That analogy is too simple with respect to marriage. By legally defining what something is, there is necessarily exclusion of other. This already happens with polygamists, etc. You have to download the paper to get the argument, but here is the single best exposition on the issue by the conservative side of the debate http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155 I'll cull for you the relevant part from page 7: "Any legal system that distinguishes marriage from other, nonmarital forms of association, romantic or not, will justly exclude some kinds of union from recognition. So before we can conclude that some marriage policy violates the Equal Protection Clause,12 or any other moral or constitutional principle, we have to determine what marriage actually is and why it should be recognized legally in the first place. That will establish which criteria (like kinship status) are relevant, and which (like race) are irrelevant to a policy that aims to recognize real marriages. So it will establish when, if ever, it is a marriage that is being denied legal recognition, and when it is something else that is being excluded."
The group mentioned in the article is also against gays getting any rights through civil unions, a position that Obama does not share.
I live and work next to a Chick Fil A so it's not as awesome as I once thought...the food. But this will not stop me from eating a spicy chicken sandwich, dip my waffle fries in ketchup/mayo mix, and down it with sweet tea.
Instead of cows with signs that say "Eat More Chicken" I fear we might start seeing gay dudes with signs in front of Chick-Fil-A that says "Eat More Beef."
that's easy: they practice intolerance and teach their children, who all have about a 10% statistical chance of being gay themselves, to hate another group for trying to enjoy the pursuits of happiness that the PA Family Institute gets to enjoy. considering they think they, and traditional marriage, are the ones under attack, they could simply let the notion top protect traditional marriage go, and their lives would be no different regardless. they want o meddle in other people's lives and change public policy to reflect their hypocritical agenda.
The problem with Polygamy is that by definition it isn't a marriage between two consenting adults. It is something else unlike gay marriage which like traditional marriage is a union between two consenting adults.
I don't have any objection of it would be between more, and that's what all the parties involved want, but that is still something different than a union between two consenting adults. If Polygamy was allowed it shouldn't be gender specific either.
So wanting marriage to be between a man and woman is equitable to preaching intolerance? Let me know if this position is intolerant: A group is concerned that society, through law, helps to define an institution. Marriage has some elements in it that are central to its definition: monogamous, heterosexual, procreative, the proper context for raising children, to last until death, a way for two to show their love for each other, etc. To redefine marriage to simply be about two showing their love for each other reduces a society's understanding of what marriage is. We actually have historical data for what happens when you start to mess with the different elements of marriage (take for instance no-fault divorce). The rise in the divorce rate after no fault divorce is partially attributable to people who were stuck in marriages that they just couldn't prove fault and get out of. This was the thesis of Marvell who wanted to prove that no-fault divorce did not have an effect on the divorce rate of states that had enacted them. Eventually he had to admit that the rise of no fault divorce was attributable to the rise in the divorce rate for the rest of society. (This is why I get super peeved at guys like Limbaugh talking about same-sex marriage when they themselves don't seem to understand what they are fighting for.) Who knows if the divorce rate can go higher? We might be at a point where it can't, where the conjugal view of marriage is lost. I think reducing the definition of marriage to just being about love (which is a very important aspect of marriage), is going to be followed with an even higher spike in the divorce rate. Do I think gay marriage will hurt my marriage, or that of my children's? No, not a chance. Society's? I think there is a strong argument that it will, with respect to the divorce rate.
It's intolerant because your entire definition is motivated not by what it defines, but what it excludes through that definition. No amount of sophistry can cover that up.
is there evidence of higher divorce rates among states/countries that permit homosexual marriages? I'm only asking cause I don't know.
This definition of marriage has pretty much been in place for awhile, in societies of all different religious and irreligious backgrounds. Saying what something is, i.e. defining in it in law, is not done with the motivation of excluding homosexuals from marriage. Traditional marriage is by its nature exclusive to homosexuals. Any inclusion of homosexuals within the concept of marriage necessarily changes the definition. As I argue, that negatively affects things society cares about, i.e. the divorce rate. I think society can help homosexuals get access to rights without affecting the traditional marriage regime, and without being discriminatory towards homosexuals. A homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are just going to be different, by definition. We should seek laws that help both succeed.
It's probably too early to tell. It took Marvell like 15-20 years of analyzing data to change his mind. Also, like I said before, who knows, we might have plateaued, i.e. all those who think marriage is distinctly something traditional are set in their ways. If that were the case, same-sex marriage certainly wouldn't hurt the divorce rate, but it certainly wouldn't help. If the divorce rate is something that concerns you ( I know it does me ), then fixing and highlighting marriage for something that it is should be a legitimate goal of society.
It's is not the government's role to define a religious / cultural institution. It needs to get out of the marriage business completely.
He has a point. Marriage is a religious institution that has been intermingled with government. I think the government should recognize civil unions and let religious groups have the word 'marriage'. This way, at least the benefits of being in a civil union is awarded to all.
