Oh dear. Your friend needs to learn some history; not that long ago most places in this country had laws that made it illegal to serve alcohol to homosexuals, laws against gatherings of homosexuals, and (until 2003) laws against gay people having private, consensual sex. These were not “unwritten laws,” they were written and enforced and ruined many lives.

I have my own reservations about marriage in general, but believe that if the state is going to dole out favors (financial and legal) to people who form a household together and commit to take care of one another, that needs to be available to all. I’m not sure why it “irks” him it to see gay marriage compared to interracial marriage; the parallels are enormous. In both cases marriage was part of a system of laws designed to maintain an order in which a group of people were separate and unequal; in the case of interracial marriage, enforced segregation of races, and in the case of gay marriage, enforced second-class treatment of gay and lesbian citizens.

I never thought marriage was about “joining two people.. into one” which frankly is a creepy idea. I thought it was about two people committing to live their lives together, care for one another, and be responsible for one another’s welfare. I’m not sure what that has to do with their genders.

Oh Dear?

If you are claiming to know history so well then please be more specific. When were these laws you speak of what states were these laws you speak of and when and how were they enforced. The only thing I can think of is the situation in New York that prompted the gay pride movement.

When you speak of private sex are you referring to the anti sodomy laws? That has nothing to do with gay sex and more to do with kinky sex, not all gay people have sex in that manner and you didn’t have to be gay to be vulnerable to the anti sodomy laws.

Any comparison that gay people have with African Americans irks me. If you were black you would understand.

When you say your vows in a religious traditional manner you are joining into one union under God. Traditional vows are very specific, they even tell the woman she has to be a loyal servant to the man. How would that work with two men or two women?

Blacks were just as opposed to interracial marriage as whites so I disagree that the laws were by design to keep people separate and unequal. The majority of both races wanted to be separate in the area of family and marriage.

I think we agree that there needs to be a equal financial and legal footing for both but that has nothing to do with marriage in the traditional sense.

Let straight people have their traditional marriage.

The gay movement has come along way and there are many issues like drugs, aids, suicide that we should be more focused on.

“I think we agree that there needs to be a equal financial and legal footing for both but that has nothing to do with marriage in the traditional sense.”

That is the crux of the matter from my point of view.

The govt doesn’t certify first communion does it? How about Bar/Bat Mitzvahs? Confirmation? Baptism? So why is it the govt is involved in marriage?

It’s because the religious rite of ‘marriage’ brings special societal considerations with it. Obviously, rearing children, frequently cited in these arguments, is a significant part of that. But there’s more to it than that. A committed couple is a fundamental element of our society. So what’s clouding the discussion is that there’s a conflation between a social arrangement, commitment, and the religious observance of that arrangement. The govt has no business being involved in religious institutions and rites.

In 1993, the topic for a college english paper assignment was the question of whether gay marriage should be legal or not. My paper didn’t attempt to argue whether it should be legal or not. Instead, I expressed surprise that someone might consider it illegal. Much like the ‘activist’ judges have ruled, I found no persuasive argument that the law defined marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. My impression was that gay people simply never thought about the notion and no one had tried. Much like questioning whether it is illegal to build your own rocket and fly to the moon. Thankfully, this country does not operate from the standpoint that all things are illegal unless expressly authorized. Quite the opposite — though most people and cops tend to behave as if that is the case.

So I believe the govt should stop calling it marriage altogether and certify for legal/tax purposes and child welfare purposes any committed union between two people. ANY. A mother and daughter could get ‘married’ under my scenario. The church might not recognize it, but that’s not the point. The point is to look at marriage for societal purposes as a special form of incorporation. The point of allowing this particular arrangement of two and no more persons to form such a union is that two is a magic number for relationships. One is alone and must shoulder all burdens alone. Two are a team and carry each other’s burdens. Two are stronger than the sum of the individual parts. Two people complete and complement each other. Three or more people maybe can work for a select few, but there’s almost always politics, drama, backstabbing, and third wheel complexes at play. Frankly, I would have no issue with granting polygamists the right to socially incorporate as well, but I believe that three parents is generally a worse arrangement than one. So for anything related to child-rearing, I think the politics that might arise out of more than two parents would be harmful. What’s magic about two committed people, and so much better than one, is that a child gets to grow up seeing how two adults work through challenges and obstacles life throws them, how they help each other and are there for each other. It shows how teamwork helps with problem solving in a way a single parent simply can’t provide, all without the politics that comes with groups of people larger than 2.

So 2 is a magic number, and all you need are emotionally mature adults of any gender willing to commit to the endeavor.

So let’s start by not calling it ‘marriage’ as far as the govt is concerned. Then, let’s recognize any long-term two-person union as deserving of legal protection for inheritance, taxes, and child rearing. Finally, as to the question of forming unions of greater than 2 persons, I think the details and restrictions might have to differ, but that to me is something debatable, that I leave to defenders and detractors of polygamy to argue.

I don’t think any healthy two person union is debatable though. I just can’t see how the detractors have a logical leg to stand on. As to whether it’s traditional or not or what you want to call it, I say ‘bleh’ the govt is not here to certify religious rites or protect traditions.