Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • Unknown Member

    Deleted User
    November 13, 2008 at 4:11 pm

    ORIGINAL: OculusPyramidis

    When a gay couple marries, no one suffers (except perhaps the couple).  There is no compelling reason to deny them the right to marry (and be just as miserable as a heterosexual couple), other than it is against the religious beliefs of some people.  A law banning gay marriage therefore violates the separation of church and state.  We should not allow the peculiar religious teaching of some religions dictate our laws.

    Now, in many cases laws are written for perfectly good secular reasons, and the laws happen to be in compliance with religious teachings.  As long as there is a good secular reason for a law, it is fine that the law is upheld.

    Here’s a secular reason for you: Why would a strictly secular government encourage relationships that can’t possibly reproduce and further the species?  I mean, the relationship between the man and his sheep that CT dude hypothesized is equally as likely to benefit the species in the long run as a homosexual relationship.  After all, the difference between a homosexual relationship and two same-sex roommates is sexual pleasure and “love”, neither of which benefit society as a whole.  Should the government give benefits to roommates since their relationship benefits society just as much?

    It seem to me that in a truly secular society, homosexuality would be prohibited, monogamy would be accepted, and polygamy would be highly encouraged as polygamy produces the highest number of offspring.

    There you go Jack.  Excellent.  Perpetuation of the species is potentially a completely legitimate reason why it is in the public interest to prohibit gay marriage, or for that matter, marriage wherein one of the people in the union is not fertile.  Woman over the age of 40 might be forbidden to marry on the basis that there is too great a risk of mutation.  However, we currently have problems with overpopulation, not underpopulation.  Things have changed a lot since the underpopulated days when the bible was written.  Also, as of several decades ago, procreation became somewhat unlinked to marriage.  It would make more sense to require or ban procreation, as China has done, if it were determined that it were necessary to take such measures.  Banning gay marriage is an ineffective means of making gay people procreate, if that is your goal (and it is obviously a pretty silly goal).

    Another problem is that many gay people actually often do have children, either from a previous heterosexual relationship, or else from adoption.  Homosexuals raise children just as heterosexuals do.  To say that homosexuals do not contribute to the perpetuation of the species is not accurate.

    In the eyes of the law, the issuance of a marriage license serves as evidence of the state of marriage, which is often subsequently useful to know or be able to prove for many different purposes.  Not issuing marriage licenses to people that effectively are living in a married state presents all kinds of problems.  The issuance of car titles is somewhat analogous.  Without car titles, disputes could occur between two people as to who is the actual owner of a car, who is responsible in the event of an accident, who is responsible for a traffic ticket, and so on.

    If the people who effectively live in a state of matrimony wish to document this, why should the state care what their sexual orientation is?  Gays have the same needs and rights to document their marriage as straights.  What happens when a gay couple with children breaks up and one of the parents becomes a deadbeat?  If the non-deadbeat parent takes the deadbeat to court, the deadbeat will say “we were never married”.  At this point, the non-deadbeat should be able to present a marriage license to prove the marriage.  However, if there is a crazy law in place that forbade that couple from obtaining a marriage license just because they both happened to have the same gender, there is a real problem for the court.  The court has to go on a fact-finding mission to ascertain whether or not a matrimonial/familial  relationship existed between the deadbeat, his spouse, and their children. 

    What if one gay spouse dies, and the survivor wishes to claim death benefits from the dead spouse’s employer or union?  The first thing the provider will ask for is a marriage license to prove that they were indeed married.  Now you have a dead breadwinner, starving children, and a surviving spouse who can not pay the bills.  Not good.

    Such problems could be avoided if gays were allowed to document their marriage just like any other couple in this country.  This should be obvious.  I don’t see what the big deal is.