Legalization of Same Sex Marriage

Ok, so I must admit that it is interesting for me to be debating this topic based purely on the social implications and not on religion or morality. This also means my argument can be alot shorter. I will begin by addressing your two main points. "homosexual marriage doesn't provide a special societal benefit" -Neither does candy; in fact, it rots your teeth and makes children misbehave. but we still make it and sell it." " The concept of marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals because it doesn't conform with society's interest in marriage." -It was Chris Rick who pointed out in his last HBO special that we certainly do not hold marriage in high regards as we once did. Our country makes "reality" shows out of marriage, and our divorce rate is over 50%. And while your argument may have been valid 50 years ago when homosexuality was still completely taboo, the fact is that most people in our country today have accepted that it is here whether we agree with it or not, and that it really does not affect our own lives unless we let it. To say it does not conform with societies interest in marriage is no longer true, because we no longer view homosexuality as taboo for one, and also because as I have pointed out we no longer revere marriage as a covenant between man and woman before God. Although some of us personally do, like myself, it is not for us to force our own beliefs on someone else. And your understanding of how marriage originated is also incorrect. We have marriage records from early Mesopotamia, so we know it has been around since the times when women and children were like property to men. People did not see the family unit the same as we do; men would take and discard wives at will, and often had very little direct involvement in their children's lives. Marriage was a contract of ownership saying "this woman belongs to me until I decide otherwise". I understand that many religions have incorporated a spiritual aspect into their marriage traditions, but marriage did not begin to create "economic and legal benefits", we added that part in our modern world of tax credits and community property. While I understand that homosexuals can not procreate (and no, I am not arguing that they should be able to adopt), the fact is that the world will not be any worse off if some of them get married so they can have company benefits or share insurance policies, whatever. Also, your argument is flawed because there are many people who procreate outside of marriage, and also many married people who are unable or chose not to have children. Should people have to be biologically "fit" for bearing children and also sign a contract to produce at least one child before being granted a marriage license? You could make the same argument using the same flawed principle. I see that you try to get around this argument by saying it's a matter of principle, not limitation (if the hetero couple is unable to have kids but would if they could, then they get the sympathy factor). That doesn't really address the point though; it just kind of says "ehhh I'm gonna pretend this doesn't make sense". I understand what you are trying to say, that two homosexuals can't really create the American dream (2 kids, a dog and a white picket fence, etc.), and I agree with you, I am just saying it is not a matter of national concern, and therefore there is no good reason to outlaw homosexual marriage. "The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?" Polygamy is illegal mostly because it would create many complications and abuses with regards to spouses sharing benefits, insurance and etc. If you want to take on multiple wives, change your religion and support them yourself. Incest is illegal because of the obvious health problems it causes to potential offspring, and also because it usually begins with an adult raping children first; brothers and sisters don't just wake up and decide to have sex one day. There is usually mental trauma there. Your main point (which I have already addressed) really seems to be: "Marriage is not simply about love (love is an important component) but the core of the reason for the institutionalization of marriage is for child rearing and procreation" So people should only get married to have children and it is completely irrelevant whether they love each other and are committed to each other emotionally, physically, spiritually, etc.? I think most people would disagree with this regardless of their stance on homosexual marriage. I believe I have already addresses your two questions, but I want to directly answer your first question, "what is marriage". Since we live in the 21st century, we need a 21st century definition of marriage: http://www.merriam-webster.com... not only does Webster's dictionary specifically include same sex marriage, it also makes absolutely no reference to bearing children. Our country was built upon mans right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our government has passed many laws throughout our history that have trampled upon this ideal. We should be fighting against that, not for it...