I will say however that the whole issue of "real/legitimate" families and "fake/illegitimate" families is a false dichotomy. Read over all my posts again, and you'll see that I've never said that, because I don't think that. Despite martha and irvine's comments to the contrary (comments made out of understandable emotion and pain), the issue is actually much more complicated. The question at hand is whether laws of the land are meant to govern for the rule, or the exception. The laws of the land must hold to an ideal -- say, for example, "murder is wrong" -- and while there are extenuating circumstances in some cases of murder (self-defense, etc), the courts do not then say, "murder is no longer wrong because of the exceptions to the rule." The courts say, "murder is wrong, and here are the exceptions."
you're comparing murder to marriage? one thing is a specific human action that has a demonstrable consequence, and the other is a legal contract that confers a variety of benefits and social status. it's an exceptionally poor comparison.
there are no "ideals" involved in marriage. and to try to suggest that there are, or that there should be, comes very close to social engineering, and that itself is the slippery slope -- 50 years ago it was argued that God created different races for a reason, that's why he put them on different continents, and therefore they shouldn't marry because of the mixed children they might produce. that's garbage, and we know that.
and, further, even if you believe that there are specific "ideals" (standards?) that all potential couplings must measure up to, i'd be curious to see how a gay couple couldn't measure up to your standards. what is the difference between marth and steve and irvine and memphis? neither couple can produce their own biological children, but so what? how is this necessary to the "ideal" marriage? further, how does not having one "ideal" mean that you are barred from entrance into this contract?
I do think that the best situation for families is a family where both the mother and the father love one another and their children. Of course there are people who get married without intending to procreate. Of course there are some lesbian parents who can be better parents than the Spears, to quote Irvine's favorite example. But again, laws aren't meant to govern the exceptions to the rule. Laws hold up the ideal. Those who don't meet that ideal have the right and the freedom to argue that their situation merits special consideration, but once we start to abolish the ideal itself, what are we left with?
this is incredibly vague. laws do not hold up the ideal -- in fact, i don't even know what you mean by this. and you're, again, ignoring the fact that not all marriages are interested in children.
i also don't think you're quite understanding how patronizing and insulting you're being when you talk about "ideals." you're saying that, through an unchosen involuntary characteristic, i am incapable of being in an "ideal" relationship. and that, logically, you yourself are in said "ideal" relationship. so what you are absolutely doing is judging people on their form, but not their content. you are judging a relationship on its form and not its content.
that's the very definition of prejudice.
and it absolutely fits in to the Christian analogy i offered. the Spears have the potential to be ideal, since they are heterosexuals all around, only they fall short of that through mistakes, shortcomings, etc. (i.e., sin) if they can repent and be better, they can be ideal. but Ellen and Portia are flawed from the beginning, no matter how good they strive to be, they are fundamentally flawed and should thusly be barred from said institution.
really, stop and think about this.
I had a long conversation with a lesbian friend of mine last week about this very issue over coffee, because I'm willing to engage and be engaged on this issue. She ended our talk by talking about friends of hers who are in two different threesomes, and asked the question: "Shouldn't my friends be allowed to get married too?" The point being, if we allow people to define marriage however we want, can't her friends get married? Some may scoff and mock this question, but it is a real one. (And, for the record, it annoys me when stupid Christians start ranting and raving about people marrying their dogs, because that's a ridiculous non sequitor.)
if people want to argue for polygamy, they can do so on it's own terms. to conflate it with the "well, then what's next?" question that gets tossed around with same-sex marriage is not just insulting, but it's fundamentally wrong.
if one of the members of those threesomes is heterosexual or even bisexual, then they can get married to a person of their opposite gender. they have access to the institution of marriage that i do not have. there is no discrimination there. any heterosexual polygamist can marry one woman of his choice. there is no discrimination there.
and polygamists are free to argue their case on it's own merits. don't drag same-sex marriage into that discussion, because it is not the same thing.
I quote the LA Times Op-Ed piece because the author has actually spent time researching and studying the sociology and development of families throughout history, so he's in a position to know, and he's a self-described liberal, which takes this out of an easy partisan paradigm. And when he points out that the primary (though by no means exclusive) reason people get married is children -- a reason born out more and more by modern statistical data -- we get into the messy issue of whether gender matters in human development and whether having both a mother and a father should be considered essential for families.
you can go back and read that thread to see the numerous holes kicked into that piece by every poster other than yourself. i can also point you to gays who are against same-sex marriage. that doesn't make their point of view any more illogical and ill conceived. there are lots of Auntie Toms to be found, and simply quoting one doesn't confer any legitimacy onto the point being made.
if you're going to say that marriage must measure up to "ideals" then i suppose it does follow that parenthood must measure up to "ideals" -- so what you're proposing, nathan, is that children be removed from families that have divorced, families where one partner has died, single parent families and children raised by their grandparents.
after all, laws promote the ideal, right?
Irvine's entire post is predicated on knocking those who believe there is "one way" to do things, and he connects that to Christians -- as if Christians are the only ones with ideals. Idealism isn't a Christian virtue -- rather, it is the backbone of our entire legal system. To say that having ideals codifies prejudice is ridiculous. (The Declaration of Human Rights is an ideal, for God's sake.) There are core principles, laws, and values which govern the land. When we begin to sacrifice the ideal -- whatever that ideal may be -- or redefine what the ideal is, or pretend that the ideal doesn't exist, we start down a slippery slope. If we are going to do so as a society, then in a democracy where principles of self-rule and self-governance dominate, I think we ought to be allowed the freedom to vote on such decisions. Otherwise, the ideal we're sacrificing is the ideal of self-governance and democracy. And that's not a hill I'm willing to die on.
you've really misunderstood what is meant by ideals.
the Declaration of Human Rights is not a list of aspirations -- what i think you really are talking about when you say "ideals" -- but a list of crimes that human beings have the right not to be subjected to on the basis of their humanity.
you want to make marriage an aspirational union. that's fine.
just make sure you understand that what you're saying.