I think the main argument against gay marriage concerns the institution of marriage. The institution of marriage is ultimately about children. In that regard it provides the roles, values, and ideals that best provide for the rearing of children.

When I say that the institution of marriage is "about" children I mean this: if heterosexual intercourse did not result in children, there would be no reason for marriage. Surely the State would have no interest in marriage, in the same way that the State takes no interest in our friends or bridge partners.

By their very nature, same-sex relationships cannot result in children; that's a biological fact. Traditional marriage is ultimately about children; same-sex marriage is ultimately about the desires of adults.

Traditional marriage provides the roles of father and mother. It values the biological relationship between father, mother, and child. It values fidelity as a way of ensuring that children produced by the couple are produced in the context of the relationship. It values permanence, in order to ensure the long-term care of children, and to establish life-long relationships that persist sometimes even across generations.

As I mentioned, same-sex relationships cannot produce biological children. To the extent that there are children in a same-sex household, there is necessarily a missing biological parent. While the traditional institution of marriage proclaims the value of the biological connection between parent and child, and the importance of having father and mother in the home, same-sex marriage in effect says that the biological connection is unimportant, and having father and mother in the home is not important.

To change the essential nature of an institution is to change the institution. To have an institution that is primarily about adults is very different from having an institution that is primarily about children.

Let me give you a small example of the difference between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage. Traditional marriage values virginity until marriage, and this has been a traditional ideal. Even as many people no longer follow that ideal, nonetheless the ideal remains. Again, it has to do with making sure that children are produced in a permanent relationship with father and mother.

But in same-sex relationships, what would be the value of virginity until marriage? Absolutely none. It simply wouldn't matter, since such relationships cannot produce children.

Social institution are important because they tell people how to act. One author put it this way:

"Institutions are social arrangements that channel behavior in prescribed ways in the important areas of social life. They are interrelated sets of normative elements— norms, values, and role expectations—that the people making up the society have devised and passed on to succeeding generations in order to provide permanent solu­tions to society’s perpetually unfinished business. Institutions are cultural impera­tives. They serve as regulatory agencies, channeling behavior in culturally prescribed ways."

In that context, the institution of marriage guides and informs the behavior of heterosexual couples. But the values and roles inherent in same-sex relationships are very different from those in heterosexual relationships. To incorporate same-sex couples into the institution of marriage would be to change the institution, and thus change the norms and values of marriage, and not to the general advantage of children. This is one example of what I would consider to be a harm to marriage.

Of course, it may be that in our society the institution of marriage is so poorly understood and denigrated that it simply no longer matters who marries whom, or what they do after marriage. In that regard, I suppose gay marriage will serve as the last nail in the coffin, and eventually the entire institution of marriage may end up being discarded -- an outcome that certainly would not displease a number of OS members, many of whom already say that marriage is "nothing but a contract."

"The institution of marriage is ultimately about children."

So, by your standard, all couples should have to pass a fertiltiy test before getting married. By Your Standard.

@mishmima666 Your comment is, I think, an example of what I'm talking about. Your argument is based on a perceived harm rather than any actual harm and you selectively appeal to the argument from nature, which you repeat as if it is just common sense and has no problems or counter-arguments. You offer basically one big slippery slope fallacy. But, what evidence can you provide that shows it will actually do this harm? I submit that there is none.

You say, "But the values and roles inherent in same-sex relationships are very different from those in heterosexual relationships." That's an interesting claim. Mind spelling it out for me a little? What social roles and values are inherent in same-sex relationships that are different from heterosexual relationships and that would cause harm to children? The role of caregiver? The role of disciplinarian? Please. Gay parents can teach kids moral values like integrity, justice, charity, etc. just as well as straight parents can; and, I'm pretty sure that they'll do a better job of it than state or privately run orphanages. The comments about virginity are laughable. It's silly to think that homosexual couples are not going to to teach their children sexual restraint or that sexual conduct does not have serious, irrevocable consequences. It is silly to think that gay people do not value sexual fidelity the way that heterosexuals do. What's your evidence for these claims? Of course some heterosexuals have open marriages, you know? It's almost like your views about what will happen are based on some misguided stereotypes about gay people. (FYI: I think maybe the emphasis on virginity has done in our society is lead to an increase in the number of blowjobs and anal sex Southern Baptist girls are willing to perform in order to save their virginity until marriage. Way to teach sexual fidelity!)

What you're calling "traditional marriage" isn't going to be harmed if gay people are allowed to get married. Straight people are not going to stop getting married just because gay people can get married. So allowing gay marriage will not cause traditional marriage to disappear. The notion that traditional marriage is going to go the way of the Dodo bird because gays are allowed to marry is absurd.

You write, "When I say that the institution of marriage is "about" children I mean this: if heterosexual intercourse did not result in children, there would be no reason for marriage." Really? There's no other "reason" or explanation for marriage other than raising children? When people run around claiming that homosexuals should not be permitted to marry because the natural purpose of marriage is raising children they are, at best, selecting one of the aims of marriage, and then arguing that because homosexual relationships fail to meet that one requirement. But, these same people do not run around arguing that heterosexual couples that fail to meet that requirement should be excluded from marriage, do they? No, even though their argument implies it, they do not argue that heterosexual couples that prefer anal sex, sterile people, post-menopausal women or heterosexual couples that do not intend to have children ought be excluded from marriage. No, nobody argues that because doing so would be absurd. Why? Because marriage not merely "about" children, and I'm pretty sure everybody knows it. It's about other goods (friendship, nurturement, etc.) that do not necessarily require procreation or raising children.

M-666 wrote: "By their very nature, same-sex relationships cannot result in children; that's a biological fact. Traditional marriage is ultimately about children; same-sex marriage is ultimately about the desires of adults." and "It [marriage] values permanence, in order to ensure the long-term care of children, and to establish life-long relationships that persist sometimes even across generations."

Here is my question; one that I've had for a while now. For years, the GLBT community has withstood the scrutiny of many who say we are perverted, sex-crazed animals who live only to screw as many people as possible. We aren't stable citizens, we have no morals, and we're just plain freakish.

Over the course of the years, we have fought to dispel that particular reputation. More recently, the fight for equal marriage rights has been more and more pronounced.

Why is that? If we aren't into permanence and we don't care about children, why are we fighting so hard to do one simple thing: get married like everyone else?

You can't say that same-sex marriage is only about adult desires and then barely take a breath before you state that marriage is NOT only about children, but about permanence.

I know straight couples who have been together for years, have several children, and never elected to get married. I have plenty of respect for them. I know gay couples, me and my partner for instance, we can't get married even tho we desperately want to. We have shared children, but even if we had NO children, we'd still want to be married. For the permanence. For the same reasons that many other straight couples want to get married... because we love each other. Because we want to spend the rest of our lives together.

And this doesn't even begin to cover the fact that EVERYONE who gets married has two separate agreements. One with their clergy and one with the state. M-666 says that the state has no interest in marriage if it weren't for children. I say that's bunk. If the state had no interest in it, then they wouldn't require licenses and certificates.

I am as married spiritually as possible for anyone. We had a ceremony with the clergy of our choice. Done.

The marriage that we are fighting for IS the state recognized marriage for the same reasons that straight people take advantage of state marriage. Being recognized as a matter of law as an established family. Right to inherit. Right to make health care decisions for each other. The right to be next of kin instead of being forced to adhere to the will of a parent who, in many cases, fails to recognize the basic desires of their own child.

I live with my partner. We have long discussions about what we would do if the unthinkable happened to one of us. My mother and father would listen to my partner emphatically as to what my wishes would be. I'm not so sure about my partner's mother. She isn't as accepting and her religious views may be very different. But I have no right to intercede in any decisions she might make. Why? Because her daughter and I aren't married.

It has nothing to do with one's ability or inability to procreate, adopt, foster or utilize surrogacy and everything to do with sharing a life with someone.

ocularnervosa writes: "So, by your standard, all couples should have to pass a fertilty test before getting married. By Your Standard."

Saying that marriage is about children is not the same as saying that marriage is about breeding. Even an infertile heterosexual couple symbolizes true marriage. Though incapable of having biological children they can adopt and provide a home with a mother and father. They can perform the generative act that is a distinctive feature of marriage.

So I don't worry about infertile couples. Your viewpoint might provide an argument against infertile couples marrying, but I don't see how it provides a positive argument for same-sex couples marrying.

Chris writes: "Your argument is based on a perceived harm rather than any actual harm . . . "

But at the moment all we have is speculation about the future. And one thing your side rarely presents is a positive argument about how same-sex marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage, and make it better, especially for the great majority of heterosexual couples.

Chris: " . . . and you selectively appeal to the argument from nature, which you repeat as if it is just common sense and has no problems or counter-arguments."

It's not an argument from nature. It's a sociological argument based on the role of institutions in regulating human behavior. The "nature" part comes in because only opposite-sex couples can produce biological children. In that regard the "nature" part is not some irrelevant add-on designed to screen out same-sex couples. Rather, it is a central, distinctive aspect of marriage.

Chris: "You say, "But the values and roles inherent in same-sex relationships are very different from those in heterosexual relationships." That's an interesting claim. Mind spelling it out for me a little? What social roles and values are inherent in same-sex relationships that are different from heterosexual relationships and that would cause harm to children? The role of caregiver? The role of disciplinarian? Please. "

There are various things. First, start with a Google search on "gay monogamy." What you'll find is that a significant percentage of gay couples in long-term relationships are not monogamous in the traditional meaning of the word. Many include things such as "three-ways" and "nights off" and other relationship configurations as a normal and natural part of their relationships. While there are some heterosexual "swingers" I think it is safe to say that hetero married couples typically do not include adultery as a normal and desirable part of their relationships. But don't take my word for it; read for yourself.

As I mentioned before, traditional marriage values and promotes the biological relationship between parents and children. Granted, when hetero relationships fail, sometimes children must be placed in homes that do not include the biological father and mother. Nonetheless, in hetero marriages the biological relationship between parents and children is the norm, and something that parents and children value. Conversely, there isn't a single same-sex relationship in the entire universe in which a child in that household has both biological parents present. There is always at least one missing biological parent. That said, same-sex partners can be great at child-rearing. But the point is that having both biological parents in the home is not the norm in same-sex relationships, nor can it be.

Chris: "It is silly to think that gay people do not value sexual fidelity the way that heterosexuals do."

"While just 7 per cent of Americans believe that adultery (sexual infidelity by married, heterosexual partners) is morally acceptable, Dr Hoff’s report emphasizes that nearly 50 per cent of gays in committed relationships specifically affirm sexual infidelity. Other research shows shockingly higher rates (75-95 per cent) of non-monogamy in long-term gay relationships. . . .

"A 2010 study from England entitled, "Gay Monogamy: I Love You But I Can't Have Sex With Only You", found that none of the gay couples in the study defined monogamy as sexual exclusivity. In fact, they all engaged in sex with outside partners, even though they professed to be in a monogamous relationship. . . . The Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, in its spring 2010 newsletter, summarized the English study, explaining that sex with outside partners is the “monogamous” norm for gay couples. "
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/

Again, don't take my word for it.

Chris B: " . . . marriage is not merely "about" children, and I'm pretty sure everybody knows it. It's about other goods (friendship, nurturement, etc.) that do not necessarily require procreation or raising children."

Marriage provides other personal and social goods, but I'm talking about the reason why it exists. For example, we could say that the university exists to educate students. It also provides a way for young people to socialize and make friends, a chance to become independent from mom and dad, a chance to live in a different part of the country, a way to have good parties, and so on. But these other things are not the reason why the university exists. It exists because it educates students, and because of that the State has an interest in it, provides financial aid, and so on.

Tilly writes: "M-666 says that the state has no interest in marriage if it weren't for children. I say that's bunk. If the state had no interest in it, then they wouldn't require licenses and certificates."

Let's say that heterosexual sex didn't produce children, that children grew on trees, or whatever. In such a world, why would marriage even exist?

This is actually one of the themes of Brave New World. In that fictional society most children are grown in labs, and there is no such thing as traditional marriage. The only people who marry and have children are "savages."

I don't have a lot of time today . . . getting ready for tonight and all. But, I did want to offer a quick response, at least for now.

"It's a sociological argument based on the role of institutions in regulating human behavior." Ok. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but explanations (sociological or otherwise) are one thing and justifications for why we ought do something a particular way are another. I'm asking what justifies excluding homosexuals from a legally recognized institution, not what explains why marriage has turned out to have a particular configuration in a given culture, society, etc.

If all we have is speculation about the future, I see no reason to side with the group that says it is going to lead to the end of traditional marriage. I don't see what justifies excluding all homosexuals from marriage even if most of them are having three-ways or have different ideas about sexuality, gender/sex roles, etc. from "traditional marriage and heterosexual sexual norms. Why are the social norms that associated with traditional marriage heterosexual relations, etc. the standard by which everyone else has to live? Why should people like my friends Robbie and Marvin or Tilly McCormick be excluded from the legal institution of marriage and all the other personal and social goods that go along with it because they do not symbolize traditional marriage or the generative act you claim is distinctive of it?

To me, doing so looks like we are denying people a right to pursue certain social and personal goods that are central to these kinds of relationships but do not required reproduction, child rearing, etc. all of which can happen without the legal institution of marriage.

Yes, in a hypothetical world where children are grown on tress and raised in common I think you'd still have people that want to commit to one another, care for one another, build and share a life with one another in a way that is officially recognized by the community.

I don't have a lot of time today . . . getting ready for tonight and all. But, I did want to offer a quick response, at least for now.

"It's a sociological argument based on the role of institutions in regulating human behavior." Ok. Perhaps I misunderstand you, but explanations (sociological or otherwise) are one thing and justifications for why we ought do something a particular way are another. I'm asking what justifies excluding homosexuals from a legally recognized institution, not what explains why marriage has turned out to have a particular configuration in a given culture, society, etc.

If all we have is speculation about the future, I see no reason to side with the group that says it is going to lead to the end of traditional marriage. I don't see what justifies excluding all homosexuals from marriage even if most of them are having three-ways or have different ideas about sexuality, gender/sex roles, etc. from "traditional marriage and heterosexual sexual norms. Why are the social norms that associated with traditional marriage heterosexual relations, etc. the standard by which everyone else has to live? Why should people like my friends Robbie and Marvin or Tilly McCormick be excluded from the legal institution of marriage and all the other personal and social goods that go along with it because they do not symbolize traditional marriage or the generative act you claim is distinctive of it?

To me, doing so looks like we are denying people a right to pursue certain social and personal goods that are central to these kinds of relationships but do not required reproduction, child rearing, etc. all of which can happen without the legal institution of marriage.

Yes, in a hypothetical world where children are grown on tress and raised in common I think you'd still have people that want to commit to one another, care for one another, build and share a life with one another in a way that is officially recognized by the community.

I can for see a distopian future where the only people interested in getting married are Gay.