The sanctity of marriage

[Kevin]

Originally posted by AlethiaSi
i completely agree.... its NOT right... i think that its amazing that people run around trying to tell other people what they can and can not do.... we have enough issues in this world... just because YOU think its not right... then all the sudden other people have to believe it too?


(i'm not attacking anyone on this board- this is what i believe... i would be a complete hypocrite if i said that this is the way all people should think.... i don't think that everyone should have my beliefs... we have one of me in this world- we don't need a bunch more )

The function of government is to tell its people what they can and cannot do. That's why we have laws. So the age old argument that it's not "right" to do that is an oversimplification of the issue. It's much more complicated.

There is the school of thought that America is a country founded on Christian virtues. Among the many beliefs that Christians hold, there is the belief that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred thing. In the Catholic Church, for example, it's a sacrament -- on the same level as baptism, the eucharist, confession, last rites, etc. Their main point of contention is that this is just another step on the slippery slope that will eventually remove all semblance of moral values from the fabric of our legal system.

Another group of people (and often the same people) have financial reasons for not wanting gay marriage. There is no question that it will cost society money. The biggest hit will be on our insurance premiums. There are many gay people, for example, that are HIV positive. They would be taking money out of the insurance system by qualifying for benefits through their married partner, resulting in potentially higher rates for everyone. Financially, there is also the question of gay divorce. Marriages without children are (and this is just a guess) probably more likely to dissolve. I'm guessing a lot more gay marriages end up in mediation, but that's another potential argument -- the hit it'll take on the family court system. There are many financial arguments opponents use against gay marriage, these are just a few of them. They question whether it's right that they be made to pay for something that they find morally reprehensable.

Those are the two biggies as far as opponents to this go.

If they can get past the former of the two objections, which I think many have. As I mentioned earlier, the Washington Times did a poll involving over 1200 people that found a slight majority favored civil unions -- all of the same legal benefits as "marriage" without the m-word.

What does that survey show? To me it shows that people are getting hung up on a word. "Marriage". As I said in an earlier post in this thread, the church defines marriage as a contract between the couple and God while the state defines it as a contract between two individuals under the laws of the state. To the church being married in a courtroom and married in a church are in fact two different things. My parents were originally married in a courtroom. Later, when they started attending church, the priest got on 'em to be married in the church. I see much of this argument as the Christian-led moralists wanting to have their cake and eat it too.

People are way too hung up on labels and semantics. The only valid argument against gay marriage in my mind is the financial one -- and for that, to be consistant, one should also be against civil unions. Folks are not consistant on this point, therefore, they are inconsistant and really don't know what they believe.

[godfrey n. glad]

Given that some churches, members of which would call themselves Christians, although some other Christians would say they are not, currently DO marry gay couples, I will find it supremely ironic if and when (and arguably that is now) gay marriages are only sanctioned by (some) religions, the exact entities that everyone is saying make gay marriage taboo, yet the law continues to reject gay marriage.

There are many gays that are already married, and I am not just talking about people that have been going to San Francisco. Ones that participate in denominations of Christianity or other religions that choose to recognize and sanctify marriages of homosexuals. In addition, no church will ever be required to perform gay marriages, even if the law changes to disallow the illegality of it. As another poster said, all churches already have the right to recognize or not recognize whatever marriages they so choose, on whatever grounds they so choose. So, really, it only comes down to whether or not people want to see gays have those legal rights. As valkyrie posted, there are a host of them, most of which may be entered into through other types of contracts, although some of which are only obtainable through actual marriage. Is there some compelling reason that heteros should have the convenience of one-stop shopping for all these benefits, whereas homos should have to go through much more contractual work to obtain the 80% or so of them they can legally access?

Again, I see that it comes down to the word "marriage." And again, I would say that separate but equal didn't work before, although it's better than acknowledged inequalities.

[James]

Why can't you marry your brother or your sister? Father or mother? As long as your consenting adults?

In Florida not to long ago they put a father and daughter in jail for getting married. They were both of the same legal age.

Don't use the genetics argument either, it isn't valid.

Originally posted by norcalchick
. i just don't think it's right for someone to tell someone else that they can't marry thier loved one.

[valkyrie]

I think that arguably in the case of a parent/child marriage, there is a huge imbalance of power and there's a good chance that the parent may be abusive/exerting undue power over the child. In that case, I can see why there would be a safeguard to protect people from that, even adults.

Actually, I think the genetics argument is valid -- when it comes down to it, aren't marriages between close family members prohibited because of genetics -- because of the likelihood that a child born from such a relationship would be more likely to have serious physical problems? Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if brothers and sisters want to marry each other. It creeps me out, but who am I to say what they can or can't do?

ETA: James, I don't think it's possible for a father and daughter to be the "same legal age" -- did he impregnate someone while he was an embryo?

[godfrey n. glad]

Originally posted by James
Why can't you marry your brother or your sister? Father or mother? As long as your consenting adults?

In Florida not to long ago they put a father and daughter in jail for getting married. They were both of the same legal age.

Don't use the genetics argument either, it isn't valid.

The slippery slope argument is sometimes useful, and sometimes not. It was also used when anti-miscegeny laws were in the process of being struck down. Did interracial marriages lead us down a slippery slope? If so, was it wrong to allow them? If not, how do we know WHERE to draw the line. The answer to that, it seems to me, is to take it on a case by case basis. If the only reason in keeping something illegal is because it may lead to making something else entirely viewed more favorably, is it ok to keep that thing illegal?

[James]

Lol I didn't mean same age, I meant over legal age. I think she was maybe 30 something and he was 50 something.

Its more of a sociological argument. You figure a lot of societies are built around the nuclear family. It could destabilize the family if the father and son are competing for the sexual attention of the mother and daughter. OR in the case of this thread where the same sex relatives might also be having sex . .. contented family.

So the taboo grew up more around that problem than a problem with sex-linkd defectives. Actually statistically you have no greater chance of having a defective child with a close blood relative than a total stranger.

Its a social tabo. Much like gay relationships or marriage is a social taboo.

I threw it out there just to present a framework.

What we are really talking about is what people are comfortable with. And a lot of poeple aren't comfortable with gay relationships, let alone gay marriage.

Originally posted by valkyrie
I think that arguably in the case of a parent/child marriage, there is a huge imbalance of power and there's a good chance that the parent may be abusive/exerting undue power over the child. In that case, I can see why there would be a safeguard to protect people from that, even adults.

Actually, I think the genetics argument is valid -- when it comes down to it, aren't marriages between close family members prohibited because of genetics -- because of the likelihood that a child born from such a relationship would be more likely to have serious physical problems? Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if brothers and sisters want to marry each other. It creeps me out, but who am I to say what they can or can't do?

ETA: James, I don't think it's possible for a father and daughter to be the "same legal age" -- did he impregnate someone while he was an embryo?

[justamom]

Along the same vein as Valkyrie pointed to "genetics", why not have testing done to see if a couple carry a recessive gene that will increase the likelihood of any number of diseases-diseases, that will cost the insurance company the school system or government programs for assisted living? There have been children born to such genetically close unions that are "OK". It isn't always a scene from Deliverance.

If it were JUST money, then you would have to include so many other benefits that are handed out. Benefits tied to irresponsible or "risky" behavior. Abuse is inevitable.

Sometimes seeing a grey area simply means it's a grey area. Not that one is unclear about their thinking or their belief system.
It's sometimes harder to show compassion by looking for grey than it is to draw the line because you only see black and white.
Maybe that is where our "humanity" or our conscience comes from, the grey areas.

I want to thank Valkyrie, because she pointed out some things I was not aware of.