Many gay couples want to be allowed to call their union "marriage" mainly because they believe this will give their relation a degree of acceptance that is closer to that given to heterosexual unions. They also believe that marriage connotes a more stable long-term relation, although gay unions have a well-known tendency to dissolve at even higher rates than heterosexual marriages, and that very likely would continue even if their unions are called marriages. The narrowly economic gains from being married are a decidedly minor part of the desire by gays to have their matches called marriages.
For the reasons just stated, one can understand why many gay couples want to be allowed to marry. What I find difficult to understand is why there is so much opposition; for example, I doubt if a referendum legalizing gay marriage would pass in many states. As Posner indicates, allowing gay couples to marry will have little effect on either the attraction or stability of marriages between heterosexuals. I believe this opposition reflects hostility to gays and their unions that can no longer be expressed in other more traditional forms, such as calling them names or harassing them. As a result, the marriage issue has become a rallying point that allows hostility to gays to be hidden behind other reasons.
To be sure, it is a strange way to express that hostility in light of other options that have been allowed to gays that are far more radical. I am mainly thinking of the recent practices of allowing gay couples, married or not, to adopt children, allowing lesbian couples to bear children through sperm supplied by sperm banks, or allowing male gay couples to use their sperm to impregnate women who bear children that a gay couple raises. Although rather few gay couples have children as yet, that practice is a far bigger venture into the unknown than is permitting gay couples to be married. It is still too early to have reliable evidence on the effects on children of being raised by gay parents, but I suspect these effects will be more negative than positive, in part because even married gay couples are likely to dissolve their match at relatively high rates.
I also find it strange that gays having and raising children arouses much less opposition than does polygamy, where several women voluntarily agree to be married to the same man (a far rarer form of polygamy is when several men agree to be married to the same woman). Why should society care if two (or more) women are willing to be married to the same man, especially in an environment where men and women rather than their parents generally make their choices about who to marry? We trust women to make many other decisions that seem strange to others-such as when a twenty year old woman marries a 65 year old man- so what logical grounds are there to disallow several woman voluntarily accepting marriage to the same man? Moreover, since polygamy would increase the demand for women as marital partners-however slightly since polygamy would be very uncommon- the argument that it is a form of exploitation of women is also without foundation.
I have proposed for many years that marriage should be basically a private contract between the men and women involved-they can add a religious ceremony if they so desire. There is no reason why the standard contract should be supplied by the government rather than by market forces. An explicit contract would be compulsory, even if it only has a minimum number of stipulations and rules. Most persons marrying might use such a standard contract, but others would have special provisions, such as the allocation of assets in event of dissolution, responsibilities for housework and other activities, and obligations toward children. The state would set minimum obligations toward children since society has an interest in how children are treated.
Such contracts would be equally available to homosexuals, as they are already in some countries and many states of the United States. These contracts would reduce the role of governments in marital arrangements where they have no special competence or interests- again, aside from the protection of children. It would also eliminate the gay marriage issue since gays would have access to contracts as fully as heterosexuals. It would also allow couples to stipulate in writing any special arrangements they want to see enforced in their unions.
Such contracts are unlikely to replace government determined marital terms in the foreseeable future. So until then, it would be wise to expand the concept of marriage to include homosexual relations, and perhaps polygamy as well.
Good Day. The average person thinks he isn't.
I am from Barbados and also now teach English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Shop online for thousands of great items like the whitening pen."
Thanks for the help :), Professional teeth whitening.
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/13/2009 at 03:18 PM
شات الشلة
دردشة تعب قلبي
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/20/2009 at 10:39 AM
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™ ÿØŸÑÿπ
شات الود
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/20/2009 at 10:40 AM
شات حبي
شات الحب
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/20/2009 at 10:41 AM
tiffany jewellery
ed hardy
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/22/2009 at 02:48 AM
links of london
abercrombie and fitch
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/22/2009 at 02:48 AM
very thanks for article!
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/26/2009 at 04:33 PM
Thanks very much for the compilation!links london
tiffany jewellery
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/31/2009 at 12:42 AM
Provides the best tiffany jewellery, including Necklaces, Pendants, Bracelets, Earrings,
Ringsat the lowest prices.Tiffany jewellery
is the best online United Kingdom jewelry stores where you can buy the cheapest Tiffany &
Co silver Our huge selection of
tiffany jewelry
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/31/2009 at 04:27 AM
good post,I think so!Abercrombie & Fitch on Sale, Hoodies, Jeans, T-Shirts, Pants, Polos
abercrombie and fitch abercrombie and fitch cheap abercrombie fitch Abercrombie Men Tee abercrombie womens polos
Abercrombie & Fitch Men, women, and children's clothing and accessories edhardylife a
famous ed hardy store which sell directly ed hardy clothing, shoes, boots, swim suit and
other cheap ed hardy ed hardy cheap Ed Hardy ed
hardy clothing,Providing authentic Ed Hardy Clothing with competitive price and
fast,secure delivery.The famous brand by Don Ed Hardy 's Vintage Ed Hardy
Posted by: Anonymous | 08/31/2009 at 04:28 AM
Pervert! Let's get out of here. There are so many perverts here.So what? You are such a bad person Who's gonna like you? Tiffany Jewelry Don't mind him. Don't mind him. He's just playing. Forget him. He saw me steal the diamond. Tiffany Jewelry You're dreaming! In your dreams. Wake up and smell the coffee.Where'd you get it!Good idea.Think it over.You can never tell about this sort of thing.Take a closer l Wake up and smell the coffee.Where'd you get it!Good idea.Think it over.You can never tell about this sort of thing.Take a closer look.When did I say that!You have to be on time. Don't be late. ook.When did I say that!You have to be on time. Don't be late.
Posted by: Anonymous | 09/04/2009 at 03:09 AM
بنت 18
شات بنت 18
Posted by: Anonymous | 09/11/2009 at 01:46 AM
HELL NO !!!!!!!!! GAY MARRIGES ARE FOR QUEERS
Posted by: Anonymous | 09/18/2009 at 01:36 PM
Just love
tiffany
and
ugg boots,thanks!!
Posted by: Anonymous | 09/21/2009 at 01:44 AM
I know that your article makes sense, but because of the livelihood of release I had to come here to spam, I hope you can forgive me. thank you. Expect you to write better articles..maybe you will like this if you are fashion.
UGGS
ugg boots
Posted by: Anonymous | 09/21/2009 at 03:45 AM
s for high education leading to liberalism...well, by and large actors c Hollywood are not that highly educated.
http://www.askkervani.com
well, by and large, people working in hollywood are not actors. writers, producers, directors, sound people, video techies, prop guys, etc greatly outnumber actors...and many/most of these people are educated. given that your starting premise is wrong, it's no surprise that the rest of your analysis is similarly wro
Posted by: escort agency | 10/15/2010 at 07:01 PM
But as you note, correlation isn't causation, and I suspect that the illegality of polygamy itself gives rise to many of those problems and permits them to flourish (by pushing polygamy underground, fostering a defensive fortress mentality in its practitioners, and detering abuse victims from seeking help). Knowing that seeking official help for abuse will likely destroy your entire community and end with your family broken up and in state custody does not tend to make people enthusiastic about demanding their rights. With legal alternatives enabling people who wish (for whatever reason) to practice polygamy to do so openly, I wager you'd find much less tolerance within those communities for the types of abuse you see now.
Posted by: lower back pain | 11/23/2010 at 10:56 AM
those parents split up at higher rates. That is dangerous and unsupported territory, unsupported if only because there is not enough data - openly gay couples raising children being a relatively new phenomenon. A couple staying married throughout their childrens' youth does not necessarily equal a happily-married couple. Many couples stay together "for the kids," which often breeds resentment which is often directed at the marriage partner. I would venture that kids observing this dynamic growing up might have more problems forming healthy adult relationships than those exposed to a happily-married gay couple, even if that couple eventually splits up
Posted by: asics running shoes | 03/18/2011 at 03:36 AM
Why does it matter what a person thinks or cares about someone's sexual preference. I think we should be more concerned with people with low IQs having children, they are the ones ruining our nation.
Posted by: Steak n Shake Coupons | 09/21/2011 at 11:13 AM