Re: 2nd Term - Part 3 - Echo Chambers, Chorales, and Wingnuts, Oh My!
Well, so far in the debates, I'd say both sides have made some really good points, but neither has yet produced a "winner."
For defense of traditional marriage: The best argument:
"Throughout all history, and around the world and across all societies today, marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for the purpose of starting a social unit called a family. It appears to be something deeply ingrained in human nature, about which we still understand little. Pending future research, we need to tread cautiously here."
that is persuasive; however, it does not answer the question: why reserve "marriage" exclusively only to heterosexual couples? If most marriages are between heterosexual couples, and the number of same-sex marriages is outside of two standard deviations, say (less than 5% of the total), is that really such a problem?
ON the other side: "if we define 'marriage' as an exclusive lifetime commitment to one significant other, sworn under oath to a representative of the state (e.g., county judge or justice of the peace), then same sex couples should have the same survivors' benefits, hospital visitation rights, right to file joint income tax returns, etc. that is available to heterosexuals who make a similar exclusive lifetime commitment."
that's persuasive as to why "civil unions" should be available to qualifying same sex couples just as it is available to qualifying heterosexual couples.
However, they lose me when they claim that not being allowed to marry is a form of "discrimination." Heterosexuals do not have an unfettered right to marry whomever they choose: blood siblings cannot marry each other, people who are too young cannot marry anyone, I'm not sure if mentally incompetent people are allowed to marry either (don't they have to have the capacity to give "informed consent" first?)
"Civil unions" are non-discriminatory, but there is no constitutional "right" to "marry" anyone you want. Perhaps there are good reasons to consider "family" as a different entity than merely the two participants in a "civil union." (it was interesting to hear Justice Kennedy ask about the children who are legally adopted by same-sex couples in yesterday's oral argument.)
If a "civil union" gives all the non-discriminatory elements being sought, what's wrong with saying "thanks for that" first? Why not accept that you were given everything you asked for? Heterosexuals who have been only through a civil union (married at the courthouse with no religious ceremony) call each other "husband" and "wife" and tell other people that they are "married" even though it wasn't in a religious ceremony, why can't same-sex couples do exactly the same thing? Part of living in society is making compromises with people so that most people get most of what they want. If you get everything you want from a civil union, and if calling it "marriage" offends some people, why not celebrate that you got what you asked for and stop annoying people?
So I'm neither for nor against same-sex "marriage." I do not oppose civil unions.
I almost got in a fight the last time I went to Cheel, so I don't go to those games anymore.
