Marriage Debate

[thaiboxerken]

I'll try to make it as simple as I can. In fact, I'll even go a step further, and tell you how to frame a counter-argument.

1) The state has an interest in promoting and supporting procreation (note the indefinite article is used for "interest" - that's caused confusion before), and can advance this interest through marriage.

Evidence, please.

 

[pgwenthold]

5) Same-sex couples do not serve the same procreation interest that separate-sex couples do, and so does not have a reason to extend these benefits to same-sex couples.

This is what I don't understand.

Same-sex couples do not serve the same procreation interest that _fertile_ separate-sex couples do, but they serve the exact same procreation interest that non-fertile separate sex couples do. When it comes to procreation interests, not all separate sex couples are the same.

This argument is equally applicable to senior citizens as it is homosexuals. If it is really your argument, then you should be equally supporting outlawing marriages of senior-citizens over the age of, say, 70, where no woman has ever conceived.

 

[Ziggurat]

But it is not undeniable....in fact, that's what this entire discussion should be about.

Not really. There's debate about whether the difference should matter to our decision, or what it means, but that there is a difference is pretty bleeding obvious.

It seems that pro-SSMers think that gender does *not* have substance in the context of marriage, and that anti-SSMers think it does.

Gender has substance in the context of procreation. Procreation has substance in the context of marriage. And nobody has provided a counterargument to that.

Solve the question about whether it does or not, and you solve whether or not SSMs should be legal.

No, actually, you don't. The fact that gender has substance in the context of marriage doesn't, in and of itself, dictate that a particular course of action is necessarily optimal. Vision, for example, has pretty damned obvious substance in the context of driving. But most people agree that short-sighted people shouldn't be forbidden to drive cars, while the blind should be. You need to go a few steps beyond merely deciding that a quality is substantive to a particular issue in order to reach a conclusion about what action should be taken with respect to that quality.

 

[thaiboxerken]

All of this talk about the state's interest in procreation is irrelevant until we can establish, with evidence, that the state does have an interest in procreation and that marriage laws were created with procreation in mind. IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE of this?!!?!?!??!?!?!?! How many times do I have to ask before it's presented?

 

[pgwenthold]

Gender has substance in the context of procreation. Procreation has substance in the context of marriage. And nobody has provided a counterargument to that.

Except to note that AGE has substance in the context of procreation. Thus, if your argument is based on procreation, and you are consistent, then you must be opposed to senior citizen marriage. And regardless of whether you are or not, it is clear the state is not. Therefore, they must not be basing anything on that consideration.

So the thing that is missing in your argument is why SSMs should not be allowed but non-fertile separate-sex marriages should be.

It's not because it is too complicated. There are no recorded instances of >70 year old women conceiving (I don't remember how old that recent surrogate mother was, but she didn't conceive), so it is as simple as putting the limit at most to 70.

 

[pgwenthold]

All of this talk about the state's interest in procreation is irrelevant until we can establish, with evidence, that the state does have an interest in procreation and that marriage laws were created with procreation in mind. IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE of this?!!?!?!??!?!?!?! How many times do I have to ask before it's presented?

Your point is taken, but I would just add that even if we grant it as true, the argument still fails as a basis for discriminating solely against same-sex marriage.

The fact that states have laws that _require_ some marriages to be sterile is, however, indeed evidence that those states, at least, do not consider marriage to be dependent on procreation.

Actually, the fact that other obviously non-fertile marriages are allowed (as I have been describing) does as well.

 

[Ziggurat]

This argument is equally applicable to senior citizens as it is homosexuals. If it is really your argument, then you should be equally supporting outlawing marriages of senior-citizens over the age of, say, 70, where no woman has ever conceived.

Well, let me make something a little more explicit, because I know that this detail didn't come through well in what I've been writing. I haven't really put forward my own opinion on the topic, EXCEPT that I think the issue is properly addressed through legislative action and not the courts. Beyond that, I'm not talking about what I, personally, feel, but rather, what I think the best argument against same-sex marriage is.

But on to your question, yes, there is tension there between disallowing same-sex couples and allowing certain infertile opposite-sex couples. One possible resolution, as you say, is to forbid such unions (though forming and enforcing guidelines for such decisions isn't as trivial a task as forbidding same-sex couples). But that's not the only possibility. Another one is that there may be some other interest served by allowing such marriages which might not apply to same-sex couples. For example, allowing opposite-sex couples of any age to marry may help reduce their medical needs because they're living healthier lives, and thus reduce the burden they impose upon society. That benefit may warrant not separating them out as a different class in regards to marriage, but still not rise to the level of deserving specific inclusion of a new category (eldery same-sex couples).

In short, yes, the problem gets messier, but it's not unsolvable. But I'm not sure why you're so focused on trying to find contradictions in this position rather than simply advancing a counterargument (namely, showing a state interest that IS served by same-sex marriage).

 

[Ziggurat]

Except to note that AGE has substance in the context of procreation. Thus, if your argument is based on procreation, and you are consistent, then you must be opposed to senior citizen marriage. And regardless of whether you are or not, it is clear the state is not. Therefore, they must not be basing anything on that consideration.

No, I'm afraid that conclusion simply doesn't follow, and the reason is rather obvious: if the state is right to allow such senior citizen marriages, then the state is not SOLELY interested in procreation, yes. So you've stumbled upon a key issue, but you haven't recognized what about it is actually the key. You should be asking, what other interests might also be served by marriage, and are they served by same sex marriages? I already gave you this line of argumentation that can be used against the position I laid out. But you're not doing that, because you're hung up on a logical fallacy. To say that procreation cannot be an interest because the state allows infertile marriages is simply false, and fails basic tests of logic. Nothing about interests requires that they be mutually exclusive or singular.

 

[Upchurch]

1) The state has an interest in promoting and supporting procreation (note the indefinite article is used for "interest" - that's caused confusion before), and can advance this interest through marriage.

As has been pointed out, this seems reasonable, but there has been little evidence provided demonstrating that this was the purpose of establishing marriage laws in this country, or even a significant purpose.

It would also seem reasonable that raising a child should be as much of a state interest as procreation should be. The ability to raise a child has no obvious connection to be able to conceive a child. (In fact, I can think of several people off the top of my head who have conceived children and don't raise them. I can think of two examples of people how have not conceived children but have done a wonderful job raising them. Anicdotal, I know.)

2) Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege, with benefits provided or enforced by the state. As such, it does not need to be extended to everyone, or to every possible couple.

There are many things in this country that are not rights but the state is not allowed, nor should they be allowed, to descriminate on. That marriage is a privilage is irrelevent to who may participate in that privilage.

3) There is a difference between same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples on the issue of procreation. Because there is a difference on this matter of state interest, treating the two differently is not unconstitutional.

This is based on the first point, whose foundation seems shakey at best.

4) There are costs associated with every benefit provided or enforced by the state, and those costs are borne by people other than the beneficiaries. The state should not place this burden on others unless a state interests is adequately served by doing so.

Perhaps, but this has not been the case in many other government programs over the years. Why single out this one issue?

5) Same-sex couples do not serve the same procreation interest that separate-sex couples do, and so does not have a reason to extend these benefits to same-sex couples.

This, again, assumes that the sole purpose behind marriage laws is to support procreation. No evidence has been provided to this effect.

So that's the argument, in brief. Now, since you've had a hard time doing this yourself, let me show you the basics of what an effective counterargument would be (which attacks the second half of the last point above, which is the weak link in the argument):

Not really necessary. The argument falls apart on its own from over-reaching assumptions and lack of evidence.


The only counter-argument that need be made is:

Unless the government has a compelling reason to discriminate between two subsets of citizens, it should refrain from doing so.

 

[Hardenbergh]

As far as infertile couples go, this isn't necessarily a permanent thing anyway. Many couples think that they're unable to conceive a child and after adopting, they're suddenly expecting.

It's ridiculous to suggest that older couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

 

[Upchurch]

As far as infertile couples go, this isn't necessarily a permanent thing anyway. Many couples think that they're unable to conceive a child and after adopting, they're suddenly expecting.

That would be a neat trick for someone who has had a historectomy (sp?).

It's ridiculous to suggest that older couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Yeah, it is. That's the point. Why is it ridiculous for older couples but not for same-sex couples?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker :
It creates no obligations. It provides no protections.

So? Should the government provide protections personal promises? If so, why only heterosexual promises?

Ever hear of contract law? Contracts are agreements made between two or more parties, and government is called upon to enforce them all the time.

Why is it that a business contract must be enforced, and the marriage contract is "divorced" so readily and easily?

Because that's what you want?

 

[Huntster]

Heterosexual donors? Is that really what the world has come down to?

I'm afraid so.

 

[Huntster]

Sure. When a culture expends effort to make a child-of-the-body more important than a child, then you have women who would rather get pregnant by proxy then consider raising a child that is not biologically theirs. Ain't it sad?

Can you explain how the abortion epidemic fits into your outlook?

 

[Huntster]

Was there any evidence provided that the state's interest in marriage is procreation? Maybe I missed it.

Yeah, you did. I wasn't surprised. It simply doesn't fit with your views.

I mentioned Pat Buchanan's "Death of the West". He describes how the sexual revolution and culture wars are reducing the populations of the West just as immigration (much of it illegal) explodes from the South.

Does it start to make sense, or do you need me to draw a picture with crayon for you?

 

[Snide]

It's ridiculous to suggest that older couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

It's ridiculous to suggest that homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.

There, I've made a claim like yours with exactly as much argument behind it. So we're both right! Settled.

 

[Upchurch]

Yeah, you did. I wasn't surprised. It simply doesn't fit with your views.

I mentioned Pat Buchanan's "Death of the West". He describes how the sexual revolution and culture wars are reducing the populations of the West just as immigration (much of it illegal) explodes from the South.

Got anything from a creditible source?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Heterosexual donors? Is that really what the world has come down to?

I have to wonder which part causes you distress?

Is it that people donate genetic material to infertile couples?

Or that heterosexual people would do that for homosexual people, often friends or family? If so, is it less of a bother to you if a gay friend donates to a lesbian couple?

Or are you the sort that thinks parents are defined by a similarity in As Ts Cs and Gs, not the sacrifice, love, and acts of parenting, and so the word “donor” should be “father” or “mother” regardless of how the child sees them, or the person’s involvement in their life? If so, are adoptive parents, not parents to you? (talk about denigrating the role of parenting in society!)

Or maybe you’d just rather gays live the way they used to. “Traditional family values”, where a gay man would marry some poor unsuspecting woman who should count herself lucky if she only ends up living her life in a marriage with little intimacy, no passion or natural attraction, with a man who has the same sexual orientation that she has. The all too common fates of such women (and their children) are to endure cheating, abandonment, or worse, like a STD. If you really want gay folks to marry against their nature, you could start counseling women to marry gay men, for the cause; set up an organization. If you have daughters, they could be the first in the program.

Okay, I’m being testy and jumping to conclusions, but, honestly, what sort of control are you saying you’d want over the lives of all these families, so that the world could recover from what it has “come down to”?

Anyway, Bluess is right. The prime reasons for gays and lesbians to use surrogacy or other fertility treatments is because either 1. they live in a jurisdiction that won’t let them adopt, or 2. they feel threatened that the people you keep quoting from will come after their families soon, and try to split them up, all the while chanting “it’s for the children” and “we’re pro-family”. Fear of loosing what’s most precious to you is a powerful motivator to make sure you’ve got the best legal stand you can have, and these opponents seem to respect genetics over parenting, just as they respect anatomy over the actions and commitments of marriage.

 

[Ziggurat]

As has been pointed out, this seems reasonable, but there has been little evidence provided demonstrating that this was the purpose of establishing marriage laws in this country, or even a significant purpose.

It doesn't matter why things were done in the past, the relevant question is why should we do them in the future? And from that perspective, I should think it would be kind of obvious that procreation is a pretty damned important state interest, and that it is very much supported by marriage.

It would also seem reasonable that raising a child should be as much of a state interest as procreation should be.

Perhaps this wasn't clear, but yes, child rearing is part of what I mean by procreation. I'm talking about the whole process of creating new and productive members of society.

The ability to raise a child has no obvious connection to be able to conceive a child.

There's no absolute REQUIRED connection, yes. But in general, there IS a link between who conceives and gives birth to a child and who raises it: namely, they tend to be the same people.

There are many things in this country that are not rights but the state is not allowed, nor should they be allowed, to descriminate on. That marriage is a privilage is irrelevent to who may participate in that privilage.

We've been over this before: equal protection isn't the issue, because your sexuality is irrelevant to marriage law. This is a technical argument, yes, but technical arguments matter when it comes to the law.

Perhaps, but this has not been the case in many other government programs over the years. Why single out this one issue?

Well, because that's what this thread is about. No other reason.

This, again, assumes that the sole purpose behind marriage laws is to support procreation. No evidence has been provided to this effect.

Not "again". Point 5 is the ONLY step at which the assumption is made that procreation is the sole interest in marriage. And yes, I KNOW that an assumption was made at that step. I pretty much spelled that out explicitly in my outline for how to counter this. All you need to do is come up with another interest the state might have in promoting marriage besides procreation. Why isn't anyone doing that? I would have thought that would be easy. Hell, I may even just do it myself if none of you can come up with such an interest.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ever hear of contract law? Contracts are agreements made between two or more parties, and government is called upon to enforce them all the time.

Yes, but contract law happens to pertain to financial obligations and services.

Why is it that a business contract must be enforced, and the marriage contract is "divorced" so readily and easily?

Why not? Are you suggesting that the government make divorce illegal also?

Because that's what you want?

Not just me, but many people that also like having a divorce option.

Can you explain how the abortion epidemic fits into your outlook?

What's the "abortion epidemic"? I've never heard of it.