The Triangle

Jamie:

Congratulations on an article that is so eloquent even I am moved to ponder "may be I am wrong".

Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the way you have quoted Saint Augustine on your defense of the subject matter. Here is a man who lived his entire life thinking that the act of sex is the original sin and even argued that Mary's holiness solely based on the fact that she conceived while being a virgin (or out of wedlock).

Yes, arranged marriages, polygamy and other facts you mention relating to marriage would make it seem like society is using marriage as a mechanism for it's own good. But do you think these variances (pardon me for my poor choice of word here) brought any goodness to the society, eventhough, they are present in some societies today? The answer is NO. These are diminishing variances and brought no good to the concept of marriage.

I do still standby my article even though I am moved by your reply that is very eloquently written.

I came across an online community for individual seeking interracial love. Here all the people are seeking interracial relationships. ---Blackwhitemeet.com--- You can meet your like-minded friends or partners.

I agree with Mr. Gurusamy. I have argued against him in the past, but on this issue I think he is right. When a new idea or philosphy enters into a culture, it does not change existing definitions or schools of thought. Idealism does not change realism. They are two seperate and unique perspectives on the world. Throughout history, marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. If we are now going to allow same sex couples to enter into a union, that does not change the definition of marriage. It is a totally different idea and as such it should have it's own label.

Proponents of changing the definitions of marriage also have to consider what effects that precedent will cause. For example, early mormons and several other cultures, have allowed marriages between multiple partners. Although, these cultures have always been the historic minority, by allowing same sex couple in this country we would open the door for the polygamist argument. They certainly have a platform as strong as homosexuals. And if the argument for this definition change is that it is porgressive and it makes people happy, well then what about the even smaller minority of people who are attracted to animals. I'm sure that there are alot of people who would like their relationship with a duck to be recognized by their state.

My main beef with the California ruling is that the people voted in a democratic process to define marriage. If the citizens of the state had then voted to overturn this rule, I would have been fine with that. Instead, opponents of this law litigated their way around it and 3 judges negated the will of millions of registered voters. This should have been decided by the ballot box not with black robes.

Thanks Lux, it's always a treat to get some healthy debate going in this paper.

I mentioned that Saint Augustine bit because it was indeed so intriguing. Granted, it was only a small admission--that within the frame of his religious views takes a back seat to the power of the Christian belief system--but it was a nod to the power of social structure nonetheless, which was rather significant in my eyes coming from such a figure.

And as far as bringing "good" to the concept of marriage and society, I'm sure our definitions of "good" differ, so here we shall agree to disagree.

"And if the argument for this definition change is that it is porgressive and it makes people happy, well then what about the even smaller minority of people who are attracted to animals."

The problem with this argument is that an animal can not give consent.

Marriage is a legal contract entered into by consenting adults - animals can not enter legal contracts so they can not marry. This is an invalid argument for trying to say allowing homosexuals to marry would open the door to anything and everyone to marry as they wish.


Honestly I think the solution is to remove the term marriage from government entirely - change civil unions to reflect the legal rights that marriage give today.

You want a legally recognized union (marriage) you get a civil union, you want to get married talk to your church (and Churches would have the ability to make the marriage legal by filing a civil union certificate - much like they file a marriage certificate today).

This way everyone is afforded the same opportunities and rights but the religious organizations that don't want to marry same sex couples don't have to because same sex couple still have a real and viable option because there are plenty of churches and religious organizations that are more than willing to treat all people equally.

I agree entirely, Steph. I used to argue against using "marriage" as a civil term, but at this point I think it is too entrenched in our society to be removed. It has a positive social connotation that cannot be replaced by such a foreign, legal-ese term as "civil union."

GLAD has a good piece:
http://glad.org/rights/OP1-whymarriagematters.shtml

Ugh. Im not at all glad with this article. It is liberal junk really if you ask me. I am Christian and I do believe that this will ruin the sanctity of marriage. But im going to tell you why it is not right from a purely economic perspective. To dumb it down for you. When you get insurance you can be listed as single or married. As of now the status Married means that you have a partner of the opposite sex. When you apply for insurance you can apply to cover your family. Homosexuals do not have children. Heterosexuals do. Sure if gay marriage is legalized they may be able to adopt but when was the last time you heard of a gay couple taking care of a family of five or more children. See there are more heterosexuals with more kids than there are homosexuals with more kids because homosexuals have to adopt which is a much more lengthy task than intercourse. So logically I hope you agree that heterosexuals usually take care of more children than homosexuals. Another point I'd like to add is that homosexuals carry what we call diseases. STD's, especially HIV is transmitted extremely highly among homosexuals. Recently I read in an article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette that the rate at which gay men are being diagnosed with HIV is on the rise, while the rate at which heterosexuals are being diagnosed is falling. The reason this is like this is because homosexuals lead a promiscuous lifestyle and usually have multiple partners while they are young. So obviously there is a higher risk for homosexuals to have STDs. Diseases like this is what makes insuring a persons health rather complicated, much less two people. IF homosexual marriage is allowed THEN it will enable homosexuals to apply for health insurance together as a married couple. IF the insurance companies cannot tell the difference between a homo and heterosexual couple THEN they will not know if they are insuring a high risk family or a low risk family. IF they cannot tell the difference between a high risk and a low risk THEN they will tend to be safe and assume a higher risk. IF they assume a higher risk THEN rates go up for ALL married couples. AND IF rates go up for all married couples THEN what happens to those who plan to have or already do have a large family. Do you see the logic in this? it is detrimental to many families. So you may argue your rights crap and say the times are changing but there ARE effects to what you are posing. Please don't submit this crap to the paper anymore. Im sure some people are cheering you on but for what purpose? Do you really expect to catch stradlers along the fence by shaking it? You're only serving to egg people on. So if you really think that we are descendents of Adam and Steve go right ahead, just don't push all of this onto people

Heterosexual Marriages helps with procreation thus Heterosexual Marriages lead to life.
Whereas Homosexual Marriages do not lead to procreation since both sexual partners cannot procreate thus Homesexual marriages lead to death.

In many families around the world, the father or the mother strives to have a son so the families legacy can continue onwards. But this isnt an option for homosexuals because well their legacy would not continue, and nor can they say that the children they adopt will continue their legacy because the child is not theirs. But one could say that what if we have some woman pregnated by one of the partners and have her birth the child and then take the child into custody. Then what we are doing is taking woman from a person who is a living member and an integral part of a family into an object which grows a fetus into a baby.
Honestly, marriage apart from heterosexual leads to death. you might say well heterosexual have cases where they have abandon children and homosexuals could take those kids into adoption. yes, you could.. but there are other org. that handle that so that children dont die yet are adopted by well caring individuals..

Marriage is between a man and a woman only.