceptance of homosexuality; to which I say, good luck with that... I believe the offense being pointed to in this topic, "Marriage and Divorce Entitlements", is not fairly assigned to marriage as a custom/ritual/commitment, but to the regulation of the custom. And I believe the effort to sue for entitlements and social recognition doesn't justify altering or diminishing the custom of marriage, because it targets those individuals who value the custom of marriage, instead of addressing the unjust (and unnecessary) regulation of that custom.

definition of marriage: a long term, monogamous commitment, between husband and wife, for the purpose of creating a family. redefinition of marriage: a long term, monogamous commitment, between husband and wife, for the purpose of creating a family. Yeah that's inclusive... a commitment between anyone, for the purpose of anything! Oh wait... that's already taken... it's called a contract!! Let's just toss marriage, civil unions and contracts, and pinky swear like BFFs, to hang out with each other until something better comes along?? LOL, I give up...

Thank you Eiuol, for helping to clarify what I've been struggling to state. Context is everything and words have meaning. I've added about enough to this thread, so I'm going to retire to the sidelines for awhile.

For clarity, I don't see marriage as a civil rights issue. In terms of discrimination by race or gender, legal reform was accomplished by asserting individual rights; not by renaming members of all races and genders, "white males". The only thing redefining marriage will do is add another check box titled, "Sexual Preference", to loan applications and jointly filed tax returns.

I think it's unnecessary. The onus is on those proposing to change the definition of marriage to justify the need. Legal expediency is insufficient, as civil unions have already been defined to cover all non-traditional marriages. The objection to marriage and divorce entitlements isn't resolved by combining groups of relationships for the purpose of expanding objectionable government entitlements. So, if the argument falls to one of recognition, i.e. identification, forcing traditional marital couples to identify gay relationships as being the same as heterosexual relationships is not only irrational, but unjustified coercion.

No, my premise is that it's different, i.e. not the same thing. Marriage presumes a heterosexual partnership, and to include gays requires additional identification; gay marriage. Changing the traditional definition of "marriage" to include gays is context dropping. The idea that you can blank out the role of gender in marriage, and everything else about the relationship will remain the same is, well... let's say it's questionable according to the standard Objectivists usually apply to the process of identification. The argument that traditional marriage and civil unions ought to share the same legal entitlements has merit. The argument that traditional marriage and civil unions are the same thing, so we should drop the term 'civil union' and refer to every pairing of gender as being married, doesn't have merit.

In the context of gender relationships, would you say that father/daughter relationships are the same thing as father/son relationships? That gender is equally irrelevant to all parent/child relationships??

I beg to differ... The issue at hand, "Marriage and Divorce Entitlements", questions the justification of entitlements which favor heterosexual marriages, on the presumption that the role of gender falls outside the context of what a marriage is: "The idea that marriage is the union of one male and one female has been thought to be so basic that it is not ordinarily specifically expressed by statute. This traditional principle has been challenged by gays and lesbians who, until recently, have unsuccessfully sought to legalize their relationships. In Baker v. Nelson,, 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 1971), the Minnesota Supreme Court sustained the clerk's denial of a marriage license to a homosexual couple."http://legal-diction...ry.com/marriage My position is that a significant element of context (pairing by gender) regarding what marriage currently is, is being dropped to promote an inconsistent view of what marriage ought to be. The presumption that heterosexual marriage and gay unions are the same thing, is a false premise for reasons already given (and not yet rebutted). The rights of those who marry according to the legal recognition of traditional marriage, are violated by those who attempt to alter the identity of marriage, essentially diminishing the value of their marriage earned by their effort to maintain it. In terms of property value, redefining marriage can be viewed legally as trespassing or vandalism. Everyone agrees that the purpose of Government is to protect rights, and not meddle in consensual relationships; what I'm challenging in this thread is: 1) The repeated presumption that heterosexual marriage is the same thing as gay marriage; this claim has yet to be established. 2) Why should the legal value and identity of traditional marriage be altered to accommodate those groups who don't share traditional values? It seems to me that we are assessing the value of apples according to the identity of oranges.

Advocates for gay marriage primarily endorse the view that equivalent consensual relationships ought to receive the same legal recognition and benefits, and for the most part I agree with the goal, but not the tactics. I think the push for equivalency via marriage vs civil union unnecessarily provokes a hostile response from people like myself, who being married, find themselves caught between two very different generational value systems. Most people who oppose gay marriage have no problem with gay civil unions, and generally aren't aware of the legal disparities that currently exist between the two. It's the same kind of knee jerk emotional response you get from efforts to rename Christmas to Winter Festival, and doubly ironic because the reality is that Christmas was derived from Winter Festivals... Legalities aside, for me personally, marriage celebrates a man and woman being able to overcome gender biases in order to work together towards long term, mutually shared goals, in a way that two men, or two women, never address. Maintaining an intimate relationship with the opposite sex is no small feat I can assure you. Whatever personality differences gay couples may have to overcome, they understand how their own gender works. I love my spouse, but it took me years to understand the perspective of my spouse's gender. Heterosexual marriage will remain distinct from gay marriage because of gender, and to marginalize historical custom and physical reality for legal expedience, as opposed to promoting civil unions on the merits of legal rights, is a tactical blunder that creates adversaries who otherwise would be allies.

(let X=1) (while X>0 (let X=(X/2)) ) The processing of this computer code is dependent on an allotment of physical space, i.e. a finite number of bytes available to process. The program crashes due to physical reality (hardware); not conceptual error (software). I suspect that causality is similarly constrained. Infinity has meaning, but no practical application.

LOL, I was pressing to see how liberal a view you'd be willing to endorse...

... including people, regardless of their faith?

The separation of church and state delimits the political reach of religious fanatics. Whatever political maladies occur are the result of constitutional abuses not fairly attributed to a defense of marriage. The goal of civil unions as an alternative for alternative lifestyles is worth pursuing, but the expectation that civil unions are the same thing as marriages needs to be checked; A=A. The government shouldn't giveth nor taketh away from the practice of marriage, except to secure the individual rights of spouses and their children. However to say that, "as long as marriage exists, it needs to be inclusive of all types of relationships", is equivalent to saying, "as long as Objectivism exists, it needs to be inclusive of all types of philosophy." Why should Paul Ryan be discriminated against just because he practices Objectivism differently than Ayn Rand?

Thanks for the lagniappe Yes, that's what I mean; the financial/biological pairing required for spouses to produce a child. Prior to WWII, women were actively discouraged from competing in the workplace, and let's face it, men are biologically exempt from being pregnant. The presumption was (and still remains) that men and women marry to create a secure nest for raising children. By agreement, a woman's work was to keep house, and a man's was to pay for it, so it makes sense that legally the woman was at greater risk of getting left out in the cold due to being financially dependent on her working partner. Marital law reflects the historical legal precedents created by financial/biological pairing. Yes, times have changed but the greater percentage of marital pairings today still follow the historical model, so existing marriage and divorce entitlements remain justified in that context, i.e. the context of providing financial security for those (and their children) who by agreement, rely on a breadwinner to raise a family. Civil unions accommodate the legal needs of other marital pairings resulting from today's economy and biological alternatives to personally becoming pregnant, thus avoiding the financial necessity of a relying on a breadwinner. So, marital law is necessarily different than civil union law, verbal agreement, etc, and therefore justifies different legal benefits. Please note that I'm not claiming that current law, as it applies to marriage, civil unions, etc, is perfectly just; it's a work in progress, and progress towards better law that reflects today's realities needs to be made. And there's the tax issue, which no one believes is just to begin with... however, if married couples get better restitution from an unjust tax code, are we not to some degree claiming sour grapes? My main point is, the legal reality of a breadwinner and his pregnant spouse is necessarily different than that of two breadwinners living together with an adopted child, so claiming that all families ought to be constrained by the same contract doesn't reflect the reality of diverse family situations. Ah, that makes sense... thanks for the clarification.