Quote:
Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The answer is twofold. Noting that a gay union will not produce offspring we then ask why do they needed to enter into the institution of marriage is the first place? Note that I say this in light of my earlier point in this post that starts with "I can agree with" several paragraphs up. Secondly, once marriage is redefined the basis for defending it is lost. We already accept certain restrictions on marriage (blood-relatives, group marriage, etc.), but those restrictions are built off the notion that they are prohibited as unaligned with the specific policy goal of responsible child rearing. Note that "unaligned with" is NOT the same as "opposed to."
Allowing gay marriage would be a relatively minor change, but the effects would be legally far reaching as it would be a complete concession that the definition is subject to change. As I've already said several times, the gay marriage debate is really only one microcosm in the overall discussion on the integrity and preservation of marriage as a social institution. This is a wide discussion which includes many related issues such as no-fault divorce, polygamy, and even multiple-parenthood (see my original post for a link on SB 1476).
Redefining marriage to be more inclusive sets up a domino effect that will have legal ramifications because it redefines existing legal structures, titles, and inherent rights.
No one is seriously arguing that some rights should not exist, such as the ability to have a legally recognized partnership that allows things like inheritance, (medical) power of attorney, and so on. Marriage however, is accompanied by those powers; it does not concern them. That is the locus of the controversy; you cannot make it into something it is not.
|
as to your first concern, modern society provides for the adoption of children for the non-child bearing. whereas romance between a man and woman was once the sole impetus for parenthood, it is not any longer. homosexuals, both single and in relationships, can and do adopt children with some degree of frequency.
marriage is beneficial to society for all the reasons you have enumerated. for sake of argument, i will even concede the dubious notion that, on the aggregate, results would improve if every born child were the product of a married man and woman. but that is clearly and demonstrably not the case. many children are born into unstable and dangerous circumstances. others still are born into stability and thrust into instability as their parents succumb to tragedy. these children are funneled into a system of adoption.
the united states has more needy children in undesirable living situations than quality environments to place them in. as such, societal goals should focus not only on promoting a nuclear family that can produce and provide for its own children. society should also promote the formation of as many stable, enduring family units as possible, with an eye toward improving the lots of adopted children and children placed within legal guardianships. in short, a stable family unit is a societal benefit worth promotion, whether or not that family unit is traditionally fertile. the bounds of fertility are no longer a significant obstacle to child rearing.
as to your second concern, i find it disingenuous. there is no slippery slope. a revision of the definition of marriage to include a desirable, comparable, common, but heretofore taboo relationship does not invite further expansion unless that further expansion is similarly beneficial to society. each on its own merits. the examples you are raising are either exceptionally rare, non-beneficial (or detrimental) to society, or materially different from an expansion to include homosexual relationships. polygamy involves a slew of issues that would subvert the intended societal benefits of marriage. to be brief, it would almost certainly increase the number of single parent households while decreasing paternal investment in child rearing. incest is unhealthy for the child. cases of intended 3-person marriage are exceptionally rare.