Marriage....it's important to growth as a nation, civility, and peace.


#1

Marriage: What It Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It

Marriage is based on the truth that men and women are complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the reality that children need a mother and a father. Redefining marriage does not simply expand the existing understanding of marriage; it rejects these truths. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role. The future of this country depends on the future of marriage. The future of marriage depends on citizens understanding what it is and why it matters and demanding that government policies support, not undermine, true marriage.

At the heart of the current debates about same-sex marriage are three crucial questions: What is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what would be the consequences of redefining marriage to exclude sexual complementarity?


#2

**This belongs in the All things Gay thread Mods. **


#3

Nope, Family Issues, by virtue of this statement:

By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.

And Moby, well said.


#4

Disagree because of this…and they are not Moby’s words as he has provided a link to them. (Heritage Foundation Fellow)

[QUOTE]At the heart of the current debates about same-sex marriage are three crucial questions: What is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what would be the consequences of redefining marriage to exclude sexual complementarity? [/QUOTE]

Funny… the social cons complain about too many gay threads. I try to get one moved where it belongs rather than have it devolve into another gay marriage thread and “common sense” jumps in to reveal it is really just about marriage since that is such a hot topic these days and it should stay where it is.
OK Tiny…welcome to the newest gay marriage thread.


#5

Sorry Moby but that article merely poses the questions social cons WISH were at the heart of the matter. Social cons may choose to define their SACRAMENT of marriage any way they wish to…and of course, different but equal faiths define it in quite different ways which social cons also object to (polygamy for example) …but we are talking about GOVERNMENT MARRIAGE here which contains significant benefits for participants both from society and the government and is presently restricted to exclude from those benefits…one segment of society making up somewhere around 3-5% of its’ members.
There is thus only ONE legitimate question: Does DOMA and hetero sexual only marriage law deny homosexuals equal protection under the law?
Now…There are TWO possible answers to the solution one you conclude that "YES…present law IS discriminatory.

  1. You get the government totally out of the marriage business and provide those benefits in terms of CIVIL UNIONS for all.
  2. You keep the government in the marriage business and provide equal treatment to all under the law.

Given that marriage/unions SHOULD be a state (not federal) function…my preference was always #1 but recognizing that some states would prefer #2.
It is only when states choose neither that the courts are forced to step in to enforce equal protection of individual rights vs. the mob.

No matter WHAT the court decides on both cases before it this year… the polls and the trends are clear…so I’m not worried about where we’re heading. Just impatient for those who cannot live their lives and have to fight idiots for custody of their children, inheritance rights, hospitalization decisions, family health care from employers, tax returns etc.

So…while your writer makes an eloquent case of social cons on how to promote their preferences… (and BTW…I’m all for BETTER marriages and less unwed pregnancy, abortion and divorce and single parent victims otherwise known as kids)… he’d do a much better service for his country by motivating So-cons and the public at large to focus on the other 98% of marriage. Conventional Marriage and the lack of it among heterosexuals is a LOT more dangerous to childrens health and welfare and the future of the country than a few gays getting hitched because they love each other and want to commit to that exclusively and be treated equally by the law.


#6

By encouraging the norms of marriage—monogamy, sexual exclusivity, and permanence—the state strengthens civil society and reduces its own role.

And that’s exactly the value of marriage equality. Those values, those benefits to civil society, are just as important with same sex couples. How much has the state’s burden been reduced by a partner caring for his lifemate with AIDS? Or by a mother of divorce with a child who is able to form a two-parent household for that child with her lifepartner?


#7

[QUOTE=Cam;578970]Disagree because of this…and they are not Moby’s words as he has provided a link to them. (Heritage Foundation Fellow)

At the heart of the current debates about same-sex marriage are three crucial questions: What is marriage, why does marriage matter for public policy, and what would be the consequences of redefining marriage to exclude sexual complementarity? [/QUOTE]

Funny… the social cons complain about too many gay threads. I try to get one moved where it belongs rather than have it devolve into another gay marriage thread and “common sense” jumps in to reveal it is really just about marriage since that is such a hot topic these days and it should stay where it is.
OK Tiny…welcome to the newest gay marriage thread.
Look Einstein, I never complain about anyone’s threads. Group your peeves into any lot you feel comfortable with, but I never shy from a discussion, or from a poster.
His point contained a reference to the gay movement, but also spoke to other aspects of the family. THAT part would not be appropriate to the gay threads.
But, go ahead and continue your tilt against SoCons. It suits you.


#8

Government should not be encouraging or discouraging marriage for the purposes of “benefits”.

It’s just serves the goals of politicians.


#9

Right…so it should get out of the marriage business because right now it DOES encourage marriage with benefits. Gays will be happy with either result (Full marital benefits for all OR no state marriage for anyone) . Equal treatment under the law is the issue. Actually, getting the government out of it entirely would be true justice as all the soc-cons who claim the benefits of marriage can easily be done by contract and don’t require marriage will finally get to see how that works out.
I’m sure we can count on the full support of the Trial Lawyers Assoc. for this initiative. [/sarc]