My objection to the notion of civil unions comes down to the notion of equality. “Civil unions” carry that flavor of “ok, you can act married, but we all know what you really are.

If the government wanted to seperate the civil and the social side of marriage by only having “civil unions”, irrespective of sexual preference, which would be taken care of at the courthouse as paperwork, then leave any other marriage customs, services, etc. up to the couple, I would have little objection to the term.

I believe the French are inherently incorrect in everything they do… and the Dutch, too.

I obviously have nothing constructive to contribute

I also believe that gay marriage will destroy my marriage. Let me illustrate

1) I get married
2) Gay people get married (remember it only takes one)
3) [gay marriage-destroying magic happens]
4) I’m now divorced and forced to be gay

If my wife and I got married at the Allen County courthouse are we married or civilly-unioned? If we are civilly-unioned then which one of us is gay.

I am so confused

For the record, Andy said I didn’t have to be constructive.

@Andy W

You know what I’m missing?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
wait for it
.
.
.
.
.
A lemon drop yellow VW Bug. My gayification will then be complete.

LMAO, you two amuse me

I largely agree with Alan though, make the state conduct solely Civil Unions and leave marriage in the hands of the churches that want to perform them…

I know I’d honestly prefer a civil union because I find the origins of marriage to be vile and disgusting, I don’t want any part of a declaration of ownership of the woman I love. Regardless of how it’s considered now this is still a ceremony that has its origins in the ownership of women and the practice of selling off your daughters…

Andy, i say call her your partner and let people think what they will (carry a pic to show if you’re that worried about it). TBH you’re too pretty and well groomed to go your life with no one assuming you’re gay anyway

off topic, did the email I sent about directions to my place for Saturday come through alright?

back to defending Ayn Rand on phyrangula… I’m surrounded by misconceptions… This would be so much easier if greedy idiots didn’t like to co-opt the word objectivism and take parts of the philosophy out of context to justify their own irrationality…

Bastard child of objectivism and secular humanism signing off

I ask this honestly: Do you guys have any logical reasoning behind support for gay marriage, or do you just agree with whatever’s cool in our culture at the time you find yourselves living in?

Because if you don’t start considering all the necessary logical consequences of your belief system — and acknowledging that you do have a belief system — you’re going to be standing around in a few years scratching your heads and saying, “Huh. Didn’t see that coming.”

Curse you Welfle, you shall rue the day…

Oh Jon

I just reread everything here and I can’t seem to find anyone who said they don’t have a belief system. I even read the About page for a definition of FreeThought and our mission statement since some people get hung up on such matters. There appears to be nothing there either. One of us is clearly confused about where they are at.

And once again, Spit.It.Out, man. You clearly have something you want to say, quit being so fracking coy about it. Let me help you, the following is a fill in the blank as to make it as easy as possible

“I don’t believe you guys have fully considered the logical consequences of your belief that gays should be allowed to marry. Those consequences ________________”

Your turn.

@Jon Swerens:

Because if you don’t start considering all the necessary logical consequences of your belief system…

What are the logical consequences of legalizing gay marriage as you see it? Just curious…

@Jon Swerens:

…and acknowledging that you do have a belief system

Of course we all have a belief system, and atheism ain’t it. Because, and I know this is a hard concept to wrap your head around, atheism is not a belief system. It’s a lack of one very specific belief; the belief in gods.

But we all do have a belief system, or more precisely, belief systems. There’s just no guarantee that all of us will share the same belief systems. For instance, the most common belief system in this group is probably metaphysical naturalism but I’m not sure if everyone would say they believe it. I also favor eliminative materialism but I dare say almost no one else in the group does. And I’m a modern liberal (FDR brand of liberalism) while others in the group trend toward paleoconservatism and Libertarianism).

I know I’ve said this to you before, but perhaps the most important thing any believer can take away from interacting with atheists is that when someone tells you they’re an atheist they have, in fact, told you remarkably little about themselves. So please, don’t assume what we believe or don’t. That’s as bad as atheists who reflexively call all believers delusional.

So, does John McCain qualify as a paleoconservative automatically since he is a fossil and a relic left over from a by-gone era?

Jon,
I have considered at great length the issue of gay marriage (I am a heterosexual man btw, so you know that I’m not just supporting it because I want to do it)… Here are the points…

1. Homosexuality has a strong biological factor, the only real choice involved is whether to be true to who you are or live in abject shame and misery because someones imaginary friend says your bad for being you.

2. This country (while having a largely christian populace) was founded on secular principles and was intended to have be a secular representative republic so it could protect minority groups from the oppression of the majority. You’d do well to remember btw, that similar arguments as those used against gay marriage were once used against interracial marriage, the rights of women and blacks to vote, and the equal civil rights of blacks and whites…

3. As such no law can have a solely religious basis.

4. There are no reasonable, valid, or effective arguments against homosexuality outside of “god says it’s dirty”.

5. As such being a secular government prohibited from making laws endorsing a religious viewpoint as law our country does not have the authority or right to prohibit gay marriage.

As to the logical consequences of this stance… Another victory for equality; preventing a group from being treated as second class citizens; better health care opportunities for a sizable group of the populace; and stimulation to the economy through more weddings, decreased health care costs for homosexual couples, and better tax status for them as well.

“Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Thomas Jefferson

“The moment a mere numerical superiority by either states or voters in this country proceeds to ignore the needs and desires of the minority, and for their own selfish purpose or advancement, hamper or oppress that minority, or debar them in any way from equal privileges and equal rights — that moment will mark the failure of our constitutional system.” Franklin D Roosevelt

And my favorite…
“You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can only be free if I am free.” Clarence Darrow

Anytime you seek to infringe upon the freedoms of those around you you in essence approve of someone infringing upon your own freedoms.

We’ve seen the whole “separate but equal” mantra before.

Interracial marriage was the taboo topic a few generations ago. Alot of the same rhetoric was thrown around then. Thankfully, our society and country evolved (and the Supreme Court ruled) that it was OK and perfectly legal for two people of different races to marry.

Whether it be slavery, suppression of women’s’ rights, Jim Crow laws, laws favoring certain religious groups or persecuting minority religious groups, forcing Native Americans onto reservations, etc.

Thankfully there is usually a gradual shift of attitudes and eventually laws towards eradicating these social injustices.

The folks who argued slavery was fine eventually lost. The folks who argued women did not have the right to vote lost. The folks who argued people from different races couldn’t marry lost.

The same will be true for those who oppose gay marriage. And this isn’t based on whether the issue at hand is “cool” or not.

Its about equal rights.

Brown vs. Board of Education proved that ’separate but equal’ doesn’t exist.

shame on Obama for kowtowing to the far-right-wingnuts.

either we have equal rights or we don’t.

@neuralgourmet: Thank you for the short commentary on atheism. And noted.

@allyall: Sorry if you think I’m being coy, but whenever I toss those softballs into this arena, I always hope someone will step up and say, “Yep, I know exactly where this is headed — the complete elimination of the definition of ‘marriage.’ And I’m alright with it.”

Because once we decide that the very definition of the word “marriage” is up for grabs in one area, then suddenly other parts of the definition look slippery, too.

Now, why is gay marriage the cause of the moment instead of polygamy, which has also been in the news a lot? I think it’s only because gays shop at Target and polygamists shop at Ye Olde Denim Skirt Mart. But that’s just my opinion.

Back to my point: If “man” and “woman” are no longer important parts of the definition, why is “a couple” an essential part? Honestly, why can’t three guys and four gals living somewhere on the same city block apply as being a big married group? Why not? Think of how much they’ll save on health benefits.

Is living in the same house essential? Really, is it? Can a man and woman stay married even if they have to spend a majority of the time apart? Or do they become less than married if he’s off in Iraq for years at a time?

Is sex essential? Is it really? Are people in so-called “sexless” marriages not legally married?

Can I marry my brother if we agree to not have children? If not, why not, besides squeamishness?

So, before you start the happy dance about pulling down barriers, you have to figure out where the barriers must remain — and why.

Thanks!

Of course if you really want to go back to the basics marriage is a term applying to a man purchasing a woman… That’s biblical marriage, hell it didn’t even have to be voluntary on the part of the woman, a pretty captive of war could be forced into marriage with the guy who just killed her parents according to god’s laws… I for one find its historical application to be vile…

Your arguments are the same fear mongering that the fundies always put out in their attempts to legislate another persons morality… hell, I’m surprised that you didn’t ask about marrying your dog, that’s always a popular one…

Marriage today is a social contract regarding the joint ownership of possessions, agreements as to living conditions, and sharing responsibility for the well being of the other person (e.g. making medical decisions while your partner is unconscious). While a couple of your points do warrant scrutiny, most of them are specious at best and warrant no more than a glance of disdain…

I for one wouldn’t give a rats ass if you wanted to marry your brother, it’s not my life and I have no place to dictate what you can and can’t do when it’s not harming others. You bring up a valid point on polygamy so lets look at that more in depth…

The stereotypical form of polygamy which most people are against is portrayed in situations where it’s one man simply wanting many wives, in most of the modern cases this has been a perversion of human relationships wherein brides have been underage and they have been intentionally kept isolated, undereducated, and been indoctrinated to think that this is the right way and the only way… under other circumstances I doubt that many of the women in these communities would have chosen that situation (granted, some of them may very well have).

I think a more modern example would be polyamory and other ‘non-traditional’ relationships. There are many cases of more than two individuals having a healthy and beneficial relationship with each other. There are male/female couples where one or both of them are bi-sexual, this has been known to lead to a situation where two women and a man, or two men and a woman are in a loving caring relationship with each other, they share each others concerns and dreams building a life together.

At the heart of the issue should ALWAYS be love, If you and your wife meet another woman and you both grow to love her and she loves both of you, who’s to say that there’s anything wrong with that? There’s love, compassion, companionship, trust, communication…. Everything that is vital for a healthy relationship is there, does (or even should) it matter at all that it’s 3 people? I don’t think it does, and if you’d argue against that then you’re showing that your issue isn’t the relationship…

A healthy relationship is a healthy relationship (maybe it says something that Christians have a higher divorce rate than Atheists? or that straight couples have a higher divorce rate than homosexual couples?). The key here is the people, and the quality of the relationship. If you have a problem with two people being in a genuinely loving relationship then you show your bias and your bigotry because it then becomes clear that your problem isn’t with homosexuals getting married, it’s with homosexuals.

So which is it? Do you have a genuine and valid reason for not supporting people being in a loving relationship and celebrating that love in a ceremony attended by their friends and family? Or do you just not like gays?

@Jon Swerens:

I’m not sure I agree that gay marriage is the cause of the moment. I’m pretty sure the failing economy, job creation and healthcare are more in the public consciousness than legalizing same-sex marriage. However, Vermont and Iowa’s recent decisions foisted same-sex marriage back into the news and so it seems like an opportune time to discuss it. And just because some of us support one cause doesn’t mean we don’t support others. Just because we’re talking about one aspect of society right now doesn’t mean we don’t talk about aspects of society. In short, it’s not a zero-sum game.

As to the rest of your post…

If “man” and “woman” are no longer important parts of the definition, why is “a couple” an essential part?

I understand where you’re coming from on this, and there is a viewpoint which suggests that precisely because the idea of marriage has predominantly religious overtones and crafting a functional secular definition of marriage is fraught with difficulty then the state should not be in the business of endorsing romantic relationships in any form. Why should romantically involved couples, regardless of gender or religion, be given any special consideration by the state? It’s a view toward which I am not unsympathetic.

But relatively few people do favor that viewpoint and almost no one is talking about it. As long as the state does sanction certain specific types of relationships then it is unconstitutional for the criteria for the relationships given special consideration to be based on gender, color or religion. Any other criteria is fair play such as the number or nature of the relationships the state singles out for special consideration — including polygamy. In other words, it’s legal for the state to discriminate against polygamists. It should not be legal for the state to discriminate against GLBT couples though. At least not if we want to uphold the 14th Amendment.

I have no problem if you, as a religious person, want to maintain a definition of marriage based on your religious beliefs. Where I have a problem is when you want to impose your definition of what constitutes an acceptable romantic pairing on the rest of society by coding it into law. Especially because your definition of marriage discriminates based om religious precepts. Whether you call them civil unions or marriage, for as long as we’re going to have them, you have to abide by the constitution in deciding who and what types you’re going to allow.

@neuralgourmet: I hope you don’t think you’re being broadminded by allowing me to keep my own definition of marriage as long as it doesn’t escape my own head.

Marriage is a public act, and as such, someone must impose on someone else. Either I will impose on you or you will impose on me.

If gay marriage becomes legal, it will be enforced.

If a gay couple wants to get married in the charming church of their youth, and the pastor refuses, will the pastor face a lawsuit? If I’m mayor, will I have to marry whoever steps in front of me? If I’m a wedding photographer, will I be fined if I decline to do a gay marriage? (That question was answered in the courtroom.) And if I own a business, will I be forced to pay for health care for the partner in a gay marriage, despite my personal reservations?

The answers are obvious.

My definition of marriage discriminates on religious precepts? What, yours is based on scientific precepts? Your belief is just as “supernatural” as mine.

Lets reevaluate this argument for a second… (fyi, this one was argued with a biblical basis as well…)

“@neuralgourmet: I hope you don’t think you’re being broadminded by allowing me to keep my own definition of marriage as long as it doesn’t escape my own head.

Marriage is a public act, and as such, someone must impose on someone else. Either I will impose on you or you will impose on me.

If interracial marriage becomes legal, it will be enforced.

If an interracial couple wants to get married in the charming church of their youth, and the pastor refuses, will the pastor face a lawsuit? If I’m mayor, will I have to marry whoever steps in front of me? If I’m a wedding photographer, will I be fined if I decline to do an interracial marriage? (That question was answered in the courtroom.) And if I own a business, will I be forced to pay for health care for the partner in an interracial marriage, despite my personal reservations?

The answers are obvious.

My definition of marriage discriminates on religious precepts? What, yours is based on scientific precepts? Your belief is just as “supernatural” as mine.”

Your concept of ’supernatural’ is untenable…

I’ll give you one thing though, you’ve managed to worm yourself a few steps closer to the real issue at hand, you just don’t like gays… Don’t worry Jon, we promise not to force you to marry a man (if one would have you)…

@Joel: Saying my concept of supernatural is untenable is not the same thing as actually arguing the point. Do you know what supernatural means, or are we going to change that definition too? How can you make any kind of naturalistic argument about marriage?

If you’re going to bring up interracial marriage, shall we also examine how much racism was poured into our society by early 20th century Darwinism? There’s plenty of blame to go around on that one.

And reducing my argument to “I just don’t like gays bleah” is … OK, that’s untenable.

@Jon Swerens:

Marriage is a public act

I’m unclear how you’re using the word “public” in this context. Do you mean marriage is sanctioned by the state? If so, then how are you imposed upon by Joe and Bob being officially married by the state? Does it make your own marriage any less meaningful? Does it somehow invalidate your marriage?

My definition of marriage discriminates on religious precepts?

If your definition of marriage is derived from your religious beliefs, and that definition is enacted into law, then yes, that is the state favoring a religion (your religion) over other religions and nonbelievers.

What, yours is based on scientific precepts? Your belief is just as “supernatural” as mine.

My belief in what? Marriage? I already told you that I don’t necessarily believe in marriage, at least not traditional marriage. I rather like Andy W.’s operant definition of marriage as domestic partnership and I would be lying if I didn’t attach romantic notions to the idea, but the fact is, how I view marriage is of no consequence.

What matters is whether or not we want to uphold equal protection under the law. And as long as we, as a society, want to grant special privileges and considerations to a class of citizens, then we can not do so based on color, gender or religion.

If a gay couple wants to get married in the charming church of their youth, and the pastor refuses, will the pastor face a lawsuit?

Oh, don’t be silly. Of course not. Because that’s a religious marriage. No one is saying that anyone will have to change their religious views. And again, that’s not me thinking I’m being “broadminded”, that’s simply the Establishment Clause and 14th Amendment in effect. If Joe and Bob are Roman Catholics and their local priest refuses to marry them, then tough. However, if the local Justice of the Peace (does Indiana have JPs?) refuses to marry them then that’s a violation of their constitutional rights.

If I’m mayor, will I have to marry whoever steps in front of me?

Yes, but that doesn’t differ from any other situation where a public official’s religious views may differ from the law. If the mayor of Fort Wayne was a Rastafarian and he attempted to loose all the people locked up in Fort Wayne on marijuana possession or trafficking charges based on his religious principles he would be clearly in the wrong legally.

If I’m a wedding photographer, will I be fined if I decline to do a gay marriage?

You’re talking about the Elaine Huguenin case in New Mexico. I’m not sure I agree with the outcome in that case. As I’m not overly familiar with it, or New Mexico law, I’m not going to speculate. It should also be noted that there is some measure of disagreement in the GLBT community about that case as well. Others might know about the specifics of this case better than I.

So let me switch to a different hypothetical that’s a little clearer… If you were a doctor, and you refused to treat a lesbian married to another lesbian based on your religious beliefs, then yes, you should face legal repercussions.

And if I own a business, will I be forced to pay for health care for the partner in a gay marriage, despite my personal reservations?

Yes. Absolutely. If you provide health care coverage to husbands or wives in heterosexual marriages then you should also extend coverage to married partners in same-sex marriages. The foolishness of arguing otherwise can again be illustrated by changing the hypothetical from religion to race. For instance, if you’re a racist who doesn’t believe in mixed-race marriages should you be forced to pay for health care coverage for both partners in a mixed-race marriage?

And reducing my argument to “I just don’t like gays bleah” is … OK, that’s untenable.”

Actually it’s a valid point, unless on some level you simply have an issue with homosexuality you would have no cogent or logical reason to have an issue with homosexual marriage rights. Your lot has lost the fight to make their nature criminal so now you’re just trying to relegate them to second class citizens

If you’re going to bring up interracial marriage, shall we also examine how much racism was poured into our society by early 20th century Darwinism? There’s plenty of blame to go around on that one.

If you’re bringing up social Darwinism your argument is horrifically flawed because you’re claiming the perverse bastard sociological stepchild of a field of biology represents the field that was twisted and distorted to support it…

Evolution through natural selection (oft referred to as Darwinism) teaches us that we’re all connected, and all related, and all have significantly few quantitative differences between us… In light of that racism has NO excuse in an evolutionary mindset and in the light of evolution racism is shown to be bigoted drivel (as is homophobia btw)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
If you can find any valid argument for why you think that our view of homosexual marriage rights is supernatural in there I will eat my shoe…

Logic, reason, and rationality fall well within the range of the ‘natural’ claims that your bronze age book holds the pinnacle of morality and the will of god fall fully within the realm of the ’supernatural’. I have yet to hear anyone present a cogent, well thought out, or rational ‘natural’ reason why homosexual couples should be denied marriage rights.

So i reiterate my position with a little more detail, so long as your view of ’supernatural’ contains within it ‘a logically based naturalistic worldview pertaining to the equal rights of the citizens of a nation founded on secular principles’ then your concept of supernatural remains untenable, preposterous, and contradictory to the English language. Marriage is a social contract and has nothing within it which is contingent upon the existence of the supernatural, ergo any argument pertaining to marriage that does not involve a deity or higher power is inherently naturalistic.

You’re in over your head Jon… And some of our best debaters have yet to even take the stage I can’t help but wonder where Chad is and while I don’t know for sure what his views are on marriage, he makes me look like a warm cuddly puppy when criticizing faulty logic .

@ Leo
Well said, I always enjoy your arguments, you’re much less caustic than I have a tendency to be

So i’m really not used to how this site handles quotes….
darn you Leo and your XHTML :p

For ease of reading….

@ Jon Swerens
—”And reducing my argument to “I just don’t like gays bleah” is … OK, that’s untenable.””—

Actually it’s a valid point, unless on some level you simply have an issue with homosexuality you would have no cogent or logical reason to have an issue with homosexual marriage rights. Your lot has lost the fight to make their nature criminal so now you’re just trying to relegate them to second class citizens

—”If you’re going to bring up interracial marriage, shall we also examine how much racism was poured into our society by early 20th century Darwinism? There’s plenty of blame to go around on that one.”—

If you’re bringing up social Darwinism your argument is horrifically flawed because you’re claiming the perverse bastard sociological stepchild of a field of biology represents the field that was twisted and distorted to support it…

Evolution through natural selection (oft referred to as Darwinism) teaches us that we’re all connected, and all related, and all have significantly few quantitative differences between us… In light of that racism has NO excuse in an evolutionary mindset and in the light of evolution racism is shown to be bigoted drivel (as is homophobia btw)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural
If you can find any valid argument for why you think that our view of homosexual marriage rights is supernatural in there I will eat my shoe…

Logic, reason, and rationality fall well within the range of the ‘natural’ claims that your bronze age book holds the pinnacle of morality and the will of god fall fully within the realm of the ’supernatural’. I have yet to hear anyone present a cogent, well thought out, or rational ‘natural’ reason why homosexual couples should be denied marriage rights.

So i reiterate my position with a little more detail, so long as your view of ’supernatural’ contains within it ‘a logically based naturalistic worldview pertaining to the equal rights of the citizens of a nation founded on secular principles’ then your concept of supernatural remains untenable, preposterous, and contradictory to the English language. Marriage is a social contract and has nothing within it which is contingent upon the existence of the supernatural, ergo any argument pertaining to marriage that does not involve a deity or higher power is inherently naturalistic.

You’re in over your head Jon… And some of our best debaters have yet to even take the stage I can’t help but wonder where Chad is and while I don’t know for sure what his views are on marriage, he makes me look like a warm cuddly puppy when criticizing faulty logic .

@ Leo
Well said, I always enjoy your arguments, you’re much less caustic than I have a tendency to be

OK, time for a bit of levity.

What is a marriage…?

Here are a few quotes I ripped off of other websites.

Marriage, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
– Ambrose Pierce

Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence.
A second marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.
– Unknown

Marriage ceremony: an incredible metaphysical sham of watching God and the law being dragged into the affairs of your family.
– O.C. Ogilvie

Marriage is not a word – it is a sentence.
– Author Unknown

Marriage is a meal where the soup is better than the dessert.
– Austin O’Malley

Marriage is a ghastly public confession of a strictly private intention.
– Ian Hay

Marriage: A legal or religious ceremony by which two persons of the opposite sex solemnly agree to harass and spy on each other for ninety-nine years, or until death do them join.
– Elbert Hubbard

Marriage is a mistake every man should make.
– George Jessel

Marriage is the alliance of two people, one of whom never remembers birthdays and the other never forgets them.
– Ogden Nash

Marriage is the only war in which you sleep with the enemy.
– François, Duc de La Rochefoucauld

Marriage: A word which should be pronounced “mirage.”
– Herbert Spencer

Marriage is a lottery in which men stake their liberty and women their happiness.
– Virginie des Rieux, Epigrams

Marriage is like pleading guilty to an indefinite sentence. Without parole.
– John Mortimer, The Trials of Rumpole

Marriage is like a bank account. You put it in, you take it out, you lose interest.
– Irwin Corey

Marriage is a wonderful invention: then again, so is a bicycle repair kit.
– Billy Connolly

Marriage is good for those who are afraid to sleep alone at night.
– St. Jerome, Attack on Jovinian

Marriage is like a phone call in the night: first the ring, and then you wake up.
– Evelyn Hendrickson

Love is one long sweet dream, and marriage is the alarm clock.
– Author Unknown

Marriage is a bribe to make the housekeeper think she’s a householder.
– Thornton Wilder

Marriage, a market which has nothing free but the entrance.
– Michel de Montaigne

Damn them all for redefining marriage! What’s next? Will I be allowed to marry my dog?

@Andy W. I agree with you, but I think you’re going down a losing road. You caught that Jon Swarens made the logical error that there’s no other way to define marriage than through “religious precepts.” Good, but then you hit a bit of an emotional appeal and cited an idea I’ve been struggling with for years.

I used to use the “born with it” argument as a pillar. But I was once approached by a prominent Ft. Wayne lesbian (meaning an open advocate) about this idea after speaking at a diversity forum at IPFW. She took offense that I hinged gay rights on being “born with it”–on the sympathy of it being, essentially, a birth defect. It’s not, or at least, not where my rights are concerned.

Jon Swarens starts from the unproven assumption that heterosexual marriage is the ideal definition from which we should start when considering any form of legal coupling. This is wrong.

Swarens’ assumption rests only on the status quo, and certainly not on any kind of logical proof (which he lazily never offers). He gives us no evidence why heterosexual marriage must be defended against. In fact, it’s a pretty poor institution to prop up as an ideal; heterosexual marriage does not, by definition or in practice:

1) Guarantee two people are fit to raise children;

2) Guarantee one spouse will care for the other–pessimistically, that one won’t physically or verbally abuse the other;

3) And, finally, guarantee that this couple will be beneficial for society: that they won’t burden our legal system with costly and petty personal bickering.

Now, the same could be said about gay marriage (however, interestingly enough there are studies that suggest same-sex couples communicate better–wonders abound). Gay marriage, still, does not guarantee any of the above.

But this is beside the point. Marriage, for government, is a set of legal rights, the tools we use to form a household. If I desire to add someone to my family, I give them rights to my person, my property, decisions about my life, visitation rights in the case I am hospitalized, and benefits upon my death (and they give the same to me). Marriage is also an automatic benefit for two people cooperating to raise children; it is problematic to maintain a two-parent household and not be married.

These are rights, and not privileges, because currently the only requirements to join this institution is the utterly arbitrary properties of having one penis and one vagina. I call this arbitrary because, again, being of different sexes is irrelevant to whether you’ll make a good coupling, or care for those you procreate. Is it not obvious that what makes a successful marriage depends more on the individuals than whether they are the opposite sex, or the same race, or the same religion, or any other general label? Notice two of those qualify for legal marriage, but (I’d argue) are bigger barriers to cross in a marriage than being the same sex.

The government doesn’t decide what is True Love, and if this is what Jon Swarens is concerned about, then he is living in a dreamland in idolizing heterosexual marriage, because his ideal institution is a little more than a crapshoot, in reality.

It’s obvious that Jon Swarens is operating from his personal religious beliefs when he asks for these “logical consequences” of gay marriage. What he’s ignoring is the reality that his religious beliefs conflict with the common “logical consequences” of heterosexual marriage itself. The greater affront to his “definition” of marriage (re: his religious exclusivity) is the significant portion of the heterosexually married who share little in common with *his* marriage other than having one penis and one vagina. Let me explain:

There are non-child-rearing marriages like Andy’s, and second or third or fourth-time-around marriages, and open marriages, arranged marriages (which were only recently, in history, offensive to his religion), and even marriages of convenience that are completely legal.

Aren’t these other marriages just as dangerous, if not more so, to Jon Swarens’ precious “definition” as are gay marriages, or even polygamous marriages? For someone so concerned about a unified definition of marriage, he seems dumbly fixated on penises and vaginas, instead of being concerned about whether the definition of marriage has anything to do with whether or not people love one another or make good parents (and can prove as much before they enter into this union).

This is the hypocritical, wool-over-the-eyes crux of this new argument; this new talk of protecting the “definition” of marriage is little but rewording old arguments: it’s against God’s definition. The polygamous, the shot-gunned priests, the poor employers–they’re all just canards (and I do mean false there) in the attempt to force a particular religious discrimination onto government policy.

Swarens can’t complain about threats to his personal definition of marriage without acknowledging the fact that the current broad legal properties of heterosexual marriage provide much more degradation to his religious preference than putting two penises or two vaginas together in the same household. (Well, practically; his god could be blindly stupid in his priorities.)

I know some will be put off that I say “two penises or two vaginas”. But you’ll be missing the point. In the spectrum of human coupling, there are so many things more important than whether you are sexually compatible (gay, straight, etc.). There’s common interests, shared experiences, *values*, and basic chemistry, that matter so much more.

Granted most people are, by birth or whatever, better inclined to find love and coupling with someone of the same or opposite sex; that’s just the beginning, just sexual compatibility. To fall in love requires so much more to jump the chasm of different personalities and romantic chemistry that we all face in searching for a mate.

Nothing like a visit from Mr. Swerens to get us all riled up.

To the crux of the argument, my opinion pretty much echoes David’s. I don’t have anything really novel to add there.

I would like to address these comments by Jon, though:

I ask this honestly: Do you guys have any logical reasoning behind support for gay marriage, or do you just agree with whatever’s cool in our culture at the time you find yourselves living in?

So, before you start the happy dance about pulling down barriers, you have to figure out where the barriers must remain — and why.

I noticed your condescending and dismissive tone. I’m certainly not trying to negate your argument strictly on the basis of style – I’m all about the condescension and dismissal. However, it’s instructive to note that among history’s “happy dancers” and proponents of “whatever’s cool,” you’re going to find people you consider to be revolutionaries, heroes, and visionaries. Would you not include the first Christians in this group? Should those ancient barriers have remained? If not, why?

OK, sorry, but it’s now obvious that I cannot debate all of you at the same time!

And I’m going to be busy this weekend (The Lord is risen indeed!), so forgive me for not continuing this lively discussion.

Jon

I adore the graphics/photo of this blogpost. Never saw one like that before.

I’m just hit and running and commenting on all the blogposts on the B.A.T blogroll.

LOL @ Jon,
You couldn’t successfully debate even one of us because you lack a leg to stand on…

Enjoy your egg hunts (so do the bunnies lay the eggs or did jesus??)

David, excellent comments! I hope we’ll see you around more!

@Joel: No, no! What I mean is this: Even the meatiest Christian can feed only so many lions!

Lol, kinda makes me feel sorry for the poor lions, I know you leave a bad taste in my mouth :p

Ironically enough Christopher Hitchens in a recent debate took on 5 christian apologists and did an excellent job of keeping them on the ropes, so one of us can take on 5 of you, but one of you can’t handle 5 of us?? interesting…. I wonder if that speaks to the validity of the arguments :p

As I mentioned in my reply to the other active topic, you have yet to bring an argument with any real cogency, until you can you should expect to be incapable of successfully debating any one of us let alone all of us…

I know I have often gotten into debates where I was severely outnumbered and still managed to argue a much wider range of topics than just equal marriage rights. There’s a big difference between being outnumbered and being outclassed.

Joel,

Thanks for the kind words, but stop being a butt munch. Swarens bowed out and that’s better than what he usually does, which is disappear completely once things get difficult.

Kicking people in the ass on their way out the door just looks petty, especially when it’s probably true that Swarens doesn’t have the time to respond to everyone. Hitchens doesn’t have kids, and is a ninja, too.

Besides, it was clear a while ago that Swarens is out of his league and not interested in point-by-point discussion. That’s why I didn’t address him in my post.

I’ll admit, some days I have no patience for his type and find myself unable (and yes, unwilling) to keep the vehemence out of my tone.

Was it polite? no, however that does not negate my point, if you can’t bring a solid coherent argument to a debate then don’t start one and leave with the excuse that you can’t take on a room when it’s clear from the caliber of his arguments that he couldn’t have taken on any of the other posters in one-on-one debate.

You’re welcome to contend that I may go too far (I’ll freely admit that I often do), but I have always acted under the premise that if you’ll start a debate you should see it through. I have been proven wrong in debate and have conceded my position when it happens, however this is an incredibly unlikely event with the likes of Jon no matter how thoroughly his arguments are defeated. This is a scenario that plays out often, christian comes to a non-religious forum, stirs up an argument with ill-formed arguments, and leaves when a half dozen (or more) people are ripping his arguments to shreds right before his eyes.

I respect cogent arguments, even when I disagree with them, and had he brought some I would have conducted myself differently. As it stands I think Thomas Jefferson expressed it best…
“Ridicule is he only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them…”

You’re welcome to disagree with my methods, we’re a diverse group with many different ways of looking at things and I respect that. I am curious however if you found my point fallacious or just distasteful?

@Andy

I picked up Yes Man on Blu-ray the other day… Hilarious movie, I highly recommend it!

@Joel I found it a bit distasteful, until I hopped over to another thread and did basically the same thing you did.

Now I find it utterly necessary.

I feel there are those who bring it upon themselves, and they’ve always been fairly easy for me to spot

You started the topic, but he started the debate

For me, if you want to come to understand, or to question I will be very patient and will explain to the best of my ability…

Jon however set the tone when his showed that the base of his argument (and you’ll note my first post was courteous and explanatory) was that any number of vague bad things will happen if ‘the gays’ are allowed to marry. OMG people will marry their brothers if ‘the gays’ aren’t stopped !1!!!!11!!1111

When you listen to my (and others) explanations, and turn around with argument of no more substance than “no, you’re wrong, I’m right so I don’t have to give valid reasons for my viewpoint and can disregard every strong argument you bring against me” then my patience will be observed to rapidly wan…

I think it’s worth noting that I didn’t really start to get annoyed until he made the claim that a rational logical position based on an understanding of both the historical and sociological aspects of marriage as well as an understanding that Homosexuality is largely innate to a persons biology (no more alterable than Race, but easier to hide if you choose to blend in) combined with an understanding of our governmental structure and purpose relating to the fields of religion and discrimination was somehow equally ’superstitious’ to “god says it’s bad in this bronze age book”.

Is it the word marriage that makes people so defensive?
I can give up the word. If we replace the word “marriage” with “union” or even “partnership” in the laws and leave “marriage” to the churches, I’m cool with that.

However, in most of the current laws there is a huge difference in the rights associated with “marriage” and “civil union”. What is legal and binding in one state, means bupkiss in another state. There are over a thousand protections and benefits provided to married heterosexual couples that can not be obtained through civil union or power of attorney. I am not cool with that.

My feeling is this: If you are a legal adult and are competent to sign a contract, then you too should be able to get married (“unionized?”) to any other legal, competent adult. As long as neither of you are already married. I draw the line at bigamy.

@Katie,

I think marriage is what most religious people are getting hung up on. It has a sacred and a secular meaning and oftentimes they’re unable to separate the two.

And you’re also right that as it stands right now, civil unions do not approach the same status under law that marriage does. That’s shameful in my eyes.

I found my way here through Blog Against Theocracy. I must say it was a very interesting read. I found myself especially drawn to Andy’s starting statements and to David’s comments. (Joel, you’re good too!) I’ve known several group marriages/households through science fiction fandom and they’ve taken many different forms but they all come down to one main thing — people loving each other and wanting to be able to show that feeling and commitment. Often there is one state-sanctioned union in the mix, especially once there are children in the household. Personally I would prefer a state-sanctioned process to set the legal contracts and then if people want a religious sanctification they can get that at whatever church will conduct that ceremony.

Katie,

My feeling is this: If you are a legal adult and are competent to sign a contract, then you too should be able to get married (”unionized?”) to any other legal, competent adult. As long as neither of you are already married. I draw the line at bigamy.

I can’t tell from your quote whether your stance on bigamy is one that you have made for yourself or one that you would advocate for society.

If it’s one you’ve made for yourself, that’s fine. If it’s one that you would advocate for society, you are very much in the same boat as those who are against gay marriage. You are unnecessarily limiting what a ‘marriage’ can or should be.

I object to the way some (many?) groups practice polygamy, but that should not necessarily disqualify the types of legal relationships that are allowed to be formed in a society. (And, to throw a red-herring into the mix, I’m still pissed off about the way federal agents removed the children from the YFZ Ranch.)

@Anon
I’m actually okay with polygamy as long as everyone in the relationship is okay with it and living together as one family. If a couple wishes to add a third (or a fourth) that is fine.
Bigamy however is two separate families, one generally not knowing about the other. That is what I have a problem with.

@ Katie,
so like an “I’m still married in Connecticut” kind of thing… That I can understand being illegal…

I agree, what right does the government have to dictate how 3 or more people in a consensual caring relationship live their lives, and why should the be denied the rights that relationship should afford (hospital visitation etc…)

So long as everyone knows, and everyone agrees, then they should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit… (with the final caveat being that it is not harming someone)

granted, on a more personal level I may dislike a man with two wives/girlfriends because I’m single and he’s further decreasing my dating pool :p