Gay marriage in California (beach, building, dog)

[jaijai]

Originally Posted by Flame Angel

The redefinition of Marriage to ANYTHING other than a union between a man and a woman, is destructive to the institution of marriage, and harmful to society. It is to be avoided at ALL Costs.

How exactly is it "harmful to society"?

And, just an aside, but that marriage is referred to as an institution > a society or organization founded for a religious, educational, social, or similar purpose. is totally weird.

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by Flame Angel

The redefinition of Marriage to ANYTHING other than a union between a man and a woman, is destructive to the institution of marriage, and harmful to society. It is to be avoided at ALL Costs.

How is it is destructive? If I marry my very nice golden retriever, how does that affect the "institution of marriage"

[Fontucky]

Man/woman marriage ain't exactly something to brag about these days.

[DynamoLA]

Originally Posted by Flame Angel

The redefinition of Marriage to ANYTHING other than a union between a man and a woman, is destructive to the institution of marriage, and harmful to society. It is to be avoided at ALL Costs.

Fortunately this opinion is dying out as people in places where gay marriage has already been legalized realize that it has no affect on their lives whatsoever.

[legal_eagle]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

How is it is destructive? If I marry my very nice golden retriever, how does that affect the "institution of marriage"

Here's a possible argument:

It is very important for children to grow up in a stable environment. Society needs mentally healthy adults, who are produced by stable childhood environments. No one can question that.

The stability that children need comes directly from the level of personal commitment that the parents feel toward their own union. So if the value of their own union is heightened in the eyes of the parents, they are more likely to put in the hard work necessary to stay together and create a stable union. Society, therefore, encourages parents to feel that their unions are highly valued and important to society as a whole by (1) granting married couples certain financial benefits, and (2) treating married couples as "special" or "highly valued" in the eyes of society. An example of the latter is that there is a husband-wife privilege, which bars either from being forced, even under oath, to disclose confidential communications between the two of them.

It makes sense to limit marriage to heterosexual couples because, in the vast majority of cases, they are the ones who have children, often without even planning on it. We don't require a proof of fertility or prevent people from marrying past their child bearing years, because such unions encourage men and women, in general, to get married. Thus, even heterosexual coupling where reproduction is not possible serves the institution and, therefore, society as a whole.

Gay couples, on the other hand, cannot reproduce spontaneously, and generally are not parents of children. Thus, extending marriage to them does little to further society's interests in creating the institution of marriage. In the current culture wars, moreover, gay marriage is not an end in itself, but rather a symbolic prize to be claimed to assuage feelings of inferiority. Any attempt to make marriage a political football undermines its legitimacy--witness the cynical comments on about marriage in general.

The civil-union laws that were established a decade or more in California nicely balance the interests of (largely childless) gay couples to enjoy legal and financial rights, and to bear their concomitant burdens, without changing the institution of marriage as a whole. (Note also how civil unions were deemed not good enough almost immediately after they were passed, which is further evidence of how marriage is being used for a purpose other than the reasons for which the institution was created).

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

How is it is destructive? If I marry my very nice golden retriever, how does that affect the "institution of marriage"

Hey careful there, pal ... I happen to know that you've got FOUR golden retrievers ... and THAT, my man, would be polygamy! So, let's see you wiggle out of THAT one, sinner!

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by legal_eagle

Here's a possible argument:

It is very important for children to grow up in a stable environment. Society needs mentally healthy adults, who are produced by stable childhood environments. No one can question that.

The stability that children need comes directly from the level of personal commitment that the parents feel toward their own union. So if the value of their own union is heightened in the eyes of the parents, they are more likely to put in the hard work necessary to stay together and create a stable union. Society, therefore, encourages parents to feel that their unions are highly valued and important to society as a whole by (1) granting married couples certain financial benefits, and (2) treating married couples as "special" or "highly valued" in the eyes of society. An example of the latter is that there is a husband-wife privilege, which bars either from being forced, even under oath, to disclose confidential communications between the two of them.

It makes sense to limit marriage to heterosexual couples because, in the vast majority of cases, they are the ones who have children, often without even planning on it. We don't require a proof of fertility or prevent people from marrying past their child bearing years, because such unions encourage men and women, in general, to get married. Thus, even heterosexual coupling where reproduction is not possible serves the institution and, therefore, society as a whole.

Gay couples, on the other hand, cannot reproduce spontaneously, and generally are not parents of children. Thus, extending marriage to them does little to further society's interests in creating the institution of marriage. In the current culture wars, moreover, gay marriage is not an end in itself, but rather a symbolic prize to be claimed to assuage feelings of inferiority. Any attempt to make marriage a political football undermines its legitimacy--witness the cynical comments on about marriage in general.

The civil-union laws that were established a decade or more in California nicely balance the interests of (largely childless) gay couples to enjoy legal and financial rights, and to bear their concomitant burdens, without changing the institution of marriage as a whole. (Note also how civil unions were deemed not good enough almost immediately after they were passed, which is further evidence of how marriage is being used for a purpose other than the reasons for which the institution was created).

Whew! All that and the writer never addressed the issue of marrying a dog?

That observed, I have an extraordinary, non-sexual relationship with my own retriever ... we are both males ... our spiritual union is unbreakable thus representing the level of commitment you suggest so critical for conveying stability in home life that benefits children in the home. Indeed, my children in the years I raised them, I feel did, indeed, benefit greatly from the bond they witnessed between me and my dog (alas it was a previous dog back then who has sadly now crossed over -- but I have "re-married"). Why even today, years after my children have grown into their own adult lives, they each have dogs (and cats) and mimic my deep love, stability, and commitment with their own pets (and their own children). And neither I nor they have ever walked away and divorced a pet. Job well done, I'd say.

I know gays who have great relationships with their pets, as I have always had with mine. I believe they conveyed those qualities of stability and commitment and hard work just as I did. Strangely enough, I have also known a number of gays with children ... a couple of these gays' children happen to be (heterosexually) best friends with my children over the many years of growing up with parental friendships between the hetero's and the homo's being strong and respectful.

I wonder if maybe when society gets around to accepting gay realities openly, if the acceptance might include recognition of the equal depth of character between the two sexualities and their common abilities to raise children in stable, loving environments?

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Hey careful there, pal ... I happen to know that you've got FOUR golden retrievers ... and THAT, my man, would be polygamy! So, let's see you wiggle out of THAT one, sinner!

I am Mormon He never did discuss my doggies.

25% of children in America today are raised in single family homes.

50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce.

Seems like picking on gays is selective bias.

Since by any measure the institution of heterosexual marriage in this country is a failure.

Any military unit with 50% casualties would be considered destroyed, same gos for heterosexual marriage I reckon.

If you want true love, get a dog.

[Fontucky]

http://cdn.unicornbooty.com/wp-conte...nfographic.jpg

[.highnlite]

Fontucky, I am so glad to see that all those years of breathing toxic smoke did not negatively affect your intelligence or sense of humor.

That succinctly nailed all the anti arguments... snarkily.