What is marriage?

[zsdersw]

My problem with gay marriage is that this is not the end or the limit to which marriage will be redefined, and the extent to which marriage loses its exclusive nature is the extent to which it ceases to be marriage.

Much is made over the definition of marriage, as if the definition is what gives marriage its value. I submit to you that the definition of marriage matters less than its goals, and that the ultimate good of marriage rests not in who among the adult population can and cannot participate, but the fact that they choose to participate in the first place.

All of us, whether homo-, hetero-, or bi-sexual, are in many respects slaves to the carnal instincts and desires inherent by way of both our gender and our place in the animal kingdom. It is up to each of us, every day, to decide whether we're going to submit to those desires and be selfish or put our selfishness aside and do good by others. We make each of a million choices that in some way fall into either category every day, and the sum of those choices plays a big part in where we go in life.

Surely, the rearing of children and having an ideal setting for doing so is a laudable and essential goal for society. Society benefits in many ways from a man and a woman sacrificing for the sake of raising a child to be a responsible and productive adult. This is the non-selfish decision that those men and women make. Concordantly, society benefits in many ways (not necessarily the same ones) from similar decisions made by other combinations of men and women. Monogamy (for the sake of discussion, this is defined as sexual activity with only those in the relationship) benefits society by reducing the spread of STDs, which lowers the cost of health care. Monogamous relationships can also be characterized by much lower substance abuse rates, with obvious health and anti-crime benefits to society.

The concept of marriage is, to me, less about enshrining any one individual benefit to society and more about the broader benefit society reaps by people choosing to not be selfish; to care about someone other than themselves. To that end, many relationships are fitting and, since government must be the advocate of all, worthy of recognition.

 

[ebaycj]

Much is made over the definition of marriage, as if the definition is what gives marriage its value. I submit to you that the definition of marriage matters less than its goals, and that the ultimate good of marriage rests not in who among the adult population can and cannot participate, but the fact that they choose to participate in the first place.

All of us, whether homo-, hetero-, or bi-sexual, are in many respects slaves to the carnal instincts and desires inherent by way of both our gender and our place in the animal kingdom. It is up to each of us, every day, to decide whether we're going to submit to those desires and be selfish or put our selfishness aside and do good by others. We make each of a million choices that in some way fall into either category every day, and the sum of those choices plays a big part in where we go in life.

Surely, the rearing of children and having an ideal setting for doing so is a laudable and essential goal for society. Society benefits in many ways from a man and a woman sacrificing for the sake of raising a child to be a responsible and productive adult. This is the non-selfish decision that those men and women make. Concordantly, society benefits in many ways (not necessarily the same ones) from similar decisions made by other combinations of men and women. Monogamy (for the sake of discussion, this is defined as sexual activity with only those in the relationship) benefits society by reducing the spread of STDs, which lowers the cost of health care. Monogamous relationships can also be characterized by much lower substance abuse rates, with obvious health and anti-crime benefits to society.

The concept of marriage is, to me, less about enshrining any one individual benefit to society and more about the broader benefit society reaps by people choosing to not be selfish; to care about someone other than themselves. To that end, many relationships are fitting and, since government must be the advocate of all, worthy of recognition.

And, This. Great point, great post.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

I would define marriage as the ritualized external expression of a spiritual union that exists between two people who think, at that particular point in time, that their love for each other is so powerful that it may last for a lifetime.

There, I fixed it.

 

[drebo]

I think accepting the term "civil union" with the totality of rights equivalent to "marriage" is a reasonable compromise, however in principle it smacks of "separate but equal."

I think in practice what would happen is that the marjority of people would describe homosexual unions as marriages anyway, since it's just easier than trying to explain how Mark and Steve are going to get "civil-unioned" on Saturday. Basically, the people still refusing to call it marriage would be simply self-identifying themselves as the leftover bigots.

Well, like I said, I don't believe that heterosexual civil marriages should be called marriage, either, so my intention is most certainly not "separate but equal".

Call it a game of semantics, but the hangup is mostly a religious one and if you take the ties to religion out of the equation, there is no good reason not to afford homosexual couples the same rights "married" heterosexual couples get.

 

[MJinZ]

Well, like I said, I don't believe that heterosexual civil marriages should be called marriage, either, so my intention is most certainly not "separate but equal".

Call it a game of semantics, but the hangup is mostly a religious one and if you take the ties to religion out of the equation, there is no good reason not to afford homosexual couples the same rights "married" heterosexual couples get.

Why wouldn't you?

It's quite a feat to call someone's non-religious marriage to be inferior to a religious marriage. Especially since religious marriages were stolen right out of existing marriage customs and traditions.

 

[VashHT]

Marriage is a traditional religious institution that cannot be broken except by death.

The concept has been somewhat secularlized, sure, but the secular version is not the same. A secular "marriage" is not really a marriage, in the traditional sense.

I have no problem with extending the same rights to homosexual couples who go through the same process (civil union). However, I do not think it should be called "marriage". I don't even think that a civil union between heterosexual people should be called "marriage", because it's technically not.

If politicians were smart, they'd call it a "civil union", give it the same rights as a civil marriage, and be done with it. I would bet that if they did that, half the people who are "against" "gay marriage" would be fine with it.

After all, it's about the rights, isn't it? The name shouldn't be important to the people getting those rights.

Of course, taking this logical way out doesn't give politicians on either side talking points or big headlines.

What about people of different religions then? They can't get married in the traditional way either unless one of them accepts the others religion. I think moonbeam had it the best, marriage is between two people who have agreed to spend their life together, it's not decided by the church or state. I don't see why religious people have such a big hang up over what it is called anyway, it's all semantics. If there are gay churches out there (and there are), gays will end up being married in the traditional sense, you're not going to be able to force them to be limited to civil unions like you want.

 

[piasabird]

Lots of straight couples shack up and live together also. They probably can love each other just as much as a married couple. So marriage is more than just two people who live together and love each other. Among other things, Marriage is a publicly acknowledged leagal union with all of the rewards and responsibilities for each other. In the Bible Eve was described as an Help-Mate for Adam. In marriage, the man and the woman have equal responsibility and equal rights to each other. Also marriage is the creation of a family unit.

Anyone can have sex with another person and shack up together. Marriage goes beyond the physical. It is both a Public witness to the world and a bond of love between the couple.

Whether two same sex people can enter into real marriage is a good question. The problem is that for a lot of people Marriage also is a contract between God and the man and the woman. This is more important than any government law or government decision, or government tax and tax breaks. What God has put together let no man put assunder.

 

[woolfe9999]

And, This. Great point, great post.

Rather than quote again his long post, I'll add a "me too" to this. Great post zsdersw.

- wolf

 

[MJinZ]

Lots of straight couples shack up and live together also. They probably can love each other just as much as a married couple. So marriage is more than just two people who live together and love each other. Among other things, Marriage is a publicly acknowledged leagal union with all of the rewards and responsibilities for each other. In the Bible Eve was described as an Help-Mate for Adam. In marriage, the man and the woman have equal responsibility and equal rights to each other. Also marriage is the creation of a family unit.

Anyone can have sex with another person and shack up together. Marriage goes beyond the physical. It is both a Public witness to the world and a bond of love between the couple.

Whether two same sex people can enter into real marriage is a good question. The problem is that for a lot of people Marriage also is a contract between God and the man and the woman. This is more important than any government law or government decision, or government tax and tax breaks. What God has put together let no man put assunder.

What most people? You mean most of the 50% that would happily break their contract "with God" through the almighty Divorce?

The funny thing is that even when the religious want to raise marriage to their pedestal, they are the same people who would shit and desecrate on it without a second thought.

 

[Moonbeam]

Marriage is an institution and love is blind. Marriage is an institution for the blind.

 

[MJinZ]

Marriage is an institution and love is blind. Marriage is an institution for the blind.

If love was blind, then there wouldn't be any homosexuals.^_^

 

[cliftonite]

Lots of straight couples shack up and live together also. They probably can love each other just as much as a married couple. So marriage is more than just two people who live together and love each other. Among other things, Marriage is a publicly acknowledged leagal union with all of the rewards and responsibilities for each other. In the Bible Eve was described as an Help-Mate for Adam. In marriage, the man and the woman have equal responsibility and equal rights to each other. Also marriage is the creation of a family unit.

Anyone can have sex with another person and shack up together. Marriage goes beyond the physical. It is both a Public witness to the world and a bond of love between the couple.

Whether two same sex people can enter into real marriage is a good question. The problem is that for a lot of people Marriage also is a contract between God and the man and the woman. This is more important than any government law or government decision, or government tax and tax breaks. What God has put together let no man put assunder.

What if my god has no problems with gay people?

 

[Lemon law]

What if my god has no problems with gay people?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A very good point cliftonite.

But gasp gay people have always been with us, ever since biblical times, we even have gay bulls and gay Penguins so humans are not unique.

And over history various human societies have tried almost every imaginable tactic to eliminate gay people. With the ole kill em on sight tactic being perhaps the most draconian.

And the point is and remains, none of those strategies have ever worked in the entire history of the world. Because next generation, gay people keep coming back in the same proportions that they always have.

Where do gay people come from, the answer is obvious, its hereditary, we get them from our children. About 4 parts gay to 96 parts non gay.

 

[351Cleveland]

God made marriage. Government did not. Government and religion were, for most of history, intertwined. This is basically how "marriage" was morphed into a secular, government-controlled thing. There is no law, no contract, no license the government can issue to make a marriage. Government can recognize certain rights, however that doesnt create a marriage.

Call it what you will... I dont care. I also dont care if homosexual couples get the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. Let them pay the fee, get their "marriage" certificate, create the relationship, and be as miserable as the rest of us However, it will never be a marriage.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

God made marriage. Government did not. Government and religion were, for most of history, intertwined. This is basically how "marriage" was morphed into a secular, government-controlled thing. There is no law, no contract, no license the government can issue to make a marriage. Government can recognize certain rights, however that doesnt create a marriage.

Call it what you will... I dont care. I also dont care if homosexual couples get the same civil rights as heterosexual couples. Let them pay the fee, get their "marriage" certificate, create the relationship, and be as miserable as the rest of us However, it will never be a marriage.

In the words of the only undying god you'll ever find, Lemmy Kilmeister:


Let the voice of reason shine,
Let the PIOUS vanish for all time,
God's face HIDDEN, ALL unseen,
You can't ask him what it all means,
He was never on your side,
God was never on your side,
Let right or wrong, ALONE decide
God was never on your side.


I can tell you that Motorhead has served me better as a motivator for battle than your false prophets ever have.

 

[onlyCOpunk]

Legally it is a contract between two people that has been stated previously.

Aside from the contract, the rest is relative. I could "marry" my two dogs together if I wanted to and walk around call it a marriage. I can marry chocolate with milk as well.

Point is, people who claim that gay marriage will never be marriage are fooling themselves. They can call gay marriage but they want, but it's not going to stop the gays from calling it marriage. I'd like to see someone try to correct them in a restaurant or something.

I'm gay, and I hope to marry my partner one day. I have two passports and he does not, and marriage would be one way that we could go live in a 2nd country as long as we wanted.

 

[Taejin]

I would define marriage is the ritualized external expression of a spiritual union that exists between two people whose love for each other is so powerful that it lasts for a lifetime.

NO ONLY FOR MAN AND WOMAN AND MAKING BABIES GOD DAMNIT

asdf

 

[shira]

Not to be pedantic, but the proper term is "same-sex marriage." In principle, same-sex heterosexual couples could get married.

 

[dmcowen674]

ONLY FOR MAN AND WOMAN AND MAKING BABIES GOD DAMNIT

Oh God

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh God

Since nobody could be that mistaken he has to be kidding. I'll stake his reputation as a credible thinker on it.