Does contemporary America have a fundamental understanding of marriage?

Marriage in times long past was mainly an institution designed by the leadership to commit most of the men and women of society to a relationship so that the women would be commited to baby making during her prime years and to force the men to provide extra labor for society to procure the resources needed to take care of his family that he wouldn't be particularly motivated to do if he only had to look out for himself.

That being said, why is there a debate on homosexual marriage? Living together essentially serves the same purpose considering the existance of no fault divorce and those tax benefits are only useful for partnerships that actually produce offspring since both partners would presumably be self sufficient. I don't have an opinion on the matter either way, but looking at the debate from a logical and objective standpoint (i.e. not from an emotional appeal of the masses), the pro gay marriage sidewould sound pretty baseless if any of the Conservatives actually thought to point out these facts in the media instead of using an illogical emotional appeal as their primary argument. And speaking of the conservatives, wouldn't they be better served to campaign for the end of no fault divorce if they geniunely beleived in the importance of the institution to stem the amount of divorces and children with single parents?

In further regards to the gay marriage issue, even if gays deserve to be married on the grounds of emotional love,I honestly beleive that the whole argument in general is pretty pointless considering just how ineffectual the institution of marriage is in modern times. If anything, the gay debate actually distracts people from the real issue that marriage nowdoesn't offer a strong enough commitment to be beneficial for child raising thanks to no fault divorce. I don't really give a crap about gay marriage either way because marriage is so weak at this moment that it wouldn't matter. Both sides are at fault because marriage has been morphed into a relatively pointless institution in modern times and neither seems to address this

Marriage in times long past was mainly an institution designed by the leadership to commit most of the men and women of society to a relationship so that the women would be commited to baby making during her prime years and to force the men to provide extra labor for society to procure the resources needed to take care of his family that he wouldn't be particularly motivated to do if he only had to look out for himself.

That being said, why are homosexuals actually interested in marriage considering the funadmental purpose of the institution? Living together essentially serves the same purpose considering the existance of no fault divorce and those tax benefits are only usefulfor partnerships that actually produce offspring since both partners would presumably be self sufficient. I don't have an opinion on the matter either way, but looking at the debate from a logical and objective standpoint, the pro gay marriage side actually sounds pretty baseless if any of the Conservatives actually thought to point out these facts in the media instead of using an illogical emotional appeal as their primary argument. And speaking of the conservatives, wouldn't they be better served to campaign for the end of no fault divorce if they geniunely beleived in the importance of the institution to stem the amount of divorces and children with single parents?

rolfboy

Most people don´t view marriage as you have stated it to be, there are different reasons why people want to get married.

It´s not only about tax benefits, it´s also about social security that comes with marriage.

Who says that homosexuals can´t have children?

No. But, as you say, maybe that's because marriage doesn't have any real purpose any more.

[QUOTE="rolfboy"]

Marriage in times long past was mainly an institution designed by the leadership to commit most of the men and women of society to a relationship so that the women would be commited to baby making during her prime years and to force the men to provide extra labor for society to procure the resources needed to take care of his family that he wouldn't be particularly motivated to do if he only had to look out for himself.

That being said, why are homosexuals actually interested in marriage considering the funadmental purpose of the institution? Living together essentially serves the same purpose considering the existance of no fault divorce and those tax benefits are only usefulfor partnerships that actually produce offspring since both partners would presumably be self sufficient. I don't have an opinion on the matter either way, but looking at the debate from a logical and objective standpoint, the pro gay marriage side actually sounds pretty baseless if any of the Conservatives actually thought to point out these facts in the media instead of using an illogical emotional appeal as their primary argument. And speaking of the conservatives, wouldn't they be better served to campaign for the end of no fault divorce if they geniunely beleived in the importance of the institution to stem the amount of divorces and children with single parents?

Bourbons3

Technically speaking, only the Government and the Church can officially recognize a couple as married, they just don't particularlyCAREwhy a couple wants to get married nowadays, but that wasn't necessarily always the case. More antiquatedleaderships didn't really suscribe to theidea of love when they came up witht the concept of marriage, just an efficientsystem to produce more units for the labor force/military. It was only during the enlightenment period around the French Revolution where the idea of free will seriously came into being.

I don't necessarily disagree with you in respect to the importance of love in modern marriage, just with the notion that mutual love was an actual issue in the origins of marriage, especially consideringforced marriages in less industialized societies even today.

Marriage in times long past was mainly an institution designed by the leadership to commit most of the men and women of society to a relationship so that the women would be commited to baby making during her prime years and to force the men to provide extra labor for society to procure the resources needed to take care of his family that he wouldn't be particularly motivated to do if he only had to look out for himself.

That being said, why are homosexuals actually interested in marriage considering the funadmental purpose of the institution? Living together essentially serves the same purpose considering the existance of no fault divorce and those tax benefits are only usefulfor partnerships that actually produce offspring since both partners would presumably be self sufficient. I don't have an opinion on the matter either way, but looking at the debate from a logical and objective standpoint, the pro gay marriage side actually sounds pretty baseless if any of the Conservatives actually thought to point out these facts in the media instead of using an illogical emotional appeal as their primary argument. And speaking of the conservatives, wouldn't they be better served to campaign for the end of no fault divorce if they geniunely beleived in the importance of the institution to stem the amount of divorces and children with single parents?

rolfboy

The thing about historical or fundamental purposes or reasonings is that it tends to change over time. The Bible might have had the given purpose of scaring people into acting right, but now we have law and modern law enforcement to help with that, so the Bible now is used more as parables for teaching . Hunting was the only way to acquire meat, but now we have supermarkets and hunting has a broader purpose as sport and entertainment.

When two people are in love (bear with me) they instinctively want to be together, and not just one night. Marriage is a natural extension of that desire. To make a pact of monogamy and partnership DID help with the things you mentioned, but it grew to become a sanctmonious ritual. It's easy to say, "People ought not to make dicisions based on emotions, people ought to use common sense and logic." However, it's a lot harder to do that. If it was so easy all the wars and battles started over a woman would never have happened.

I agree with your sentiment, but it's just not that simple. I also agree about divorce. If it was harder to get one, people would be a lot more cautious about entering marriage.

because your meaning of marriage don't exist in this world no more. second. and if you think living together in America(idk anywhere else) is the same as a marriage then your mistaking... their are many benifits to being marriage.

like

bigger tax returns

when one person pass away you get rights to belonging unless a will says else wise... if a person dose not have will and no wife/husband/kids. the items can end up being taken in control by the government and a judge has to issue the items to family issues. can turn into a big mess

there is more but not off my head

what i don't understand why dose matter who gets married if they love each other and wish to live together for many years.

if it don't hurt you then shut up(i say this about any issue)

Marriage in times long past was mainly an institution designed by the leadership to commit most of the men and women of society to a relationship so that the women would be commited to baby making during her prime years and to force the men to provide extra labor for society to procure the resources needed to take care of his family that he wouldn't be particularly motivated to do if he only had to look out for himself.

That being said, why are homosexuals actually interested in marriage considering the funadmental purpose of the institution? Living together essentially serves the same purpose considering the existance of no fault divorce and those tax benefits are only usefulfor partnerships that actually produce offspring since both partners would presumably be self sufficient. I don't have an opinion on the matter either way, but looking at the debate from a logical and objective standpoint, the pro gay marriage side actually sounds pretty baseless if any of the Conservatives actually thought to point out these facts in the media instead of using an illogical emotional appeal as their primary argument. And speaking of the conservatives, wouldn't they be better served to campaign for the end of no fault divorce if they geniunely beleived in the importance of the institution to stem the amount of divorces and children with single parents?

rolfboy

This is either untrue of modern marriage or the institution as we know it is crappily designed (which it is), because there are no legal conditions requiring the couple to produce offspring or adopt.

Assuming it IS true that this is the "current purpose" of marriage, this would still give same-sex marriages a basis for claiming equal legal status to opposite-sex marriage... because same-sex marriages can adopt children and artficially inseminate.

However, I would like to point out one of the implications of your viewpoint regarding marriage's "purpose" - if it really is an economically/politically driven institution, then the concept of the sanctity of marriage is invalid.

women are more inclined to compete with each other for men with higer status than go after some younger guy with little to his name ...rolfboy

I disagree with this.

much of a nation's strentgh is dependent on its ability to control the masses; a nation wouldn't be as strong if a young man had little incentive to stay after he grew up beyond sheer patriotism.rolfboy

I completely agree with this.

Like I said, marriage began with an emotional concept, and it's merely evolved since then. It's ALWAYS been based on emotion, so marriage will differ from place to place. The rules governing it, the consequences of breaking it, and the reasons behind it.

What you say about society being stronger with marriage is true only when marriage is a strong contract. When it isn't it isn't a "crumbling of the underpinings of society" as so many say, it's merely indicative of a need for marriage reform. I say either make it easier to enter into or harder to get out of.

Also, if women couldn't see the potential in a young man over an established older man, we would be doomed.

You do realise that we are not living in the past any more? Just because something was one way in the past does not mean it can't be something different in the future. The fact that a homosexual couple can raise a family makes your point pretty irrelevant in modern society. On any account marriage now is more about what the actual couple wants, and less about what government wants.

[QUOTE="rolfboy"]

Marriage in times long past was mainly an institution designed by the leadership to commit most of the men and women of society to a relationship so that the women would be commited to baby making during her prime years and to force the men to provide extra labor for society to procure the resources needed to take care of his family that he wouldn't be particularly motivated to do if he only had to look out for himself.

That being said, why are homosexuals actually interested in marriage considering the funadmental purpose of the institution? Living together essentially serves the same purpose considering the existance of no fault divorce and those tax benefits are only usefulfor partnerships that actually produce offspring since both partners would presumably be self sufficient. I don't have an opinion on the matter either way, but looking at the debate from a logical and objective standpoint, the pro gay marriage side actually sounds pretty baseless if any of the Conservatives actually thought to point out these facts in the media instead of using an illogical emotional appeal as their primary argument. And speaking of the conservatives, wouldn't they be better served to campaign for the end of no fault divorce if they geniunely beleived in the importance of the institution to stem the amount of divorces and children with single parents?

Barbariser

This is either untrue of modern marriage or the institution as we know it is crappily designed (which it is), because there are no legal conditions requiring the couple to produce offspring or adopt.

Assuming it IS true that this is the "current purpose" of marriage, this would still give same-sex marriages a basis for claiming equal legal status to opposite-sex marriage... because same-sex marriages can adopt children and artficially inseminate.

However, I would like to point out one of the implications of your viewpoint regarding marriage's "purpose" - if it really is an economically/politically driven institution, then the concept of the sanctity of marriage is invalid.

I never really said that this was the current purpose of marriage, just the primary motivation for the creation of the institution in human history. As for the last sentence, marriages are admittedly founded on love whenever decided between two individuals. But in earlier times, marriages were often orgainzed by two entire families rather than the children, which supports the idea of marriage originally being more ecomonically or politically driven.

Note that I don't advocate going back to that system, but if we want to fix marriage today,we would need a better understanding on the reasoning behind why marriage and the laws and cultural values surrounding it were designed the way they were in earlier times, like general viability as a reasonable incentive, nature of the sexuality ofboth genders, and general importance to society as a whole. No fault divorce is an absolutely big issue to combat when you consider the phrase, "To death do us part" for starters.

@Wasn'tAvailable-Only the Government and the church can officially recognize marriage so their interests do count to some extent as marriage isn't an inherent right. But that aside, I actually agree that the current way in which marriage is recognized legally largely has no real basis for the bias against gays. But again, I'm of the opinion that the system today is superficial at best and really serves no purpose other than legal benefits considering the huge amounts of divorces; gay marriage wouldn't really work with a more traditional system as they would only be able to have children through adoption or through a sperm donor/surrogate mom. Although, if a society doesn't particularly CARE about the birthrate of its population and the general ethnic composition of its people, then I admit there is no true reason to have a ban against gay marriage.rolfboy

You're ignoring that people get married to enhance their relationship and to give it more security. Whether marriage is an inherent right or not is largely irrelevant, people don't get married entirely for the legal benefits any more, and if the government would be against allowing a marriage based on an ability to reproduce then there would be an uproar until it did become an inherent legal right. They may have got married for more cynical reasons in the past, but that's a very cold and old fashioned way of thinking. Marriage is more about ceremony than anything else now. Some people might not take marriage seriously, and would eventually end up in a divorce as a result of that, but those are the people who should never have taken that responsibility in the first place if they were not ready to accept what it would entail, and there are pretty harsh consequences in the event of a divorce. For others marriage is there to enforce a commitment between a couple, and to create a stronger bond between the two.

[QUOTE="rolfboy"]@Wasn'tAvailable-Only the Government and the church can officially recognize marriage so their interests do count to some extent as marriage isn't an inherent right. But that aside, I actually agree that the current way in which marriage is recognized legally largely has no real basis for the bias against gays. But again, I'm of the opinion that the system today is superficial at best and really serves no purpose other than legal benefits considering the huge amounts of divorces; gay marriage wouldn't really work with a more traditional system as they would only be able to have children through adoption or through a sperm donor/surrogate mom. Although, if a society doesn't particularly CARE about the birthrate of its population and the general ethnic composition of its people, then I admit there is no true reason to have a ban against gay marriage.WasntAvailable

You're ignoring that people get married to enhance their relationship and to give it more security. Whether marriage is an inherent right or not is largely irrelevant, people don't get married entirely for the legal benefits any more, and if the government would be against allowing a marriage based on an ability to reproduce then there would be an uproar until it did become an inherent legal right. They may have got married for more cynical reasons in the past, but that's a very cold and old fashioned way of thinking. Marriage is more about ceremony than anything else now. Some people might not take marriage seriously, and would eventually end up in a divorce as a result of that, but those are the people who should never have taken that responsibility in the first place if they were not ready to accept what it would entail, and there are pretty harsh consequences in the event of a divorce. For others marriage is there to enforce a commitment between a couple, and to create a stronger bond between the two.

Major point that I must point out, marriage serves as a relationship builder forthe common citizenry and pretty much always has after they got rights. Mycynicalanalysisis more of an issue for the leaders and businessmen who oversee how society is run. Note how much conservative leaders (anddemocrat leaders to a lesser extent) go on about marriage in the media. Consider the impending retirement of the baby boomers; more young people could help not onlyin regards to taking care of them, but for contributing taxes to fund the bloated healthcare system. It doesn't effect most of us beyond our taxes, but for Washington, they will need more babies. Washington wants more people to marry and to have kids, but the current system of marriage is very weak in respect to no fault divorce and the cultural indifference towards adultery; studying as to how it worked in times pastwould helpin providing ideas on how to fix it.

If I didn't make this distinction apparent in my earlierposts then I apologize.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

[QUOTE="rolfboy"]@Wasn'tAvailable-Only the Government and the church can officially recognize marriage so their interests do count to some extent as marriage isn't an inherent right. But that aside, I actually agree that the current way in which marriage is recognized legally largely has no real basis for the bias against gays. But again, I'm of the opinion that the system today is superficial at best and really serves no purpose other than legal benefits considering the huge amounts of divorces; gay marriage wouldn't really work with a more traditional system as they would only be able to have children through adoption or through a sperm donor/surrogate mom. Although, if a society doesn't particularly CARE about the birthrate of its population and the general ethnic composition of its people, then I admit there is no true reason to have a ban against gay marriage.rolfboy

You're ignoring that people get married to enhance their relationship and to give it more security. Whether marriage is an inherent right or not is largely irrelevant, people don't get married entirely for the legal benefits any more, and if the government would be against allowing a marriage based on an ability to reproduce then there would be an uproar until it did become an inherent legal right. They may have got married for more cynical reasons in the past, but that's a very cold and old fashioned way of thinking. Marriage is more about ceremony than anything else now. Some people might not take marriage seriously, and would eventually end up in a divorce as a result of that, but those are the people who should never have taken that responsibility in the first place if they were not ready to accept what it would entail, and there are pretty harsh consequences in the event of a divorce. For others marriage is there to enforce a commitment between a couple, and to create a stronger bond between the two.

Major point that I must point out, marriage serves as a relationship builder forthe common citizenry and pretty much always has after they got rights. Mycynicalanalysisis more of an issue for the leaders and businessmen who oversee how society is run. Note how much conservative leaders (anddemocrat leaders to a lesser extent) go on about marriage in the media. Consider the impending retirement of the baby boomers; more young people could help not onlyin regards to taking care of them, but for contributing taxes to fund the bloated healthcare system. It doesn't effect most of us beyond our taxes, but for Washington, they will need more babies. Washington wants more people to marry and to have kids, but the current system of marriage is very weak in respect to no fault divorce and the cultural indifference towards adultery; studying as to how it worked in times pastwould helpin providing ideas on how to fix it.

If I didn't make this distinction apparent in my earlierposts then I apologize.

That makes more sense then, I thought you meant it was superficial in all regards. It would probably be impossible trying to make any significant changes to the current system of marriage without strong opposition. You could further penalise those who end up divorcing more than once, but that might be seen as an impediment of peoples freedom, and it also penalises those who are put in genuinely bad circumstances. I don't think it's that big an issue at the moment, because the population is increasing anyway, and it's not as if people can afford not to work in these conditions. That is unless they are living off benefits, but that's an entirely different issue.

I personally have no desire whatsoever to get married. I don't beleive there is any reason to whatsoever to do so. (with the obvious exception of personal religious beliefs) I don't feel a relationship needs to be validated by law to be more sincere. Sincerity should come form within the relationship. not from anyone without, especially not a complete stranger who prounounces you more connected than you were five minutes ago.

Same-sex marriage shouldn't be blocked because of what marriage meant 100 years ago. Bourbons3

Bourbons, I was wondering about same-sex divorce rate in countries that allow marriage. How does it compare?

Because marriage, like most things, has evolved since then. The reason you stated is not the reason why people do so today. People who get married today (the ones who get married for the right reasons that is) do it for love or they do it to symbolize their love to the world by saying you're the only one I want to be with for the rest of my life.

Marriage has evolved. I'd say it's time people evolve their idea of it to fit with the way it has evolved.

Yes, they have. And they will arguing with you because they really don't understand the PURPOSE behind the term fundamental. Some people may think of marriage as a game or a tra-la-la happy fun time invented for their personal entertainment but that has nothing to do with fundamental. "For better or for worse until death do you part." Why would they have to put that in there? Because they are telling you it's a contract of obligations. Marriage has lost it's purpose and it's meaning.

Marriage is obsolete. There are no more times of focusing irresponsible people to be responsible. Long ago if you knocked a woman up you were expected to take care of her and your child no matter what. If you wanted to fool around and have sex you were expected to take responsibility for it. That's why marriage was designed. There was no running away.

Marriage is obsolete because these days people just have abortions, put it up for adoption or... throw it in a dumpster. If they won't instinctivelycommit to anything and no one forces to commit to anything marriage doesn't have a purpose. They would actually make people get married at gun point. Nobody was allowed to escape it. In some places they still do it. It's either take responsibility or take a load of shot.

Marriage in times long past was mainly an institution designed by the leadership to commit most of the men and women of society to a relationship so that the women would be commited to baby making during her prime years and to force the men to provide extra labor for society to procure the resources needed to take care of his family that he wouldn't be particularly motivated to do if he only had to look out for himself.

rolfboy

Who were these people?

Marriage used to be about economic stability for families... but now its about love. If the majority of heterosexual marriages end in divorce... then what's so great about that? Why can't homosexuals give it a try? Marriage instills rights that no other form of relationship can, especially when it comes to kids. As common law, you don't get full custody of children if there is an accident and one partner dies... nor do you gain monetary reimbursement from the government to help support the children. And on top of that, can homosexual couples even apply for common law?

I don't see why the government should be involved with marriage in the first place. It's really more significant as a religious thing anyway. They should just remove any legal benefits and stop giving out licenses and recognizing it as a legal contract. Equality for everyone.Laserwolf65

Marriage in America is quite a failing practice. Just look at these divorce rates.:o

Marriage used to be about economic stability for families... but now its about love. If the majority of heterosexual marriages end in divorce... then what's so great about that? Why can't homosexuals give it a try? Marriage instills rights that no other form of relationship can, especially when it comes to kids. As common law, you don't get full custody of children if there is an accident and one partner dies... nor do you gain monetary reimbursement from the government to help support the children. And on top of that, can homosexual couples even apply for common law?

foxhound_fox

Aren't the majority of divorces financially related?

[QUOTE="Laserwolf65"]I don't see why the government should be involved with marriage in the first place. It's really more significant as a religious thing anyway. They should just remove any legal benefits and stop giving out licenses and recognizing it as a legal contract. Equality for everyone.Serraph105

I'm sure there will be churches that allow marriage. I'm with him, the government shouldn't be involved. You know why? Because then we have huge debates over whether it should be "legal" or not for gays to get married, and when the government decides one way or another they are going to have TONS of people angry at them.

But in reality marriage is one of the most pointless traditions in todays society. Unless you do it because you think you are committing something to your god, then there is no meaning at all behind it. You walk up to the person performing the marriage, say some meaningless words that have been said BILLIONS of times, put on a ring that was probably produced in a factory in china, and you are somehow committed to the person you are marrying? No, there is no reason for marriage. It doesn't stop divorce, it doesn't stop fighting, it doesn't stop irresponsibility, it doesn't stop cheating, and it doesn't add some kind of committment that you wouldn't have had before it. When you get married you say some words and walk back down the aisle literally the exact same as you were when you walked up it. Marriage doesn't cement anything between the two people being married that shouldn't have been there in the first place. If two people are committed to each other and love each other then getting married should not be needed.

Marriage in times long past was mainly an institution designed by the leadership to commit most of the men and women of society to a relationship so that the women would be commited to baby making during her prime years and to force the men to provide extra labor for society to procure the resources needed to take care of his family that he wouldn't be particularly motivated to do if he only had to look out for himself.

That being said, why are homosexuals actually interested in marriage considering the funadmental purpose of the institution? Living together essentially serves the same purpose considering the existance of no fault divorce and those tax benefits are only usefulfor partnerships that actually produce offspring since both partners would presumably be self sufficient. I don't have an opinion on the matter either way, but looking at the debate from a logical and objective standpoint, the pro gay marriage side actually sounds pretty baseless if any of the Conservatives actually thought to point out these facts in the media instead of using an illogical emotional appeal as their primary argument. And speaking of the conservatives, wouldn't they be better served to campaign for the end of no fault divorce if they geniunely beleived in the importance of the institution to stem the amount of divorces and children with single parents?

rolfboy

That is in fact WRONG.. The main purpose of marriage origionally was to garner and secure power and blood lines for nobility.. Where marriage was chosen by the heads of both families.. Furthermore the first part is extremely sexist in that this is the 21st century.. Women do not always stay home to make babies, they can work and support themselves as a family.. Sometimes the men often enough are the ones that take home to take care of the children often times..

I think the better question is do YOU have a fundamental understanding of marriage?

Marriage:

a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons :wedlockc: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

This is Webster's direct definition of the word Marriage. Your definition may be the result of a flawed perspective, but in reality this seldom works.

I think the better question is do YOU have a fundamental understanding of marriage?

Marriage:

a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage b: the mutual relation of married persons :wedlockc: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

This is Webster's direct definition of the word Marriage. Your definition may be the result of a flawed perspective, but in reality this seldom works.

starfox15

Interesting to see (2) in there. Still, this is largely tautology. I don't think TC was actually looking for a definition of the word, but its relevance to contemporary society.

I'm not sure it really matters. People in general do not make decisions base on careful analyses and contemplation, especially not when it comes to what marriage means, contemporary or fundamentally speaking

. . .No couple really has the right to get married. . .

. . .No couple really has the right to get married. . .Theokhoth

Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a right, and what you call "benefits" are legally considered rights, not benefits of marriage; married couples are ENTITLED TO them; ergo, they are rights.

[QUOTE="rolfboy"]

Marriage in times long past was mainly an institution designed by the leadership to commit most of the men and women of society to a relationship so that the women would be commited to baby making during her prime years and to force the men to provide extra labor for society to procure the resources needed to take care of his family that he wouldn't be particularly motivated to do if he only had to look out for himself.

That being said, why are homosexuals actually interested in marriage considering the funadmental purpose of the institution? Living together essentially serves the same purpose considering the existance of no fault divorce and those tax benefits are only usefulfor partnerships that actually produce offspring since both partners would presumably be self sufficient. I don't have an opinion on the matter either way, but looking at the debate from a logical and objective standpoint, the pro gay marriage side actually sounds pretty baseless if any of the Conservatives actually thought to point out these facts in the media instead of using an illogical emotional appeal as their primary argument. And speaking of the conservatives, wouldn't they be better served to campaign for the end of no fault divorce if they geniunely beleived in the importance of the institution to stem the amount of divorces and children with single parents?

sSubZerOo

That is in fact WRONG.. The main purpose of marriage origionally was to garner and secure power and blood lines for nobility.. Where marriage was chosen by the heads of both families.. Furthermore the first part is extremely sexist in that this is the 21st century.. Women do not always stay home to make babies, they can work and support themselves as a family.. Sometimes the men often enough are the ones that take home to take care of the children often times..

I can agree with the first part admittedly, marriage wasn't available to the main populace for a long time after it was initially conceived. Only with the serious taboo against adultery did marriage really become a true social institution. Though in fairness, you acknowledged that marriage was more of a business transaction rather than a union on the basis of love, even if we disagree with the specifics.

But as for the second part, though either a man or a woman (or both for that matter) can work to earn a living for their families, it is pretty much common knowledge that only men accept the really dangerous and uncomftorable jobs. It doesn't particularly matter which parent is the breadwinner for the family, but society as a whole benefits from more young men going into jobs like infastructure and manufacturing (though this one is being shipped out en mass) who most likely wouldn't go into these tough fields without a family to feed and very, very few women go into those types of fields at all. Marriage currently has more problems than the male-female dynamic, but those traditional gender roles did serve societies in the past well. In fact, soceity still holds men to their gender roles of productiveness, commitment, and stoicism in the face of adversity though to increasingly less effectiveness these days.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

. . .No couple really has the right to get married. . .QuetzaIcoatl

Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a right, and what you call "benefits" are legally considered rights, not benefits of marriage; married couples are ENTITLED TO them; ergo, they are rights.

[QUOTE="QuetzaIcoatl"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

. . .No couple really has the right to get married. . .Theokhoth

Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a right, and what you call "benefits" are legally considered rights, not benefits of marriage; married couples are ENTITLED TO them; ergo, they are rights.

It's all about equal rights. The institution of marriage was meant to create a stable environment in which to bear and raise children. However, in a broader sense, marriage is about allowing 2 people to commit to one-another for life. There are lots of heterosexual married couples who never have kids, and there are many homosexual couples who adopt kids that nobody else wants. I don't see any problem with gay marriage, and this is coming from a conservative.UT_Wrestler

No fault divorce, dude. Marriage really isn't much of a commitment when people can just break up like that.

In regards to the gay marriage issue, I honestly beleive that the whole argument in general is pretty pointless considering just how ineffectual the institution of marriage is in modern times. If anything, the gay debate actually distracts people from the real issue that marriage nowdoesn't offer a strong enough commitment to be beneficial for child raising thanks to no fault divorce. I don't really give a crap about gay marriage either way because marriage is so weak at this moment that it wouldn't matter. I need to put this in the opening post so people understand my argument more.

I'd say it's time gay marriage is made legal. Marriage is more of a law vs a religious thing, and the law should be equal for everyone (even though it isn't) but still. Funny though homosexuality is illegal in my country and openly gay persons can be barred from entering, but for the most part we ignore that stuff but they can't remove those laws because it would political suicide for the party that does it due to the more ignorant crowd, as well as the older crowd.