Gay Marriage and the Slippery Slope

[Ashi]

I have been trying to stay out of the "gay marriage" discussions myself because I still have not decided exactly where I stand on the issue. I do not post often as I have little time for the usual name-calling and trolling that seems to take place in the “regular” forums, but I have great hopes for a legitimate discussion about this issue in this forum. Please fellow skeptics, be gentle. I am truly trying to make up my mind.

I have no religious or any other "moral" problem with homosexual people getting married. There may be an unconscious issue with the "ick factor" when pertaining to male homosexuals, however I do not think this would prevent me from looking at the issue from a logical position.

My problem is that I cannot seem to get past the so-called "slippery slope" problems that gay marriage may present.

I am familiar with and understand the illogic of the slippery slope fallacy but I cannot help but to reasonably infer the following progression that may start with gay marriage.

If a homosexual person can choose to marry someone of the same sex and this is a personal right or freedom that should be available to them because of their natural sexuality, then a bisexual person should be able to choose to marry two people of different sexes as this is a personal right or freedom that should be available to them because of their natural sexuality.

Is there any more relevance to an arbitrary line drawn between the genders that are allowed to be "married" and the number of participants that should be allowed to be "married"? If not, then it seems to me that the "polygamy" argument would come into play at this point and on down the slippery slope it goes.

Now I would just like to add that I do not have a personal objection to polygamy either (at least not at present). I have read a few articles where pro-gay marriage advocates seem to distance themselves from arguments for the acceptance of polygamy. I can only guess it is because polygamy is illegal and a pro-gay/pro-polygamy argument may seem weaker.

Please help explain how this "slippery slope" argument is completely out of the question.

(I have posted this in another forum as well, I hope this is ok. I think it is relevant in both places)

[RCNelson]

The slippery slope does not begin with gay marriage. It begins with heterosexual marriage. That is, heterosexual marriage between 2 people eventually leads to the issue of polygamous marriage.

If you don't want a slippery slope, then ALL marriage needs to be outlawed.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Ashi
Please help explain how this "slippery slope" argument is completely out of the question.I consider the slippery slope argument to be a fallacy because it is arbitrarily applied. Using the definition that marriage is between one man and one woman (the most common definition you hear concerning the gay marriage debate), what is to prevent a brother and sister from getting married? If heterosexual marriage is allowed, why not incestual marriage?

If one truly wants to avoid the slippery slope at all, one would be against the principle of marriage itself. Society has arbitrarily placed the slippery slope limit so that at one point (heterosexual marriage) everything is "stable" but at another point (homosexual marriage) everything is "doomed allow all these other undesirable things".

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Ashi
If a homosexual person can choose to marry someone of the same sex and this is a personal right or freedom that should be available to them because of their natural sexuality, then a bisexual person should be able to choose to marry two people of different sexes as this is a personal right or freedom that should be available to them because of their natural sexuality.

First of all, a nitpick: A bisexual is not someone who generally wants to marry two people of different sexes. A bisexual is someone who is sexually attracted to both men and women. They are no less able to committing to one person than any other person.

Next, the slippery slope doesn't work because it fails to address each point on the supposed slope on its own merits. There are arguments that are unique to the point further down the slope that may in fact stop the slide.

In the context of gay marriage, there is no reason to believe that allowing gay marriage will result in allowing polygamy. Each are marriage practices that are currently outlawed, but that is where the similarity ends. Allowing gay marriage will not require the rethinking and rewriting of family law. Allowing polygamy will.

Let's assume that gay marriage is allowed. The bigamist then comes to court, wanting to marry two different women at the same time. Is the argument "but you let those two guys marry each other" isn't going to carry much weight. The bigamist will have to answer many questions relating to division of assets and alimony if the relationship breaks up; survival rights for property; who makes medical decisions; custodial conditions; and a host of other problems that the law at present doesn't need to cope with. In short, allowing gays to marry does not lend any real support to the polygamists cause, and therefore the slope isn't so slippery.

[DrMatt]

The slippery slope bit has been adequately dealt with. Let me just point out that the "institution of marriage" we now have has slid down that slope quite a distance from its historical conception as the sale of a woman from her father to her father-in-law for the purpose of providing the father-in-law with grand-heirs to take care of him in his old age.

Generally, adults may adopt children, taking on all the responsibilities of parenthood. There are also special legal rights afforded to pairs of adults who happen to be socially recognized as kin: rights pertaining to inheritance, to medical power of attorney, to tax status, to sharing of funds, etc. Our society has an established structure which allows adults to attain recognized kinship by choice. That structure happens to be marriage. In many people's minds, it still bears the sanctity of the sale of childbearers, out of which it has imperfectly emerged. Issues regarding gay marriage are, across the board, expressed in terms of "the family"--the kinship unit most understood in terms of the sanctity of the production of heirs. But even among the most traditional religious people, the notion of going back to the old model becomes abhorrent when they get around to thinking about it: they cannot afford the inefficient allocation of human resources and the dehumanizing compartmentalization of sex roles it entails.

The coherent thing for the government to do is not to create separate categories for gay union and heterosexual marriage, but to eliminate both legal categories and create a new category of mutual adoption.

[Ashi]

Thanz-

I am not suggesting that a bisexual is "someone who generally wants to marry two people of different sexes". What I am asking is that "if" someone who is bisexual wants to marry two people of opposite sexes shouldn't they be allowed to by law according to their orientation, just as a heterosexual, or homosexual should? From a perspective of having equal rights based upon your natural sexual orientation, this would seem to be much the same as the argument for homosexual marriage. Are you suggesting that a bisexual person could not or would not desire to be married to two separate people of opposite sexes if there were no discriminatory laws against multiple partner marriages?

I understand the slippery slope fallacy and I am attempting to address each step as I could imagine it on its own merits. The bisexual step would follow the heterosexual and homosexual steps for lack of better description. The polygamist's argument would then follow the bisexual argument.



DrMatt-

I totally agree that marriage, as we see it today is completely different that it has been in the past and it will probably change even more in the future.

I think that I am beginning to agree with your suggestion that separate categories for marriage, or possibly as suggested by Upchurch and RCNelson, that marriage in its entirety needs to be eliminated. I just cannot understand how purposefully moving the arbitrary line that defines marriage can be justified, so that one less group is discriminated against while still discriminating against others.

[RCNelson]

Ashi:
. . . or possibly as suggested by Upchurch and RCNelson, that marriage in its entirety needs to be eliminated. Just to clarify - I'm not suggesting that marriage in its entirety needs to be eliminated, just that we've always been on the slippery slope, and it's not necessarily bad to be on the slippery slope.

Being on the slippery slope means that we have to make choices about where the boundaries of marriage should and should not be. We can set these boundaries wherever we want based on what is good (or at least not bad) for society as a whole.

[wbeaty]

Originally posted by Ashi
My problem is that I cannot seem to get past the so-called "slippery slope" problems that gay marriage may present.


You and Michael Shermer! I just heard a Shermer interview on NPR (on his new book about the evolutionary roots of good and evil, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805075208/)

Right away the topic wandered into the Gay Marriage debate. Shermer thought that gay marriage was OK, but that polygamy was *only* designed for old men who wanted to marry lots of young wives. He essentially thought that the polygamy ban was there to protect ignorant young women from being sucked into the harems of scheming powerful men.

Shermer apparently hasn't heard of the "Polyamory" community. These are small groups of people who want to marry each other. Not necessarily gay. More like "modern pagan" community members and people in wiccan groups. Two husbands sharing one wife, etc.

In other words, should the christians determine what "marriage" means, while marriage practices of other religions are banned in this country?

The "poly" community is not that small. They're a downtrodden minority like the Gay/Lesbian community. When discovered, the state takes their kids away (I have a Time Magazine article about one heavily publicized incident back in the 1990s)

http://www.google.com/search?q=%2Bpolyamory

In my mind, stopping gay people from marrying each other is exactly the same as stopping ANY adult from marrying any number of other willing adults. Horror of horrors, men will start marrying each other? :) Good lord, what if one woman talks two guys into wedlock? This must be stopped?!!!!

Why?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I consider the slippery slope argument to be a fallacy because it is arbitrarily applied.

Sometimes. But when speaking of political movements, it's not always a logical fallacy. In that context it is a known revolutionary technique otherwise known as 'gradualism'.

The gay rights movement is an example of the effective use of that technique. Thus, the first step was to get people used to the idea that gays are not monsters. Then get certain laws repealed, etc.

BTW, I'm in favor of gay marriage and don't think it will lead to people marrying their dogs, or similar nonsense.

And yes, 'slippery slope' can also apply to movements I disapprove of, and I will continue to defend the use of such argumentation.

[Kopji]

There is an established cultural pattern for a married arrangement of parity (one with one on equal standing).
There is not one for multiple partners.

I guess if I am not asked to pay for the welfare or social support of someone in a multiple wife or husband relationship I don't have much real complaint. I have a lot to complain about though already, mostly for people's 'religious freedom'.

This would be when polygamist's children need to escape in the dead of night and wander looking for help in the desert... or rescue women being taken from husbands and treated as church property... or the rape of underage girls... Such a pretty picture is painted of this, but it has been a huge human tragedy in Arizona.

Coven's have about as 'good' a reputation for abuse as any religious cult.

Honestly, I fail to see any real argument for women or children being anything but willing or unwilling victims. It is bad enough in traditional marriage without 'polymory'.

I can find at least a partial answer in 'gay marriage' in the basic concepts of fairness and justice. No slippery slope there.

[epepke]

I'm not going to try to persuade you that this isn't a slippery slope.

However, I think that as a species and as a set of cultures, we've been on a slippery slope to something or other since we've been banging rocks together.

Where this will lead is anybody's guess. I certainly don't know. We don't seem to have destroyed ourselves yet, although that still might happen. People seem to have muddled along through the most astonishing social changes. So far, they've been pretty good at it.

[Kopji]

Yes I tend to agree. This ends up being something I like to see different ideas about. I don't feel the need to always have an opinion...

I looked into the statistics on this the other day to get some perspective. "56-something millions" of married people, we fret over a few thousand people and push for a constitutional amendment.

Reality seems that there is not much case for waging a huge culture battle, as long as this involves consenting adults.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Ashi
I am not suggesting that a bisexual is "someone who generally wants to marry two people of different sexes". What I am asking is that "if" someone who is bisexual wants to marry two people of opposite sexes shouldn't they be allowed to by law according to their orientation, just as a heterosexual, or homosexual should? From a perspective of having equal rights based upon your natural sexual orientation, this would seem to be much the same as the argument for homosexual marriage. Are you suggesting that a bisexual person could not or would not desire to be married to two separate people of opposite sexes if there were no discriminatory laws against multiple partner marriages?
I am saying that a bisexual would no more want to enter into a multi-partner marriage than a heterosexual or a homosexual. Bisexuality simply means that you are attracted to both sexes. It increases your pool of potential mates. Simply because you are attracted to more people does not mean you want to marry more people. A man can be attracted to both blondes and brunettes, but still only want to marry one woman.

The problem is that you are assuming that a bisexual would want to marry one of each, simply because they are attracted to both. This does not make logical sense. Bisexuals can be just as monogamous as everyone else. Marrying more than one person is not "according to their orientation" at all. Orientation has nothing to do with whether one is monogamous/polygamous.

I understand the slippery slope fallacy and I am attempting to address each step as I could imagine it on its own merits. The bisexual step would follow the heterosexual and homosexual steps for lack of better description. The polygamist's argument would then follow the bisexual argument.
The "bisexual step" isn't a step at all. If gay marriages were allowed, it would just mean that a bisexual could marry a man or a woman, depending on who they meet and fall in love with. I think that you are artificially creating a step that doesn't exist.



[/B][/QUOTE]

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

BTW, I'm in favor of gay marriage and don't think it will lead to people marrying their dogs, or similar nonsense. There is a fundamental difference between hetero/homosexual marriage and beatiality: conscent. In my opinion, that is the ultimate line that cannot be crossed. Children, animals, dead bodies, etc. cannot make an informed, mature decision about entering into a marriage union (or the implied sexual relations thereafter). Yes, I realize there is a fuzzy line as to when a child can make a mature decision, but my point is that it is conscent that represents "having gone too far", not the arrangement of the marriage. In my personal opinion.

[Ashi]

Thanz-

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thanz
I am saying that a bisexual would no more want to enter into a multi-partner marriage than a heterosexual or a homosexual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree entirely.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thanz
The problem is that you are assuming that a bisexual would want to marry one of each, simply because they are attracted to both.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is incorrect; I have made no assumptions. I have attempted to qualify all of my statements about bisexual marriage with language that addresses the possibility that someone MAY want to marry two people. I contend that IF there is a bisexual person who is not monogamous (just as there are some heterosexuals), and they desire to marry two people, the argument of their sexual orientation would have to carry just as much weight as a gay person's argument to get married regardless of the civil implications and logistics. You seem to be ruling this out as a possibility. If this is the case then I suggest that we will have to agree to disagree, because I can clearly imagine a bisexual person arguing that they desire to be married to two people, and using an equal protection under the law type argument to support their reasoning.


RCNelson-

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RCNelson
We can set these boundaries wherever we want based on what is good (or at least not bad) for society as a whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a place that we can set these boundaries in our society, where no consenting adults are discriminated against, or will someone always be left out?



I guess what my concerns/questions/opinions are boiling down to is the justification of the places that our society draws their arbitrary lines in the case of marriage. Consent would definitely be a line that could not be moved and I would tend to agree with the age limitations that are currently in place (again, another arbitrary line).

So my issue has become: How does one intellectually justify concern for the rights of one group of consenting homosexuals adults without having the same concern for all groups of consenting adults including the "Polyamorous" groups? It seems like a logical inconsistency to take this position even if it is much easier to accommodate single partner unions in our society.

[crimresearch]

Won't the extent of the connection between gay marriages and any others be dictated by the presumably impending court case(s)?

If the courts focus on the government's role in such matters, and limit it, then a marriage may well become whatever people and their churches say it is, leaving the door open for a variety of marital combimations.

If, OTOH, the courts attempt to define marriage for everyone, then they will likely spell out those parameters.

Either way, I don't see the undoing of restrictions such as incest, juveniles, etc.

Paul

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Ashi
Thanz-

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thanz
I am saying that a bisexual would no more want to enter into a multi-partner marriage than a heterosexual or a homosexual.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree entirely. Excellent, as this concept is key to the rest of my argument.

This statement is incorrect; I have made no assumptions. I have attempted to qualify all of my statements about bisexual marriage with language that addresses the possibility that someone MAY want to marry two people. I contend that IF there is a bisexual person who is not monogamous (just as there are some heterosexuals), and they desire to marry two people, the argument of their sexual orientation would have to carry just as much weight as a gay person's argument to get married regardless of the civil implications and logistics. You seem to be ruling this out as a possibility. If this is the case then I suggest that we will have to agree to disagree, because I can clearly imagine a bisexual person arguing that they desire to be married to two people, and using an equal protection under the law type argument to support their reasoning.
I will take one more shot at this. You have agreed that there is nothing ingerent in bisexuality that would make them polygamous. Therefore, outlawing polygamy has the same effect on a bisexual person as it does on the rest of the population. They may only marry one person. If the effect is the same for all individuals, it is not discrimination (at least on the basis of orientation).

No one is saying to bisexuals that they cannot get married to whomever they choose. They just have to choose one person, like the rest of the population. Their sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to the issue of polygamy.

If polygamy were allowed for others but disallowed for bisexuals, then they would have a case. But the current prohibition on polygamy does not discriminate against bisexuals on the basis of their bisexuality. The current prohibition against homosexual marriage DOES discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of their orientation.

If bisexuals are no more likely to be polygamous than anyone else, how would a law against that discriminate against them on the basis of orientation?

[Ashi]

Thanz-

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thanz
I will take one more shot at this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for all of the input. I have found a great deal of value in this discussion. It is a bit hard for me to fully express my thoughts in a written format at times so I can understand if this is becoming frustrating for you. I do not want you to feel like you are wasting your time but I really would appreciate it if would continue to help me in this debate as I still do not fully understand your position. Please, be aware that I am not challenging your position on the subject, I am just attempting to understand it for myself. We can absolutely have different opinions on the subject, and once I arrive at my opinion, I will still respect yours. With all of that being said, if you decline to continue in this tread, I will understand and thanks again.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thanz
You have agreed that there is nothing ingerent in bisexuality that would make them polygamous. Therefore, outlawing polygamy has the same effect on a bisexual person as it does on the rest of the population. They may only marry one person. If the effect is the same for all individuals, it is not discrimination (at least on the basis of orientation).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I agree. Just as there is nothing inherent in heterosexuality that makes one polygamous. If I were to change the wording of your statements above, would it still hold true?

"Therefore, outlawing 'gay marriage' has the same effect on a 'homosexual' person as it does on the rest of the population. They may only marry one person 'of the opposite sex'. If the effect is the same for all individuals, it is not discrimination (at least on the basis of orientation)."

It is still illegal for two straight people of the same sex to marry whether or not they are gay or straight.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thanz
No one is saying to bisexuals that they cannot get married to whomever they choose. They just have to choose one person, like the rest of the population. Their sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to the issue of polygamy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same as above:

"No one is saying to 'homosexuals' that they cannot get married to whomever they choose. They just have to choose one person 'of the opposite sex', like the rest of the population. Their sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to the issue of 'gay marriage'.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thanz
If polygamy were allowed for others but disallowed for bisexuals, then they would have a case. But the current prohibition on polygamy does not discriminate against bisexuals on the basis of their bisexuality. The current prohibition against homosexual marriage DOES discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of their orientation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this is the point where our views are at odds. A "same gender" marriage is disallowed for everyone, not just homosexuals. I believe that using the logic you use above to claim "the current prohibition on polygamy does not discriminate against bisexuals on the basis of their bisexuality" can be used in the exact same way to reasonably argue that the current prohibition on gay marriage does not discriminate against homosexuals. How is the law discriminatory against a homosexual woman any more than it is discriminatory against a heterosexual woman? Neither can marry a person of the same sex. Correct?

From there the flow of the argument would seem to lead to the conclusion that only a homosexual would desire to marry someone of the same sex (based upon their sexual orientation), so if they could not, the laws would be discriminatory. Then, following the same flow of argument, it seems that one could reasonably argue that only a bisexual would desire to marry two people of opposite sexes (based upon their sexual orientation), so if they could not, the laws would be discriminatory.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Thanz
If bisexuals are no more likely to be polygamous than anyone else, how would a law against that discriminate against them on the basis of orientation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, I agree that, as a group bisexuals are no more likely to be polygamous than anyone else is. No more than heterosexuals or homosexuals. However, IF there existed A bisexual who wanted to marry a man and a woman (as long as it was based upon their desire and sexual orientation) a law that outlaws polygamy would discriminate against them based upon their orientation in exactly the same way current laws discriminate against homosexuals, because it would also disallow the desired "bisexual marriage" and thereby not allow a person to fulfill their desires as they wish and marry exactly who they want. Just as current laws against "same gender" marriage discriminate against homosexuals.

Lastly, in your opinion (regardless of cultural or legal issues), is it correct to discriminate against someone who wants multiple spouses?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Ashi
Again, I agree. Just as there is nothing inherent in heterosexuality that makes one polygamous. If I were to change the wording of your statements above, would it still hold true?

"Therefore, outlawing 'gay marriage' has the same effect on a 'homosexual' person as it does on the rest of the population. They may only marry one person 'of the opposite sex'. If the effect is the same for all individuals, it is not discrimination (at least on the basis of orientation)."

It is still illegal for two straight people of the same sex to marry whether or not they are gay or straight.
No, it doesn't hold true. Straight people are allowed to meet somenone they are attracted to, fall in love and get married. Gay people are not. And the reason they are not is because they are gay. The reason that a bisexual cannot marry two people is not because they are bisexual.


Same as above:

"No one is saying to 'homosexuals' that they cannot get married to whomever they choose. They just have to choose one person 'of the opposite sex', like the rest of the population. Their sexual orientation is completely irrelevant to the issue of 'gay marriage'.
Actually, the law is saying that homosexuals cannot get married to whomever they choose - that is the problem.

I think this is the point where our views are at odds. A "same gender" marriage is disallowed for everyone, not just homosexuals. I believe that using the logic you use above to claim "the current prohibition on polygamy does not discriminate against bisexuals on the basis of their bisexuality" can be used in the exact same way to reasonably argue that the current prohibition on gay marriage does not discriminate against homosexuals. How is the law discriminatory against a homosexual woman any more than it is discriminatory against a heterosexual woman? Neither can marry a person of the same sex. Correct?
A heterosexual woman does not want to marry a woman, so saying that she can't means nothing to her. On the other hand, a homosexual woman ONLY wants to marry another woman, so the prohibition has a great effect on her. The impact of the law is disproportionally felt by homosexuals, which makes it discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation.

The anti-polygamy laws are NOT disproportionately felt by bisexuals, so therefore they are not discriminated against.

From there the flow of the argument would seem to lead to the conclusion that only a homosexual would desire to marry someone of the same sex (based upon their sexual orientation), so if they could not, the laws would be discriminatory. Then, following the same flow of argument, it seems that one could reasonably argue that only a bisexual would desire to marry two people of opposite sexes (based upon their sexual orientation), so if they could not, the laws would be discriminatory.
Only if the laws were that you can marry two people, as long as they are both the same gender (that is, a man could marry two women but not a woman and a man). Then there would be a disproportionate impact. Here, there is no disproportionate impact on the basis of sexual orientation.

Again, I agree that, as a group bisexuals are no more likely to be polygamous than anyone else is. No more than heterosexuals or homosexuals. However, IF there existed A bisexual who wanted to marry a man and a woman (as long as it was based upon their desire and sexual orientation) a law that outlaws polygamy would discriminate against them based upon their orientation in exactly the same way current laws discriminate against homosexuals, because it would also disallow the desired "bisexual marriage" and thereby not allow a person to fulfill their desires as they wish and marry exactly who they want. Just as current laws against "same gender" marriage discriminate against homosexuals.
See above re: disproportionate impact.

Think of it this way: A bisexual goes and tries to get a marriage licence to marry both a man and a woman. She is turned down. She goes back and tries to get a marriage licence to marry two men, and again is turned down. She goes a third time, and this time wants to marry two women. Again, she is turned down. Being turned had nothing to do with the genders of the people - simply the numbers. If the genders of the people are not relevant to the decision to grant the marriage license, there cannot be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

However, if a homosexual man goes to get a marriage licence to marry another man, he can get turned down most places. If he goes to get a licence for a woman, he succeeds. Therefore, the genders of the people are relevant to the success or failure of getting the licence. Since it is overwhelmingly (if not exclusively) homosexuals who want to marry the same sex, the impact of the gender based rule is discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation in a manner that the polygamy rules are not.

Lastly, in your opinion (regardless of cultural or legal issues), is it correct to discriminate against someone who wants multiple spouses?
I am not sure what you mean by this. I don't know how I would separate marrigae from the legal and cultural issues, as marriage is largely a legal and cultural phenomena.

[Ashi]

Thanz-

OK! I understand your point about disproportionate impact under our current laws as it is applied to homosexuals. Your example about acquiring marriage licenses was illuminating.

Therefore, the next question I have is if two heterosexual people decide to get married (for tax, insurance, love or any other reason), should this be allowed? If not, how do you differentiate between gay and same gender marriage?

In regard to my last question in my last post, I would like to know if you feel that our current laws regarding polygamy are justified? The reason that I ask this is because I have the current opinion that if we remove the gender limitations from the definition of marriage then we should be compelled to remove the quantity limitations as well. If we change the law to accommodate one group of consenting adults we should accommodate all groups of consenting adults.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Ashi
Thanz-

OK! I understand your point about disproportionate impact under our current laws as it is applied to homosexuals. Your example about acquiring marriage licenses was illuminating.
I am glad I could help!
Therefore, the next question I have is if two heterosexual people decide to get married (for tax, insurance, love or any other reason), should this be allowed? If not, how do you differentiate between gay and same gender marriage?
How do you differentiate between real marriages and marriages of convenience now? If two people declare that they are going to get married, whatever the reason, they get married. We have to trust that most are not just marriages of convenience, and that there is a real intention to be bound together in matrimony. This isn't always the case, but I don't see it as being more of an issue for gay marriages that it is for straight marriages.

In regard to my last question in my last post, I would like to know if you feel that our current laws regarding polygamy are justified? The reason that I ask this is because I have the current opinion that if we remove the gender limitations from the definition of marriage then we should be compelled to remove the quantity limitations as well. If we change the law to accommodate one group of consenting adults we should accommodate all groups of consenting adults.
I think that the quantity limitations would have to be examined in their own right and that they should not be linked in any way with the sexual orientation discussion. Sexual orientation is as much a red herring for polygamy as polygamy is for sexual orientation.

Having said that, I think that lifting the prohibition on multiple marriages opens up a whole new can of worms. One could legally marry two women who don't know each other. Or two women who hate each other. Or would all marry each other? If the husband gets hit by a bus and goes into a coma, who resolves the dispute when one spouse wants to pull the plug and the other doesn't? What about realtionship breakup - if two people want to expel the other? Who gets what? Do they have to get married all at the same time?

And of course, it wouldn't be complete unless I added: What about the children? Custody battles are brutal in regular marriages. With a multiple marriage it can only get worse.

I think that multiple partner marriages would cause far too many problems.

[Mona]

Originally posted by Thanz

First of all, a nitpick: A bisexual is not someone who generally wants to marry two people of different sexes. A bisexual is someone who is sexually attracted to both men and women. They are no less able to committing to one person than any other person.

Next, the slippery slope doesn't work because it fails to address each point on the supposed slope on its own merits. There are arguments that are unique to the point further down the slope that may in fact stop the slide.

In the context of gay marriage, there is no reason to believe that allowing gay marriage will result in allowing polygamy. Each are marriage practices that are currently outlawed, but that is where the similarity ends. Allowing gay marriage will not require the rethinking and rewriting of family law. Allowing polygamy will.

Let's assume that gay marriage is allowed. The bigamist then comes to court, wanting to marry two different women at the same time. Is the argument "but you let those two guys marry each other" isn't going to carry much weight. The bigamist will have to answer many questions relating to division of assets and alimony if the relationship breaks up; survival rights for property; who makes medical decisions; custodial conditions; and a host of other problems that the law at present doesn't need to cope with. In short, allowing gays to marry does not lend any real support to the polygamists cause, and therefore the slope isn't so slippery.

If there is a lawyer (in the U.S.) with any brains, that would not be the argument. It would be: "these two people are allowed to marry as they desire and acquire the state-conferred benefits of that sanction, so why not these three, four, or five?"

And I say, indeed, why not? The state should not be involved in marriage; marriage should be a religious institution, and/or a matter of private civil contract, where the only role of the state is, as in any contract, to uphold its terms between/among the parties and any third party beneficiaries such as chidlren.

--Mona--

--Mona--

[wbeaty]

Originally posted by Kopji
There is an established cultural pattern for a married arrangement of parity (one with one on equal standing).
There is not one for multiple partners.

Wrong. Unless you mean that USA culture of the moment is "the" culture, and it's more important to preserve the way things are, than it is to guarantee freedoms... than it is to let adults marry other adults without government interference.


I guess if I am not asked to pay for the welfare or social support of someone in a multiple wife or husband relationship I don't have much real complaint. I have a lot to complain about though already, mostly for people's 'religious freedom'.

If I understand the above, then it sounds like bigotry. Paying for welfare is OK if involves married couples... but a Bad Thing if it's married triads or whatever?

Why?

(Me, I think married couples cause all sorts of horrendous child-abuse and sex-abuse problems, psychological damage, etc., and in comparison, married triads would have vanishingly small impact.)

This would be when polygamist's children need to escape in the dead of night and wander looking for help in the desert... or rescue women being taken from husbands and treated as church property... or the rape of underage girls... Such a pretty picture is painted of this, but it has been a huge human tragedy in Arizona.

Sounds like you're assuming that "polygamist" means "male cult member" or perhaps "Mormon," and that since cults do bad things, and also some cults are polygamous, therefore polyagmy is the problem. Why assume such things?


Coven's have about as 'good' a reputation for abuse as any religious cult.

Christians have about as 'good' a reputation for the same thing. So do atheists. If you know of any studies showing that polygamy itself causes significant abuse problems over above the problems caused by religion or by humans in general, I'm interested.

Note that the "poly community" is more like pagan MIT students and science fiction fans who read too much Heinlein, and less like 60s swingers who want to make the wife-swapping a permanent affair.


Honestly, I fail to see any real argument for women or children being anything but willing or unwilling victims. It is bad enough in traditional marriage without 'polymory'.

You won't see it if you don't research it. And if you form the above strong opinions without looking into the issues, then you're certainly no friend of reason or skepticism. Better to say "I'm ignorant of this 'poly community' stuff, so I can't make a confident judgement."

Also... do you prefer to end ALL marriage in order to protect women and children, and poly marriage is similar but even worse? That's what it sounds like above.


I can find at least a partial answer in 'gay marriage' in the basic concepts of fairness and justice. No slippery slope there.

It looks like you don't apply fairness and justice concepts to three people who want to marry, just to two.

PS
I don't know any polys personally. I'm just offended that the US christianity-based laws forbid poly marriage, and that the government has even taken a triad's children away because the kids were being corrupted by a "horrible thing": having one mom and two dads, all married to each other. I don't remember if they jailed the people involved. I'll have to try to find that clipping in my huge pile of junk downstairs.

[DrMatt]

Originally posted by DrMatt
The coherent thing for the government to do is not to create separate categories for gay union and heterosexual marriage, but to eliminate both legal categories and create a new category of mutual adoption.

It looks like I was just a few days ahead of my time, see:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4640100

[Eos of the Eons]

And of course, it wouldn't be complete unless I added: What about the children? Custody battles are brutal in regular marriages. With a multiple marriage it can only get worse.

I've seen a case where this might come up. Common sense would dictate that the natural parent get custody of their offspring, unless they are negligent. A gay couple got one woman to carry each of their children. The woman is not involved in the parenting.

The gay couple has very different parenting styles, and it is putting a rift in the marriage.

They are both competent at the same time. They just can't agree.

So the one takes his biological child, and vice versa.

I know that is easier said than done. It just seems simpler since you can biologically match the child to the natural parent.

This isn't the case in a hetero marriage. They both share dna with the kids.

Can anyone think of the complications with the gay couple? I think it would depend on their personalities and their perception of the situation.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Ashi
If a homosexual person can choose to marry someone of the same sex and this is a personal right or freedom that should be available to them because of their natural sexuality, then a bisexual person should be able to choose to marry two people of different sexes as this is a personal right or freedom that should be available to them because of their natural sexuality.How would that be different from the religious tradition of Mormon polygimy?

My take on the whole thing:
http://www.hazelip.com/2004_02_01_OldBlogs.html#107716289820945609

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Thanz
In the context of gay marriage, there is no reason to believe that allowing gay marriage will result in allowing polygamy. Each are marriage practices that are currently outlawed, but that is where the similarity ends. Allowing gay marriage will not require the rethinking and rewriting of family law. Allowing polygamy will.

Let's assume that gay marriage is allowed. The bigamist then comes to court, wanting to marry two different women at the same time. Is the argument "but you let those two guys marry each other" isn't going to carry much weight. The bigamist will have to answer many questions relating to division of assets and alimony if the relationship breaks up; survival rights for property; who makes medical decisions; custodial conditions; and a host of other problems that the law at present doesn't need to cope with. In short, allowing gays to marry does not lend any real support to the polygamists cause, and therefore the slope isn't so slippery. The challenge has already been brought up following the striking down of Texas's anti-sodomy laws.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/27/national/main596268.shtml

Once you begin to kick government out of the bedroom in one case, others wish to do the same. Otherwise, you will have separate but equal clauses for laws pertaining to sexual practices between consenting adults, religious freedoms, and marriage.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Kopji
There is an established cultural pattern for a married arrangement of parity (one with one on equal standing).
There is not one for multiple partners.Biblical & historical tradition, middle-eastern harems, African tribal traditions of multiple wive, Mormonism, and has been mentioned, polyamory. You are wrong.
I guess if I am not asked to pay for the welfare or social support of someone in a multiple wife or husband relationship I don't have much real complaint. I have a lot to complain about though already, mostly for people's 'religious freedom'.

This would be when polygamist's children need to escape in the dead of night and wander looking for help in the desert... or rescue women being taken from husbands and treated as church property... or the rape of underage girls... Such a pretty picture is painted of this, but it has been a huge human tragedy in Arizona.

Coven's have about as 'good' a reputation for abuse as any religious cult.

Honestly, I fail to see any real argument for women or children being anything but willing or unwilling victims. It is bad enough in traditional marriage without 'polymory'. Is there a cogent argument here? To what are you referring with the "wander looking for help in the desert" or rescues or Arizona? What relevance does that have to the discussion?

Why do you equate women with children? Are women to be treated as intellectual or emotional children?

I can find at least a partial answer in 'gay marriage' in the basic concepts of fairness and justice. No slippery slope there. So long as it fits with your definition of a union between two people? If I am understanding you correctly, why the restriction?

[Skeptic]

Right away the topic wandered into the Gay Marriage debate. Shermer thought that gay marriage was OK, but that polygamy was *only* designed for old men who wanted to marry lots of young wives. He essentially thought that the polygamy ban was there to protect ignorant young women from being sucked into the harems of scheming powerful men.

The same can be said for homosexual and regular marriages where there is an exchange of sexual attrativeness for money (a young partner marrying a rich old man).

The reason the "slippery slope" argument doesn't apply here, I think, is that there is no need for changing the argument to allow polygamy and not only gay marriage. One can use literally the SAME argument and merely change "gay marriage" to "polygamy marriage".

If marriage is, in fact, a civil right, denying it to any group of people is discrimination--including polygamists or those who wish to marry their (adult) children.

In my mind, stopping gay people from marrying each other is exactly the same as stopping ANY adult from marrying any number of other willing adults.

Indeed so. It is the same thing. Which is why I oppose gay marriage.

[Hazelip]

Originally posted by Skeptic
...I oppose gay marriage. Do you accept the establishment of civil unions?

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by wbeaty
In my mind, stopping gay people from marrying each other is exactly the same as stopping ANY adult from marrying any number of other willing adults.

Originally posted by Skeptic
Indeed so. It is the same thing. Which is why I oppose gay marriage.

Can anyone else make sense out of Skeptic's conclusion?

[Skeptic]

I thought of a better way to say it.

Remember the anti-nazi pastor Niemoeller? He is famous for saying, among other things:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Of course I am not claiming that gay marriage are like the prosecution of the jews or communists, but only wish to consider the following: is Niemoller making a LOGICAL fallacy here? If he had said the same thing at the beginning, e.g., "if you allow them to come for the communists, they'll soon come for the jews", would he be guilty of the "slippery slope" argument?

No, because the point is that once it is allowed to the state to destroy ONE group of people for "security reasons" or "racial purity", the state can destroy ANY group of people for the exact same reason. This is not a "slippery slope" fallacy because there is no relevant difference between the two groups that will make the state stop at one of them and not the other.

Same here (logically speaking, not morally speaking, of course). If one allows gay marriage because it is determined that there is such a thing as a RIGHT to marry regardless of gender, there is no way you can refuse to allow polygamy or incest. If the right to marry is not stopped by gender, it is not stopped by number or blood relationship.

[DoubleStreamer]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Of course I am not claiming that gay marriage are like the prosecution of the jews or communists, but only wish to consider the following: is Niemoller making a LOGICAL fallacy here? If he had said the same thing at the beginning, e.g., "if you allow them to come for the communists, they'll soon come for the jews", would he be guilty of the "slippery slope" argument?

No, because the point is that once it is allowed to the state to destroy ONE group of people for "security reasons" or "racial purity", the state can destroy ANY group of people for the exact same reason. This is not a "slippery slope" fallacy because there is no relevant difference between the two groups that will make the state stop at one of them and not the other.

If one allows gay marriage because it is determined that there is such a thing as a RIGHT to marry regardless of gender, there is no way you can refuse to allow polygamy or incest. If the right to marry is not stopped by gender, it is not stopped by number or blood relationship.

Sounds like RCNelson's post (the second one in this thread) might give you a little perspective. Just draw a clear line in the right place (in this case, "consenting adults") and stick to it. "Slippery slope" never needs to be an issue. I hope this finally helps clear things up for you.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Skeptic
No, because the point is that once it is allowed to the state to destroy ONE group of people for "security reasons" or "racial purity", the state can destroy ANY group of people for the exact same reason. This is not a "slippery slope" fallacy because there is no relevant difference between the two groups that will make the state stop at one of them and not the other.
I don't quite agree with your analysis of the quote. I would say that he is trying to get the point across that one needs to speak out against injustice whether or not it affects you, or ever will effect you. It is using a somewhat radical rhetoric to get that point across, but the point stands. I don't think it matters to the argument if the state stops at one group or another.

Same here (logically speaking, not morally speaking, of course). If one allows gay marriage because it is determined that there is such a thing as a RIGHT to marry regardless of gender, there is no way you can refuse to allow polygamy or incest. If the right to marry is not stopped by gender, it is not stopped by number or blood relationship.
I disagree, for the reasons I have set out in my other posts. You are assuming equivalence between homosexuality, incest and polygamy for no real reason. I could throw in heterosecuals into your list and say that once you allow heterosexuals to marry you can't stop anyone else from marrying either.

The simple truth is that each prohibition on marriage needs to be analyzed on its own merits. Your argument precludes that. Further, it has not been determined that there is a RIGHT to marry - it has been determined that not allowing homosexuals to marry denies equal benefit of the law based on sexual orientation, which is analogous to race or religion. That does not exist for incest. It may exist for polygamy, but again, they will have to show that there is no good government reason for the discrimination in order to get legal polygamous marriages.

[Skeptic]

Sounds like RCNelson's post (the second one in this thread) might give you a little perspective. Just draw a clear line in the right place (in this case, "consenting adults") and stick to it. "Slippery slope" never needs to be an issue. I hope this finally helps clear things up for you.

Yes, but drawing the line at "consenting adults" for marriage is a bit (logically speaking) like drawing the line at "healthy Ayrans" for mistreatment by the state, or drawing the line at "the moment of birth" for abortion.

The problem is that the only place you have a clear line is far beyond where it should be drawn in the first place; in this case, allowing polygamy, incest, etc. as long as the parties are consenting adults and not children (or animals or inanimate objects).

That, indeed, is precisely the problem I am pointing out.

[Skeptic]

I disagree, for the reasons I have set out in my other posts. You are assuming equivalence between homosexuality, incest and polygamy for no real reason. I could throw in heterosecuals into your list and say that once you allow heterosexuals to marry you can't stop anyone else from marrying either.

This is not the case, but it's an important distinction. I am not assuming equivalence between homosexual marriage and incestous marriage.

What I am assuming is an equivalent between the ARGUMENT used to support EXTENDING marriage to homosexuals and the ARGUMENT used to support EXTENDING marriage to father-daughter relationships.

The problem is that the argument used is based on a notion of marriage as a "right". If such a right cannot be denied to homosexuals, it cannot be denied to incestous couples either.

The simple truth is that each prohibition on marriage needs to be analyzed on its own merits. Your argument precludes that.

No, it doesn't. It merely precludes the establishment of a legal "right" to marriage. If voters want to allow homosexual marriages, they can go ahead and do so while still denying incestous marriage, for the same reason voters can, for instance, vote to give 9/11 victims federal money but not those who die in road accidents.

But if the homosexual marriages are considered allowed are because the violation of an alleged "right" to marry, then there is no choice: one must allow incestous and polygamous marriages as well. It's like the difference between the government deciding for a 9/11-victims compensation fund and declaring that there is a "constitutional right" to make any violent death whatsoever deserving the same amount of compensation.

It is the latter, not the former, that truly robs people of choice.

Further, it has not been determined that there is a RIGHT to marry - it has been determined that not allowing homosexuals to marry denies equal benefit of the law based on sexual orientation, which is analogous to race or religion.

...which is patently absurd; it is the equivalent that not letting blind people drive is violation of the law that forbids discrimination against the disabled. If such a decision had been passed, it would mean in effect that everybody, including the blind, has a right to drive; similarly here, it means everybody has a right to marry.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Skeptic
This is not the case, but it's an important distinction. I am not assuming equivalence between homosexual marriage and incestous marriage.

What I am assuming is an equivalent between the ARGUMENT used to support EXTENDING marriage to homosexuals and the ARGUMENT used to support EXTENDING marriage to father-daughter relationships.

The problem is that the argument used is based on a notion of marriage as a "right". If such a right cannot be denied to homosexuals, it cannot be denied to incestous couples either.
No. It is not about a "right to marry". It is about equal protection and equal benefit under the law without discrimination.

But if the homosexual marriages are considered allowed are because the violation of an alleged "right" to marry, then there is no choice: one must allow incestous and polygamous marriages as well. It's like the difference between the government deciding for a 9/11-victims compensation fund and declaring that there is a "constitutional right" to make any violent death whatsoever deserving the same amount of compensation.
Again, you are wrong as it is not about a legal "right to marry", no matter how much rhetoric gets spewed.
...which is patently absurd; it is the equivalent that not letting blind people drive is violation of the law that forbids discrimination against the disabled. If such a decision had been passed, it would mean in effect that everybody, including the blind, has a right to drive; similarly here, it means everybody has a right to marry.
What you are forgetting is that the government can and does make distinctions based on things like disabilities all the time without it being a violation of rights. I am more familiar with the Canadian legal framework, which addresses the issue of government interests vs. rights head on.

In the Canadian constitutional system, the various rights and freedoms are subject to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". One of these rights is to "Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law". The first step is to determine if the equality rights are infringed, and if so, whether that infringment is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Turning to the specific example you gave of blind people driving, yes it is an infringement of a blind person's right to equality under the law that they cannot drive. However, because of the legitimate safety concerns of blind people driving, the infringement is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society and therefore stands.

The infringment of equality rights of homosexuals in the area of marriage, however, is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Whether or not laws against incest or polygamy are justified is something that needs to be addressed separately, on its own merits.

Far from being "patently absurd", it is the way that the analysis has to be done. Gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy or with incest. They are each separate issues. There is no right to marriage, but there is a right to equal benefit of the law - and that is what is in issue.

[drkitten]

I believe that another fallacy besides the "slippery slope" is entering into this discussion;
I refer specifically to Skeptic among others and their insistence upon discussing the right (usually written in all caps) to marry.

The fallacy here is the fallacy of false dilemma, in particular, that a right must be respected in all cases or else it doesn't exist. This simple isn't true, under either law or common sense. In (US) law, for example, the "right" to freedom of speech comes with certain restrictions, primarily when it violates the rights of others (for example, slander and libel), when it poses a threat to public order (incitement to commit a crime), or when it threatens national security. Similarly, my "right" to own weapons is limited by my neighbors' right not to be poisoned by my storing several kg of weapons-grade plutonium.

In either case, my argument in favor of the rights would be the same, but the counterargument against respecting those rights IN THE INSTANCE would be situation-dependent, as would its validity.

So, yes, one can argue that homosexual marriage is analogous to polyamorous marriage is analogous to incestuous marriage is analogous to bestiality. Of course, argument by (false) analogy is itself (formally) fallacious. The key question that is not being addressed is the validity of these analogies in the context of the arguments presented. There are also key differences between homosexuality and polyamory -- and overlooking those differences is the essence of the slippery slope fallacy.

Even "equality under the law" is subject to certain restrictions -- the blind can't drive, untrained people can't practice medicine, and known criminals typically can't work at jobs requiring security clearances. In each case, there's a counter argument where the rights or needs of the public or specific groups of it.

So my question becomes -- who needs
protection from homosexual marriage? Similarly, who needs protection from polyamory, from incest, from bestiality, from
wearing of ugly polyester trousers, et cetera? Every time you name a different group, then it's a different argument and the slippery slope can potentially stop right there.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I thought of a better way to say it.

Remember the anti-nazi pastor Niemoeller?

Although I favor gay marriage, I won't get worked up over being denied something that has never before existed.

If gay marriage never is allowed, I don't equate that with "them" coming for me per Niemoeller.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Although I favor gay marriage, I won't get worked up over being denied something that has never before existed.

If gay marriage never is allowed, I don't equate that with "them" coming for me per Niemoeller.

I didn't equate it; I was just using it as an example of an argument that looks like a "slippery slope" argument but in reality isn't.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Skeptic


I didn't equate it; I was just using it as an example of an argument that looks like a "slippery slope" argument but in reality isn't.

Noted. But I still stand by my assertion that "slippery slope" is not a logical fallacy, only the improper application is.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


I still stand by my assertion that "slippery slope" is not a logical fallacy, only the improper application is.

I'm not sure this makes sense. Just because someone indulges in a fallacy doesn't make their conclusion wrong (that in itself is the "fallacist's fallacy, q.v.).

For that matter, just because something is technically a fallacy doesn't make their argument irrelevant or unconvincing -- argument by authority is technically a fallacy, as even Einstein could be wrong in speaking of physics. In normal discussions, though, Einstein is a pretty authoritative source on physics.

"Slippery slope" is always a fallacy. It's just not always wrong.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by drkitten
"Slippery slope" is always a fallacy. It's just not always wrong.

A fallacy but not wrong? Then what is the point of identifying fallacies?

"Slippery slope" is not a fallacy when there is a conscious and deliberate policy of gradualism behind it.

So general tolerance of gay people leads to abolishing sodomy laws, and in turn maybe gay marriage.

Perhaps also polygamy, if the polygamists are enough of a constituency to pick up the momentum.

But not marrying your dog. That's a fallacy.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


A fallacy but not wrong? Then what is the point of identifying fallacies?



Because fallacies are potential weak points in an argument, areas where logic alone is not strong enough to do the necessary intellectual heavy lifting.

Most of science is fallacious (in a strong formal sense) as it hinges on inductive reasoning obtained by generalization. Technically speaking, just because a coin fell heads the past two hundred fifty times does not logically entail that I'm using a biased or double-headed coin. But that's certainly the direction that the evidence points.

In a strictly logical sense, you'd be guilty of a fallacy if you concluded that I was using an unfair coin. But you'd probably be correct in your conclusion. "Fallacious but not wrong."

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by drkitten
Because fallacies are potential weak points in an argument, areas where logic alone is not strong enough to do the necessary intellectual heavy lifting.

If it can be documented that a deliberate policy of gradualism is being pursued, there is no logical fallacy in pointing that out.

Potential weak points in the logical argument aren't the issue. It is indeed a "slippery slope" between thinking of "gay" as "acceptable" and the overturning of all USA consenting adult sodomy laws, as has happened.

This was a deliberate strategy, make no mistake about it. I am gay and I favor it, and no hypocrisy about "logic" from me.

I do think it is logical, but that's not the point. It is a moral issue. I'll give my bitterest opponents that much. They are wrong, I am right.

Yes, a value judgement.

[Soapy Sam]

I agree with Abdul.
People die on real slippery slopes, because once they start slipping, they can't stop. That can be validly used as a metaphor for any gradual process with a potentially predictable course.

There will be cases where the metaphor is wrongly applied.
There will be cases where it is perfectly valid.

Whether this is one of the latter I leave to people who know more about the issues. I see nothing wrong with Abdul's logic though.

[Z]

This has to be probably the most culture-shaking decision we've had to face since giving women equal rights (Did we? I wonder some time). But allowing homosexual marriage does not imply that all other forms of marriage will eventually be allowed... in fact, with the nature of our society, it's quite likely that we will head through several phases in this conflict. At one point, marriage may be defined as 'between consenting adults of any gender and number', then at another point, the legal geniuses may opt for 'marriage will have no legal recognition; applications for rights and benefits will be based on shared households rather than actual bonded relationships' - and so on, and I really don't see any logical ending to this situation.

Being a practicing poly, I ought to favor legal recognition of polyamorous marriage, but in fact what I personally prefer is that the idea of marriage be abolished outright, and instead let the government institute a means of applications for rights, benefits, and responsibilities based on shared households. That is, 'married' or not, if two (or more) adults living together can prove mutual interdependancy they can apply for a legally binding contract that outlines their rights, responsibilities, benefits, and obligations - but by being given this contract, they also agree to abide by welfare and taxation principles for a multi-adult household as well (etc). For instance, let's say two men and a woman share a house. The men fall in love and get married at the Sacred Synagogue of Jesus the Manly (if there really is such a church, no offense is intended). Legally, this doesn't mean squat; the government recognizes each of the three persons as individuals for all purposes. But if one of the two men and the woman in the house, for whatever reason, decide that they want to share benefits (maybe the woman has a health plan that covers a certain treatment the man needs), then they apply for a contract and are allowed to share benefits. However, when it comes time for this man to go on welfare, he has to include the woman's income and other resources as part of his determining factors, and at tax time the two have to report together.

I don't know if I'm making this idea at all clear - I guess it's a 'let anyone get a civil union, but those who do have to accept the good with the bad' concept. Will we ever do this? Probably not.

The argument that seems to me the most problematic isn't 'slippery slope', it's the question of 'who does it hurt?' After all, who does it really hurt if a man wants to marry another man, two women, his niece, or any other consenting adult? I think there are two ways to look at this:

1: It hurts no one, as long as all parties are capable of expressing that they are truly consenting of the marriage. In which case, all marriages of consenting adults should be allowed.

2: It hurts the taxpayers, who invariably end up footing the bill for countless legal and welfare situations caused by marriage, childbearing, divorce, separation, etc. in which case, NO marriages should be allowed.

(well, there is a 3: It hurts the children, because THOSE kind of people are all pedophiles, abusers, and psychotic... but I tend to reject that out of hand, since more children have been molested, abused, psychologically damaged, and even murdered by heterosexuals than by any other group)

This is a topic that books could be written on, without ever coming to a universally satisfying conclusion - and since I'm exhausted, I'll end this long, meandering, and probably boring statement now. Thanks for reading.

[csense]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

But if one of the two men and the woman in the house, for whatever reason, decide that they want to share benefits (maybe the woman has a health plan that covers a certain treatment the man needs), then they apply for a contract and are allowed to share benefits. However, when it comes time for this man to go on welfare, he has to include the woman's income and other resources as part of his determining factors, and at tax time the two have to report together.


Then before it comes time to go on welfare, this man, for whatever reasons (including personal gain) decides he does not want to share benefits and opts out of the contract.

I don't see this as being any different, from any number of couples who are abusing the system as it is.

[Z]

Of course... just as people now will get a separation / annulment / divorce at times for similar reasons.

No different at all, really - except it allows anyone to use a marriage-like arrangement for mutual benefit and support, not just heterosexual couples. And if the separation process were as complicated as it is now for couples in many states (North Carolina, IIRC, requires a one-year separation period before divorce), then it would really be no different at all.

[csense]

...it allows anyone to use a marriage-like arrangement for mutual benefit and support, not just heterosexual couples.

Yes, and it will allow me to marry my best friend for dental benefits without all the baggage of traditional responsibilities, as is viewed by most of the general public.

Somehow I think, that when this thing does play out, it will be so much easier to opt in and out of these arrangements.

It seems to me that creating a significant change at one end of the spectrum of marriage, would reasonably imply, although maybe not infer, a significant change at the other end of the spectrum...if you know what I mean.

[Z]

Yeah, you could opt-in for dental benefits... but then if you had a one-year separation period requirement, you would still have to file taxes together and do everything a married couple has to do now, as far as legal requirements go. Not that there's much - you don't often hear of people penalized for being married. That usually only comes in when applying for credit, , loans, and public assistance - all of which would still apply.

So I see it as a good thing. After all, why should the government care who marries who? Because there are benefits and responsibilities involved. Fine... if you extend these benefits and responsibilities to any parties who agree to marry, then you cover all bases. Marry your best friend so you can share dental benefits. You'll be sharing credit reports and taxes, too. Marry your brother so that he can support your son on his health plan; and know that at least for a year, every time you go to get food stamps they'll be counting his income and assetts, too.

It's a stubborn mindset our society is locked into, that somehow marriage implies love and/or parental duties - but we all know this isn't actually the case. With half of all first marriages ending in divorce anyway, it's not like marriage imparts stability; and marriages of convenience have been the norm, rather than the rule, throughout history. This is really the only steady era of marriage by mutual consent in our history, and now that we've agreed that people can share the same feelings that a man and a woman can share, between two men or two women or three people or whatever, maybe it's time we set aside antiquated notions of spousal ownership and marriage in general. If you want to share your life with someone, do. If you want to share benefits, apply for a permit/contract. But if we make these contracts a) fairly iron-clad (no annulments except where one party can be shown to commit fraud, just like a business contract), b) of fairly standard format, with clauses that explicitely outline shared responsibilities and a shared legal and financial identity of all parties involved, and c) completely fair with regards to being granted to consenting adults of any number, then we've created a system where no one is being unfairly discriminated against, anyone can take advantage of civil bonding, and anyone who does gains both the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.

Why is it that people feel that this kind of legal contract between a man and a woman is somehow a divine right, permissible only between two people that intend to be parents? What does it matter if you and your sibling want to share dental benefits? If you and your sib are proven to live together, and you need to use your sib's benefits, and are willing to share income for the purpose of reporting taxes, getting credit, making large purposes, taking out loans, etc, and are willing to share mutual responsibility for any children either of you may have, and are willing to concede an equal share of all properties in accordance with your state's property laws - why shouldn't you be allowed to enter this contract?

You see, it's not just a matter of "I want to use Mom's free eye care, so I'll marry her for a month or two". It's a year of the hassles and aggravations inherent with the entire contract, and the sticky situation of dividing property at the end of the contract, that would help deter casual contracts... but at the same time, it would allow people who really need to share their income and benefits to do so. There are a lot of people who could really make positive use of an arrangement like this one who CANNOT marry as of yet - but who are not, for other reasons, able to do this legally.

For example, (WARNING - ANECDOTE AHEAD) I know of two college kids who pooled resources to buy a house. They're both female, they're not lesbian, but they do share incomes to make ends meet. In their current situation, they are interdependant. But one works fast food with very little benefits, while the other has comprehensive health care from her employer that extends to family members, including parents - but not to housemates.

One girl (let's call her Sandra) fell rather seriously ill - but she was the burger flipper and had no health plan to show for it. Sandra went to apply for Medicaide, but Lo and Behold! Medicaide already accounts for total household income, and Sandra didn't qualify, thanks to the other girl's (let's call her Monica) income.

So where do they stand? Sandra needed about $55,000 in medical treatment, but can't get Medicaide, can't afford private insurance, and can't use her Monica's insurance - and Monica is stuck because meanwhile Sandra can't work, so the bills are piling up and the mortgage is backing up...

So why is it they should go under, just because they can't 'marry'? Under my arrangement, they'd simply apply for a domestic partnership contract, and then Sandra could use Monica's insurance, Monica would be in a better position to talk to the bill collectors about hardship deferments and payment plans, and both might actually pull through. This is what I would like to see in place - drop the whole mushy and highly irrelevant 'marriage for love' idea, dispense with the entirely archaic and offensive 'marriage for control of woman' notion, and institute a 'domestic partnership for shared benefits and responsibilites' act - I think the overall benefits of this idea far outweigh any abuse or misuse inherent in the system - the same abuse and misuse already common to heterosexual marriage.

Sorry this post runs on so long - but having expressed myself here, I really think I'm on to something that could seriously improve the quality of life for mankind. Maybe this is what we should be lobbying for!

[Soapy Sam]

My 10c worth on the whole issue of "unions between consenting adults" is this- Western society, has acquired, (from where I don't know), the concept that equality is a good thing in social terms- equality of right, responsibility, expectation, social value etc.

This is , like all moral conclusions, an assumption. It's "correctness" cannot be tested in the way that the correcness of a mathematical sum can. It is a matter of opinion, no more.

What can and will be tested, is the value of this assumption to the society in which it is embedded.

My own working definition of morality is an empirical / pragmatic one-Individual survival behaviour in a herd situation.

Behaviour in a human context is not optimal if it involves constantly swimming against the tide of opinion. We are all sheep to some extent.

However, behaviour is also non optimal if self destructive.
(If all your friends jumped off the cliff, would you?)

Society must decide what it can afford and what it cannot exist without. The assumption that equality of everything is beneficial to society remains to be tested. Trial and error is the traditional method of such tests. If giving civil rights and equality before the law to squirrels turns out to be the next social push, we will have to give it a whirl and see if it stands the test of time.

Always remember the warning about all human societies-
CAUTION-MAY CONTAIN NUTS!

[LettristLoon]

Hi, all...

This is a long thread, and I regrettably have not been able to read every single preceeding post, so I apologize if this point has already been addressed. If it has, disregard it entirely.

Say you're a straight female. Say you're attracted to two different kinds of men: You like white, blonde, blue-eyed, Nordic looking men, and you also like tall, lithe black men, with darker-than-average coloring. Odds are, you're going to pick one or the other of these types and settle down with them - not sue the state to allow you to marry one of each.

And even if you did, would you have a case? We'll address that question in a moment.

It seems like this debate owes its existence, at least partially, to a misunderstanding of bisexuality. Bisexuals do not have a "sex organs quota." I'm gay, as gay as anyone, and I'm very immersed in the gay community here in South Florida. I know lots of bisexuals. Having gotten their monthly fill of gay sex, they do not then feel they need to go and get an equal amount of straight sex.

The difference between bisexuals and the rest of us is that they do not differentiate between sex with people of different genders. It's all sex - within the structure of a romantic relationship, it's all "lovemaking." Bisexuals do not acknowledge the importance of the different sex organs displayed by males and females; on the contrary, they acknowledge the importance of the similarities.

But let us return, for a moment, to the heterosexual woman mentioned earlier. Say she wanted to bring a lawsuit against her state, demanding that her state acknowledge her marriages to Sven and Sambo simultaneously. This would be no different from a bisexual woman doing the same thing. Is it her right to marry multiple people?

Well, of course it is. No one has the right to tell her what to do with other consenting individuals, nor what kind of unions she can enter into with them. But is it marriage?

And this brings up the now-belaboured question: Well, then, if marriage, as recognized by the government, is an arbitrarily exclusionary club, does the concept hold water, anyways?

Even if that question is tired, it is still the most pertinent one. If marriage, as a legal institution, does hold water, what kind of water is it? What's it for? Before any debate is undertaken in seriousness, one must understand one's definitions. Here, we must question our assumed-to-be-common definitions of marriage, as well as our definitions of "bisexuality."

Thanks,
Brandon Thorp

[Soapy Sam]

Brandon- seems to me that society is founded , not on equality, but on distinction; - We distinguish between mine and yours, legal/illegal, in/tolerable etc. Historically, many such distinctions are founded in biology, which had unavoidable certainties , which are now crumbling as technology addresses them- starting with the pill , moving on to IVF, cloning , genetic engineering etc.
When all relationships are indistinguishable, they are equally meaningless. As we separate sex from reproduction, many social / moral certainties will fail.

I think what you allude to is a special case of a far more general question, which is this- Social institutions are defined to establish distinctions between individuals, and groups of individuals up to state level. Those distinctions must be relevant at the appropriate level.

We as individuals and members of the state must decide what they are to be, bearing in mind that the state itself must continue, (albeit with changes) or anarchy ensues.

The issue of sexuality, whether a/bi/poly or whatever, with it's links to biotech and genetics is one example of a wider moral debate.

[LettristLoon]

Yo Soapy!

I agree entirely. The funky thing is this: To really address issues such as marriage, you can never JUST talk about marriage. To truly discuss it, one has to open up all kinds of cans of worms, calling into question things which we may have neither the fortitude, nor the energy, to pursue dilligently.

It does, however, seem that our nation is on a course towards opening up all of these cans, and it's likely to become rather tiresome. But we can console ourselves with the knowledge that, no matter how tiresome it all becomes, it will surely be equally interesting.

- B

[Mark]

Originally posted by Ashi
I have been trying to stay out of the "gay marriage" discussions myself because I still have not decided exactly where I stand on the issue. I do not post often as I have little time for the usual name-calling and trolling that seems to take place in the “regular” forums, but I have great hopes for a legitimate discussion about this issue in this forum. Please fellow skeptics, be gentle. I am truly trying to make up my mind.

I have no religious or any other "moral" problem with homosexual people getting married. There may be an unconscious issue with the "ick factor" when pertaining to male homosexuals, however I do not think this would prevent me from looking at the issue from a logical position.

My problem is that I cannot seem to get past the so-called "slippery slope" problems that gay marriage may present.

I am familiar with and understand the illogic of the slippery slope fallacy but I cannot help but to reasonably infer the following progression that may start with gay marriage.

If a homosexual person can choose to marry someone of the same sex and this is a personal right or freedom that should be available to them because of their natural sexuality, then a bisexual person should be able to choose to marry two people of different sexes as this is a personal right or freedom that should be available to them because of their natural sexuality.

Is there any more relevance to an arbitrary line drawn between the genders that are allowed to be "married" and the number of participants that should be allowed to be "married"? If not, then it seems to me that the "polygamy" argument would come into play at this point and on down the slippery slope it goes.

Now I would just like to add that I do not have a personal objection to polygamy either (at least not at present). I have read a few articles where pro-gay marriage advocates seem to distance themselves from arguments for the acceptance of polygamy. I can only guess it is because polygamy is illegal and a pro-gay/pro-polygamy argument may seem weaker.

Please help explain how this "slippery slope" argument is completely out of the question.

(I have posted this in another forum as well, I hope this is ok. I think it is relevant in both places)

Why is polygamy illegal?

[Z]

Probably because monogamists were afraid it would lessen the mating pool for them. I know this is the argument thrown at me by a fellow in Canada when I explained I had two 'wives' (I use the term loosely as I make no 'legal' claims on these two women; we're handfasted by Wiccan tradition, but according to the law the second woman is our 'housemate'). Funny - by having two women here in the States, I've lessened his chances at finding a successful relationship on his own?

Can someone supply any actual statistics for the number of marriages in which some cheating is involved? I was once told that about 60-75% of all first marriages involve some amount of cheating by wife and/or husband - which might indicate that people are not generally monogamist in nature, and that more 'successful' long-term relationships might be fostered by dropping the notion of monogamy. After all, are you more likely to end a relationship if a person lies to you and sleeps around behind your back, or if, prior to the relationship starts, you both agree to see other people as you want or need, and do so openly and honestly?

This was my scenario. Growing up, I found a LOT of trouble 'staying faithful' to any one girl, simply because I felt so deeply for others. Every girl I ever dated knew this, and invariably I'd end up doing something with another girl (Kissing, I'll have you know) - yet the relationships never ended because of that. The woman I eventually married was actually one of three girls I was dating, who was urged to 'take me in hand' because she was the most compatible of the three for me (so the other two claimed). We took vows with the full understanding that we were both too young to close all avenues of romance, and over the course of our 11 years of marriage, have had other relationships come and go. I can't imagine how it might have been if we had claimed to be 'faithful' to each other - I'm sure it would have ended as more fodder for the statistics machine.

This isn't to say there aren't some very nasty aspects to polygamy and polyandry - in fact, there's probably a pretty good chance that most multiple marriages consist of one very controlling husband and two or more submissive (slave) wives. But I am here to say that isn't the case all the time - My wives are the dominant members, and I tend to be more submissive. I take care of the children, clean the house, prepare the meals, etc. They earn the money, tend to the bills, make budgets, provide me a small allowance (when finances allow), and generally set the rules of the house. It's a very successful arrangement for us, and has even been applauded by our local social agency (of course, we've left out the romantic and sexual aspects of the arrangement, but at this point I don't think they give a care about that).

As to why polygamy is actually illegal - well, because the Church said so. So what if there's 'separation of church and state?' We all know that lie for what it is.

[Mark]

Well, personally, I have no interest in polygamy...I really am a "one woman" kind of guy; I always have been.

Still, I find it interesting that many of the anti-gay marriage people use polygamy as an argument against it. As if polygamy were some sort of ultimate disaster.

First of all, the argument makes no sense. Why would allowing same sex couples to marry lead to polygamy? Huh? Besides, one of the most common complaints leveled against gays is that they are "too promiscuous." Whether that is true or not (I have no idea) it is interesting to me that the same people complaining about promiscuity are the ones against allowing these people to marry...which is designed to discourage promiscuity! Weird.

Second, what exactly is wrong with 3 (or more) consenting adults agreeing to marry and be faithful to one another? Why is this used as an example of ultimate marriage destruction? Am I missing something?

[Soapy Sam]

Why is polygamy illegal?

Well, it isn't , in lots of places. I happen to have several friends with more than one wife- all Arabic and Muslim, staunch pillars of society to a man.

Polyandry is rarer- there are examples from Nepal & Tibet and I think a few in Polynesia. (Could be wrong on that.) As the idea of one wife several husbands apparently did not occur to anyone in the fertile crescent, it was never specifically banned by Judaeo- Christian rules. Also, one woman can only get pregnant once at a time, so Polyandry has few advantages genetically for either partner.

[Z]

In cultures where gene survival depends on having as many children as possible, polygyny is the more logical alternative. But in modern society, survival is more dependant on financial success than on breeding success. I'd argue that polyandry becomes the more useful form of poly today, because the woman, unable to work during part of her pregnancy, can be supported by two or more mates - two full-time incomes to provide food for one woman and her children is more useful than one full-time income providing for two or more women and their children.

In my own case, we have many children, but it's agreed that never, EVER, will we allow both women to become pregnant at once. The strain would be too great, financially and personally. Instead, they are taking turns until each has had however many children she decides she wants... and by letting me stay at home and act as day-care, we reduce the costs of living dramatically (I'd have to earn a LOT more money than I have the skills or training for to afford day-care for all these kids!).

Originally, this was a 4-person relationship, but the other man did not desire to provide either support or service; he wanted to stay home, play video-games, and ignore the children entirely. Needless to say, he's out the door.

I think one of the arguments against polyandry is the aging notion that the man has to dominate the woman, and two men would compete for dominancy. In fact, one monogamist arguing with me told me that the reason polygyny doesn't work is that "women are hard enough to control individually; family structure would crumble with the man trying to control two or more women." Shameful that the word 'control' even enters into the discussion!

[Soapy Sam]

One problem with polyandry is that with DNA fingerprinting now cheaply available, a man can find out whether a kid is his or not.
He may then decide he does not wish to support another man's child. In the Nepalese cases, the husbands are often brothers, so increasing the genetic stake of each man in any child, but I wonder how many men would choose to go this way. I can see it being stable for some.

[Z]

True, but assuming (and this is much to assume, I know) that actual positive emotional investment is made, then a man would be able and willing to support a) the woman he loves and b) any children he has seen born and is around during their early years. I know, for my own part, I would gladly offer what support I can of the two sons by my second wife's former relationship, and I only met them a few years ago.

Of course, this is also assuming that most men aren't total rectums, which, sadly, experience tells me isn't true. But I see no difference whether the relationship is mono or poly, save that in a mono relationship, men often jump to false assumptions regarding the parentage of their children (Me, Myself, and Irene comes to mind).

[Soapy Sam]

Could well be that one effect of the slow separation by technology of sex and reproduction will be an increase in polyandry. I can see how it could work economically in our society,
but my personal experience is that sexual jealousy gets worse rather than better when the woman is someone you love.

Another effect of tech on our society is the tendency to live longer. Right now, many old folk live and die alone , having lost a "lifetime" partner. As these relationships (so far) don't involve reproduction, they are more affected by economics. I wonder if it will be the elderly who set the new trends in alternative relationships?

[Lemastre]

The sexes of the parties to marriage contracts should be immaterial, as in other contracts. This is because marriage is a legal contract -- albeit a strange one, not least in that it contains no time limit and is intended to end only with the death of one of the parties. This makes it unusually difficult and often costly to end a marriage contract with both parties still living. Contracts in general can be designed just about any way the parties want, so why not marriage contracts? I suppose it's because the religionists and social engineers have over time invested marriage contracts with a mystique involving, ideas of god, romance, and procreation, so that a "marriage" based on a practical, realistic contract between the parties is almost impossible. Rights of survival, however, almost demand that two persons enter into such a contract, so they continue to be widely used.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Ashi
...I still have not decided exactly where I stand on the issue.

My wife ran for the Vermont state legislature during the Civil Union debate, and we had to figure out pretty fast where we stood on the issue.

The way I saw/see it, there are several issues: moral, religious, legal, personal and "genetic," for want of a better term.

Morally, I think it's wrong but, to paraphrase Shaw, I'm not egotistic enough to believe that my customs and mores are the laws of the universe.

I have no religious views, myself, and I feel unfit to stand between a person and their god.

Homosexual marriages violate no law that I know of.

Personally, I think it's disgusting, so I don't look.

The last point, what I've (probably incorrectly) termed "genetic" is the most interesting of the angles. It asks the question, "Does homosexuality have survival value for the species?" Surprisingly, evidence suggests a positive answer. Carl Sagan, in "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors," cites studies that found that there is a certain "maintainance level" of homosexual activity in many non-human societies, including primates. This activity appears to increase in direct proportion to population density. The inference appears to be that homosexuality may be one natural method of population control. Anyway, that's the short version.

Bottom line, other than personal prejudice, the wife and I could not justify opposing Civil Unions on any ground other than personal prejudice. Naturally, she lost the election; the surprise, though, was that she still managed to get 1/3 of the vote.

[Meadmaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lemastre
The sexes of the parties to marriage contracts should be immaterial, as in other contracts. This is because marriage is a legal contract -- albeit a strange one, not least in that it contains no time limit and is intended to end only with the death of one of the parties. [QUOTE]

I've been hoping to find intelligent conversation on this subject, and if that happens, this seems like the best place to do it.

I apologize that I haven't read this whole discussion, only the last few posts.

I quoted Lemastre here because it is the contractual nature of marriage that seems to be so overlooked in most of the public debate about it. People talk about marriage as a "right" a "privilege" a "benefit" or as something "sacred", but in my mind, when you cut through the B.S. it's a contract. Furthermore, it is a very, very, restrictive contract. And finally, it's a contract about something that is none of the state's business.

After all, why should the state regulate with whom I can have sex? It's an outrage! (feigned indignance)

Unless...the act of having sex creates things in which the state has a legitimate interest. Those "things" would of course be babies. The state has a legitimate interest in the welfare of babies, because they are citizens who cannot care for themselves.

So I reached the conclusion that marriage should be a heterosexual institution, precisely because it is only the potential for children and the need to create good environments for those children that gives the state a just cause for intervening in an otherwise private arrangement.

Another legitimate interest is not as valid as it once was. There was a time in the not distant past when a woman had little or no ability to earn income. Women abandoned after becoming pregnant, or abandoned when they had gone past child-bearing and in many people's opiinion sexually desirable years, would present a humanitarian crisis and a burden on the state. So, marriage was a way of protecting the rights of women in an economically asymmetric world. Again, this doesn't apply to homosexual marriages.

I think if you look at the economic consequences of marriage, you would find most, if not all, of them, spring from the assumption that a woman has no independent means of support.

As for civil unions, I think anyone and everyone should be able to enter into a civil union, which is a joint property sharing agreement, regardless of whether or not they are having sex.

Those are my views on the subject, but they are still evolving. I'm hoping to find some intelligent discussion that might help me further examine and refine my own thoughts on the subject.

[Beady]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
[QUOTE]
As for civil unions, I think anyone and everyone should be able to enter into a civil union, which is a joint property sharing agreement...

It's a bit more than that. CU also confers next-of-kin and similar status to the CU partner.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Unless...the act of having sex creates things in which the state has a legitimate interest. Those "things" would of course be babies. The state has a legitimate interest in the welfare of babies, because they are citizens who cannot care for themselves.

So I reached the conclusion that marriage should be a heterosexual institution, precisely because it is only the potential for children and the need to create good environments for those children that gives the state a just cause for intervening in an otherwise private arrangement.

Another legitimate interest is not as valid as it once was. There was a time in the not distant past when a woman had little or no ability to earn income. Women abandoned after becoming pregnant, or abandoned when they had gone past child-bearing and in many people's opiinion sexually desirable years, would present a humanitarian crisis and a burden on the state. So, marriage was a way of protecting the rights of women in an economically asymmetric world. Again, this doesn't apply to homosexual marriages.

I think if you look at the economic consequences of marriage, you would find most, if not all, of them, spring from the assumption that a woman has no independent means of support.Your concerns about procreation and women's welfare may be warranted but have nothing to do with making the marriage contract available to same-sex couples. Expanding access to marriage would not take away access by those who now have it. Nor is it envisioned that the provisions of the marriage contract would be changed. So you'll still be able to mortgage the farm to pay for your daughters' weddings, confident that they're entering into the same arrangement we've grown accustomed to.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Your concerns about procreation and women's welfare may be warranted but have nothing to do with making the marriage contract available to same-sex couples.

I agree. But those concerns are the only legitimate reasonse for having marriage in the first place, and they don't apply to gays.

Let me try this a different way. All my life, I have heard the left, which includes me, saying "Get the government out of my bedroom!"

Marriage is a governmental institution, and now gay people are demanding the right to enter into it. Why on Earth would people demand governmental interference in their sex lives?

If we created "sexless" civil unions, that would solve whateer real problems gay couples face.

You and Fred want to buy that house together, and you want to make sure that if one of you dies, the other one gets to keep living their without having to pay income tax on it? No problem. What you do when you are in it is your own business.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
. . . . Marriage is a governmental institution, and now gay people are demanding the right to enter into it. Why on Earth would people demand governmental interference in their sex lives?

If we created "sexless" civil unions, that would solve whateer real problems gay couples face.The government doesn't interfere all that much in marriages, although they are ridiculously hard to get out of once entered into. But the reason same-sex couples want marriage is to enjoy the benefits the marriage contract confers. While it's probably true that these benefits have been accumulated in hopes of creating what's considered a good environment for rearing kids, it seems needlessly and maybe illegally discriminatory to deny marriage contracts to couples because the children they may rear cannot be conceived with each other. (If that's a motive for denying same-sex marriage, then impotence or infertility could negate any marriage or maybe menopause or hysterectomy would automatically end marriages.) It's quite possible that a same-sex couple may not like marriage once they try it, but they should have the right to find that out for themselves, just as boys and girls do.

Why create a new category of contract, "sexless civil unions," when what is wanted already exists? Anyway, this sounds a lot like the old "separate but equal" ploy under which African Americans suffered for so many generations.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Lemastre
The government doesn't interfere all that much in marriages, although they are ridiculously hard to get out of once entered into. But the reason same-sex couples want marriage is to enjoy the benefits the marriage contract confers.

What are these benefits? I'm married, and I can't find them. But I'll get to that in a minute.

Let's take a step back. When is the marriage contract defined and enforced in a meaningful way? Sam and Sally meet, fall in love, get married, maybe have kids. They live the rest of their lives happily together. The fact that they are married is of little consequence to them, except perhaps emotionally.

Now, though, suppose when Sam is 46 years old, he decides that Sally is a bit wider in the hips than she used to be and Susie, the intern at work, is much prettier. Sam did pretty well for himself at work, in part because Sally was a full time mother who stayed at home to raise the kids, allowing Sam to throw himself into a career, so Sam is fairly well off, and, let's be real, that makes him attractive to Susie despite the fact that Sam's hips probably don't fit into the old pants either.

Sam starts fooling around with Susie.

Suddenly, the fact that Sam and Sally are married is a big, big, deal, and the government wll interfere a whole bunch in the marriage of Sam and Sally, probably deciding that Sam doesn't need that house or sports car after all, because, even though he got the paycheck, Sally did an awful lot of the work and sacrificed to make that paycheck possible. At least, that's what the government, in the person of the judge, thinks.

That's a real world scenario that happens a lot, but I can't manage to project that scenario onto gay couples. Sure, they could break up after a very long relationship, but you wouldn't have the case where one of them sacrificed to stay at home to raise the kids while the other was at work.

In other words, marriage, like every other contract, is enforced only when it is violated, and then words like divorce and adultery have serious legal consequences. Why is it that in the debate about gay marriage, the word "adultery" just never comes up? The concept of adultery is actually one of the definitive aspects of marriage, and yet you never hear about it.



Now, about those benefits. What are we talking about here? If I die, my wife would get some survivor benefits. That's a benefit. Why does she get that? Because when the law was passed, it was assumed that when I died, my wife lost her means of support. That doesn't apply to gay couples. My wife gets health insurance through my work. Why? Because when employers started offering health insurance (primarily as a way of avoiding wage restrictions in WWII) it was assumed that wives and children had no independent means of support. That doesn't apply to gay couples, and at any rate is between a private employer and employee anyway.

In fact, I would be willing to say that every single economic benefit associated with marriage is a reflection of the assumption that, when it was instituted, a wife had no independent means of support. Am I wrong about that?

If that's the case, why would we extend those benefits to gays? In my opinion, we should revisit whether we ought to continue those benefits for heterosexuals, now that the economic rules have changed.

There's a different category of benefits, though. If I die without a will, it is assumed that my wife is my primary beneficiary. Not only does she get our shared house, but she doesn't have to pay taxes on it, because she hasn't really "gotten" anything. She already had it. There are other benefits of that type, that make it easier to share property and have those property rights continue after the death of a partner. Gays should have those rights, but then again, two brothers who decide to live together should have those rights. I would say that any two people, or for that matter more, who choose to live together should be able to create such a relationship and should have the right to share property in that manner, and that is why I arrived at the conclusion that we needed a "civil union" law that doesn't ahve anything to do with sex.

It isn't "separate but equal", because it is in no way equal. My "civil union" wouldn't place any requirements or restrictions on having sex, while my marriage does exactly that.

So, that's my position, at least for now. I'm trying to figure out what point I missed when it comes to gay marriages, and I hope someone can say something that enlightens me. For now, I just don't get it. People seem to talk about something called "love", which seems like an interesting concept, but doesn't have a whole lot to do with marriage.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
...snip....

So, that's my position, at least for now. I'm trying to figure out what point I missed when it comes to gay marriages, and I hope someone can say something that enlightens me. For now, I just don't get it. People seem to talk about something called "love", which seems like an interesting concept, but doesn't have a whole lot to do with marriage.

There is a long (very long) moderated thread over in R&P that has been discussing this for a while. You may like to join in:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36817

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Meadmaker


What are these benefits? I'm married, and I can't find them. . . .That's one beauty of the marriage contract -- you don't have to find them, they come along automatically. Same-sex couples have to finagle each one of them individually -- if they are available at all. I'm not aware of all of them, but they involve surviving-spouse rights regarding estates and social security, employee health-insurance coverage, guardianship of children, HIPAA restrictions, etc. I'm sure various web sites go into these things in great detail. It appears to me that same-sex couples today can only be regarded as roommates, not spouses.

[Z]

Not to mention - the fact is, many same-sex couples also raise children. Therefore, basic benefits afforded to hetero couples concerning the children are automatically denied the same-sex couple.

I have a friend, a lesbian, who has a son, and she and her wife are planning on adopting a daughter. Under the current rules, my friend's wife has no legal standing regarding the son - if my friend were to die, her child would be taken from the home and raised by her parents (who would ruin his life). Is this right? Of course not - but since she and her wife can't legally wed, that's what will happen.

And don't start on the archaic idea that gays have no business raising children - Gay and lesbian couples have been raising kids for years and years, and they don't turn out any worse than all those poor kids raised by hetero couples and single moms and dads.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

I have a friend, a lesbian, who has a son, and she and her wife are planning on adopting a daughter. Under the current rules, my friend's wife has no legal standing regarding the son - if my friend were to die, her child would be taken from the home and raised by her parents (who would ruin his life).

Here is how it works for me, a married guy.

If I die, my wife gets custody of the kid. If my wife dies, I get custody.

That seems fair, after all, it's my kid, and hers.

What if we both die? Then custody goes to whoever is designated in our will. Grandparents and relatives can contest that, and sometimes they win those contests, but in general, if we die with wills, and our intentions are clear, then those wills are honored.

I assume that is true with single parents as well. (In legal terms, under today's law,a lesbian mother is a single parent.)

The difference between the lesbian mom and my wife is that if my wife dies, she has no say in who gets custody of her child as long as I am alive. I get custody, regardless of her wishes.

Also, if she dies, I have no choice about whether or not I get custody. I get it. Period. Marriage, once again, does not offer a privilege. It offers a restriction.

So, is it the case that gays want that sort of restriction? If gays marry, will it be assumed that the non-biological parent will automatically the legal parent ofa child in the event of the biological parent's death? Perhaps that is the case, but I never hear anyone talk about it that way.

[Z]

If gays marry, will it be assumed that the non-biological parent will automatically the legal parent ofa child in the event of the biological parent's death? Perhaps that is the case, but I never hear anyone talk about it that way.

That's EXACTLY the point - If Nichole (Pete's biological mom) dies, then Jan (Nichole's Wife) would not get Pete - they would either put him in a successive series of foster homes, send him to Nichole's parents, or try to find his scumbag father who couldn't bother to hang around anyway. (Names changed to protect the innocent)

Never mind the fact that Jan was Mommy to Pete as much as Michelle was - never mind the family bonds, the love, the care and support - right now, Jan doesn't have legal diddly squat. In a case like that, it's very easy to see why gays and lesbians would want the full rights, responsibilities, and privileges of marriage.

If you marry a woman, and she brings in a child, you become that child's stepfather - which legally grants you greater rights than the biological father, in most place, unless other arrangements exist. But if she dies, you get the kid, no questions asked - unless the B.F. shows up and fights you. Unfortunately, a gay or lesbian couple doesn't have this automatic right - no rights at all, in fact.

I'm surprised that you've never considered this kind of scenario. What, you think all gay and lesbian couples are childless fornicators trying to beat the system?

[LettristLoon]

The "marriage is for the purpose of child-bearing and child-rearing" argument is hogwash. My great grandfather got married at age 86 to a woman five years his junior. By the logic espoused earlier in this thread, as they do not have the biological capacity to procreate, they have no business being able to get married.

What we forget is this: Heterosexuals do not, usually, get married for legal or economic reasons. They get married because they are in love, and wish to be able to call themselves "married." It is a symbol, and symbols are important to people.

Gay folk just want to be able to take part in a vaunted symbolic act, like everyone else, and have it carry the same legitimacy of that symbolic act, as it applies to heterosexuals.

- Brandon

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon


That's EXACTLY the point - If Nichole (Pete's biological mom) dies, then Jan (Nichole's Wife) would not get Pete -

Does Nichole have a will? What does it say about childrearing in the event of her death?

I will grant one thing, and I think it is one thing that ought to be fixed. Our court system today is empowered to "act in the best interest of the child" in a wide variety of cases. In other words, they routinely substitute their own judgement for that of parents, and I think that's wrong.

Applying that in this case means that a court might decide that the wishes of the parent (Nichole), clearly expressed in her will, could be outweighed by some other concern. And for a variety of reasons, some fair and some not, a judge might decide that Pete's grandparents would be "better parents" than Jan. I think that's wrong. I think that Nichole's judgement should be primary in determining what is in the best interests of Nichole's child.

Note that if you do things my way, we still get the right answer.

Now, let's imagine a different scenario. Nichole and Jan are married, and they are raising Pete, Nichole's biological child. However, as is far too often the case, Nichole and Jan fall out of love, and get divorced. In fact, let's assume that lesbians can have ugly divorces just like straight people. By the time it's done, Nichole and Jan hate each other. Jan tries to get custody, but Nichole gets custody, and Jan gets visitation rights.

A year later, Nichole is in an accident, and dies. Nichole hates Jan. Nichole thinks Jan is unfit. However, legally, Jan and Nichole are both "mom" to Pete. Pete goes to live with Jan, and the wishes of Pete or Nichole are irrelevant.

Maybe supporters of gay marriage don't see anything wrong with that scenario. I don't know, because I never hear anyone talk about it.


I'm surprised that you've never considered this kind of scenario.

There are a lot of different scenarios to consider. I only hear the supporters of gay marriage discuss the scenarios that involve two people meeting, falling in love, and staying in love until at least one of them dies. Those are the easy scenarios. If that was the way things always worked, there wouldn't be any need for marriage.

Here's another. The original thread talked about a slippery slope.

Bill and Ted are brothers. Both are young men, and single. Bill went to college, has a job as an accountant with full health insurance. He's single, but it would cover his family if he had one. Ted dropped out and works at Taco Bell. He gets by, but with no benefits.

An aside for a moment. Did you know that following changes made to laws during the Clinton years made it much more difficult to restrict medical coverage based on preexisting conditions? In many cases, employer plans dropped the restrictions altogether. Let's say Bill's company was one of those.

One day, Ted discovers he has cancer. What to do?

Bill and Ted have an announcement to make. For years, they have remained single because, in reality, they were having sexual relations with each other. Now, they are in love, and they are getting married.

Does anyone have a problem with that?

(Some people say that the above will never happen. That's ridiculous. I, personally, know people who got married specifically because by being married, one or the other got health insurance. Would only heteros do that?)

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
[B]What we forget is this: Heterosexuals do not, usually, get married for legal or economic reasons. They get married because they are in love, and wish to be able to call themselves "married." B]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I disagree. In this day and age, you don't have to get married. In my own case, I was perfectly happy "shacking up" for quite some time. But when my girlfriend and I decided that we might like to have kids, my girlfriend became my fiance.

But moreover, the institution of marriage might be entered into for a variety of reasons, one of which might be "love". That's all very interesting, but it isn't something the state should be concerned with. As a society, we need to examine the purpose for having this thing called marriage.

From a legal perspective, there is nothing "symbolic" about marriage. It's a specific contract that imposes specific obligations on the parties, and provides means of providing compensation to parties when the terms of the contract are violated.

[LettristLoon]

Meadmaker:

Righteo, the necessity of marriage should come under scrutiny by the state.

...but until you start campaigning to make it happen and the prospects look good, I want to be able to take part in the symbolic act of marriage.

You said:

"Maybe I'm wrong, but I disagree. In this day and age, you don't have to get married. In my own case, I was perfectly happy "shacking up" for quite some time. But when my girlfriend and I decided that we might like to have kids, my girlfriend became my fiance."

Okay, be happy with "shacking up" if you want. You are happy shacking up: Therefore we sodomites should be content to do the same thing? That's kind of like saying, "My white mother was content to be a maid her whole life. Why should black folk want better?"

You also said:

"But moreover, the institution of marriage might be entered into for a variety of reasons, one of which might be "love". That's all very interesting, but it isn't something the state should be concerned with. As a society, we need to examine the purpose for having this thing called marriage."

Well, okay, in theory. But the people who are opposing gay marriage, in the main, are doing so to protect the "sanctity" of marriage. Should the state be concerned with "sanctity?" What, precisely, are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that no one should want to get married? Are you suggesting that fags, in particular, should not want to get married?

And even if you feel that no one should want to get married, is that really a basis for telling a portion of the population that they cannot do it, if they wish to?

And, furthermore, you said:

"From a legal perspective, there is nothing "symbolic" about marriage. It's a specific contract that imposes specific obligations on the parties, and provides means of providing compensation to parties when the terms of the contract are violated."

Do many people get married for this reason? I can picture it! Your dad getting on his best suit, taking your mum out to a nice dinner, many moons ago, getting down on one knee, and with a tear in his eye saying, "Oh, honey, I love you so much that I want to impose a specific contract upon our union, thereby giving us each specific obligations, so that we will have a means of providing compensation to each other when we get sick of each other, or die, thereby violating the contract!"

And then your mother probably said, "Oh, darling you're SO ROMANTIC!"

Do you see? People rarely get married for legal reasons. Usually, it's ell-you-vee, luv, and unless the legality of gay marriage would cause some kind of problem for others in this country, gays and lesbians should have the same right to enter into this union as anyone.

Yeah, maybe the nature of the union itself is suspect, but until it is denied to all, it should be granted to all.

My two cents.

- Brandon

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by LettristLoon

...but until you start campaigning to make it happen and the prospects look good, I want to be able to take part in the symbolic act of marriage.

You may already take part in the symbolic act of marriage. I've attended two gay weddings in my life. Plenty of symbolism all around.

It's the legal act of marriage that is currently denied to you. Right now, if your partner is unfaithful, you can't sue him. When you demand the right to marriage, that is what you are demanding.

But the people who are opposing gay marriage, in the main, are doing so to protect the "sanctity" of marriage. Should the state be concerned with "sanctity?"

No, it shouldn't. The supporters and opponents of gay marriage have a wide variety of motives that vary from individual to individual. In evaluating whether you should be a supporter or opponent, look at the practical reality of the change, not what other people think about it.


[B[What, precisely, are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that no one should want to get married? Are you suggesting that fags, in particular, should not want to get married? [/B]

Sort of. The restrictions imposed by the marriage contract are quite severe. Why would anyone enter into it? Probably, most people don't even contemplate why they do it. It's just tradition for them.

But on a board like this one, let's contemplate why anyone who is thinking might want to consider getting married, from a rational point of view. First, imagine you are a 20 year old woman, in love with a man. You love him. You want to be with him. You want to have sex with him. He has already told you that he loves you and will stay with you forever. Why bother getting married?

Because when you go to bed with him, you might get pregnant, and that might happen even if you don't want it to happen. If you are going to do that, you want to make sure that he's not going to cut and run, and if he does, at least you'll get to keep his car.

Romantic? Not in the least. Weddings are romantic. Marriage is not.

As I said when I started my participation a few days ago, I am trying to clarify my position on gay marriage. I am leaning toward opposing it, but I wanted to see if someone could convince me that I was wrong. There is one way that someone could do that. Explain to me why the words "divorce" and "adultery" would enrich the lives of gay people and need to be introduced into their lives and our legal system. Those two words are the true definitive words that define the concept of marriage, and no one seems to want to talk about how they apply to gay people. If "divorce" doesn't apply to gays, then neither does "marriage".

[LettristLoon]

Hey there:

You said:

"You may already take part in the symbolic act of marriage. I've attended two gay weddings in my life. Plenty of symbolism all around.

"It's the legal act of marriage that is currently denied to you. Right now, if your partner is unfaithful, you can't sue him. When you demand the right to marriage, that is what you are demanding."

Righteo. But please understand: The value of a symbol resides in how much stock the individual in it. With the government saying, "You're symbol has NO validity in it!" it just doesn't carry the same emotional weight. See how valuable that affirmation would be to gay couples?

I don't know what nationality you are, but say you were Portuguese (I am). Say, furthermore, that you are a pacifist, because you've drunk enough mead that you want nothing less than a fraternity/sorority of all humankind. With me so far?

Now, how would you feel if the government said, "Portuguese folks cannot join the military, because it would usurp the sanctity of war."

Now, even though you're a Portuguese pacifist, and you believe that war has no sanctity, anyways, would you be okay with that? Would it be fair? War is stupid! War is bad! Does that mean that it's right to exclude the Portuguese from the practice? Nosir!

And marriage isn't nearly so bad as war (except my parent's marriage - that was at least as bad). So, whatever the dubious merits of marriage might be, it's not right to exclude the entire homosexual population from said merits.

Furthermore, gays are still discriminated against, all over the place (though the situation is constantly improving). The government's denial of homosexual's right to marry carries just as much symbolic weight for the bigots as marriage itself carries for we fags. "If the government can view these people as less human, less worthy of rights than we straight folk, then we can have this view, too." That's probably not the actual conscious thought-process that the bigots have, if they can be said to have any at all...but you get the point.

And, anyways, you said you've attended two gay "marriages." I'm assuming, therefore, that these lavender folk are your friends. If they dropped by your house and said, "We really want to get married, legally and fully," what would your response be?

Would you say, "Sorry, marriage isn't healthy, you shouldn't be allowed - for your own good." Or would you say, "Golly, it's a bitch that you can't do that."

Besides: There are over 1,000 benefits immediately and automatically provided couples who get married, which gay couples who cannot legally marry must apply for, individually - as well as several tax-related benefits, I believe, which cannot be applied for at all; it's either marriage or bust. Not sure where all the legal benefits of marriage are listed online, but some useful information can be found at http://www.marriageequality.org/facts.php?page=why_marriage_matters

As is usually the case, you are probably pretty stuck on your opinion. I'm just glad that you're not the fellow doling out my right (note: I would never want to dole out yours, nor anyone's - marry a polar bear, if you want to [whoops, it's that slippery slope again!]).

- B

[Meadmaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LettristLoon
"You're symbol has NO validity in it!" it just doesn't carry the same emotional weight. See how valuable that affirmation would be to gay couples?

If congress were to pass a resolution saying "We affirm the rights of gay people to form lifelong commitments." I would support it. But I don't think laws should be based on "emotional weight". Laws are things that are enforced by court orders executed by federal marshals if necessary.

Going back to Jan, Nichole, and Pete. Let's suppose Pete is Nichole's biological son, Jan and Nichole get divorced. A judge determines that Jan is a better parent than Nichole. A marshal is going to show up at Nichole's door and take Pete away, and if Nichole tries to stop it, she might get shot. That happens to straights. With gay marriage, than can happen to gays, too. Do you want that?

There's a lot more to say, but I'll leave it at that right now, because I don't want to take up all of the dialog bandwidth.

[Z]

A judge determines that Jan is a better parent than Nichole. A marshal is going to show up at Nichole's door and take Pete away, and if Nichole tries to stop it, she might get shot. That happens to straights. With gay marriage, than can happen to gays, too. Do you want that?

Well.... yes, I do. If a judge determines Jan is a better parent than Nichole, then, YES, Jan has every right to raise Pete, just as if someone comes into my home and determines that my wife is a better parent for my son Jazz than his mother is, then of course I want what is best for the child. Biological parentage isn't the prime directive of good parenting... In my home, right now, are two boys who are wonderful kids, I love them to pieces, but they are not biologically mine. However, their father is an abuser of the weak, a mental manipulator, a cheat, a lazy roustabout who hides behind a ULC ordination rather than do honest work, has a live-in mistress who is as old as his oldest child, and is considered by psychics and other woos to be a 'vampire'. Now, if a judge were to determine me to be a better father than he, and opted to place the boys in my care, would you balk?

Well, the same situation SHOULD apply with gay marriage as with straight. In fact, EVERY marriage, be it between two, three, four people, all male, all female, or mixed, should carry the same rules, rights, and responsibilities.

Meadmaker, I think what you should be leaning toward, is opposing marriage entirely. That's my stance at the moment - get rid of marriage as a government institution, force companies and agencies to ignore marriage entirely. Leave it to the churches and temples and such, and instead institute a contractual civil union between consenting adults with its own rules, rights, and responsibilities, that any male or female adult or adults can enter into entirely.

I've already outlined my proposal earlier though.

[csense]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

In my home, right now, are two boys who are wonderful kids, I love them to pieces, but they are not biologically mine. However, their father is an abuser of the weak, a mental manipulator, a cheat, a lazy roustabout who hides behind a ULC ordination rather than do honest work, has a live-in mistress who is as old as his oldest child, and is considered by psychics and other woos to be a 'vampire'. Now, if a judge were to determine me to be a better father than he, and opted to place the boys in my care, would you balk?


All you've really shown is that you're a better person, not a better father, and even then, the former is not completely clear since we know practically nothing about you to make this determination.

You say you love them to pieces....well, what if the biological father feels this way too, then what?

[Fordama]

It seems as though this thread has taken the direction that since same-sex marriage won't be perfect then we shouldn't allow them to get married.

I didn't realize that heterosexual marriage was so perfect and ideal right now!

Fordama

[Z]

Ah, but I didn't base my argument on my feelings for the boys, but on the idea that a judge might find my care of the boys in better interest than their B.F.'s care.

For example, when I met the older boy, he was four and was stilll wearing diapers and taking a sippy-cup. He was neurotic about everything, and feared everything. Food had to be room-temperature and unseasoned. Baths had to be no deeper than two inches and room temperature. No loud noises, no playing outside or downstairs away from parents. These were all issues his father BRAGGED about.

Maybe I'm the one who's a bad father, but my oldest boy at this stage had been potty-trained with no relapses since he was 2, went straight from a bottle to a normal cup at 10 months with no problems, and fears very little - Now, he respects quite a lot, but that's different. For example, he knows fire burns, the stove burns, electricity hurts and can kill.. but he's not afraid to climb trees, try new foods, etc. He eats his food fresh from the oven, spiced with jalapenos and cayenne pepper sauce, swims in the bathtub with decently warm water, plays wherever he is without concern for where we are, listens to music and TV at whatever volume without being afraid... After taking the other child's training to hand, in less than a year I've managed to change almost all of the boy's bad habit. He is now fully potty-trained, eats and drinks normal foods, and is scared of very little. Sadly, the bath is still an issue, since his B.F.'s wife bathes him by pouring buckets of water over the boy's head, but as we've just ended his visits to see his father I have high hopes he'll get over the bathing issue soon.

Now, due credit goes of course to my wife, who taught me what little I know about parenting.

Anyway, if this makes me a better person or a better father, or not, is irrelevant. If rather the judge looks, and sees that my home has two full-time incomes to support the child, while the other fellow has one part-time income; if the child has spent equal time at both homes; if the boy's mother resides with me, and is proven psychologically sound and stable compared to the father (who lost his oldest daughter to charges of sexual molestation and never fought, and hasn't seen her in 12 years)... Well, if a judge looks at all these factors and decides that the child ought to live with me rather than the B.F., then I'd agree this is right. Likewise, if two women 'marry' and one has a child, and the B.M. ends up losing her job, gets involved in drugs, and divorces the other, then why the hell shouldn't the OTHER woman, who is still clean, sober, and working, get the kid?

My point is, marriage doesn't work. Period. Yes, I'm married, but I never advise my friends to marry.. and every last one who has gotten married in spite of my advice is now either on the rocks or divorced. But if we're going to keep all the institutions of marriage in place, we ought to damn well make it equal for any consenting adults, regardless of other issues such as gender, orientation, or other relationships.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by LettristLoon

I don't know what nationality you are,

Dual citizen, United States and Ireland. I've lived in America all of my life, but I have an American and an Irish passport.


Now, how would you feel if the government said, "Portuguese folks cannot join the military, because it would usurp the sanctity of war."

I'm not into sanctity, but they already do exactly what you say, for other reasons. There are certain positions in our military that can only be held by US citizens. Our government has decided that only people who hold no loyalties to other governments are allowed to be in those positions. Even I, a United States citizen, born, raised, and lived my whole life in the US, would be excluded from certain positions unless I give up my Irish passport.

Why? They don't like Irish? No. It is because certain positions are related to security of the United States and someone who insists on remaining loyal to another government disqualifies himself from those positions. The government has a legitimate interest in disqualifying foreign nationals from the position. (You may wonder why I have dual citizenship. I'm a second rate athlete who briefly tried to get a spot on the Irish olympic team. Would the government care why I maintain Irish citizenship. No. That's not their job.)

Likewise, to understand marriage, you have to ask what is the government's legitimate interest in marriage. Thousands of years of tradition make the issue somewhat confused, especially since the biological rules were change when The Pill was invented, but the government's legitimate interest in marriage comes from the need to protect first, the children who might be born from that marriage and second, the rights of partners who might be economically disadvantaged by their role in child bearing and child care. Excluding gays makes sense, then, because those legitimate interests of the government don't apply.

One difference between my opinion and Zaayrdragon is that I think the ability of the government to judge who is a "better parent" is extremely limited, and a child should only be removed from a biological parent's care when the health of the child is in danger. In the case of the hypothetical Jan, Nichole, and Pete, if Nichole gave birth to Pete, but Jan and Nichole were married, but then divorced, a judge might decide that Jan is a better parent because she has a higher paying job and is financially more able to provide a quality education for Pete. I think that's wrong, and if you agree that that is wrong, a little bit of thought will make you question the whole concept of gay marriage.

[Z]

Well, there you have it. Mead thinks biology predisposes one to be a better parent, and I think actual care of the child says otherwise. Sadly, lots of kids are left with biological parents who regularly neglect, rape, and abuse them - likewise, many kids are taken from decent parents and given to the same type of parents.

Nonetheless, why does it matter whether the parents are straight or gay, Mead? You still haven't adequately addressed that. If it's as you say (and it's not, but let's play what if), then anyone incapable of bearing children should be exempt from marriage. So, now, on top of homosexuals, that would include the elderly, people with vasectomies or masectomies, those suffering from genetic conditions of sterility, those sterile due to war injury, chemotherapy, advanced diabetes.. In fact, you are essentially limiting the right of marriage to young, healthy, straight couples with no predisposition to miscarriage, sterility, or genetic problems, eh?

If not, then you really have no ground to stand on. You can't simply say, "Gays shouldn't because it's all about raising kids" unless you're willing to go the full 9 yards and include stepparents, sterile couples, the elderly, and those who choose to sterilize themselves to prevent fertility. One or the other, not pick-and-choose in-betweenism. Which right now is what you appear to be guilty of.

The government has a responsibility, in fact, to see to it that homosexuals are afforded some level of marriage rights for that very reason, Mead. Whether you like it or not, whether it sits neatly with your close-minded little world-view or not, Gays are functioning as married couples. They are raising kids. Single parents are raising kids, and the government isn't trying to discriminate against them. Stepparents are raising kids, and the government doesn't make the stepparent a paraiah. Well, gay couples are raising kids.

Not to mention, you have some weird ideas about what constitutes a 'good parent'. Courts often will do their level best to ensure that a child stays with its female parent as often as possible (biological, not step- or otherwise). Generally, if a biological parent loses parental rights over another non-biological parent, it's truly deserved. Note, I do say generally - having lost children myself, I do know full well this isn't always the case. But in most cases, if a child is taken from a parent, it's for a very good reason.

In divorce, the mother gets the kids far more often than the father does. If the father is a step-father, the mother is USUALLY assumed to be the better parent of the two. Yet there are times when the mother has lost her kids to the step-father - and usually, it's because the mother is incapable of raising said children, while the father is. It's not about who gets the higher pay rate, better insurance, and better home; many kids end up staying with a mother who earns just enough to survive rather than the executive father who earns enough to support two homes. It's about what's best for the child.

In gay marriage, that wouldn't change one bit. Two parents want to raise a child, and then get divorced. The better parent should get the child, although I'm certain the courts will favor the biological parent over the non-biological parent in most cases, unless there's very good reason not to.

It's the same thing, Mead - so which side of the line are you on? Marriage only for the young, fertile, and child-oriented mindframe, or marriage for every responsible adult?

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, there you have it. Mead thinks biology predisposes one to be a better parent,

I never said that, and I don't believe it.

More to come.

[LettristLoon]

Sorry, Meady - meant to say "Portuguese Americans," as in "folks whose great-great grandparents boated from the Azores to Ellis Island in 1894."

Anyhoo, man, I think marriage is an awful idea as it stands, really, and I agree with you - it needs to come under serious scrutiny.

But can we please, please not start with a discriminated-against minority? Can't we start with blonde Protestants, or something? Why sodomites? It would do terrible things to The Cause, giving ammo to the likes of Ralph Reed and John Hagee and other people who we really, really need defanged, declawed, and disarmed as soon as possible.

- B

[Meadmaker]

"We really want to get married, legally and fully," what would your response be?

I;ve discussed it with them. I said what I'm saying here. They didn't think that was important and thought the symbolic value was more significant.



There are over 1,000 benefits immediately and automatically

Earlier, I asked a question. I'll ask it again. Are there any one of those benefits that do not arise from one of the following assumptions.

1) This marriage might produce kids.
2) This marriage consists of a union of two people, one of whom is at a severe disadvantage economically, compared to the other.

In other words, the benefits were created based on the idea that women had no independent means of economic support. That isn't true today, and we should revise our assumptions.

Let me say what my idea of what a "civil union" would consist of, compared to marriage. I’m not 100% sure about every point below.

Marriage: Assumed to include a sexual relation.
Property is held jointly, unless specifically exempted.
Cannot be dissolved except by court order that arises from one or both parties wishes. At that time, judge divides joint property, which is most of the stuff. He can, and should, consider the "cause" of divorce in determining property settlement. (In other words, fool around with the milkman, lose your right to the house.)

Civil union: Can be contracted between two (or more?) adults. Government doesn't know or care if they are having sex, or what gender they are.
Property is held individually, unless specifically included as joint property by agreement of both parties.
Can be dissolved at any time, without cause, by either party. Joint property is divided evenly at that time, without regard to why one or both parties sought dissolution.
Custody of children is always assumed to be with the biological parent if present. If both parents are in the civil union, treat similarly to married partners. Frankly, I don’t know what to do about adoption. I’m inclined to say that adoption can occur only by one partner, so that the kid has one legal parent. As long as the two stay together, there’s no difference between that and marriage, but there are a lot of issues involved.
Joint property becomes sole property of surviving partner on death of one partner. Partner is presumptive heir unless a will dictates otherwise, for all matters, including child custody.
(Note: the two could be heterosexual, or anything else. No sexual union is assumed.)



There's no "emotional weight" involved, but other than that, is there anything in that definition that leaves gay couples unable to do anything in the civil union?

One reason for having this difference is that I know several heterosexual couples who said they want this sort of union, and I can only assume that not every homosexual couple who wants to share a house would want the full responsibilities of marriage.

[Meadmaker]

Some loose ends:

Do biological parents make better parents than non-biological ones? My answer is that it doesn't matter and government shouldn't decide who is "better". Custody of children should go to a biological parent unless you can demonstrate that it would be unsafe to grant such custody.

I have said that I think our assumptions about marriage and the benefits thereof need to be reexamined. Does that mean I think we should do away with marriage? Absolutely not. In fact, I think it needs to be strengthened. I think that marriage exists to provide a stable situation for raising children.

Stable? That means difficult to break. Today's marriages are fairly easy to break. I think that if you seek divorce, you should either have to show that your partner has violated the marriage contract, by adultery, by abandonment, or something. On the other hand, I'm a liberal sort of guy, and I wouldn't want to force anyone to stay in a relationship where they were unhappy. So, I would accept no-fault divorces, but when you seek a no-fault divorce, you should have to abandon your claim to joint property. Primary custody of children should go to the other party, assuming the other party wants it. On the other hand, your responsibility to support those children doesn't end when you voluntarily exit the marriage, so child support continues, if appropriate.

Oh.. and, about that prenuptual agreement. I'm not crazy about them I prefer nuptual agreements. Those are the ones where you agree to that stuff you say at the altar. Why do people bother with those things today? They used to be legally binding agreements, executed in public, in front of witnesses. Now they are viewed as cheap sentiment, which is why so many couples right their own "vows". I put it in quotes because they aren't vows at all. They are sort of like the stuff inside a Hallmark card. It's what you would say if you really meant it, but it doesn't mean anything.

It should be difficult to break a marriage, and there should be some sort of loss or sacrifice to the party that breaks it. And if after describing that sort of marriage, gays would still be interested in it, maybe I could change my mind on the subject. Until then, I'll be opposed to gay marriage.

But for those people not willing to make such a commitment, we should have the civil union. That allows people to share property and act as a legal entity until they decide they don't want to anymore.

One more thing. About whether childless couples, by choice, age, or health reasosns, should be allowed to marry. That's a difficult question, actually, and one I'll get to if anyone cares to continue the dialog.

[Fordama]

Originally posted by Meadmaker



Likewise, to understand marriage, you have to ask what is the government's legitimate interest in marriage.
Being an American and all, as I peruse the Constitution, I don't really see much about the stated role of government in marriage.
Originally posted by Meadmaker

Thousands of years of tradition make the issue somewhat confused, especially since the biological rules were change when The Pill was invented, but the government's legitimate interest in marriage comes from the need to protect first, the children who might be born from that marriage and second, the rights of partners who might be economically disadvantaged by their role in child bearing and child care. Even if those are legitimate concerns of the government, how does allowing same-sex marriage change anything within a heterosexual marriage?

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Excluding gays makes sense, then, because those legitimate interests of the government don't apply.
The interest of the government is not relevant. It's the interest of the citizens. There is a group of citizens wishing to have the right to fall in love and marry just like most other citizens (and assume the same rights and responsibilities.)

Fordama

[Z]

No, please, do continue. I'm fascinated to hear your take on childless couples. Your idiology is so different from mine, your take on parenting and such so varied, I can't begin to tell you how captivated I am by your mode of thought. Although... are you really so sheltered that you don't know gay couples that raise kids? Or biological parents living with step-parents where the kid would be better off without the bio?

I think people tend to confuse a parent with a progenitor. A progenitor is a gene-donator. The egg-bearer or sperm-provider. A source of DNA. And not much else.

But a parent is a duty and responsibility unlike any other. Being a parent takes a total commitment, a sacrifice of self shadowed possibly by being a soldier. Having been both, I say being a parent is the greater challenge. And let me tell you, biology ain't got crap to do with being a good parent. Lots of folks have kids; but near as I can tell, darned few anymore bother being good parents. Kids fare best when they're raised by someone who loves them, cares for them, and does what's best for them - and often, too often maybe, that ISN'T the biological parent.

But anyway, please, let me know your opinions on pchildless couples - and also on single parents and adoption, please. It's foolish to form any kind of understanding of your thought process without getting more info!

[darling]

Earlier, I asked a question. I'll ask it again. Are there any one of those benefits that do not arise from one of the following assumptions.

1) This marriage might produce kids.
2) This marriage consists of a union of two people, one of whom is at a severe disadvantage economically, compared to the other.[/B] Immigration.

Originally posted by Fordama
Being an American and all, as I peruse the Constitution, I don't really see much about the stated role of government in marriage. Quite true - marriage is a civil matter, which is left up to the individual states to decide.



Going back to polygamy - the main argument I would have against it is contactually it could never be equivalent of a two-person marriage.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by darling

Going back to polygamy - the main argument I would have against it is contactually it could never be equivalent of a two-person marriage.

I still think the best litmus test for this sort of situation is looking for the presence of the consent of all parties involved in the union.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

For example, when I met the older boy, he was four and was stilll wearing diapers and taking a sippy-cup. He was neurotic about everything, and feared everything. Food had to be room-temperature and unseasoned. Baths had to be no deeper than two inches and room temperature. No loud noises, no playing outside or downstairs away from parents. These were all issues his father BRAGGED about.

Maybe I'm the one who's a bad father, but my oldest boy at this stage had been potty-trained with no relapses since he was 2, went straight from a bottle to a normal cup at 10 months with no problems, and fears very little - Now, he respects quite a lot, but that's different. For example, he knows fire burns, the stove burns, electricity hurts and can kill.. but he's not afraid to climb trees, try new foods, etc. He eats his food fresh from the oven, spiced with jalapenos and cayenne pepper sauce, swims in the bathtub with decently warm water, plays wherever he is without concern for where we are, listens to music and TV at whatever volume without being afraid... After taking the other child's training to hand, in less than a year I've managed to change almost all of the boy's bad habit. He is now fully potty-trained, eats and drinks normal foods, and is scared of very little. Sadly, the bath is still an issue, since his B.F.'s wife bathes him by pouring buckets of water over the boy's head, but as we've just ended his visits to see his father I have high hopes he'll get over the bathing issue soon.

You disturb me a little bit there. The first boy you describe sounds exactly like how I was at that same age. The truth is that not all children should be expected to fit into that soccer-mom-approved prototype, and when they don't, the blame should not so quickly fall upon the heads of the parents. Einstein didn’t talk until he was four, but he turned out just fine despite his father's attempts to further retard his progress as you would so construe it.

[Z]

Ah, but you miss the point. It was our influence that changed him. We observed his father's parenting style, or lack thereof - and then we applied our parenting style, and he improved immediately.

If, in spite of our way of parenting, he still had troubles, that would be one thing. But he is a bright, normal child with every skill he should have. He was being taught to fear anything, including progress. THAT'S the point.

If you were like that at 4, I feel sorry for you but don't blame your parents. Indeed, some children (very few) are slow, and should be treated differently. But for the vast majority of normal children, the only reason they should still be wearing diapers and drinking from sippies at 4 is lazy parenting.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

If you were like that at 4, I feel sorry for you but don't blame your parents. Indeed, some children (very few) are slow, and should be treated differently. But for the vast majority of normal children, the only reason they should still be wearing diapers and drinking from sippies at 4 is lazy parenting.

First of all, don't feel sorry for me, because my point is that there is nothing wrong with being different in this respect. What I'm saying is that abnormality in most people’s eyes has unfairly become a pejorative. We should embrace each other's differences. I was reluctant as a baby to eat anything other than breast milk, but consequently I had never a fascination of attempting to swallow inedible or poisonous materials.

Perhaps we should also open official inquests into the parenting skills of those who have gay children. After all, the overwhelming majority of gays are the result of "bad upbringings."

[Meadmaker]

Now, about those childless couples. I have said that marriage exists primarily to create a stable situation for raising children, and protecting the economic rights of those children and the spouses who might be involved in raising those children. So, should marriage be allowed for the childless, especially those that are guaranteed to be childless due to age, disease, sterilization, etc?

There are a couple of ways to answer that question. First, what I am most interested in is developing a stronger version of marriage, more like traditional marriages and less like the throwaway sort that we have today. In this version of marriage, marriage would be viewed as a contract, with legally binding provisions. Breaking that contract, by adultery, by abandonment, by voluntarily seeking no-fault divorce because "you aren't in love anymore" would carry a significant economic penalty to the party that broke the contract.

That's what marriage was for a long time, and if you ask me, that's what marriage ought to be. However, I never hear supporters of gay people stressing that. I don't hear people say, "I demand the right to enter into a very restrictive agreement so my rights are protected if that bum walks out on me." If I heard anyone saying that, then I would probably change my mind about gay marriage.

So it is with childless couples. If they are willing to enter into such a strong, restrictive, relationship, then I would be willing to let them. And if they aren't, then they should be allowed to enter a civil union so they can buy a house together, but still get out if they get tired of the whole deal.

Another way of looking at this problem, of whether or not to allow childless couples to marry, is to note that marriage for people of opposite sex who cannot have children is the status quo. It isn't a change in the laws, and no one is advocating such a change. So, politically, it's a different issue. Allowing gay marriage requires a change, allowing 60 year olds to marry does not. So let's just preserve the status quo, and allow people to continue to do what they have been doing for thousands of years. It isn't an intellectual defense of marriage, just a practical one.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by me

Perhaps we should also open official inquests into the parenting skills of those who have gay children. After all, the overwhelming majority of gays are the result of "bad upbringings."

I just want to clarify that I was being sarcastic if it wasn't perspicuous to you why I surrounded "bad upbringings" in quotes.

[Z]

So let's just preserve the status quo, and allow people to continue to do what they have been doing for thousands of years.

Slavery. Genocide. Child molestation. Do you know, Romans held that boy children, which had no soul by the way, were suitable subjects for sexual affection? Child labor. Racism. These were all the 'status quo' at some point... should we have continued that as well?

Tell me, Mr. Status Quo, what is it about change that you fear? So far, it's been a radically good thing.

Just because someone has been behaving badly for a thousand years, doesn't make it right.

Personally, I'm for abolishing marriage altogether. Its origins are horrible - dating originally from ancient customs of female slavery, and only changing gradually for thousands of years. Frankly, I'm against all marriages - ALL marriages - but if we're going to have straight marriage we might as well have any and every other form.

[LettristLoon]

Meadmaker:

Are you serious? I think you're kidding.

You said:

"Now, about those childless couples. I have said that marriage exists primarily to create a stable situation for raising children, and protecting the economic rights of those children and the spouses who might be involved in raising those children. So, should marriage be allowed for the childless, especially those that are guaranteed to be childless due to age, disease, sterilization, etc?

There are a couple of ways to answer that question. First, what I am most interested in is developing a stronger version of marriage, more like traditional marriages and less like the throwaway sort that we have today. In this version of marriage, marriage would be viewed as a contract, with legally binding provisions. Breaking that contract, by adultery, by abandonment, by voluntarily seeking no-fault divorce because "you aren't in love anymore" would carry a significant economic penalty to the party that broke the contract."

Well...why? Is that what was good, and helpful, about marriage in the first place? In what way? Were children of the 1940s and 1950s raised so well? If they were, they wouldn't have been so boring that they had to be rebelled against in the 1960s, and their ways wouldn't have been so settled and immovable that the failure of that decade's optimism created the nihilism of the punk '70s, nor the soulless consumerism of the '80s. Really, life has only seemed full of possibility for the grownups of the West since the flower-power and punk kids got old enough to inherit the earth, and that's 'cause those kids HATE the way they were raised, and are willing to (slowly) explore other options.

But, ignore that, please. If you respond to anything, respond to this: If you're interested in strengthening the bonds of marriage, doing away with the "throwaway" system we have now, it seems as though the best thing you can do is have the government acknowledge the primacy of LOVE as the deciding factor in marrital agreements--not children, not biology, not tradition, but love--and that will be a pretty clear message.

You also said:

"That's what marriage was for a long time, and if you ask me, that's what marriage ought to be. However, I never hear supporters of gay people stressing that. I don't hear people say, "I demand the right to enter into a very restrictive agreement so my rights are protected if that bum walks out on me." If I heard anyone saying that, then I would probably change my mind about gay marriage."

Okay, well that's all you had to say. Meady, listen up: I demand the right to enter into a very restrictive agreement so my rights are protected if that bum walks out on me.

Jesus! Don't you think gay people KNOW about the shadow-side of marriage? WE ALL COME FROM BROKEN HOMES! THAT'S WHY WE'RE *********** FAGGOTS!

You also said:

"So it is with childless couples. If they are willing to enter into such a strong, restrictive, relationship, then I would be willing to let them. And if they aren't, then they should be allowed to enter a civil union so they can buy a house together, but still get out if they get tired of the whole deal."

Gay people used to have serious trouble staying committed. I believe that marriage is a stabilizing force: It makes people more willing to work through relationship struggles, and come back to one another. I guarantee: Gay marriage will be bad for gay bars, and I support that %100 percent.

You also said, if you believe it:

"Another way of looking at this problem, of whether or not to allow childless couples to marry, is to note that marriage for people of opposite sex who cannot have children is the status quo. It isn't a change in the laws, and no one is advocating such a change. So, politically, it's a different issue. Allowing gay marriage requires a change, allowing 60 year olds to marry does not. So let's just preserve the status quo, and allow people to continue to do what they have been doing for thousands of years. It isn't an intellectual defense of marriage, just a practical one."

There's nothing more practical than slavery. Do you have any idea how much money that goddammed institution made this country? LOTS!

[LettristLoon]

Meadmaker:

Are you serious? I think you're kidding.

You said:

"Now, about those childless couples. I have said that marriage exists primarily to create a stable situation for raising children, and protecting the economic rights of those children and the spouses who might be involved in raising those children. So, should marriage be allowed for the childless, especially those that are guaranteed to be childless due to age, disease, sterilization, etc?

"There are a couple of ways to answer that question. First, what I am most interested in is developing a stronger version of marriage, more like traditional marriages and less like the throwaway sort that we have today. In this version of marriage, marriage would be viewed as a contract, with legally binding provisions. Breaking that contract, by adultery, by abandonment, by voluntarily seeking no-fault divorce because "you aren't in love anymore" would carry a significant economic penalty to the party that broke the contract."

Well...why? Is that what was good, and helpful, about marriage in the first place? In what way? Were children of the 1940s and 1950s raised so well? If they were, they wouldn't have been so boring that they had to be rebelled against in the 1960s, and their ways wouldn't have been so settled and immovable that the failure of that decade's optimism created the nihilism of the punk '70s, nor the soulless consumerism of the '80s. Really, life has only seemed full of possibility for the grownups of the West since the flower-power and punk kids got old enough to inherit the earth, and that's 'cause those kids HATE the way they were raised, and are willing to (slowly) explore other options.

But, ignore that, please. If you respond to anything, respond to this: If you're interested in strengthening the bonds of marriage, doing away with the "throwaway" system we have now, it seems as though the best thing you can do is have the government acknowledge the primacy of LOVE as the deciding factor in marrital agreements--not children, not biology, not tradition, but love--and that will be a pretty clear message. There were couples in San Francisco waiting in line to get their marriage licenses after six decades of partnership. Won't people like that strengthen the bonds of marriage?

You also said:

"That's what marriage was for a long time, and if you ask me, that's what marriage ought to be. However, I never hear supporters of gay people stressing that. I don't hear people say, "I demand the right to enter into a very restrictive agreement so my rights are protected if that bum walks out on me." If I heard anyone saying that, then I would probably change my mind about gay marriage."

Okay, well that's all you had to say. Meady, listen up: I demand the right to enter into a very restrictive agreement so my rights are protected if that bum walks out on me.

Jesus! Don't you think gay people KNOW about the shadow-side of marriage? WE ALL COME FROM BROKEN HOMES! THAT'S WHY WE'RE *********** FAGGOTS!

You also said:

"So it is with childless couples. If they are willing to enter into such a strong, restrictive, relationship, then I would be willing to let them. And if they aren't, then they should be allowed to enter a civil union so they can buy a house together, but still get out if they get tired of the whole deal."

Gay people used to have serious trouble staying committed. I believe that marriage is a stabilizing force: It makes people more willing to work through relationship struggles, and come back to one another. I guarantee: Gay marriage will be bad for gay bars, and I support that 100 percent.

You also said, if you believe it:

"Another way of looking at this problem, of whether or not to allow childless couples to marry, is to note that marriage for people of opposite sex who cannot have children is the status quo. It isn't a change in the laws, and no one is advocating such a change. So, politically, it's a different issue. Allowing gay marriage requires a change, allowing 60 year olds to marry does not. So let's just preserve the status quo, and allow people to continue to do what they have been doing for thousands of years. It isn't an intellectual defense of marriage, just a practical one."

There's nothing more practical than slavery. Do you have any idea how much money that goddammed institution made this country? I'll tell you: LOTS!

Anyways, I'm sure DaVinci would have loved to get married. Oscar Wilde, too. This isn't a new problem: Fags have been living in fear and hiding for centuries. That's no good, status quo or no status quo. As a social group, we're just forty years out of the closet, after millenia of oppression. Oppression was wrong then, and it's wrong now--denying basic rights to fags (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--and yes, even marriage) has never been right. Oscar Wilde SHOULD have been able to marry his lover...instead, having said lover got him put in gaol for three years, an experience from which he never recovered and one which led him to an early grave.

I say--**** the status quo, let the next Oscar Wilde get hitched.

- B

[Meadmaker]

Darling

Earlier, I asked a question. I'll ask it again. Are there any one of those benefits that do not arise from one of the following assumptions.

1) This marriage might produce kids.
2) This marriage consists of a union of two people, one of whom is at a severe disadvantage economically, compared to the other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Immigration.


Are there any TWO of those benefits....

Yeah, immigration is an awfully tough one to work around. Not sure what to do about that one.

zaayrdragonTell me, Mr. Status Quo, what is it about change that you fear? So far, it's been a radically good thing.


My discussion of the status quo related specifically to whether childless couples should be allowed to marry. They are allowed to now, and I think it should remain that way, even if no one can think of a good reason for it to continue. But if someone wants to take the opposite position, I'm willing to listen.

zaayrdragonI think people tend to confuse a parent with a progenitor.

I think you tend to confuse a judge with a wise man.

LettristLoonBut, ignore that, please. If you respond to anything, respond to this: If you're interested in strengthening the bonds of marriage, doing away with the "throwaway" system we have now, it seems as though the best thing you can do is have the government acknowledge the primacy of LOVE as the deciding factor in marrital agreements--not children, not biology, not tradition, but love--and that will be a pretty clear message.

Good heavens no. I don't think love and marriage have much to do with each other.

And yes, I am completely serious.

Okay, well that's all you had to say. Meady, listen up: I demand the right to enter into a very restrictive agreement so my rights are protected if that bum walks out on me.

Jesus! Don't you think gay people KNOW about the shadow-side of marriage? WE ALL COME FROM BROKEN HOMES! THAT'S WHY WE'RE *********** FAGGOTS!

There are two unusual things about these comments. First, it's very rare that I get any supporter of gay marriage, whether gay or straight, to acknowledge that marriage is a restriction at all. Those of us who are not religious and do not have moral objections to gay sex, but who nevertheless oppose gay marriage worry that gays just aren't going to have very strong marriages at all, and that will further undermine marriage in general.

Let me ask this. If the deciding factor in marital agreements is LOVE, then shouldn't someone be able to leave the marriage when they no longer are in LOVE? And if that's the case, why should they be penalized economically for leaving it?

The way I see it, love might cause people to get married, but if they fall in love and stay in love, then marriage is irrelevant. Marriage is only truly important for people who may have run out of love for their spouse. At that point, it is so difficult to end the relationship that many stick with it despite the lack of love. Some of those who stick with it find that love comes back as they force themselves to bear with the bad times. Others find themselves loveless for life. (And others stay married, and find love, or a reasonable facsimile, when the spouse isn't looking.) It isn't very romantic, but it's the real world, and I, for one, think it's ok. I think junior is better off being raised by mom and dad, even if dad is fooling around with Cindy, than he would be being raised by Dad and Cindy, spending weekends with Mom, her new husband John, and the three kids from his first marriage. Your opinion may vary.

The second unusual thing is the emphasis that gay people aren't born that way. The leftist political orthodoxy is that gay people are born that way.

In short, you have views outside the mainstream gay culture, if that is not an oxymoron. If you can convince people that gays really want that sort of marriage, I think you can defeat the Federal Marriage Ammendment, and eventually win the "right" to marry. (I put the term in quotes, because marriage is, inherently, a sacrifice of "rights".)

[Z]

With 50 percent of straight marriages ending in divorce, I hardly see how gays can do much worse than straights are already doing. Marriage just isn't that strong anyway.

[Lemastre]

The basic consideration in giving same-sex couples access to the marriage contract is that not doing so is discriminatory. Arguing why persons should or should not marry is not germane to the argument, because the marriage contract exists and should be equally available to all.

If we are to view the marriage contract as an agreement available only to couples (or maybe other groups) whose sperm and ova can be combined to produce offspring, then all betrothed persons would need to undergo testing to verify their ability to do so. Those failing the testing would still of course have access to the same sorts of cohabitation arrangments available to same-sex couples.

This scheme should satisfy those who want only male/female pairs to have access to the marriage contract. It would not, however, exclude gay men and women, or somewhat masculine women and effeminate men, from marrying as long as they paired up with someone who could produce the right gamete.

[LettristLoon]

Meadmaker:

Perhaps there should be another thread for this, but it does seem that there is some evidence that some homosexuals are born homosexuals. There is a great deal of evidence that many people are inherently bisexual, and can be influenced one way or the other early in life.

But what is important here is not for the views of mainstream homosexuals, or mainstream heterosexuals, on sexual orientation or gender identity to be blasted or embraced. What's important here is your question, along with a couple of other things you said. Here's your question:

"Let me ask this. If the deciding factor in marital agreements is LOVE, then shouldn't someone be able to leave the marriage when they no longer are in LOVE? And if that's the case, why should they be penalized economically for leaving it?"

Actually, that's two questions, and the first question is this: Yes, and people DO often leave marriages when they are no longer in love, tough as it is, and gays want the same right to the same restrictions as heteros. I want the right to go to war, even though I don't want to go to war. If 'yall can have it, we want it, even if 'yall don't like having it very much. How much skin is it, and off whose back, if we do get it? Your position seems to suggest that, by getting the right to marry, we'd be screwing ourselves over. Why can't we decide that for ourselves? Breeders get to decide for themselves. Are we less inherently intelligent? Less rational? If not, why can't we decide?

The answer to your second question is this: Because we WANT to be penalized in that way. That's it. It's just a question of what we want, and no one who's telling us we can't have it seems to have any kind of god-given authority to do so. Maybe marriage is bad, fine. Let us make that decision for ourselves.

And let us smoke pot, too, if we want to.

And buy alcohol! And porn! And lotto tickets! And SUVs!

Now, the lotto it stupid. So are SUVs. Do you suppose that fags should not be allowed to buy lotto tickets and Suburban Ultility Vehicles?

Of course, one could appeal to the status quo, and say, "But gays are ALREADY allowed to buy them, so why mess around with the system? It's so much extra WORK." But we've already had that discussion, and it wasn't so productive.

And I wanna move on to your next statement--in fact, I already have, and I'm going back and rewriting now, because I want to mention something of importance.

It occurs to me that, being a Raging Sodomite, I have more frequent contact with the Global Community of Raging Sodomites than, say, yer average straight person. And in publications like Out, The Advocate, Instinct, and Quintessential (for whom I was the assistant editor until recently), there are ALWAYS cases for gay marriage being made by folks citing the fact that Elizabeth so-and-so helped Johanna such-and-such pay her way through med school, working menial jobs and whatnot, and then was dumped and left without a cent. If they had been married--and often, Elizabeth and Johanna WERE "married," just not legally--this wouldn't have transpired. If Elizabeth had been Eli, the situation would have been quite different.

Okay, so it's settled. I, and the entire gay community, support marriage on the grounds that, yes, the brute facts of divorce would be a welcome addition to our lives. Moving on, you also said this:

"The way I see it, love might cause people to get married, but if they fall in love and stay in love, then marriage is irrelevant."

But that is the way you see it. The ancient lesbian couple who got their marriage licenses in San Fran a couple of months ago, who had been together for six decades, fell in love and stayed in love and wanted to get married. Marriage wasn't irrelevant to them.

Earlier in your post you also said this, and I'm sorry that I'm doing this in such a weird order. Ready? Here goes:

"First, it's very rare that I get any supporter of gay marriage, whether gay or straight, to acknowledge that marriage is a restriction at all. Those of us who are not religious and do not have moral objections to gay sex, but who nevertheless oppose gay marriage worry that gays just aren't going to have very strong marriages at all, and that will further undermine marriage in general."

You say my views as a proponent of gay marriage are unusual, and cite the fact that most proponents of gay marriage do not have the same opinions as I do as a reason that gays shouldn't be able to get hitched up. Well, most gays--and I'm way the hell out there in the gay community in the country's second largest gay mecca, and I promise you I know of what I speak--DO agree with me, more or less, as I mentioned earlier. They acknowledge that marriage is a restriction.

But it's very rare that I get any opposer of gay marriage, whether Christian or otherwise, to acknowledge that gay marriage isn't a moral issue. Those of you who are not religious and do not have moral objections against gay sex, but nevertheless oppose gay marriages, are not the folks that are actually trying to put a stop to the process. You are worried that gays won't have "very strong" marriages at all, despite the lack of evidence that straight people have "very strong" marriages at all, and somehow suggest that marital infidelity and dishonesty are better ideas than divorce, creating a more stable environment for the raising of chilluns. You worry that gay marriage will further undermine the institution of marriage, while not acknowledging that marriage has any validity anyways, and manage to say nothing about the outlawing of Elvis-impersonator-run chapels for drunken gamblers out to tie the knot with someone whose middle name they may or may not know.

If you think, as you said, that it's all right for Dad to run around bopping Cindy and remain married to Mom, and for young lushes who barely know each other to get hitched at 3:00 in the morning with the King of Rock'n'Roll officiating, but NOT all right for my best friend's moms, Phyllis & Gertrude, to get married after 23 years of love, it seems as though NOTHING could "undermine" your concept of marriage, 'cept maybe for monogamy, love, or happiness.

- B

[darling]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Are there any TWO of those benefits.... Citizenship.

You'll be wanting THREE next...

:)

[Z]

I think citizenship and immigration essentially become the same issues. No room for fine dividing lines in so narrow a mind, you know.

How about shared health care benefits? Retirement benefits? Spousal death benefits?

How about marital income tax breaks? Dental benefits? Optical health benefits? Not having to explain for the umpteenth time that so-and-so here is my 'domestic partner' and deserves to be here?

How about hospital visitation rights where only 'family' are permitted to enter? How about any of a dozen cases where a spouse is the only person capable of doing whatever in the name of the person?

And even without all of that - what about adoption? Should only straight couples be allowed to adopt orphans? If you say this, then you are a bigot and believe in discrimination. But just try to adopt a child as a 'domestic partnership' in some states. Yeah, right.

For that matter, what about when mom is working and mom2 needs to get the daughter medical care, but is being told her 'parent' is the only one who can fill out her paperwork? This actually happened to a friend of mine. She worked in a different state for three months and her wife had to take their daughter in for medical care... She had to fly in from San Francisco back to Cincinnati, just to fill out papers and show an ID so that her daughter could get treatment for a rather nasty virus going around, because the hospital in question insisted only a parent bring the child in, and 'domestic partners' just don't count.

Why do gays want to marry? So that they can move through life with the same rights, responsibilities, respect, and treatment as straights. They don't want to have to work three or four times as hard to get rights that Bob and Jane get just by getting hitched. They want the security of knowing seperation brings consequences. They want the respect of being treated like equal human beings. Now, why is that wrong again?

[LettristLoon]

"...They don't want to have to work three or four times as hard to get rights that Bob and Jane get just by getting hitched."

Righteo, Zaay! That's whattahmean!

- B

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by LettristLoon

Your position seems to suggest that, by getting the right to marry, we'd be screwing ourselves over.

That's fairly accurate.


The answer to your second question is this: Because we WANT to be penalized in that way.

Laws are based on "what we want"? There are lots of things I want, but I can't have them all.

But, I think the real question is whether gay people truly want that. Some do, certainly. However, I think there are a lot of people who don't grasp that marriage is more than a symbolic affirmation of the love between two people. You have said that the gay community is filled with folks that really do understand it and want it anyway. Maybe you are right, but unless people start talking about it in those terms, it will be hard to convince enough people to pass laws in your favor.

If you read conservative opinion on the subject, you'll find two main threads. There's the moralist thread, but there is also another group of people who don't base their views on opposition to gay sex, but on the impact on marriage. That crowd tends to also oppose Nevada-style marriage. If you read something like National Review, the reaction to Britney Spears' wedding was basically, "It figures. In a society that cares so little about marriage and respects it so little, why shouldn't someone stumble into a chapel in the middle of the night, get married, and then decide they didn't mean it anyway?" Some of those people then related it to gay marriage.

I think zaayrdragons statement of "I don't like marriage at all but we might as well give it to gays if we give it to anyone" is a much more common attitude. (That's a paraphrase, not a real quote.)

The ancient lesbian couple who got their marriage licenses in San Fran a couple of months ago, who had been together for six decades, fell in love and stayed in love and wanted to get married. Marriage wasn't irrelevant to them.

Emotionally, perhaps not. Legally, they didn't need it. All I am saying is that, from a legal standpoint, marriage becomes very important only when "love" is no longer enough to keep people together.

But it's very rare that I get any opposer of gay marriage, whether Christian or otherwise, to acknowledge that gay marriage isn't a moral issue.

You're right. There would be a very high degree of correlation between thinking gay sex was immoral and opposition to gay marriage.

despite the lack of evidence that straight people have "very strong" marriages at all, and somehow suggest that marital infidelity and dishonesty are better ideas than divorce,

The divorce rate is much higher now than it once was. So, as a society, we have weakened marriage, and now, supporters of radical change in marriage laws cite our lack of respect for marriage as a reason for extending it beyond its traditional definition.

You worry that gay marriage will further undermine the institution of marriage, while not acknowledging that marriage has any validity anyways,

I don't understand this comment. I, and every other person who opposes, or is leaning toward opposing, gay marriage thinks that marriage is a valuable, important, and "valid" institution, and we worry that extending it to gays would undermine that validity.



If you think, as you said, that it's all right for Dad to run around bopping Cindy and remain married to Mom, and for young lushes who barely know each other to get hitched at 3:00 in the morning with the King of Rock'n'Roll officiating,

I think this comment demonstrates that you don't understand the position. Those of us who want to strengthen marriage think that, yes, even if Dad is bopping Cindy, he ought to stay married to mom. On the other hand, if mom finds out and wants to divorce him, she should be able to. Dad has broken the contract. At that point mom holds the legal cards. Meanwhile, I don't know any opponent of gay marriage who thinks Britney-style marriages are a good thing. Some people would oppose the legality of those marriages, and others would use a "keep the status quo" indifference, but I don't know anyone who thinks they are a good thing.



zaayrdragon
I think citizenship and immigration essentially become the same issues. No room for fine dividing lines in so narrow a mind, you know.

How about shared health care benefits? Retirement benefits? Spousal death benefits?


Right you are. As far as I know, marriage as such doesn't grant benefits for citizenship. I could be wrong. I've never tried to become a citizen. It was my understanding that marriage allowed you to become an immigrant, and then you had to go through the citizenship process.

But at any rate, the immigration thing was correct, and there are probably similar things. I was thinking mostly in economic terms, because that seems to be the focus, but darling pointed out something that clearly didn't fit the focus I had.

As for the others, they are all based on the idea that the wife can't gain these things independently. Widows were left without any means of support, so they needed benefits when their husband died. It isn't true to the extent it once was, but that's where all of those things came from.

Likewise different tax treatment. If my wife and I both work, we pay higher taxes than we would if we were single. That's because we ahve a progressive tax system and it recognizes that a family can live cheaper than two individuals. If my wife has no income, we pay lower taxes. That's because our lifestyle is lower than it would be if I made that money all on my own. Since most gay couples would be "double income, no kids" families, they would be subjected to the "marriage penalty" if they got married.

As for narrow-mindedness, I think "narrow minded" is usually a synonym for "doesn't agree with me."

[darling]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I think citizenship and immigration essentially become the same issues. In that case, it's not just the one benefit (s)he was asking for - it's a whole subgroup of benefits.

Either way, point proven methinks...

[Z]

Forgive me for the narrow-minded comment... I'm involved in a nasty mess over an unmarried man's claims for custody of his kids, and it's full of narrow-minded ignorance. I'm a little testy.

Anyway, Mead, I really feel like your opposition to gay marriage sounds a little weak. Something along the lines of, 'it'll weaken traditional marriage value further'. So the question becomes, how does it do that? What in allowing two gay people to marry makes marriage less valid and less solid than it currently is? Wouldn't it in fact make marriage a stronger institution by applying it equally to all gender preferences? Instead of a kid growing up thinking straights ought to marry but gays don't have to, might it not be better to think all people can share these bonds and rights and duties, regardless of whether they munch carpet or smoke sausage in their bedrooms?

It sounds a lot like a paper I recently discovered stating reasons to not allow school integration. One of the recurring themes was that 'integrated schools would weaken the foundations of our educational system' since 'non-whites traditionally place less emphasis on education than whites do'. Now, while I will admit, education has gone to hell in a handbasket, is it really the fault of offering the same educations to whites, blacks, purples, and mauves, or are there other more important reasons education has gone downhill? Likewise, the weakness of the institution of marriage would be better addressed by more powerful punishments for adultery, extra-marital affairs, and the like than by denying it to non-straights. If Dad gets caught bopping Cindy and Mom presses charges, ARREST him and make him do hard time. Arrest her, too. That might put a crimp in the current cheating situation. But I just don't see why a couple has to undergo a genital check to make their marriage valid. What's the difference if a couple both have the same plumbing, as far as marriage goes? The current model of marriage is largely based on outdated, obsolete ideas - such as women being unable to provide for themselves. Maybe by removing gender-differentiation from the marriage process, we can start redressing the grievances of gender-bias across the board. It's bad enough we let the ERA expire, now we have to face this garbage too.

Women, watch your backs... Daddy Bush wants this country back on the patriarchal straight and narrow.

[LettristLoon]

Zaay:

SERIOUSLY?

"If Dad gets caught bopping Cindy and Mom presses charges, ARREST him and make him do hard time. Arrest her, too. That might put a crimp in the current cheating situation."

Yeah! And then shoot em! IN THE FACE!

- B

[Z]

-- Well, consider for a moment I don't think the whole marriage thing is worth two cents to begin with... but if the conservatives really want to 'strengthen the sanctity of marriage' shouldn't they look at where marriage is weak now?

Marriage currently has these major weaknesses (aside from the whole moronic religious grounds):

- Too easily entered into. I'd like to see an arrangement whereby prospective spouses must live together for a year before getting the right to marry. And perhaps they should also prove fit for marriage, undergo strict marriage classes, etc.

- Too easily left. Sure, divorce carries stiff penalties, but let's face it: most of the time, people throw around divorces like they change jackets. Plus, with annulments and dissolutions available, along with no-contest and no-fault divorces, there isn't much actually holding a marriage together.

- Too much emphasis on adultery and infidelity. I'd reckon a guess to say that our obsession with the idea of 'faithfulness' is probably the largest cause of marital weakness. There really are only two ways to approach this problem: 1) provide harsher penalties for infidelity, or 2) change culture's attitudes on infidelity, either by making it more taboo, or removing the taboo altogether.

- Too much emphasis on the weaknesses of women in general. But that's another thread.

No, I don't want Dad arrested for bopping Cindy, but it might work. For all the messy divorces that leave men nearly incapacitated, there's a lot that the men have weaseled their way out of one way or another. Likewise women.

Nonetheless, I still can't understand where gay marriage undermines marriage in any way.

[Meadmaker]

I've been thinking. I've said that I want to "strengthen the institution of marriage". Is that what I really want? Not exactly, I decided.

What I really want is to make the institution of marriage stronger where it regards the raising of childrent. I want fewer kids to live in broken homes, brought up by some combination of stepparents, moving from one place to another, and being fought over in court like possessions.

And since I'm pretty sure that those issues don't apply to gays in the same way that they do for straights, I'm pretty much against gay marriage.

But, what it really comes down to, is I think society needs to define what marriage is and why it exists.

Most of the arguments I read related to gay marriage, from proponents, are of the form. Allowing heterosexual marriage while prohibiting homosexual marriage is discriminatory. Discrimination is wrong. Therefore, refusing marriage to gays is wrong.

There are two logical problems with the argument. First, the second premise, "discrimination is wrong" is not necessarily correct. The word "discriminate" gets a lot of bad press, but it really shouldn't. It just means to draw a distinction. Gays and straights really are different. "Our" sex makes babies. "Your" sex does not. This distinction is neither artificial nor irrelevant. This stuff really matters, and if the discrimination is somehow related to a real and legitimate difference, then it is acceptable.

A statement that most people would agree with is something like "It is wrong to discriminate against people based on a trait that is not relevant to the discriminatory action." For example, it is wrong to discriminate against black people when hiring job applicants, because being black is not normally associated with a job requirement. In those rare cases where race is relevant, it is ok to discriminate. For example, when choosing actors to play the part of Frederick Douglas, it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against white people.

So, the question becomes whether or not the condition of homosexuality is somehow related to marriage. If so, discrimination is perfectly acceptable, and the second premise is unsound.

The second logical problem is that the conclusion doesn't really follow from the premises. If you could establish that there is no reasonable grounds for discrimination, all you would have established is that gays and straights should be treated equally. One way to to that would be to allow gays to marry. Another way would be to prohibit straights from marrying.

I would like to see an argument that looks like this:

Marriage is a right and proper institution for the government to continue, because....and then explain why government ought to get involved in our lives by respecting this institution of marriage.

The reasons for marriage apply equally to gays and straights.

Therefore, the institution of marriage should be acceptable for all people, gays and straights.

Any takers? Can someone make the case that

1. There is a good reason to have marriage at all and
2. That reason (those reasons?) apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual couples.




For extra credit, could someone explain why they apply to homosexual couples, but not to incestuous homosexual couples.

[Z]

--- ok then. I'm out. I see no good reason for the government to continue to support the institution of marriage. Further, if the government continues to support marriage, it should apply to heterosexual, homosexual, and incestual (hetero- or homo-) equally. So... that being the case, I'm out of this contest.

Before I get hit with the 'incest is ucky' crowd, let me justify by saying that, in my view, marriage is about love (or should be), and therefore should be open to consenting adults in love - which would apply in incest cases as well, I'm afraid. Yep, it's ucky, and I'm against it... but removing discrimination means doing so in each logical direction.

Ugh.

Ban marriage.

[csense]

It's over.
As of today, same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and these marriages can not be dissolved once they happen.

It is only a matter of time now until the rest of the states are compelled to follow likewise.

We are beyond the point of no return, plain and simple.

[darling]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
I want fewer kids to live in broken homes, brought up by some combination of stepparents, moving from one place to another, and being fought over in court like possessions.

And since I'm pretty sure that those issues don't apply to gays in the same way that they do for straights, I'm pretty much against gay marriage. A good friend of mine is about to give birth, any day now actually. Her partner, another good friend of mine, is planning on having their next baby.

So gay couples can be parents too. Who knew?

Since the issues you mentioned clearly do apply to gays in the same way that they do for straights, I take it you are now pretty much in favor of gay marriage.

[darling]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
1. There is a good reason to have marriage at all. Sure. The institution of marriage provides a net benefit to society.

This happens on many levels. Financial, child rearing, immigration, economic stability, etc. (although all may not apply to every marriage).

2. That reason (those reasons?) apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual couples. Outside of marriage they're both perfectly legal, equivalent relationships.

For extra credit, could someone explain why they apply to homosexual couples, but not to incestuous homosexual couples. They are not currently treated equally even outside of the marriage issue.

If we made incest legal, you'd have a point. Otherwise we'd have the govenment endorsing a relationship that is likely (though not certain) to involve an illegal act.

[Scot C. Trypal]

I can’t believe I’m jumping back into this debate...

I've been thinking. I've said that I want to "strengthen the institution of marriage". Is that what I really want? Not exactly, I decided.

What I really want is to make the institution of marriage stronger where it regards the raising of children. I want fewer kids to live in broken homes, brought up by some combination of stepparents, moving from one place to another, and being fought over in court like possessions.

This is exactly what frustrates me about this fight. I want the same things, and have come pretty much to the same conclusion. Without children, I think marriage is about as good as it can get with the value we place personal freedoms. A loveless marriage is no marriage and shouldn’t be a legal cage. But, with children, I think the damage a divorce causes to unwilling others needs to be much more of a factor for the parents to consider than it currently is. I’d support more restrictions and stricter penalties for such a divorce.

Now, what does this have to do with gay marriage…

And since I'm pretty sure that those issues don't apply to gays in the same way that they do for straights, I'm pretty much against gay marriage.

But these issues do apply to gays and lesbian couples in the same way. I know gay and lesbian families are not easy to find; most are scarred to death to call attention to themselves and for good reason. But there are many such households. According to the 2000 census, same sex couples are raising children in 96% of all our nation’s counties. From the same census, 46% of married heterosexual couples, 34% of lesbian couples, and 22% of gay couples are raising children. The states with the highest percentage are Mississippi (wow!), South Dakota, Utah (wow again), and Texas.

I know many find this sort of family disturbing, but all these children need the protections that their parent’s marriage would give them. When a parent dies, the child should not be torn away from the only other parent they’ve known. The child should be able to get on both parent’s insurance and have the same inheritance rights as any other child. And if her parents want to break up their family, the law should not make it trivially easy for them to do so, and should recognize that she is emotionally bound to both her parents. Many children of gay and lesbian parents are harmed because their state won’t let the parents both adopt (if not legally married), and instead only let the child have one legal parent.

I’ve given many anecdotes from the parenting group with witch I’m involved in the other thread in R&P (it’s probably best I not talk about my family anymore, as it gets too personal and me too upset too quickly). But we have one family with a parent in Iraq, who’s children would get the benefits of having a parent in the military, if they had a legal marriage. We have many who can’t get health insurance for their children, as the stay-at-home parent is the biological parent while the working parent, with insurance from her job, is not. Fortunately I’ve personally known none who’ve “divorced”, but if it happens, those kids would greatly benefit from divorce proceedings, instead of just a “don’t let the door hit you on your way out”.

There are many reasons these rights are needed which apply to many more people than the two getting hitched.

I’ve been reading up on the history and reasons behind legal marriage. I’ll get into that, your 1 and 2, when I next get a chance.

It is only a matter of time now until the rest of the states are compelled to follow likewise.

We are beyond the point of no return, plain and simple.

Ah, don’t look so glum, csence :); not even I have my party hat on today. From my POV, “it is only a matter of time now until the rest of the states” send a massive backlash and crack down on gay marriage federally or in their own constitutions. Like I’ve said before, this was way too soon and I don’t think this will end too well for my side. I’ve actually looked at real estate in Vancouver :).

Anyway, hope you're right.

Edited to put a % sign in

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Scot C. Trypal
I've been reading up on the history and reasons behind legal marriage.Depending on how far back in history you care to go, let me recommend The Medieval Idea of Marriage by Christopher Brooke. Its scholarship is formidable, yet it's also a good read.

[Meadmaker]

Scot C. Trypal
Now, what does this have to do with gay marriage…


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And since I'm pretty sure that those issues don't apply to gays in the same way that they do for straights, I'm pretty much against gay marriage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But these issues do apply to gays and lesbian couples in the same way.

And this is where I just can't come to grips with this issue. You see, I'm generally liberal. I vote Democratic more often than not. I fear the religious right.

And yet...there are certain basic aspects of human nature that cannot be denied.

Us "breeders" really are different from gays and lesbians, and no law will change it. We can have babies as a result of sex. This might happen even when we aren't trying. Technology is pretty good these days, but occaisionally, this happens even when we are actively trying to prevent it.

I know some strange things go on in hospital laboratories these days, but I am fairly certain that two married males do not have to even consider the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy.

And here's another issue. When two heterosexuals get married and have children together, that child has genes from both of the parents, not just one. That makes us different from gays.

And, oh yes, there is the issue of men and women. Most people believe, as backward as this may sound, that men and women are different. And if men and women are different, then it strikes me that being raised by one of each must be at least a little bit different than being raised by two of the same.

I'm not sure what the legal implications of all this ought to be, but I know that when I hear advocates of gay marriage insist that lesbian couples are exactly the same as heterosexual couples, I know that alarm bells go off. I can't say exactly how I would treat them differently legally, but I know that there is some difference, and the fact that so many people insist that there is none makes me think they have seriously missed a very important point.

For my part, I am friends with one lesbian couple raising a child together. The child is the biological child of one partner. I would not pass any law prohibiting that, and I would say that the child's mother has every right to all parental rights, including the right to name the person who should raise the child in the event of her death. But, no matter what they tell the child and no matter what laws are passed and no matter how society decides the issue of gay marriage, Heather does not have two mommies.

I stepped into this debate to help clarify my own thoughts, and to see what thoughtful people had to say about the subject from "the other side", and so far it has been worthwhile. I'm still not sure where I stand, but listening on this board, and from other sources, there are a couple of things that seem clear to me.

First, there is a high correlation between people who support gay marriage, and people who think marriage is all about "love". This view of marriage is seriously flawed, and self-indulgent to boot.

Second, there is a high correlation between support of gay marriage and a belief that "discrimination is wrong" or that "gay people are just like straight people". Gay people aren't just like straight people, and no law can make them be just like straight people. If you ask me, they "fall in love" just like straight people, and so if marriage were about love, then one set of marriage laws for both would make sense, but when it comes to sex, gay people are different. This whole reproduction thing is not some minor inconvenience that can be fixed with the right technology, or can be worked around by appropriate legislation. It's who we are. It's our identity. You might be able to convince me that the government should stay completely out of the issue of sex, because it is so important and so personal, but the idea that we should treat everybody equally when it comes to sex is just absurd. We are not equal, and the differences are so extreme that I can't imagine one set of laws that could be written that would protect everybody involved, including children and potential children, and yet pretend that homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same.

There's a lot to think about, but the judges in Massachusettes have seen to it that the issues will be put in focus most sharply there, before anyplace else in America. You can look also to Scandinavia and The Netherlands to see what effect might come from legalizing gay marriages. I suppose we will see what happens.

I just hope this doesn't result in Bush getting reelected.

[Radek]

Today I saw loads of American gays queue to be married on the telly, somehow it reminded me of the opening up of Eastern Europe. It was the perfect example of how something that should be possible suddenly was possible.
There is no slippery slope, only justice where and when gay marriage is allowed.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
...snip...

And here's another issue. When two heterosexuals get married and have children together, that child has genes from both of the parents, not just one. That makes us different from gays.

...snip...

Infidelity is a fact of human nature and current research lends much support to the conclusion that a significant number of biological fathers of children born to married couples are not the husband.

[darling]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
When two heterosexuals get married and have children together, that child has genes from both of the parents, not just one. I'm sure you don't need reminding that this is not always true. The vast majority of adopted children will tell you that genetics has nothing to do with being a good parent.

So the ability to have biological children naturally should not be a deciding factor for who is allowed to marry. If it were, it would rule out the over 60s, the infertile as well as same same-sex couples.

[carrot]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
but the idea that we should treat everybody equally when it comes to sex is just absurd.I don't see how you arrive at this conclusion.

[Scot C. Trypal]

csense wrote: Depending on how far back in history you care to go, let me recommend The Medieval Idea of Marriage by Christopher Brooke. Its scholarship is formidable, yet it's also a good read.

Thanks, I’ll check it out. I’ve just finishing Public Vows by Nancy Cott, and last month read What’s Marriage For; I’d recommend the first over the second. At least I know you’ll keep me on track and honest in the following :).

I’ll go back to yesterday's post Meadmaker.

Any takers? Can someone make the case that

1. There is a good reason to have marriage at all and
2. That reason (those reasons?) apply equally to homosexual and heterosexual couples.

I’ll take a stab at it. Historically the reasons for the law to get involved in marriage seem to be many. Sometimes it’s had no involvement and at others it’s been downright draconian about it. Here are some of the reasons and how they apply to this debate:

Justice -- When people live in the same household, as a couple and family, they naturally have a very different financial and property life from singles. My partner, for example, is a stay-at-home parent (I know what I said, but I can't help but use me as an example). If I were to ditch my duties, he'd be flat out of luck. Marriage laws create justice within this most personal of relationships when something goes wrong, hetero or homo.

These laws also create justice for those who work in the home, specifically. My partner would be able to get on my health insurance, get a claim to the resources I gain while I'm being facilitated by his work in the home, and so on. I can have the life I have because of him and his work and vice-versa--we live symbiotically--but as it stands now he may as well be a stranger in my home working for my charity. This labor deserves legal recognition, hetero or homo.

Kin -- When you couple up, your spouse becomes the closest person in your life, and we have laws regarding the treatment of such people. We currently do not see the ability to procreate together or genetic relationship as necessary for status as legal kin and for many good humane reasons. The Romans had this loose interpretation of family (even grown men could be "adopted" and become part of a new family); it was restricted for a while when Christianity took over, but then regained in part in the last century or so.

As your spouse is your closest kin, they should be legally entitled to a number of things, just as your other kin are. They should be able to make medical decisions for you when you are unable to do so yourself. They should be able to visit you in the hospital. If you die, they should get first claim to your estate (really, the estate they build together with you). Straight or gay, your spouse justly has more right to the wealth you build together, the house you've lived in together for decades, and so on, than anyone else; much more right than some 2nd cousins who hates you for your "lifestyle choice". Yet, without marriage laws, even the wills of gays and lesbians are in jeopardy and sometimes ignored when family protests (I've known where this has left some homeless).

Also in the category of kin, there is the issue of extended family. Your partner’s family becomes your family and vice versa, for gays and lesbians just as they do for heterosexuals. They would be hurt if you split up and the law should recognize that. This is a particular problem when children are involved and they have grandparents and extended families to which they are deeply bonded on both sides.

Lastly on kin, it's hardly a just consideration now, but manipulating family power by deciding who can be kin was one of the big reasons government was involved in marriage.

Here's where we get to incest, but what constitutes "incest" has change over the years as much as what constitutes "marriage". The early Catholic Church, for example, had legal incest restrictions all the way out to fourth cousins! They seemingly did this to emasculate strong families that threatened church power, to gain income by granting paid exceptions, and to spread their religion quickly. The Jewish tribes, on the other end, would allow uncle to marry niece, while our current culture draws the line somewhere near first cousins. With less strict incest restrictions, the law was favoring the influential families and keeping resources in the “tribe”.

Here is where incest is much different from gay marriage. Sure, currently our idea of incest favors influential families, and that would be reason enough to ban it in the past, but that's not really the main bother today, is it? We are more economically separated from our families, so here are some of the main current issues I see:

--Most obviously, genetic diseases are the main practical bother, but that’s not an issue for gays and lesbians.

--There is the very real threat of coercion in incest. A father, for example, can’t be trusted to court his daughter or treat her as an equal in any marriage and a marriage of equals is a reasonable, though thoroughly modern moral. This is not an issue for gay and lesbian marriages anymore than it is for heterosexuals, even less so as men have traditionally subjugated women in marriage.

--Many of these rights are already there for incestuous couple. They are already kin and already have many of these rights. This is not the case for gays and lesbian couples.

--The place where the two cases are most similar: many people feel revulsion at the idea of mixing sex with their close relatives. A similar distress is felt in some with regards to homosexuality, but it is still different in many ways. In my experience it’s much lower for homosexuality than incest. I know many, for example, who are just fine with my life, but I personally know no one who’d react anywhere near positively to incest.

--Incest is about attraction to a specific person within a group of people you’d find attractive. Like heterosexuality, homosexuality is an attraction to a sex, not a particular person. This difference makes restricting gay marriage harmful to homosexuals in an unique way. They should not marry heterosexually as that sets up a family for heartache later on, but they can’t marry anyone to whom they feel an attraction. As far as I know, an incestuous person still feels attractions towards people who are not their relatives, and I’d even bet they’d make a more happy life with a non-relative to whom they are attracted. Though some might be able to do it, the homosexuals I’ve known who’ve married against their attraction have had miserable lives and drug innocent heterosexuals down with them when they couldn’t live as a heterosexual any longer.

--One last difference, for what it’s worth… A homosexual has a very common sex drive, it’s just that it’s one which typically shows up in their opposite sex. Maybe it’s not a useful mutation, or even a mutation at all. We have evidence pointing to biology--homosexuality is found, for example, in most any species you can think of--but we don’t really know its cause for certain. A biological basis for a sex drive directed at one sex and/or another should be expected, as well as it being complicated enough to have mutations here and there for a minority. Such a basis for an attraction to one specific person should reasonably have no biological basis.

Religion – Marriage for some is a sacrament and deeply religious. For the early Christian culture legal marriage was the only way one who couldn't resist sex could also escape hell. On the other hand, some religious communities had marriage laws because it was a religious duty (for example, the early LDS culture). If the law recognizes marriage as a religious institution, there are many churches which currently recognize and sanctify homosexual unions, along with as heterosexual unions.

Regulating Sex – Same as above. When the church wrote the law, sex was a dangerous metaphysical sin that had to be controlled. But there are also practical concerns. Monogamy saves cultures money. STD’s waste productivity, and cause deaths and massive medical expenditures. If controlling sex is an aim of governmental involvement in marriage, then it applies to hetero and homosexuals equally.

Regulating Reproduction – While it’s true people have sex and make babies just as well as any species without law, they can do so recklessly. People used to just let unwanted babies die of exposure, or worse. Thank goodness, we’ve grown. As we did, the law began to use marriage as a way to place responsibility for a child, so that the state, not morally capable of letting the child die, didn’t have to pay for the child’s care.

Today we do not force biological parents to be parents. We let them give up those rights and responsibilities and for good reason (though if one biological parent won’t give them up, the other can only give up the rights and some of the responsibilities). Children are simply best served if raised by people who love them and want them. While these people are usual the biological parents, that is not necessarily the case and we must (and we do) account for the exceptions.

If marriage is a way to stabilize a child’s home environment, the reasons apply to both heterosexual and homosexual headed families. Some may be very uncomfortable with the situation, but gays and lesbians are parents in every sense of the word, emotionally, socially, economically, legally, and sometimes biologically. Keeping them from marriage doesn’t do anything but hurt these couples and their children.

You are concerned that both can’t be biological parents, right? But the fact that two people can’t both be biologically the progenitors of their children has never been a reason a couple can’t marry. Why start now? We allow infertile couples to marry all the time, for all the other reasons listed in this post, even when we can determine they are infertile right at the county clerk window (such as a couple involving a 70 year old woman).

Consider this, about 5 states have laws which allow cousins to marry only if they can prove through medical examination that one or the other is incapable of producing children. The state goes out of it’s way here to grant marriage rights to these infertile folks for all the reasons that apply to gay and lesbian couples who do not have children. Still, many are raising children.

Equality – Though it’s a very recent change in the idea of “marriage”, it now brings two people to more equal economic ground. With women’s earning power approaching men’s it’s becoming less and less of a gender issue but it’s still something which some couples can benefit by. My partner, for example, was in a lot of debt when we met and has no college education, but with out partnership, his standard of living is brought up and, in maintaining our home, he has a “job” he loves and is great at. While my economic standing is lowered at the same time, it is more than made up for in the emotional gains. Heterosexuals and homosexuals can benefit in this same way from legal marriage.

Did I miss any?

For each couple that gets married the law may have some or all of these reasons to recognize them, but I can’t see where missing one has never kept anyone from marriage.

Anyway, I’ll go on to your next post.
And this is where I just can't come to grips with this issue. You see, I'm generally liberal. I vote Democratic more often than not. I fear the religious right.

And yet...there are certain basic aspects of human nature that cannot be denied.

I’d just ask that you be sure what these basic aspects of human nature are, and where you can assume them. Some of the most masculine people I know are lesbians, and some of the most feminine people I know are, by far, some of our straight Christian acquaintances. Sure, there are trends but many people can’t be pigeonholed; the plain fact that homosexuality exists and some people experience “basic aspects of human nature” very differently shows this.

Us "breeders" really are different from gays and lesbians, and no law will change it. We can have babies as a result of sex. This might happen even when we aren't trying. Technology is pretty good these days, but occasionally, this happens even when we are actively trying to prevent it.

Again, this is one difference among many reasons marriage exists. Gays and lesbians do have children just as any other infertile couple, and I can find no law throughout all history that banned infertile folks from marrying, and I see no reasons why marriage laws should be different for such couples.

And here's another issue. When two heterosexuals get married and have children together, that child has genes from both of the parents, not just one. That makes us different from gays.

Sure, there are differences, but I don’t think they justify the discrimination between couple types. You share this same difference with married infertile heterosexual couples, and, as darat and Darling pointed out, genes are not what makes a parent in many instances.

And, oh yes, there is the issue of men and women. Most people believe, as backward as this may sound, that men and women are different. And if men and women are different, then it strikes me that being raised by one of each must be at least a little bit different than being raised by two of the same.

I'm not sure what the legal implications of all this ought to be, but I know that when I hear advocates of gay marriage insist that lesbian couples are exactly the same as heterosexual couples, I know that alarm bells go off. I can't say exactly how I would treat them differently legally, but I know that there is some difference, and the fact that so many people insist that there is none makes me think they have seriously missed a very important point.

There are differences and any good researcher in the area will tell you that, but they are minor and do not show harm done to the child. They are along the lines of having a more open view regarding sexual orientation (but not an increased chance of pairing up, in adulthood, with a member of the same sex). Such differences should be expected, but abnormal harm has not been found.

I think I understand the worry. It’s something along the lines that men don’t nurture and women don’t encourage exploration, and so on? But these parenting roles can be and are taken on by both sexes. It’s not like gay fathers don’t comfort their child when they skin their knee or lesbians don’t play catch; if the niche is there, it will be filled.

It may seem like the parenting styles were there first, preprogrammed in our genes for us to be Ozzie and Harriet, and maybe to some small extent they are, but history shows things used to be very different between mother father and child, outside of the 1950’s. Mothers used to have little to do with their children; infanticide by parents in some cultures was commonplace; in others, children would be in the charge of hired help for their entire childhood, hardly ever seeing their parents.

From my perspective the needs of the child are there first, and they are fulfilled by a good parent’s adaptation, and this adaptation will actually be different for each child. True, traditionally one sex has taken the same role over and over again (though in a historical timeline this is a relatively recent tradition), but that doesn’t mean we are preprogrammed to do so and that the other sex cannot nurture or encourage.

But, no matter what they tell the child and no matter what laws are passed and no matter how society decides the issue of gay marriage, Heather does not have two mommies.

No, not biologically, but that would be an impractical, harsh, and antiquated view of parenthood (and yet arguably new too, on a longer timescale :-) ). I’ve only ever heard it used in the gay marriage debate, as anywhere else (such as adoption, gamete donation, or so on) people define a parent by their actions and emotional bonds, not genetics. And rightly so. I mean, try telling Heather she doesn’t have two mommies when the non-biological parent dies, or if the union splits up. Try telling that to any adopted child. The law deals in human wants relationships and actions and we have decided long ago that parenthood is not necessarily an issue of genetics, to the benefit of many children. Why should we go back?

First, there is a high correlation between people who support gay marriage, and people who think marriage is all about "love". This view of marriage is seriously flawed, and self-indulgent to boot.

I kind of share your caution about making it all about love, in that I think too many marriages degenerate to, or never escape from the most ephemeral brand of love, with no devotion or duty. But love is very important too; it’s in fact a necessity, I’d say, for a healthy marriage (though not quite sufficient).

Marriage has been about many things and now love and choice is one of the main factors. You can see the change in many of our recent legal decisions, from allowing convicts to marry, to allowing interracial marriage.

Sure, in our past, marriage was based on something else like occupation or race or economics, and if love happened to also be there you were very fortunate (to marry for love was said to be the one luxury of the poor). For example, marriage used to be legally defined as an agreement between two men (a soon-to-be husband and father in-law :-) ). It used to be legally defined as a union for life, regardless of how horrible one partner was to the other. It used to be legally defined as a union between the same race (the excuse was even used that the children of mixed-race unions are harmed and inferior). But personal choice won out, and we look down on loveless marriages as we see them as detrimental for everyone involved. I think this was a healthy move in all, with some negative side effects (I’d think how to fix them is a topic for another thread).

Anyway, anyone can get married for love however they like. The law can’t stop them, and gays and lesbians have been doing so for many years. Legal marriage is a different story. That’s not so much about love as it is about the law recognizing the practical results of that bonding, the reality of a new financial, kin, social, moral, legal, and/or parental relationship. It’s about that and brining justice to those relationships when they go south. All those reasons are already there in households headed by gays and lesbians.

If you ask me, they "fall in love" just like straight people, and so if marriage were about love, then one set of marriage laws for both would make sense, but when it comes to sex, gay people are different.

They don’t just fall in love. They alter their lives in dramatic ways, they live together, rely on each other, divide their labor, create a home, raise children, become part of each other’s family, and so on. For those actions, not just some emotion, legal marriage is needed for gays and lesbians.

True, gay and lesbian couples are infertile and that makes them different from fertile heterosexual couples, but infertile sex seems like a distraction to me. Such unions are already allowed into marriage (some legally required to be infertile), and their population is about as big or even larger than that of the homosexual population.

We are not equal, and the differences are so extreme that I can't imagine one set of laws that could be written that would protect everybody involved, including children and potential children, and yet pretend that homosexuals and heterosexuals are the same.

This is where I get lost. When I look at all the families of my brother’s and sister’s I’m certain, if you were given no info on our sex, you couldn’t tell which family had the homosexuals. With all other details of our daily lives, and I’m sure the reasons each couple should have marriage rights would be exactly the same. Where do you see these extreme differences? As far as I can tell, we live the same and need the exact same rights that my brothers and sisters currently enjoy; the same laws would protect everyone involved with no need to pretend homosexuals can reproduce. Can you clarify this for me?

[Meadmaker]

Scot,

That was an extremely good post. Very thoughtful, thorough, and informative. Thanks for taking the time to make it.

Partly through what I have read here, and partly through other sources, I have come to modify my views regarding gay marriage. I will reread your latest message, because I certainly haven't had time to digest it, and on first glance it is the best yet.

I came at this debate from an unusual perspective. I see marriage as regulation of personal behavior, and therefore unacceptable unless a compelling reason can be found for it. In the case of marriages that might result in reproduction, I found a compelling case for that regulation. As for infertile heteros, the case is far less compelling, but the status quo is that they are allowed to marry, and there is no serious proposal suggesting it should be otherwise.

But perhaps there is a good reason to regulate homosexual unions as well. It still seems to me that there is sufficient difference between homosexual and heterosexual couples that the exact same requirements not be imposed on the two, which would usually mean "marriage" for straights and "civil unions" for gays. On the other hand, you could convince me that the sexuality of the people involved is not the defining factor in the relationship, and so distinguishing between gays and straights in that way doesn't seem like a perfect solution.

As I said previously, I think there should be "civil unions" for heteros, but there isn't a serious proposal available that would create them.

You asked a few questions. I won't answer all of them, but if you, or any other participant would like to hear my particular viewpoint on them, feel free to raise them again. One of your questions was,


>>>>>>>>
And yet...there are certain basic aspects of human nature that cannot be denied.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I’d just ask that you be sure what these basic aspects of human nature are, and where you can assume them.
>>>>>>>>>

We can have babies, even when we don't want to. As a gay man, you don't have to fear that you will go to bed with someone, wake up pregant, and have the guy walk out on you. While certainly marriage has been through many different forms in many different civilizations, that part of it has been a constant. It helps to protect pregnant women from abandonment.


>>>>>
I think I understand the worry. It’s something along the lines that men don’t nurture and women don’t encourage exploration, and so on?
>>>>>

(This was in response to my concern that being raised by two people of the same sex had to be at least a little bit different than being raised by two people of opposite sex.)

More or less, yes. Also, I think that children are influenced by "role models" and having male and female influence is better for a child than having just one gender's influence.

However, I agree that there isn't enough evidence of harm that this ought to be a reason for forbidding homosexual parents from raising children. This generation, currently being raised, is the first in America where significant numbers of people are being raised by homosexual couples. Although I can't come up with a reason to prohibit it, I thinkwe are conducting an experiment on our children. I don't actually ahve a problem with that, but I think the children of gays and lesbians should be watched closely and studied with a microscope, to see if there are any problems, or benefits, from being raised in such non-traditional ways. It makes me nervous, I must admit, but this is where science should take over and prejudice should butt out.

I still believe that there is a huge difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals. (It's about the babies, in case anyone still wonders.) Therefore, I won't accept any argument based on "discrimination is wrong". When the discrimination is based on a real difference relevant to the regulated behavior, there is nothing wrong with discrimination. However, I have come to believe that there is compelling need for regulation of homosexual relationships, and gay marriage is the only serious proposal on the table. I am still opposed to "one size fits all" definitions of marriage, and I think "civil unions" still make a lot of sense, but the "civil union" proposals don't really solve the problems either. This is largely because there shouldn't be "one size fits all" definitions of marriage for heterosexuals either, and there is no serious proposal on the table to create the appropriate regulations for straights to reflect the post birth control realities of our world..

So, what the heck, let the wedding bells ring. I've modified my views enough that it might influence my vote in November at least. Before, if a politician came out for gay marriage, that would definitely have been one reason to vote against him. Now, I would consider it a neutral, and if he were to also oppose any change in the laws that would recognize the legitimacy of homosexual unions, that would be a reason to vote against him. Before, it would have been neutral. It's a slight shift to the left. We'll see what happens in Massachusetts and elsewhere around the country. We certainly haven't seen the last of this debate.

[LettristLoon]

Scot, you're my hero. Mead: You, too.

- B

[Orsino]

I do not understand how anyone who praises American democracy for its constitutional protection of individual liberties can, from the other side of his mouth, consider anyone else's marriage to be subject to the whims of a majority. Do they offer to dissolve their own unions until a vote can be taken? Of course not. I've seen nothing more high-minded than Miss Grundy on that side of the "debate," and she delights in only telling others how to live.

Marriage is no one's business but that of the parties involved. Until some harm done by same-sex marriage is coherently expressed and proven, something beyond mythical plagues or a vaguely ill-at-ease feeling, no American state or municipality has any reason to forbid such contracts--only excuses--and they all parse the same as they did through every previous civil rights struggle. The bluenoses want to feel superior to somebody, doggone it, and if their own self-esteem is insufficient, they'll hide their insecurities behind the force of a majority until that good feeling is legislated for them.

Forget all the bogus arguments about children. Kids aren't a requirement of marriage (thank goodness, or my wife and I would be in trouble), and we've seen all too well how opposite-sex couples can screw up that element of their shared lives.

Forget all the arguments based on the woo-woos' invisible gods. Forget all their prattle of "tradition," their irrelevant dictionary citations, or their pretended objections to the word marriage. All they're really telling you is how uncomfortable they are.

Any government which gives licenses only to opposite-sex couples is discrminating, and has thus abdicated any possible moral authority. The only remaining question is: how long before we stop relegating gays to second-class citizenship?

Life is tough enough, people. Please don't make it tougher. Let them marry, throw some rice, and wish them luck. They're your neighbors, for cryin' out loud. Help 'em out, or stop pretending to love them.

[csense]

Originally posted by Orsino
I do not understand how anyone who praises American democracy for its constitutional protection of individual liberties can, from the other side of his mouth, consider anyone else's marriage to be subject to the whims of a majority.

Fair enough statement and a reasonable position for anyone to take.

First, let's get something out of the way.
The Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution does not specifically extend rights to same sex marriage, and it wouldn't since it is a concept that involves more than just the individual, and neither do the Articles of the Constitution prevent the states from regulating same, so to say that same sex marriage is Constitutionally protected is to propose an untenable argument.

Second, let's agree on a few things.
You summed up your post by saying this:

They're your neighbors, for cryin' out loud.

I think we can agree that no matter who we are talking about and what particualr beliefs they hold, or what lifestyle they engage in, they must be somebody's neighbor, so this could apply to anyone, regardless.

Let's also agree that the minority should not be held to the whims of the majority.

That said, let's now define our players, the majority and the minority, and since we are dealing with the quantitative, in defining one we can define the other.
Minority in it's most fundamental form can be defined as one, and since this agrees with the concept of individual rights, then it must be correct.
Additionally, if one feels that individual rights is an unnecessary complication to the concept of minority and majority, then we are left to reduce the quantitative definition of minority to two, which should be a reasonable agreement.


Now, the question is, beyond specific individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights, how should we create laws to regulate societal behavior if the minority should not be subject to the whims of the majority.

Barring any violation of specific individual rights which are Constitutionally protected, would this mean any proposed legislation could be defeated by the voice of just two individuals should they object.

Conversely, and again barring any violation of Constitutional specifics, does this mean any activity which is engaged in by two or more people must be legal, should they so desire.

[Orsino]

Originally posted by csense
...Conversely, and again barring any violation of Constitutional specifics, does this mean any activity which is engaged in by two or more people must be legal, should they so desire.

I'm not sure what you're asking, and I don't think it abuts my particular thesis. Marriage is already legal, and barring any coherent description of a contrary interest, the state must stop discriminating based on "ewww," IMO.

[csense]

I'm not sure what you're asking, and I don't think it abuts my particular thesis.

Setting aside for a moment your peculiar choice of verbs, I think I was very clear.
At any rate, you tell me what you mean by "subject to the whims of a majority"





Marriage is already legal, and barring any coherent description of a contrary interest, the state must stop discriminating based on "ewww," IMO.

Well, since the state and the law are the same, then anything which descriptly contradicts the law, should be of interest to the state, yes?

And if marriage is described as the union of one man and one woman, could we reasonably conclude that the union of one man and one man, or the union of one woman and one woman contradicts the description of marriage, and if not, then tell how a concept based on similarity, does not stand in contradiction to a concept based on dissimilarity

How does one make a distinction without a difference...how is that possible.

[Orsino]

Originally posted by csense
Well, since the state and the law are the same, then anything which descriptly contradicts the law, should be of interest to the state, yes?

And if marriage is described as the union of one man and one woman, could we reasonably conclude that the union of one man and one man, or the union of one woman and one woman contradicts the description of marriage, and if not, then tell how a concept based on similarity, does not stand in contradiction to a concept based on dissimilarity

How does one make a distinction without a difference...how is that possible.

Most who feel the need for a distinction do as you just did, in my experience.

It doesn't really address my thesis, however, as it is simply a recitation of typical laws hastily rewritten to exclude same-sex couples.

I equate it with laws defining voters as white land-owning males, or white females, and hope it will soon reside on the discard pile of history with its antecessors.

[csense]

I only have so much patience for nonsense, especially in a critical thinking forum, so, as not to be completely rude, you'll forgive me if I end our conversation here.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by csense



First, let's get something out of the way.
The Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution does not specifically extend rights to same sex marriage, and it wouldn't since it is a concept that involves more than just the individual, and neither do the Articles of the Constitution prevent the states from regulating same, so to say that same sex marriage is Constitutionally protected is to propose an untenable argument.



The legal position isn't quite as clear-cut as you seem to think. There are two relevant articles in the Bill of Rights. The tenth gives the States the default authority to regulate things unless otherwise barred, but the ninth specifically acknowledges the existence of unenumerated rights retained by "the people." "The people" --- not the United States, the States, or "individuals." (In fact, the word "individual" does not appear in the constitution at all.)

The acknowledged existence of "unenumerated rights" makes argument by absence in the Constitution suspect, at best.


Second, let's agree on a few things.
You summed up your post by saying this:

They're your neighbors, for cryin' out loud.

I think we can agree that no matter who we are talking about and what particualr beliefs they hold, or what lifestyle they engage in, they must be somebody's neighbor, so this could apply to anyone, regardless.

Let's also agree that the minority should not be held to the whims of the majority.

That said, let's now define our players, the majority and the minority, and since we are dealing with the quantitative, in defining one we can define the other.
Minority in it's most fundamental form can be defined as one, and since this agrees with the concept of individual rights, then it must be correct.
Additionally, if one feels that individual rights is an unnecessary complication to the concept of minority and majority, then we are left to reduce the quantitative definition of minority to two, which should be a reasonable agreement.


Now, the question is, beyond specific individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights, how should we create laws to regulate societal behavior if the minority should not be subject to the whims of the majority.

Barring any violation of specific individual rights which are Constitutionally protected, would this mean any proposed legislation could be defeated by the voice of just two individuals should they object.

Conversely, and again barring any violation of Constitutional specifics, does this mean any activity which is engaged in by two or more people must be legal, should they so desire.

This is a red herring. I don't think that any serious scholar of law or ethics would make a case that legal issues should be decided purely by a show of hands. Instead, there are number of principles that are generally used. "Basic fairness" is an obvious candidate -- in particular "arbitrary and capricious" actions are generally forbidden, which in turn means that a proposed government must have a specific goal that it's trying to achieve -- for example, the government has a goal of being able to move military vehicles on roads, and hence can put restrictions on how high bridges must be.

What goal is achieved by forbidding gays to marry? Alternatively, why is gay marriage per se a bad thing?

As a related but independent test, an action that violates someone's rights, including the unenumerated ones, is forbidden. Is the right to marry an unenumerated right? I'd have to check the case law on the various Jim Crow laws to be sure.

Another often-listed rule is a doctrine of comparative harm; a freedom that inconveniences many (but not severely) may be preferable, and in some cases even required, in comparison with an rule that harms a few people severely. (And conversely, of course.) This is usually expressed as "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins," but of course it has more general application. I have to be able to make a living -- that's one of those recognized unenumerated rights. If my profession involves running a strip club, you can typically regulate it, for example, with zoning ordinances, to make sure that there aren't too many clubs and that they aren't too close to schools. But if your regulations are too stringent, to the point that I can't make a living at all, then the courts will usually strike down the zoning regulations and let me open my club wherever I want. The (major) harm of not letting me eat trumps the (minor) harm of forcing you change your commute or drive past a club.

So your numerical argument is, as I said, a red herring. The question doesn't reduce simply to "how many gays want to get married?" The real question is : what harm does gay marriage do?

[Orsino]

Originally posted by csense
I only have so much patience for nonsense...

Is there anyone who does feel able to tell us why it's so vital to keep same-sex couples away from the courthouse? Anything keyed on real data (beyond cultural popularity contests, as previously noted) might be relevant. We're discriminating, folks, and it appears we're doing so without reason.

[LettristLoon]

Orsino:

The two most common reasons cited for not allowing gays and lesbians to marry, outside of the religious reasons, are as follows:

- Gays do not generally have relationships as "strong" as those of heterosexuals, so allowing us to marry would undermine the already-shaky institution of marriage even further.

- The gay life style, in and of itself, is supposedly bad for the nation, because we carry disease at much higher rates than straights, and allowing us to marry would only allow us to get our claws in more deeply.

I think that's about it, though. Flimsy?

- B

[Orsino]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
I think that's about it, though. Flimsy?

Indeed, these are flimsy. Perhaps they'd be worth considering, if they came attached to real data. But no, I file these objections under Doing Things to the Cows' Milk, since they're always offered as unsupported opinions, straight-faced (so to speak), as though that were a worthy foundation for legislation.

Like Mr. Randi, though, I have to pretend, at least, to be willing to be convinced. I expect reasons for denying gay marriage to be found sometime after Sylvia Browne wins the million dollars--or adds an actual application to her bluster.

The alleged bad effect(s) gay marriage would have on the institution, society, or the weather (depending upon which woo-woo one "debates") rank right down there with the claims made for homeopathy, IMO, as a basis for human activity. It might be a lot of fun to toss out the challenge from time to time, just to watch the antics of those trying to rationalize a purely emotional stance, were it not for all the human happiness that is continually being sacrificed on the altar of their bigotry. It can be satisfying to watch their behavior carefully at the precise moment they decide to cut and run. Will they retreat behind catch phrases, or will they claim victory and vanish?

I think marriage is wonderful. I don't think mine is threatened by Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? or by the hypocrisies of thrice-married touters of nebulous "family values." I just want more consenting adults to be able to share in the sort of joy my marriage brings to me.

[csense]

Originally posted by Orsino



It might be a lot of fun...to watch the antics of those trying to rationalize a purely emotional stance, were it not for all the human happiness that is continually being sacrificed on the altar of their bigotry.

You might want to engage in some personal reflection while you're walking the road of moral authority.

[Orsino]

Sorry, but I'm already chewing gum. Besides, having advocated same-sex marriage, I'm sure I no longer show up in mirrors.

But since you seem to have changed your mind about this discussion, would you now like to try formulating a reason why same-sex couples should be prevented from obtaining marriage licenses?

[LettristLoon]

Csense:

Sorry, but why should he be singled out to engage in "moral reflection?" And how do you know that he doesn't do so? I mean, sure, everyone should engage in moral reflection, but what does that have to do with sodomites and marriage?

Peace,
- B

[csense]

Sorry, but I'm already chewing gum. Besides, having advocated same-sex marriage, I'm sure I no longer show up in mirrors.

Your certainty may be illplaced, and just may account for the absence of that which you seek, but, as is true of all reflections, we only see what we want to see.


But since you seem to have changed your mind about this discussion, would you now like to try formulating a reason why same-sex couples should be prevented from obtaining marriage licenses?

I haven't changed my mind about the discussion and my only emphasis was on your reasoning, which by the way is true even of these last few posts, which of course may very well elude you.

Same sex marriage is already legal in my state, so to offer counter argumention would be moot as far as I'm concered.

[Orsino]

Originally posted by csense
Sorry, but I'm already chewing gum. Besides, having advocated same-sex marriage, I'm sure I no longer show up in mirrors.

Your certainty may be illplaced, and just may account for the absence of that which you seek, but, as is true of all reflections, we only see what we want to see.

Well, I thought that I was making an obvious joke. Are you really not sure whether or not I would show up in a mirror? And what is it that you believe I'm seeking?

If your last post was to intended to convey information, you'll have to break it down a bit further for my finite intellect.

But since you seem to have changed your mind about this discussion, would you now like to try formulating a reason why same-sex couples should be prevented from obtaining marriage licenses?

I haven't changed my mind about the discussion...

Well, either our conversation ended a few posts back, as you said, or it didn't. Which is it?

...and my only emphasis was on your reasoning, which by the way is true even of these last few posts, which of course may very well elude you.

Same sex marriage is already legal in my state, so to offer counter argumention would be moot as far as I'm concered.

Um...okay. Something may very well be eluding me. Are you here to support or oppose same-sex marriage in other states, perhaps, or at the federal level? Or is there some point of order or logic that you feel should be debated?

[LettristLoon]

Csense done said:

"Same sex marriage is already legal in my state, so to offer counter argumention would be moot as far as I'm concered."

Sorry, well, I would appreciate any explanation of why you think it'd be such a bad idea in my state (FL). Or is that your position? Reading your posts thus far in this discussion, I cannot quite tell which side of the debate your on. Please speak plainly--I'm not very smart, and I'm not good at grasping subtleties.

Thanks,
- B

[Mark]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
Csense:

Sorry, but why should he be singled out to engage in "moral reflection?" And how do you know that he doesn't do so? I mean, sure, everyone should engage in moral reflection, but what does that have to do with sodomites and marriage?

Peace,
- B

Sodomites, Gracie?

[LettristLoon]

Yeppers. Sodomites, my niggah.

- B

[Mark]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
Yeppers. Sodomites, my niggah.

- B

Yikes. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

[LettristLoon]

Oh, Mark.

You know, we're all out here trying to kill God, rubbing him back and forth over Occam's famous razor 'till the poor bastard ruptures. We're trying to confront the Awful Truth (yes--it's in caps!) about our world and what goes on within it, without seeking out the comforts of those who prize ease over reality. Surely, we're not gonna get upset over words.

Now, me--I am gay, and I call myself a sodomite, or a faggot, or whatever, because by doing so I take away a little bit of the power those words acquire in the mouths of people like Fred Phelps (http://www.godhatesfags.com). When Good Guys use Bad Words, it makes the Bad Words meaningless, which is the best we can hope for.

Don't think I'm narsty.

- B

[Mark]

Originally posted by LettristLoon
Oh, Mark.

You know, we're all out here trying to kill God, rubbing him back and forth over Occam's famous razor 'till the poor bastard ruptures. We're trying to confront the Awful Truth (yes--it's in caps!) about our world and what goes on within it, without seeking out the comforts of those who prize ease over reality. Surely, we're not gonna get upset over words.

Now, me--I am gay, and I call myself a sodomite, or a faggot, or whatever, because by doing so I take away a little bit of the power those words acquire in the mouths of people like Fred Phelps (http://www.godhatesfags.com). When Good Guys use Bad Words, it makes the Bad Words meaningless, which is the best we can hope for.

Don't think I'm narsty.

- B

Interesting topic for another thread. As a concept, I agree: there are no bad words. How could there be? They are just sounds. Still, in this imperfect world people are offended and hurt by words. For that reason, I would never use terms like faggot or sodomite. Also for the record, I don't care for it when black people use the "N" word, either...unless they are OK with everyone using it.

[bluess]

Originally posted by Orsino

I think marriage is wonderful. I don't think mine is threatened by Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? or by the hypocrisies of thrice-married touters of nebulous "family values." I just want more consenting adults to be able to share in the sort of joy my marriage brings to me.

What a lovely statement. I have yet to hear the 'same-sex marriage will destroy the family/hetero marriage' claim backed up in any way. How would two guys, three girls, whatever combo, getting married in any way effect my marriage?

[aries]

Hello :)

As I live in Denmark, Europe, who was the first country ever (i think) to pass a bill that made gay marriages (or registered partnerships as they are called in legislation here in DK), I can report that no bisexuals in DK have tried to marry (or get registered) with two people they want to live together with as traditionel a man and a wife does.

So based on DK's experience in the past 15 years where it has been legal to marry (or establish a registered partnership) I would say that the slippery slope argument simply does not apply.

As for the gay marriage thing, in general, I really think that by calling it something else i.e. registered partnerships, many people in DK gave up on their initial reluctance to allow this ill to pass.

Also, gay couples can only legally get registred partnerships at City Hall. (IN DK, we a have state's church, which is why gays can't get married like a man and woman can i.e. in a church.

Much debate there is now -- over this --- perhaps with time this will change :)

aries

[Orsino]

Originally posted by Orsino
....I just want more consenting adults to be able to share in the sort of joy my marriage brings to me.

And there I go, boxing people in even as I try to be inclusive. Let's try that again: I want more people to have access to the institution of so that they may find their own brand of joy--no two marriages being alike.