Why marriage, anyway? Isn't a "marriage" just a piece of paper that the state keeps in a filing cabinet?

Well, Iwouldn't necessarily put it that way [they hate gays] but fundamentally your insight that there is no logical, legitimate public interest to be protected by prohibiting gay marriage, is, I think, correct.

I think this is very black/white either/or position for folks who feel this way. To them homosexuality is just wrong -- the way lying, stealing, killing is wrong. It's bad enough to them that it is legal, but the thought of living in a society that condones it or accords it social acceptance is just repugmant to them.

It is bigotry pure and simple.

Too true!
In fact gay marriage would lower social costs. Gay couples would be allowed to raise children. These would be children whose parents are single mothers who were abandoned by their partners and are now unable or unwilling to cope properly with raising a child. Surely even social conservatives can agree that having children being raised by loving and committed gay "parents" (what would be right term here?) will bring forth children less likely to cause further social costs (crime, unemploymnet, etc etc).
The alternative for the mother of such potential children is of course abortion, another thing social conservatives are not particularly keen on.

I oppose homosexual marriage because it would be meaningless, and as such, would call into question the meaning of heterosexual marriage.

When I say "meaningless," I mean that homosexual marriage would have no contractual content. Marriage is a contract. All contracts are sets of promises made by two or more parties to one another, with penalties for noncompliance.

At this time, the ability to get a divorce for "irreconcilable differences" (i.e., "I don't feel like it") has weakened heterosexual marriage near to the point of collapse. The only thing that still gives it meaning is that, if the wife becomes pregnant, even unintentionally, the husband is obliged to support the child until he achieves his majority.

What would the promises and penalties be in the case of homosexual marriage? How would it be anything but an excuse to hold a party?

My opinion is that it's simply a ploy by which homosexuals hope to gain 1) employer benefits traditionally bestowed upon the spouses of heterosexual employees, 2) greater access to adoptive children, 3) Social Security survivorship benefits, and 4) the right to bring foreign born "spouses" into the United States as permanent residents.

For further thoughts, see this.

I think a lot of the kerfuffle over gay "marriage" has to do with the word "marriage." There are really two different levels of marriage - the first is a kind of standardized social contract that is put up by the state - if you are "married", then you are automatically in line for survivorship benefits, etc. In the gay marriage debate, this is sometimes refererred to as "civil union," and is really all that anyone is pushing for as far as gay "marriage" goes.

The other level of marriage is religious marriage, presided over by a priest(ess) and recognized by some religious organization. At least in the US, there is absolutely no way that the state could require a religion to perform or recognize a marriage between two gay folks. I think a very serious Consitutional question would be raised by any attempt by the state to prohibit a religion from performing a marriage ceremony between two gay folks.

There is no reason why these two levels of marriage can't coexist. Unfortunately, by using the same word to describe both, a lot of people who wouldn't have any problem with civil unions are out there opposing gay marriage on the mistaken belief that it will be forced on their church in some way.

A great deal of the opposition flows from nothing more than semantic sloppiness and confusion.

Francis,

State marriage is meaningless, apart from the welfare-scrounging that accompanies it.

What gives marriage meaning is society. Marriage is still respectable. It's a public commitment.

And, if you're religious, marriage is a commitment before God. If that doesn't give it meaning, what does?

Ah, checking back, I see RC Dean has made the point more eloquently.

Francis,

Unless I'm grossly mistaken, men are generally held to be responsible for the financial upkeep of any children they father, regardless of his marital status or that of the mother. This is certainly the case here in the US, perhaps it's different elsewhere, but I think the western world is nearly unanimous on this point. So that's what (heterosexual) marriage isn't.

I am not a family lawyer, or indeed a lawyer of any sort, and I'm not married, but as to what contracts marriage contains, I believe that there's effectively a contract to support each other (hence alimony and the like when the marriage fails). Also a whole pile of contracts regarding pensions and so forth which are between the spouses and the government, some of which are replicable outside of marriage, some not. It's true that marriage isn't the strong contract it was 100 years ago, but it's not totally gone, and it has little to do with heterosexuality as such. I would imagine that such a contract extended to pairs of homosexuals would be essentially the same.

As to your list of 4 things homosexuals want, I'm quite sure that they do want all four of them. So do I, should I get married. Why is this a problem? It's certainly not a ploy, implying subterfuge; the pro-gay marriage propoganda I've heard tends to be quite explicit on these points.

Francis wrote:

"My opinion is that it's simply a ploy by which homosexuals hope to gain 1) employer benefits traditionally bestowed upon the spouses of heterosexual employees, 2) greater access to adoptive children, 3) Social Security survivorship benefits, and 4) the right to bring foreign born "spouses" into the United States as permanent residents."

You mean, they want the same rights as heterosexuals?

Heaven forfend!

Bringing in foreign-born spouses...

Surely social conservatives should approve of this. After all, how many British gay men are going to be bringing in Islamofascist boyfriends and strings of children?

Alex,

I would be interested in pointers to anyone making the argument that "homosexual marriage means that government spending has to go up". I might have seen one here or there, but I don't recall it, and I would love to be able to refer to it with authority.

The reason is because I would develop the point that the logical absurdity is precisely similar to arguments for anti-smoking legislation, for example, because smoking saddles "society" with health-care costs, which is a position that completely ignores the fact that "society" should not be funding health care to begin with.

It's an argument that begins in mid-air. Anyone protesting homosexual marriage on such grounds would do a lot better to face the more fundamental facts of "government spending".

ibyx,

I don't think that a dislike of gays can, in this instance be called bigotry. They are tolerated, but that does not mean they have to be universally liked for it. The dictionary description is as follows:

"The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance".
"a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion."

That they have had their way of life accepted by society, does not mean that that it is to be compulsory, or that we have to like it - 'as a way of life', but it is tolerated, therefore a general critisim cannot be called bigotry.

For myself, I think that sodomy is a perversion, and try as I might, I cannot understand the mindset that indulges in it. But, live and let live, just dont keep reminding me about it.

The whole idea of gay marriage, gets into the religious aspect of the life style, which will be discussed for a long time, and probably means more to religious people than to general society, but if it is just a civil marriage they want, then 'who cares'.

I find the idea of two of the same sex, gazing into each others eyes and vowing erternal love, to be rather sad, but then I probably am a bigot....

Odd, really, since the institution of marriage dates from when the state was not expected to provide for you or offspring, and you and other families made contracts to provide for them yourselves.

In a sense marriage is a rival for state provision.

Francis write:

My opinion is that it's simply a ploy by which homosexuals hope to gain 1) employer benefits traditionally bestowed upon the spouses of heterosexual employees, 2) greater access to adoptive children, 3) Social Security survivorship benefits, and 4) the right to bring foreign born "spouses" into the United States as permanent residents."

You mean, they want the same rights as heterosexuals?

Excuse me, but which of those four items are RIGHTS?

Employer benefits should be a choice of the employer. If they want to discrimate, hey... it's a private contract... let them.

Greater access to adoptive children! This is a critical one. Many social conservatives including myself feel that the term "homosexual family" is an oxymoron. Children should be brought up in a heterosexual marriage (with their natural parents if at all practical). The fact that various trends (no-fault divorce, etc) have weakened heterosexual marriage is no reason for the state to provide adoption "rights" to homosexuals. Is this discrimination? Yes? Is it mindless? No. Is it based on hate? No. Is it based on religion? No.

Social security survivorship. This is a government grant. It may cause costs to go up. It also strikes me as a reasonable thing to give to gays, as long as it doesn't lead to phoney marriages of convenience.

The right to bring in foreign born spouses? This is already abused significantly by heterosexuals. Should the same privilege (folks, it AINT a right) be granted to gays. Probably .

All of this says that some sort of civil union is probably a good idea, and consistent with "compassionate conservatism," but full, equal marriage is not.

The social conservative arguments are quite obviously bogus.

Could the real reason why social conservatives oppose gay marriage be much simpler? They oppose it because they hate gay people.

Ah, yes! The libertarian's world is a very simply one, and his (or her) response to even the most multifarious problem consists of nothing more than scolding those who fail to see that which is, of course, patently obvious.

The people I know who are against gay marriage are against it because they group it with other social engineering they believe is being forced upon them. Some have religious reasons, of course.

But, I think for many (anti-gay marriage) it's just a backlash against what they perceive is leftist dogma. Among some white, straight males there is a feeling of alienation and isolation. They view the world as divided into groups with special status and they have none and/or are blamed for societies ills.

I don't know *one* person who is against gay marriage that would ever harm anyone who is gay or deny them employment. But they do draw the line at marriage. More emotional than anything and more a reaction against the erosion of rights via social engineering.

I find many white males angrier at the perceived unfairness in society. They can be passed over for college or jobs because they are white males. This bothers them because they believe they are being discriminated against and that it's ok. So, they react out of fear and anger. One of the reactions is being against gay marriage.

Some people would not believe me, at first, when I mentioned several people I knew from the web who were gay and non-leftie. Most believe anyone who is gay must be a Marxist. They have never encountered a gay who was not associated with some left of center political group.

I oppose gay marriages sanctioned by the state... and heterosexual marriages sanctioned by the state as well.

What is the compelling interest that requires the state to interfere in such a personal decision by two (or more!) people?

Children? Common sense and a few moments reflection will tell you that getting rid of civil marriage will not end procreation.
Stability? Marriages are either rewarding to their members or they are not. If marriage is a rewarding condition, it should require no further encouragement from the state. If not, it should be given no subsidy.
Morality? Whose morality will be elevated to a universal rule? Many cultures practice polygamy and polyandry ... currently forbidden by the state (at least in the United States).

The solution, of course, is to let people engage with each other on any basis they choose. Chain marriages, gay marriages, "open" marriages, grim puritan marriages of penance and remorse, etc etc. Let the market decide. Any marriages which actually possess the characteristics attributed to the "ideal" marriage will survive regardless of whether the state enforces marriage norms or not.

To those who disagree, a simple question: if the state abandoned the practice of sanctioning marriage tomorrow, would you get a divorce? If not, why not? And why do you assume that your answer would not be applicable to other marriages as well?

"If you ask social conservatives to explain how this causes social degradation, the response is..."

... here. Essentially, if governments allow "gay marriage" they undermine marriage as a social norm for straights. And that means more children being born to single mothers, who depend on government charity -- hence both the social degradation, and the rise in government spending.

Also: since "homosexuals don't have children", what is the point of letting them marry by law? The legal benefits of marriage exist as an incentive for the birth of children in stable households. Why provide that incentive for households where children patently won't be born?

One of the delights from reading Samizdata is a giddy feeling of being a lab rat.

Many Libertarians share with lefties the love of social engineering. Armed with only theory, many of you wish to change society and see what happens.

A politico, judge, or gov't official can unleash massive change on our society, without the tedious testing necessary for a new drug or even new eyeliner.

No fault divorce destroyed the institution of marriage, retroactively changing the marriage contract so that one party could end it -- on terms set by a 3rd party (a Judge).

Gay marriage and polgamy are just steps in the end game.

The net result -- anticipated by many leftist writers --- will likely be a massive increase in the reach and power of the State, as it assumes still more functions of the family.

Many Libertarians share with lefties the love of social engineering. Armed with only theory, many of you wish to change society and see what happens.

I am really hard put to see how wanting to remove the hand of the state from marriage is "social engineering." Quite the opposite, I would think.

If that is social engineering, then what do you call promoting one particular lifestyle choice above others by giving it legal sanction and economic incentives? Anti-social disengineering?

I suspect that the the term "social engineering" is used by Larry to mean something like "having some ideas about how society should be structured."

Libertarians, and indeed everyone I have ever met or even heard of, would probably have to plead guilty to that.

I am in favor of Gay marriage, why have the government dictate marriage terms &c -- but the best argument against is the cover story of The Weekly Standard this week. She didn't change my mind but she got me thinking. Basic premise is that marriage is about the children and promoting responsibility and Mommy-Daddy unions. To make it just a state/religous blessing changes the focus from kids to adults.

My opinion is probably reviled by both classic sides of the debate. I think that homosexual marraige should be allowed (with homosexual spouses treated the same as heterosexual spouses by the government), but that no private party should be required to recognize or respect a homosexual marraige.

Really, it is an intolerable and transparent discrimination that gay people cannot get married in the legal sense (while heterosexuals can). OTOH, while homosexuals are primarily the victims to date in this saga, it should be recongized that the larger "gay" agenda is to use government coercion to force acceptance of homosexuality on people who sincerly believe that it is a mortal sin. If we are honest about this, what the "gay lobby" wants is to have the government impose the gay lobby's religous beliefs on others. Yet another case where using the law to address the wider question is the wrong approach.

Two questions for Bobadil: 1) does your vision of the "State" include the state enforcing contracts? 2) If yes, does this include enforcing marriage contracts?

Finally, regarding that whole "opponents of gay marriage just hate gay people" idea, someone (I think it was Andrew Sullivan) had an excellent insight--homosexuals see "gay" as something they are, opponents of homosexuality see "gay" as something people do. I don't believe the government has to (and thus do not believe it should) impose on everyone a single choice between these two frames. Personally, I would be quite happy, however, to see social evolution towards "full" gay marriage (including being responsible for the kids until they grow up).

Yeah, that's it Alex. We're all a bunch of gay bashers. No chance any of us are faithful Catholics, or believers in Russel Kirk's warnings about destroying tried and true prescription and social institutions.

Yup, clearly just a pack of gay bashers.

Probably really just closet homos, just afraid to admit it...

Two questions for Bobadil: 1) does your vision of the "State" include the state enforcing contracts? 2) If yes, does this include enforcing marriage contracts?

(1) Yep, I think a proper function of the state is to enforce contracts.

(2) Marriage contracts are like any other ... but keep in mind that I don't see any requirement for two people to contract together in order to be married.

When should two (or more!) people be married? When they say they are. If they want to say it in a church ... fine. If they want to say it over a couple of beers at the local pub ... fine. If they want to write up some elaborate contract specifying their mutual obligations ... fine.

Contracts are contracts, whether the context is a business deal or a wedding.

Note that this also implies that unenforceable terms of the contract would be, well, unenforceable (for example, being together until "death do us part" etc).

I am proposing simply that there be no such condition as "married" under law. The state should not recognize marriage as any particular special circumstance. That means no laws forbidding a person from testifying against their spouse, no tax breaks for married couples, no divorce courts, no throwing Mormons in prison for polygamy, etc.

Nothing in the above paragraph precludes consenting adults from entering into contractual obligations, or from having those contracts enforced by the state.

I really thought I was going to swear off reading about gay marriage. I had been saturated by Andrew Sullivan and the good folks at the National Review (2 sites I otherwise enjoy). If you want some interesting debate, check on NRO's The Corner and Andrew Sullivan, they both have been touching on this a couple of times per week for what seems like 4 months. They've really beat this horse to death. But, leave it to the Samizdata folks to make the debate somewhat interesting.

While I think the social conservative arguments about gay marriage destroying "the institution of marriage" are extremely week, it really does open up some legal issues that really would degrade society (polygomy for example). In the U.S. anyway there is also the federalism issue. Even if you believe gay marriage should be allowed, do we really want it imposed federally, or God forbid by the courts, instead of allowing states to answer these questions individually and letting the market decide?

Also, I'm wholeheartedly opposed to gay adoption, but as long as that's done by private individuals, without government interference or tax dollars, I guess I can't really bitch about it.

The real problem here is the general involvement of government in every aspect of society. By giving entitlements that can be passed on, by allowing out of control civil suits in marriages (not to mention relatives of children in a broken up marriage), and through the magic of legislation making divorces as simple as refinancing a home. Government is way too involved in marriage to begin with. It is also way too involved in how we raise our children. However, Tom's question to Bobadil (who believes in zero state involvement in marriage) is central to the "just stay out of marriage altogether crowd". How is the contract enforced? Is it a separate contract that's not even considered marriage (like some sort of prenup on sterioids?).

But, I really think it's harsh to label all people who are against marriage as bigots. That's as simplistic as some real bigots who think all gays are evil. There are legitamate religious reasons (though those reasons have no place in legal debates), there are legitimate legal questions that arise if gay marriage is allowed, ESPECIALLY if gay marriage is forced on society by judges (i.e. via legal precedent) rather than through legislation. Now, I think a perfectly reasonable charge against the anti-gay marriage crowd is "statist" as they are wanting the state to prevent individuals from formalizing their relationship through state enforced mechanisms already granted to heterosexuals.

Michael Brazier said: "Also: since "homosexuals don't have children", what is the point of letting them marry by law? The legal benefits of marriage exist as an incentive for the birth of children in stable households. Why provide that incentive for households where children patently won't be born?"

Michael, are you saying that marriage benefits and legal protections should not be given to married people who plan never to have a child? Should someone who is in their 60s whose procreation days are over with be stripped of their legal status of being married?

Lastly, I think the central problems with the social conservative position is not bigotry (though that is part of it in SOME cases) but rather a right wing version of government via the precautionary principle. Most of the "harm" and "degradation" are all theoretical. But, because it makes us squeamish, surely it would lead all sorts of terrible problems for society. At least, that seems to be their logic.

However, Tom's question to Bobadil (who believes in zero state involvement in marriage) is central to the "just stay out of marriage altogether crowd". How is the contract enforced? Is it a separate contract that's not even considered marriage (like some sort of prenup on sterioids?).

Yes, exactly like that.

Additionally, let me point out that I am not against marriage at all. Great stuff - picket fences, Sunday dinners and all that.

I just don't want the state making laws about who can and who cannot enjoy their wedded bliss, or upon what terms.

Good and reasonable responses Bombadil to Tom's questions. Now, how 'bout this. How do these contracts relate to a child being born or adopted and the parents rights over them? Do they need a new contract that involves their rights over the children? How do judges in the case of a "divorce" or a voiding of the contract determine how the child fits in? While I like the idea of getting the state out of marriage, it's really a paradigm shift legally for so many western judicial and civil systems. Marriage is so intertwined with every level of both the private and public sectors that changing it's legal status in any shape or form has huge and possibly costly repercussions.

I agree with Francis Poretto, and disagree with Alice Bachini.
If you suppose that marriage is an evolved custom, and you observe that this custom occurs across this Earth, you must suspect that this custom performs some function. I do not see marriage as a "right" but as an obligation (placed mostly on the male partner) to support the children that were a near-inevitable consequence of frequent sexual intercourse.
Absent fathers impose costs on society. Societies make a public spectacle of marriage so as to be able to shame men who skip. In addition, we surround the child-bearing unit with such support as tax-free inheritance and employer-paid health benefits to assure children a benign environment.
All other "benefits" of marriage (medical power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, etc) are available through current legal channels (mutual adoption, power of attorney). We enjoy free speech in the USA; anyone can call himself "married". You can call yourself a flock of sparrows if you like.
Don't Libertarians support freedom of association and freedom of contract? It may be a mistake for your legislature to mandate employer-paid health insurance for heterosexual couples. This exception to the principle of freedom of contract we make on the basis of a cost-benefit calculation (benefit to children). To enlarge the group for whom we violate principle in the name of some odd construction of "equality", to include people who are far less likely to have children and far more at risk of a very expensive medical condition, is to ignore the cost-benefit calculations that led to the policy in the first place.
I am not homophobic. I lived for a year with a male friend who prefers males for sexual purposes and who remains a friend. Three of my friends died of aids, and they were not Haitains, hemophiliacs, or IV drug users. I resent the accusation of bigotry, which poisons this discussion.

Now, how 'bout this. How do these contracts relate to a child being born or adopted and the parents rights over them?

Assuming for a moment that such an event is not specified in the contract ... they don't. If a single mother has a child, what contract specifies the rights she has over that child?

Do they need a new contract that involves their rights over the children?

If they want one. If not, there are existing laws that govern parental responsibilities between umarried parents. I really don't understand how that circumstance is any different than that of parents who choose to "call themselves a flock of sparrows." (great phrase).

How do judges in the case of a "divorce" or a voiding of the contract determine how the child fits in?

Again, unless the child fits into the contract ... they don't. It is entirely conceivable that a couple might split, using a mutually agreed-upon contract for dividing their assets, while negotiating the custody and care of their child separately. Again, there are existing laws to govern that ... no marriage required.

While I like the idea of getting the state out of marriage, it's really a paradigm shift legally for so many western judicial and civil systems. Marriage is so intertwined with every level of both the private and public sectors that changing it's legal status in any shape or form has huge and possibly costly repercussions.

Absolutely. As a theoretical discussion, the abolition of legal marriage is appealing ... but the machinery of the state can take no hard corners without coming undone. Obviously any shift in the marriage paradigm would be a long and costly process, with lots of "hard cases making bad law" along the way.

None of which means that it shouldn't be done.

This debate is pointless unless people define what marriage is.

Marriage is just an agreement (some parts of which are enforced by law, and thus contractual; others which are just statements of intent) to love someone, look after them, and share property with them.

So, having defined marriage, let's assess the "conservative" criticisms of homosexual marriage.

1) "I oppose homosexual marriage because it would be meaningless....When I say "meaningless," I mean that homosexual marriage would have no contractual content....

This is nonsensical. Homosexual marriage could easily have contractual content, such as sharing of assets and income, and the (legal) obligation to support the other party materially.

2) "Essentially, if governments allow "gay marriage" they undermine marriage as a social norm for straights"

Equally, if governments disallow "gay marriage" they undermine marriage as a social norm for homosexuals.

3) "since "homosexuals don't have children", what is the point of letting them marry by law?"

An action does not need to have a point in order for it to be legal and legitimate.

Marriage between homosexuals is no more "pointless" than that between sterile heterosexual couples.

There are benefits of marriage that have nothing whatsoever to do with having children - such as making a legally binding agreement of mutual support.

4) "No fault divorce destroyed the institution of marriage, retroactively changing the marriage contract so that one party could end it -- on terms set by a 3rd party (a Judge).

Gay marriage and polgamy are just steps in the end game"

If gay marriage had enforceable contractual vows, how would it be a step in the end game?

I agree with Francis Poretto, and disagree with Alice Bachini.

If you suppose that marriage is an evolved custom, and you observe that this custom occurs across this Earth, you must suspect that this custom performs some function.

I do not see marriage as a "right" but as an obligation (placed mostly on the male partner) to support the children that were a near-inevitable consequence of frequent sexual intercourse.

Assuming that marriage did evolve as a societal response to some need, why that particular one?

Why not the need for men to be able to claim (as property) specific women, in order to reduce the level of fighting over the right to take particular sexual partners?

Why not the need to appease the great god <insert deity name here> and avoid the catastrophe of his/her wrath?

Absent fathers impose costs on society. Societies make a public spectacle of marriage so as to be able to shame men who skip.

Some societes even kill women who procreate outside of state-sanctioned marriage by stoning them to death.

In addition, we surround the child-bearing unit with such support as tax-free inheritance and employer-paid health benefits to assure children a benign environment.

Employer-paid health benefits impose a cost on society too, especially childless society. Assuming for a second that I do not have children, why should I as an employee be forced to bear the burden (albeit indirectly) of your decision to procreate? Assuming that I have children, why should I be allowed to reach into your pocket to provide for them?

All other "benefits" of marriage (medical power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, etc) are available through current legal channels (mutual adoption, power of attorney). We enjoy free speech in the USA; anyone can call himself "married". You can call yourself a flock of sparrows if you like.

Still a great phrase.

Don't Libertarians support freedom of association and freedom of contract? It may be a mistake for your legislature to mandate employer-paid health insurance for heterosexual couples. This exception to the principle of freedom of contract we make on the basis of a cost-benefit calculation (benefit to children). To enlarge the group for whom we violate principle in the name of some odd construction of "equality", to include people who are far less likely to have children and far more at risk of a very expensive medical condition, is to ignore the cost-benefit calculations that led to the policy in the first place.

If I followed that last sentence correctly, you are arguing that since state-sanctioned marriage is a bad idea for heterosexuals, why isn't it a bad idea for homosexuals too? Well ... it is! We are practically in agreement already.

I am not homophobic. I lived for a year with a male friend who prefers males for sexual purposes and who remains a friend. Three of my friends died of aids, and they were not Haitains, hemophiliacs, or IV drug users. I resent the accusation of bigotry, which poisons this discussion.

If you seriously believe that none of the opposition to gay marriage specifically (as opposed to state-sanctioned marriage in general) is based on homophobia or flat-out hatred of gay people, you are not living in the same world I am living in. You may not be homophobic; congratulations. Many are, and raising the issue is not out of place in this discussion.

Arrggh ... careless use of markup.

Reposting the lower portion of the previous post:

Absent fathers impose costs on society. Societies make a public spectacle of marriage so as to be able to shame men who skip.

Some societes even kill women who procreate outside of state-sanctioned marriage by stoning them to death.

In addition, we surround the child-bearing unit with such support as tax-free inheritance and employer-paid health benefits to assure children a benign environment.

Employer-paid health benefits impose a cost on society too, especially childless society. Assuming for a second that I do not have children, why should I as an employee be forced to bear the burden (albeit indirectly) of your decision to procreate? Assuming that I have children, why should I be allowed to reach into your pocket to provide for them?

All other "benefits" of marriage (medical power of attorney, hospital visitation rights, etc) are available through current legal channels (mutual adoption, power of attorney). We enjoy free speech in the USA; anyone can call himself "married". You can call yourself a flock of sparrows if you like.

Still a great phrase.

Don't Libertarians support freedom of association and freedom of contract? It may be a mistake for your legislature to mandate employer-paid health insurance for heterosexual couples. This exception to the principle of freedom of contract we make on the basis of a cost-benefit calculation (benefit to children). To enlarge the group for whom we violate principle in the name of some odd construction of "equality", to include people who are far less likely to have children and far more at risk of a very expensive medical condition, is to ignore the cost-benefit calculations that led to the policy in the first place.

If I followed that last sentence correctly, you are arguing that since state-sanctioned marriage is a bad idea for heterosexuals, why isn't it a bad idea for homosexuals too? Well ... it is! We are practically in agreement already.

I am not homophobic. I lived for a year with a male friend who prefers males for sexual purposes and who remains a friend. Three of my friends died of aids, and they were not Haitains, hemophiliacs, or IV drug users. I resent the accusation of bigotry, which poisons this discussion.

If you seriously believe that none of the opposition to gay marriage specifically (as opposed to state-sanctioned marriage in general) is based on homophobia or flat-out hatred of gay people, you are not living in the same world I am living in. You may not be homophobic; congratulations. Many are, and raising the issue is not out of place in this discussion.

Interesting, isn't it, how quickly the meaning of words evolves?

"Tolerance" in this context ten years ago meant supporting measures to forbid discrimination against homosexuals in hiring, housing and so forth. Two years ago it meant supporting government recognition of gay civil unions. Now it means supporting gay marriage and, incidentally, not saying anything negative about homosexual behavior.

People who notice the goalposts being moved this rapidly might be forgiven for thinking they are being moved deliberately. I don't think that is necessarily true; major changes often occur quickly in today's world, and this may just be one of those things.

With respect to libertarians' interest in this issue, though, it is hard not to notice that nothing about the move toward legalizing gay marriage promises any diminution of state power whatsoever. If anything, gay marriage will probably require some expansion of government activity, for example in the legal system and in modifying the assistance governments now provide to parents to ensure that it does not discriminate. Actually, much the same is true of at least one of the other favorite libertarian causes, legalizing various drugs -- once legalized, drugs would have to be extensively regulated for safety, interaction with other drugs, taxation and so forth.

So are libertarians really interested in freedom and smaller government, or are they just interested in sex and drugs? Just asking the question probably marks one as a hater and bigot, and definitely as intolerant, but that's life in the blogosphere.

For a full reply, see Confessions of a Homophobe.

That's the second time the preview's destroyed the link. Try again:

Confessions of a Homophobe.

You asked.

The purpose that marriage has in society is to cement the bond between two people who will have children. Look at the totality of sexual morals and taboos, as well as the institutions that have evolved to deal with it.

To society, sex presents two problems. Children and disease. This is why promiscuity if frowned upon, and why the whole "virgin till marriage, and fidelity afterwards" meme held sway for so long. It has nothing to do with love, historically, as betrothals and arraigned marriages were the norm, (and still are in some parts of the world)

This is why social institutions, such as religions and governments have created marriage in the first place. As a means to minimize the potential negative effects that children and disease pose to the population. It has nothing to do with hatred for any group, it has to do with how sexual activity affects the population.

As you point out, gays do not, cannot, have children by themselves. By making those who bring children into this world, responsible for their actions and responsible for raising that child, it is hoped that he won't turn into a criminal, a murderer, etc. and usually this works. This risk that a gay couple poses to society is nothing compared to the risk that a hetro couple poses. And the only way that they can pose such a threat is if they bring in a third party, who will not be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

The reason why we are even discussing this is because medical technology has advanced to the point where fertility is choosable, but that technology is only 40 years old. And this is a fundamental alteration to an institution that is pretty old, and has been subject to several millenia of cultural evolution. It is a bit sudden, and no one is sure how it will pan out.

Already the sexual revolution has led to higher divorce rates, more out of wedlock births, and more promiscuity. The advances in medical technology and all its implications have still not been sorted out in a way that keeps society going and is not harmful to its population. This is simply forcing things deeper into uncharted territory.

In addition, if gays are allowed to be married, does that give them the same rights to adoption as straight couples? As long as NAMBLA has any kind of prominence in the gay rights movement, the issue of gays and children will be problematic for a lot of folks. Simply blowing it off as bigotry, or demanding that straights "get used to it" is not an effective debating tactic, and risks a worse backlash than one would obtain through more incrimental changes.

It is not punishment by the state if it treats married hetrosexuals differently than it does gay couples. (Or unmarried hetrosexual couples) No more than it is punishment if I offer someone else a job, and not you.

I hope that answers your question.

Maybe I am extremely stupid - but there are some points which don't seem to be even be considered by most of the commentors...

FIRSTLY: when one small "political group" (and to be gay most surely is to be openly and extremely political) demands that its politics and ideologies are FORCED BY LAW on the majority of the population demanding that, what is a CHOICE of lifestyle be given legal standing that will change society and make it more "GAY" in nature... then heterosexual society has every right to feel threatened.

SECONDLY: One thing most often pushed to one side now - is the danger posed by learned behaviour.... An individual may have a basic heterosexual/homosexual nature - BUT - and its a BIG BUT.... which everyone seems to want to ignore: SEXUAL "PREFERENCE" IS CHANGEABLE BY LEARNED BEHAVIOUR!!! ... exactly the same ability to change "preference" that is used so well by paedophiles to "groom" children or by other insidious individuals to get "rent boys"...

...the SPARTANS understood this very well...
They created a society based on a slave system with a homosexually based elite brought about through the sexual indoctrination of children. Normal male/female relations among the spartans were bastardised to produce a highly state controlled system of relationships in order to produce their warrior elite. To make matters worse this whole system was only able to exist with the enslavement of the Helots.

Today it is extremely un-politically correct and practically illegal (hate crime) to even suggest that sexual preference is changeable... despite HISTORY both ancient and modern showing us exactly that.

Yet here we have a homosexual political promotion group that wishes to assume all the legal trappings of heterosexual relationships and at the same time promote the teachings of homosexual sexual preference among young children - AND - at the same time they wish to make it practically impossible to raise any argument against them - by deriding any anti-"GAY" argument as a "hate crime".

Yes - absolutely NO "reason" for heterosexuals to worry about anything there at all!!!!!!!

Heterosexuals feel threatened because "GAY" politics is using state control- and marxist ideology - not for equality purposes- but to openly PROMOTE "GAY" policies to the detriment of heterosexual people.

Alex Singleton said:

Could the real reason why social conservatives oppose gay marriage be much simpler? They oppose it because they hate gay people. They think it's disgusting what these faggots do. They think the state should punish them for their depravity.

This just strikes me as more of the kind of mean spirited innuendo that riddles too much commentary.

Face it Alex, the only reason you're a libbo is you hate poor people and don't want to share with those less fortunate than yourself. God forbid the rich should be held accountable to the majority of us they treat like cattle.

See?

Well done Alex for pinpointing the real dirty secret of the so called 'social conservatives'. Watch them twitching and spluttering as they swing from the rope that Alex supplied enough of for them to hang themselves. Those that seem not to be out and out bigots appear instead to just suffer from brute stupidity.

Joe,

We didn't agree much the other day (I think about the utility of heritable IQ differences) but you hit all the right buttons this time, and you've said the unsayable. Well done.

It's noticeable that the marxist dross who shout "racist" at those who challenge them are slowly losing their power to intimidate. Posters here and elsewhere still trot out the official party line, but there is a growing understanding that they are victims of the culture war for doing so.

But the homophobe slur still has the power to intimidate. It makes us defensive and self-examining. It's an effective means of censorship. Well, so to speak, bugger the censors. We are 99% of the population and we should not be cowed
by a tiny marxist minority of queer activists.

Egalitarianism is not rooted in the psyche of man. It is unnatural. As far as this effects homosexuals it is necessary to bear in moind that, tragically, they are disabled people. They are not sexually equal. They cannot marry because marriage in a monogamous form is a sexual partnership between male and female. Its exclusivity is indispensable for the stability and continuity of our way of life. That, of course, is the real reason it is under attack in the first place and why it must be defended.

"They cannot marry because marriage in a monogamous form is a sexual partnership between male and female. Its exclusivity is indispensable for the stability and continuity of our way of life."

This is either tautologous ("if things change they won't be the same as they are now") or plain wrong. If things change, so what?

The institution of marriage we have now in Britain and the US isn't the same as it was in the past--even as 50 years ago, never mind before it became a creature of the state in the 19th century. It may be called the same thing, but its rules and dissolution are changed vastly. The legal details differ between and within even those substantially similar countries now. It certainly isn't the same in other countries, who manage just fine with different forms of marriage. Sometimes those wacky foreigners have more than one type of marriage permitted in the same jurisdiction.

I can't see how the sky is going to fall in for traditional families because another arrangement becomes possible. Even if it might, then that is as much an argument for banning straight sex outside a married relationship than gay sex within one.

Where are the Taliban when we need them? They knew how to protect a perfect society from deterioration by change.

Guessedworker, you're frightened of being called a homophobe - obviously not a real man, then - and then you go on to call gay people disabled.

Come on, give us a proper argument.

Am I to presume that your agenda is eugenics or genocide?

Gay people should not suffer discrimination from the state. You can discriminate if you want to, that's your business, not mine, but the state has no place in this. I'm willing to go along with egalitarianism not being 'natural,' but it's not the business of the state to enforce any pecking order.

Yes there are gay marxist idiots. There are ten times as many straight ones. If the gay marxist idiots were arguing for the abolition of heterosexual marriage, then you'd have a point. But Paul Coulam's right.

Gay people fall in love, screw, fall out of love, not necessarily in that order. They wreck lives, they change the world, they are valued members of the community, they are scum, just like everyone else. far better they do this in their own sphere than in the confines of a heterosexual marriage.

Guy, you ask where the Taliban are... Well as the Taliban instituted political change through enforced state control/mind control... it would appear "our Taliban" are here in the form of the "GAY" movement and its political entourage... because that is exactly what they are doing and using the exact same basic methods!

Joe,

Say who within the gay 'movement' - your inverted commas are in the wrong place, though I understand your insinuation - are doing what.

Mind control? WTF? Are the CIA gay?

Oh, forget it Joe, you just want to mould society under pain of imprisonment and threat of taxation. Let's face it, you're a socialist. Socialists don't like letting people do freely-chosen things, and they have ulterior motives for discriminatory laws (Jews, landowners...).

You differ from a socialist only in the amount of tax you would enslave people to work to pay.

Yes, the difference between a socialist and a conservative can be expressed as a percentage.

I just want people to be allowed to do whatever consensual, freely contractual things they may choose, so long as they don't impinge on someone else's liberty.

I guess that makes me a libertarian.

We're never going to agree.

But since you're against freedom, what draws you to this site?

Abolish state recogniton of marriage, period. It's a matter for churches (or for the personal decisions of atheists).

The institution of marriage long pre-dates the modern state, and emerged out of the desire, known for as long as human civilisation, for people to form long-standing partnerships for particular ends. One point straight away - marriage was driven by the desire for security in old age (children), the avoidance of sexually-transmitted disease and social order.

As a commenter put it above, changes in medicial science, divorce laws and an increasingly hedonistic cultural climate in the West have changed the motors behind straight marriage. Hence the focus on possible marriage for gay couples.

My own view is that the State should get out of our lives as much as possible. Much of the heat that affects this current debate would dissipate if the government got out of the marriage business. After all, without a Welfare State, 40-50 percent taxation of income and so forth, much of the original pressures on folk to marry and stay loyal for life would return.

However, I also can see the case for gay marriage in essentially conservative terms. So long as reciprocal duties are understood, the occurence of gay men honouring life-long, caring relationships must surely be supportive, rather than destructive, of the social order.

I would like to be married one day to a beautiful woman and I honestly cannot see how gay marriage would affect the institution into which I would enter one way or the other.

Surely, the libertarian view is that the presumption of proof should rest on those who would prevent consenting adults forming contracts. End of discussion.

Forgive me if this is repetition.

It is unfair to describe all those who oppose gay "marriag" as bigots. Sure, a lot probably do hate them. However, the reasons are very simple. Conservative- small c- views on morality are based on Christian morality. Without a firm basis there is no logical reason for them- they would be mere social constructs. Meaning, heteroseuxality was decided upon as "normal" so homosexuality is "abnormal". However, conservatives follow a traditional morality- which is based on the morality of the Bible. This is where we get our basis.

Also, practically speaking, the family is of great benefit to "society"- it encourages good morals, good behaviour, hard work, citizenship (if done correctly), whereas things like single parenthood, lives of crime etc... perpetuate social ills. A stable, productive, healthy country is only possible when people are healthy, productive and moral. Gay "marriage" is just another nail in the coffin.

The Government has every right to promote morality, and give benefits to those who follow a moral life. This is merely investing in good business. This is what Lady Thatcher did. And she made this country great.

Ian, you said: "Joe, you just want to mould society under pain of imprisonment and threat of taxation. Let's face it, you're a socialist."

If you fully read and understood what I said you will have realised that moulding society under pain of state punishment was the complaint I was making about "gay" politics... but you chose instead to imply the exact opposite: that my ideals include state punishment... and then to slander me using the term "socialist" and pigeonhole me by pronouncing that I am against freedom hahahaha - nice try Ian ... could do better next time...

... however - Thank you for so clearly and completely twisting my words to say something that I did not - it proves EXACTLY part of the point I was making: that the "gay" political movement tries to control speech and how we think! They have been so successful in this that for the general puble to say anything deemed "anti-gay" is now practically unthinkable... even when the facts are inarguable.

Ian, I take it you understand the idea of "Fashion" don't you... where children under peer pressure are "mind-controlled" into wearing exactly what their peers demand they wear... That , Ian is one form of the type of mind control used by Marxists and by the "Gay" movement and its political travellers.

I use the word "gay" in inverted commas because it is a word that can variously mean "happy", "homosexual", "openly homosexual"or part of a political movement that promotes homosexuality above everything else. I'm sure I make some mistakes in grammar- this is only a blog comment after all :)

Ian if you are going to destroy my argument please try to do so by using what I have written - not what you imagine I have written... you will have more success that way

Joe, I'm not part of the gay political movement. I just believe in equality in law and before the law. It's a hard call to say whether, now, gay people should be allowed to marry or we should abolish state recognition of marriage altogether.

Yes, that's right, I'm not part of the gay political movement, I'm not a marxist, heathite, calvinist or anything like that. So your point proves nothing about the gay political movement. I just answered name-calling with name-calling. It's hard to resist being childish now and again.

I also believe I should be free to discriminate against anyone I choose for whatever reason, or no reason at all, in my private business.

Joe, you're the one who started the whole Taliban line of insult, too.

You're the one who thinks that this will make society more gay. You're talking bollocks, mate.

And what gay policies are there that discrimnate against heterosexuals?

I really don't think that the world is going to fall in because a few men put their dicks somewhere that gives you high blood-pressure when you think about it.

As to the inverted commas, I meant that the idea of the 'movement' was questionable. I've never known gay men be able to organise anything.

Ian writes:

I've never known gay men be able to organise anything.

Well Alexander the Great managed to organise the conquest of the known world, not especially libertarian of him I know.

Well, Paul, he was bisexual, I believe. Can't remember who told me. Xenophon?

Maybe he was a bit more gay on his campaigns, at least on the march.

The organisation bit wasn't a serious remark, btw, just a camp subtext to it which doesn't work without gesture. Oh my God! Joe's right! It's the mind control! I'm being taken over!

Ian, look again at what you are writing ....

Once again in your comment you have implied that I have said things that I have not -

I made no assumption that you were either gay, gay or GAY or straight. That is your assumption. My implication was that you were working under a certain mindset. You have done nothing to change my opinion of that.

So what name calling of mine were you answering- with your name calling?

I did not "start" the whole Taliban line of insult....
I took the Taliban quip from Guy -who was using it against the argument for traditional marriage - and used it to show how it was more directly applicable to the "Gay" political movement - which I didn't call you or anyone else here a member of , but which because of your mindset you have taken offense at. That is your mind at work - look to yourself for your own answers on why you did that.

As to your assertion that the legal institution and PROMOTION of the "Gay" lifestyle will not make society any more "gay".... DUH!!!! Its going to make it more heterosexual then - yeahhhh !!!!!!

Ian - you have read my comments and leapt to conclusions because you believe that I have something against freedom of choice for homosexuals. I couldn't care tuppence for who does what consensually as long as they are adults.

My concern with "Gay" politics - i.e. "Gay" lifestyle and sexual promotion and "Gay" marriage - is where it is coercively enforced on the rest of us and where it is actively promoted among children.

The promotion of a political organisation amongst children is bad at the best of times - but one that also involves the promotion of homosexual preference and also promotes destruction of the heterosexual "Family" is very definitely WRONG.

Heterosexual Marriage provides the core for a stable base in which to raise children with direct access to male and female gender and all that entails.

Children's sexual preferences are maleable... all you have to do to increase the homosexual political core is to increase the number of children taught a homosexual preference. The SPARTANS created a whole society this way. Yet this is ignored - in fact - when it is brought up everyone seeks to deny it. WHY? - because anything that might offend the sensibilities of the "GAY" political spectrum is now seen as a crime.

Take a look at MARXIST and other totalitarian ideologies.... have a look at how they use children to further its ideology... then take another look at political homosexuality.

If you are happy that your children are being taught that homosexuality is not only RIGHT but preferable + a good way to REBEL against STRAIGHT parents.... that is your entitlement.
I am not happy with that any more than I am happy that they be taught to be MARXIST.

If you think that is bollocks - that is your entitlement but if you are going to argue about it... then as I said before - argue with me on what I have said... and provide demonstrable proof for doing so.... If you have a good argument I will be more than happy to learn from you - but to call my comment "bollocks" without backing up your own ideas with demonstrable facts is just HECKLING in the old Marxist tradition, and therefore not worth me bothering further with.

Ian,

You asked for "a real argument" but you didn't think very hard about the sociobiological one I made, did you?

Here it is another way.

Nature has no investment in homosexuals. It does not depend on homosexuals in any conceivable way. Nature depends upon and invests in child-bearing couples. In Europe those couples developed the institution of marriage - not, incidentally, for any of three reasons given by Johnathan Pearce but by the requirement for high childcare values as a survival strategy in food-scarce northern climes. Marriage is central to our psychological health and wellbeing.

The question then is: will it be compromised if an egalitarian homosexual agenda is forced upon it? Well, it should be immediately obvious that the force of its significance lies in its exclusivity. If marriage is reduced to just another lifestyle choice -as many libertarians as well as gay right activists seem to think it is already - so its bounty will be further ignored.

I would like to think that intelligent homosexuals were capable of grasping the need for an unselfish and respectful attitude towards marriage. But I have only heard the opposite from you.

Guy,

Your response to my comments above show that intelligent as you are - and I often admire your contributions on other matters - you start your adumbrations about yesterday morning at five past eight. Because Nature is in us and IS us you need to think back a further 100,000 years or so. Yes, yes, changes come and go and the world goes on, but our natures are eternal. We can make society free but we can never be free of ourselves. As true slaves to our sociobiology we need our folkways as much as anything you can name.

I ask you to understand that the incrementalism of the assault on marriage is very hard to oppose in each detail. But the totality is killing. So, decide your stance on the basis of where we were forty years ago and where we will be in, say, ten or twenty years time. Which do you think is healthier for men and women and, especially, children? And how important, compared to that, is social liberty?

Guessedworked writes:

'Nature depends upon and invests in child-bearing couples.'

Nature has no dependents nor does it invest in anything, this is just anthropomorpic fantasy.

'In Europe those couples developed the institution of marriage - by the requirement for high childcare values as a survival strategy in food-scarce northern climes.'

There seems to be plenty of food in the shops these days.

'Marriage is central to our psychological health and wellbeing.'

Interesting use of a non-sequitur here Guessedworked.

Really if this is the best that you gay baiters can come up with by way of argument we'll have managed to recruit all of your children to the dark side by the end of the week.

Guessedworker,

I have very great respect for marriage, straight couples who struggle through bad patches to bring up their children. Nothing I have said goes against that. I have not said whether or not I'm gay - that's supremely irrelevant (indeed, I've heard arguments from gay men against gay marriage).

I have shown my support of traditional marriage from the outset (4th or 5th post).

Where have I shown selfishness or disrespect, such as you accuse me of? What am I trying to grasp?

No one is talking about forcing an egalitarian homosexual agenda on anyone. The issue is one of allowing state recognition of gay marriage (civil unions).

STATE recognition. I am happy for society as a whole to think higher of straight marriage than of gay or childless marriage. I am happy for society, on the whole, to think bad of sex before marriage. But no preference or opinion or discrimination should be enshrined in law and bolstered by taxation. People can pay for what they value themselves.

Joe,

describe my mindset, then I'll know what position you're arguing from. I am very far from being a marxist, and I don't want the state to enforce ANY agenda, whether it's marriage or gayness or the need to drink water and exercise and not smoke and not drink (alcohol) to excess. That has been my position throughout this thread.

If you want to think I'm a proselytiser for any cause, then fine, I know nothing I can do will change that opinion.

The issues raised in the degeneration of this thread are quite different from the issue raised by Alex Singleton at the beginning.

Paul Coulam says: " if this is the best that you gay baiters can come up with by way of argument we'll have managed to recruit all of your children to the dark side by the end of the week. "

Yoda says: "stick light-saber in wrong hole and more than smell of crispy bacon, discover -you will"

Ian, your mindset in this thread has been one of assuming that any criticism of anything to do with homosexuality is a violation of libertarian ideals. Even your last sentence tries to make out that this argument is "degenerate" !!!

Do your really find something degenerate in questioning the reality of political debate... what political reasoning makes you think this is so?

What your intent was may have been very different than what you actually wrote... but that was the very reason for my original comment. People are so used to "protecting" homosexuality from whatever is perceived to be an attack on it that they no longer listen to valid argument.

Proselytising for a cause is not the case... the problem is in the use of language. It has become unacceptable for any language that is not pro-homosexuality to be treated as just and valid.

The joining of two same sex partners in an institutionalised marriage is obviously different to that of a traditional marriage in which two individuals of different sexes are joined to form a family... yet anyone who points out the differences is derided! The differences are obvious yet great ideological and linguistic distortions are being made to make them appear identical..... so why is does this happen?

We are told that is in the purpose of equality?????
To make two different things appera to be the same - is a GENERALISATION.... its a falsehood - in short it is a LIE.... to make the two different things look the same is to ACT out a game!

What purpose is there in this game?

Originally we were told that "homophobia" was institutionalised in the STATE! Now we have a case where homosexuality is being INSTITUTIONALISED WITHIN the STATE.. and argument against this is being stifled and derided!!!

What -no libertarian alarm bells ringing anywhere?

It's good to read so many happy lab rats, discussing their varied plans to reshape society. Confident. Radical. Based only on theory.

No need for testing, experimentation, confirmation, discovery of actual impacts.

I see little humility about the dangers and unexpected outcomes likely from rapid tinkering with basic social institutions.

Don't worry about these details. A greatly expanded government will absorb powers from the family and clean up any unpleasant impacts from your dreams.

Pls excuse the retching of your unwilling fellow lab rats, as we contimplate the future.

Ian, your mindset in this thread has been one of assuming that any criticism of anything to do with homosexuality is a violation of libertarian ideals. Even your last sentence tries to make out that this argument is "degenerate" !!!

Joe, this is not the case.

I've said discrimination is fine in the conduct of private business. I've not tried to stifle debate. The degeneration is one of argument, or rather a diversion from Alex's post.

I consider myself free to discriminate against gay people, married people, Jews, blacks, anyone in my own affairs and trade. I consider myself free to say they are vicious people. But I do not consider that I have the liberty to impose statutory discrimination against them.

Nor have I said that a gay marriage or civil union is a virtue, or a dog preaching on its hind legs, for that matter.

The state should butt out. Religion and society, mores, are what give marriage its special place in human relationships. That is a matter for a man or woman and their God or tradition, morals, expectations etc. I do not believe that religious institutions which have a problem with gay weddings should be compelled to conduct them.

Joe, of course I would not be happy if people were teaching my children homosexuality was preferable. I don't think anyone is, though. My children's growing up would be their own choice, with counsel from me.

Children are taught to eat their greens, too. But they follow their own tastes.

Listen, all this talk about nature is totally misguided.

Europeans did not invent marriage as a form of child production or whatever, they didn't invent marriage at all. Marriage- between a man and a woman- as defined in the West- comes from Genesis, the Bible, the Christian Bible.

The only way you can argue heterosexual marriage is natural is also the only way you can argue that human rights are inherent- i.e. given to us by a Higher Being (the Christian God). Otherwise, they are social constructs. As much as I love the old fashoned phrenology and nature "sciences" they don't hold water.

The practice of homosexuality is immoral, and it is immoral because the Bible tells us so. This is why conservatives oppose it. If only we lived in America it would all be very clear. Marriage, as defined by the Bible, is a man and a woman. Also, with the basis of the argument being the practice of homosexuality is wrong, anything- marriage, adoption by gays- that endorses this lifestyle is also wrong.

Furthermore, I am curious as to the original post's query about why social conservatives oppose gay marriage. I would have thought the fact they're social COSERVATIVES speaks for itself. I do hope he hasn't confused conservative with Conservative. Tut tut.

I would be interested in pointers to anyone making the argument that "homosexual marriage means that government spending has to go up". I might have seen one here or there, but I don't recall it, and I would love to be able to refer to it with authority.

Billy (if yer still reading the thread...):

I posted about an article by Maggie Gallagher on NRO a few weeks back. She makes that arguement.

Okay Paul, here's my bigoted, gay baiting, hate filled poisonous vile homophobic screed about why I am against gay marriage.

Societal institutions evolve for a purpose. Over time, we figure out what works and what doesn't. We've evolved the nuclear family - man, woman, child - because it meets a variety of needs. It wasn't a top-down event imposed by the Supreme Court or the EU. Women had a need for security and assistance in raising the child, men had a need to reproduce, and an urge toward insuring that their genese were carried on, and not the genes of some cuckolding lothario. So we developed this social pact. Much of our society is now organized around it, and when we damage the fundamental pact -- as in the case of welfare incentivizing single parenthood, illegitimacy and children as a cash crop -- we reap a terrible harvest. The decimated inner cities of the U.S. are proof of what happens when we delegitimize marriage and the nuclear family.

It's like most social institutions. They evolve more or less unconsciously, as group behavior, and then when they are in place, a bunch of philosophes come along and trash them, arguing that the philosophical trend of the moment just doesn't have room for such antiquated traditions.

Re-juggling the basic social unit to meet the passing fancies of the opinion elite is nothing short than social experimentation on a grand scale. As long as we are chucking out the basic organizing principles of society, is there anything else you'd like to get rid of?

Hey, I have an idea. Since the state knows more about child psychology than any one set of parents, let's have the state raise kids. Surely they'll do a better job of it than the parents could... we'll call the state "Romania."

And how 'bout letting the government run the economy. Why the latest in scientific, rationalist philosophy from Messrs. Marx and Trotsky indicates that the economy is scientific, and science tells us we can organize most efficiently if we have central planning. We'll call our new economic entity "USSR."

In fact, the very latest in Eugenics and race theory says that people will get along better if they are separated by type, by race and inclination; and if they have lots of room to live. And they will be healthier if the children are raised as vegans, and if the state takes a strong role in acculturating the young kids. But such a state must be very careful to root out the subversives. We'll call the new state organized along Margaret Sanger's lines, "The Third Reich."

My point being that both our social evolution and our traditional values are underpinnings of stability in society. All these faddish ideas, once thought to be perfectly sound by modern man, led to disastrous results.

Keep kicking out the underpinnings, re-organizing society based on faddish top-down notions, and let's see where it leads us in 20 or 40 years.

And oh by the way, what's to say 5 or 10 people shouldn't get married, not to mention horses and humans, or any other combinations? Why the hell shouldn't you be able to marry exactly who or what you want to? Please elucidate a clear legal and theoretical rationale that will (1) explain how the state could offer gay marriage without offering plural marriage, or indeed "interspecies marriage"; and (2) Please offer a rationale that will hold up on a permanent basis. After all, I presume you think it would be wildly unreasonable to allow plural marriage and/or interspecies marriage.

As one poster pointed out, 10 years ago it was tolerate gays, two years ago it was civil unions, today it's gay marriage, and by the way, don't say anything bad about it or we will vilify you... what's next, mandatory sodomy in 6 months?

No, really, you are progressive, tell me where exactly we are supposed to progress to on this gay rights issue. Where exactly shall we stop, so that we might go there immediately, then go no further?

Ian, What your mindset is - is clearly different to the stance you took when posting. The first two posts in response to my original comment showed that you had emotionally jumped to conclusions based on words you imagined I had written - not the words I actually wrote.

I'm glad you noticed my reuse of the word "degenerate"... I was trying to show you exactly how the stifling of debate can work... it is so easy; all you have to do is IMPLY.... therefore your opponent becomes guilty through implication and finds themselves having to defend what may be perfectly good argument.

That is exactly what is happening with the all debate on homosexuality... anyone who dares criticise any pro-homosexuality legislation is immediately made guilty of "hate-crime" by implication!

As for the "promotion" of homosexuality... Most of its promotion works by degrading,deriding or relabelling as irrelevant (etc...) all the old heterosexual references and institutions... e.g. family/marriage/childhood etc... and replacing them with genderless "equivalents" in which homosexuality is made to look fun, *natural*, appealing.

Some of it is subtle -some of it is quite blatant... but it isn't coming from public need or want it is being driven by political lobby groups through the MEDIA and STATE legislation.

As for children following their own tastes - I'm sorry but you are quite wrong - children follow what they have been taught directly or indirectly by their family, the state, or as is most often the case now.... by their peers via the media!

As one poster pointed out, 10 years ago it was tolerate gays, two years ago it was civil unions, today it's gay marriage, and by the way, don't say anything bad about it or we will vilify you... what's next, mandatory sodomy in 6 months?

No, really, you are progressive, tell me where exactly we are supposed to progress to on this gay rights issue. Where exactly shall we stop, so that we might go there immediately, then go no further?

An analogy:

<Begin>

As one poster pointed out, 10 years ago it was tolerate blacks, two years ago it was civil unions, today it's interracial marriage, and by the way, don't say anything bad about it or we will vilify you... what's next, mandatory miscegenation in 6 months?

No, really, you are progressive, tell me where exactly we are supposed to progress to on this civil rights issue. Where exactly shall we stop, so that we might go there immediately, then go no further?

<End>

The point: equating the ending of discriminatory practices against a group as being equivalent to promoting that group above others is absurd. Rather than ask: why should the gay lifestyle be encouraged? you should ask: why should the heterosexual lifestyle be mandated?

This still doesn't change my base position, though: end preferential treatment and legal recognition of marriage for everyone and the issue vanishe