Marriage Debate

[Upchurch]

A lot of people agree. I'm not one of them. I think the majority of the psychological differences are rooted in biology, and many of the legal and social differences stem from the psychological, and to a lesser extent, physiological, differences.

Do you think the majority of all psychology is biological in nature or just women's psychology? This concept has some vast philosophical and ethical repercussions that must be considered, if you do.

And that's where a lot of the gay marriage arguments fall on deaf ears for me. They seem to be rooted in the concept that men and women are basically the same, so one man and one woman is basically the same as two men or two women. I don't buy it.

What would you say if a woman could pass in society as a man or a man could pass as a women? Do you buy that this could be possible?

But, it takes al kinds to make a world, so as long as the institution of marriage exists and is set up to accommodate breeders, have fun with the imitation, if it suits your fancy.

I'm not even dignifying that.

 

[Upchurch]

It seems to me that the pro-SSM folks are arguing that love is the foundation of a long-term committed relationship; and that the anti- are arguing that pro-creation is its foundation.

I'd say that they pro-SSM folks are arguing that the foundation of a long-term committed relationship is mostly the same for homosexual couples as it is for heterosexual couples (given that every relationship is different and complex). I would agree with your assessment of the anti-SSM arguments.

 

[Earthborn]

I think the majority of the psychological differences are rooted in biology

That is not in conflict with what Upchurch said. The majority of psychological differences are rooted in biology and they are social in nature.

and many of the legal and social differences stem from the psychological, and to a lesser extent, physiological, differences.

It's not a one way street. The psychological and physiological differences are also influenced by legal and social differences.

And that's where a lot of the gay marriage arguments fall on deaf ears for me.

So you basically admit that you do not want to hear them?

They seem to be rooted in the concept that men and women are basically the same, so one man and one woman is basically the same as two men or two women. I don't buy it.

The thing you do not buy is the claim that 'men' and 'women' are not absolute concepts without common ground, clearly distinct in some odd metaphysical way. To argue that a government needs to make a distinction between those two categories because they are psychologically different, you'll have to ignore a whole lot of biology, psychology and the statistics of those supposed differences.

 

[Ziggurat]

It seems to me that the pro-SSM folks are arguing that love is the foundation of a long-term committed relationship; and that the anti- are arguing that pro-creation is its foundation.

That's a misscharacterization of at least one anti- argument: it's not that procreation is the foundation of long-term committed relationships, but that procreation is the source of the state's interest in long-term committed relationships, and that absent that, it doesn't matter WHY the relationship exists (love, sex, money, whatever), the state has no interest in promoting it. That's not a trivial distinction.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That is my whole point. A man and woman committing to each other in the raising of children is what it's all about, and it has been so since the dawn of time.

...snip...

Any evidence for these claims?

Evidence? You need evidence?

Well, frankly, this world today offers none.

The family unit has been relegated to extinction, by dictate of wise birds like yourself. A traditional two-parent household with children is looked upon with distain in the West.

No. I offer you no evidence. You wouldn't accept it if I did.

The Pharisees and Sadducees came and, to test him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven. He said to them in reply, "In the evening you say, 'Tomorrow will be fair, for the sky is red'; and, in the morning, 'Today will be stormy, for the sky is red and threatening.' You know how to judge the appearance of the sky, but you cannot judge the signs of the times. An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Then he left them and went away.

Matthew 16:1-4

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :
So why must marriage be the legal entity for this? Can we not have laws that simply protect women.

We do: paternity laws.
Marriage has nothing to do with it.

Oh, boy. Those paternity laws are a smashing success, huh?

 

[thaiboxerken]

If you don't like the Biblical/biblical argument, I found an article that raises a couple of points that I hadn't even thought of before:

How stupid are you?! Haven't you been reading the posts in the thread? The argument you just presented was just refuted not a few posts prior to yours.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It seems to me that the pro-SSM folks are arguing that love is the foundation of a long-term committed relationship; and that the anti- are arguing that pro-creation is its foundation.

That's pretty much the gist of it. However, that anti-SSM folks are simply stretching for anything that sounds feasable. People that don't think same-sex marriage should be allowed simply hate homosexuals, all other arguments are just feable attempts to cover up that fact.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Evidence? You need evidence?

Well, frankly, this world today offers none.

The family unit has been relegated to extinction, by dictate of wise birds like yourself. A traditional two-parent household with children is looked upon with distain in the West.

No. I offer you no evidence. You wouldn't accept it if I did.

Throwing the bible at us is not going to give your position any validity. Please explain, using pictures and diagrams where appropriate, the exact cause by which two gay people getting married down the street does you any harm.

Incidentally this:

I offer you no evidence.

Hardly comes as a shock.

 

[Meadmaker]

It seems to me that the pro-SSM folks are arguing that love is the foundation of a long-term committed relationship; and that the anti- are arguing that pro-creation is its foundation.

Ziggurat's comments are right on the money. I will add a comment by way of illustration.


Consider two couples, A and B. Couple A consists of two people who love each other, but have no children, and cannot accidentally create any. Couple B consists of two people who have children, but do not love each other.

In which relationship does the state have an interest? (Or both, or neither?)

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Ziggurat's comments are right on the money. I will add a comment by way of illustration.


Consider two couples, A and B. Couple A consists of two people who love each other, but have no children, and cannot accidentally create any. Couple B consists of two people who have children, but do not love each other.

In which relationship does the state have an interest? (Or both, or neither?)

Both couples may have the following in common: have joint property, pay taxes jointly, and/or have health insurance and other empolyment benfits which only cover their spouses and children (such as military benefits). The legal benefits and rights gained by marriage go well beyond those strictly associated with children.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Which relationship should the state have an interest, mead? I say neither.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you think the majority of all psychology is biological in nature or just women's psychology? This concept has some vast philosophical and ethical repercussions that must be considered, if you do.

It's also nonsensical, as phrased. How could you discuss "women's psychology" without at least tacitly acknowledging a constrast with men's psychology? What I believe is that a typical man has different psychological traits from a typical woman, and those differences are founded in biology, not society. Yes, I am saying that men and women are different, and not even naked photographs will reveal all of the important differences.

Of course, Earthborn constantly corrects me that when I say "men" and "women", I really should put an asterisk and explain that there are some limitations on those terms as classifiers. However, I still think the terms represent useful concepts that are grounded in human nature, despite their exceptions and limitations.

What would you say if a woman could pass in society as a man or a man could pass as a women? Do you buy that this could be possible?

Of course it is possible. I would say that without the differences between men and women, there would be nothing to pass as.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

And that's where a lot of the gay marriage arguments fall on deaf ears for me. They seem to be rooted in the concept that men and women are basically the same, so one man and one woman is basically the same as two men or two women. I don't buy it.

Some women I know could out manly you and me put together by miles any day. That’s just the way they are, and the social and legal rules that apply to them should account for their masculine nature too, not just yours. Why care about innate masculinity in one case but not the other? It really seems it’s you having a hard time accounting for a person’s innate nature, in the same way you’re accusing others.

There are simply more people to account for than the average person.

But, it takes al kinds to make a world, so as long as the institution of marriage exists and is set up to accommodate breeders, have fun with the imitation, if it suits your fancy.

I can’t help it.

It’s stuff like this that makes me think you hope to insult, don’t take this seriously, or don’t honestly have as strong a respect for marriage or it’s role in society as you do for homogeny.

“fun with the imitation”. Did you imagine someone describing your family in such a flippant manner before you typed that? Could you imaging a kid of a same-sex couple reading that? To see people show such little regard for all the years of your parent’s love and sacrifice has to hurt. It simply insults all that’s important and sacred with family and marriage.

Also, you once again show a significant misunderstanding of the nature same-sex relationships. Gay’s are not imitating you. It’s in most human’s nature to fall in love with the opposite sex, commit to them, tie their lives together, and raise children. Just because gays somehow end up with the 1st instinct in that series that usually come in their opposite sex doesn’t mean the rest of them are any less real or genuine. Gays are doing what their nature tells them to do, the same nature that tells most straight people what to do. Just because we are given a very similar set of instructions doesn’t make one of us a mimic of the other.

I mean, the quail I see right now in my back yard are ardent practitioners of monogamy. Many animals are. And just as there are examples of monogamous child rearing animal couples, there are examples of monogamous child rearing same-sex animal couples. Are you suggesting they are all mimicking?

Consider two couples, A and B. Couple A consists of two people who love each other, but have no children, and cannot accidentally create any. Couple B consists of two people who have children, but do not love each other.

In which relationship does the state have an interest? (Or both, or neither?)

Both, particularly if couple A has a person acting as a homemaker, and/or taking advantage of welfare programs. The saving described in the congressional budget report I linked to should be considered.

And what about Couple C? Love each other (or no), can’t procreate together but are raising children nonetheless. Many gays are in this category.

 

[Ziggurat]

Both couples may have the following in common: have joint property, pay taxes jointly, and/or have health insurance and other empolyment benfits which only cover their spouses and children (such as military benefits). The legal benefits and rights gained by marriage go well beyond those strictly associated with children.

The benefits don't have to be about procreation in order for the INTEREST to be procreation: the point is whether or not the state has an interest in actively encouraging the relationship, and whether or not resources should be devoted to encourage it. Because that's what the things you mention are: they are costs born, one way or another, by society in general in order to encourage the existence of the relationship.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which relationship should the state have an interest, mead? I say neither.

But that opinion is not shared universally, and those who feel differently (namely, that the state DOES have an interest in procreation) do not always feel that way because they are the hateful bigots you presume them to be. It's ironic how incensed you are about a perceived bigotry, and yet you're so eager to assume the worst of others merely because they disagree with you. You're not exactly inspiring me with your enlightenment.

 

[Forty-Two]

The family unit has been relegated to extinction, by dictate of wise birds like yourself. A traditional two-parent household with children is looked upon with distain in the West.

Yes, my parents are shunned from society for having been married 33 years. My in-laws, who have been married just as long, cannot travel outside their home for fear of being spat upon due to their marital bliss. My grandparents had to celebrate their golden anniversary under threat of gunfire. When will the persecution end?!

[/sarcasm]

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

Yes, my parents are shunned from society for having been married 33 years. My in-laws, who have been married just as long, cannot travel outside their home for fear of being spat upon due to their marital bliss. My grandparents had to celebrate their golden anniversary under threat of gunfire. When will the persecution end?!

[/sarcasm]

LOL, I was just thinking the same thing.

I’m proud of the fact that both my partner and I come from very large families in which divorce is very rare, and not once have I seen it cause anything but respect “in the West”.

In what way have you experienced this disdain, Huntster?

 

[pounce]

for the folks trying to suggest the allowing ssm would in some undermine the sanctity of marriage as we have it commomly now - what about these much greater threats to marriage now...

infidelity
loveless marriages
marriages of convenience
divorce
childless couples

i added childless couples since procreation seems to be the main line being touted about by the folks against ssm.

also, folks in favor of ssm argue for things like the ability of a ssm couple to have hospital visitation, health coverage provided by one spouse for the other, etc. simple things afforded via the legal recognition of marriage.

any other points i would make seem to have been long since covered, and i would be preaching to the choir (except for the original poster and hunter).

 

[Meadmaker]

“fun with the imitation”. Did you imagine someone describing your family in such a flippant manner before you typed that? .

Well, I did describe my family as "breeders", so yes, I think I was imagining someone describing my family in such a flippant manner.

However, "imitation" is probably a poor choice of words, because it could imply pretense, which isn't what I was thinking. I don't think that you are trying to "imitate" me or pretend to be me.

What I meant was that there is a particular sort of ideal relationship between two people who are likely to have children. I believe some important characteristics of that relationship are that it is committed, monogamous, and permanent. I call it "ideal" because I believe that children raised in such an environment are most likely to be happy, and to make other people in society happy. Conveniently, these relationships are frequently associated with sex between two people. It's convenient because the thing (sex) which encourages those relationships also produces the thing (babies) which make such relationships necessary.

Marriage laws should exist in order to facilitate that sort of relationship between those sorts of people likely to have babies.

Now, there are lots of other people who would find such a relationship appealing. Maybe they can't produce a baby the old fashioned way, but will adopt one. Maybe they could have babies, but they will attempt to avoid it through contraception. Maybe they simply want to share a house and have no interest in having sex with each other. In other words, they want to have the same sort of legal relationship as those breeding pairs, but they just aren't going to make babies, for one reason or another. Well, then, go for it. I, personally, don't see any need to insist that the sort of relationship that is ideal for society to encourage among breeders should be restricted to the same.

Others may feel differently.