"The differences in nurturing among the sexes may not matter to a small minority, but it's still a large issue to resolve for most."

That is probably true, but we don't have to go very far back and substitute the word 'races' for 'sexes' and have that statement equally true. I have trouble thinking of any legitimate reason for opposing miscegenation, outside of odd ideas held by some about 'racial purity'. Outside of religious opposition, which for all I know may have factored in to opposition to miscgenation also, I find the opposition to homosexuality and their unions on an equally feeble foundation. I would guess ultimately the opposition to homosexual unions will go the way of opposition to miscegenation.

"If nurturing is to be the primary model for marriage, and "[g]overment has every interest. . . in watching over individuals as they nurture one another," the potential differences in nurturing among the sexes is an elephant in the room that cannot be ignored."

I don't think it necessarily follows though that the government has every interest in judging how that nurturing manifests itself, or determining what types of nurturing are legitimate and which are not. The comparison of men and women's promiscuity rates I would agree with as a whole, but I hardly think it is in women's 'nature' to be monogamous and faithful. If that is true, then it would follow that lesbian relationships should be the most nurturing of all.

I think the case can also be made that if you accept these inherent differences between men and women, then homosexual unions should be more nurturing and intimate than heterosexual ones, since the partners would have that much more in common and an overall deeper understanding of one another.

The very foundation of stereotyping is taking a statistical characteristic of a group and assuming it applies to each individual. That's akin to saying that since blacks on average score lower on standardized tests than whites, blacks should be legally barred from entering medical school. Even if the differences in "nurturing" stated above are accurate, it only means that there would be statistically fewer "nurturing" marriages between gay men; it doesn't provide a rationale for banning them altogether.

I would guess ultimately the opposition to homosexual unions will go the way of opposition to miscegenation.

Actually, I would say that opposition to "homosexual unions" *has* gone the way of opposition to miscegenation, in that homosexuals are free to form unions, live together, etc. Unless I'm wrong, miscegenation laws effectively kept interracial couples from legally living together. Homosexual couples today lack only government recognition and privileges for their unions.

wahoofive, that might be relevant if I had argued that the differences in nurturing provide a rationale for banning homosexual relationships. But I did not, so it's irrelevant.

If you look back to the purpose of marriage in Genesis, though, God created Adam and said "it is not good for man to be alone." Cain and Abel presumably had wives, as well as Seth and the rest of Adam's and Eve's sons, so it appears that this relationship existed from the very beginning.

Since then, it appears that the legal/contractual relationship of husband and wife existed as much for the security factor as the relatively more predictable and certain provisions for transfer of property after death and ascertainment of legitimate heirs - security being that the husband didn't have to be concerned about his wife being with another man or bearing his children, and the wife being under the physical protection of her husband.

If you look at the old testament and other ancient writings, you notice there is an early distinction between wives and concubines, too. The concubines' position was not as prestigious as the wife's, and there appear to have been preferences with respect to inheritance for the wife's children over the concubine's. But you also see multiple wives, with all of the children sharing in the inheritance.

I don't agree that the purpose of marriage was for nurture, rather than for reproduction, government benefits or romantic fulfillment; I think it was for companionship, to provide a relationship for the expression of sexual desire, for procreation, and for true intimacy of the soul - a foreshadowing or parallel, if you will, of the relationship we are supposed to have with God: knowing and being fully known.

I know I'm going to offend some (probably a lot of) people, but homosexual behavior is neither new nor acceptable. It's identified from the beginning through the present as sinful - just as fornication and adultery are identified.

It's important for me to be clear that homosexual behavior is no more or less sin than pre- or extra-marital sexual behavior. If you look at Romans 1, you see how the expression of homosexual desires is the first "rung" on the ladder in terms of turning one's back on God, but that's a subject for another day.

When you look at the new testament, marriage is described as a love relationship, too, but it maintains its legal or contractual status - that the husband and wife will only have sexual relations with each other, that the husband will love his wife as Christ loved the church in that He gave His life for the church, that the wife will be submissive to her husband (no, that doesn't mean he can demand her obedience to his every wish!), and that the older men and women in the church will assist and teach the younger ones how to love each other.

Interesting side note: the Bible never commands the wife to love her husband; it does command the husband to love his wife. I think the reason is that if a husband loves his wife the way he should, she will love him without being commanded! ;)

Back to the point of the thread, though, regardless of the level or lack of nurturing, there is still a vow that gets made in a marriage: to love and honor each other until death. People who hold up the bad marriage as evidence of why that vow shouldn't mean anything need to understand that if you don't rush into a marriage blinded by infatuation, you find out that your prospective spouse is abusive/alcoholic/addicted/whatever in enough time to not make the vow.

Once you're in the marriage, I don't think you should stay if you're in danger (and that includes emotional abuse), but don't make marriage the bad guy for a hasty or poorly-investigated decision.

OK, rant over. Thanks!!

Wow, lawyerchik, you contributed precisely nothing to a complicated debate about a modern legal and political debate that seeks to draw on the findings of sciences like anthropology and ev. bio. by citing the reputable, peer-reviewed source of...the Book of Genesis (and not even the interesting commentaries that exist on the text).

"Actually, I would say that opposition to "homosexual unions" *has* gone the way of opposition to miscegenation"

With respect to the government's and the legal system's attitude towards them, I totally agree Eric. I was referring more to people's and society's attitudes. I at least haven't heard any argument against miscegenation these days that isn't racist. I guess I hope that the some of the same hysterical rhetoric I hear today about same-sex marriage damaging the 'institution of marriage' and threatening 'traditional values' disappears also with time as people obtain a more realistic outlook.

I personally am of the impression that a lot of the opposition to same-sex marriage is because many people are opposed to homosexuality. I haven't heard any compelling reason for people to oppose homosexuality though outside of 'its sinful' or 'its just wrong' which obviously is not very compelling on it's own unless one shares that particular religious viewpoint. With the results of recent studies suggesting that homosexuality is partly something you're born with (which I would think would be obvious, I for one did not 'choose' my heterosexuality), I unfortunately conclude that much of the opposition to homosexuality, and like-wise homosexual unions, is somewhat bigoted.

"Wow, lawyerchik, you contributed precisely nothing to a complicated debate about a modern legal and political debate that seeks to draw on the findings of sciences like anthropology and ev. bio. by citing the reputable, peer-reviewed source of...the Book of Genesis (and not even the interesting commentaries that exist on the text)."

Gee, Paul - for someone purporting to be so enlightened and knowledgeable, you totally missed the boat on even comprehending the real value of what I said, but that's probably my fault for overestimating certain members of the audience.

"but homosexual behavior is neither new nor acceptable."

Uh, yea, about as unacceptable as using the beliefs of relatively ignorant people from 2000+ years ago as an 'argument' for declaring what is acceptable and what is not today.

Take a look at "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" and get back to me.

You mean to tell me that CHRISTIANITY was the insidious poison that sapped the strength of the Roman Empire? Wow, I hadn't thought that you would appreciate an argument like that.

Serves me right for expecting you to actually do any real research, but hey. If you want to just blame Christianity for all of the world's ills, go ahead - I'm sure that for you, it's so much easier than rational thought and critical thinking.

Our self-righteous but misguided apostle seems to have misunderstood Jason's comment, which was a straightforward reference to Gibbons's discussion of the role of mystery religions--such as Christianity--in the fall of Rome.

Not so misguided after all - to quote Billy Graham, the reasons for the decline and fall of the Roman Empire were:

1. Breakdown of the family and rapid increase in divorce; 2. spiraling rise of taxes; 3. insatiable craze for pleasure; 4. mounting production of armaments; and, 5. decay of religion.

Just because someone sees a larger pattern in something as detailed as Gibbons' book doesn't mean that they misunderstood it.

To quote Billy Graham as an authority on any historical topic is bad enough. But to draw on his words to understand one of the most complicated (and, likely, wrong-headed) questions of the past fifteen hundred (or so) years is to deny yourself any credibility on the topic.

Your own writings are the some of the best evidence of utter failure of credibility despite access to ample resources, so I don't feel bad for relying on Billy Graham's succinct descriptions.

Josh, when you talk about the differences in the natures of men and women, I presume you are referring to sex differences like the ones defended by evolutionary psychologists such as David Buss. However, even the more ambitious claims about sex differences (again, by researchers like Buss) do not support your generalization that men are promiscuous and women monogamous. Here is what Buss had to say in a recent article about the theory that he and Schmitt presented in 1993 and the response that it received:

It was the first theory of mating to posit that men and women both have distinct short-term and long-term mating strategies. One of the discouraging reactions to sexual strategies theory is the degree to which some critics have been wildly inaccurate in depicting it. A full 25% of the theory was devoted to women's short-term mating, the evolutionary rationale behind women's short-term mating, empirical predictions about women's short-term mating, and empirical tests of these predictions about women's short-term mating. The abstract notes that "Both [italics added [by Buss]] men and [italics added] women are hypothesized to have evolved distinct psychological mechanisms that underlie short-term and long-term mating" (Buss & Schmitt, 1993, p. 204). An entire table was devoted to outlining the adaptive problems women and men confront in each of these mating contexts. Given our explicitness on this issue, when a critic describes the theory as proposing that "men are promiscuous, women are monogamous," one can only wonder about the person's scholarship, training, or eyesight. Attacking straw persons in academia is common, but this is nothing short of absurd. I will not embarrass specific authors or editors, whose scholarship may be described generously as cavalier, but suffice it to say that these gross errors have appeared in psychology journals that are otherwise quite reputable. I've found that some journal editors have an uncommonly low threshold for accepting articles critical of evolutionary work on humans, no matter how shoddy the scholarship, arguments, or evidence. Frankly, it is an embarrassment for the field of psychological science.

Buss goes on to say that he has since improved his theory by putting more emphasis on gene quality, individual differences within sex, and the commonalities between men's and women's mating strategies, which only further undermines your generalization. I am not taking sides on the debate within psychology that Buss is involved in, or suggesting that the accusations that he levies against his opponents apply to you (I wouldn't expect a law student to have closely read all of the relevant literature). I'm just trying to show that researchers who study these things do not think that the differences between men and women with respect to monogamy and promiscuity are nearly as stark as you suggest.