The same way it did before.
Or they adopt, or one has kids from a previous relationship. How does that affect anything? Married straight couples adopt all the time, do those kids not deserve the stability a recognized marital union provides?
The marriage certificate did nothing before so why continue it?
You’re welcome to argue that marriage is pointless if you want, petition the government, you’re hardly alone in your opinion. I disagree and think it provides a framework for cohesive family units. My research supports my stance.
I was simply explaining the limitations of gay couples in respect of having children.
I never mentioned this.
Then I don’t understand your post. I asked why we wouldn’t want to promote gay or polygamous couples being responsible to each other and children they’re raising. You in response pointed out that gay couples can’t have biological children. So is not having your own biological children a reason we shouldn’t want couples responsible to the kids they have through whatever means they employ or situation they find themselves in?
I don’t think the government abandoned it before the people did.
Well, because we don’t want to promote raising children in households founded on the idea that they won’t be raised with one of their biological parents or on the idea that at least one of their parents is going to engage in sexual relations with someone other than their other parent?
No-fault divorce gave people a unilateral escape hatch from that.
Not the requirement. The reason that promoting stable heterosexual marriages was the business of the rest of society.
This kind of requires consent to the idea that it is actually good for people who experience same-sex attraction to engage in physical expression of it. Not everybody just assumes that. Not everybody just assumes that wanting to have multiple spouses makes it a good thing that society ought to promote.
Right. To this I answered:
I then went on to provide some additional remarks noting you talked about a gay couple ‘having children’. Sometimes, people attempt to normalise the having of children by gay couples and I wanted to balance that with the observation that it is not normal, but in fact requires a 3rd person. And I did point out that I was referring to “have” in the sense of “produce”.
PetraG said: No-fault divorce gave people a unilateral escape hatch from that.
So if a couple intends to adopt or be foster parents is that a negative to you? If a parent dies should we not allow the surviving spouse to remarry since that would be them engaging in sexual relations with someone other than the child’s other parent? Or does this rule only apply to gay couples?
So it isn’t about the benefits to the family or child, it’s about the benefits to society, ie you?
That’s true, and I think we’d agree that’s the point all this will hinge on. But I assume you’d also say it’s not good for a person to divorce and remarry. I rarely hear that opposed as often as same sex marriage. The issue as always is who is the arbiter of our secular laws. The often cited heuristic is that one persons rights end where they negatively impact another. I see people claim some harm from ssm, I rarely see it demonstrated.
Because I find the notion of two persons of the same sex being “married” so utterly bizarre, I’m not sure I can answer that confidently.
That’s fair, but wouldn’t it also then be prudent to withhold judgement on whether the practice is wrong (in secular law)? If same sex couples who are married, some of whom are raising children, feel it’s a positive to the stability and structure of their family, are you prepared to conclude they’re simply wrong or being untruthful?
No, I’m not concluding either of those things. I am of the view that persons of the same sex ought not to be engaged in sexual relationships with each other.
I was using it as a shorthand, perhaps a poor one, for the responsibilities you described.
I mean, sometimes.
Okay. But they do. And they form families including raising kids. I think we should have an incredibly good reason if you want to deny them the same societal rights, privileges and legal standing we offer heterosexual couples doing the very same things. You have every right to the opinion you hold, but why should the law reflect that?
In many jurisdictions, what you describe was done. And not just for same sex couples, but for defacto relationships in general. But that was not sufficient (for many same sex couples) as the denial of the “badge” of “Marriage” was unacceptable to those involved.
i thought that Islam allows polygamy.
Take it up with legislators. The truth of your assertion is jurisdiction-dependent.
It is not “mine”. It belongs where it has always been. With reason. Reason recognizes that the relationship of man+woman is unique. It is the relationship which builds societies. Worthy of a badge, no?