From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gay marriage
Summary: Why do you want the government in your bed room?
Keywords: same sex couples
Date: 21 Jan 93 16:12:49 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <cornell.726658603@vivaldi> nobody writes:
>rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>>|In article <1204@bug.UUCP> Steven R Fordyce, stevef@bug.UUCP writes:
>>|>What is the purpose of legal marriage?  That is the question you have to
>>|>answer first before you can deal with any of the above.  There is only one
>>|>justification for the legal institution of marriage: children.
>
>>	Property too -- that is a justification.  And medical decisions and
>>rights.
>>
>Visitation rights in hospitals, spousal rights for survivorship and
>inheritance, family leave at work (if it exists), legal adoption of
>spouse's children, options for tax filing, "next of kin" status, etc.

These are justifications* for you wanting to marry, not justifications
for the marriage laws in general, nor for expanding legal "marriage" to
include same-sex couples.  I've been through this many times before
(although someone just recently expanded the cross-posting of this
thread alt.politics.homosexuality, a group I didn't know existed and
this site doesn't get).  The answer is still the same:

*I said that homosexuals have the same rights we all have.  Others said,
*what about marriage?  Well, as has been pointed out, homosexuals can marry,
*so they are treated in this regard just like everyone else.  However, this
*isn't what those who object mean.  They want legal marriage redefinited to
*include same sex couples.  But why stop there?  Why not arbitrary groups?
*Why not a man and his favorite sheep, etc.?  Indeed, why not?  Wouldn't
*that be more fair?  In fact, some libertarians have proposed just that.
*But the marriage is not about being fair.  Its purpose is not just to make
*couples feel good about themselves.
*
*What is the purpose of legal marriage?  That is the question you have to
*answer first before you can deal with any of the above.  There is only one
*justification for the legal institution of marriage: children.  History and
*recent experience shows that on average the best way to raise children, to
*socialize them and pass our culture on to them, is in intact families with
*the mother and father present.  This is not to run down single parents or
*other arrangements, it is just a fact.  Therefore society has a profound
*interest in promoting marriage and keeping them together.  In fact, I don't
*think we are doing nearly enough.* Society simply has no like interest in
*keeping homosexual couples together.
*
*Homosexuals are free to make whatever vows to each other they like.  They
*can enter contracts with each other, and put each other in their wills.  As
*for the tax benefits (which aren't that large and don't always exist -- my
*wife and I paid a large tax penalty to get married), society simply has no
*interest either way in homosexuals' continued union.  In any case, if both
*(or all) parties want to stay together, surely they will.  So the question
*isn't why shouldn't gay couples be able to (legally) marry each other, but
*why should they?
*
** The legal aspects of marriage exist mainly to protect children, and those
*are fine.  Tax and other benefits of marriage are there to encourage
*couples to marry and stay together for the benefit of children.  Over the
*years, these benefits have decreased and divorce has been made easier, at
*the same time that social sanctions against living together have decreased.
*That isn't all bad, but it isn't all good either.  Divorce and single
*parenthood are way up, and evidence of its ill effects is overwhelming.
*Powerful arguments can be made that we should do more to encourage
*marriage.

If you still don't agree and/or want to argue, before you do, please
email me and I will send you the whole argument, and we can then spare
those who have seen it all before.  Thank you.  If you still want to
argue, we can do it in these groups or in email, whatever you prefer.

* Except "legal adoption of spouse's children", which is not an
automatic part of marriage (at least not in Oregon or California, or any
state that I've heard).  If I want to be the legal father of my wife's
daughter from a previous marriage, then I have to legally adopt her,
which is neither easy nor inexpensive if the natural father doesn't
agree.  Any children born after marriage may be the legal children of
the husband regardless of the actual parentage (that is always the case
in California, and may be in other states -- I'm not sure).  If that is
what you meant, then my apologies, but if so, then this can be seen as
for the protection of the children.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,soc.motss