Posted by Strictly Skewed at 199.199.216.61 on February 19, 2004 at 14:31:20:
In Reply to: Here's a great article... posted by Ralphy ™ on February 19, 2004 at 11:25:44:
I am a firm believer in gay marriage, but there is one argument I'm not sure I have an answer for.
In the above article there is the quote: "The state has an interest in encouraging people to form loving partnerships, in which they can help each other through life, and to form homes that provide a financially and emotionally stable environment for raising children."
I tend to agree with this, and think this is the ONLY reason why governments should be involved in marriage. But by this definition, I think you can argue against gay marriage. The idea is, the government provides tax breaks, and other institutions such as health care provide breaks for married couples. Why? Main reason, because they are trying to encourage families. Many believe that the optimal family unit is biological father and mother raising children. So, if gay marriage is approved, then they feel that they're encouraging a less-than-optimal family (and for them, considerable less-than-optimal). Especially when you consider that these same people believe that homosexuality is a choice. Even if it's *not* a choice, what about bisexuals?
I think the only argument that I have against this would be what healthy homosexual couples add to society, especially since I don't believe homosexuality has anything to do with choice. However, this is a hard thing to prove, at least to someone who believes that homosexuality is ruining society.
Perhaps if someone does try to use this argument, the response should be that benefits should not be conferred until the couple actually *has* children, and then it can be retroactive. But that still opens up a whole kettle of fish if the gay couple adopts children.
I don't think 'love' should come into the argument at all. I don't believe that the government should try to get involved in issues of 'love'.
I don't agree with this argument, by the way. I think the benefit of a purely biological family is not significant enough to withold benefits from same-sex couples. But that's formed on an opinion, and I can't fault someone else for having a different opinion. Now, of course, the question begs, if you are going to withold benefits from same-sex couples, are you going to withold benefits from families where one parent is not the biological parent? Blah.
I just hope Gay Marriage becomes an accepted reality, and we can stop talking about it.