Comments on: Are we having the wrong marriage debate? Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:10:25 +0000 hourly 1 By: LeslieM Mon, 28 Jan 2013 04:07:59 +0000 I would suggest commenters read the excellent book referenced in this article, “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.” There are very real benefits to adults in a stable marriage. It would be both wrong and short-sighted to revert back to thinking of marriage primarily in terms of child bearing. With almost 7 BILLION people on this one small planet, the last thing we need is to focus on child-bearing. PollyMolly, there are very real cost savings to society that accrue from stable marriages. Far from singles paying for marrieds, many singles become an increasing drain on the common purse with illness and age.

This is a fascinating discussion and one where both liberals and conservatives may be able to find common ground.

By: stevedebi Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:46:47 +0000 The purpose of having laws supporting marriage (leave aside any discussion of between whom) is to provide societal support for raising children in a stable environment, and that having two people raise the child is optimum. I think that needs to be the focus of any actions.

By: PollyMolly Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:09:52 +0000 Marriage benefits hurt the unmarried, who must pay for them.
A widow gets a free pension, but who pays? We singles do.
A widow gets tax-free inheritance, but who pays the taxes? We singles do.
We should make marriage a strictly religious thing and leave government out of it entirely.
I’m tired of paying more so you married can reap “marriage benefits”.

By: FlamingLiberal Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:16:30 +0000 Marriage is called an institution for a reason: You have to be crazy to enter into it.

Marriage will eventually become a fleeting memory of times past as more and more people are rightfully realizing marriage is a bigger joke than New Coke and not worth the time.

By: chyron Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:12:12 +0000 Being myself in transition from liberalism of youth to more mature and orthodoxal stance, must say that _civil_ marriage of outright _biological_ gays is not something that bothers me much (you know, if all you have is a lemon…) but vocality and self-promotion of this minority is very irritating – as lgbt is becoming “fashionable” and “special” which disproportionate representation of them in art and politics and because most vocal of them resent and attack _all_ traditional values (why “feminism” is becoming curse word in much of Russia? Because most vocal feminists here are not some busyness ladies with kids and (civil) husband but hysterical childfree lesbian artists/writers who thinks they’re chosen ones)

By: spall78 Sun, 21 Oct 2012 06:31:14 +0000 The ‘marriage traditionalist’ movement is doomed to fail; it’s simply a matter of how long they can drag their feet and slow progress. When you see how far public opinion has swayed in a relatively short time and notice young people support marriage equality in much higher numbers, it is inevitable that this discussion will become yet one more of the uncomfortable, sheepish civil rights explanations we give our children in the future.

“Well, you see, back then in the 2000s there were still lots of people who thought gays were icky and somehow going to destroy the country. Why? Well, I don’t remember exactly why, they just did.”

Get on the right side of history people. No matter what else he did with his life, George Wallace will always be the jackass standing the the schoolhouse door preaching “segregation forever”. Don’t be that guy…

By: Gordon2352 Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:36:54 +0000 For those of you who think this is not an important issue, I suggest you read the following Reuters article. 9/us-usa-aging-divorce-idUSBRE89I0Z12012 1019

By: Gordon2352 Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:27:33 +0000 @ majkmushrm —

Totally agree! But I hasten to point out that that is a completely different subject.

What we accept as marriage now cannot survive for a whole lot of reasons (e.g. longer life spans) that make the old-fashioned concept of a marriage for life completely unrealistic.

The truth is for most of human civilization “marriage for life” existed solely because most people died quite young.

Thus, the majority of problems facing traditional marriage today simply never appeared, or were ignored because alternative means (e.g. divorce or the ability for females to live separately and still raise children) were not available.

Traditional marriage IS truly broken.

Instead of focusing on extraneous “hot button” issues, we need to reexamine what a marriage really means in this society and revise our laws accordingly to reflect those societal changes.

By: majkmushrm Sat, 20 Oct 2012 18:31:16 +0000 Before this discussion can bear any fruit, one has to decide what marriage is, actually. Most people, I suspect, view marriage as a religious/social structure that provides a framework for stability for both the partners as well as any children they may have. But marriage is also a legal construct created by the government. This legal construct bestows real financial benefits and valuable legal protections to the married couple. If the government is going to bestow these benefits on those who chose to live as one, upon what legal (not religious) basis can it chose to grant those benefits to some and not others?

By: Gordon2352 Sat, 20 Oct 2012 18:03:51 +0000 I should also clarify my remark above that “As to the question of whether homosexuality is “normal” or not, I would say it is the result of a genetic deficiency in an individual who displays overt homosexual behavior. From a medical perspective this is neither good nor bad, but simply a scientific fact”, I am NOT implying homosexuality is a disease.

I made the statement SOLELY from the standpoint that I assume one of the prime functions of any organism is the ability to reproduce itself.

That being the case, homosexuality is a genetic deficiency since any organism with this trait obviously cannot reproduce, and is thus not “normal”.