Gay marriages... dictated by religious authorities

[Peter666]

"It is not taking anything away"

Marriage is recognized by the State because it sees the propagation of children as necessary and beneficial to the future of the state. State recognition and support of marriage is a not a "right" meant to only please the couple involved.

[vhawk01]

There is almost no possible way that THAT is the reason marriage is recognized by the state.

[revots33]

From Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed.:

[ QUOTE ]
marriage: The legal union of a couple as husband and wife. The essentials of a valid marriage are 1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, 2) mutual consent or agreement, and 3) an actual contracting in the form required by law. Marriage has important consequences in many areas of the law, such as torts, criminal law, evidence, debtor-creditor relations, property, and contracts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be missing the part about propagation of the species.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
There is almost no possible way that THAT is the reason marriage is recognized by the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the practice of civilizations for five thousand years would counter that. But I would like to hear your argument against.

[vhawk01]

You think that the reason that, in the United States, we recognize marriage as distinct from other types of unions, is based on propagation of the species? In a country where there are so many children born out of wedlock? Isn't it far more likely that it is simply a holdover from our religious (Puritanical) and historical roots? In other words, you may be correct about the origins of the institution of marriage, but there is almost no practical application of that in this country, today.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the practice of civilizations for five thousand years would counter that. But I would like to hear your argument against.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that producing children is often a side effect of marriage, and that the government generally supports this side effect. (Usually, but not always - as in China's 1-child policy.)

It is not, however, the legal basis for marriage nor is it the condition that gives people the "right" to get married. The legal protections of marriage are granted to all married couples whether they have children or not. And it is the legal protections that gays want. And what the OP was talking about.

Or perhaps we should amend the law so that all fertile couples must sign a binding agreement to have children, or else their marriage application will be denied. Why should a woman have the right to decide whether she wants to bear children, anyways?

[Peter666]

"but there is almost no practical application of that in this country, today."

This is probably true. So why should we even have state recognized marriage to begin with, and why do gays need it?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
From Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed.:

[ QUOTE ]
marriage: The legal union of a couple as husband and wife. The essentials of a valid marriage are 1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, 2) mutual consent or agreement, and 3) an actual contracting in the form required by law. Marriage has important consequences in many areas of the law, such as torts, criminal law, evidence, debtor-creditor relations, property, and contracts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be missing the part about propagation of the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and so do the gays. They are able to make private contracts amongst themselves anyways. Why marriage?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"but there is almost no practical application of that in this country, today."

This is probably true. So why should we even have state recognized marriage to begin with, and why do gays need it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are asking two completely different questions. Marriage, in the legal sense, serves to bind two people who choose to join, in terms of finances, etc., and also infers certain legal rights, i.e. medical decisions. In that regard, I suppose it is at least useful, if not necessary. However, I wouldn't be absolutely opposed to getting rid of marriage as a LEGAL or state-sponsored entity. Leave it to those who want it.

Why do gays want it? For exactly the reasons above.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From Black's Law Dictionary, 8th ed.:

[ QUOTE ]
marriage: The legal union of a couple as husband and wife. The essentials of a valid marriage are 1) parties legally capable of contracting to marry, 2) mutual consent or agreement, and 3) an actual contracting in the form required by law. Marriage has important consequences in many areas of the law, such as torts, criminal law, evidence, debtor-creditor relations, property, and contracts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be missing the part about propagation of the species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and so do the gays. They are able to make private contracts amongst themselves anyways. Why marriage?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think mostly this is wrong. I think that MOST gay couples want marriage for the practical reasons. You say they can 'already make contracts' but I am not sure that is accurate. There are numerous cases of families taking over the right to make medical decisions, despite clearly laid out agreements between the parties, simply because they aren't married. We as society put special emphasis on the marriage, and gays cannot currently enjoy the benefits of that emphasis.

However, I am sure there are also gay couples who want gay marriage for more symbolic and emotional reasons. Perhaps they simply want to be able to avail themselves of the things that other people enjoy. I mean, what if we had 'marriage' and then, exactly the same legally but only used for specific people, we had 'fat marriage.' Its exactly the same, we just wont call it marriage, because its kind of gross. I don't see what these silly fat people are getting so worked up about, I mean, jeez, they get the same benefits!