You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
A counterintuitive case against gay marriage.
"Imagine two dear friends of the same sex, or a brother and sister who live together. Although their relationships would not involve sex, they might find it advantageous to enjoy the legal and economic privileges of marriage. Why would their claim for these benefits be any less reasonable than the claims of homosexual couples?"
We have laws of consanquinity which prohibit relatvies from marrying. We have them because the state has an interest in protecting the universal gene pool. So that takes care of your first objection.
As for two same sex "friends" who don't have sex together but want to marry? Gosh, is there some law forcing all married people to have sex? Why would that be anyone's business but the couples', whether opposite sex or same sex?
Well, I made to the beginning of the second paragraph before the author put out the usual false statement that marriage is for the procreation of children. Are all Catholics so scientifically challenged? A marriage license has never been required to procreate, just ask any high school kid.
Motivations for marriage are irrelevant; friends in the past have married to access numerous benefits without romantic interest. This idea - that marriage exists solely for procreation - has been forwarded numerous times over the last decade but never supported by reasoning - "Marriage is for procreation because only a man and a woman can make a child" is an assertion, not an argument, and as a professor of philosophy, the author should know the difference and know better than to pass the former as the latter.
"Just as the state did not invent marriage, so it did not invent the rights and obligations of husbands and wives toward each other -- or of parents towards their children. These are natural rights and obligations. The state recognized them and protected them and enforced them with appropriate laws." ----------------------- And an extension of this logic is: The state did not invent same sex marriage either, and just as opposite sex marriage, there is a natural right and obligation, to deny this is simply a misunderstanding and lack of knowledge. It is time for the state to recognize them and protect them and enforce them with appropriate laws. The couples exist, the commitment exists, the families even exist! It is simply time for us to recognize it.
The close friend argument it is just plain silly. First of all there is nothing that stops opposite sex friends from doing this, and yet there doesn't seem to be a problem. Second if they wish to make that legal commitment, they are entering a contract of joint property, and most people no matter how close they are do that lightly. Third, we didn't throw the baby out with the bath water when Brittney or Kim played around with marriage. There will always be irresponsible people, but we shouldn't punish the responsible one because of them.
We've seen two letters from UST Philosophy faculty here in defense of "traditional" marriage. I'm just dumbfounded that anybody with a degree in philosophy can craft such incomplete rhetoric, devoid of logic. Beyond religious implications, marriage was created to give a man legal ownership of his wife. Plain and simple. For two people that wish to marry and not have children, it gives them legal, financial, and emotional access to a family relationship without being related. A brother and sister are already part of the same family and thus have many of those elements to their relationship already. I know the Strib wants to be fair--but is there really no filter? I'd almost have more respect for someone being blunt and honest. I wouldn't agree, but don't hide in faulty rhetoric.
Gay couples may not be able to procreate with each other, but that does not prevent them from serving the public good of raising children in a stable and loving environment. There are hundreds of thousands of children who need such a home, children who are not being fully served by the heterosexual community....and would the religious righties have their way on abortion, that number would grow significantly.
Tripe, hogwash, bile, bilge, crappola, shinola, doo-doo, swill, garbage! There, I just made as good a case against this amendment as this catholic apologist tried to do for it. Discrimination is never OK!
If marriage is between a man and woman for procreation purposes only, why don't we mandate that ALL marriages produce children (and if you can't have kids, well, your marriage contract is revoked!)? If having both a mom and a dad is necessary for kids to grow up to be healthy adults, why do we allow divorce? Why do we allow single people to adopt kids? The supporters of this amendment are flailing about, throwing all sorts of lame arguments out there to support their views, when in reality there is no good reason to deny two adults from entering into a legal contract. Vote NO (twice)!!
All these tortured arguments have opened up a lot of good reasons for re-defining marriage and marriage/property/parent laws and entitlements. The National Organization for Marriage has sown hatred and find that, regardless of the outcome of the vote, marriage will be redefined thanks to them.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks