Marriage Debate

[Upchurch]

I deny that age is a require,eirement in marriage. Historically, people have goten married before puberty, why not now?

Yes, and they were usually forced into those relationships. Age of consent is an assurance that the individual is making their own choice and not having it forced upon them.

I deny that monogamy is a requirement in marriage. Historically, peoplehave multiple marriages. Why not now?

I have no good logical argument for why marriage should be monogamous.

Species? Hmmm. Pushing the limit, but maybe.

Again, there is the whole consent thing.

Marriage is what we make it into. Historicaly, it has always been between people of opposite genders. The extremely rare exceptions have been short lived. Should we keep it that way?

You're cherry picking history again, but that aside, you are right. Marriage is a social construct and, as such, can be whatever we want it to be. There is no reason it can't include same sex marriage except that we choose that it not. There is no reason for us to choose that it exclude same sex marriage except merely for the purposes of the majority excluding a minority for no other purpose other than that they are different.

For me, I want it to be an instiution that encourages an ideal environment for raising children. Since that includes children raised by gays, I guess that means there must be gay marriage, unless we find that that experiment is a bad idea after all.

So what do you want it to be, Upchurch?

I'd say I have to agree with that except that I would expand that to also encourage having more stable family units, not just the raising of kids.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, so how do you justify that the sexual genders/sexual orientation/ability to procreate/whatever of the couple is actually a relevant factor and not just the irrelevent intollerant social hang-up de jour?

The ability to procreate is rather obviously relevant to procreation. Race is obviously not, and sexual orientation doesn't happen to be either (which is why a gay man can still marry a woman - that he probably wouldn't want to is irrelevant to the law). The only question would be if you disagree that procreation is the basis (or even a basis) of the state's interest in marriage. But there's no definitive proof at that point, it becomes more a question of what people want the state's interest to be, but we're always going to face that kind of questions. And they're best answered through the legislative process whenever possible.

Well, yes, you simply removed "white" and the statement made no sense.

I didn't really do a good job at explaining the difference. Let me try again. Here are two structurally equivalent sentences:
"White couples can create white babies, but mixed race couples cannot."
"Different-sex couples can create different-sex babies, but same-sex couples cannot."

Here are two more structurally equivalent sentences:
"White couples can create babies, but mixed race couples cannot."
"Different-sex couples can create babies, but same-sex couples cannot."

Notice the difference? The qualifiers ("Different-sex" versus "white") simply do not operate the same way. Only two of the statements make any sense, and they aren't structurally equivalent:
"White couples can create white babies, but mixed race couples cannot."
and
"Different-sex couples can create babies, but same-sex couples cannot."

But it's really what's left unsaid in the two cases (which is related to their structural inequivalency) that's at the heart of the difference that matters here. Let me state, then, what is left unstated:

"White couples can create white babies, but mixed race couples can create mixed race babies."
"Different-sex couples can create babies, but same-sex couples cannot create babies."

Notice the difference now? It's the difference between judging white babies and mixed-race babies differently (which is racist) and judging existent babies and non-existent babies differently (which is not discriminatory). I'm sure you're proud that you got me to run around the block a few times chasing down the linguistics involved, but I suspect you knew all along that there really was a substantive difference. And if you DIDN'T, well, just don't go around admitting that.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no reason for us to choose that it exclude same sex marriage except merely for the purposes of the majority excluding a minority for no other purpose other than that they are different.

There is no reason for us to choose that it exclude sibling marriage except merely for the purposes of the majority excluding a minority for no other purpose other than that they are different.

Gee, that's a fun game you've introduced me to, Upchurch.

 

[Upchurch]

The ability to procreate is rather obviously relevant to procreation. Race is obviously not, and sexual orientation doesn't happen to be either (which is why a gay man can still marry a woman - that he probably wouldn't want to is irrelevant to the law). The only question would be if you disagree that procreation is the basis (or even a basis) of the state's interest in marriage. But there's no definitive proof at that point, it becomes more a question of what people want the state's interest to be, but we're always going to face that kind of questions. And they're best answered through the legislative process whenever possible.

No where in there do I see a justification that procreation or the ability to procreate is an absolutly relevent factor and not just the current fad "most important" factor of the day. Did I miss it or are you not claiming that anymore?

Notice the difference now?

Yes, the criteria has changed. The concern with interracial couples was that they would produce a mixed race child (considered a bad thing, back in the day). The concern with the same sex couple is that they cannot produce a child through the usual heterosexual means (which you consider a bad thing, I suppose?).

This is exactly my point. The situations are identical: give impossible criteria for your opponent to meet (mixed race couple => white baby, same-sex couple => naturally conceived baby) and use that as a reason to not let them participate with the majority.

So, you have re-phrased it so the old taboo (mixed race couple) is okay based on the new standard but the new taboo(same sex couple) is not.

It's the difference between judging white babies and mixed-race babies differently (which is racist) and judging existent babies and non-existent babies differently (which is not discriminatory).

You aren't judging the babies differntly, you're judging the couples differently and that is discrimintory.

I'm sure you're proud that you got me to run around the block a few times chasing down the linguistics involved, but I suspect you knew all along that there really was a substantive difference. And if you DIDN'T, well, just don't go around admitting that.

Physical difference, perhaps, (heck, what couple isn't physically different from another?) but nothing relevent to marriage.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, and they were usually forced into those relationships. Age of consent is an assurance that the individual is making their own choice and not having it forced upon them.

Of course, consent isn't a requirement for marriage, either, unless you want it to be. Historically, it hasn't always been.

As to cherry picking with regard to gay marriage and history, I would say it is the proponents who do so. If you are looking for instances of societies where gay marriage is allowed, there are darned few cherries on that tree.

In fact, during the last thread in which I participated, the question arose about whether anyone could find any historical document in which someone described same sex marriage among people of his own culture. In other words, there were documents in which Athenians describe Spartan homosexuality, Italians described Portuguese sailors and gay marriage, Chinese described Fijians (if I recall correctly), etc. However, no one ever said, "Here in Freedonia, men may marry whom they will, unlike in Tyrannia, where they must choose women as mates."

A brief period of the late Roman Republic seemed to fit the bill, although I can't recall if there was actual primary source documentation for it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Let me spell this out very clearly. Gender and race are accidents of birth. In this country, we have accepted that whatever the circumstances of a person's birth are, they are entitled to the same opportunities, and no right or privilage ought to be denied anyone without overwhelmingly good cause. It's up to same sex marriage opponents to prove that the sky will indeed fall if Bob and Tom raise a child.

It seems to me that you have the burden on the wrong place. Opponents of gay marriage want to change the status quo, at some cost to society. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon them to show that the benefits of the change outweigh the cost.

 

[pounce]

13 pages in and the anti ssm advocates haven't convinced me that there is a compelling reason to deny folks the opportunity to have a ssm. i've read and understood their reasoning, but that was simply an opinion, a value judgement, and i wasn't pursuaded that their opinion had a basis that should be the basis of a restrictive legal position against ssm. granted they are allowed to hold whatever view of ssm they would like, but laws against ssm have to go.

when it's not so much a matter of opinon, but becomes a matter of public policy, then things are more complicated. laws restricting rights must come with truly compelling explanations. this issue doesn't. this simply comes with different opinions. allowing ssm simply would not in any way hurt those who oppose it. and those who oppose ssm would never be forced to be in a ssm. i can't fathom why disliking something (ssm) should mean that it gets legislated against.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It seems to me that it is incumbent upon them to show that the benefits of the change outweigh the cost.

What is the value of happiness, freedom and equality?

 

[Meadmaker]

What is the value of happiness, freedom and equality?

I've always been confused by people who use the words "freedom" and "marriage" in the same breath.

As for "happiness", I don't think my marriage certificate is what made it happen.

And "equality" should only apply to things that are "equal".



I'm not saying those words don't have value, but it does seem to me that the average proponent of gay marriage is no more convincing than the religious opponents. "I'm against gay marriage because God is against it" is about as compelling as "I support equality."

What do you want marriage to be? What is its function in society? Once you answer that, you can make a meaningful answer to whether gays ought to do it.,. Until then, all you are saying is, "I don't care what it is, but gays should have it, too."

 

[Random]

It seems to me that you have the burden on the wrong place. Opponents of gay marriage want to change the status quo, at some cost to society. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon them to show that the benefits of the change outweigh the cost.

It seems to me that you have the burden on the wrong place. Opponents of gay marriage want to maintain a state policy that denies millions of people the right to marry the person of their choosing. A policy that, regardless of origin, is clearly discriminatory. It is up to opponents of gay marriage to justify a status quo that suppresses personal liberties.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Until then, all you are saying is, "I don't care what it is, but gays should have it, too."

You think that homosexuals should be denied the same legal priviledges that heterosexuals have. I think people should be treated equally, whether they are homosexual or not. This opinion of mine doesn't just pertain to same-sex marriage either.

Whether or not marriage has a value to society doesn't matter. Allowing people to wear hats doesn't really add value to society either, but if the government decided that midgets should not be allowed to wear hats, I'd be up in arms about that as well. It's not about value to society, it's about fair and equal treatment by the government.

Unless there is a case to be made, and there isn't, that same-sex marriage is a threat to society, then it should be legal. Also, the government should not be in the business of defining what marriage is or what a "real" family is. These are personal values that people should decide for themselves.

The love that a gay couple feels for each other is exactly the same as the love heterosexuals feel for each other.

 

[Meadmaker]

Also, the government should not be in the business of defining what marriage is ...

Without government, there would be no marriage, just relationships.

The love that a gay couple feels for each other is exactly the same as the love heterosexuals feel for each other.

What does that have to do with marriage?

What do you want marriage to be? A public expression of love? Great. Make it so. And when the love ends, the marriage should, too. That's a perfectly valid view, shared by many, but recognize the limitations of that view.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Without government, there would be no marriage, just relationships.

Are you sure about that? Didn't marriage exist in the USA long before the government was founded? I think it was.

What does that have to do with marriage?

It has everything to do with marriage. Marriage is a commitment made between two people that love each other.

What do you want marriage to be? A public expression of love? Great. Make it so. And when the love ends, the marriage should, too.

I agree. I don't think divorce should be illegal.

That's a perfectly valid view, shared by many, but recognize the limitations of that view.

What are the limitations of that view?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker :
Without government, there would be no marriage, just relationships.

Are you sure about that? Didn't marriage exist in the USA long before the government was founded? I think it was.

Forget this already, Kenny?:

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.

That is your opinion, you've stated it several times. However, you haven't shown evidence to support your claim.

Marriage outdates government.

What do you want marriage to be? A public expression of love? Great. Make it so. And when the love ends, the marriage should, too.

I agree. I don't think divorce should be illegal.

What about the vows, Kenny?:

...until death do us part.........

Were you just "kidding"?

That's a perfectly valid view, shared by many, but recognize the limitations of that view.

What are the limitations of that view?

Further and further degradation of marriage.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Forget this already, Kenny?:

Why are you bringing up my refutations of your silly arguments again? Are you an intellectual masochist?

Marriage outdates government.

And?

What about the vows, Kenny?

What about them? Should the government be involve with personal promises that people make to each other?

Further and further degradation of marriage.

How?

 

[Huntster]

Marriage outdates government.

And?

And...................

What about the vows, Kenny?

What about them? Should the government be involve with personal promises that people make to each other?

You can't have it both ways.

Why do you want government to sanction same-sex marriage if you agree that:

1) Marriage predates government, and
2) If government has no power over enforcing the government sanctioned marriage vows?

 

[Nova Land]

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...

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?

... [T]he state is not capable of distinguishing between a marriage like yours where you have chosen to remain childless and a marriage which produces children... 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.

Interesting theory that you are putting forward -- that it is a lack of desire to support non-procreative marriage, rather than active hostility to same-sex marriage, which is at the root of some significant portion of the opposition. Let's see if we can test that theory out.

You explain away the lack of opposition to marriage in which the couple has no desire to procreate, on the grounds it would be too difficult and too intrusive to determine which couples do and do not genuinely wish to procreate. Okay -- let's set that aside. You explain away the lack of opposition to marriage of infertile couples on the same grounds, that it would be too difficult and too intrusive to identify them. Again, okay -- let's set that aside.

But there is one heterosexual category for which this is not a problem: the elderly.

We know there is a minimum age below which people are legally forbidden from getting married. For the purpose of this discussion, let's consider a proposal to establish a maximum age of 65 as well. As someone who who believes marriage is about more than procreation, I oppose such a restriction. But those who believe that "the state's only interest in promoting marriage is to encourage and support procreation" should be as supportive of a ban on over-age marriage as they are on same-sex marriage.

(a) Women past menopause generally cannot become pregnant, so people who are only interested in supporting marriage where procreation is a possibility should have no interest in supporting the marriage of post-menopausal women. (b) As people age, the quality of the eggs and sperm they can contribute to an act of procreation deteriorates, so children born to older people are likely to be significantly less healthy than children born to unions of younger people. (c) Elderly people are likely to die, or suffer severely reduced physical and mental capabilities, before a child they create in their later years has grown to maturity. So if encouraging and supporting procreation is the state's only interest in promoting marriage, then there is no reason for the state to support marriage by people over 65.

If an amendment were proposed to the next "protection of marriage" bill to ban over-age marriages in addition to same-sex marriages, it would seem that people who oppose same-sex marriage for the reason you suggest should have no objection to the amendment. (Indeed, it would seem they should be happier with the bill with that amendment than without.)

If such a rider were attached to one of the current anti-gay-marriage bills, do you believe that people supporting the unamended bill form would continue to support it in amended form? Or do you believe (as I do) that most would fight against such an amendment being added and would, if the amendment passed, oppose the passage of the amended law?

If opponents of same-sex marriage people supported the amendment (and the amended law), that would indicate you are right in your supposition of the reason for their opposition to same-sex marriage. If they opposed amending the law in this way, and opposed passage of the law if such an amendment were added, it would indicate you are wrong in your supposition.

Unless some group pushes for such an amendment to one of these laws, we probably won't get to see in real life how many proponents of these "marriage protection" acts truly are concerned with supporting procreation and how many are simply using that as an excuse. But even in the absence of such a proposed amendment, there is a simple way to test your supposition.

If there are indeed a significant number of opponents of same-sex marriage whose opposition is rooted in support of procreation rather than in antipathy to homosexuality, then it should not be difficult for you to find people who are willing to say they would support such an amendment. Can you give me the names of five members of Congress -- either the Senate or the House -- willing to say they would support such an amendment? The names of five state legislators? The names of five spokespeople for grass-roots groups working to pass "marriage protection" laws who would support such an amendment? Or just two prominent members of the Bush administration willing to speak out in support of it?

If you can pass any any of those tests, I will agree you have a valid point. Until then, the evidence indicates to me that it is animosity toward homosexuals rather than interest in procreation which is the main motivation to ban same-sex marriage.

 

[Darat]

It's not a slippery slope because your statement is ALREADY at that point. A slippery slope argument is one in which it is argued that one thing will end up leading to something else. And you haven't answered my response in any substance.

If I had made any such argument you might have had a point but since I haven't then I suppose not only is it a slippery slope it's also a straw man.

However given that your point is if what I said (i.e. the discussion is about who an adult can marry) then it is a discussion about allowing incest - that is a classic slippery slope fallacy.

This reminds me of a problem that popped up earlier in the thread. IIRC You made a statement about states not allowing marriages if the couple was fertile. Someone challenged your statement, and you defended it. What was missing from your original statement, and what I don't think you provided in your initial responses, was the qualification that such restrictions only applied to certain marriages.

It's in the thread - I acknowledge how I worded my original statment may have caused some confusion - I spent a whole post unpicking any cinfusion I may have caused by a sloppery worded statement.

You weren't exactly wrong, but you left out a qualifier that made your original statement pretty incredible on its own. I suspect something similar may be happening here: you may have meant your phrasing of the question to have some qualifications to it, but it doesn't. As it stands, your question DOES amount rather DIRECTLY to why shouldn't we allow incest? I'm not talking slippery slope at all: I'm talking about it being right in there, directly and explicitly. No slope involved. You want to qualify your question to remove that component? Go ahead. But your question as it stands asks why we shouldn't allow incest.

Again which question - you keep acting as if I have put forward some form of argument, as I stated all I have done is reworded what we are actually discussing in this thread to remove the emotive terms such as "breeders" or "same sex marriages".

If you wish to then argue that all argument now put forward will support the right of siblings and parents to marry their children then that is a separate point of your own making not mine.

 

[Darat]

Just re-read the above and it reads as if I am more interested in scoring points rather then having a debate about the matter - sorry.

Let me go back to my statement and start again.

"What is really being discussed here is whether you have the right to marry another adult of your choice."

That is what this debate is about; now currently there are restrictions on who we can choose to marry and as far as I am aware the only blanket restriction is that you cannot marry a close relative, and that seems to be defined pretty much as siblings and parents. (I'll come back to the different sex issue in a moment.)

A marriage in which the two participants are of the same sex is not prevented by that restriction any more then it is for a marriage in which the two participants are of a different sex.

So the only reason arising from the current legislation currently why two adults cannot legally marry is because of their sex.

The ability to have children, how good families with two parents of the same sex are and so on is irrelevant in terms of discussing the legislation as it stands.

That is not to say they are irrelevant to society however that is not what is being discussed - what is being discussed is how certain legal rights (or privileges call them what you will) are withheld from people based on their sex.

 

[Meadmaker]

What are the limitations of that view?

It creates no obligations. It provides no protections.

I don't know why society would bother recognizing its existence, except maybe to make certain bits of paperwork easier to fill out.


You called wedding vows "personal", and that is a common view today, but historically, there is a reason they were stated in public in the presence of witnesses.