****Note, I already posted this in General Discussion, but I think it is more appropriate here in this sub-forum******

This article comes from the American Anthropological Association. It discusses while people in this country are trying to define marriage, anthropologist recognize that there is no cultural universal definition of marriage/kinship, because the idea of marriage and kinship differ throughout various cultures. It is a really intresting article that kind of debunks what most Americans consider "proper" in regards to marriage and kinship.

"Gay Marriage and Anthropology"

Linda S Stone
Washington State U
http://www.aaanet.org/press/an/0405if-comm4.htm

This article clearly highlights how ludicrous it is for any religion to attempt to copyright the term "marriage".

Thanks for posting it, LisI.

Great post!

Problem being that Americans only see marriage as how it's refered to in the bible. They equate gay marriage to a man wanting to marry his dog, or a hetro man wanting to marry 50 women.

We are the last group that it's legal to discriminate against. So, I guess that "all men are created equal" isn't what they believe.

zat,

"We are the last group that it's legal to discriminate against. So, I guess that "all men are created equal" isn't what they believe.'

They didn't believe that when they wrote it. Only white men that owned property voted originally.Native Americans were savages that needed Christianity and to give up their land for imminiant domain.Blacks were property, as were women and children.

Why can't they just do civil unions for now, take it one step at a time. Hell if they wany gay marriage, I suggest they make Gay churches, I don't mind. The fact is once they get gay marriage, they will want gay catholic marriage, at that point they can't get my support. The churches are afraid of this too. I don't blame them. Lawsuits and political crap aside, any church has right to define its own principals, and the gay revolution will no doubt try to force religions to marry them. This is why they are so firm!! Get civil unions, then state sponsered marriage, but as assurance write amendments to constitution giving churches right to refuse gay marriages in there own congregations.

No religion would be forced to accept gay marriage...they are overstepping their bounds to forbid the all other people, religious or not, to accept their definition of marriage.

I think all this gay marriage thing was to gey at Kerry and the Mass. ruling on gays. Also to cover up for Bush's past.

BULL CRAP
gays sued to mach in Saint Patricks day parade, they sue anybody for anything just like everyone else. I GARANTEE YOU THEY'D SUE CHURCHES!! Write laws protecting churches first, THEN PURSUE state marriages!! ITS A FAIR IDEA!!

Civil unions might be an acceptable short-term compromise *IF* we could get them nationwide. They are currently available in only one state, Vermont. And I don't see any rush by other states to add them. In fact, eight of the amendments passed Tuesday explicity *bar* them. So, civil unions are really an empty promise. They are a compromise that doesn't exist.

And BTW, we already have gay and gay-friendly churches.

I fully accept gay rights, but want church rights garanteed also, it is a fair idea, write laws giving both sides there goals.

State marriages are not even accepted as valid by churches, so its a fair idea for both sides, Gays marry, churches are protected, and they both get there way. Churches need a garantee they can't be forced to Marry gays. And gays can marry by states or by chuches that accept them in as married. I do not see a problem on either side. If a church doesn't bless another churches marriage ideas thats fine too. I don't see any conflict here. I bet both sides reject this idea, Chuches stubborn on marriage, and Gays will want to force issues on churches, if you ask me my idea should be shoved down both there throats and be done with this crap!!

I could sure live with this, and I'm sure that basically everybody in the gay community could, as well as moderate to liberal churches. Try selling it to the fundamentalists, though

I am not a Christian...could I get married in a Catholic Church? If I refused to convert?

No one can force them to admit me if I won't take sacrament, or whatever the correct term is.

Tell me, which religion owns Saint Patrick's day? I am a non-Christian, so I guess I shouldn't have been allowed to participate in those festivities all these years, either.

There are several denominations of gay and open and affirming congregations,and have been for decades.This has NOTHING to do
with organised religions. It's an issue of equality. I have no interest
myself in either a marriage or civil union, but that is because the lover
I would have chosen to have a ceremony, died in 1990. So none of
this applies to me personally.The best compromise I've heard is all couples straight and gay get a civil union lisence to receive government benefits
for couples.The straight couples may choose a religious wedding and use the
word marriage,but that is not what provides the government benefits.

"gays sued to march in Saint Patricks day parade"

This parade is as much a secular Irish celebration as it is a religious observance.
Many groups who aren't Irish or Catholic March.Gays and Lesbians could also march, but they were prevented if they had any sign announcing they are gay.
To me this is a stupid fight,possibly gay Irish folks feel it's worth it, I don't.

Please consider these ideas - I believe GLBT's have been fighting for the wrong thing in their fight for the rights of marriage.

The heart of this issue is really the separation of church and state - fundamental principles that founded our nation. As unorthodox as it may appear at first glance, I don't believe marriage should be codified into US law and our constitution, as a basis for partial treatment, any more than any other religious, cultural or social idea. What gays/lesbians need is equality under the law - fair treatment with respect to taxation, inheritance, ownership, and the rights of some form of "family" status that permits legal representation for the members of one's "family". Marriage throughout history has always been a social, cultural phenomena. In most cases, defined by the religious beliefs and customs of the time and place. In the US, it is fundamental to most religions - most wedding ceremonies have evolved from hundreds of years of religious traditions. It is time to free the citizens of a free democracy and separate church and state from our law.

Why are religious people all over our country fighting to keep gays/lesbians from marrying? Because it is a religious practice.

Marriage SHOULD NOT be grounds for partial treatment by our government. Marriage should be abolished as a standard for any special treatment by government. Rather, some other neutral legal entity should be established. Taxation and inheritance laws, etc. should then be based on this legal entity. People who choose to marry may still do so in their churches or JP, or however they choose. Those citizens already married can be "grandfathered" into the new legal system.

Children would still protected by the same laws in existance now - paternity and child support laws which currently do not require a marital status in order to be enforced.

I believe that as our thoughts evolve on this issue, we will indeed find that 'marriage' as we know it, is in fact a religious or cultural institution. Based on that, it is in conflict with our constitution for our government to continue to favor that status in it's taxation and inheritance laws.

Thanks for listening. Give it some thought. It would be hard for any religious person to say "No, this isn' a religious practice."

Marriage has always been about the sexual union of man and woman that creates and raises children. Even the convoluted logic of the cited article acknowledges that across time and cultures, every society defines "marriage" in a manner to protect the children and their inheritance rights. Even in the articles cited obscure African exception the marriage needs a surrogate man to create the children. There is no "gay marriage" because there are no children between two same sex people. Neither Adam and Steve, nor Sue and Eve produce childrne and families together. Marriage is NOT a government benefit protram. It is a sexual union that produces children and families. Any other kind of love or gratification does not produce children and therefore is never consummated as a marriage.

People have understood the meaning of marriage for a million years. Every society has a strong vested interested in supporting the next generation of itself. Only the very recent leftist social agendas which turn their backs on children and the future of the society allows the notion of "gay marriage" even to be spoken. No amount of faux scholarship will change the fundamental meaning of marriage, nor make real marriage about anything other than making children and families.

Bob

Marriage is NOT about religon. Marriage is and always has been about creating children and familes. The laws you cite to protect children outside of famiilies, absentee child support slavery for example, have served to destroy millions of marriages and hurt millions of children in the US. Support of marriage and familiy is very important to the long term success of any culture and society. It's not about religion, it's about the societies need to support and protect it's future, it's children. Religion is another institution that also supports families, but people from many religions and no religions also have a strong interest in supporting our children, our familes, and our future.

Marriage was an establishd secular legal construct when the oldest known legal code was written down in the Law of Hamarabi. That was long before Christianity and even Judaism. The need to form safe secure families that create and protect the children, and to create legal or cultural systems that establish the inherritance rights of the children are as old as humanity. Recent agendas aiming at destroying families only serve to harm the society and jepordize our future, our children. It is a political bomb. No political party will survive that opposes the future of the society.

Bob

Colum, first of all, when gay and lesbian couples like me and my partner of 20 years seek marriage, it is CIVIL MARRIAGE that we speak of -- marriages conducted by our local governments, typically at city hall.

Why do we seek marriages rather than civil unions? The reason is simple. Because there are approximately 1,049 federal rights that married couples receive on day one of their marriage that are denied to gays and lesbians because we cannot wed under state law. Civil unions will not grant us these rights.

What are these rights? Here are just a few that are very important to my beloved and me, and to every committed gay and lesbian couple I know:
* Visitation rights should our partner be hospitalized
* Inheritance from a partner under state intestate laws (which take effect when one dies without a will)
* Denial of community property rights in community property states
* Being able to make medical decisions for our partners in emergencies
* Being able to get wrongful death benefits as a surviving partner through wrongful death suits (gay people whose partners died in 9/11 have been fighting this battle in NY)
* Lack of access to the federal Medical Leave Act benefits
* Inability in many states to adopt the children of our partners
* Denial of shared federal benefits like Social Security and Medicare
* Inability to avoid estate, inheritance, and other taxes that married couples are not assessed
* Ability to sponsor foreign partners for citizenship.

I am a "recovering catholic"----one never fully recover.
No you don't have to convert. Around the 1970's the church rules changed that a catholic can marry a non- catholic outside the catholic and it would be recognized as long as no prior divorce was involved (not sure what happened to all the catholics who married outside the church before this ruling--if they died and went to hell but did they get out after the new rules???LOL. Also the catholic church allows non catholics and catholics to marry in the church with a priest officiating.
I think the catholic church claims St. Patrick as its own. Most protestant churches only reocgnize a few saints if any.

Laws to 'protect' churches? All you have to do is look to the Constitution -- freedom of religion, Bubb. No lawsuit can mandate that any religious institution marry a particular couple, regardless of sex or sexual orientation. That is an irrational and baseless fear. I suggest you read the article that leads this thread, you may benefit from the perspective it offers.

Christa
GO BLUE!

I (as a straight woman) reiterate what I said in my reply to the posting under general discussion. If marriage is to be limited to the institution in which creating chrildren and raising families then no-one who is medically unable or unwilling to procreate as a couple should be allowed to get married.

My education in sociology supports the article beginning this topic as a very good base to understand how complex this issue is historically.

We started out believing that we should govern ourselves differently than other countries. We need to continue the evolution of freedom by looking at how the current status and the future of our society is affected by 10% of the population having limited rights.

Yes, it has been the purpose of society to protect children, although families are also controlled by religion and society due to their potential to build power. We have had adoption for as long as humans have existed and orphans became inevitable.

Now the infertile can have children and the fertile can choose not to. What's the difference between a straight couple that uses artificial insemination and a lesbian couple? Would you rather have gay men providing children with a stable home or keep rotating them through foster parents?

Do we care how children are created or do we care that, once created, they are in a loving, nurturing home? What does it cost us to control individuals who have had lousy parenting?

I would add that sociology established a long time ago how humans have always used ostracism to control elements of society. The effect of this is aberrant behavior by those who are treated differently. Add the behavior of those doing the ostracizing gets out of control. Neither benefits society.

Society and language evolve. Dictionaries have many definitions that are followed by [Obsolete].

Not only do I believe this is a necessary step for our country at this time in history (we are in no way leading the world), I am one of those whose religous practice is being threatened.

As a Unitarian-Universalist, gay unions have been a part of my church since the early '70's
We have certainly not suffered from it and can attest to the positive results for all of us.

Our gay couples are happily committed people who can invest their time, energy and talents in our church and society. They have the same positives and negatives as any humans - although I think many are a little more on the positive side because of what they have been through and how free they feel to be themselves.

What many of us are suffering from is (another) outright slap in the face when we are told by a faction of the trinitarian majority that our beliefs and practices are immoral. I cannot begin to describe the cold fury this generates. There's a limit to how long I can be polite and tolerant to people who show no respect for other beliefs and values. What is especially cruel is the idea that these marriages would be harmful. I contend that telling 10% of the population not to love, and the other 90% to hate those that do, is far more harmful.

As Edie points out, the 1047 Federal rights of married couples are no small change when it comes to "making it " in life. It is to our benefit that all couples have the economic and emotional securtiy of a committed partner. Society is far better served by promoting and protecting these relationships than it ever has been. Whether they raise children or not, the individuals are part of the workforce, the tax base, the consumer base, and the social securtity programs. Our increased longevity has made this aspect of life as crucial as producing children. And I would be surprised to find that none of the 1047 are obsolete. If we could get past these kinds of debates, there would be more time to make overdue changes in Federal Laws.

Given the Declaration of Independence and the first Article of the Constitution;

'... and the Pursuit of Happiness" ...."to promote the general Welfare"..

It is part of our basic values and purpose to ensure the rights of our GLBT citizens. To in any way "give in" to the political climate by disavowing this in order to win elections, is to sink to the same tactics we have been suffering from. There are other ways to combat this than selling out.

No retreat, no surrender.

Bob, I was adopted in 1967 by two very heterosexual parents who could not produce their own child. In 2004, My partner and I adopted two children. In both cases, neither couple (Gay or Straight) could produce a child, yet, through the act of adoption created a family. Society is in a great deal of danger if they only percieve only one type of family to be legit.



C'mon Bob, millions of years? Homo (heh, notice I said homo) sapiens have have only been around about 200,000 years. However, I will grant you that Homo ( I did it again) sapiens neandertalenis existed about 200 to 30 thousand years ago...go much further back than that you and you are definately hitting monkeys in the trees time period. However, we shall focus on the History of gays....

Some Names you Might Remember....
Alexander the Great
*Macedonian Ruler, 300 B.C.
Socrates
*Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C.
Sappho
*Greek Woman Poet, 600 B.C.
Hadrian
*Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c.
Richard the Lionhearted
*English King, 12th c.
Saladin
*Sultan of Egypt and Syria
Desiderius Erasmus
*Dutch Monk, Philosopher
Francis Bacon
*English statesman, author
Frederick the Great
*King of Prussia
Lord Byron
*English poet, 18th c.
Walt Whitman
*U.S. poet, author, 19th c.
Oscar Wilde
*Irish author, 19th c.
Marcel Proust
*French author, 20th c.
Colette
*French author, 20th c.
Gertrude Stein
*U.S. poet, author, 20th c.
Alice B. Toklas
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Federico Garcia Lorca
*Spanish author, 20th c.
Cole Porter
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Virginia Woolf
*English author, 20th c.
Leonard Bernstein
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Pope Julius III
*1550-1555
T.E. Lawrence
*English soldier, author, 20th c.
Jean Cocteau
*French writer, director, 20th c.
Charles Laughton
*English actor, 20th c.
Marguerite Yourcenar
*Belgian author, 20th c.
Tennessee Williams
*U.S. Playwright, 20th c.
James Baldwin
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Andy Warhol
*U.S. artist, 20th c.
Michelangelo
*Italian artist, 15th c.
Leonardo Da Vinci
*Ital. Artist, scientist, 15th c.
Christopher Marlowe
*Eng. Playwright, 16th c.
Herman Melville
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Horatio Alger, Jr.
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Tchaikovsky
*Russian composer, 19th c.
Willa Cather
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Amy Lowell
*U.S. author, 19th & 20th c.
E.M. Forster
*English author, 20th c.
John M. Keynes
*English economist, 20th c.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
*Australian mathematician, 20th c.
Bessie Smith
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Noel Coward
*English playwright, 20th c.
Christopher Isherwood
*English author, 20th c.
Pier Paolo Pasolini
*Italian film director, 20th c.
Yukio Mishima
*Japanese author, 20th c.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*U.S. stateswoman, 20th c.
Julius Caesar
*Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C.
Augustus Caesar
*Roman Emperor
Harvey Milk
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Bayard Rustin
*U.S. Civil Rights activist, 20th c.
James I
*English King, 16th-17th c.
Queen Anne
*English Queen, 18th c.
Marie Antoinette
*French Empress, 18th c.
Melissa Etheridge
*U.S. Rock Star, 20th c.
Pope Benedict IX
*1032-1044
Mary Sarton
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Edna Ferber
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Elton John
*English Rock Star, 20th c.
Margaret Fuller
*U.S. writer, educator, 20th c.
Montezuma II
*Aztec ruler, 16th c.
Peter the Great
*Russian Czar, 17th-18th c.
Langston Hughes
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Pope John XII
*955-964
Madame de Stael
*French writer, 17th-18th c.
Martina Navratilova
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Greg Louganis
*U.S. Olympic swimmer, 20th c.
Billie Jean King
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Roberta Achtenburg
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Barney Frank
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Gerry Studds
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Hans Christian Andersen
*Danish author, 19th c.
Tom Dooley
*U.S. M.D. missionary, 20th c.
J. Edgar Hoover
*U.S. director of the FBI., 20th c.
Frida Kahlo
*Mexican artist, 20th c.
Suleiman the Magnificent
*Ottoman ruler, 15th c.
Rock Hudson
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz
*Mexican author, 16th c.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Candace Gingrich
*Gay Rights activist, 20th c.
Margarethe Cammermeyer
*U.S. Army Colonel, 20th c.
Zoe Dunning
*U.S. Military Reservist, 20th c.
Tom Waddel
*U.S. M.D., Olympic star, 20th c.
Kate Millet
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Janis Joplin
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Rudolf Nuryev
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Waslaw Nijinsky
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Dag Hammerskjold
*Swedish UN Secretary, 209th c.
Aristotle
*Greek philosopher, 384-322 B.C.
Paula Gunn Allen
*Native American author, 20th c.
Angela Davis
*U.S. political activist, 20th c.
June Jordan
*U.S. author, activist, 20th c.
Rainer Maria Rilke
*German poet, 20th c.
James Dean
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Montgomery Clift
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Baron VonSteuben
*German General, Valley Forge
Edward II
*English King, 14th c.

You know what I see Bob, that gays and bi-sexuals have helped shaped this world in ways you can't even begin to imagine. Gays were here LONG BEFORE JESUS CHRIST, however, in his name your PEOPLE continue to wage moral war on my people and claim marriage as your own. Long before your version of marriage was recognized there were pagan rituals {PRE CHRIST} that would join people of the same sex together as these relationships were honored and recognized. Of course, Pagans were considered.....to be EVIL, never mind that much of the marriage ceremonies you see today evoke images from earliest pagan rituals. Native Americans also recognized the "two-spirt" people and allowed for a marriage between those of the same sex. Frankly, this world has SUFFERED at the hands of extremist Christianity...and continues to pay the price for we have had our history all but ignored and thrown into obscurity in order to perpetuate extemist christian bigotry.

No Bob, heterosexuals do not own marriage. As for marriage being only for the creation of children, then we can safely assume that the churches will be inclined to anull any and all marriages that do not result children.Furthermore, anyone over child bearing age will also be restricted from marriage. Oh, and if we are meant to keep our gene pool going, do we also look at those who might produce children with defects, we might need to revise marriage to exclude "gene" innappropriate candidates from marriage. We could always sterlize them as well, that's happened before in America...during the Eugenics movement, that surprise, was propelled forward with those forward thinking christians.

Bob, i have two adopted children that were created from two very F' up'd hetersexual unions. There is nothing I would not do for these kids, I would lay my life down for these two kids....exactly Bob, how am I not intersted, or vested in helping these two girls who WILL be part of the next generation? These two kids, as much as your two kids deserves to have a family that is safe and protected, and is guranteed the SAME laws/benefits as any other child in this nation.

Oops double post

I didn't know that Lorca was homosexual...he is one of my favorite poets!

I have never read anything about his sexual orientation in his mini-bios. Was he open about it or was the fact confirmed posthumously through his letters?

You actually forgot one very important person (though he was probably Bisexual). . . King David who, if you believe the messianic story, was an ancestor of Jesus.

I like Dershowitz's simple solution:

Take the marriage OUT of the hands of the state and leave the religiously loaded ceremony to the churches.

The state issues: Civil unions for all---homo and heteros that carry all of the same rights as marriage does now. FOR ALL!

Kills two birds with one stone---Seperation of church and state and equal rights for all.

THEN, people who believe marriage is just between a man and a woman can join a CHURCH that espouses this. Freedom of religion...

Here's a snippet on Lorca although his ending is quite tragic....as it is with so many gays. I can only imgine what great works or deeds we would have seen from Lorca had he lived.

One of Spain's most admired artists and now Granada's favorite native son is Federico García Lorca. Playwrite, poet, artist, theater director, and more, Lorca's artistic legacy to the 20th century is one of Spain's greatest -- and one that is regularly and loudly celebrated in Granada.


As a figure almost as well-known for his homosexuality as for his art both now and during his lifetime, Lorca was not always quite so celebrated in his hometown. In part this was because he sought to be open not only about his sexuality but also about the existence and value of homosexual love in general during an era when homosexuality in Spain, and especially in conservative Granada, was generally, and preferably, hidden. In Granada, Lorca spent a lot of his time in gay circles that met openly in cafeterias and also in closed theatrical group that explored -- at times in a fairly pornographic way -- homosexual themes. Lorca also included homosexual themes in a number of his works, openly in pieces like the clandestinely published Sonetos del amor oscuro and Poet in New York, and more obscurely in the theater piece, Yerma.


As the 1930s progressed, and as homophobia became more open and more repressive, Lorca began to be attacked in the rightwing press. His legal status in Granada also became tenuous after he was denounced to the police for being a communist and homosexual. Shortly after Granada fell to the falangists in July of 1936, Lorca was hunted down and shot. His homosexuality almost certainly played some role in his death, though nobody -- this is a death shrouded in substantial mystery -- is certain of how great a role. There are rumors that the sister of Lorca's assassin had been spurned by the author as well as reports that his killer boasted, after the assassination, of having "put two bullets in his ass for being a faggot." Certainly, other factors were at stake (his close friendship with key leftists in Granada, for example), but his homosexuality inflamed the negative feelings that many Granadinos already had towards Federico García Lorca.

Ooops My Bad....oh jeez...that means Jesus was related to a HOMO...

Thank you, PAmerican ...Lorca is even more of hero than I had previously thought, to be so daring! I have always halfway thought that he was only a rich, sheltered individual.

In some of his works, fatalism shows through clearly. He likely knew that his open lifestyle would--in part--eventually lead to his assassination.

Empieza el llanto de la guitarra...

Yes, that's been the requirement in many western nations during most of the past couple of thousand years. In many European nations it wasn't called "marriage" until the woman got pregnant. In other places, including much of the USA, a union that failed to produce a child could be annulled because it had not consummated.

In most places today a marriage has to have the presumption of fertility. For privacy reasons the government doesn't look into people's medical records or bodies, but presumes that the couple will be joining in a m/f sexual union with the possibility of creating a child.

Two same sex people start out presuming that they will not create a child and hence, "gay marriage" is self contradictiory.

Bob

Thats a kick a__ idea, most churches don't recognize state marriages anyway for the most part!!Thats best Idea I have heard yet!!! Great post!!

So, how come two 80-year-olds can get married? I don't think anyone could presume that an 80-year-old woman could possible give birth to a child. And it would probably be a stretch for an 80-year-old man

Well he might wanna strech before he attempts anything, you know to prevent injuries...

Sadly misled. Any society that fails to produce the next generation is doomed. You may have read of the Shakers. Marriage is the social and legal institution whereby the society encourages and supports the production of it's next generation, a very important social concern. The danger comes from neglecting the next generatino. Destroying the institution of marriage and it's function endangers a society.




Indeed. Some recent anthropological research as reported in a Discovery Channel special suggests that marriage was one of the main advantages that homo sapiens had over Neadretals, and what allowed our ancestors to take over.




The history of marriage would be much more on topic.



Nope. Marriage has been the sexual union that creates children since the oldest written records, before the Hebrews originated their new radical monotheism. See the Law of Hamarabi



Wrong again. The union of male and female. and promoting fertility and children was very important to virtually known pagan religions.

A few obscure "two spirit" people may have existed, but the were very few in number while the main part of the culture focused on promotion and encouragement of families and children.



Male and female sexual unions that produce children ARE marriage. It's not about ownership. It's not about rights. It's not about government giveaway programs. It's about families and children.



Yes, that's been part of the law in many countries for many millenia, and is still the law in some parts of the US. The rest of the US includes the presumption of producing children while protecting the privacy of the individuals.



You make some good points. Privacy of individuals currently prevents the government from looking too closely at the individuals.

Marrriage in some form has been a universal human institution long before Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.



The fact that some people are insane or otherwise incompetent is irrelevant. Adam and Steve do not create children. Children have a fundamental right (recognized by the UN and elsewhere) to their own parents.

If a child falls down and hurts it's leg, that's a tragedy. If someone deliberatly breaks a child's leg, that's criminal child abuse. Likewise if well intending people die or are unable to care for their child, that's a tragedy. If someone deliberatly deprives a child of his or her parents for some selfish reason that's child abuse.



Yes, you focus greedily on "benefits." Marriage is not about "benefits." It's about creating children and families. Your argument is exactly why it needs to be opposed, and why so many concerned people of all faiths and no faith are upset by the gay agenda.

Bob

Indeed! Until the middle of the 20th century most women got married before age 20. The highest rate of "teen pregnancy" in the US was in 1957, and almost all of those mothers were married. More than a century of attack on traditional marriage has created many of the problems you point out.

Bob

There's one problem with the above, we as a nation aren't making the requirement or even the presumption since we do grant marriage licenses to heterosexual couples who do not have a reasonable possibility of creating a child together.

If you want to grant marriage licenses under these circumstances, you need to require a minimum of due diligence: only grant licenses to couples who sign an affadavit stating they plan to procreate with one another and are (to the best of their knowledge) able to procreate with each other. I will support that wholeheartedly.

[for the record, gay people can procreate, they just can't conceive with their same-sex partner; you could still presume the possibility of creating a child. I could also note that within the confines of a mutually exclusive, monogamous, same-sex relationship, one does not have to worry about unplanned pregnancy, contraception or abortion. ]

Take a look around Bob, we're pretty darned far from zero population growth and at no risk of not having a next generation (quite the contrary). We have lots of kids in foster care, kids not being fostered or adopted by heterosexual couples. Allowing the gay couples to marry and raise these kids is more beneficial to society than having them shuttled through the system and having them grow up feeling disenfranchised. Ceaucescu took this to the extreme, pushing marriage for production of a next generation that the families weren't able to support and created a generation of children who felt rejected and disenfranchised that became a great danger to Romanian sociatey.



I've seen no substantive evidence that allows gay marriage has any negative impact on the institution, let alone causes its destruction.




By "their own" do you mean their actual biological parents or that children have the right to have parents of their own? There's a very big difference and, unless you mean the former, gay marriage has no negative impact on this (it may well promote it).



as above. You're opening a pretty sizable can of worms with the last statement, so unless you're talking about the intentional murder of a child's parent/parents you've got some 'splainin to do.



From what I've seen, the focus is equal rights (with the understanding that there are equal responsibilities). Gay people can create families. I reiterate if marriage is about creating children and families and limiting this creation to people who can and will biologically do so with each other, then we must apply the restriction of marriage licenses equally across the board.

Hello!!!!

Some of you have come close but you all have missed the idea.

Marriage is a totally religious ritual and should be governed by the corresponding church. If you don't like your church doctrine leave the church and find another one or start your own.

The problem being that our government has allowed the churchs to dictate legal doctrine.

Gays should be allowed, according to the constitution, all the legal rights defined by a civil union. The Church, Baptist/Catholic/Muslim/Hindu/whatever can have no say governing that union.

Disney and Mickey get it...why can't we all?

Our constitution should only define our rights not define what are not our rights.

Totally hetero but lovingly homo...

I've alway maintained that the reply to the Christians in respect to Homosexuality is that God gave us the Gays to take care of the children that the heterosexuals did not want, which usually are pretty good kids.

Sounds like a good retort to me.

Have to disagree with the marriage is completely religious. . . it's a social construct that's been implemented outside religious ritual. Up until recently, the Commonwealth of PA recognized common law marriage (I think they stopped this year). In PA a couple can do their own thing (no outside person religious or Justice of the Peace has to perform a ritual) to officiate the wedding and validate the license (whatever it is you have to do to file a license after the wedding has been performed) - I was told it's called a Quaker Wedding.

You bring up the Shakers as a defense?? They practice CELIBACY. Just in case you don't know the definition: 1. abstenation from sexual relations. 2. abstention by vow from marriage. 3. The state of being unmarried.

The Shaker communities RELIED on converts to participate in their utopia. By the very nature of their beliefs they were doomed and is an irrelevant argument for your hypothesis since I can very much assure you that the WORLD as a whole will not any time soon practice or encourage CELIBACY. Besides, in case you hadn't realized, we are in the midst of a population explosion that when mapped, is exponential in its growth. Gays in no way, which make up only about 10% of the worlds population, are going to to hinder the heterosexuals abiltity or desire to procreate.

Those who propose that gays will some how destroy the "intstitution of marriage and it's function" have yet to provide actual data or examples for how this would occur by allowing gays to have federally recognized unions. Keep in mind, gays do not wish to barge into your churches, synogogues, mosques, or temples, since religious marriage is quite different from federal recognition of a civil union. In addition, Gays have proven to be quite adept at raising a family, and providing a safe, secure, and loving atmosphere for the "next generation". I have as much vested interest in our next generation as a heterosexual, to suggest otherwise is again abusurd as that would suggest that I am less of a human than a heterosexual.


Presently, there are my hypothesis as to why the Neanderthal went extinct. Your example is held in the extreme mionority. To date, there is little evidence except hypothesis as to why Neanderthals faded from the landscape.



You keep changing posistions...is it natural law or religious law?
Unless you have a specifically Bible-centric view of what marriage is, you need to accept this simple reality: marriage is not a natural law, it is a human institution that's defined by humans and subject to change by humans.

Slavery was a human tradition for 5,000 years too, and is spoken of in the bible far more ofthen than homosexuality. So was child labor, the subjugation of women, and the divine right of kings. All of these are venerable human institutions that we recently decided to change. So why not marriage? Why shouldn't we change it if that's what we collectively decide to do?

A society that fails to adapt is more at risk of extinction than one that is readily capable of adaptation, that's a fact. Your rigid views and bigotry are, in my opinion, far more detremental to society than allowing gays the chance to have federally recognized unions.



I didn't propose that PAGANS did not find the union of male and female extremely important....they did. However, THEY DID have ceremonies for those who were inclined to have a mate of the same sex, and those unions were also treated with respect and honor.



Not MAY HAVE, they did and do exist. Again, Homosexuals ONLY make up about 10% of the population, that is a statistical fact. So, yes, their numbers would be small, but no less significant when evaluating a cultures approach to these people, and how they were intergrated into that society. When you begin to discount people because they are few in number, you are treading awfully close to the idea that because you are the majority, you are absolute and right.



Well, Bob, my one girl was birthed by a heroine addict who had a list of 5 supposed fathers. My daughter was born with over 9 chemical substances in her system, and it took nearly 3 months for her to detox. The mother is currently living on the streets.

My other daughter was born to a 15 year old who also embibed in the coke. She has been in and out of jail. Her father is presently in jail. The grandmother is a dealer and prostitute.

In both cases, these children according to your narrow thinking were born into a MARRIAGE? These are the parents these children are entitled to be living with? You are, in a word, a MONSTER.




Bob, there you go again. Thinking that Gays are only interested in the BENEFITS. A gay family seeking the same benefits merely WANT TO PROTECT our families. If my partner dies, I presently am not entitled to Social Security, despite the fact that I pay into that fund. I DON'T WANT TO BECOME a liability on Society, I want to support Society, and as much as I want my funds to help protect society, what exactly is wrong with expecting Society to help me if the need should arise?? Many children lost their "GAY" parent in the Twin Towers on 9/11 but were denied benefits. Your society is secular, and is meant to exclude based on flawed ideology. I love my family, I want nothing but the best for my kids...you want nothing more than to slap them onto the streets with their drug addicted parents, because, according to your world the only true parents these children should have are the ones they were born to. We are not the selfish ones Bob, you are. You are selfish because you would rather have children languish in homes that are beyond repair so that you could prove your own analysis of life true, no matter the cost in human life.

You attitude is exactly why minorities in this NATION have had to fight so incredibly hard through the courts to earn their equality. History has shown time and time again, if we had relied on the Majority rule, we would still have plantations worked by slaves, women living barefoot in the kitchen without the right to vote, and women seeking back street abortions at the hands of men seeking to make a quick buck.

You see Bob, I would say your views are more in line with the Quakers. While the Quakers sought Utopia, you seek totalitarianism. In the end, both will die from lack of adaptation.

Exactly. The term "gay marriage" is a self contradition. Two same sex people can not biologically join in marriage to produce children and family.

Bob

Uh, no, marriage has never been only a religious ritual. Marriage has been a sexular issue at least since the Law of Hamarabi, the oldest surviving secular legal code, and long predates any of the currently popular religons.

The large religions all sanction and participate in marriage, but they didn't originate marriage nor are they negate the state's valid concerns with children and families -- the purpose of state sanctioned marriage.

Marriage is a state institution adopted and sanctified by popular religions.

Bob

Yes, every society is only one generation away from extinction, no matter how large it is now. The Shakers failed to support marriage and children and are now extinct.



Taking away state marriage as support of children and family effectively destroys the state support of children and families.



As someone else admitted, two gays don't make children. Nobody said you were less of a human. But two gays doesn't make a marriage.



Biology is natural law, two gays don't make children together. Marriage is secular civil law that is also supported by most popular religions. I am not Christian nor do I have a Bible centric view.




A society that fails to produce it's next generation or support and protect it so that the children grow up to adulthood is extinct far sooner than one which doesn't adapt. In fact, natural adaptations which fail to support the creation and raising of children are an evolutionary dead end. Societies which make evolutionary negative adaptations do not prosper or survive.



Supporting families and children is not bigotry. Name calling does not make a good argument.




Modern paganism asserts that it's history is that of a fertility cult. Pagan cultures that survived were those that produced and raised enough children. Marriage is the age old institution in pagan and religious societies that supports families and children.

Without children, there is no societal purpose for marriage at all.



Indeed. Since two gays have no intention of mating to produce children there is no purpose of marriage. Taking benefits away from those who bear the huge cost of children is as immoral as robbing kids on Halloween.




There you go about benefits again.

Get back to us when Adam and Steve make children together.




Nope. It's not about rights. It's not about benefits. It's about the children and the families.

Bob

No, not really.

I've never heard much flack about how many times our American "Cleopatra" has wed either! This society worries about everyone "indiscriminately" except for our very "celebrated" "role models"..This gay man here has had the same man for nearly 25 years now! I'm still the "angel of the morning" (at least to him) and he doesn't need "ropes to bind my hands, if his love can't bind my heart" unless however that my kinky tastes enter into it! I've never needed a wedding band so long as my darling will just "touch my cheeks before he leaves me"! We all aren't "material girl" people!