Would you have a second wife?

[Skar]

My point being that a lesbian can marry a man and develop a mature considerate love with him.

A lesbian woman would not choose to marry a man in the hopes of developing a mature considerate love with him, but you're decreeing that she must if she wishes to marry. 

Perhaps we should extend this philosophy to other situations?  Let's imagine a law that decrees that any female wishing to marry must choose a man who is at least 20 years older than herself.  Arbitrary, but let us postulate that it's simply how it's always been done and most people are of the opinion that it's better that way.

It is certainly possible for a 20 year old woman to develop a mature considerate love for a 40 year old man, therefore, by your argument, the law is just.  Yet it's obviously not when the actors are changed.

Domestic partnerships can be entered into by homosexual or heterosexual couples. Marriage (opposite-sex marriage) can be entered into by homosexual or heterosexual individuals. I don't see a legal problem.

Meh. If the domestic partnership is as convenient and legally identical to legal marriage then yeah, there's no "separate but equal" problem.  But it does bring us back to my original question, which is why so many homosexual citizens of this great nation have a problem with the idea of civil unions as opposed to (but theoretically legally identical too) marriages.

As I mentioned in the other threads, my main issue ... detriment of society as a whole.

Honestly, I'm with you on this.  But all the arguments I can come up with to that end are rooted in my religious beliefs.  And a particular set of religious beliefs should not dictate the law that applies to everyone.  Which is one of the reasons I think that religions should not be in the business of handing out legal status to couples.

[Renoard]

@Kaz In fact there are still leper colonies.  At least one in the US.  People are still not very comfortable dealing with the disfigurement, even if the infection is cured.

[The Jade Knight]

I'm generally finding myself agreeing with Ookla.

It is, however, the nature of the society we live in that adults are free to do as they wish within the law and to change the law as they wish should they gather enough votes to do so.  The historical roots of the institution of marriage should certainly play a part in the national discussion (much larger than it has to date IMO) but if you're going to claim that same-sex marriages (and by extension all the other permutations we've been talking about like polygamy and polyandry and chain marriages) will have a negative effect on society you're going to have to come up with a better line of reasoning and evidence than, essentially, "we've never done it before, therefore we shouldn't do it now" or even "we've never thought it was a good idea before, therefore it's not a good idea now" if you expect to change anyone's mind.

I agree, and this is not what I'm arguing.  What I am arguing in essence is that institution of marriage, if still understood by its traditional function, serves a useful function as a regulated, social entity.  If we are going to redefine it (because our modern sensibilities have changed) as simply "a vow of commitment between two individuals that happen to like eachother", then it no longer serves any function that might need regulating in the form of the institution as it currently stands, and we, frankly, would be better off without it.  Let's strip the gilt from an otherwise invaluable trinket, yes?

A lesbian woman would not choose to marry a man in the hopes of developing a mature considerate love with him, but you're decreeing that she must if she wishes to marry.

  And think about this, Skar:  What function does marriage serve a woman who will bear no children?  It's simply a matter of words and titles, and holds no meaning.  Why are "progressive" homosexuals clinging to an empty, outdated institution?

Perhaps we should extend this philosophy to other situations?  Let's imagine a law that decrees that any female wishing to marry must choose a man who is at least 20 years older than herself.  Arbitrary, but let us postulate that it's simply how it's always been done and most people are of the opinion that it's better that way.

Ah, but you've got it wrong—that's not equal, as it applies to women, and not to men.  It would be equal if both men AND women had to follow the law.  This, however, would result in no one getting married.  Ah hah!  The current laws are equal for everyone, Skar (if arbitrary).

But it does bring us back to my original question, which is why so many homosexual citizens of this great nation have a problem with the idea of civil unions as opposed to (but theoretically legally identical too) marriages.

And that's exactly what I'm asking.  And my argument is that they have a problem because they don't understand the fundamental purpose of marriage, which a study of the institution of marriage through history helps make more clear.

[mtlhddoc2]

a study of the institution of marriage: well, if you really want to do that. we can sum it up rather succinctly. Only un until the 20th century women were considered property of their husbands and were routinely "sold" into marriages by their father. Even today, this has only changed in the "civilized" world.

If you are to define marriage as a means to propogation of the species, then any couple who is married, should the union fail to produce a child, should have their marriage annulled. (there were many laws throughout history which allowed the man to annull the marriage in the case of a woman not producing him a child...  and in some countries he could just kill her).

The institution of marriage, as it were, has been co-opted by religion and now only serves 2 real functions: the religious and the legal. Many people even have 2 seperate ceremonies as such. My brother recently did this: for legal purposes, he married his wife before a Justice of the Peace last year. Next month he is having the religious ceremony sans the legal paperwork.

Seperate the functions and more people would be happier. Allow a church to "marry" or not, whoever they wish. But it has no legal standing. The couple, married by a church or not, if they choose, can apply for a legal joining (call it civil union, whatever you want) which would provide legal protection for each party. That is the ony fair way to do it for all.

[Renoard]

You've taken the legal stance that existed in a few isolated jurisdictions and never in the US and painted all institutionalized marriage as if it resembles the minority instances.  And I'm sure you are referring to dowry as the "sale" of brides.  In many countries and ethnic groups the father of the bride had to "pay" a man to take his daughter.  So that interpretation holds no credibility.  There is an argument that the marriage vows entail selling oneself to one spouse but that is a different issue.

This is a classic use of fallacy.  The emotionally charged and factually deficient assault followed by a solution that does not logically follow from the argument even if the indictment had been true.

Rather than separating the functions it makes more sense to eliminate government involvement, then everyone gets the benefit of the legislation.

[The Jade Knight]

a study of the institution of marriage: well, if you really want to do that. we can sum it up rather succinctly. Only un until the 20th century women were considered property of their husbands and were routinely "sold" into marriages by their father. Even today, this has only changed in the "civilized" world.

This is absolutely incorrect, and even a cursory examination of the history of the family in Europe (let alone elsewhere) would make this obvious.   Women did not begin to lose most of the rights they had known through much of European history until the Late Medieval Period (and this loss of status and rights seems to have indirectly been the result of primogeniture in the context of Medieval society...)  11th century Norse women, for example, generally had significantly greater freedom and power than did American women in 1920.  Popular culture, I'm afraid, is a very poor History teacher.  You're better off going to academic or primary sources.

I will say that there was one European group that treated women extraordinarily poor—the ancient Greeks, and it was particularly wealthy women which had the fewest freedoms (this is actually true throughout history—poor women generally enjoyed more social and economic freedom, and married later, than their noble counterparts).

Your conclusions regarding what should have to happen in a marriage contains a great deal of specious reasoning.  Wonderful rhetoric, but it seems quite empty when you look at it pragmatically.

The institution of marriage, as it were, has been co-opted by religion and now only serves 2 real functions: the religious and the legal.

You've ignored the social function, of course.  And, frankly, there's a thin line between the religious and the social, in some circumstances.

I'm going to be getting married this summer, and I plan on having 3 separate ceremonies, essentially.  One religious & legal, and two social.

Despite my disagreement on most of your conclusions and statements concerning history, I do not oppose at all separating the functions of marriage.  Make it so that legal unions involves no ceremony whatsoever: simply a matter of filling out paperwork, based on the pragmatic needs and effects of legal unions.  Then let religions have their ceremonies, and everyone do whatever they want socially.  Voilà, everyone's happy.

[Edit:  Though I certainly wouldn't mind getting government out of it entirely, per Renoard.]

[Peter Ahlstrom]

My point being that a lesbian can marry a man and develop a mature considerate love with him.

A lesbian woman would not choose to marry a man in the hopes of developing a mature considerate love with him

She might choose to, if she values the other reasons for getting married besides sexual attraction. It's certainly been done before, for centuries. And in today's world she probably has a much better chance of finding a sympathetic partner to be honest with rather than hiding her homosexual feelings for decades.

(Not that the LDS church encourages homosexuals to go ahead and get married anyway, mostly because it's a lot to ask of the other person. But it does happen.)

I know Orson Scott Card is widely ridiculed for his stance against homosexuality, but I (admittedly as a heterosexual LDS) think he did a very good job treating a homosexual character fairly in his Homecoming series. One of the male characters and a female character choose to get married for non-sexual reasons, and for the good of the (very small) society they're living in, even though both of them are quite aware he's homosexual. Their relationship does eventually develop into a mature, considerate love. No, he does not, in the rest of his life, ever stop feeling homosexual attractions. And maybe he doesn't ever love his wife as a woman—but he loves and respects her as a person and wants to make her happy.

Anyway, Elton John said that homosexuals should be happy with civil unions—when they have the same rights as marriage—and not get hung up on the word marriage. Gene Robinson (the gay Episcopal bishop) just said this past week or so that the Episcopal church should get out of the business of performing legal marriages and should just perform religious ones. Those examples say nothing about your questions but they do demonstrate there are varying opinions about the issue within the homosexual community.

[Eleaneth]

I think having marriage be a social and religious institution only and letting civil unions represent the legal contract is the best way to make the most people happy in such a diverse society. Legal civil unions could also be used in other non-traditional family situations to share property, economic status, and other legal rights. For instance, a grandmother and a mother in a family could have a civil union to share their finances. I think that, generally, people should have to live in the same household to have a civil union, with some exceptions for military and such.

However, one implication of this is that civil unions wouldn't protect the marriage right of sexual exclusiveness. Not that it's usually enforced anyway. Too awkward.

One problem with having marriage be defined and recognized by the government is that religious leaders act as both legal and religious authorities when they marry someone. Therefore, they have to recognize any marriage that the government recognizes. That violates the fundamental religious rights of the church being forced to recognize a certain type of marriage.

So, I think an alternate to the government only recognizing civil unions is for it to recognize any type of marriage, but for the law to explicitly state that no private organization or church will be forced to recognize any type of marriage inconsistent with its values. The main disadvantage of that policy would be that, realistically, it would make sense for a church to refuse membership to someone because of being in a certain type of relationship, but it wouldn't make sense for a company to refuse employment for the same reasons. Hence why I prefer civil unions.

But if the government only recognizes civil unions, as a legal contract and a matter of paperwork, then there's still an interesting question. Should civil unions be limited to two people, or should they be allowed to be larger? This goes back to the polygamy/poly-whatever question. (Frankly, all the different definitions confuse me.)

[Renoard]

again get the government out of the business of authorizing or denying unions.  Not their place and purview.

[Eleaneth]

That would only work if there were no legal ramifications for marriage and family relationships. But since married people share their property and finances, there has to be some sort of legal contract recognizing that union and what happens if the union is dissolved. Also, realistically, the institution of marriage is thoroughly ingrained into current legal systems. It would be very difficult to remove any and all recognition of marriage relationships in law, including tax law. I think it would be much more realistic to simply replace government recognition of marriage with government recognition of civil unions.

[Renoard]

Eliminating government marriage laws and civil unions entirely would allow there to be STRONGER contractual unions. the Government activity in marriage and divorce makes it easier to get out of a marital obligation, such as exclusivity, than it is to break a credit card agreement. Moving marriage into the realm of privately drafted partnership agreements would make marriage commitments legally more binding.

[Patriotic Kaz]

*claps* man i acctually am going to side with Reonard i said something similar earlier in the thread..

[Skar]

Eliminating government marriage laws and civil unions entirely would allow there to be STRONGER contractual unions. the Government activity in marriage and divorce makes it easier to get out of a marital obligation, such as exclusivity, than it is to break a credit card agreement. Moving marriage into the realm of privately drafted partnership agreements would make marriage commitments legally more binding.

What?  Anything that is 'legally binding' is only binding because the government makes it so.  Who do you think forces the two parties to abide by the contract?  You could certainly craft a partnership agreement/contract that is stronger than the current marriage contracts but that is in no way shape or form eliminating the government from the equation, at best it's just calling it by another name.

And I don't know how it is in your church but for mormons it is already far more difficult to break the religious marriage than it is the legal one.

[Renoard]

What I was getting at is that a marriage is a partnership agreement.  But government regulation that set marriage apart as a separate class of agreement, robs marriage of having at least as much strength as a verbal contract to buy a neighbor's lawnmower.  It the special marriage statutes, making marriage a special case that are the heart of the matter. Without those lot's of gropes would be over.

[The Jade Knight]

However, one implication of this is that civil unions wouldn't protect the marriage right of sexual exclusiveness. Not that it's usually enforced anyway. Too awkward.

Actually, US courts have consistently struck down adultery laws.  So this is effectively a moot point now.


I do think Eleaneth makes some good points, and I do think it would be difficult to extricate government from marriage functions entirely.  At the same time, I like Renoard's arguments that such should be done.

Privately drafted partnership agreements would a) be more legally binding, b) be more significant, c) would be customized to the needs of the couple, and would be less cookie-cutter, d) would be closer to historical marriage contracts, and e) allow people to marry whoever and in whatever way they want, but the government has nothing to do with it any more than it has with any other business-style contract.