Marriage Debate

[Meadmaker]

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.

Tradition.

So, we have a status quo. If there's something wrong with it, it ought to be changed.


I've never heard anyone argue that childless people getting married causes a problem. That must not be a problem. No one wants to change the status quo in order to prohibit childless heterosexuals from marrying.

In order to make the case that the status quo ought to be changed, you have to show that there is a problem with the status quo that needs to be fixed, and your argument fails in that regard. The argument starts with the traditionalist saying, "Marriage needs to exist because of children," You counter by saying, "But we allow childles couples to marry,"

So far so good. You have shown that some people can marry, even though they do not have one of the key characteristics (children) that make marriage an important institution. However, the next step in the argument fails, unless more is added. The next step is to say, "Therefore, we should add other childless couples to the group that is able to marry."

That doesn't make sense. You are arguing that since there are some marriages in which the state has no interest, there ought to be more marriages in which the state has no inerest.

If, instead, you argue that the state has a compelling interest in homosexual marriages, then you have an argument. Scot consistently makes that argument, and it's a compelling one. In our society, there are plenty of people raising children as if they were both parents, even though biologically, they can't be. Assuming marriage affords protection to children and those who raise them, and assumingthat's in the interest of the state, then those people need the same protection that children raised by natural parents and other heterosexual couples receive.

Then, the anti gay marriage side would have to revert to an argument that same sex couples ought not to raise children. Some would use that argument, but it's losing ground quickly, as more kids are raised htat way, and no harm seems to come from it.

That's why I gave up opposition to gay marriage. I'm not prepared, in the absence of evidence, to tell Scot he can't raise children, and if marriage is important for children, then it's important for his children, too.

On the other hand, i still find offensive the idea that his marriage is "exactly like" mine. That whole capability to have babies without even trying seems to me a nontrivial distinction. Likewise, our genders domake us different in my opinion. I don't think my marriage is better than his because of our differences, but I think it is different. Whether the state needs to acknowledge that difference is a separate issue, but i bristle at the idea that there is no difference.

 

[Hardenbergh]

Maggie just e-mailed me this article this morning:

GAY MARRIAGE CREATES NEW CONFLICTS FOR NEIGHBORS
By Maggie Gallagher
May 30, 2006

The story circulating on the Internet was hard to believe at first: A North Truro, Mass., volunteer fireman lost his position because he signed a petition opposing gay marriage?

...snip...

Edited by Darat: 

Edited for breach of Rule 4.

I found a thread discussing the article that Maggie commented on:

http://www.southcoastresponse.com/board/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=249385&an=0&page=0

http://www.provincetownbanner.com/article/news_article/_/41294/News/5/11/2006

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

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?

Am I on ignore?

The Congressional Budget Office projects a savings on giving these rights and especially responsibilities to gay couples, as well as a couple other studies. The cost that has to be justified is in not allowing SSM.

 

[Cleon]

So "Skip" publicly declared his bigotry, then was surprised when he lost votes as a result.

Meanwhile Paul Asher-Best, who decided to publicly defend his marriage, is being painted as a tyrant.

Am I the only one who sees a problem with that article? I like how the writer couldn't even answer the question: "If the issue is interracial marriage, would questioning him on attitudes toward black people be so out of line?" Fact is, if he'd signed a petition against interracial marriage he not only would've been voted out, he probably would've been forced to resign from both the board and his job.

If anything, this shows that bigotry against same-sex couples is still considered "acceptable" to some people.

 

[pounce]

meadmaker -

while a ssm may be different that a "traditional" one, i contend that there are a lot of other factors which more greatly affect a marriage and home. lifestyle, economics, personality, etc. if talking about a home and kids, when one considers all the things that make a "family", marriage is only part of the equation. so while a traditional marriage and a ssm are different, it's probably true that many traditional marriages are the start of homes, families, and lifestyles that are drastically different from one another with the genders of the married couples not even being a factor. my point is that if we were to examine matters of importance to marriage and family, in reality the genders of the couple getting married wouldn't be anywhere near the most important stuff.

sometimes i am left to wonder if those who oppose ssm don't believe that a ss couple could have a loving monogamous relationship as they are apparently unwilling to be shown that it can happen. or are those opposed to ssm people who don't want ss couples to be able to deal with things ranging from hospital visits, taxes, insurance, estate matters, etc. the way a married couple does.

while there have been weak overtures about sanctity or marriage, increased tax or insurance cost, and procreation - i do no believe those arguments. besides the fact that they are weak arguments, i think the underlying moral disapproval is the real argument. refusal to recognize a lifestyle that some folks don't approve of seems to be the bottom line. so i'm just calling ******** on the rest of the arguments. it strikes me as being more about the moral stand being taken by those against ssm, to whom any legal recognition of ssm is an affront to some sort of personal and/or religious beliefs.

 

[Mid]

...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.

The state could easily make a dividing line between different classes of heterosexual couples if it was so concerned with procreation. A solution off the top of my head would be to automatically annul all marriages that hadn't produced kids after a set number of years. Of course that might be constitutionally tricky but a constitutional amendment would I assume get around it. Some legal process to claim compensation for the legal benefits that the couple received over that time could also be introduced. Now some could say this would be unfair, but the state in this world view isn't interested in fairness just more kids.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Well then, that's part of the argument. So pursue that line: what proportion of gay marriages would involve procreation? How do children of gay couples fare in society? There may indeed be a case to be made here, but don't lose sight of the fact that the case does have to be made.

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.

No cart-before-the-horse reasoning is involved. It's just that procreation involves a lot more than just giving birth, it also involves raising those children to be productive citizens. The statistics are quite clear about this: children of two-parent families fare much better than children of one-parent families, and so it is only natural to try to promote two-parent families. That's what marriage does.

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

Sure. And that should be at the heart of the pro-SSM message. Because I actually AGREE with that to a pretty large extent. I've been taking a largely anti-SSM stance so far in this thread not so much because I'm actually opposed, but because I can recognize that the argument against it is generally misrepresented, and if you want to form a GOOD argument for it, you need to actually stand up to those arguments against it which have substance.

The states do blood tests for std’s, asks some personal questions for a marriage license, and some even have a doctor test to be sure the couple is infertile, and.

Exceptions are made in some cases, and apparently people think that those exceptions are worth the costs involved, but it wouldn't work as a general rule, and in most cases nothing like a blood test is required.

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.

Not quite. The fact that states let some such couples marry suggests that procreation is not the ONLY interest the state has, but it says nothing about what other interests the state might have. And I'm not sure you want to push that line of argument too far, because there's more than one way to resolve the apparent discrepency: we could allow SSM's, or we could simply ban marriages which now require the couple to be infertile, and you're only interested in one of those results.

Or they could only apply marriage laws if children result.

They could, but the state still has an interest in promoting marriage before children result. Because birth control is pretty reliable, most couples interested in long-term relationships with children don't have children until they're financially independent and stable. That typically takes time, and it's often made easier by the financial benefits of marriage. So there's a definite motivation to provide the benefits before children arrive on scene.

Also, why pry into a person’s sex and make a dividing line there then?

Well, if you think the government shouldn't be doing that, you might want to look on your driver's license. The government DOES make that dividing line, on a rather regular basis, and you've got to complain about a whole lot more than just marriage law if you think making that distinction is itself wrong. And good luck convincing the general population.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Evidence? You need evidence?

Well, frankly, this world today offers none.

...snip...

So how do you know it is true?

I don't. I believe it to be true.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Ummmmmmmmm........hate to burst your bubble, but.............

That definition also fits proponents of same-sex marriage.

You missed out the last bit of the defintion - the bit about "intolerance" i.e ."... and is intolerant of those who differ".

Not one of the homosexuals in this thread has been intolerant toward the heterosexuals because of that difference, the opposite is not true..

Intolerant:

Not tolerant, especially:
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
c. Unable or unwilling to endure or support: intolerant of interruptions; a community intolerant of crime.

Sorry. It appears to me that both communities are intolerant of each other.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Sorry, Zig, but you're the one missing the point. Let's look at that definition again.

Bigot:
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You're saying that those straight people who are tolerant of those who are different than themselves are bigots because they object to other straight people who are intolerant of those who are different from themselves.

If anything, that's the exact opposite of the above definition.

On the other hand, the straight people who are anti-ssm are intolerant of both those who are different from themselves sexually as well as of straight people who are tolerant of those who are those who are different from themselves sexually.


In short, people who are advocating for those who are different than themselves are not bigots. Those who advocating against those who are different than themselves are bigots. You can play semantic games and call people "bigot bigots", but that would be an oxymoron. A bigot who is intollerant of bigots is not bigotry because a bigot is not different than a bigot.

 

[Snide]

People who are against gay marriage are hateful people, the only real reason they are against gay marriage is because they hate homosexuals.

I would invoke Hanlon's Razor here. I wouldn't assume hatred is the case in all instances, when simple ignorance is a perfectly viable possibility.

 

[Upchurch]

Sorry. It appears to me that both communities are intolerant of each other.

Look at those goal posts move. I never said I wasn't intolerant of bigotry. I said I wasn't a bigot. Big difference.

 

[Upchurch]

I would invoke Hanlon's Razor here. I wouldn't assume hatred is the case in all instances, when simple ignorance is a perfectly viable possibility.

Religious dogma could be another. (although, some may consider that synonymous with ignorance, I suppose.)

 

[Darat]

Intolerant:



Sorry. It appears to me that both communities are intolerant of each other.

Yet the evidence in this thread shows it is only the heterosexuals that have been guilty of intolerance regarding this issue. No homosexual in this thread has said that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because homosexuals can't marry... and so on.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I would invoke Hanlon's Razor here. I wouldn't assume hatred is the case in all instances, when simple ignorance is a perfectly viable possibility.

I don't agree that ignorance if viable in discussions like this, the intolerant have been informed and still don't want homosexuals to get married.

 

[Darat]

Religious dogma could be another. (although, some may consider that synonymous with ignorance, I suppose.)

And sometimes religious dogma is synonymous with hatred.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Oh, I see.

And if their common ancestors (such as their great-great grandparents) were quite probably redheads, that means they abandoned their mates and offspring?

OK, so you're not going to bother even trying to understand. I get it.

No, you don't get it (or don't want to admit it).

There is no way you are going to examine a skull fragment millions of years old and determine whether or not the creature reared it's offspring for a long period of time, or left it's mate to do so.

I joined the military at age 17 (had to have my parents signature to do it) and shipped off to Vietnam (at my request). I've lived across the globe from them almost ever since.

My Dad passed away a year or so ago. Several years ago, in a phone conversation, he told me that "kids are forever". As my adult children (away building their own lives) grow into adulthood, I understand exactly what Dad meant.

Inexplicably, you still managed to move away, and your Dad didn't spend the rest of his life raising you. Thus, your claim that "raising them is a lifetime committment" remains false.

Thanks to the miracle of today's technology, Dad was always a phone call away. His advice was more valuable than gold.

What's more, I'll admit that perhaps "lifetime" committment isn't accurate. How about "the long term prime of life"?

Considering the greater number of kids raised unsuccessfully in single-parent homes, this most assuredly shouldn't be denied.

Talking out of your ass, I see. Ho-hum.

What; no valid talking points to refute the statement, so you stoop with a statement like that?

Okay. Whatever.

 

[Upchurch]

Yet the evidence in this thread shows it is only the heterosexuals that have been guilty of intolerance regarding this issue. No homosexual in this thread has said that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because homosexuals can't marry... and so on.

I'm intreaged by this idea that bigotry is okay because the bigots are, themselves, not well liked by others because of their bigotry.

It would be like excusing the KKK's bigotry against black people because there are white people who don't like what the KKK stands for. Where is the logic in this?

 

[Huntster]

Hunster, your point that two parents are better than one needs examining. You claim that having grandparents and grandmothers around is good. Quantity is no substitute for quality. One good parent, or two who merely happen to share the same plumbing, is better than a whole gaggle of intolerant, bigoted, repressive zealots.

Oh, yeah. What a great point.

Since quality can't be assured (remember the "free choice" thing?), society should ban two parent families, grandparent involvement, then approve same sex marriage?

Please.............

 

[Snide]

I don't agree that ignorance if viable in discussions like this, the intolerant have been informed and still don't want homosexuals to get married.

Well I don't mean to cut them any slack. I just don't automatically assume hatred is always the reason.