Chime: I still fail to see how [seeing marriage as about family] leads into an exclusion of gays. Gay couples can adopt, just like straight couples.
Marriage is not about families in a generic sense. It is about the best possible scenario. All other things being equal--i.e. no abuse, etc.--a single pairing of a man and a woman is the best possible for raising children, for a variety of psychological/biological reasons. With enough research, we could probably determine how the other possibilities line up--assuming we were really curious as to whether heterosexual polygamy would beat out homosexual monogamy (the former has a better historical pedigree, although the problems caused are also better documented).
But this is beside the point, namely that we know what the best situation is for raising children, and it's (not surprisingly) the one we spent the last several thousand years gradually restricting into the present shape of marriage. I would argue the recent experiments to "de-restrict" marriage (particularly no-fault divorce) have been an unmitigated disaster, each harming the fundamental state of marriage as a secure place to raise children, and each leading legally to the next step on "de-restriction".
The legal argument supporting gay marriage is dependent on the new definition of marriage. This definition will be enshrined into law if the current legalization attempt succeeds. (See my my original post, along with paragraphs one and two here.)
Chime: I do not see how this can be a viable argument against gay marriage unless you also purport to make single-parenting unlawful.
Surgo: If by "family as a unit" you mean children, then childfree people (people who never want children) such as myself should never be able to marry by that logic.
I don't think either conclusion follows. Single-parenting would be more akin to gays being able to adopt--which is not the same thing as marriage. Surgo, assuming you still don't want kids five to ten years from now, being married still doesn't require any fundamental change of the current system that would cause the culture of marriage to shift. My central concern is that I don't see any way to expand the definition of marriage regarding homosexuality without destroying the definition, for the reasons above and in my original column. I think my position that destroying the definition is a Bad Thing has been sufficiently explicated.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Part 2
Date: 2004-11-15 05:42 am (UTC)Marriage is not about families in a generic sense. It is about the best possible scenario. All other things being equal--i.e. no abuse, etc.--a single pairing of a man and a woman is the best possible for raising children, for a variety of psychological/biological reasons. With enough research, we could probably determine how the other possibilities line up--assuming we were really curious as to whether heterosexual polygamy would beat out homosexual monogamy (the former has a better historical pedigree, although the problems caused are also better documented).
But this is beside the point, namely that we know what the best situation is for raising children, and it's (not surprisingly) the one we spent the last several thousand years gradually restricting into the present shape of marriage. I would argue the recent experiments to "de-restrict" marriage (particularly no-fault divorce) have been an unmitigated disaster, each harming the fundamental state of marriage as a secure place to raise children, and each leading legally to the next step on "de-restriction".
The legal argument supporting gay marriage is dependent on the new definition of marriage. This definition will be enshrined into law if the current legalization attempt succeeds. (See my my original post, along with paragraphs one and two here.)
Chime: I do not see how this can be a viable argument against gay marriage unless you also purport to make single-parenting unlawful.
Surgo: If by "family as a unit" you mean children, then childfree people (people who never want children) such as myself should never be able to marry by that logic.
I don't think either conclusion follows. Single-parenting would be more akin to gays being able to adopt--which is not the same thing as marriage. Surgo, assuming you still don't want kids five to ten years from now, being married still doesn't require any fundamental change of the current system that would cause the culture of marriage to shift. My central concern is that I don't see any way to expand the definition of marriage regarding homosexuality without destroying the definition, for the reasons above and in my original column. I think my position that destroying the definition is a Bad Thing has been sufficiently explicated.