Marriage Debate

[Random]

When your sex determines that a couple is unable to conceive within the context of marriage, that inability is rather obviously NOT private information. An obvious an irrefutable inference made from public information cannot be private information.

Two people wearing burkas walk into a courthouse. They introduce themselves as Pat and Chris. It is impossible to tell from their mannerisms and appearance if they are male or female. They ask for a marriage license because they are in love and wish to be married. When asked to identify their respective sexes, they state that that is a personal matter that they do not wish to share.

Does the government have the right to force them to reveal their sex in order to grant them a marriage license? Is your personal sex private information or not?

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

When your sex determines that a couple is unable to conceive within the context of marriage, that inability is rather obviously NOT private information. An obvious an irrefutable inference made from public information cannot be private information.

Public information, like, say, like the age of a person. Like a 90-year old woman wanting to get married? It’s right on her driver’s license and we check age already.

I’m still trying to catch up...

Meadmaker, I got a rather loud chuckle out of that Da Vinci Code post. Cleaver guy, you. (But you forgot to work in the secret gospel of Mark!)

I’ll take a look at the analysis of that law you posted (I thought it was a speech…).

 

[Upchurch]

When your sex determines that a couple is unable to conceive within the context of marriage, that inability is rather obviously NOT private information. An obvious an irrefutable inference made from public information cannot be private information.

And I'll say again: the incentives need not have ANY direct connection to procreation. It is an incentive to get married, and that is enough. There is no requirement anywhere that the incentives need have any more connection than that.

Okay, let me see if I can summarize:

You're saying is that any reason the government gives to get married is in support for procreation, irregardless of whether or not this reason has anything to do with procreation itself and irregardless of the fact that marriage is neither required nor necessary for procreation. In addition, it doesn't matter that the government has direct incentives that support procreation that have nothing to do with marriage. Further, it doesn't matter if the actual reason that marriage laws were instituted in the first place for this purpose, it is a reason Further still, whether or not a same sex couple can have a child is a requirement for them to be able to be married, but it is not a requirement for a mixed sex couple. Further still, it is justified to discriminate against same sex couples, not because they can't have children or raise children, but because they cannot have children with one another without extrodinary means even though it is not justified to discriminate against different sex couples who cannot have children with one another without extraordinary means.


That about sum it up?

 

[bluess]

This whole thread is full of reasons but no one wants to listen to any of them. My reasoning is lacking so you're asking the wrong person. I'm not very good at debating. That's why I'm always quoting someone else that seems to fall in line with what I believe to be true.

The reasons I have gleaned thus far:

1. Homosexual/Lesbian relationships are wrong and should not be state-sanctioned.
--- Well, this one won't work for me. Its an argument based on a number of religious texts to which I do not ascribe.

2. State sanction of SSM will result in an undue burden on the financial structures of the state.
--- Scot C. Tryphal's arguments regarding this issue seem to the point. I do see how Social Security spousal benefits would be increased, and how insurance company premiums might be affected, but I don't think that these two items are sufficient to deny SSM. Again, if these are concerns, than discouraging heterosexual marriages would be a much easier way to control costs. Aren't there more of 'US' than 'THEM'?

3. State sanction of SSM will result in a cascade of changes to existing laws.
--- I am not sure if this is the case. As I noted previously, it seems that the sex of the spouses should not impact the laws regarding the benefits and liabilities of marriage. There are probably some old laws on the books that would be made instantly ridiculous. Oh, state laws regarding sodomy would definitely be affected. I don't see that as a bad thing.

4. State sanction of heterosexual marriage is necessary to ensure that the procreation and rearing of children is managed to the benefit of the state. Sanction of SSM is not necessary as children cannot result in an unplanned fashion.
--- Well, Zig and a variety of other people have been beating this one up. Regardless of children being planned or unplanned, if we know that families are being created and that the children must be attended to, it seems to me to be more effecient to bring into play the already existing laws rather than create a whole new body of law.

5. Children raised in homosexual/lesbian households are more likely to be gay or suffer emotionally or suffer in their maturation, etc.
--- From the study links posted by other folks, that doesn't seem to be the case. I don't think this reason stands.

6. Lots of paperwork will have to be changed to reflect both spouses being the same gender.
--- Yes, this is true.

7. Children will be conceived using 'unnatural' means.
--- As heterosexual couples are already using in vitro fertilization and sperm donation, I don't see how the use of these methods by same sex couples could be a problem.

OK, Hardenbergh - any others? What do you think about my analysis above (leaving out #1, we'll just agree to disagree on that).

By the way, I think I'm terrible at debate. I regularly wish I were half as eloquent and well-versed as a number of posters on this board. But practice is helping.

 

[Ziggurat]

Two people wearing burkas walk into a courthouse. They introduce themselves as Pat and Chris. It is impossible to tell from their mannerisms and appearance if they are male or female. They ask for a marriage license because they are in love and wish to be married. When asked to identify their respective sexes, they state that that is a personal matter that they do not wish to share.

Does the government have the right to force them to reveal their sex in order to grant them a marriage license? Is your personal sex private information or not?

Yes. That information is considered part of your identity, NOT private information. That's why it's on your birth certificate, your driver's license, and your passport. The government can demand that information as part of your identity, just like they can demand that Pat and Chris also give their last names. You can disagree about this if you want, but that's how the government treats it. And if you have an issue with that, well, you're going to have to protest a lot more than just marriage law. You'll also have to abolish separate-gender public bathrooms, for example. Good luck trying to convince the general public of that position.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Children are conceived outside of marriages all the time, and that is wrong. It is fornication.

I never said that they weren't, I disagree that it's wrong though. On what basis do you make your opinion from?

Tradition, religious law, the realization of what happens to children born out of wedlock, and common sense.

All things are possible with God. That is if God wishes or wills it.

Yes, and your claimed "reason" to be against same-sex marriage comes down to procreation

No, it does not. The future of procreation is a factor in my opinion, but not the primary factor.

I've repeatedly stated that my opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the slippery slope society has been sliding down which is becoming a sheer cliff. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman, and I don't want the courts redefining it to same-sex, multiple partners, pets, livestock, or anything else.

Slippery slope is a fallacy of logic used to try and intimidate people....

That's your opinion. (Does it have the authority of reality? See sig line below)

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, let me see if I can summarize:

You're saying is that any reason the government gives to get married is in support for procreation, irregardless of whether or not this reason has anything to do with procreation itself and irregardless of the fact that marriage is neither required nor necessary for procreation.

What the hell are you talking about? Since when does an incentive offered by the government to encourage an action have to be the same thing as the reason the government has to encourage that action? Those are distinct concepts, and I'm not sure why you're having trouble figuring out that very basic concept.

In addition, it doesn't matter that the government has direct incentives that support procreation that have nothing to do with marriage.

No, it does not. That the government has a prefered method for procreation (within the context of marriage) doesn't mean that they don't also have an interest in supporting such procreation as does occur outside marriage. The two are not mutually exclusive by any means.

Further, it doesn't matter if the actual reason that marriage laws were instituted in the first place for this purpose, it is a reason

You didn't finish this sentence, so I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. But no, it doesn't matter what the original purpose was. What matters is if there is a legitimate purpose NOW for the state's actions. Motives of individual lawmakers, even present motivations, are likewise irrelevant.

Further still, whether or not a same sex couple can have a child is a requirement for them to be able to be married, but it is not a requirement for a mixed sex couple.

It's not a "requirement" for same sex couples - that doesn't make any sense, because no same sex couple is capable of that. But I already listed reasons why the requirement is not applied to opposite-sex couples. And the opening is right there, for the taking. And you're STILL missing it.

Further still, it is justified to discriminate against same sex couples, not because they can't have children or raise children, but because they cannot have children with one another without extrodinary means even though it is not justified to discriminate against different sex couples who cannot have children with one another without extraordinary means.

When did I ever claim in my argument that it would not be justified to discriminate against infertile couples? I never did. I gave reasons why SOME of the dividing lines between fertile and infertile couples could not practically be used, but never said the government could not do so. That the government does not do so could be for a number of reasons. One is that there may be some other interest the states have (there's your opening: offer up this alternative interest). Another is simply that the state MAY discriminate, but doesn't happen to. That they do not in one case where they could does not prevent them from being able to in another case.

That about sum it up?

Nope. You got the first half completely and absolutely wrong. And the second half is just a retread of what we've already been over.

Try this on for size: instead of arguing why the state CAN'T prevent gay marriage, why don't you try arguing, for once, why the state SHOULD grant marriage benefits to gays? Because really, if the only reasons you can come up with are reasons for why we can't prevent gay marriage, then an alternative solution is just to abolish marriage altogether. But voters are very attached to the institution, and they're not going to have much reason to grab onto arguments that do not distinguish between granting same-sex marriage and abolishing marriage altogether. You'll make a hell of a lot more headway with a positive (why doing so would provide benefits to society), rather than a negative (why not doing so is bad), argument. Can you do that? Are you even able to come up with such an argument?

 

[Ziggurat]

Public information, like, say, like the age of a person. Like a 90-year old woman wanting to get married? It’s right on her driver’s license and we check age already.

Yes. Your age is considered public information for these purposes. The state has the constitutional authority to discriminate in marriage based upon age. That it does not do so could be for a number of reasons, as I stated in response to Upchurch:
1) The state chooses not to make a distinction they are allowed to make. This does not prevent them from making other distinctions they are allowed to make. There is no requirement on the state that it act with complete ideological consistency, or that it make the right decisions.
2) The state may extend this privilege to old people because of some OTHER interest that is advanced. That's where an opportunity for a counterargument comes in: the interest in procreation does not preclude other interests, and it may be possible to show such interests are served by expanding marriage benefits to same-sex couples as well.

 

[Random]

Yes. That information is considered part of your identity, NOT private information. That's why it's on your birth certificate, your driver's license, and your passport. The government can demand that information as part of your identity, just like they can demand that Pat and Chris also give their last names. You can disagree about this if you want, but that's how the government treats it. And if you have an issue with that, well, you're going to have to protest a lot more than just marriage law. You'll also have to abolish separate-gender public bathrooms, for example. Good luck trying to convince the general public of that position.

You're probably right, even though I don't like it in principle. I just don’t understand what business it is of the state whether I have a wing-wang or a hoo-hah.

 

[Snide]

You're probably right, even though I don't like it in principle. I just don’t understand what business it is of the state whether I have a wing-wang or a hoo-hah.

19 pages and I'm still awaiting a solid explanation as to why disallowing SSMs is good policy.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Tradition, religious law, the realization of what happens to children born out of wedlock, and common sense.

Appeals to tradition mean little. Religious law is garbage. Common sense is the equivalent of saying "because I'm right." What happens to children born out of wedlock? What does children being born out of wedlock have to do with same-sex marriage?

No, it does not. The future of procreation is a factor in my opinion, but not the primary factor.

So what do procreation have to do with same-sex marriage or heterosexual marriage?

That's your opinion

No, it is a fact that the issue at hand is same-sex marriage, not beastiality, polygamy or bigomy. Let's stick to the issue we're talking about and leave the red-herrings in the sea.

 

[Ziggurat]

19 pages and I'm still awaiting a solid explanation as to why disallowing SSMs is good policy.

Well, there's another alternative: why not show that there's a positive benefit to extending that privilege?

There's a lot of inertia to society (which is sometimes a good thing, BTW). People don't want to fix things when they don't really seem broken. Rather than focusing on why there's no reason NOT to change the status quo, it's easier to actually accomplish change if you can show why there's a reason TO change the status quo.

 

[Darat]

Well, there's another alternative: why not show that there's a positive benefit to extending that privilege?

There's a lot of inertia to society (which is sometimes a good thing, BTW). People don't want to fix things when they don't really seem broken. Rather than focusing on why there's no reason NOT to change the status quo, it's easier to actually accomplish change if you can show why there's a reason TO change the status quo.

Which is what the pro-adults-marrying-who-they-want crowd tend to do and have done in this thread.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, there's another alternative: why not show that there's a positive benefit to extending that privilege?

I have this strange philosophy that people should not be discriminated against unless there is adequate reason to discriminate against them. Maybe I'm just being silly.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is what the pro-adults-marrying-who-they-want crowd tend to do and have done in this thread.

No, they don't "tend to". Only a few people in this thread have. You haven't been one of them.

 

[Snide]

I have this strange philosophy that people should not be discriminated against unless there is adequate reason to discriminate against them. Maybe I'm just being silly.

Yeah, I have a funny default position like that, too. You know...for absence of a sound reason not to allow people to do something, let them do it.

 

[Upchurch]

What the hell are you talking about? Since when does an incentive offered by the government to encourage an action have to be the same thing as the reason the government has to encourage that action? Those are distinct concepts, and I'm not sure why you're having trouble figuring out that very basic concept.

Yes, that is exactly what I said. "any reason the government gives to get married is in support for procreation, irregardless of whether or not this reason has anything to do with procreation itself and irregardless of the fact that marriage is neither required nor necessary for procreation."

No, it does not. That the government has a prefered method for procreation (within the context of marriage) doesn't mean that they don't also have an interest in supporting such procreation as does occur outside marriage. The two are not mutually exclusive by any means.

So far so good.

You didn't finish this sentence, so I'm not sure exactly what you're asking.

You're right. I didn't finish it. I'll have to have words with my editor.

Further, it doesn't matter if the actual reason that marriage laws were instituted in the first place for this purpose or if it ever explicitly had that purpose, it is a reason that must be adhered to.​

My appologies.

But no, it doesn't matter what the original purpose was. What matters is if there is a legitimate purpose NOW for the state's actions. Motives of individual lawmakers, even present motivations, are likewise irrelevant.

Who, then, determines the purpose for a state's laws?

It's not a "requirement" for same sex couples - that doesn't make any sense, because no same sex couple is capable of that. But I already listed reasons why the requirement is not applied to opposite-sex couples. And the opening is right there, for the taking. And you're STILL missing it.

So, it isn't a requirement that same sex couples be able to conceive, but that is the reason why it is not in the state's interest for them to be able to marry and thus why the cannot?

What definition of the word "requiement" are you using?

When did I ever claim in my argument that it would not be justified to discriminate against infertile couples? I never did. I gave reasons why SOME of the dividing lines between fertile and infertile couples could not practically be used, but never said the government could not do so. That the government does not do so could be for a number of reasons. One is that there may be some other interest the states have (there's your opening: offer up this alternative interest). Another is simply that the state MAY discriminate, but doesn't happen to. That they do not in one case where they could does not prevent them from being able to in another case.

Is it your position that it would be legitimate for the state to not allow infertal and elderly couples to marry?

Nope. You got the first half completely and absolutely wrong. And the second half is just a retread of what we've already been over.

Seems to me that you were saying the same thing I was in the first half. How was it wrong?

Try this on for size: instead of arguing why the state CAN'T prevent gay marriage, why don't you try arguing, for once, why the state SHOULD grant marriage benefits to gays? Because really, if the only reasons you can come up with are reasons for why we can't prevent gay marriage, then an alternative solution is just to abolish marriage altogether.

um... maybe you should review the thread. I've been arguing that allowing same sex marriage will not only increase the stability of gay house holds but also provide a larger pool for adoption and foster agencies to draw upon to help raise children in a more stable environment than the might otherwise have. Further, it would go a long way towards living up to the American ideals of equality and freedom. I know you don't see it as such an issue, but I'm fairly confident that within a generation or two, the general population will view laws against gay marriage with same distain that this generation views laws against mixed race marriages.

But voters are very attached to the institution, and they're not going to have much reason to grab onto arguments that do not distinguish between granting same-sex marriage and abolishing marriage altogether.

I don't see how that would be the case.

You'll make a hell of a lot more headway with a positive (why doing so would provide benefits to society), rather than a negative (why not doing so is bad), argument. Can you do that? Are you even able to come up with such an argument?

Apparently so, given that I have been.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes. Your age is considered public information for these purposes. The state has the constitutional authority to discriminate in marriage based upon age. That it does not do so could be for a number of reasons, as I stated in response to Upchurch:
1) The state chooses not to make a distinction they are allowed to make. This does not prevent them from making other distinctions they are allowed to make. There is no requirement on the state that it act with complete ideological consistency, or that it make the right decisions.

i.e. the distinction is arbitrary and unequally applied.

2) The state may extend this privilege to old people because of some OTHER interest that is advanced. That's where an opportunity for a counterargument comes in: the interest in procreation does not preclude other interests, and it may be possible to show such interests are served by expanding marriage benefits to same-sex couples as well.

But, since you've been ignoring such arguments or dismissing them without much cause, I don't think you're really that intersted in exploring counter arguments.

eta: Or rather, I should say that you aren't really that interseted in exploring counter arguments that aren't the ones you want us to make. Whichever.

 

[Darat]

No, they don't "tend to". Only a few people in this thread have. You haven't been one of them.

You are wrong they do. Thaiboxerken, Imaginedisc, UpChurch & Scott are just among the ones I can recall off the top of my head who have put forward arguments as to why adult should be able to marry who the want regardless of their sex.

You are right however about my participation in this thread, but that is because I've tried to keep on-topic (i.e. this is a thread about not allowing adults to choose who they wish to marry and those arguments). Therefore it would be off-topic to be putting forward arguments for rather then addressing the arguments why they shouldn't have such a freedom.

 

[Snide]

(i.e. this is a thread about not allowing adults to choose who they wish to marry and those arguments). Therefore it would be off-topic to be putting forward arguments for rather then addressing the arguments why they shouldn't have such a freedom.

Bears repeating.