Gay Marriage - a secular view

---

I was very interested in the last discussion on this issue, but while I was trying to catch up on previous posts the thread was killed, apparently with the express purpose of preventing my participation. Sad, but true.I am starting this one with the purpose of discussion on the issue of gay marriage from a totally secular (non-religious) point of view, something that was omitted in the last debate. Hopefully everyone who participates will behave, leave out the name calling and express themselves reasonably and rationally. Where I am coming from follows; I am against redefining marriage from "the union of a man and a woman" to "the union of two people".I am for civil unions without restrictions on gender.I am for gay adoption. I do not subscribe to the religious approach to this issue, ie. 'homosexuality is a sin and that is the reason we should not endorse it.' That view seems pretty cut-and-dried, and really needs no further discussion. I mean, we get it. Really. Hopefully, those who are likely to be unreasonably upset by discussion on this topic will find other places to be. It is unfair to those who wish to debate to stifle the conversation for that reason though.

First, I'd like to comment on the origin of marriage. Most of this is distilled from the works of Frederich Engels and other political philosophers and sociologists.Marriage as a human institution predates civilization as we know it. Humans and our pre-human ancestors were never very good at the fighting and killing bit until we developed true weapons. Our teeth and nails didn't do much against those of more serious predators, and throwing rocks only works if you throw a LOT of rocks. Hence the need to band together into larger groups for survival.This caused another problem, though. Like many other species, we are sexually competitive. We will fight over the right to be sexually exclusive with a potential reproductive partner. When two dominant males met the first order of business was the fight to see who would have access to the females of the group. This made for small groups, as the urge to find a reproductive partner would end up making non-Alpha males leave, or get kicked out of, the group. We might not have survived as a species if marriage hadn't been invented. With the advent of a dedicated partner with whom a male would be able to exclusively attempt to fulfill his reproductive rights, he now had no need to be instantly competitive with any other male he encountered. With the entire group agreeing that male A and female A were not to be poached on sexually, the fights stopped and the groups began to grow into societies, and then ultimately civilization and the ability to work together developed.All of this because of marriage. This means it is not something we should be trifling with. A quick note. I didn't say that marriage was about reproduction, I said it was about exclusive exercise of reproductive rights. Having children isn't the issue, it's that we no longer fight over the right to try.

I won't even give your thoughts the time of day since you claim I was stopping you from your opinion, which is false. What you need to know is I would have locked that thread regardless of the persons opinion. I'm personally tired of dead threads being brought back and pushing down new relevant threads.So it has nothing to do that you are against gay marriage, it was to do with you wanting to bring back a dead thread; it wasn't needed nor wanted.

Why? What harm would that bring to the institution of marriage? How can two people who want to share the same rights of passage straight couples go through can possibly do to harm marriage? How can the homosexual couple harm marriage by just wanting to share in a ceremony heterosexuals take for granted?<For one, it introduces confusion. However a society has treated marriage (and it has ranged from chattel and ownership to polygamy being allowed to the outright sale of young girls to letting people choose their own mates), it has ALWAYS been a male/female union. It was always the core of the societal family, even if it didn't always remain intact. I have nothing at all against gays forming lasting and societally recognized unions, but why call a pine tree an oak? Marriage, as it exists, serves a definitive function in society, that of establishing the right of a husband and wife to exercise reproductive exclusivity and thus reduce competition which could reach sociopathic levels. Gay marriage would not serve that same funtion, and would dilute the role that marriage plays in supporting a society. I see civil unions as a social experiment who's time has come. What is it specifically that those pressing for gay marriage are seeking that cannot be granted by a properly constructed civil union?>Is that your opinion or are you basing this on some theory of another person? If so, I would like to see where you got this. If you're going to make claims like this, then you should show us (and the original creator) the dignity and reference us his/her work.<I wish I could. I remember reading several works on this issue, in particular one by Frederich Engels from whom most of this is derived, around 30 years ago in a college sociology class. I cannot remember the name of the text and I have been searching the web without success for quite a while now. I'll keep looking, but until I find it please accept my apologies in this regard.

Understood. I apologize for misreading your intent.

"What is it specifically that those pressing for gay marriage are seeking that cannot be granted by a properly constructed civil union?"That is actually a good question. I'd be interested on hearing homosexual peoples responses to it.

In reply to: What is it specifically that those pressing for gay marriage are seeking that cannot be granted by a properly constructed civil union Good one, I've wondered about that for a while. Marriage is a shame. If 2 people truly love each other, then they dont need some ceremony to prove it!

To answer the unasked question and address a couple of other issues, I am for gay adoption for the simple reason that a caring parent, ANY caring parent, is better than bouncing around in the foster care system knowing that your life has no permanence. Children need something they can depend on, something that will be there throughout their entire childhood. My middle daughter was severely distraught when we sold our primary car, an 8 year old Saab, when she was six. She may not be typical, but think what moving from home to home does to a 4 or 5 year old. ANY parent is better than that. With regard to the "two people who love each other" view, I say that they are certainly free to continue loving each other. They can enjoy their relationship with each other to the fullest, since none of that has anything to do with marriage. The nature of a relationship between two individuals is totally dependant on those individuals, but the whole purpose of marriage is to govern how the rest of society sees them. Although we use love as a reason to join in marriage these days, there is no real connection between the two. Marriages can take place without love with justifications as plebian as money or arm decorations. The marriage is external while the relationship is internal. Marriage governs how society responds. Example: if you are a straight man and you meet an attractive woman who during conversation says she is married, you immediately revise the way you look at her. The same applies to women when they find a particular man is married. There are exceptions, of course, but we call such people 'homewreckers'. With regard to the "right to marry", we all have that right. It has been mentioned in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and is pretty much established in law. The question here is what does that "right to marry" mean? Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, according to all social and current legal statutes in this country, with the pending exception of Massachusetts. The "right to marry" is the right to join in a socially recognized union with a member of the opposite sex. There is no requirement to do so, but not doing so means you are choosing not to exercise that right, NOT that you are being denied it. It's like the right to be a parent. We all have it, but we need the cooperation of a member of the opposite sex to exercise it. Former New Jersey Governor McGreevey is a perfect example of someone who states he is gay, but is married with children, obviously not denied the right to marry. Personally, I think such people are bisexual and not gay, but that's just me.

>I don't see what's confusing about 2 people who want to share their lives together, no matter what their sexual orientation is.<

I don't see anything confusing about that either. The confusion lies in the role that marriage plays in the structure of society, and in the calling of two different things by the same name. As I pointed out earlier, there's no reason to call a pine tree an oak. That will just confuse people. Anyway, people are certainly entitled to self-determination when it comes to who they spend their lives with.

>Wow. 30 years ago? The world has changed very much since 1976, so I suggest you should find someone who's thinking is more in line with the times we live in.<

Yup, I'm that old! :smirk:
Still, the book itself was a lot older, written around the turn of the last century, and was written concerning the origins of civilization which were even longer ago. I don't think we've revised our views of how civilization began much in the last 30, or even 130 years.

You'd probably like a lot of Engels' thinking if you read it. He was all about plural marriage and how monogamous marriage was a tool used to enslave women. He was a real "down with the establishment" kind of guy!

I have to agree with you on your final point regarding the theorists Lanky; if we discarded all the theorists dating from 30 years and further back we'd be losing 99% of them. The list of prominent and prolific thinkers lost there would be simply too long (and depressing!) to compile.

What is it specifically that those pressing for gay marriage are seeking that cannot be granted by a properly constructed civil union.I was originally going to just ignore this thread because I don’t really want to get pulled into another debate on this topic, but since I’m the gay spokesman (lol jk!!) I felt I needed to respond to this question.What cannot be given to us through a civil union verse marriage is unity/equality. You’re basically asking us to be different that the rest of the population by forcing us to have a Civil Union instead of marriage. How would you feel if the tables were reversed and you were forced to get a Civil Union when everyone else in your country (And basically world) gets marriage? It’s just another way to segregate and make people feel different and out of place, not to mention not feeling equal.If people want to give us Civil Unions and make it identical to Marriage than they just need to give us Marriage. Why go through all the hoopla with making new laws and such when you can easily just enforce marriage is between two people who love each other? Why go through all the trouble of making people feel unequal and/or less of a citizen?I don’t think we gay people are asking for a lot; equality. We’re not asking for special treatment or anything above what heterosexuals get. Again, I don’t think we’re asking for a lot.

"What cannot be given to us through a civil union verse marriage is unity/equality."Wow...what a coincidence. That is exactly what feminists are looking for, too. What they (and gays) need to realize is that they can have equal value as people without being equal. There is a difference between the two. Just as a feminist woman will never be a man, a homosexual union will never be a marriage. It's just not an option. This doesn't mean there is any less value to them or their union. I think that such folks themselves feel of less value (for whatever reason) and use (in the case of a union) marriage as a traditional validation of their union...something that does not happen in the same way with a civil union. That is the only difference I can see (in response to starfish). The true answer, of course, is for gays to develope a sense of self-worth that doesn't require them getting married in order for them to realize the value of their relationships. But I don't think it's going to happen...the mind-set is too deeply entrenched.

I hate to even get into this with you because your mind is so skewed.But what I find interesting is you don't think women should have equal rights to men? Hmm... Explains everything.>What they (and gays) need to realize is that they can have equal value as people without being equal.I know I have the same value as a straight person but when a country wants to withhold something every other citizen can have and try and give us something else THAT is not being treated equally. >homosexual union will never be a marriage. It's just not an option.It’s very much an option, hell it shouldn’t even be an option is should be something given to us for being a citizen of this country. When people like you get their heads out of their self righteous asses, than equality will happen.>I think that such folks themselves feel of less value (for whatever reason) and use (in the case of a union) marriage as a traditional validation of their union...something that does not happen in the same way with a civil union.You shouldn't speculate about things you have no clue about. It has nothing to do with us thinking we have less a value. It has to do what’s right, and having equal treatment for all citizens is the right thing to do. Forcing people to stand out and get a special union is nothing more the segregation and degrading a class of people.>The true answer, of course, is for gays to develope a sense of self-worth that doesn't require them getting married in order for them to realize the value of their relationships.You need to get over this “self-worth” and “value” kick because it has nothing to do with it. What it does have to do with is equality. I am just as much of a citizen as you are so I deserve equal treatment. I don’t want special treatment, I was EQUAL treatment. >But I don't think it's going to happen...the mind-set is too deeply entrenched.Just as much as your mind-set is so deeply entrenched that you think you are better than we are and have the right to force something that segregates us from the majority of the population. You have no more claim on marriage than I do and just because you are straight should not determine that you have the right to it and I don’t.

"But what I find interesting is you don't think women should have equal rights to men? Hmm... Explains everything."That is nothing close to what I said. You are intentionally attempting to enflame a situation. Do NOT take my words out of context, or put words I never spoke about into my mouth, again. If you understood anything about feminists you'd understand that equal rights is NOT what they seek...it is what they CLAIM they seek. But actions, in their case just as yours, speak louder than words.

Perhaps you shouldn’t claim what peoples intentions are unless you have proof. Practice what you preach buddy.

"If you understood anything about feminists you'd understand that equal rights is NOT what they seek...it is what they CLAIM they seek"Explain please.

Self-explanitory. "Equal rights" is a vehicle a group of man-hating lesbians used to begin the second wave of feminism in the 60's. If you dig into it further, you'll see that it's women's superiority, not equallity, that is being pushed by modern feminists. They're not the same group of folks who gave women the right to vote many years ago. The agenda has changed.

OOHHHHHH!!!!!I am sooo just going to let the women of this forum tear you apart!

It's not actually the least bit self-explanatory, hence my request for clarification. "a group of man-hating lesbians" - Thats just genuinely funny, and I dont mean that in a sarcastic way, I did laugh when I read that. Where I come from, it has been established that women are paid on average 20% less for doing the same jobs men do at executive level. Womens demands for the same pay in exchange for the same labour have nothing to do with 'man hating lesbianism' - those demands are rooted in a desire for equality, which is a cornor stone of any democratic society. Where equality is lacking, democracy cannot exist to the fullness of its potential. Equal rights in salary for both genders is a noble, fair and decent objective and most of the women who persue it, far from being "man hating lesbians" are career women, with families (yes - childen and husbands!) who've had to re-enter the workplace as a response to our escalating economy, since one wage is now rarely sufficient to cover the expense of mortgage, household bills and general living expenses for families.If you are going to turn this into an anti-feminist tirade I wont be getting into that with you. If you want to go there, I would advise you to go to a therapist in search of the origins of your derisory attitude towards women of self respect. Some latent mother issues perhaps?

OMG im a man hating lesbian and never knew!!!! stunned