Mitch,

Here's a rebuttal to Prager, if you're interested:

http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/004969.html

But more to the point, so what if gay people get divorced as much as straight people (assuming they do, I've seen no statistics), and so what if for most of human history marriage was mostly about property and had nothing to do with love or even free choice of whom to marry, and especially so what if marriages often (but even you admit not always) include children?

None of that responds to whether it's right to prohibit two consensual adults who love each other from making a legal/social commitment to each other.

So no culture has done it in previous centuries? So what? Most cultures didn't give women choices or allow them to retain property after marriage in previous centuries? Gay people can't have natural children? So what? Allow them to adopt like many heterosexual couples who can't naturally have children or let them marry just like heterosexual couples who choose not to have children.

It's all a big pile of red herrings.
/jc

Slash,

Thanks for the link. I've been ripping gaping holes in the giggly fratboys at Pandagon for a long time. This is a good one to tackle for tomorrow.

"But more to the point, so what if gay people get divorced as much as straight people (assuming they do, I've seen no statistics)"

I've seen stats that indicate gay relationships in general, all other things being equal last about a third as long. As I said in my post, I don't know that that is entirely applicable to marriage; hence, I left it out and said let's do assume they're the same.

"and so what if for most of human history marriage was mostly about property and had nothing to do with love or even free choice of whom to marry, and especially so what if marriages often (but even you admit not always) include children?"

Well, in every case it's been about children; the institution, with all the property and so forth had everything to do with raising the next generation.

"None of that responds to whether it's right to prohibit two consensual adults who love each other from making a legal/social commitment to each other."

But the fact that, again, I have nothing agaist that commitment DOES respond to it; my question is "is it marriage".

"So no culture has done it in previous centuries? So what? Most cultures didn't give women choices or allow them to retain property after marriage in previous centuries?"

Yet another idea that most societies eventually instinctively gravitate toward.

" Gay people can't have natural children? So what? Allow them to adopt like many heterosexual couples who can't naturally have children or let them marry just like heterosexual couples who choose not to have children."

I've never said I oppose it, per se. I believe there are huge benefits to having one parent of each gender, but I also believe that if an adoptive child has a choice between gay parents and a single parent, they should get the gay parents.

"It's all a big pile of red herrings."

Only if you completely reject the religious definition of marriage that most of society embraces (and embraces far more firmly than the civil/legal definition which you, as an admitted agnostic, probably consider a bigger deal).

I'd be tempted to ask how many rabbis are embracing the notion of incorporating gay marriage into the Jewish tradition, to pick a purely hypothetical and random example, and if, say, a hypothetical agnostic but culturally-observant Jew would accept the rejection of the idea of gay marriage by those who, it would seem, define that culture. Sort of a tangent, but work with me here.

Mitch,

A fair number of Reform, Reconstructionist Jewish rabbis are cool with gay marriage, most if not all Conservative or Orthodox rabbis are not. So what?

Most Conservative/Orthodox Jewish rabbis aren't cool with mixed religion marriages and won't perform them. I assume that most Catholic priests won't perform a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic who doesn't promise to raise the kids Catholic. So what?

No one's suggesting that any religion that opposes gay marriage be forced to recognize them. Two of my best friends are a mixed religion marriage, and I'm sure there are rabbis/priests/other clergy that don't recognize their marriage.

Fortunately, the State of Florida does and confers on them all the legal benefits of marriage. Whether or not a particular religion recognizes it or not is no reason for the state to discriminate in who gets inheritance, visitation, insurance, and other legal benefits of marriage.

No time for more,
/jc

Its a straight thing. you wouldn't understand.

Seriously. There only one real divide in the human race that is gender. every other divide, race, ethnicity, age, wealth, is superficial.

Jesus said that because you are created male and female you a given in marriage. So even in the first century it was understood that marriage is defined as a meeting of the genders.

Because Gender is only real divide in human race, marriage is created as a treaty between the sexes, so that one is incomplete without the other. With marriage men and women are forced to take common cause in society. Without it Men and women (and probably children) will end up two sides of a great divide (or many divides). Homosexual marriage is one big step in that direction. another big step has been the seperation of child bearing from marriage. we have all seen how productive that has been.

"Its a straight thing. you wouldn't understand."

To be fair to Slash, he *is* married to an actual chick, and has a baby. Or he's an adept Photoshopper. Barring evidence, I'll go with the former.

I have to admit I've never seen the connection between the divorce rate and the need for gay marriage. If the divorce rate was, say, 2%, would that make anyone change their position? And if lowering the divorce rate is a good thing we could do it legislatively.
Just as an aside, secularists shold understand that divorce has always been a difficult thing for Christian churches to justify theologically, social acceptance within the body of the church notwithstanding. Christ's words on the subject were clear and direct. You marry once, for life.

OK, so divorce does not threaten marriage. Why does gay marriage threaten marriage? You and your church define it your way, me and mine another, and the government stays out of it.

Yeah, but Mortimer, the government doesn't stay out of it. That, I think, was Mitch's point.

As long as marriage is a legal contract in the secular world, then society will have to come to an agreement about it.

Mitch points out that historical societies have had an agreement about gay marriage, and have come out against it. I don't personally consider that an especially strong argument against it, but it is a curious thing....

This is how I see it. Marriage has never been about morality when it is concerning legislation. Marriage -- and the associated roles, rights, and responsibilities prescribed by law for husbands and wives -- provided the foundation for America's political order. The laws surrounding marriage dictated who could own and control property, who could participate in political decision-making at the ballot box and in the legislature, and who could adjudicate legal disputes. Marriage carried the sanction of the state, awarding a husband the right of sexual access to his wife's body, marking heirs born within the covenant of marriage as legitimate, and smoothing the path for the transfer of property between generations. Marriage marked the powerful -- free (more often than not, white) men -- and the (relatively) powerless -- wives, children, indentured servants, and slaves.

I could go on and on and on, but I won't. The point is merely this: the history of marriage in America is not a history of the nation's legislators acting to protect our collective morality -- it's a history of power brokerage and the tangled business of expanding (or restricting) citizenship. Marriage is a tool of social order -- the means by which slave owners could retain ownership of slave children and increase their own economic and political power; the means by which communities could reject the idea of inter-racial cooperation and deny legitimacy (with all its legal benefits) to children born of mixed-race unions; and right now the means by which to do the same to gay couples all over the nation. Allowing gay couples to marry will not defile the institution of marriage as caputured in our historic laws, but merely kick marital law one step closer to being equitable and fair. America has long used marriage as a carrot and a stick. How about we all just get the carrot?

LB:

With such a negative view of virtues of marriage, I'm suprised that you would want to extend it to include gay relationships.

LB wrote:
"the means by which communities could reject the idea of inter-racial cooperation and deny legitimacy (with all its legal benefits) to children born of mixed-race unions; and right now the means by which to do the same to gay couples all over the nation."

I think your first step needs to be to come up with a Marxist reading of biology that will allow same sex unions to bear children.

Mitch writes:

I've seen stats that indicate gay relationships in general, all other things being equal last about a third as long. As I said in my post, I don't know that that is entirely applicable to marriage; hence, I left it out and said let's do assume they're the same.

EY: Can you give a source of your stats? Was this from peer reviewed research or from a bathroom wall? How was this measured? Was this men or women?

To clarify, I'm talking about the governing body's involvement in defining and legislating marriage. It was NOT about morality, it was about power. It began during the revolution, when women lost all power over their bodies and any sort of property once they were married as decided by the law of the land. Obviously, people's desire to marry is based on different ideas, one of which is to bear children.

"Can you give a source of your stats? Was this from peer reviewed research..."

The Amsterdam Public Health survey by Maria Xiridou, published in the May '03 edition of AIDs mag, is cited in a zillion places. Here's one.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jul/03071405.html

" or from a bathroom wall? How was this measured? Was this men or women?"

As usual, Eva, I use actual facts. Your condescension is, as usual, ignored.

"The study is based on the health records of young Dutch homosexuals by Dr. Maria Xiridou of the Amsterdam Municipal Health Service and published in the May issue of the journal AIDS. It also found that men in homosexual relationships have an average of eight partners a year outside their main partnership, adding more evidence to the "stereotype" that homosexuals tend to be promiscuous"

The average straight marriage in the US is between 7-ish and 10 years, depending on the criteria you use.

"It began during the revolution, when women lost all power over their bodies and any sort of property once they were married as decided by the law of the land."

To which revolution do you refer LB? Lots to choose from

American?
French?
Industrial?
Sexual?
Boleshevik?
Diurnal?

In all the years I have been married, I've never realized my primary motivation was to have power over my wife. and get title to her '82 Plymouth Horizon.

Thanks so much for clearing that up.

Ok, people I will say this once again: I am NOT talking about 2 people deciding to join together in the blessed union of matrimony. I am talking about the need for GOVERNMENT to define the laws of marriage and their involvement in legislating marriage. It has always been a decision based upon who will have more power. Obviously, Im not so ignorant to think that most men decide to get married for some power play. Though some do, but whatever.

And, I was speaking of the American Revolution, please excuse the omission.

i'm asking myself: how can it be that i've never ran through your site before? it's a great one! when cards compute cosmos double: , Universal Table becomes Universal Soldier in final right grass will con grass without any questions , Table will Boy unconditionally tv can loose table