Marriage Debate

[bluess]

I still don't understand why a non-reproducing hetero couple can get their relationship licensed by the state, and a non-reproducing homo couple cannot.

Gievn some of the previous arguments, my two-decade long intentionally childless hetero marriage should have caused great social unrest among my family, friends, peers and neighbors. Why didn't it? And why, then, would the same homo marriage do so?

 

[Ziggurat]

I still don't understand why a non-reproducing hetero couple can get their relationship licensed by the state, and a non-reproducing homo couple cannot.

Gievn some of the previous arguments, my two-decade long intentionally childless hetero marriage should have caused great social unrest among my family, friends, peers and neighbors. Why didn't it? And why, then, would the same homo marriage do so?

You're making an assumption about what the anti-SSM position must be, but that's simply not the only grounds on which it can be opposed.

Suppose that the state's only interest in promoting marriage is to encourage and support procreation. Take that as a given for this argument: you might not agree with that, but that's the position some people take. So given that, the state has NO interest in promoting SSM's, since they aren't involved in procreation - it's got nothing to do with SSM's being a threat of any kind. So your question should be not why doesn't your marriage pose a threat (it doesn't), but why would the state encourage your marriage when it has no interest in it?

Well, there's actually a fairly simple answer for that: the state is not capable of distinguishing between a marriage like yours where you have chosen to remain childless and a marriage which produces children. People change their minds, you could easily be lying and claim you want children, and on and on. The state should not try to draw a dividing line between different classes of heterosexual couples because it is not qualified or capable of making such a distinction. But the distinction between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is pretty obvious, and the state IS capable of making that distinction.

 

[Cleon]

Hate to burst your bubble, but I'm a proponent of same-sex marriage and I'm not gay.

As am I. As are, I believe, the vast majority of same-sex marriage proponents on this board.

 

[Cleon]

Suppose that the state's only interest in promoting marriage is to encourage and support procreation. Take that as a given for this argument: you might not agree with that, but that's the position some people take. So given that, the state has NO interest in promoting SSM's, since they aren't involved in procreation - it's got nothing to do with SSM's being a threat of any kind. So your question should be not why doesn't your marriage pose a threat (it doesn't), but why would the state encourage your marriage when it has no interest in it?

But that's not the case, so why make the supposition? It's a useless rhetorical exercise.

Well, there's actually a fairly simple answer for that: the state is not capable of distinguishing between a marriage like yours where you have chosen to remain childless and a marriage which produces children. People change their minds, you could easily be lying and claim you want children, and on and on. The state should not try to draw a dividing line between different classes of heterosexual couples because it is not qualified or capable of making such a distinction. But the distinction between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is pretty obvious, and the state IS capable of making that distinction.

And yet, the laws banning marriage to infertile people seem to be few and far between. Again, the supposition is simply false.

 

[Darat]

...snip...


Well, there's actually a fairly simple answer for that: the state is not capable of distinguishing between a marriage like yours where you have chosen to remain childless and a marriage which produces children. People change their minds, you could easily be lying and claim you want children, and on and on. The state should not try to draw a dividing line between different classes of heterosexual couples because it is not qualified or capable of making such a distinction. But the distinction between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is pretty obvious, and the state IS capable of making that distinction.

This might be what you believe but the evidence shows that the state does make these types of distinction between different "types" of heterosexual couples,.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I suppose it's asking to much to have you folks admit the ideal, isn't it?

The ideal is to have 15 parents that are all millionaires who never leave the house and only raise kids.

 

[Ziggurat]

But that's not the case, so why make the supposition? It's a useless rhetorical exercise.

Wrong. That IS the case for some SSM opponents.

And yet, the laws banning marriage to infertile people seem to be few and far between. Again, the supposition is simply false.

Wrong again. The intrusion into privacy, and even the dollar costs, any such test would require is not worth the benefit of screening out those couples. In contrast, determining someone's sex is not generally considered an intrusion at all (and is often required information for other purposes anyways, such as a driver's license), but is generally considered pretty public information. Secondly, the state simply is not qualified to make the assessment of whether or not someone is infertile, since things like technological advances can change that categorization anyways.

Look, you don't have to conclude that these arguments are sufficient, and I doubt you will. But you don't get to simply pretend that they don't exist, which is essentially what you're doing here.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ummmmmmmmm........hate to burst your bubble, but.............

That definition also fits proponents of same-sex marriage.

No, it doesn't. I happen not to be homosexual or want to marry within my own gender. Thus I'm supporting the rights of people OUTSIDE of my own demographic.

 

[Ziggurat]

This might be what you believe but the evidence shows that the state does make these types of distinction between different "types" of heterosexual couples,.

Yes, you are right. They do make distinctions, all of which are fairly easy to make (such as age or blood relationship between the two people) without significant cost or intrusion into privacy. Neither is the case with testing for fertility OR for intent (good luck figuring out how to even do that last one). So I overgeneralized, sure, but the point stands.

 

[pounce]

yeah, just chiming in as another heterosexual married person who isn't planning on having children, and supports ssm. i'm very happy to be married to my wife, and we have a great monogamous relationship. there just aren't any immediate plans on having kids. i'd hate to think that would have kept me from being able to marry this wonderful girl.

how would allowing ssm in any way affect my marriage? i've never been able to figure that out.

it is starting to remind me of arguments surrounding race and segragation. the idea that integration and co-mingling of races would demoralize and destablize society seems to be similar to the arguments that ssm would somehow weaken marriage. i think we are a better society as a result of moving forward past that racial prejudice (or at least trying to), and moving through prejudice surrounding things like ssm will be a good next move to make for our society.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is there evidence that the "state's interest" in marriage is about procreation?

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it doesn't. I happen not to be homosexual or want to marry within my own gender. Thus I'm supporting the rights of people OUTSIDE of my own demographic.

The dividing line for you isn't sexuality, sure. It's just ideology. You can't stand people who hold different opinions from you, and you assume that they could only hold such differing opinions because they are hateful people and you are not. You are, in short, a bigot. Boy, did you miss the point on that one.

 

[Darat]

Is there evidence that the "state's interest" in marriage is about procreation?

Not apparently in the legislation regarding marriage itself (well apart from the not being able to procreate to be able to marry in certain circumstances).

 

[Cleon]

Wrong. That IS the case for some SSM opponents.

No, that's what some of them think. That doesn't make them correct. Sorry.

Wrong again. The intrusion into privacy, and even the dollar costs, any such test would require is not worth the benefit of screening out those couples. In contrast, determining someone's sex is not generally considered an intrusion at all (and is often required information for other purposes anyways, such as a driver's license), but is generally considered pretty public information. Secondly, the state simply is not qualified to make the assessment of whether or not someone is infertile, since things like technological advances can change that categorization anyways.

Ooh, nice try, but no dice. It's also illegal to marry your first cousin in most states, and that's not always easy to tell, either. Some states require blood tests to make sure you're not related.

So the idea that it's "too complicated to test" is simply not sufficient reason to ban the activitiy.

Look, you don't have to conclude that these arguments are sufficient, and I doubt you will. But you don't get to simply pretend that they don't exist, which is essentially what you're doing here.

No, they exist, as do arguments for six-day creation. Those arguments are simply invalid and incorrect.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The dividing line for you isn't sexuality, sure. It's just ideology. You can't stand people who hold different opinions from you, and you assume that they could only hold such differing opinions because they are hateful people and you are not. You are, in short, a bigot. Boy, did you miss the point on that one.

Yes, I'm bigotted against bigots. I can't stand members of the KKK either. There is nothing wrong with being intolerant of the intolerant. People who are against gay marriage are hateful people, the only real reason they are against gay marriage is because they hate homosexuals.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Suppose that the state's only interest in promoting marriage is to encourage and support procreation. Take that as a given for this argument: you might not agree with that, but that's the position some people take. So given that, the state has NO interest in promoting SSM's, since they aren't involved in procreation - it's got nothing to do with SSM's being a threat of any kind. So your question should be not why doesn't your marriage pose a threat (it doesn't), but why would the state encourage your marriage when it has no interest in it?

But gay couples do procreate; the last couple decades have seen a sharp rise in the number gay couples producing children that wouldn’t have before more rights were given to them. They, like any infertile couple need outside help, but the children would not have life if not for the gay couple’s union.

Besides, the cart is before the horse in this reasoning. People, gay or no, will have children with or without marriage; it’s one of the most compelling human drives. Consider that, on the last census, the states with the highest % of self-identified SS-lead households raising children were not Massachusetts and California; they were Utah, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Texas, despite these states hostility to such families. The percentages were as high as 33% in those states. The state’s interest is in making sure those couples remain responsible for their children, and spouse if they are financially dependent, SS or no

Well, there's actually a fairly simple answer for that: the state is not capable of distinguishing between a marriage like yours where you have chosen to remain childless and a marriage which produces children. People change their minds, you could easily be lying and claim you want children, and on and on. The state should not try to draw a dividing line between different classes of heterosexual couples because it is not qualified or capable of making such a distinction. But the distinction between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is pretty obvious, and the state IS capable of making that distinction.

The states do blood tests for stds, asks some personal questions, and some even have a doctor test to be sure the couple is infertile for a marriage license. If this is their reasoning (again, if a state only lets some couples marry if they can medically show they are infertile, it is not) they could at least ask if a couple knows if they are missing reproductive organs, say, from removal of a cancerous uterus. Or they could only apply marriage laws if children result.

Also, why pry into a person’s sex and make a dividing line there then? That is a very private matter to some people, and some actually are both (or neither) sex anatomically and genetically and may have a sexual orientation which would cause them to marry both sex throughout their life, even if they self-identify as sex-less.

edited for bad typing...

 

[Ziggurat]

how would allowing ssm in any way affect my marriage? i've never been able to figure that out.

It doesn't. But that's not the only basis upon which this question turns.

Every marriage affects other people. It affects single people who will never get married and never have kids. It affects other people who are married and do have kids. It affects other people pretty indiscriminately. And it affects them through a number of mechanisms, the most obvious being a shift of financial burden from married people to everyone else (through tax cuts, health care benefits, etc). These are costs. Society as a whole pays these costs for ALL marriages. The question is, what does society get in return that justifies these costs? I have already outlined the argument for what they get out of supporting heterosexual couples (namely supporting procreation). It isn't enough for there not to be a THREAT from SSM's (and I agree that there isn't), there has to be something to justify the COST. Someone earlier suggested that there were such benefits, and I haven't tracked down their argument myself yet, but that's the case that needs to be made in order to counter the argument that the state has no interest in promoting SSM's. And that very basic point keeps getting ignored: what interest does the state have in PROMOTING SSM's?

 

[thaiboxerken]

And that very basic point keeps getting ignored: what interest does the state have in PROMOTING SSM's?

No one is asking for the state to promote same-sex marriage. They are asking for the state to allow and recognize same-sex marriage.

Are you still working on providing evidence that the state's interest in marriage is procreation?

 

[Cleon]

And that very basic point keeps getting ignored: what interest does the state have in PROMOTING SSM's?

It's not being ignored, it's just not a substantial point.

What interest did the state have in desegregating the South? Well, it was just, and quite frankly that's reason enough for me. I don't see any reason or need to justify it beyond that.

What interest does the state have in promoting marriage at all? You still haven't answered that one satisfactorily--as we've shown, the "procreation" argument is simply without substance.

 

[pounce]

The dividing line for you isn't sexuality, sure. It's just ideology. You can't stand people who hold different opinions from you, and you assume that they could only hold such differing opinions because they are hateful people and you are not. You are, in short, a bigot. Boy, did you miss the point on that one.

no no no, this is all backwards.

people advocating allowing ssm are allowing greater choices for people to make, and i still contend that it will not have an adverse affect on marriage between a man and a woman. i have not found the arguments about how ssm would ruin the sanctity of marriage to be compelling whatsoever. however, those opposed to ssm are trying to legislate this point, imho trying to legislate morality under the guise that it's about procreation or something else. in reality, it seems to be about disapproval of the homosexual lifestyle. that said, i have not been convinced that either outcome will have any effect on so called traditional marriages. the only people effected are homosexuals desiring a commited, monogamous married relationship. a funny thing, to me, is that the stereotypes trotted out to show homosexuals as wild, amoral, and having much casual unsafe sex are countered by homosexual couples wanting to have stable married commited lives with each other.

to specifically deny homosexuals that right is what this is about. allowing all folks to be legally married does not show bigotry. disallowing folks from being married seems to be caused by bigotry, the arguments against ssm are pretty weak. recognizing bigotry does not make a person a bigot themselves.