Arguing from Creation: Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. We decided in this country to abolish slavery. While many of our founding values come from religion, I argue that our reason and common sense must primarily determine our actions and laws, not blind allegiance to any ideology.

Arguing from History: Same-sex marriages have been documented from around the world, including from Roman times and in more than 30 African cultures, such as the Kikuyu and Nuer. So the claim that “Never, in the history of the world, has marriage been defined as anything but a union between a man and a woman” is false.

“There is no natural benefit from the union of two same-sex couples toward the race.” This claim rests on the assumption that pairings in a population can only benefit the race by directly producing children. I couldn’t disagree more. Non-breeding individuals help with child-rearing and other tasks in millions of species. Sterile helpers in bee colonies gather food, defend the hive and care for the larvae of the queen. These individuals do not reproduce themselves, but they serve an important function for the species as a whole. Gay and lesbian people who don’t choose to have children are brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, teachers, counselors, firemen, volunteers, social workers, doctors, nurses, foster parents, adoptive parents, etc. So a union of two individuals of the same sex can result in lots of benefits to society–because having a stable partner enables you to do your job better and be of greater benefit to your community. More importantly, increasing numbers of same-sex couples ARE actually having children, just as heterosexual couples are, which is certainly a “natural benefit.”

“Inclinations and desires are not always right.” OK, a little vague, but I agree in principle. But the claim that is implied is that “same-sex inclinations and desires are wrong.” As I understand it, we define something as ethically “wrong” when our actions damage ourselves or other people. Murder and robbery, two examples you used, are wrong because they cause damage to others. Who exactly is damaged by two consenting adults pledging to devote their lives to protecting, loving, and cherishing each other? I can’t think of anyone who is harmed. Who is helped by same-sex marriage? Marriage has well-studied positive effects on health, lifespan and quality of life (http://www.heritage.org/Resear.....f-Marriage), so the two individuals who are able to marry benefit. Allowing gay people to marry would improve the self-esteem of gay people in general, helping to reduce high rates of depression and suicide among gay teens and it would help gay couples form more long-lasting and stable relationships. It would also allow children of gay couples to feel that their family units were recognized by society.

Argument from “The Majority”: I agree that the majority is not always right (as Proposition 8 in California in 2008 demonstrates). Your claim that “it does not seem logical to enact something that goes against the majority of the people, that would effect the majority of the people and set up problems with the majority’s rights” is puzzling. How would allowing same-sex marriage affect the majority of the people and create problems with their rights? Allowing gay marriage would not erode or change any of the rights of heterosexuals to continue marrying. This argument is simply absurd. Name one thing that would change in your life if gay marriage were allowed tomorrow!?

Argument from Society: There are many benefits to society that would result from allowing same-sex marriages to exist (see above). There are numerous benefits to society of promoting heterosexual marriage. In fact, I basically think marriage is a pretty cool thing in general. It is one of the last unselfish acts we celebrate in this overly commercialized, me-first culture. The idea of devoting yourself to someone else, to be there for them through thick and thin, is a rare and beautiful thing.

In terms of the slippery slope, I don’t think there is a big enough arborphilia lobbying group to make that legal! You bring up polygamy… well, that is really a whole separate issue that should be decided on its own.

Same-sex marriage is good. Heterosexual marriage is good. Let’s enhance and protect both.

My point is not to be hateful, but try to look at the question as dispassionately as possible. You can understand how hard it is to do such in your own responses.

Argument from History is a rational argument in that ideas and concepts mature over time. The fact that something– anything– has been practiced for many years means that it either works or there was a reason to stop doing it. Your two sub arguments are specious at best. One could easily make the argument that slavery still is alive in well, though it has been moderated into the employer/employee relationship. There are more things and employee can do, but you’re still at the mercy of the employer if you want a paycheck.

As for women attending college, this one could go in all sorts of directions, and could end up with another post– but just stating it as something that’s positive doesn’t work without the supporting argument.

Rarely does a couple enter a marriage relationship knowing that they are barren, so that’s a moot point. As for senior men and women, I know some senior men that have still procreated, and that something is a byproduct of the preferred coupling in another setting doesn’t count as a detraction.

Since studies (do I need to find them, or will you take this at face value) have shown that children of a two-parent heterosexual family are the most well rounded, stating that there’s other options doesn’t negate the primacy of heterosexual marriage. No one wishes to be a single mom or dad, but it happens. Should we promote it? And yet there have been people that are single that have gotten pregnant believing that they deserved it. The question is, what should be promoted.

Fairness is an odd concept. Life isn’t fair. Society needs to figure out what to reward, and should choose to reward the best. If everyone gets a reward, then there is no reward.

Though it’s possible that same sex marriage may be legalized in the US, this post is dealing with the question of why heterosexual marriage is to be preferred, and should stay that way.

As for your last comment: I try not to take anything that is said here personally. We argue in the realm of ideas, and that’s where it should stay. Thank you for your apology, but none was needed.

In order to be consistent, if you believe there’s an issue of fairness involved, you need to be across the board– arguing for polygamy, etc. Because it’s unfair to the polygamist. You cannot pick and choose with your line of argument. And again, your argument falls apart when you take it to its logical conclusion because it ends up preferring no pairing.

I do not consider this a civil rights issue because I don’t see any class of people that’s not allowed to marry, and I do not see a chosen behavior is being something that’s necessarily something to be protected. Choosing to have homosexual sex is a choice. Though the attraction factor may be something out of control, it can be learned and unlearned, and the person chooses whether to act upon it.

However, this is external to the basic argument presented here about the primacy and efficacy of heterosexual marriage.

What it means to you personally DOES matter – it’s not a red herring. Civil rights eventually comes down to personal interactions: Will you treat others the way you would want to be treated. To deny others an equal right to marriage simply because of “history” seems a specious argument. Would you allow someone to tell your daughter that she can’t vote because of “history”?

This issue matters more than I think many people realize. I can’t imagine looking into my heart and telling someone they can’t have what I have: A chance to be married to the person I love.

First of all, there is no “argument from history.” Because something has been done for thousands of years does not make it preferable or even acceptable. If we only practiced that which has been practiced for thousands of years, we’d still have slavery, and women wouldn’t be attending college. If you want to maintain the discriminatory policies of the past, have at it, but I think we’re better off today than in the days of “separate but equal” and only allowing landowning males to vote.

Secondly, though we recognize many relationships that don’t result in procreation, including the marriage of barren couples, the marriage of senior men and women, that’s not even the point. The fact is that many same-sex couples are, in fact, having children, whether you like it or not. It would help stabilize those children’s self-image and social development as they grow if we did recognize that their parents are married — just as we do with heterosexual couples. If marriage provides benefits, both legal and psychological, than it behooves us to provide it to same-sex couples out of sheer fairness to the couples and their offspring. A well-known quote comes to mind: “Do unto others…”

What it comes down to is fairness: If we provide tax breaks and other advantages to opposite-sex couples, we should provide it to same-sex couples, because there simply isn’t any reason not to — and I believe eventually we will. Twenty years ago, same-sex marriage was not even a possibility; today, almost half of Californians voted in favor of it. Civil rights movements don’t flow backwards. Inevitably, same-sex marriage will be legalized, and (just as they did with interracial marriages) those who opposed it will wonder why they did.

You are denying two law-abiding adults the opportunity for happiness – a happiness that you yourself can enjoy, but you want to deny it to others simply because you can.

In order to make this a credible claim you would have to explain what exactly it is about not getting married by the state that impedes two law-abiding adults happiness. Certainly, on one level, there are many different commitment ceremonies that adults enter into that do not need the state’s blessing. Personally, I do not derive any added “blessing” or happiness because I was married through the state.

What’s it to you? You’ll let older heterosexuals marry, even if they’re beyond childbearing age – they provide no “benefit for the race,” by your definition. Why deny that opportunity to homosexuals?

What it is or is not to me is irrelevant. It’s a red herring. The question I posed in the post was this: What particular reason is there for the government to either promote same sex unions, or logically remove all benefits for heterosexual unions. That older heterosexuals may marry is something that comes along with the fact that all marriage has been traditionally heterosexual. This applies to the historical argument. Again, my argument does not rest alone on whether a couple can produce a child, but rests in multiple arguments.

As for the argument from history: Fifty years ago, the definition of marriage in many states did not cover blacks and whites marrying. Was it wrong to “redefine marriage” to allow people of different races to marry?

Depends on what you mean by “the definition of marriage.” The concept and definition of marriage has been a long for thousands of years, and it has always been defined by the union of heterosexual couples. That the law in certain states refused recognition of unions between the skin colors did not change the definition of marriage as much as it limited those that the state would officially recognize. Historically, marriage has never meant the union of same sex couples. Therefore changing the definition to include same sex couples is a redefinition in the literal sense.

If there’s some argument in Mr. Olbermann’s words that you wish me to comment on, I’m more than happy to do so, but the key ones that you repeated I believe are his main points.

Suffice it to say, there is no grounds that I’ve seen to suggest that there’s a benefit to society to include this form of marriage, there is no argument from history, creation, etc. to state why save sex marriage should be considered. Indeed, the only grounds that you’ve presented were “love” or “happiness” but you haven’t defined how state recognition of a union that people can enter into regardless of the state impacts either of these things.

Lois Lane IIs last blog post..Sentimental

You are denying two law-abiding adults the opportunity for happiness – a happiness that you yourself can enjoy, but you want to deny it to others simply because you can. What’s it to you? You’ll let older heterosexuals marry, even if they’re beyond childbearing age – they provide no “benefit for the race,” by your definition. Why deny that opportunity to homosexuals? As for the argument from history: Fifty years ago, the definition of marriage in many states did not cover blacks and whites marrying. Was it wrong to “redefine marriage” to allow people of different races to marry?

What it comes down to is basic human decency. I think Keith Olbermann said it best, just a couple of days ago:

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics, and this isn’t really just about Prop-8. And I don’t have a personal investment in this: I’m not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics.

This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want — a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them — no. You can’t have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don’t cause too much trouble. You’ll even give them all the same legal rights — even as you’re taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can’t marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn’t marry?

I keep hearing this term “re-defining” marriage.
If this country hadn’t re-defined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal… in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn’t have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it’s worse than that. If this country had not “re-defined” marriage, some black people still couldn’t marry…black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not “Until Death, Do You Part,” but “Until Death or Distance, Do You Part.” Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are… gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing — centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children… All because we said a man couldn’t marry another man, or a woman couldn’t marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the “sanctity” of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don’t you, as human beings, have to embrace… that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate… this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness — this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness — share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of…love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don’t have to help it, you don’t have it applaud it, you don’t have to fight for it. Just don’t put it out. Just don’t extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don’t know and you don’t understand and maybe you don’t even want to know…It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person…

Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

“I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam,” he told the judge.

“It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all:

“So I be written in the Book of Love;

“I do not care about that Book above.

“Erase my name, or write it as you will,

“So I be written in the Book of Love.”

There is just no way to dispute it.

Leticias last blog post..AND SO…IT BEGINS

Rachels last blog post..Mz Boody