Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Ben Kenobi]

Ming:

Don't you have laws against discrimination too

Depends on the discrimination.

[Ben Kenobi]

Atahualpa:

this is probably the biggest load of crap I have EVER heard. A family where the father beats the mother then probably shows the proper "interaction" with the other gender I guess!

But of course that does not happen anyway!

Oh boy, you should seriously change your attitude.

Do most fathers beat their sons?

Do most mothers abandon their children?

This is one of the reasons why I have to clarify my point that in most cases, it will benefit the child to have two parents of the opposite sex.

Secondly, I generally argue from the ideal, since that works better than arguing from specific cases. Ideally, it would be better to be raised by both, however circumstances might change the situation.

The problem you have is not with the principle, but rather, with the specific parent.

[Ben Kenobi]

Perhaps the best way to reduce this would be to allow gay marriages and so encourage monogamy amongst gays?

Excellent question. This used to be my own position (believe it or not), even after I became a Christian.

There are several problems with this argument.

First of all, this is only the answer if one makes a prior assumption, that this is the best homosexuals can expect. If they can change, then one ought to encourage homosexuals to do so, rather than allowing them to marry their same-sex partner. Why relegate them to a lesser position, when there is more to be hoped for?

Secondly, there are harms within the relationships beyond those of promiscuity. This, of course, requires me to make the case that men and women are complimentary, that in their differences, support each other better than an excess of similarities.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mr. Fun:

First, I do not dispute the evidence that shows that sexual orientation is not a choice. However, having said that, I make the effort to avoid using the "it's not a choice" argument when discussing issues concerning gays and equal rights.

Thank you. That's a significant admission.

I have come to believe that a stronger argument can be made through the right of conscience, self-identity, and freedom to enter into contractual relationships with another person.

You do not have this right with respect to marriage. Freedom of conscience has never asserted that one can freely enter marriage with as many people as you desire. There have always been limitations placed and restrictions on marriage, as to whom may be contracted, beyond those of other contracts.

In short, although you may believe marriage to be merely a contract, it has much more meaning to society as a whole. The laws surrounding marriage support this presupposition.

Otherwise, you are left with the difficult case. Why is bigamy and polygamy wrong? If one is allowed to contract with one person, why not with another, or as many people as you like? Why should a grown daughter not be permitted to marry her father?

Interestingly, this same argument can be made with respect to no-fault divorce. In treating marriage like a contract, we get into all sorts of problems down the road, not just with respect to gay marriage.

This sets up a more effective refutation when homophobes and the willfully ignorant use the fallacy that "it's the behavior that we oppose -- not the person."

Well, I don't think you are ignorant.

Second, I believe that homosexuality and any behavior that one engages in with another person of the same gender does not contradict God's wishes. In spite of what humans have written what they thought were God's wishes, I cannot take human text as literally being God's words.

Then, what do you believe, Mr. Fun? If you do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God, why are you a Christian?

Please note, I have not introduced these points, but you have instead chosen to bring up this issue.

The Bible is very clear on homosexuality, that it is sin. God abhors sins of all sorts and will not treat yours any differently than he will mine.

And for those who pick and choose only specific passages in the Bible to advance their bigoted, anti-gay agenda, they almost always fail to follow other passages in the Bible that deal with adultery, slavery, wearing clothes made of mixed fabrics, eating shellfish, and so forth.

So why then do you always try the strawman, to pick on what you perceive as the weakest text?

There are a great deal of passages that deal with homosexuality, some even in the NT, alongside the words of Christ.

I can give you a list, but we have been through all this before. Therefore, I will just include one citation that cuts to the heart of the Christian teaching on marriage.

Matthew 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Also while I'm on the religious tangent, I want to affirm here my belief that I would be disappointing God by not being true to myself. God would not want me to lie to myself and others about part of who I am -- in fact, for some gays, coming out to themselves and others can be a spiritual/religious experience in a positve, affirming way.

Christ does not allow us to affirm ourselves, but rather, we submit to him. If you have not submitted yourself to him, then you are still in your sins, rather than In Christ.

For does he not say:

"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me.

But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

Third, there is no such thing as "gay lifestyle" just as there is no such thing as "straight lifestyle." A lifestyle encompasses a person's whole life and how they live. To reduce a person's lifestyle that includes many things about him/herself to which gender of a person they have sex with is to depreciate the complexity of human beings. Just as there are many different lifestyles among straight people, there are many different lifestyles among gays.

Right, but what they have in common, is that they all desire a partner of the same sex. This, is all that I claim as the gay lifestyle.

Fourth, using the word "preference" in referring to a person's sexual orientation is fallacious in that preference indicates a choice. Since sexual orientation is not a choice, it makes no sense to refer to it with the word "preference."

But you have admitted there is no scientific evidence to support your terminology, or else, you have been extremely evasive. Ergo, I have just as much right to use the terminology 'preference' as you do to orientation.

Let it be clear, I have never objected to your use of the word 'orientation'. Why then should you object to my use of the word 'preference'? I have never asked you to stop using your terminology.

Fifth, some people have made the ridiculous claim that because straight marriages more often than not reproduce and create new children, that this is the justification for granting privileges to marriages and for excluding gays from these same privileges.

I suggest that you apply less transparent mocking, and more logical statements.

However, because granting gays the same privileges will not undermine straight people from continuing to engage in reproductive marriages, there is no rational basis for denying gays equal recognition. Reproduction need not be the only justification for having these privileges.

Here we go!

1. There are many benefits of marriage.
2. Procreation is not the sole benefit to which society derives from marriage.

However, the propagation of society rests most strongly on raising children, and procreation of children. Anything that threatens either of these, to function worse then they do now, threatens the very propagation of that society.

Marriage, as an institution, works very well to ensure the propagation of society. Ergo, any changes to marriage ought to be carefully considered, because of the huge effects that these changes have had, not on the relationships of straight people, but on the children.

You yourself, advocate that children ought to be raised by gay parents, yet you ask society to do so not in the name of the children, but in the name of 'equal rights'.

Children are not toys to be bartered and sold for your benefit, nor should they be experimented with for your benefit. So why then am I a bigot for insisting that such tremendous change have substantive supporting reasons?

Sixth, using alcoholism or any other addiction/illness as an analogy with homosexuality is contradiction to the psychological and medical findings that have found no reason to classify homosexuality as an illness.

There is controversy over this issue, Mr. Fun. You presume that this argument is over, even though psychologists disagree with you.

There are many trained psychologists who do want to treat young men and women who freely come to their clinics because of these unwanted feelings. Why then should they be denied treatment under these grounds? Any other unwanted feelings would be treated by the psychologists, so why not these?

Therefore, those analogies are not only blatantly disrespectful of gays, but are also fallacious as such analogies are not based on correlation.

High terminology, but little substance.

And finally, there have been a small number of gays who have claimed to have changed their sexual orientation. In reality, they have never changed their sexual orientation because it's not possible to do so.

What is sexual orientation, Mr. Fun? Can you define the term for me?

They can only change their outward behavior -- they will always be gay.

Which is precisely my argument. Just like an alcoholic remains an alcoholic, so does a homosexual person remain gay. You admit here that just as an alcholic person can be temperate, so can a gay person be chaste.

The reason a small number of gays submit themselves to such bigotry-motivated quackery is likely to be for reasons of fear of living in a heterosexist, homophobic society and because of personal problems with themselves, their family, and friends related to their being gay.

What if they are not happy, Mr Fun? Is that not reason enough?

Quacks choose these insecure people as their prey to prop them up as examples that one can change their sexual orientation.

As opposed to the quacks who tell these people to deal with their feelings, rather than competent therapy?

[Ben Kenobi]

And answer this question as well... what if the vote came out that gay marriages should be allowed... and that churches had to perform the sevices if requested... and that you could not exclude gay people from your church. What would you say about the will of the people then.

Ming:

Missed this one.

That depends on the response of my church.

If my church voted to retain their doctrine, at the cost of persecution, then I would stay with them, regardless of what society tries to force them to do.

They would still hold their teachings, and we would all be facing arrest for holding to our beliefs. I'm not afraid to go to jail, not for the right reasons. Even if I disagree with one law, I will submit to the consequences of breaking that law.

Secondly, if my church folded, then you Papists would have another join you.

[Ben Kenobi]

PH:

You still fail to conceive what is going on. What goes on between two consenting adults is no business but their own.

I agree with you in the case of sodomy regulations, even while those on my right do not.

The majority does not have the right to enforce their will on people when their life does not affect their own.

Then why do we have laws against incestuous marriage, and polygamy? Surely that is the state interfering in the lives of private individuals.

I argue that the state does have a responsibility to intervene, and in the issuing of marriage licenses, requires the intervention of the state. Therefore, it is not wrong for the state to be involved in marriage.

Basically, no state, no marriage licenses.

Are you going to insist that all people 'just be a white colour' because they are in the majority? The same here. You have to distinguish between what is a free democracy and what is a lynchmob - a tyranny of the masses.

Parliament is hardly a lynch mob. We are not talking about legalising the beating of gays. Marriage involves everyone, and therefore, should come to a free vote in Parliament.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gen. Ludd:

What increase in stability?

More marriages stay together than common law relationships.

If they are going to seperate, mariage isn't going to stop that.

Not true. Marriage provides more security for both partners.

Or is watching your parents go through a messy divorce essential to a good childhood?

Is it better that you never know your father because he left your mom when you were 2?

I can play this game just as well as you.

Statistically, marriage is more stable than common law.

Correction: The best environment to raise a child would be in a community, or large social group.

Without parents?

Evidence would be nice.

And incidentally, gays typically have a much more diverse group friends.

Let's see. I have a friend from India, a friend from Singapore, a friend from China. I live with a fellow from Guyana, and one of my best friends is abroad in Ireland.

Another good friend of mine comes from Nigeria, I go to a Russian church, and used to live with two Palestinians for 8 months.

I must be gay!

So maybe gay parents are better because the child will learn how to interact with so many different kinds of people.

I don't see any connection between 'diversity' and homosexuality. I do see a connection between a cosmopolitan city and greater diversity.

So all we could say is that one ought to raise a child in a cosmopolitan city.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
More marriages stay together than common law relationships.

Cite?

[Ben Kenobi]

"In 1998, Statistics Canada released statistics indicating that 63% of couples living common law, with children, break up within 10 years. This is compared to only 14% of legally married couples with children, who break up within ten years."

There you go.

From a secondary source, but if you give me a bit I can track down the primary statcan source.

US stats would be also available, but I'd need a little time.

"Marcil-Gratton, Growing up with Mom and Dad? The intricate family life courses of Canadian children, Statistics Canada, 1998, 16."

And there you go.

The PDF link to the primary source.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-566-XIE/89-566-XIE.pdf

[Kuciwalker]

Doesn't that say more about the people who decide to live under common law instead of marriages rather than something inherent to marriage itself?

[Ben Kenobi]

Doesn't that say more about the people who decide to live under common law instead of marriages rather than something inherent to marriage itself?

What sorts of differences do you expect to find among the two?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Straybow
[q] Originally posted by Ming


Likewise, fighting to overturn a law prohibiting specific activities is different from trying to alter a major component of social structure. For example, the Greek upper class once practiced homosexuality and pederasty to the extent that it became a social convention, but never tried to alter the social convention of marriage to include it.

It might be good idea if you didn't spout off about subjects (such as what constituted a marriage in Ancient Greece) without informing Apolyton what these 'marriages' were like, and what the social context of Greek societies were like.

To pretend that heterosexuality and homosexuality were even concepts that the Ancient Greeks recognised is wrong on a very basic level. In most of Ancient Greek society (outside of Sparta) they didn't even recognise women as citizens, nor as having rights. They also saw the necessity for the male citizens to have legally sanctioned sexual outlets, such as professional prostitutes, slave girls, slave boys and younger male citizens. Now, perhaps you might think this is a suitable model for twenty first century America to follow, but I suspect many American men will not.

To even state that because a society far removed in time and place from the United States once allegedly did not allow same sex couples to marry is a valid reason for denying the extension of civil liberties to a proportion of its population is so bizarre and ludicrous, I wonder that you can even make it with a straight face.

Perhaps you think the United States should also introduce the exposure of male infants with apparent disabilities (as the Spartans did) reintroduce slavery (common throughtout Classical Greek society and Hellenistic society) and forbid its male citizens to marry non-American women.

Sparta required married men to live in barracks until the age of thirty- perhaps you'd like to suggest that be tried out too. According to Plutarch's 'Life of Lycurgus', the Spartans condoned marriage by capture- somehow I don't see that selling well in an age of fans of 'Sex and the City'.

In Xenophon's 'Spartan Constitution' he mentions an array of practices that were to satisfy both the private wishes of individual women and men as well as the Spartan state's eugenic compulsions (since the Spartan state viewed the sole purpose of marriage to be reproduction, not love, or companionship) for Spartan citizen couples to produce more male citizens for aristocratic elite:

'...an elderly husband was required to introduce into his house some man whose physical and moral qualities he admired, in order to beget children. On the other hand, in case a man did not want to cohabit with his wife and nevertheless desired children of whom he could be proud, he made it lawful for him to choose a woman who was the mother of a fine family and of high birth, and if he obtained her husband's consent, to make her the mother of his children.'

'The Spartan Constitution' trans. Marchant, publ. 1971

Now you might think this an entirely admirable social model for the United States to follow, but given that it is at least in name, a democratic society, this will probably entail sending out for potential mothers to those countries that still have aristocracies, wherein mothers of 'high birth' can be located.

Furthermore, as you seem to leave out by concentrating on the purely mechanistic sexual acts (what is it with you religious types? ) involved (although seeming to be unaware that buggery or anal sex is not a prerequisite for same sex attraction, nor is it a practice limited to same sex couples, being almost invariably absent in lesbian relationships) same sex attraction was viewed as socially useful in Ancient Greece, not only in the realm of education (something which would be absolutely forbidden in modern America) but in life as a whole.

As Xenophon also states:

'In other Greek states, man and boy live together like married people; elsewhere they become intimate with youths by giving them gifts.'

and

'For in many states the laws do not oppose desire for boys.'

In Plutarch's 'Life of Lycurgus' he states of women who form bonds with other women that:

'sexual relationships of this type were so highly
valued that respectable married women would in fact have affairs with unmarried girls'

As is stated in 'Ancient Greece: A Political, Social and Cultural History' *:

For males and females alike, liaisons with members of the same sex provided much of the companionship, sexual pleasure, and sense of spiritual well-being that many people in modern Western society nowadays associate with marriage. Homosexuality was integrated into the system. the idealized model of the same-sex realtionship involved an olderperson and an adolescent and consequently was time-limited. With boys it was considered inappropriate to continue the relationship after the teenager's beard began to grow.

Nevertheless, some relationships did develop between companions of the same age and endure throughout life."

*Sarah B. Pomeroy, Walter Donlan, Stanley M. Burstein and Jennifer Tolbert Roberts, Oxford University Press, publ. 1999

In fact, the word 'eros' (love) is rarely used in texts of the classical period to describe attraction between couples of opposite sex: it is usually reserved to describe exclusively same sex attachments.

Your notion that marriage is a fundamental and unchangeable institution is flawed and erroneous, for while it's true that some form of marriage is a fundamental institution of many societies, it is not true that marriage is an unchangeable institution, nor is it true that societies do not change.

Not only do different cultures and societies differ in their institutions of marriage, but even in contemporary Western societies marriage has undergone many changes.

Marriage is now seen to be a partnership of equals, equal before the law and in rights:

"The inequality of men and women was intrinsic to the 'traditional' family. I don't think one could overstate the importance of this. In Europe, women were the property of their husbands or fathers - chattels as defined in law."

Professor Anthony Giddens, BBC Reith Lecture 1999


Polygamous marriage was accepted in many periods of history and is still accepted in parts of the world(although not mainly in the West) .

In mediaeval times in Europe, marriage was not based on sexual love, nor was it regarded as a place where such love should flourish- and later on, the primary reason for Henry VIII's serial marriages was the production of a male heir for the throne.


Wives and children are no longer the property of the husband thanks to various 'Married Women's Property Acts' across the Western world:

'4.

A married woman is capable of acquiring, holding and disposing of, by will or otherwise, any real or personal property as her separate property, in the same manner as if she were a feme sole, without the intervention of any trustee. R.S., c. 272, s. 4'

http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/legc/statutes/marrdwp.htm

A woman's property does not become the property of the husband on marriage.

The husband is no longer automatically to be regarded as "the head of the household".

Marriage is now (thankfully) racially neutral although in the United States, this is only a relatively recent development:

"Nevertheless, these are laws that protect us from dangers this state has a right to apprehend from these types of marriages. The reason for banning these marriages stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the minimum age at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent. The state has an interest in marriage… in maximizing the number of stable marriages. It is not infrequent that children of these marriages are referred to as "victims" or "martyrs". "

That attorney is talking about a racially mixed marriage.


The age at which people may validly marry has been different at different times in history- it was common practice in Renaissance Europe to have child marriages, and to have children marrying adults.

Marriage no longer has to be for ever- it is possible for a couple to end a marriage without social stigma or blame being attached to either party- unfortunately in some religions or cultures, men and women are trapped in loveless abusive relationships by virtue of their religion or cultural constraints.

Divorce is now available on demand - this indicates that both partners must continue to consent to be part of a marriage if it is to survive; the consent given at the wedding is not sufficient if either partner no longer wishes to be part of the marriage

Alterations in the way divorce is perceived demonstrate changes in the way in which courts and legislatures regard the concept of marriage .

Property rights and children's rights in divorce are altered from time to time.

People who want to have sex or children are under no pressure to marry- there is no longer in many societies a stigma attached to couples of the opposite sex who choose not to form legally binding relationships, or procreate outside of marriage.

"This crosses the line, from equality, to favouritism, or discrimination. "

Ben Kenobi

No, it doesn't.

What it says is that in a secular state, in civil law, gay men and lesbians have an expectation of the same privileges or legal rights as heterosexuals.

Unless of course you think that the phrase 'liberty and justice for all' applies exclusively to heterosexuals- because as civil society now stands, heterosexuals are endowed with a favoured status- in pension rights, in inheritance, in legal status as next of kin.

"On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

joint parenting;

joint adoption;

joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

crime victims' recovery benefits;

loss of consortium tort benefits;

domestic violence protection orders;

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

and more....

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities. "

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

" An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Hay, 1807.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart, 1791

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Gen. Ludd:



Statistically, marriage is more stable than common law.

What is a 'common law' relationship exactly - is it just not geting married or is it something all together different?

Eitherway, this is probably because people who are deeply devoted to each other generally show it by being married.

Thus it would be more apt to say that stable couples ar emore likely to get married, not that married couples are more stable.

Not true. Marriage provides more security for both partners.

What security is that? Monetary insentives and other artifical bonuses? Hardly an argument that marriage is neccisary.

Without parents?

No... why would you say that? We are talking about gay parents raising children. My point was that a child does not need to - and shouldn't - rely on his parents for her only source of social interaction and development.

Your argument that a child raised by gay parents won't know how to interact with people is absurd.

[Ben Kenobi]

What it says is that in a secular state, in civil law, gay men and lesbians have an expectation of the same privileges or legal rights as heterosexuals.

So what rights are denied to them? They are permitted to marry in same manner as anyone else.

Unless of course you think that the phrase 'liberty and justice for all' applies exclusively to heterosexuals- because as civil society now stands, heterosexuals are endowed with a favoured status- in pension rights, in inheritance, in legal status as next of kin.

And these institutions exclude homosexuals? I have already agreed with you that if people can let their dogs inherit their money, then they ought to also let gay people do so.

As for pension rights, the state has no obligation to provide benefits or to distribute them on the basis of equality. They are not required to pay Vets as much as other people, neither should private organisations be required to pay pensions, if they do not wish to do so.

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);

On the grounds that this is what is best for children. The rights that one person enjoys do not supercede the rights of others.

status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

Is a person prevented from naming a gay person as his proxy in these matters?

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

Is insurance required to cover people who are a higher risk at the same cost as everyone else? No.

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

Divorce provisions are provided to marriage only, to encourage people to marry. Homosexuals are not excluded from obtaining these provisions, except by their own desires.

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

State has no obligation to admit any immigration.

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

No sympathy from me on this one. If you want the inheritence to go through properly, make a will!

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

Currently, what's the law on this? Gives me more of a clue of the issues here.

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);

Another one of the privileges accorded to marriage. I don't see why the state should change this.

benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;

No obligation of the state to provide these on the basis of equality.

spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

Not my area of expertise. What's the current law on this?

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

Again, the state is not required to distribute these privileges to everyone. There are certain benefits the state desires to preserve in marriage, in order to encourage people to marry. This is one of them.

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

I don't believe other countries should be forced to recognise the laws of another jurisdiction.

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

I don't know the differences between Canada or the US, on this point.

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

No beef here.

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

Person should designate which they want, or be able to leave these decisions to the executor of their will. I don't see why gay people would be prevented from doing this.

crime victims' recovery benefits;

What's the law on this?

loss of consortium tort benefits;

Same.

domestic violence protection orders;

Again.

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Same.

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc.

Yes, but why might the state choose to go this route, in making marriage special?

In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples.

And why might they do this Molly? I don't think they're trying to keep the gay men down.

And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities.

Not a requirement of the state to accomodate everyone. Most of what you have listed can be taken away, by the state without a violation of fundamental freedoms.

" An equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Hay, 1807.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Stuart, 1791

Says the man who would not allow his slaves to vote.

[Ben Kenobi]

What is a 'common law' relationship exactly - is it just not geting married or is it something all together different?

In Canada, the only difference between common law and marriage is the commitment of the partners to each other. In common law, there are no promises to stay with each other, and common law can be declared after a certain period of living together, rather than a marriage.

Those are the only practical differences between the two.

Eitherway, this is probably because people who are deeply devoted to each other generally show it by being married.

Thus it would be more apt to say that stable couples ar emore likely to get married, not that married couples are more stable.

How would you establish that married people are more devoted than common law folks? That's a pretty hard determination to make.

It also begs the question. It seems clear to me that the nature of the commitment changes the stability. You cannot make the argument in Canada, that the legal system props up marriage, since the two are equal for most intents and purposes.