Help refute an anti-gay essay "Beyond Soddom and Gammorah" masquerading as science

[laxmatt]

This is my first thread (and one of my first posts), so I apologize about not being able to link directly.

The author of the piece in question has been a subject of a thread on this website before, read here. (Well, not here. Below)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t =52376 (Again, sorry. Cut, paste, get rid of spaces.)

This extreme christian fundamentalist has another essay, this time about homosexuality. The essay is a lot of dribble and babble, but I am genuinely concerned we have a young Jerry Falwell (or, more likely, Ted Haggard) on our hands, so I want to crush his ego now. In the essay "Beyond Soddom and Gammorah" he makes the following points:

1) Homosexuality is a dangerous practice subject to legal restrictions (the author plays up well known stereotypes - gays are promiscous, gays are self- loathing, and gays have other mental afflictions).

2) Homosexuality is neither an innate nor learned quality but rather a "behavior" that can be stopped at any time. (Just ask Ted Haggard!)

3) Homosexuality is dangerous. Indeed, the author states "One of the lesser-known findings reveals that of all 20-year-old homosexuals 30% will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS before they reach their 30th birthday."

4) Thus, homosexuality needs to be, if not outlawed, at least heavily restricted by law.

I'm not a pyschologist. I have very little scientific background. But I know psuedo-scientific religious domga pretending to be science when I see it. Just look at some of the horrible statements throughout this essay:

"And yet even in a land that does have a Bill of Rights, the United States of America, homophobia watchdog groups lump together those who are genuine hate-mongers with people who disagree with the Homosexual Agenda. A good example of this are those who claim that the Matthew Shepard killing was not based on homophobia. People who say this are looked upon the same way as people who deny the Holocaust and yet unlike the latter the former does have a case."

"In North America, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of psychosexual disorders, of which still includes incest, fetishes, and sadomasochism, which are acts that are typically done with consent by all involved and in private." (Ed note - Incest?!?! Consensual?!?!)

"As the West further depreciates morality, they do so ignorant of the nature of homosexuality; a changeable and harmful act consensually performed without criminal prosecution thanks to interpolations on a document whose authors expressly forbade such."

"But persecution does not imply justification. In the 1950s, the Western Allies removed their military zones from West Germany and the Federal Republic of Germany was formed. The political party that came to power in this new democracy was the Christian Democratic Union. One of their first actions was to outlaw the National Socialist German Democratic Workers Party, a.k.a. the NAZI Party. This outlawing could be argued by some to be a form of persecution, but would anyone with a decent morality say that the persecuted group in question was justified? I would hope not. But that is exactly the reasoning found in many efforts to proselytize individuals by the movement I described in this work. "

Like I said, a lot of dribble and babble from a very fundamentalist christian. Lots of psuedo-science garbage in the essay, and I was just wondering if anyone with more background than I could point out the mistakes. Below is the link - click on "Beyond Soddom and Gammorah". You have to download a word document, it's clean.

http://www.cross-nation.com/dapl.html (Again, sorry for the spaces. Cut and paste and get rid of the spaces.)

[laxmatt]

A very nice person made the links live for me. Thank you very much.

[strathmeyer]

Even if #3 is true, that makes AIDS dangerous, not homosexuals. Anybody can get AIDS.

[ilikefrogs]

2) Homosexuality is neither an innate nor learned quality but rather a "behavior" that can be stopped at any time. (Just ask Ted Haggard!)

Link him to a book called "Anything But Straight" by Wayne Besen. Ask him about John Paulk. (Posterboy of the ex-gay movement, who was photographed in a gay bar in DC. That's Paulk on the cover of the book, BTW.) Ask him why ex-gay groups have a 5% "cure rate.

3) Homosexuality is dangerous. Indeed, the author states "One of the lesser-known findings reveals that of all 20-year-old homosexuals 30% will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS before they reach their 30th birthday."

Ask him to cite his statistics. Be wary of a reference to Paul Cameron. He was booted out of the APA and is no longer recognized as an expert witness in court cases because of his very poor (and easily falsified) research.

"In North America, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of psychosexual disorders, of which still includes incest, fetishes, and sadomasochism, which are acts that are typically done with consent by all involved and in private." (Ed note - Incest?!?! Consensual?!?!) \

:jaw-dropp Point out the large number of men who sexually abuse their daughters or mothers their sons...

BTW, though I hate to have to agree with him:
incest (n): sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry.

m-w.com/dictionary/incest

Adult siblings could have a consensual incestuous relationship.

"As the West further depreciates morality, they do so ignorant of the nature of homosexuality; a changeable and harmful act consensually performed without criminal prosecution thanks to interpolations on a document whose authors expressly forbade such."

Ask what is dangerous for gays that isn't also dangerous for straights.

"But persecution does not imply justification. In the 1950s, the Western Allies removed their military zones from West Germany and the Federal Republic of Germany was formed. The political party that came to power in this new democracy was the Christian Democratic Union. One of their first actions was to outlaw the National Socialist German Democratic Workers Party, a.k.a. the NAZI Party.

So he is agreeing his opinions match of those of the Nazis?

[laxmatt]

He is saying that outlawing homosexuality is the same as outlawing Nazism. Sure, it might be persecution, but it's still justified.

[laxmatt]

Here is the essay minus the citations (I can't post links yet). The essay is not copyrighted, and I didn't read a rule anywhere that said I can't reprint an essay. If I'm breaking any rule feel free to delete this post. If you simply have to see the citations follow the original links. Like I said this essay is a lot of dribble.


Beyond Sodom and Gomorrah

Or

The non-religious, non-conservative case against the Homosexual Agenda

By: Michael Gryboski









Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………………..….3-4

Legal Argument………………………………………………………….5-7

Scientific Argument……………………………………………………..8-12

Health Argument………………………………………………………..13-16

Conclusion………………………………………………………………..17

Appendixes (added September 13th—October 1st, AD 2006)

Regarding the 1973 Decision………………………………………………18

Regarding Marriage……………………………….………………………19-21




















“You people are sick. God should strike you dead.”


These were not the words of a southern white minister or conservative Republican politician, but instead were of an openly gay Canadian Senator a few years ago. He was referring to the people he hated and despised, those who opposed the implementation of what would be known in some circles as the ‘Bible as hate literature’ bill: Bill C-250. This measure would expand the definition of hate speech in Canada to include speech deemed hateful towards individuals due to their sexual orientation. This bill had an exemption for religious reasons, but past judicial decisions in the nation of Canada have shown that this will mean little. Nevertheless, the bill became law and now anyone who openly opposes or criticizes homosexual orientation in Canada can face as many as five years behind bars.
Bill C-250 is not the first or only of its kind. In Sweden, the government actually monitors sermons for any content deemed hateful enough to necessitate legal action against the preacher. Far from being deemed a curb on civil liberties, it is approved, and the nation of England performs similar inquisitions on its churches, even Anglican ones. Both countries have actually press charges against clergy who have merely stated what the Bible says: homosexuality is a sin. But religious expression or even expression in general is well ignored in these three Western countries that do not have a Bill of Rights put into their laws.
And yet even in a land that does have a Bill of Rights, the United States of America, homophobia watchdog groups lump together those who are genuine hate-mongers with people who disagree with the Homosexual Agenda. A good example of this are those who claim that the Matthew Shepard killing was not based on homophobia. People who say this are looked upon the same way as people who deny the Holocaust and yet unlike the latter the former does have a case. ABC news is the one, rather than a conservative source, that reported the new developments on November 26th, 2004, six years after the ruthless murder.
They interviewed a former girlfriend of one of the murderers, who said, “I don't think it was a hate crime at all” in an interview. When McKinney, one of the murderers, was asked if it was done because Shepard was gay he replied, “I would say it wasn't a hate crime. All I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him." Apparently, the only reason why the defense for the two murderers even brought up the idea of sexual orientation was in order to plead the “gay panic defense, testifying that they attacked Shepard because he made flirtatious advances towards them.” Regardless, the murder is still labeled a hate crime even as doctors say that withdrawal symptoms of the drugs McKinney and Henderson took included aggression.
Since Shepard’s murder, an entity known as the Gay Rights Movement to some and the Homosexual Agenda to others has gained power and influence in United States culture, with increasing representation in television and theater, political clout especially in the Democratic Party and Washington, DC as a whole and in society at large. Although no laws like the ones in Canada and Europe exist in any of the 50 States, it is all but a crime to criticize the doctrines of the Homosexual Agenda. Indeed, at least one opinion article in the GMU newspaper Broadside classified not seeing Brokeback Mountain as an attribute of homophobia.
Traditionally considered by experts to have begun in 1969 with the Stonewall Club violence, the Homosexual Agenda has since grown extensively in scope and popularity in the United States. The Supreme Court ruling of Lawrence v. Texas fully decriminalized the act that gave birth to the lifestyles and Massachusetts’ highest court recently made gay marriage a reality for the first time in the USA. The Homosexual Agenda is based on intellectual assumptions, without which the whole of the movement would be baseless and errant:

All acts that are committed by consenting adults in private should be legalized and any effort to regulate such behaviors is a violation of the US Constitution.
Homosexuality is an inborn trait, innate rather than learned, which cannot be altered, for sexual orientation is fixed at birth.
The homosexual lifestyle is no more or less harmful than the typical heterosexual relationship and should be tolerated.


If the three theses above are disproved, then the whole of the movement carries no intellectual weight or accountability. This essay shall be the documentation however brief of what makes these three givens erroneous. To further convince the reader of the accuracy of this written work, I shall perform a bit of a magic trick. Pro-gay organizations and media always speak of opposition to the Homosexual Agenda as being only from conservative or ultraconservative sources. So, for this essay I shall cite only liberal or moderate sources. If any conservative citations are found, it is only because they themselves cited a moderate or liberal source. No Bible quotes will be used or writings from the Vatican. Any religious citations shall be from religious liberals, namely John Shelby Spong. This shall be a case against homosexuality through the usage of secular and liberal works.














I. “We still have a long way to go in achieving full equality, but the court’s recognition that all women and men, regardless of their sexuality, have a constitutional right to privacy is a huge step forward.”

--National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy

These were the words, some of many, spoken that praised the June 26th, 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down all anti-sodomy laws in the United States of America. There were many things said, but this is probably the best one to note since it covers the whole of the misconceptions that were mandated in order to legalize the act of homosexuality. And it begins with the statement “constitutional right to privacy”. However uncomfortable it makes the reader, the fact remains that there is no such thing. Nowhere in the Constitution is privacy even alluded to as a right. This is assumption rather than interpretation.
And that is where it gets very problematic. It goes back to why the United States was founded in the first place. The United States of America was founded on the belief that written law should be abided by all, and by the letter. The Continental Army was fighting against a government that had been gradually twisting and loosely interpreting various written laws that comprised the code of the British Empire. In other words, the very method of interpreting law that our Founding Fathers fought against was implemented in that court case. Deviation from written law is dangerous and this has been seen many times throughout modern history.
17 years before Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court had ruled against striking down State laws against sodomy. The case was known as Bowers v. Hardwick and it is built on effective axioms, at least one of which is still relevant to the present situation. Each point that comprised the case is supported by undeniable fact. Going through them one by one:

“Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ is, at best, facetious.”

This is true, as high-ranking ACLU member Peter Irons wrote: “All the original thirteen states had made sodomy a criminal offense when the Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution in 1791. As late as 1961, all fifty states had outlawed sodomy.” At this time in legal history the ‘right to privacy’ first made its appearance regarding moral affairs like abortion, birth control, and various products. Yet this was a far different affair, as Bowers shows regarding previous ‘right to privacy cases’:

“No connection between family, marriage, or procreation on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated, either by the Court of Appeals or the respondent. Moreover, any claim that these cases nevertheless stand for the proposition of any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable.”

To use an old cliché, the Court realized that there was a Pandora’s Box and they knew better than to open it. There are numerous sexual acts not even condoned by the more sexually libertine of North America that are done in private and with consent. Should we legalize them all? In Canada, the age of consent is 14. By their ‘modern’ standards, there is nothing wrong with a 50 year-old man having sex with a 15 year old girl. Is that what we are headed for? The Court knew then that overstepping the bounds of written law was contrary to the vision of the Founding Fathers and indeed of any stable society. They put so well in the majority opinion:

“The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution.”

It must be stressed that Bowers v. Hardwick is no Plessy v. Ferguson, which was the decision to sustain racial segregation. Bowers leaves open the opportunity for individual States to remove their anti-sodomy laws. (In other words, State’s Rights.) Further, the wording of the majority opinion considered homosexuals to be people, not inferiors to heterosexuals.
17 years later, the Court made a bad legal argument that happened to be popular. This new decision was Lawrence v. Texas. This decision forsook the belief that written law, the very entity that had preserved rights and freedoms for centuries, was sufficient. They decided to use their own false assumptions regarding history and science to make a decision that shall the USA in the long run. Point by point, the majority opinion is laden with errors:

“It shall be noted, however, that there is no long-standing history in this country of laws directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter.”

Obviously Irons, who did not side with the Court on Bowers, debunks this point. A doubtful worldview is noted as well as the majority opinion then makes a butchered argument claiming that the laws of the States were against sodomy and therefore not against homosexuals. The mindset of the Court in 2003 was far different than in 1986, as by now claims of a ‘gay gene’ (see Section II) and the Matthew Shepard murder no doubt impacted their decision. They also do what was frowned upon by the Founding Fathers as well as numerous Justices through the decades: they appealed to non-US laws and decisions. They cite the efforts of the European Court of Human Rights and other national courts. But European nations also have legal punishments for blasphemy and fully outlaw stem-cell research. Why isn’t the Court using these judgments and implementing them upon us, the people who have little if any contribution as to who gets on the bench?
There is one last troubling statement found in Lawrence:

“This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution.”

It’s supposed to be a disclaimer, making sure that nothing else gets legalized because of this decision. The problem is that it won’t work. In the way that this Court disregarded written law and Constitutional tradition future ones could easily do the same. Worse yet, the terms like “minors”, “public conduct”, and “injured or coerced” are not legally defined, meaning that future appellants could twist the words to fit their worldview. We are living in Pandora’s Box, and hopefully it will not be too long before this case is overturned.

II. “There is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation”

--American Psychiatric Association

During the 1960s and 1980s Noam Chomsky developed a concept known as the language acquisition device, or LAD, a hypothesized neurobiological structure that enables human beings to learn language. If proven true, it would mean that environment has almost nothing to do with the linguistic talents of a human being and genetics is the sole factor in the matter. However, this structure has never been found and there are infamous examples of children who were deprived of learning language and at adulthood have almost no linguistic abilities in any language. LAD, as it were is unproven and in some cases challenged.
The doublespeak of the psychological world can be quite astounding. Although they emphasize often that traits are a mixture of nature and nurture, when it comes to some topics, including homosexuality, they say strictly nature and nothing else. As Savin-Williams and Diamond warn:

“Those who dichotomize sexual orientation into pure biological or social causation fall into a dangerous quagmire. To deny any role for biology affirms an untenable scientific view of human development. Equally harsh and deterministic would be to deny the significance of the environment.”

This would be a blow to the unabashed statements of liberal clergyman Bishop John Shelby Spong, who regularly attacks Fundamentalists. Writes Spong, “homosexual orientation is a minority but perfectly natural characteristic on the human spectrum of sexuality. It is not something one chooses, it is something one is.” But this statement, as aforementioned, goes against the Epigenetic Theory of development, which states that there is a mixture of nature and nurture. According to Plasticity, “Every individual, and every trait within each individual, can be altered at any point in the life span. Change is ongoing, although neither random nor easy.” And the profession of psychology is not alone in the ignored status.
Sociology and the impact of self-fulfilling prophecy are ignored as well in stating that only genetic factors determine sexual preferences. And yet, there is a body of research devoted to proving this doubtful hypothesis. A famous attempt came from a study by Simon LeVay.

“The study indicated that the hypothalamus (a region in the brain linking the nervous system and the endocrine system along with controlling hunger and body temperature) sizes differed in the case between six women, 16 heterosexual men and 19 homosexual men. The hypothalamus of women and homosexual men appeared to be similar, while the hypothalamuses of heterosexual men were larger.”

Although mass media heralded this find as proof, problems abounded. As observed by author and Professor Roger Lancaster, who heads the Cultural Studies Department at GMU:

“The reported variations between gay men’s and straight men’s average hypothalamus size might indicate that homosexuality is the behavioral effect of a biological cause, but just as logically, the findings might suggest that hypothalamus size is the biological effect of the behavioral cause”

Other problems with the axioms of the study (for example, all cadavers used that had not died of AIDS were assumed to be heterosexual) made LeVay challenge his own study. As he would later write,

“When a gay man, for example, says he was born gay, he generally means that he felt different from other boys at the earliest age he can remember. Sometimes the difference involved sexual feelings, but more commonly it involved some kind of gender-nonconformist or 'sex-atypical' traits--disliking rough-and-tumble play, for example--that were not explicitly sexual. These differences, which have been verified in a number of ways, suggest that sexual orientation is influenced by factors operating very early in life, but these factors could still consist of environmental forces such as parental treatment in the early postnatal period.” (My italics.)
Another study cited often was one done by Bailey and Pillard on twins. This too was supposed to have eliminated nurture as a contributor to the homosexual orientation. But it was flawed in its methodology as well. Khan explains:
“J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard studied cases of homosexuality in twin brothers, in which at least one was gay. The brothers researched lived together, and so environmental factors of twins growing up in different areas were not considered. Also, Bailey and Pillard took ads out for volunteers in gay publications.”
One last major study used by the Homosexual Agenda to justify the claim of sexual orientation being fixed at birth. “The third popular study was conducted by Dean Hamer who examined 40 homosexual brothers, out of which 33 shared a series of five similar genetic attributes.” There was an especially loud response to this one from the mass media, who attribute this study to opening up the whole debate over fixed orientation. Lesser known to most in the political left was the eventual debunking of this infamous study. Hamer did not have a heterosexual control group and many noted that he probably inflated the numbers in his conclusion.
Eventually, after conducting a replicate study that had far less pro-fixed orientation results, Hamer conceded. “We have not found the gene—which we don’t think exists—for sexual orientation.” Hamer would later write that “The pedigree study failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious sort of pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants." The search for the fixed attribute has fallen flat on many occasions. And there have been other attempts, as reported by the British Broadcasting Corporation:
“The new study used DNA from 52 pairs of gay brothers. These were recruited via advertisements in two Canadian gay news magazines. Mr. Williams expressed surprise that so many homosexuals were willing to help in such experiments. The researchers looked to see if the gay brothers shared more of the candidate genetic markers than would be expected. Any pair of brothers will share about half their DNA on any particular chromosome. They found that 46% of the 52 pairs of brothers shared three key markers. In the previous study, which considered five markers, those scientists reported that 83% of 40 pairs shared the markers.”
The researchers summed up the conclusion: “Because our study was larger than the original one, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study…Nonetheless, our data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation.” Another more recent example was reported with considerable bias in the Washington Post. Anthony F. Bogaert et al. of Brock University in Canada conducted this study. Despite the title of the brief article, the conclusion paragraph conceded much:

“No similar links have been noted for lesbianism. And even among boys, the birth order effect—which becomes a prominent influence in boys with two or three brothers or more—accounts for only about one in every seven gay men, Bogaert and colleagues have calculated.”

And yet, there was all but a promise made that the search shall continue. Despite the many failures and misinformation, the effort is still alive. Why? More than likely because as many have observed this is a major reason why people have adhered and aided the Homosexual Agenda. If someone cannot change an attribute, then why should people oppose it? That reasoning is fused into the movement. This even though entities with no genetic factors at all (political party affiliation, e.g.) are not outlawed and possible findings on a ‘rape gene’ would obviously not encourage people to decriminalize the act in question.
What about the other side? There was at least one famous study by pro-gay activist Dr. Rob Spitzer, who had been instrumental in various ways in getting homosexuality removed from the DSM list of disorders. More shall be spoken of on the issue of the 1973 decision later. Spitzer’s study was a series of telephone interviews of 200 ex-gays, with the questions focusing on sexual desires and preferences. It seemed to prove that homosexuality was changeable.
As Spitzer himself said after the study “Some people can and do change. Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could only be resisted, and that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe this to be false." As with the studies usually cited by politicians and activists that ‘undeniably’ prove homosexuality to be unchangeable, this ‘undeniable evidence’ to the contrary has problems. The people surveyed were never kept track of and there is a potentiality that most of them reverted back to the homosexual lifestyle. As religioustolerance.org reports:

“Of the 200 subjects, 86 had been referred to Dr. Spitzer by conservative Christian groups specializing in converting homosexuals.* NARTH referred 46 subjects. Some other sources provided 68. It is apparent that the individuals that Dr. Spitzer interviewed were hand-selected from a very large group of persons who had either a homosexual or a bisexual orientation. Those who had been unable to change their sexual behavior would not have become subjects in the study.”

But the assessment of religioustolerance.org leaves out one key helper to the ex-gay side: the evidence was contrary to the original hypothesis of the experimenter. Not to mention that compared to the sample space of the widely accepted LeVay and Hamer studies, this had a larger number of participants. Further, there are other studies, undisputed and proven, that do vindicate changeability in sexual orientation. Given political correctness and establishment, they rarely get headlines, but they nevertheless exist. Secular Humanist Nathaniel S. Lehrman, who is a former Clinical Director of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Center in Brooklyn, NY, explains the problem of classifying sexual orientation:

“Should the term include anyone who has ever engaged in sex-same relationships? Or only those currently involved? After Anne Heche’s well-publicized three-year lesbian relationship with comedian Ellen DeGeneres ended, she married and now has a baby. Is she gay, ex-gay, bisexual, or simply sexually confused? Has her supposedly fixed orientation changed between then and now?”

In the Greek Polis of Sparta, soldiers in the barracks were encouraged to practice sodomy amongst one another. Yet, as the records tell, all of them were married, had children, and were sexually attracted to women. Similar practices can be found in the Hellenistic world and as far as Rome, and yet no record ever exists in which people were identified as ‘Homosexual.’ That is a modern term applied to people whose physical or mental attributes contradicted common gender roles. Even the usual suspects have no real confirmation of their preferences. For example, only some historians who wrote in Ancient times identified a male lover for Alexander the Great, making the notion that he was ‘Homosexual’ questionable. What also doesn’t help was that he did indeed get married near the end of his reign.
Lisa M. Diamond, assistant professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, studied 80 women between ages 16 and 23 that were professed lesbians. The study began in 1994 and by 1999, 48% of them had changed their sexual preferences. Gillian Rodgerson, a British clinic worker, reported in 1996 that 25% of her London clinic clients who were lesbian had had sex with a man in the last six months. Even the APA will at times admit that orientation is not fixed, as seen in a recent finding by Ellen Schecter, Ph. D.,

“Schecter, of the Fielding Graduate Institute, presented results from a qualitative study in which she conducted in-depth interviews with 11 women who had identified as lesbians for more than 10 years, but who after age 30 were now in intimate relationships with men lasting at least a year.”


And there are other studies and evidence of both objective and subjective nature found to substantiate that there is no genetic link or fixed orientation to be found in the human body. The very notion that homosexuality is fixed at birth or is otherwise inalterable is built on bad science. Of course not everyone who tries to change their orientation is going to succeed, but as one psychiatrist remarked, “Approximately thirty percent of those coming to treatment for any reason can be converted to the heterosexual adaptation.” The ‘born-that-way’ idea is just one of many inaccuracies found in the movement that is well accepted in the West.


III. “We now know that homosexuality is part of the essential nature of approximately 10% of the population.” --Bishop John Shelby Spong

This is one of the many inaccurate statements floating around pro-gay circles and yet remains due to any dissent in the movement being labeled ‘homophobia.’ The number derives from a supposed study performed by the famous and infamous sex researcher Alfred Kinsey. It must be noted that Spong is heterosexual, but Dean Hamer, who first proposed the notion of a gay gene, is homosexual. Ergo, he is not likely to be homophobic. Hamer writes,

“Kinsey himself never said 10 percent of the population was gay; but that 10 percent of adult white males he surveyed--many of them prisoners--had been predominantly homosexual for a period of three or more years, sometime between age 16 through their 50's. Fewer than 4 percent of them had been predominantly or exclusively homosexual for all of their adult lives.”

In 1973, there were many things that took place in the world. There was the landmark judicial decision to legalize abortion, known as Roe v. Wade. The United Nations, thanks to heavy pressure by Arab nations and the USSR, was able to pass a mandate declaring Zionism a form of racism. South Vietnam was largely abandoned by the United States and left to be subjugated by a violent Communist rule from the North that exists to this very day. In North America, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of psychosexual disorders, of which still includes incest, fetishes, and sadomasochism, which are acts that are typically done with consent by all involved and in private.
However, despite the widespread usage of the event by pro-gay activists, the situation was far from as clear cut as they claim. For one, only 37% of the APA actually voted for the measure, and of that less than two-thirds of them favored removal. Crunching the numbers, one comes to the startling realization that the definition of acceptable behavior was determined by only 20% to 25% of a single organization. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that it was a politically driven decision, for other times in the past the political pull of the Homosexual Agenda is found in matters regarding both the APA and AIDS activism. Writes pro-gay activist Ronald Bayer about just one of the many events that led to the decision,

“Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed." (My italics.)
But there is more to this than striking down laws and editing psychological mandates. This is a lifestyle that is being written about. Behaviors and lifestyles, if destructive or self-destructive enough, should and are monitored and/or restricted by the government. Consider smoking. There are numerous harmful side effects to that practice, and the act of lighting a cigarette and smoking is heavily regulated and restricted. In many places it’s in fact outlawed. This even though smoking tends to be a willing voluntary action and often done in private. Many people feel heavily connected to smoking, and it is very hard to quit the practice. Opposition to smoking is widely accepted and no one uses labels like ‘fume-o-phobic.’
Of the lifestyles now protected by law in North America, few are as self-destructive and destructive as the homosexual act. This was not first appreciated until the AIDS epidemic. Although it is almost certain that the act of homosexuality did not bring this virus into existence, the spread of the pestilence is another story altogether as long-time AIDS activist Dr. Stephen C. Joseph writes,

“The 1970s and early 1980s had seen an explosion of gay sexuality accompanying the gay rights movement and the ‘uncloseting’ of large numbers of homosexual men, especially in cities with a history of relative tolerance. In these sexual magnet cities, overt expressions of gay sexuality flourished. By their own reports, many men had large numbers of sexual partners annually, often numbering in the hundreds and even in the thousands.”

And it doesn’t stop there. As Dr. Joseph, who is Dean of the School of Public Health and Professor of Public Health and of Pediatrics at the University of Minnesota, further explains:

“Frenetic casual and anonymous sex was widespread among homosexual and bisexual men. Bathhouses, back rooms of bars and clubs, and other public settings such as erotic bookstores and movie theaters were, in effect, wide open. Sexual practices such as anonymous group sex, sado-masochistic fantasies enacted with physical trauma, penetration of rectal orifices with penises, fists, and blunt objects—all these practices and more were accompanied by extremely high rates of sexually transmitted diseases and set the scene for the rapid transmission of HIV once it appeared in the late 1970s.”

According to Diggs,
“It is well established that there are high rates of psychiatric illnesses, including depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts, among gays and lesbians. This is true even in the Netherlands, where gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) relationships are far more socially acceptable than in the U.S. Depression and drug abuse are strongly associated with risky sexual practices that lead to serious medical problems.”
Research by Rompalo and others shows that diseases disproportionately frequent amongst the homosexual community include Anal Cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, Human immunodeficiency virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhea, Viral hepatitis types B & C, and Syphilis.
Writes Lehrman,
“Homosexuality is also associated with a higher mortality. A major Canadian medical center found the life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men was 8 to 20 years less than that for all men. It further estimated that nearly half of today’s gay and bisexual 20-year-olds would not reach their 65th birthday.”
Other studies are not so optimistic. One of the lesser-known findings reveals that of all 20-year-old homosexuals 30% will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS before they reach their 30th birthday. This is the lifestyle that we as Americans and indeed as a human race have to accept or else be deemed homophobic. That is the most disturbing thing about these and plenty of other numbers found for both lesbians and male homosexuals: no one is doing anything to stem off the destruction. Indeed, knee-jerk tendencies seem to be the theme of the day.
When Stephen C. Joseph was Commissioner of Health of New York City during the late 1980s to 1990s, he encountered resistance from the NYC gay community. Although it never hit on a legal basis, as the ACLU chapter of New York protested his efforts to contain the AIDS virus, he was nevertheless attacked. This was because Joseph had come to the rational conclusion that closing down most of the gay bars and clubs, as well as movie theaters, would decrease the number of HIV infections. Deciding that rights never guaranteed in the first place (see Section I) should be militantly protected, one editor wrote:
“May I suggest that if he wants to contain the health crisis, Stephen Joseph should get off our backs, let our turf alone, fire his pecker checkers and instead hire educational teams to dispense information and condoms in places where sex occurs?” In other words the editor of that newspaper would rather have seen the fictional ‘right to privacy’ be acknowledged and the lifestyle perpetuated than have even some restriction. People rose in protest over the lacking gun control found in much of the country, and now we have restrictions on that 2nd Amendment guarantee. All rights, even if they actually exist as written in the US Constitution, are finite in nature. That is how a proper democratic-republic works. Even as the lifestyle destroys lives in the legions, somehow we’re supposed to do nothing and ‘respect’ it. This is insane, and if put into any other context would be acknowledged as ridiculous. Even Spong, that liberal Bishop, acknowledges things,

“Conservative political and religious circles are rejoicing that faithful, monogamous marriage and a disciplined, self-chosen celibacy might be reestablished as the norms of this society—if not for moral reasons, at least for health reasons. They suggest that such a return to traditional morality alone will diminish the impact of these diseases. It is a powerful argument.”


“60% of the syphilis in America today is in gay men. Excuse me, men who have sex with men. Palm Springs has the highest number of syphilis cases in California. Palm Springs? I do not want to hear each week how many more of you are becoming hooked on meth. HIV infections are up as much as 40%. You cannot continue to allow yourselves and each other to act and live like this!”

These were not the words of a southern white minister or conservative Republican politician, but of Larry Kramer, life-long AIDS activist, liberal, and open homosexual. For all of his faults, he seems to know more about the real world than that Canadian senator who said hateful words with impunity. Or the 6 Supreme Court Judges who voted against the other 3 in Lawrence v. Texas, reading far more into the US Constitution than is actually present. As the West further depreciates morality, they do so ignorant of the nature of homosexuality; a changeable and harmful act consensually performed without criminal prosecution thanks to interpolations on a document whose authors expressly forbade such.
It is a pity that more than likely it will only be a matter of time before my work, for all of its’ success in citing only neutral or liberal sources for evidence, shall be deemed hate literature by future ‘tolerant’ legislatures. Indeed, in days as these anything that opposes the entity dubbed the Gay Rights Movement by some and the Homosexual Agenda by others shall be dubbed homophobia, which in fact devalues a real problem in some places. I do believe there is such a thing as homophobia, even if the Matthew Shepard murder was free from it. There are people who hate homosexuals just because of their sexual preferences. And what some of them do is abominable, disgusting, and indeed unrighteous.
But persecution does not imply justification. In the 1950s, the Western Allies removed their military zones from West Germany and the Federal Republic of Germany was formed. The political party that came to power in this new democracy was the Christian Democratic Union. One of their first actions was to outlaw the National Socialist German Democratic Workers Party, a.k.a. the NAZI Party. This outlawing could be argued by some to be a form of persecution, but would anyone with a decent morality say that the persecuted group in question was justified? I would hope not. But that is exactly the reasoning found in many efforts to proselytize individuals by the movement I described in this work.
My magic trick is over, but the illusion, or rather delusion continues. It is propagated by mass media, by organizations like PFLAG and the ACLU, by politicians of both Republican and Democratic tendencies, by scientists whose quests are comparable to the alchemists of old, by community leaders and their pressure groups, by ordinary people who know nothing different and unfortunately it’s all too powerful. If one doesn’t know what delusion this three fold beast is, then one has not been paying attention to what was written on these pages; written by an author living on a continent and across an ocean beyond Sodom and Gomorrah.






Appendix 1:

“They 'forget' to relate the address by ‘Dr. Anonymous’ at the 1972 APA convention.* Dr. ‘A’ spoke for 200 gay members of the association and for gay people at large when he spoke of the APA's repressive homophobia”.

The above quote was taken from a website I looked into for antithesis for this opus. It was written by a member of the Rainbow Alliance... They were attempting to refute the Traditional Values Coalition’s usage of the book Homosexuality and American Society. Now of course, since they used only sources that ideologically agreed with them (namely the book in question) I could only trust so much of what they said, but this part really struck me as interesting. Unfortunately I will be spoiling a twist for a movie to express the point.
In the well-made movie A Beautiful Mind the character John Nash very much believes that certain people who are really products of his hallucinations are real. It does not matter what the other people around him, from doctors to his own wife say, he retains the view that there is nothing wrong with his mind. Eventually, he finds out and finally seeks a way to deal with it. Yet, the important point is that Nash believed that his own mindset was sufficient to justify him not taking medications or getting some type of treatment, even barbaric looking treatment, for his problem. Indeed, he did not even believe that he had a problem.
I look at this the same way. Here is testimony from someone who as far as every credible and respected psychologists through the decades believed was mentally ill is claiming that in fact he’s okay, and so are a couple hundred or so of his associates. His primary justification is that he doesn’t think that he has a problem. Since when have decent decisions in the field of any science, least of all psychology, determined whether someone was ill because of what the patient said? Empirically speaking, it is a disaster for objectivity. What if 200 plus psychologists suffered from hallucinations, but at the same time said they were okay and had no problems. Would that be justification for removing hallucinations from the pervasive developmental disorders category? I would hope not.
Yet that is exactly what happened with the 1973 decision. A minority of the APA decided that because some of the proposed treatments for homosexually were disturbing and that some people who were homosexual believed that they had no mental disorder they should remove homosexually from the DSM-II list of disorders. Many mental and physical aliments have had in the past poor means of treatment, and yet people still consider them malevolent even if the victims in question do not feel any pain or problems with the illness. Lacking empirical data, lacking scientific observation, laden with subjectivity: these are not terms we associate with proper scientific inquiry and yet they make the foundation for that 1973 idea.





Appendix 2: (Writer’s Note: This Appendix is time sensitive; the Amendment mentioned has already been voted on and approved via referendum in the Commonwealth of Virginia.)

“Marriage is between a man and a woman.”


These were not the words of a white Protestant minister or a Conservative Republican, but rather those of the chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean. It is not truly appreciated just how much of a minority the sect that wants there to be a gay marriage in existence. For its ballot initiative, 61% of California opposed gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage is based off of a false assumption: that couples rather than individuals have the right to determine a marriage. Marriage is a fundamental right for individuals and contrary to what some pundits may tell you, homosexuals have the right to marry already in all 50 States, but they have to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. David Shapiro, editor of the Honolulu Star Bulletin, put it best:

“There’s no civil right to marry whomever you wish. Gay and lesbian couples aren’t the only ones who can’t get marriage licenses. You can’t get a license to marry your brother or sister. You can’t get a license to marry more than one person at a time. You can’t get a license to marry a 9-year-old child or your horse.”

On November 7th, 2006 Virginia will vote to further its preexisting ban on alternative marriages, which includes not just homosexuality but also cohabitation, polygamy, bigamy, and child marriages. In theory everything that deviates from the scientifically proven benevolent norm of one-man one-woman marriage shall not be given the legal protection of the standard in question. Of course, given this is politics numerous myths have arisen from political activists. Notably are the claims that non-marriage entities like hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and property rights will also be targeted. This is just not true.
The marriage amendment does not touch base on any of these issues, and it must be noted neither does sexual orientation. There have no recorded instances in which any major hospital in any state has refuse to let someone visit a friend or family member because of their sexual preferences. Now of course, there is a chance that they were denied because of the patient being in critical condition and the visitor interpreted this to be discrimination. Furthermore, any inheritance issues are resolved by making a will, just like how it is for the rest of us. These and other claims of addition restrictions are scare tactics, pure and simple.
Justice Martha B. Sosman, cast one of the dissenting votes in the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision to legalize gay marriage. Her points against gay marriage and the dangers of the Courts deciding the laws ring true even South of the Mason-Dixon border; her words shall be juxtaposed those that oppose the Virginia Amendment. Important to note are some claims by Jim Moran, Democratic Representative and a political legend in Northern Virginia. Remember, Justice Sosman is a legal professional and Moran is a professional politician.

Moran: “Nobody’s marriage is endangered. This is crazy.”

Sosman: “In considering whether the Legislature has a rational reason for postponing a dramatic change to the definition of marriage, it is surely pertinent to the inquiry to recognize that this proffered change affects not just a load-bearing wall of our social structure but the very cornerstone of that structure.”

Moran: “And this goes directly counter to what our Constitution is all about, prohibiting, limiting individual rights.”

Sosman: “Applying that deferential test in the manner it is customarily applied, the exclusion of gay and lesbian couples from the institution of civil marriage passes constitutional muster.”

Moran: “We shouldn’t be spending our time trying to seek political gain at the expense of people who want to live committed lives with each other.”

Sosman: “…it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences.”

This has to be done. There is a direct threat to heterosexual marriage from gay marriage and/or civil unions, just as there is a threat to it from frivolous divorce, starter marriages, and polygamy. Of the 5,700 couples that got civil unions in Vermont after that state legalized them “nearly 40 percent have had a previous heterosexual marriage.” Therefore obviously it is not as though there are zero side effects hitting the majority population. Had Courts not overstep their boundaries and, as the cliché goes, legislate from the bench, this Amendment would not be necessary. If people would just realize that there are harmful effects to permissiveness, that a right is not just something one wants to do but is an act that is not harmful to the individual or the community, and that there is more than bigotry opposing their agenda then maybe just maybe this work in its entirety would have been necessary to write.
But the fact is our laws are being threatened by Courts that do not acknowledge Separation of Powers outside of voting on nominees and therefore need something more to inhibit them from doing all the tasks allotted to the other branches of government and of course the people. Ergo, the Amendment is necessary and Constitutional.

[Blue Mountain]

But religious expression or even expression in general is well ignored in these three Western countries that do not have a Bill of Rights put into their laws.
He's wrong right out of the gate. Canada has the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms), and it's part of the constitution.

Nevertheless, the bill became law and now anyone who openly opposes or criticizes homosexual orientation in Canada can face as many as five years behind bars.

Wrong again. Bill C-250 does not make it illegal to speak out against homosexuality, either from the confines of the pulpit or anywhere else--see the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250) on the bill. It bans speech (other than private conversation) that incites hatred or advocates or promotes genocide against an identifiable group. Gays are now on that list alongside the religious and racial groups.

It is still legal in Canada for people to protest Pride Day parades by holding up signs that say "Homosexuality is a Sin" and "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". And they do.

[TX50]

You are committing a classic ad hominem fallacy when you repeatedly
emphasize that he is a Christian fundamentalist. His essay is not written from
a fundamentalist (or any sort of religious) position. As he says:

This shall be a case against homosexuality through the usage of secular
and liberal works.

And how do you know it is all "garbage" if you are unable yourself to "point
out the mistakes"?

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, if we look at pheremones and their affect on the brain, we can reason why homosexuals are attracted to each other and not to the opposite sex. Human apocrine auxillary glands contain volatile steroid hormones, a.k.a. pheromones, which are very effective at levels undetectable with our normal smelling system. All steroid hormones are derived from cholesterol. Since these pheromones have a steroidal structure, they probably began as cholesterol and were converted into pheromones through a biochemical pathway in the body.

The human organ that receives external cues via pheromones is called the vomeronasal organ (VNO). The VNO is a duct-like structure on the nasal septum, previously thought to exist only in newborns but has now been verified in adult humans as well.

Within the vomeronasal organ (VNO) are proteins that bind odorants, called OBP’s (odorant-binding proteins). These proteins can attach to an odorant, making it soluble and able to be transported to the blood and then throughout the body. Odorant-binding proteins (OBP’s) can also deactivate unacceptable pheromones and odorants by binding to them and inhibiting their reactivity
http://www.themanitoban.com/2001-2002/0403/features_11.shtml

This chain-like reaction starts with the detection of pheromones and ends in the response of the body. You will find some people visually attractive, but not get all worked up over them when getting up close enough to see if there is "chemistry". Research conducted by Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden studied the brain response of heterosexual women, lesbian women and heterosexual men to the pheromones. It showed that brain scans of lesbian women resembled a pattern of the heterosexual men. While another study showed that homosexual men respond to pheromones similar with heterosexual women.http://edu.love-shop.biz/post/pherom.html

So, be a homophobe, but you can't deny the logic of the chemistry of physical attraction. You can love your mom, but many factors (not covered by the above adequately) keep you from being attracted to you mom (thank goodness). This same system of chemistry causes you to be heterosexual or homosexual.

[Eos of the Eons]

There is a direct threat to heterosexual marriage from gay marriage and/or civil unions, just as there is a threat to it from frivolous divorce, starter marriages, and polygamy.

There is no threat to heterosexual marriage. Nobody will be blocked from getting a hetero marriage if gay people get married. I'd like them to show exactly what kind of a threat gay marriage is to hetero marriage.

The rest are also useless slippery slope arguments.

This "protect hetero marriage" nonsense is just something homophobes hide behind in order to not have to say why they are really homophobic.

[Sleepy]

The horse has bolted. You're not going to stop gay men having gay sex even in the most repressive society, no matter how many essays you write or jails you fill.

The author implicitly admits the danger is HIV, not homosexuality. We will eventually develop an anti-HIV vaccine. We will never stop consenting horny people from bonking each other.

I daresay most of the world's HIV carriers are heterosexuals in countries with strong anti-condom religious propaganda, or no access to condoms. Stick that one in your moralistic pipe and smoke it.

[Eos of the Eons]

Ah yes, there is some nutty consensus among homophobes to bash homosexuals for "bringing AIDS to North America".

Do these incredulous fools actually think North Americans would have never seen the HIV virus if it weren't for homosexuals?


Just as we do not know exactly who spread the virus from Cameroon to Kinshasa, how the virus spread from Africa to America is also not entirely clear. However, recent evidence suggests that the virus may have arrived via the Caribbean island of Haiti...
The genetic analysis then shows that the virus spread slowly from person to person on the island, before being transferred to the US, again probably by a single individual, at some point between 1969 and 1972.
For several years, Dugas was vilified as a 'mass spreader' of HIV and the original source of the HIV epidemic among gay men. However, four years after the publication of Shilts' article, Dr. Darrow repudiated his study, admitting its methods were flawed and that Shilts' had misrepresented its conclusions.
While Gaetan Dugas was a real person who did eventually die of AIDS, the Patient Zero story was not much more than myth and scaremongering. HIV in the US was to a large degree initially spread by gay men, but this occurred on a huge scale over many years, probably a long time before Dugas even began to travel.

http://www.avert.org/origins.htm


But the facts won't dispell the myths that prevail among those who want to blame homosexuals solely for the spread of the HIV virus.

[zombiebex]

Any 'scientific study' that mentions the 'homosexual agenda' is pretty much instantly ignored and dismissed by me. My gay friends and I often talk about the Gay Agenda. "So, Becca, what's the gay agenda for the day?" "Oh, I think we're going to get an oil change, hit the grocery store, then maybe rent some movies."

1) Homosexuality is a dangerous practice subject to legal restrictions (the author plays up well known stereotypes - gays are promiscous, gays are self- loathing, and gays have other mental afflictions).

What about the positive stereotypes? Gays are sensitive, emotional, creative. They make great hair dressers, interior decorators, so on. And why are we only talking about gay men?

2) Homosexuality is neither an innate nor learned quality but rather a "behavior" that can be stopped at any time. (Just ask Ted Haggard!)

********. Already mentioned the abysmal success rate in "curing" homosexuality, as well as many gays who report they knew they were gay without ever knowing what gay was.

3) Homosexuality is dangerous. Indeed, the author states "One of the lesser-known findings reveals that of all 20-year-old homosexuals 30% will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS before they reach their 30th birthday."

Is this just gay men again? Why is it always gay men? I'm sure you guys are checking these numbers.

4) Thus, homosexuality needs to be, if not outlawed, at least heavily restricted by law.

Outlaw homosexuality?? You can't do that anymore than you can outlaw heterosexuality! You can't outlaw what a person thinks, feels, wants, desires, prefers, and loves. You CAN outlaw same-sex marriage and sodomy. It's ridiculous, but they do it.

Fear of homosexuality, IMHO, once you boil down, dispel, and debunk all the arguments comes down to fear of sodomy. It's a man's fear of getting raped. (Or secret fantasy, apparently in some cases. coughTedHaggartcough)

A rational man doesn't have this fear. A rational man knows that gays are ordinary people who want to live ordinary lives. The irrational man paints them as sinners who do strange unnatural things that hide in the alleys of San Francisco, waiting jump them and have sex with them!!1! OMG PANIC!!1!

[huw-l]

sorry but this has to be posted everytime someone mentions the homosexual agenda

http://machall.com/index.php?strip_id=191

[Madalch]

1) Homosexuality is a dangerous practice subject to legal restrictions (the author plays up well known stereotypes - gays are promiscous, gays are self- loathing, and gays have other mental afflictions).

2) Homosexuality is neither an innate nor learned quality but rather a "behavior" that can be stopped at any time. (Just ask Ted Haggard!)

3) Homosexuality is dangerous. Indeed, the author states "One of the lesser-known findings reveals that of all 20-year-old homosexuals 30% will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS before they reach their 30th birthday."

4) Thus, homosexuality needs to be, if not outlawed, at least heavily restricted by law.
You could make a similar case against smoking. It's something learned, it's subject to legal restrictions, and it's dangerous.

Actually, smoking's worse. You never have to worry about inhaling second-hand semen in a bar.

At least not any kind of bar I've ever been to.

[Terry]

He is saying that outlawing homosexuality is the same as outlawing Nazism. Sure, it might be persecution, but it's still justified.

Well, other than just Godwining himself... that's... stunning. So me having a cuddle with my boyfriend is in his mind the rough equivalent of rounding up as many of the Jews in europe as possible and killing them?

[Dilb]

BTW, though I hate to have to agree with him:
incest (n): sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry.

m-w.com/dictionary/incest

Adult siblings could have a consensual incestuous relationship.

It's something of a small issue, actually. There are some cousins who want to marry, but incest laws make that illegal. However, since laws against incest between consenting adults are justified based on the problem of inbreeding, some states allow cousins to marry if they are incapable of having children. It's really an interesting diversity of laws (http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states).

[strathmeyer]

Please, fill us in on the dangers of inbreeding.

[blobru]

Sexuality is an innate* orientation.
(Since this is what he is arguing against it's fair to assume the opposite for the sake of our counter-argument).
An orientation is a set of preferences.
Other plausible assumptions:
#1) There are four sexual orientations: homosexual (prefer same sex), heterosexual (opposite sex), bisexual (either sex), asexual (no sex).
#2) Change doesn't imply choice.
#3) Behavior doesn't imply preference.

Now look at some of his claims:

Spartan tradition prescribed homosexuality for its soldiers.
So what? This is a behavior. It says nothing about each soldier's preference.
His claim:
Some people's sexual behavior changes --> their sexual preference must have changed --> sexual orientation is not innate.
Response: Nope. (because #3)

Many women in a study reported their preference had changed over the years.
So what? That doesn't mean they chose a different preference. (In my experience, you don't choose whom you're attracted to.)
His claim:
Some people's sexual preference changes --> (sexual preference is a choice) --> sexual orientation is not innate.
Response: Nope. (because #2)

In other places he's more simplistic. Anne Heche... what's she? Bisexual? But you can't be both!
Unless bisexuality is a possible orientation, in which case we would expect sexual preference to change for some people (namely, bisexuals).
His claim:
Some people's sexual preferences change --> you can't [innately] be both --> sexual orientation is not innate.
Response: Nope. (because #1)

He also quotes a gay activist speaking out against the high incidence of syphilis in the gay community. This is obviously out of context, and an argument for safe sex, not against same sex.

*Encarta: relating to qualities that a person or animal is born with.

[Art Vandelay]

This is my first thread (and one of my first posts), so I apologize about not being able to link directly.You could try putting your links inside [code] tags.

"And yet even in a land that does have a Bill of Rights, the United States of America, homophobia watchdog groups lump together those who are genuine hate-mongers with people who disagree with the Homosexual Agenda. A good example of this are those who claim that the Matthew Shepard killing was not based on homophobia. People who say this are looked upon the same way as people who deny the Holocaust and yet unlike the latter the former does have a case."Are you seriously denying that claim?

He is saying that outlawing homosexuality is the same as outlawing Nazism. Sure, it might be persecution, but it's still justified.No, he's not comparing homosexuality to Nazism, he's comparing "outlawing homosexuality is bad because it's persecution" to "outlawing Nazism is bad because it's persecution".

He's wrong right out of the gate. Canada has the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms), and it's part of the constitution.But it's not the Bill of Rights. Did you really expect that the fact that you posted a complete non sequitur would be unnoticed?

Wrong again. Bill C-250 does not make it illegal to speak out against homosexuality, either from the confines of the pulpit or anywhere else--see the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_C-250) on the bill. It bans speech (other than private conversation) that incites hatred or advocates or promotes genocide against an identifiable group.You just contradicted yourself. As speaking out against homosexuality incites hatred, it is outlawed.

It is still legal in Canada for people to protest Pride Day parades by holding up signs that say "Homosexuality is a Sin" and "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve". And they do.Unless, of course, the Crown can find twelve people that can be convinced that it caused, or was likely to cause, a public disturbance.

There is no threat to heterosexual marriage. Nobody will be blocked from getting a hetero marriage if gay people get married. I'd like them to show exactly what kind of a threat gay marriage is to hetero marriage.You're a liar. You have no interest at all in being shown what the threat is. I am sick and tired of pro-homosexual bigots refusing to even listen to the opposing arguments, and then pretending that their failure to see a basis for the opposing position is due to the absence of such a bais. To paraphrase The Incredibles, if all relationships are special, then none are.

Ah yes, there is some nutty consensus among homophobes to bash homosexuals for "bringing AIDS to North America".

Do these incredulous fools actually think North Americans would have never seen the HIV virus if it weren't for homosexuals? It certainly wouldn't be as prevalent. The clear fact is that homosexuals in the late 70's and early 80's, in general, acted in a massively irresponsible manner which put themselves and others at risk, then threw a hissy fit when the government didn't act with satisfactory alacrity in fixing the problems that homosexuals brought on themselves.

But the facts won't dispell the myths that prevail among those who want to blame homosexuals solely for the spread of the HIV virus.And how many people believe that?

Any 'scientific study' that mentions the 'homosexual agenda' is pretty much instantly ignored and dismissed by me.And what is the "proper" term? Granted, much of the "homosexual agenda" is hyperbole, but it is undeniable that there is a wide range of positions for which opposition is labeled as "homophobic".

Is this just gay men again? Why is it always gay men? I'm sure you guys are checking these numbers.I doubt it's true for gay men, but it certainly isn't true for straight men.

Outlaw homosexuality?? You can't do that anymore than you can outlaw heterosexuality! You can't outlaw what a person thinks, feels, wants, desires, prefers, and loves. You CAN outlaw same-sex marriage and sodomy. It's a sign of a disingenuous argument that the author insists on interpreting words under a specific meaning, even when it's obvious that the user of those words intends a different meaning.

Well, other than just Godwining himself... that's... stunning. So me having a cuddle with my boyfriend is in his mind the rough equivalent of rounding up as many of the Jews in europe as possible and killing them?Maybe you should respond to what he actually said, rather than a piece of hearsay.

[Art Vandelay]

All acts that are committed by consenting adults in private should be legalized and any effort to regulate such behaviors is a violation of the US Constitution. That's not quite right. It should be "involving only", not "committed by".

If the three theses above are disproved, then the whole of the movement carries no intellectual weight or accountability. Only the first one really matters, and it cannot be disporoved, as it is not a factual claim, it is a statement regarding morality.

And it begins with the statement “constitutional right to privacy”. However uncomfortable it makes the reader, the fact remains that there is no such thing. Nowhere in the Constitution is privacy even alluded to as a right. This is assumption rather than interpretation. That is patently false, and completely ignores the extensive Constitutional arguments it support of it. To disagree with it is one thing, to say it has no Constitutional basis something else entirely. The fact that the Constitution guarantees that people's houses shall be secure, at the very least, alludes to a right of privacy in those houses.

And that is where it gets very problematic. It goes back to why the United States was founded in the first place. The United States of America was founded on the belief that written law should be abided by all, and by the letter.But more fundamentally, it was founded on the belief that governments are established among men to secure rights. As not having one's neighbors engage in sodomy is not a right, the government has no business making laws about.

In other words, the very method of interpreting law that our Founding Fathers fought against was implemented in that court case. This ignores the fact that the British were prohibitng freedom of the people, while the Supreme Court is prohibiting freedom of the government to oppress people.

Each point that comprised the case is supported by undeniable fact.Composed, not comprised.

“Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ is, at best, facetious.”According to that argument, since slavery is deeply rooted in this nation's history, slavery does not contradict the concept of liberty.

By their ‘modern’ standards, there is nothing wrong with a 50 year-old man having sex with a 15 year old girl. Is that what we are headed for? First, saying that something is legal is not the same as saying that there is nothing wrong with it. Secondly, the central issue is the age of consent, not freedom of consenting adults.

“The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution.”If the Court allows the government to act without any basis in enforcing rights, then it has no more legitimacy than the Mafia.

In the way that this Court disregarded written law and Constitutional tradition future ones could easily do the same.And that possibility would exist regardless of the current Court's decision.

Worse yet, the terms like “minors”, “public conduct”, and “injured or coerced” are not legally defined, meaning that future appellants could twist the words to fit their worldview.That is true of anything. According to this logic, we should outlaw smoking, since minors shouldn't smoke, and there is no nonarbitrary definition of "minor". And are those terms really not legally defined? I find that rather hard to believe.

“Those who dichotomize sexual orientation into pure biological or social causation fall into a dangerous quagmire. To deny any role for biology affirms an untenable scientific view of human development. Equally harsh and deterministic would be to deny the significance of the environment.” Merely arguing that there is a role for the environment hardly constitutes evidence that specific programs work.

[Blue Mountain]

But it's not the Bill of Rights. Did you really expect that the fact that you posted a complete non sequitur would be unnoticed?
It may not be called THE BILL OF RIGHTS, but it has the same intent: to lay out a set of rights enjoyed by the citizens of Canada.

You just contradicted yourself. As speaking out against homosexuality incites hatred, it is outlawed.
This is something that the likes of Fox's Bill O'Rielley [sp] will never quite figure out. Speaking against or opposing something is not the same as hating something or being treasonous. "I don't think gays should be allowed to marry and here's why" is protected speech in Canada under the Charter. "I think all fags should be killed and I encourage you to storm the nearest gay bar with baseball bats" isn't.

Art, I'm familiar enough with your "never quite getting the point" style of positng here that I will make only this one response to your ridiculous assertions. Any attempts to draw me into one of your goalpost shifting conversations will be steadfastly ignored.

P.S. Read up on what "non sequitur" really means.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2657432#post2657432)
There is no threat to heterosexual marriage. Nobody will be blocked from getting a hetero marriage if gay people get married. I'd like them to show exactly what kind of a threat gay marriage is to hetero marriage.

You're a liar. You have no interest at all in being shown what the threat is. I am sick and tired of pro-homosexual bigots refusing to even listen to the opposing arguments, and then pretending that their failure to see a basis for the opposing position is due to the absence of such a bais. To paraphrase The Incredibles, if all relationships are special, then none are.


Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2657499#post2657499)
Ah yes, there is some nutty consensus among homophobes to bash homosexuals for "bringing AIDS to North America".

Do these incredulous fools actually think North Americans would have never seen the HIV virus if it weren't for homosexuals?

It certainly wouldn't be as prevalent. The clear fact is that homosexuals in the late 70's and early 80's, in general, acted in a massively irresponsible manner which put themselves and others at risk, then threw a hissy fit when the government didn't act with satisfactory alacrity in fixing the problems that homosexuals brought on themselves.


LOL

Actually, I'd love to hear what the "real threat" is to heterosexual marriage is when it comes to gay people getting married. You haven't come up with any useful information on that, so why attack my saying I'd like to hear one?

Heterosexuals were acting JUST as irresponsible. Did you ever hear of the sixties, the seventies and free love? A lot of heterosexuals were being "players" in the eighties too. That is why heterosexuals get AIDS too. HIV doesn't care if you are gay or straight, it will get passed on no matter who is acting irresponsibly.

I'm all ears about how gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. I don't understand why you would say I'm not. You've spit venom at me before, and I don't understand why you get so hot under the collar about my posts. Got something against homosexuals and females?

[fuelair]

Here is the essay minus the citations (I can't post links yet). The essay is not copyrighted, and I didn't read a rule anywhere that said I can't reprint an essay. If I'm breaking any rule feel free to delete this post. If you simply have to see the citations follow the original links. Like I said this essay is a lot of dribble.Just to be technical, (and I am not in agreement with it - just noting it is what is now law in the US) any writing (original), art, music, sculpture, etc. is copyright by virtue of its' creation as soon as it is created. The (in this case) writer is free to not enforce copyright and may even be unaware of it but.....:)

[kmortis]

And why are we only talking about gay men?


Well, duh! It's cause the lesbians are all hotties doin' it up for the camera. That gets the "researcher" all hot and bothered and he's got to go and...um...pray, yeah, pray. That's what all the low moaning and calling of the deity is, praying.

I actually met an honest homophobe once. He claimed that he found lesbians as disugsting as he did as gays. It was almost refreshing to hear an ecumenical bigot.

[kmortis]

You're a liar. You have no interest at all in being shown what the threat is. I am sick and tired of pro-homosexual bigots refusing to even listen to the opposing arguments, and then pretending that their failure to see a basis for the opposing position is due to the absence of such a bais. To paraphrase The Incredibles, if all relationships are special, then none are.


And you're a f***wit. See? I can name call too. Now stop that.

Ok...so what IS the threat to us heteros? If Mama Mortis and I wanted to become "legal" would Terry and his partner make it impossible for us to do so? Good thing RSL just got married, 'dem queers woulda stopped 'em dead in their tracks. I've seriously LOOKED for a detriment to hetero couples if gay marriage was legalized. There just isn't one cause it's not a zero-sum game. The biggest benefactors to legalized gay marriage would be the divorce lawyers.

So, again I ask, what logical reason could there be for not allowing gay marriage?

[Yahzi]

To paraphrase The Incredibles, if all relationships are special, then none are.
In that case, to preserve the specialness of my marriage, I'm outlawing your marriage.

[autumn1971]

re. privacy in the Bill of Rights, we (in an historically remembered America) are guaranteed security in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects".
This part of Amendment IV grants rights of privacy to all citizens far greater than seem to be presently allowed, e.g., random screening of government employees for drugs, checkpoints where all drivers are checked for possible intoxication, etc.

[qayak]

I. “We still have a long way to go in achieving full equality, but the court’s recognition that all women and men, regardless of their sexuality, have a constitutional right to privacy is a huge step forward.”

--National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy

These were the words, some of many, spoken that praised the June 26th, 2003 Supreme Court decision that struck down all anti-sodomy laws in the United States of America. There were many things said, but this is probably the best one to note since it covers the whole of the misconceptions that were mandated in order to legalize the act of homosexuality.

Sodomy has little if anything to do with homosexuality. By definition, only 50% of homosexuals are capable of sodomy. 100% of heterosexuals are capable.

A small percentage of the population is homosexual as opposed to the vast majority being heterosexual. And only 50% can engage in sodomy.

Many studies put the number of heterosexuals who state that sodomy is a regular part of their sex life at 50% or higher.

50% of a very large number is always more than 50% of a very small number.

Based on the numbers alone, the Supreme Court's decision was vastly more beneficial to heterosexuals than to homosexuals.

It is the author of this article that has the misconceptions about sodomy and homosexuality, not the "Homosexual Agenda" of his fantasy. He is homophobic.

They interviewed a former girlfriend of one of the murderers, who said, “I don't think it was a hate crime at all” in an interview. When McKinney, one of the murderers, was asked if it was done because Shepard was gay he replied, “I would say it wasn't a hate crime. All I wanted to do was beat him up and rob him." Apparently, the only reason why the defense for the two murderers even brought up the idea of sexual orientation was in order to plead the “gay panic defense, testifying that they attacked Shepard because he made flirtatious advances towards them.” Regardless, the murder is still labeled a hate crime even as doctors say that withdrawal symptoms of the drugs McKinney and Henderson took included aggression.

The defense brought sexual orientation and the defendant claimed to attack the victim because he made sexual advances. When this this strategy didn't work out so well, suddenly they change their mind.

Should we take the word of an admitted liar and killer? Should we take the word of someone who has proven they will say anything to keep from having to take responsibility for their actions?

Who's doctors say aggression is a symptom of withdrawal?

Even if aggression is a symptomn of withdrawal suffered by the defendant, does that mean he couldn't have been aggressive toward a homosexual simply for being homosexual? No, it doesn't. In fact, it would tend to show the opposite.

Shouldn't this guy be charged with perjury for admitting to lying under oath?

How can anyone take this article seriously? It is a simple job to rebutt it.

[catbasket]

You're a liar. You have no interest at all in being shown what the threat is. I am sick and tired of pro-homosexual bigots refusing to even listen to the opposing arguments <snip>
Maybe I'm suffering from a lack of imagination but I just cannot figure out what threat homosexual marriage would be to heterosexual marriage. Please enlighten me.

[Art Vandelay]

It may not be called THE BILL OF RIGHTS, but it has the same intent: to lay out a set of rights enjoyed by the citizens of Canada.The point, which you miss (thus making your accusation that I am missing the point rather hypocritical) is that freedom of speech is not one of the right secured for Canadian citizens.

This is something that the likes of Fox's Bill O'Rielley [sp] will never quite figure out. Speaking against or opposing something is not the same as hating something or being treasonous. I didn't say it is. I said that speaking out against something can incite hatred.

"I don't think gays should be allowed to marry and here's why" is protected speech in Canada under the Charter.For your argument to be valid, you have to present a statement cricizing homsexuals, not a behavior which a homosexual may or may not participate in.

As a reminder, this is the assertion being debated:
Nevertheless, the bill became law and now anyone who openly opposes or criticizes homosexual orientation in Canada can face as many as five years behind bars.
According to you, this is false, but you have yet to present a clear argument as to why that is so. Apparently, your implicit argument, which you didn't bother outright saying, is that there are some forms of criticism that would not be illegal. But, to me, "face" means "incur the possibility". As long as criticizing homsexual orientation creates significant threat of being prosecuted, I consider the claim in question to be true, even if there are some forms of criticism that never result in prosecution. The threat of prosecution, or the intentional fostering of a fear of prosecution, is a violation of the freedom of speech, even if it never materializes.

You haven't come up with any useful information on that, Yes, I have, as have quite a number of other people. You just can't be bothered to read the multitude of other threads and articles in which that information is presented.

so why attack my saying I'd like to hear one?I thought I already answered that one: "I am sick and tired of pro-homosexual bigots refusing to even listen to the opposing arguments, and then pretending that their failure to see a basis for the opposing position is due to the absence of such a [basis]." You don't listen very well, do you?

I don't understand why you would say I'm not.Umm... let's see. You declared that Bush's opposition to stem-cell research is evidence of ignorance, and I pointed out that the claim that something is unethical is a question of opinion, not fact, and thus the attribution of ignorance is completely inappropriate. Rather than respond, you simply declared that you were putting me on ignore (which, apparently, you did not actually do). In another thread, I called you on three ridiculous claims that you made (one being that Bush is a YEC), and you lied and claimed that you had presented cites for those claims. And you have trouble seeing why I might doubt your sincerity?

You've spit venom at me before, and I don't understand why you get so hot under the collar about my posts. Got something against homosexuals and females?I referred to you with feminine pronouns only because of your avatar; I was not certain of your sex, and if you have previously mentioned your orientation, I don't remember it. My animus towards you is motivated entirely by your dishonest and childish refusal to engage opposing points of view, and your attempt to attribute it to bigotry is just yet another example of your dishonesty.

And you're a f***wit. See? I can name call too. Now stop that.The difference is that you are simply slinging insults, while I am providing factual information. It is objectively true that Eos of the Eons is a liar.

Ok...so what IS the threat to us heteros?This has already been repeatedly covered, but it has fallen on deaf ears. Society has created a mystique about marriage. If marriage is simply what 51% of the electorate thought marriage should be at the last election (or, worse, whatever the latest proclamation of a bunch of unelected activist judges happens to be), that mystique evaporates.

"Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. That's not my opinion, that's objective fact. For us to have an institution called "marriage" that includes same-sex couples, we would have discard the old meaning. This is a largely all-or-nothing proposition; you can't pick and choose what parts of the meaning you want to retain. (Note that definition and meaning are entirely different things; one could create a new concept that has the same definition as old marriage, except with same-sex couples included, but that doesn't mean that it would mean the same to people). Same-sex marriage proponents want us to expand the concept of marriage to include same-sex couples, but that's simply not possible. The only option available is to toss the current concept of marriage, and create a new concept of "marriage" that has the same name but a different meaning.

There just isn't one cause it's not a zero-sum game. There seems to be some confusion regarding game theory terms. Simply because it's not zero-sum doesn't mean that it's not Pareto Optimal.

So, again I ask, what logical reason could there be for not allowing gay marriage?What logical reason is there for denying any marriage, then? A lot of people who say that everyone should be allowed to marry whomever they want start making excuses once I point out that their position leads to the conclusion that laws against incestuous marriage should be scrapped. And what of the concept of "scam marriage", such as when two people get married to allow one of them to get a green card? Does this concept have any meaning? If people have the right to marry anyone they want, then don't they have the right to marry for any reason they want?

The question here is whether marriage has any meaning beyond simply a contract between two people. If not, then what reason is there restrict it to people of the opposite sex? In that case, I, like you, don't see any. But do we really believe that? If so, why are homosexuals not satisfied with civil unions? Why do they claim that that the prohibition against same-sex marriage is especially onerous to them? If marriage is simply a contractual arrangement, why would only homosexuals want to make that arrangement with members of the same sex? Heck, if my main purpose in getting married is to secure SS benefits and the like, wouldn't a man be a more rational choice than a woman for me?

On the other hand, if there is something unique in the marital relationship, how can you so blithely declare that it the sex of the members has nothing to do with it?

[Schneibster]

You're a liar. You have no interest at all in being shown what the threat is. I am sick and tired of pro-homosexual bigots refusing to even listen to the opposing arguments, and then pretending that their failure to see a basis for the opposing position is due to the absence of such a bais. To paraphrase The Incredibles, if all relationships are special, then none are.See, this is why I don't bother to read Art. "Pro-homosexual bigots?" I've seen some idiots on this board, but short of ExtremeSkeptic, this is probably about the stupidest single thing I've seen anyone here say.

And topped with a logical fallacy: "...if all relationships are special, then none are." Drivel of the first order. DNFTT.

Meanwhile, not one single point the author of that essay makes withstands critical scrutiny. Then again, screeds by bigots rarely (if ever) do. I'll be frank: I stopped reading when I got to "Homosexual Agenda." There's no point in reading further; it's a conspiracy theory.

[blobru]

Actually, I'd love to hear what the "real threat" is to heterosexual marriage is when it comes to gay people getting married.
Maybe I'm suffering from a lack of imagination but I just cannot figure out what threat homosexual marriage would be to heterosexual marriage.

I know you guys were talking to Art, but for the record, here's the only one I could find in "Beyond Soddom and Gammorah":

[Justice] Sosman: “…it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences.”
This has to be done. There is a direct threat to heterosexual marriage from gay marriage and/or civil unions, just as there is a threat to it from frivolous divorce, starter marriages, and polygamy. Of the 5,700 couples that got civil unions in Vermont after that state legalized them “nearly 40 percent have had a previous heterosexual marriage.” Therefore obviously it is not as though there are zero side effects hitting the majority population.

Analysis:

Sosman: “…it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences.”
How will that certainty will be attained exactly?
This has to be done. There is a direct threat to heterosexual marriage from gay marriage and/or civil unions, just as there is a threat to it from frivolous divorce, starter marriages, and polygamy.
Actually, there is a direct threat to marriage from all divorce. Meaning opponents of gay marriage who see it as a threat should be working with equal zeal to outlaw heterosexual divorce; or even more zeal as most divorces aren't the result of a homosexual liason.
Of the 5,700 couples that got civil unions in Vermont after that state legalized them “nearly 40 percent have had a previous heterosexual marriage.”
No cause and effect. Assumes their motivation for getting divorced was to enter into the civil union; and otherwise, they would still be married.
Therefore obviously it is not as though there are zero side effects hitting the majority population.
Not proven that there are any, or that they are harmful.

Not very convincing, this Gryboski...

[zombiebex]

Sodomy has little if anything to do with homosexuality. By definition, only 50% of homosexuals are capable of sodomy. 100% of heterosexuals are capable.

Thanks to... let's say "modern technology," this isn't entirely true. How many lesbians do engage in it, I have no idea. But it's entirely possible.

A small percentage of the population is homosexual as opposed to the vast majority being heterosexual. And only 50% can engage in sodomy.

Many studies put the number of heterosexuals who state that sodomy is a regular part of their sex life at 50% or higher.

One of my dearest friends is a homosexual male. Once I inquired about his sex life, being incredibly curious. He stated that he and his partner never engaged in sodomy. The very idea grossed the both of them out. Lord knows I have no interest in it.

50% of a very large number is always more than 50% of a very small number.

Based on the numbers alone, the Supreme Court's decision was vastly more beneficial to heterosexuals than to homosexuals.

It is the author of this article that has the misconceptions about sodomy and homosexuality, not the "Homosexual Agenda" of his fantasy. He is homophobic.

Like I say, the entire argument against homosexuality comes down to sodomy. It introduces the frightening possibility that a male can actually be raped! The ultimate in crimes where the victim is made to feel powerless.

These same men that hate homosexuality (only in males) are the same men that reject showing anything in themselves that could be conceived as feminine. In this day and age where men and women are equals, where men are no longer the providers and protectors, what is left for them to define themselves by? Easy. Everything that is not feminine. These men reject anything that could be considered feminine in themselves and the ultimate in that is the ability to be raped.

[Escuerd]

See, this is why I don't bother to read Art. "Pro-homosexual bigots?" I've seen some idiots on this board, but short of ExtremeSkeptic, this is probably about the stupidest single thing I've seen anyone here say.

And topped with a logical fallacy: "...if all relationships are special, then none are." Drivel of the first order. DNFTT.

While I don't think that such a thing as pro-homosexual bigotry is terribly common, there is unfortunately plenty of pro-homosexual stupidity and dishonesty (mind you this is coming from the perspective of a very pro-homosexual person). I hate seeing disingenuous arguments given to support a position that I hold, and at first glance what it looks like to me is that much of what Art's written in this thread is to counteract some of these arguments (though you also might note that he replied to several of the points quoted by the OP as well, which should tip you off that he's something other than an anti-gay crusader).

[catbasket]

"Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. That's not my opinion, that's objective fact. For us to have an institution called "marriage" that includes same-sex couples, we would have discard the old meaning. This is a largely all-or-nothing proposition; you can't pick and choose what parts of the meaning you want to retain.

So that's the great semantic threat to heterosexual marriage? Is that the argument?

Of the 5,700 couples that got civil unions in Vermont after that state legalized them “nearly 40 percent have had a previous heterosexual marriage.” Therefore obviously it is not as though there are zero side effects hitting the majority population.

So because of the legality of civil unions the formerly heterosexual forty percent have suddenly decided to become homosexual? To me, that's what he really seems to be saying.

Wow. We have civil unions in the UK. I must warn my wife of this evil semantic attack on our marriage and the possibility that I will suddenly decide to be homosexual.

:mybrainhurtsicon

[autumn1971]

Quick post here, but doesn't the legal definition of sodomy include all forms of oral sex? I am almost sure that it does in Florida, but we allow first cousins to wed, so what do we know (no, really, what do we know in this twelve fingered, NASCAR mad state)?

[blobru]

This has already been repeatedly covered, but it has fallen on deaf ears. Society has created a mystique about marriage. If marriage is simply what 51% of the electorate thought marriage should be at the last election (or, worse, whatever the latest proclamation of a bunch of unelected activist judges happens to be), that mystique evaporates.

The Canadian supreme court upheld the federal government's decision to allow same sex marriages... mystique yet to evaporate (if I'm reading this stupid mystique-evaporometer right, that is).

"Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. That's not my opinion, that's objective fact. For us to have an institution called "marriage" that includes same-sex couples, we would have discard the old meaning. This is a largely all-or-nothing proposition; you can't pick and choose what parts of the meaning you want to retain. (Note that definition and meaning are entirely different things; one could create a new concept that has the same definition as old marriage, except with same-sex couples included, but that doesn't mean that it would mean the same to people). Same-sex marriage proponents want us to expand the concept of marriage to include same-sex couples, but that's simply not possible. The only option available is to toss the current concept of marriage, and create a new concept of "marriage" that has the same name but a different meaning.

Gosh, that sounds serious.
However, traditional definitions of "voter", a pretty crucial concept as well, have been expanded to include non-gentry, non-whites, and women, without inducing anomie.
I think "marriage" will be ok.

What logical reason is there for denying any marriage, then? A lot of people who say that everyone should be allowed to marry whomever they want start making excuses once I point out that their position leads to the conclusion that laws against incestuous marriage should be scrapped. And what of the concept of "scam marriage", such as when two people get married to allow one of them to get a green card? Does this concept have any meaning? If people have the right to marry anyone they want, then don't they have the right to marry for any reason they want?

Same sex marriage doesn't assume marrying anyone for any reason you want. Alternative marriage... proposals <ahem>... would each have to be argued on their own merits.

The question here is whether marriage has any meaning beyond simply a contract between two people. If not, then what reason is there restrict it to people of the opposite sex? In that case, I, like you, don't see any. But do we really believe that? If so, why are homosexuals not satisfied with civil unions? Why do they claim that that the prohibition against same-sex marriage is especially onerous to them? If marriage is simply a contractual arrangement, why would only homosexuals want to make that arrangement with members of the same sex?

It doesn't follow from marriage being more than a contract that it should be restricted to people of opposite sex.

Heck, if my main purpose in getting married is to secure SS benefits and the like, wouldn't a man be a more rational choice than a woman for me?

Yes.

[Taffer]

To paraphrase The Incredibles, if all relationships are special, then none are.

WTF is that even supposed to mean?

[Foster Zygote]

Please, fill us in on the dangers of inbreeding.

OK

[kmortis]

The difference is that you are simply slinging insults, while I am providing factual information. It is objectively true that Eos of the Eons is a liar.
Using the same criteria for quality of evidence that you provide, I claim that my statement is also objectively true. You ARE a f***wit.

This has already been repeatedly covered, but it has fallen on deaf ears. Society has created a mystique about marriage. If marriage is simply what 51% of the electorate thought marriage should be at the last election (or, worse, whatever the latest proclamation of a bunch of unelected activist judges happens to be), that mystique evaporates.
Well, if it's been covered in that cesspit of a fora called Politics & Current Events, then I'd not have seen it. Thanks for repeating it here.



"Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. That's not my opinion, that's objective fact. For us to have an institution called "marriage" that includes same-sex couples, we would have discard the old meaning. This is a largely all-or-nothing proposition; you can't pick and choose what parts of the meaning you want to retain. (Note that definition and meaning are entirely different things; one could create a new concept that has the same definition as old marriage, except with same-sex couples included, but that doesn't mean that it would mean the same to people). Same-sex marriage proponents want us to expand the concept of marriage to include same-sex couples, but that's simply not possible. The only option available is to toss the current concept of marriage, and create a new concept of "marriage" that has the same name but a different meaning.
OBJECTIVE FACT? Not to Larsen you, but...Evidence? What possible rational can you put forth saying that the meaning of ANY word has a non-relativistic meaning? Language use drifts due to usage. When's the last time "good day" had a religious connotation? Are you going to send RSL a month's worth of honey?

Now, who's definition of marriage? From a legalistic point of view, I don't see how that can be supported. Marriage, at its base, is a contract between two people, there's a lot of other fluff and bluster attached, but from the State's POV, that's it. The State over sees this, due to the vested interest in maintaining a solid base (i.e. taxes, benefits, estates etc.). I fail to see where the State has any business regulating the man/woman position. There is a strong case for incestuous marriages though, from a public health point of view. There exists plenty of evidence to support the claim that offspring from an incestuous relationship has increased risk of genetic defects, thereby possibly causing an undue burden on the public health system.

The same case cannot be made for gay marriage. Seeing as half (e.g. gay men) are incapable of carrying a child to term, there cannot be any issue there. Even the lesbians, if they so choose to go the artificial insemination route, just have to avoid a close relative for a donor. A good portion of both genders, if they desire kids, will probably adopt. This is a good thing. Less kids in the adoption que.

So, beyond a religious dictum ("Marriage is between a man and a woman"), why should the State restrict marriage as such? Why shouldn't a gay couple be afforded the same protections that a heterosexual couple is? If they amass wealth, why can't they have the same onerous death tax levied against them? Why can't the lesbian couple have the same health care protections (i.e. power of attorney) that hetero couples are allowed?

There seems to be some confusion regarding game theory terms. Simply because it's not zero-sum doesn't mean that it's not Pareto Optimal.
However, you still haven't shown an actual HARM to hetero couples. What benefits will be taken away? What extra hoop will they have to jump through? What extra tax will they have to pay? So far your only argument has been a semantic one. And a semantic one based in a religious definition at that.

What logical reason is there for denying any marriage, then? A lot of people who say that everyone should be allowed to marry whomever they want start making excuses once I point out that their position leads to the conclusion that laws against incestuous marriage should be scrapped. And what of the concept of "scam marriage", such as when two people get married to allow one of them to get a green card? Does this concept have any meaning? If people have the right to marry anyone they want, then don't they have the right to marry for any reason they want?
Oh, you are arguing the "slippery slope" argument. Oh, ok. So it's not any real or imagined harm to hetero couples that you're interested in, just strawmen. I get it now.

I've already covered incestuous marriages (the State can still regulate on the grounds of Public Health), so I'm not going to cover it again. So called "scam marriages", they happen NOW. That's an immigration problem, not one of gays getting married. No one is going to marry their dog, as animals are not able to enter into contracts. Polyandry/polyamorous relations are a non-sequitor as they're self-correcting. There are so few people who can handle them, they'd never really go anywhere. Did I catch all the "slope" talking points?

The question here is whether marriage has any meaning beyond simply a contract between two people. If not, then what reason is there restrict it to people of the opposite sex? In that case, I, like you, don't see any. But do we really believe that? If so, why are homosexuals not satisfied with civil unions? Why do they claim that that the prohibition against same-sex marriage is especially onerous to them? If marriage is simply a contractual arrangement, why would only homosexuals want to make that arrangement with members of the same sex? Heck, if my main purpose in getting married is to secure SS benefits and the like, wouldn't a man be a more rational choice than a woman for me?

On the other hand, if there is something unique in the marital relationship, how can you so blithely declare that it the sex of the members has nothing to do with it?
Well, you're mixing up semantic levels here. From a legal POV, it IS just a contract. From an emotional level, it's not. Law, however, should only be made for legal reasons, not emotional ones. If you don't want gay marriages, then don't marry a man, but to restrict others because your emotional state doesn't agree with them, is not a valid argument.

I have asked for you to provide evidence of harm. You have provided a semantic argument and a slippery slope argument. No evidence. Nothing you have presented thus far would cause harm to heterosexual couples.

You have, however, presented good evidence that you are, in deed, a f***wit.

[Blue Mountain]

*Sigh* Earlier in this thread one of our less learned but more prolific posters stated there is no right to free speech in Canada. Should anyone think this assertion is actually true, I would like to point them to section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section_Two_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and _Freedoms), which states:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
In the face of such incredible and arrogant ignorance, I am seriously contemplating putting that poster on ignore. That would be a first for me on this board, who read though a lot of what Christopera posted, and still look at threads started by Amy Wilson.

[kmortis]

*Sigh* Earlier in this thread one of our less learned but more prolific posters stated there is no right to free speech in Canada. Should anyone think this assertion is actually true, I would like to point them to section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section_Two_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and _Freedoms), which states:

In the face of such incredible and arrogant ignorance, I am seriously contemplating putting that poster on ignore. That would be a first for me on this board, who read though a lot of what Christopera posted, and still look at threads started by Amy Wilson.
* kmortis stamps feet on floor petulantly

But it's not CALLED the Bill of Rights! Therefore it can't protect your rights! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[Cuddles]

"God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

Clearly that's where god went wrong. Gay men can't have children, so if he had made Steve instead of Eve humans wouldn't have taken over the world. Obviously god made women because he hated the dinosaurs.

[JJR]

Actually, there IS something wrong with the homosexual community, but it has nothing to do with the act of homosexuality. Quite the opposite, really. Not exactly sure how sex could cause problems in a community unless it was some kind of bizarre sex death ritual that was increasing in popularity . . . but that's another story. ;)

[Lonewulf]

WTF is that even supposed to mean?

Indeed.

I think that it's safe to say that Art Vandeley will have nothing of value to give to the discussion.

I mean, he deals in slippery slopes, straw men, and wants to be takea way freedoms from homosexuals to make his own relationship "special". ****-wit was right.

[kmortis]

Actually, there IS something wrong with the homosexual community, but it has nothing to do with the act of homosexuality. Quite the opposite, really. Not exactly sure how sex could cause problems in a community unless it was some kind of bizarre sex death ritual that was increasing in popularity . . . but that's another story. ;)

Um...ok, so what IS wrong with the homosexual community?

[Lonewulf]

Um...ok, so what IS wrong with the homosexual community?

My only issue is with some of the overly done gay pride parades. I mean, a lot of those people really over-sexualize their coming out of the closet, and give a bad image to homosexuals everywhere.

But that's just a personal issue I have.

[Art Vandelay]

Sodomy has little if anything to do with homosexuality. By definition, only 50% of homosexuals are capable of sodomy. 100% of heterosexuals are capable.Well, no, "sodomy" has several different meaning, one of which being "any sex act other than a penis going into a vagina". Under that meaning, heterosexual couples are the only ones having non-sodomy sex, so sodomy clearly does have something to do with homosexuality.

It is the author of this article that has the misconceptions about sodomy and homosexuality, not the "Homosexual Agenda" of his fantasy. He is homophobic.No, you're the one with the misconceptions, and your insistence on labeling someone "homophobic" simply because they disagree with you shows your intolerance.

Should we take the word of an admitted liar and killer? Should we take the word of someone who has proven they will say anything to keep from having to take responsibility for their actions? That is exactly his point. He said "A good example of this are those who claim that the Matthew Shepard killing was not based on homophobia. People who say this are looked upon the same way as people who deny the Holocaust and yet unlike the latter the former does have a case." He didn't say that it was certain that homophobia wasn't a factor, he said that those who denied it have a case.

How can anyone take this article seriously? It is a simple job to rebutt it.Then why were you unable to do so?

See, this is why I don't bother to read Art. "Pro-homosexual bigots?" I've seen some idiots on this board, but short of ExtremeSkeptic, this is probably about the stupidest single thing I've seen anyone here say. And, as, usual Schneibster, has absolutely nothing to contribute to the discussion, presenting insults but absolutely no logical arguments. And, like Eos, he has said he would put me on ignore, yet he clearly hasn't.

And topped with a logical fallacy: "...if all relationships are special, then none are." Drivel of the first order. DNFTT.The term "logical fallacy" applies to the arguments used to support a position, not a position itself. Since what you quoted is not an argument, but a claim, it is logically impossible for it to be a fallacy.

The Canadian supreme court upheld the federal government's decision to allow same sex marriages... mystique yet to evaporate (if I'm reading this stupid mystique-evaporometer right, that is). That response is flawed for numerous reasons.

However, traditional definitions of "voter", a pretty crucial concept as well, have been expanded to include non-gentry, non-whites, and women, without inducing anomie.Except that there is no need for any meaning of "voter" beyond the definition. Did you even bother reading my post?

Same sex marriage doesn't assume marrying anyone for any reason you want.Why not? If the government doesn't have to right to say who you can marry, what right does it to say why you can marry? The sort of thinking that is behind the same-sex marriage movement would imply that there is no such thing as "sham marriage".

It doesn't follow from marriage being more than a contract that it should be restricted to people of opposite sex. But it does follow that there could be something specific to the sex of the participants. My question wasn't entirely rhetorical. How can you say that the something extra has nothing to do with sex?

Using the same criteria for quality of evidence that you provide, I claim that my statement is also objectively true. You ARE a f***wit.First, the issue of whether I am a "f***wit" cannot be settled objectively. Secondly, you have presented no evidence in support of your claim. Third, the fact that you are resorting to insults shows that you are not really interested in rational debate.

Well, if it's been covered in that cesspit of a fora called Politics & Current Events, then I'd not have seen it. If you don't like having political discussions, what are you doing in this thread? It's quite clear that the scientific issues are a minor sidenote, and the main focus of this thread is the politics. And if you object to the other forum being a "cesspool", why are you contributing to making this forum the same? Why are you substituting insults and baseless accusations for rational debate?

OBJECTIVE FACT? Not to Larsen you, but...Evidence? What possible rational[sic] can you put forth saying that the meaning of ANY word has a non-relativistic meaning? Your implicit position is simply untenable. If language doesn't have an objective meaning, then you can't deny that language has an objective meaning, because to do so would require that "objective" have an objective meaning that language fails to fulfill. If you're going to play semantic games, then there is no point to having a discussion.

Language use drifts due to usage.Yes. And maybe someday "marriage" will mean "union between any two people". But it doesn't at the moment.

Now, who's definition of marriage? You mean "whose"?

Marriage, at its base, is a contract between two people, there's a lot of other fluff and bluster attached, but from the State's POV, that's it. I have already shown that to be false.

There is a strong case for incestuous marriages though, from a public health point of view. I see you are one those people that suddenly starts making excuses once the implications of their position is pointed out. Funny how when homosexuals are trying to get married, having children isn't an integral part of marriage, but when sibling are trying to get married, it is. Can't siblings adopt? Would siblings refrain from having sex simply because they can't get married? And would you allow same-sex siblings to get married, but not opposite-sex siblings? What about people with genetic defects? Your argument smacks of eugenics.

The same case cannot be made for gay marriage.Not the exact same case, but public health issues is a really dangerous can of worms to be opening anywhere near same-sex marriage.

However, you still haven't shown an actual HARM to hetero couples. Yes, I have. You just refuse to listen.

So far your only argument has been a semantic one. Such a summary simply displays your refusal to understand my point. I quite clearly drew a distinction between definition and meaning. How is my argument "semantic"? Because I mentioned the defintion of a word?

Oh, you are arguing the "slippery slope" argument.What, are you just randomly picking logical fallacies out of list? How am I arguing a slippery slope argument?

So it's not any real or imagined harm to hetero couples that you're interested in, just strawmen.Strawmen? What strawmen?

So called "scam marriages", they happen NOW. That's an immigration problem, not one of gays getting married. Clearly, you utterly and completely missed my point.

Did I catch all the "slope" talking points?I see. So you automatically assume that these are merely "talking points", so instead of actually listening to what I say and trying understand my point, you simply skim through, pick a box to put my argument in, and then declare that to be my point.

Law, however, should only be made for legal reasons, not emotional ones. Wrong.

If you don't want gay marriages, then don't marry a man, but to restrict others because your emotional state doesn't agree with them, is not a valid argument.You're the one attacking strawmen.

I have asked for you to provide evidence of harm. You have provided a semantic argument and a slippery slope argument.No, I haven't.

Nothing you have presented thus far would cause harm to heterosexual couples. The loss of mystique is harm.

*Sigh* Earlier in this thread one of our less learned but more prolific posters stated there is no right to free speech in Canada. Should anyone think this assertion is actually true, I would like to point them to section two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section_Two_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and _Freedoms), which states:

In the face of such incredible and arrogant ignorance, I am seriously contemplating putting that poster on ignore. That would be a first for me on this board, who read though a lot of what Christopera posted, and still look at threads started by Amy Wilson.Your link doesn't work. Note that the word "right" does not appear in that quote. I have seen other people, who claim to be Canadian citizens, outright declare that those "freedoms" are not absolute and can be put aside should they conflict with public policy. I have, on multiple occassions, presented examples of cases where Canada has been alleged to have flagrantly violated these rights, and invited anyone to present a rebuttal. Despite my basing my statement on the statements of Canadian citizens, and giving people ample opportunity to refute them, you call my position "incredible and arrogant ignorance". You're the arrogant one. The overwhleming evidence is that, in Canada, free speech is not considered a fundamental right. According to the US Constitution, everyone facing criminal prosecution is guaranteed the option of a jury trial. Yet criminal defendents are denied jury trials every day. So a quote of a document proclaiming a "freedom", with no evidence that that has any practical meaning, doesn't prove much.

* kmortis;2660608 stamps feet on floor petulantly

But it's not CALLED the Bill of Rights! Therefore it can't protect your rights! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!And you claim that I am the one presenting strawmen.

I mean, he deals in slippery slopes, straw men, and wants to be takea way freedoms from homosexuals to make his own relationship "special". ****-wit was right.No one has yet to present any example of my using a slippery slope or a strawman. You, on the other hand, have declared that I want to take freedoms away from homosexuals, when all I have done is presented an argument for how there would be harm from the legalislation of same-sex marriage. Whether I am able to recognize the harm of something, and whether I want to ban it, are two completely different issues. Apparently this forum is full of mental midgets that are unable to comprehend such simple concepts. In addition, your summary is simplistic and not an honest reflection of the issues.

[Lonewulf]

No one has yet to present any example of my using a slippery slope...

Wrong.

What logical reason is there for denying any marriage, then? A lot of people who say that everyone should be allowed to marry whomever they want start making excuses once I point out that their position leads to the conclusion that laws against incestuous marriage should be scrapped. And what of the concept of "scam marriage", such as when two people get married to allow one of them to get a green card? Does this concept have any meaning? If people have the right to marry anyone they want, then don't they have the right to marry for any reason they want?

That's a slippery slope. By definition.

Actually read your argument before posting it, douche.

when all I have done is presented an argument for how there would be harm from the legalislation of same-sex marriage.

Intriguing argument. Too bad it has no meat to it.

Whether I am able to recognize the harm of something, and whether I want to ban it, are two completely different issues.

True enough. Okay.

Apparently this forum is full of mental midgets that are unable to comprehend such simple concepts.

Mature!

In addition, your summary is simplistic and not an honest reflection of the issues.

What issues? There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, nor gay relationships. The claim, "If all relationships are special, none are!" as any kind of argument for or against gay marriage is a ludicrous one.

Demonstrate to me a single valid point you've made in all of this.

[l0rca]

It's already been pointed out to death, but I want to point it out again (I'm bored). The person who wrote this is a complete silly idiot, king of fools, dummy, stupid head, do-do-brain, a nut, petulant and illogical. He never even makes a logical argument. There is no logical consitency in any of his statements. This is a perfect example:

There is a direct threat to heterosexual marriage from gay marriage and/or civil unions, just as there is a threat to it from frivolous divorce, starter marriages, and polygamy.

The author makes no further logical connection of how these problems parallel his own. He points them out, but makes no further comment on the connection. Instead, he quotes a statistic which makes no definite conclusions, and offers only speculations:

Of the 5,700 couples that got civil unions in Vermont after that state legalized them “nearly 40 percent have had a previous heterosexual marriage.” Therefore obviously it is not as though there are zero side effects hitting the majority population.

"OBVIOUSLY!" What a cowardly word to write here! No Mr. Idiot, there is obviously no discernable correlation, because the we have no way of knowing how many of that 40% left their heterosexual partner before the law was put in place! You idiot! You idiot! You idiot!

[tracer]

The human organ that receives external cues via pheromones is called the vomeronasal organ (VNO). The VNO is a duct-like structure on the nasal septum, previously thought to exist only in newborns but has now been verified in adult humans as well.

Within the vomeronasal organ (VNO) are proteins that bind odorants, called OBP’s (odorant-binding proteins). These proteins can attach to an odorant, making it soluble and able to be transported to the blood and then throughout the body. Odorant-binding proteins (OBP’s) can also deactivate unacceptable pheromones and odorants by binding to them and inhibiting their reactivity
http://www.themanitoban.com/2001-2002/0403/features_11.shtml
Careful there.

The VNO's existence has been known since the 18th century, but its alleged role in pheremone detection is still only SUSPECTED, not confirmed.

It's still not clear whether humans are actually influenced by pheremones or not, popular-press wishful thinking notwithstanding.

[kmortis]

First, the issue of whether I am a "f***wit" cannot be settled objectively. Secondly, you have presented no evidence in support of your claim. Third, the fact that you are resorting to insults shows that you are not really interested in rational debate.
No, my use of the term "f***wit" is in direct response to you calling Eos a "liar". Your behavior here has clearly demonstrated that you, as well, have no interest in rational debate and that you are, indeed, a f***wit.

If you don't like having political discussions, what are you doing in this thread? It's quite clear that the scientific issues are a minor sidenote, and the main focus of this thread is the politics. And if you object to the other forum being a "cesspool", why are you contributing to making this forum the same? Why are you substituting insults and baseless accusations for rational debate?
I said nothing about me liking or disliking political debate. Just that the P&CE fora tends to the cesspool end of debate tactics. Brings out the worst in me, ya dig? I didn't start the mudslinging, f***wit, I just continued it.

Oh, I'm not "substituting insults and baseless accusations for rational debate", I'm augmenting it. It's...colorful.

Your implicit position is simply untenable. If language doesn't have an objective meaning, then you can't deny that language has an objective meaning, because to do so would require that "objective" have an objective meaning that language fails to fulfill. If you're going to play semantic games, then there is no point to having a discussion.

Yes. And maybe someday "marriage" will mean "union between any two people". But it doesn't at the moment.
Language has always meant what the speakers have meant it to mean. That's why the have to keep printing the damned dictionaries every year. Meanings change. The meaning you gave for marriage is one that is a traditional meaning. However, it, like the word "citizen" from 140 years ago, has grown in scope. We no long see homosexuality as a mental disease. These are human beings, just like you and me, Art. These aren't Morlocks to serve us Eoli.

You mean "whose"?
You're absolutely correct, sir. I sit corrected.


Originally Posted by kmortis
Marriage, at its base, is a contract between two people, there's a lot of other fluff and bluster attached, but from the State's POV, that's it.
I have already shown that to be false.
Really? Where? You've STATED that you think that marriage is between a man and a woman. You've made a lot of statements, but nothing backing them.

I see you are one those people that suddenly starts making excuses once the implications of their position is pointed out. Funny how when homosexuals are trying to get married, having children isn't an integral part of marriage, but when sibling are trying to get married, it is. Can't siblings adopt? Would siblings refrain from having sex simply because they can't get married? And would you allow same-sex siblings to get married, but not opposite-sex siblings? What about people with genetic defects? Your argument smacks of eugenics.
Excuses. Uh huh. Yeah, cause I just made a ton of excuses, didn't I? (that was sarcasm in case your f***witted brain couldn't handle it)

Personally, I couldn't give a tinker's cuss if ANYONE had kids. There's nigh 9 billion people on this planet, if a few thousand people decided not to breed, I think it'd do this place a lot of good.

But, since you've proven youself to be a f***wit, I'll spell it out for you.
Heterosexual couples, barring infertility problems, can breed. It doesn't matter if they're related or not. Now, ost people have in inborn revulsion to mating with a sibling, but there's a percentage that don't, and that revulsion doesn't always cover parent and child couplings (read Pinker for a discussion on this).

So, let's discuss the small percentage that doesn't have the revulsion. They can breed. They have a higher chance of breeding genetic deficiencies into their kids. I don't care if they swear on a stack of Asimov's writings that they're not going to copulate, I'll put 6 billion years of evolution up against their momentary oath any day of the week (in other words, the sex drive is strong enough that I don't trust them to keep their word).

Gays, on the other hand, are, by definition, incapable of breeding with each other. They cannot have offspring. Ever. Not even if one had a sex change.

Not the exact same case, but public health issues is a really dangerous can of worms to be opening anywhere near same-sex marriage.
How so?

Yes, I have. You just refuse to listen.
No...no you haven't. Nowhere have you said words to the effect of "the following will harm heterosexual couples if gays are given the right to marry". You've talked about the definition of marriage. You've put forth a "slippery slope" argument about how if the gays marry, then the Kentucky rednecks are next, with those darned wetbacks after them. Nowhere have you said how an undue burden will be placed on us heteros. Or any burden, for that matter.

I have to leave, so I'll try to finish this later.

[Mashuna]

The loss of mystique is harm.



This is all you could come up with to demonstrate the harm that would be caused to the current state of marriage if homosexual marriage were made legal?

I don't think any mystique would be lost from my marriage if homosexual marriage were legal. So it's just an opinion you have. So your objection to gay weddings is, in effect, that you don't like the idea of it and that it's something that should be special to straight people.

Colour me unconvinced.

[chulbert]

The loss of mystique is harm.

So is discrimination.

The bottom line on positions like this is that the government has no obligation - nor should it - to provide anyone with the warm and fuzzy feeling of mystique about their marriage. It is, however, charged with treating everyone equally unless there is a profoundly urgent reason otherwise.

Gay couples don't want to marry for its mystique. They want to make medical decisions for each other, be able to confide in each other without fear of subpeona, and provide financial and emotional protection for each other.

How on earth do you expect me to put a temper tantrum about how the marriage club is less "special" in the same league?

[JJR]

Um...ok, so what IS wrong with the homosexual community?

Difficult to explain. Basically, their whole theme is wrong. They are obsessed with how evil Gay bashing is and the focus is on the self. The idea behind their theme is to be affronted, to be insulted at the idea of being bashed since you yourself are such an important part of society and rules and regulations and endless debate and things that just don't work on the street.

In reality, it's better to worry about friends, because then they got your back. It's simple.

[Lonewulf]

Difficult to explain. Basically, their whole theme is wrong. They are obsessed with how evil Gay bashing is and the focus is on the self. The idea behind their theme is to be affronted, to be insulted at the idea of being bashed since you yourself are such an important part of society and rules and regulations and endless debate and things that just don't work on the street.

In reality, it's better to worry about friends, because then they got your back. It's simple.

So you're saying there is nothing wrong with gay bashing? I don't get your little diatribe.

[Blue Mountain]

Someone pointed out my link does not work. This one does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Two_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_ Freedoms).

Also, if any American thinks his right to free speech is absolute, he should read up the libel and slander laws. The right to free speech does not imply the right to say, print or otherwise publish anything, anywhere, any time.

[ceo_esq]

[The government] is, however, charged with treating everyone equally unless there is a profoundly urgent reason otherwise.

If you're referring to the federal and state governments of the United States, I'm wondering where you got this idea. In most contexts, the government is entitled to treat people differently so long as the scheme is rationally related to serving a state interest, and the state has a significant degree of latitude in determining what its interests are and how it wants to serve them.

[kmortis]

Such a summary simply displays your refusal to understand my point. I quite clearly drew a distinction between definition and meaning. How is my argument "semantic"? Because I mentioned the defintion of a word?
Main Entry: se·man·tic
Pronunciation: si-'man-tik
Variant(s): also se·man·ti·cal /-ti-k&l/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek sEmantikos significant, from sEmainein to signify, mean, from sEma sign, token
1 : of or relating to meaning in language
2 : of or relating to semantics
It IS a semantic argument. You decided to argue the meaning of the word, that makes it a sematic argument, f***wit.

What, are you just randomly picking logical fallacies out of list? How am I arguing a slippery slope argument?
From: Slippery_slope
In debate or rhetoric, the slippery slope is an argument for the likelihood of one event or trend given another. It suggests that an action will initiate a chain of events culminating in an undesirable event later. The argument is sometimes referred to as the thin end of the wedge or the camel's nose. The slippery slope can be valid or fallacious.
You're arguing that if A occurs (in this case A = gay marriage, since you obviously live in Yorba Linda) then a vast array of nastiness will necesarily follow (in this case, incestuous marriage, "scam" marriages etc). There is no evidence that the later will follow the former. They are separate issues.

Strawmen? What strawmen?
The strawmen of the "scam" marriages etc. et alia.

Clearly, you utterly and completely missed my point.
Well, if you'd present it clearly, I might have a chance to grasp it.

I see. So you automatically assume that these are merely "talking points", so instead of actually listening to what I say and trying understand my point, you simply skim through, pick a box to put my argument in, and then declare that to be my point.
These ARE talking points. Maybe not in the jingoistic way that you think I mean. You're bringing you points...and talking to them. (or in this case, wrtiing to them, but I'm not that much of a pedant).

Again, present your point clearly. Stop presenting the jingoistic form of talking points ("The sky will fall if this happens") and actually present an argument.


Law, however, should only be made for legal reasons, not emotional ones.
Wrong.
Huh? So...you want to be governed by any given whim that passes through?
Great cases like hard cases make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the feelings and distorts the judgment.Northern Securities Co. v. United States 193 U.S. 197, 400-401 (1904)
Can't even get me on appeal to authority, as I think that Holmes would know something about making good laws.

You're the one attacking strawmen.
No, I'm attacking a f***wit. There's a difference.

I have asked for you to provide evidence of harm. You have provided a semantic argument and a slippery slope argument.
No, I haven't.
Yes, yes you have. I just parsed it a second time, and I have a feeling that i'll have to do it at least one more time before this is all done.

The loss of mystique is harm.
Huh? What? WTF is mystique? How do you quantify mystique? Is it contagous? Fatal?

So, losing a non-measurable, intangable nigh mystical quality is your argument of harm?

You ARE a f***wit.

I've asked for tax issues, healthcare infractions, legal loops to be jumpped through, roving bands of queers beating straight couples with their feather boas....and I get "loss of mystique"? JESUS ON A FREAKIN' POGO STICK AND HIS BASTARD BROTHER HARRY! That's the best you can come up with?

I, again, sit corrected. you aren't a f***wit, you're a f***tard.


And you claim that I am the one presenting strawmen.
No...that was ridicule, not a strawman. I didn't present it as your argument and then knock it down, I just tried to accentuate your idiocy.

Before you go, please remember to have your helmet firmly strapped on to your head, and don't take the corks off the forks.

[kmortis]

Difficult to explain. Basically, their whole theme is wrong. They are obsessed with how evil Gay bashing is and the focus is on the self. The idea behind their theme is to be affronted, to be insulted at the idea of being bashed since you yourself are such an important part of society and rules and regulations and endless debate and things that just don't work on the street.

In reality, it's better to worry about friends, because then they got your back. It's simple.

So you're saying there is nothing wrong with gay bashing? I don't get your little diatribe.

If I'm reading him correctly, he's saying that, to a certain degree, it seems that the gays bring it upon themselves, due to the flamboyant nature of their displays. Is that correct?

[Lonewulf]

The loss of mystique is harm.

Lol.

That's just hilarious.

Yeah, I'm going to have to go 100% with kmortis. F***tard.

The fact that you think that a homosexual couple "harms" mystique just shows how close-minded you really are.

When the majority of a population feel a certain way, there's "mystique". When a minority feel the same way, it "damages mystique". Oh, come off it.

Grow a spine and come up with a real argument.

[FenrisWolf]

"Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. That's not my opinion, that's objective fact. For us to have an institution called "marriage" that includes same-sex couples, we would have discard the old meaning. This is a largely all-or-nothing proposition; you can't pick and choose what parts of the meaning you want to retain. (Note that definition and meaning are entirely different things; one could create a new concept that has the same definition as old marriage, except with same-sex couples included, but that doesn't mean that it would mean the same to people). Same-sex marriage proponents want us to expand the concept of marriage to include same-sex couples, but that's simply not possible. The only option available is to toss the current concept of marriage, and create a new concept of "marriage" that has the same name but a different meaning.


This argument hinges on an unstated assumption, without which it fails.

Specifically, for this argument to be valid, it must be true that marriage means substantially the same thing for nearly all currently married heterosexual couples. Otherwise, marriage is not an all-or-nothing proposition, and heterosexual couples are in fact picking and choosing which parts of the meaning they want to keep.

I defy you to state "the meaning of marriage" in a way that will be acceptable to all the following heterosexual couples:

-- Catholic
-- Protestant (pick one)
-- Greek Orthodox
-- Muslim
-- Jewish
-- pagan (pick one)
-- nonbeliever / humanist / materialist / atheist

In order state the meaning of marriage such that all these heterosexual couples will say, "Yes, that fits with my understanding of what my marriage means", you will have to make it such a broad statement that homosexuals won't be excluded. And I haven't even touched on differences arising from income level or race, I've stuck only to religious differences here.

Marriage is not homogeneous in meaning.

[ceo_esq]

The fact that you think that a homosexual couple "harms" mystique just shows how close-minded you really are.

When the majority of a population feel a certain way, there's "mystique". When a minority feel the same way, it "damages mystique". Oh, come off it.

I think that what Art might be getting at with his reference to "mystique" is something along the lines of what I observed in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2408980#post2408980) post:

[L]awmakers know that to the extent limiting access to a certain desirable legislative regime enhances its privileged status, lowering the barriers to entry can reduce its effectiveness as an incentive. It's not irrational for the state to think that the current barriers to entry (to marriage) are sufficiently exclusive, without being excessively so, to produce the desired effect.

[Lonewulf]

I think that what Art might be getting at with his reference to "mystique" is something along the lines of what I observed in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2408980#post2408980) post:

And?

[ceo_esq]

And?

And if that's what he was getting at, then it's not an irrational consideration. Nor is it necessarily closed-minded.

[ThatSoundAgain]

Difficult to explain. Basically, their whole theme is wrong. They are obsessed with how evil Gay bashing is and the focus is on the self. The idea behind their theme is to be affronted, to be insulted at the idea of being bashed since you yourself are such an important part of society and rules and regulations and endless debate and things that just don't work on the street.

In reality, it's better to worry about friends, because then they got your back. It's simple.

I think a time will come when this won't be an issue to the degree it is today. And for what it's worth, the gay people I know "worry about friends" plenty, and for the most part lead as banal little lives as anyone else, too.

That's not what all the talk of gay bashing, the parades etc. is about, though. This is a minority demanding equal rights, like the very basic right to not be physically assaulted merely for who they are. Part of this struggle is flamboyantly being who they are, and showing (nay, parading) it to the world, to the point of co-opting derogative terms and making them their own.

This tactic is nothing new. It's a way of telling the world: "This is what we are. Deal with it!"

One last point: Gay people are not claiming to be "such an important part of society" in the way I read your post, meaning something special - quite the opposite. They are trying to be recognized as equals to anyone else; no more, no less.

[Lonewulf]

And if that's what he was getting at, then it's not an irrational consideration. Nor is it necessarily closed-minded.

Wrong.

[L]awmakers know that to the extent limiting access to a certain desirable legislative regime enhances its privileged status, lowering the barriers to entry can reduce its effectiveness as an incentive. It's not irrational for the state to think that the current barriers to entry (to marriage) are sufficiently exclusive, without being excessively so, to produce the desired effect.

I see big words, but what's the rationality here? What barriers are necessary? Privileged status? What makes one necessarily better than the other?

[ceo_esq]

Wrong.

Not at all, I'm afraid. It may be incorrect in this particular case that making the marital regime available to same-sex couples would reduce the effectiveness of the incentive - such things are very hard to predict - but it is certainly rational to consider the possibility, as legislators generally do when constructing or manipulating legislative incentive schemes.


I see big words, but what's the rationality here? What barriers are necessary? Privileged status? What makes one necessarily better than the other?

The notion of marriage law as a scheme to promote certain social outcomes and behaviors has been discussed at length elsewhere, so I'll assume we need not cover that ground again. Now the major way in which those outcomes are incentivized is to create a privileged status, conferred by the matrimonial regime on married couples with regard to certain legislative benefits. (I'll also assume we don't need to discuss separately here the kinds of legislative benefits to which I'm referring.) The law sets the conditions of access to that privileged status.

One of the risks associated with establishing or tinkering with a legislative incentive scheme of this sort is that of making what I called the "barriers to entry" too low or too high. If they are too high, not enough of the persons targeted by the incentive will actually be incentivized. If the barriers are too low, one of the ways in which the incentive can also become less efficient is that the privilege becomes insufficiently exclusive (or is perceived as such); it is distributed too widely.

[qayak]

Well, no, "sodomy" has several different meaning, one of which being "any sex act other than a penis going into a vagina". Under that meaning, heterosexual couples are the only ones having non-sodomy sex, so sodomy clearly does have something to do with homosexuality.

Wrong! There is only one definition for sodomy. "Anal intercourse committed between a man and another man or a woman. Every other sexual act has a specific name and they are not lumped together under the heading of sodomy.

You are either ignorant or you lack honesty.

No, you're the one with the misconceptions, and your insistence on labeling someone "homophobic" simply because they disagree with you shows your intolerance.

I label anyone who makes up a bunch of lies in order to restrict the rights of homosexuals, homophobic. You fall into this catagory.

That is exactly his point. He said "A good example of this are those who claim that the Matthew Shepard killing was not based on homophobia. People who say this are looked upon the same way as people who deny the Holocaust and yet unlike the latter the former does have a case." He didn't say that it was certain that homophobia wasn't a factor, he said that those who denied it have a case.

They do not have a case. The guy used it as his ***** defense. He admits to lying and he is a cowardly, cold blooded murderer. And you call that a case?

[zombiebex]

Wrong! There is only one definition for sodomy. "Anal intercourse committed between a man and another man or a woman. Every other sexual act has a name and they are not lumped together under the heading of sodomy.

Much as I hate to agree with Art, dictionary.com gives the following definition for sodomy:

sod·om·y /ˈsɒdhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngmi/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sod-uh-mee] –noun
1.anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2.copulation with a member of the same sex.
3.bestiality (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bestiality) (def. 4).

I just used the term myself because it somehow sounds more PC than anal sex. I used it incorrectly. My bad.

[blobru]

The Canadian supreme court upheld the federal government's decision to allow same sex marriages... mystique yet to evaporate (if I'm reading this stupid mystique-evaporometer right, that is).
That response is flawed for numerous reasons.
FLAWED!!?? That's the last mystique-evaporometer I buy on eBay.


However, traditional definitions of "voter", a pretty crucial concept as well, have been expanded to include non-gentry, non-whites, and women, without inducing anomie.
Except that there is no need for any meaning of "voter" beyond the definition. Did you even bother reading my post?
Then how did the definition of "voter" change from "white gentleman"? To reflect what, if not a change in meaning? (Yes, I read your post).


Same sex marriage doesn't assume marrying anyone for any reason you want.
Why not? If the government doesn't have to right to say who you can marry, what right does it to say why you can marry? The sort of thinking that is behind the same-sex marriage movement would imply that there is no such thing as "sham marriage".
The government does have the right to say who you can marry.


It doesn't follow from marriage being more than a contract that it should be restricted to people of opposite sex.
But it does follow that there could be something specific to the sex of the participants. My question wasn't entirely rhetorical. How can you say that the something extra has nothing to do with sex?
The something extra has nothing to do with sex -- there I said it (well, typed it). And you disagree. And so it goes...

My original point, it doesn't follow for 2 reasons:

1) If "marriage" is more [essentially] than a "contract", then there are some marriages which aren't contracts (just as there are some contracts which aren't marriages -- neither is a subset of the other).
This implies there are some rationally acceptable marriages not currently recognized by law.
Which might as well be a direct quote from the gay agenda. :hypnotize

2) If, on the other hand, "marriage" is more [specific] than a "contract", then a marriage is a type of contract.
As courts define contracts, then the definition of "marriage" is a matter for the courts.
Again, gay agenda, chapter and verse. :faint:

[qayak]

Much as I hate to agree with Art, dictionary.com gives the following definition for sodomy:



I just used the term myself because it somehow sounds more PC than anal sex. I used it incorrectly. My bad.

The definition I gave was out of the Collin's Canadian Dictionary and Thesaurus. It is very specific that only anal sex is sodomy.

When my ex-wife went to court to testify against her father who molested her, oral sex was referred to as either fellatio or cunnilingus. The word "sodomy' was used for and defined as, anal sex.

This may simply be a difference between Canada and the US.

[Art Vandelay]

That's a slippery slope. By definition.Present a definition of "slippery slope", and show that my argument fuflills it.

Mature!A bit hypocritical, given that your side has resorted to insults, false accusations of logical fallacies, and other immature tactics?

What issues? There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, nor gay relationships. The claim, "If all relationships are special, none are!" as any kind of argument for or against gay marriage is a ludicrous one.No, it's not. If we gave a Super Bowl ring to everyone who asked for one, would that have no effect on the value of Super Bowl rings?

Demonstrate to me a single valid point you've made in all of this.I have made plenty of valid points. Demonstrating to you that they are valid, however, is clearly not a feasible task.

No,I didn't start the mudslinging, f***wit, I just continued it. I didn't start it either. I made a perfectly objective, relevant observation of Eos based on her previous dishonest behavior. That's not "mudslinging". You made a completely uncalled for, irrelevant, unprovoked, insult with no substantive content. That is mudslinging. There's a difference between criticizing someone and simply insulting them.

We no long see homosexuality as a mental disease. These are human beings, just like you and me, Art. These aren't Morlocks to serve us Eoli. Yet another strawman.

Really? Where?"And what of the concept of "scam marriage", such as when two people get married to allow one of them to get a green card? Does this concept have any meaning?" Maybe you should actually try to understand what my point is, rather than making one up for me. Clearly, for the concept of "sham/scam marriage" to have any meaning, marriage must be something more than a mere contract.

You've made a lot of statements, but nothing backing them.Isn't weird how, so often, when you put your fingers in your ears and hum, you never hear anyone make any valid points? And if you didn't hear, it MUST be because it doesn't exist.

But, since you've proven youself to be a f***wit, I'll spell it out for you.
Heterosexual couples, barring infertility problems, can breed. It doesn't matter if they're related or not...What does that have anything to do with what I said?

How so?Because it opens the door for people to make claims like "Homosexuals have higher rates of STDs/ mental illness/etc", "Not having both a male and female parent figure presents a danger to proper child development", etc.

What, need everything in the exact format that you expect? The following will harm heterosexual couples: there will be a decrease in what I, for lack of a better term, call mystique.

[quote]You've put forth a "slippery slope" argument about how if the gays marry, then the Kentucky rednecks are next, with those darned wetbacks after them. I've said no such thing.

I don't think any mystique would be lost from my marriage if homosexual marriage were legal. So it's just an opinion you have. /quote]Me, and most Americans. So, what, your opinion to the contrary should take precedence over the majority? Apparently, you're in favor of Democracy, so long as the majority agrees with you, otherwise you get to tell everyone else what to do.

[QUOTE=chulbert;2661799]So is discrimination.Yes. I never said that the harm is of same-sex marriage outweighs all other consideration. I simply said that it exists.

The bottom line on positions like this is that the government has no obligation - nor should it - to provide anyone with the warm and fuzzy feeling of mystique about their marriage.You are correct. It has no obligation. It does, however, have the discretion of providing people with a warm and fuzzy feeling.

It is, however, charged with treating everyone equally unless there is a profoundly urgent reason otherwise.That is neither correct nor relevant. We are not talking about whether people should be treated equally, but whether couples should be treated equally. Homosexuals, as individuals, have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals. The discrimination isn't against homosexuals, but against same-sex couples.

Gay couples don't want to marry for its mystique. Yes, they do. Otherwise, they would be satisfied with civil unions that give them all the rights of marriage.

How on earth do you expect me to put a temper tantrum about how the marriage club is less "special" in the same league?How on earth do you expect me to respect someone who dismisses opposing arguments as "temper tantrums"?

Also, if any American thinks his right to free speech is absolute, he should read up the libel and slander laws. The right to free speech does not imply the right to say, print or otherwise publish anything, anywhere, any time.There's a huge difference between prohibiting libel and "you can say whatever you like, as long as it's not some that I dislike". If it is true, as I heard, that printers can be successfully sued for not printing material that they object to, then "freedom of speech" has little meaning in Canada.

It IS a semantic argument. You decided to argue the meaning of the word, that makes it a sematic argument, f***wit.I made an argument that involved the meaning of a word, that is true. But, then, every argument involves the meaning of words. Clearly, "semantic argument" means more than that.

You're arguing that if A occurs (in this case A = gay marriage, since you obviously live in Yorba Linda) then a vast array of nastiness will necesarily follow (in this case, incestuous marriage, "scam" marriages etc). No, I am not.

There is no evidence that the later[sic] will follow the former. They are separate issues.No, they are not separate issues. It is perfectly valid for me to enquire as to what argument supports one but not the other. Doing so does not constitute a slippery slope fallacy.

The strawmen of the "scam" marriages etc. et alia.That is an entirely uninformative response. A strawman is a claim dishonestly attacked. "Scam marriage" is not a claim, it is a sentence fragment, and therefore cannot be a strawman. What claim regarding scam marriages is a strawman?

Again, present your point clearly. Stop presenting the jingoistic form of talking points ("The sky will fall if this happens") and actually present an argument. I never said the sky will fall. You've made it quiote clear that you have no intent in even considering that I might have a point, so asking for me to waste time trying to get you to understand something thatyou are determined to not understand is disingenuous. And, truly, I am utterly flummoxed that someone might consider same-sex marriage to present no dangers whatsoever, but allowing sibling marriages to constitute "sky falling".

Huh? So...you want to be governed by any given whim that passes through? False dichotomy.

No, I'm attacking a f***wit. And who is this "f***wit" who claims that "But it's not CALLED the Bill of Rights! Therefore it can't protect your rights!"?

I just parsed it a second time, and I have a feeling that i'll have to do it at least one more time before this is all done.Yes, you probably will. When Goebbels said that if you repeat a lie enoguh times, people start to believe it, I think he meant more than just twice. (And when was the first time that you parsed it?)

So, losing a non-measurable, intangable nigh mystical quality is your argument of harm?Does being non-measurable and intagible somehow make it worthless? Liberty is also non-measurable and intangible. Do you consider "ineffable" and "meaningless" to be synonyms?

No...that was ridicule, not a strawman. I didn't present it as your argument and then knock it down, I just tried to accentuate your idiocy. You clearly implied it to be my position.

Specifically, for this argument to be valid, it must be true that marriage means substantially the same thing for nearly all currently married heterosexual couples.No, there is no such requirement. Mystique is created by society as whole, not by any specific individual. While the impact of that mystique will be different for different people, it will exist for everyone, regrardless of what marriage means to them.

The fact that you think that a homosexual couple "harms" mystique just shows how close-minded you really are.Close minded? I'm not the one completely refusing to even listen to any point of view other than my own.

When the majority of a population feel a certain way, there's "mystique". When a minority feel the same way, it "damages mystique". That you can knock down strawmen does nothing to damage my position.

My God, do you people really not understand what you're saying?

"I demand that you give me an example of a harm! Oh, and by the way, if you DO give me an example, I will refuse to listen to your explanation, insist that you are full of crap, and dismiss you with insult after insult. And if you wise up and stop trying to engage me in debate, I will declare that this proves that no one has any argument against same-sex marriage."

Why don't you all just get together and have a circle jerk and leave me out of it? This isn't a matter of you having an honest disagreement. If that were the case, you would say something like "I don't understand this. Can you explain it further?" Your complete lack of civility, and summary dismissal of my position, makes it clear you are simply engaging in ego-stroking, not honest debate.

[qayak]

Well, no, "sodomy" has several different meaning, one of which being "any sex act other than a penis going into a vagina". Under that meaning, heterosexual couples are the only ones having non-sodomy sex, so sodomy clearly does have something to do with homosexuality.

Even if your definition is the one used in the article, and I seriously doubt it, your statement here reinforces what I said.

The benefits from this court decicion to heterosexual couples far outweigh the benefits to homosexual couples. Remember, it isn't just homosexual couples who participate in sodomy, no matter which definition we use.

This is the exact reason I referred to the author of the article as a homophobe. He sees the benefits to homosexuials as a detriment to society and ignores the larger benefit to heterosexuals.

[qayak]

The following will harm heterosexual couples: there will be a decrease in what I, for lack of a better term, call mystique.


You seem to be the only one who thinks there is such a thing. Well, maybe pre-teen girls feel the same way. I think you vastly over estimate its importance.

Your loss of mystique is nothing compared to the importance of allowing all citizens to participate equally in society.

[mijopaalmc]

Present a definition of "slippery slope", and show that my argument fuflills it.

Gee, Art it looks like you know what a slippery slope argument is:

Either allowing cops what is, essentially, their own supoena power, is justified, or it is not (wow, that sentence had a lot of commas). Normally the slippery slope is considered a fallacy, but in this case I think it is justified. If this is allowed, what is to stop them fro asking for anything else?

Following the slippery slope train of thought: If the California law is upheld, what will be the impact on the FDA? If a drug is produced and marketed purely on a intrastate basis, is it out of FDA jurisdiction?

Your ad hominems aside, it most certainly does constitute a slippery slope argument. Even if I grant that the death toll would have been less with a knife, you must agree that it would have been even lower had he been armed with a spoon (if anything is "obvious", this is). You are arguing on the basis of what would result in the least deaths. Knives would not result in the least death, and they BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT, should not be allowed. You have yet to offer any response to this. Instead, you have offered only insults and reptititions of the claim that knives would result in fewer deaths than guns, which is the very argument which I am claiming is a slippery slope.

Is it any wonder that people think you are a f**kwit?

[kmortis]

Yes, you probably will. When Goebbels said that if you repeat a lie enoguh times, people start to believe it, I think he meant more than just twice. (And when was the first time that you parsed it?)
Godwin be praised! now I can stop responding to this f***tard.

[ponderingturtle]

It's something of a small issue, actually. There are some cousins who want to marry, but incest laws make that illegal. However, since laws against incest between consenting adults are justified based on the problem of inbreeding, some states allow cousins to marry if they are incapable of having children. It's really an interesting diversity of laws (http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=states).

That is what I don't get, why make a big fuss over inbreeding when there are other relationships that are known to be genetically worse and are legal. Specifically certain varieties of dwarfism are from a dominant mutation and if you get two copies it is not conducive to life.

[ponderingturtle]

And topped with a logical fallacy: "...if all relationships are special, then none are." Drivel of the first order. DNFTT.

It is a perfect way to introduce limiting the rights of groups of people. If everyone is special then no one is special, so to make people who are not special we will reintroduce ownership of human beings so that it makes those of us who are free more special than the slaves. This does a perfect job of increasing real freedom.

[ponderingturtle]

I think that what Art might be getting at with his reference to "mystique" is something along the lines of what I observed in this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2408980#post2408980) post:

Good, now we need to bring back the "mystique" of freedom by legalizing slavery.

[ImaginalDisc]

Good, now we need to bring back the "mystique" of freedom by legalizing slavery.

Let's also restrict voting to middle-aged, land owning, white, men, to preserve the "mystique" of voting. :boggled:

Making the members of an institution feel special by arbitrarily blocking people from it is inherently incompatible with the principles of a liberal democracy. Marriage should be open to all consenting adults, to marry whomever they please.

I'm stunned at your bigotry Ceo, which is obvious no matter how much you try to clothe it in bombastic rhetoric.

[ponderingturtle]

Let's also restrict voting to middle-aged, land owning, white, men, to preserve the "mystique" of voting. :boggled:


It is what our founding fathers wanted.

[ceo_esq]

Making the members of an institution feel special by arbitrarily blocking people from it is inherently incompatible with the principles of a liberal democracy.

As a prefatory matter, we have no reason to suspect that you have a better understanding of the principles of liberal democracy than you do of religion, history, or any other topic on which you are demonstrably ill-informed. That said, I didn't address whether the point was "incompatible with the principles of a liberal democracy", but whether it was an irrational or imaginary consideration (as had been insinuated). Also, what do you mean by characterizing the distinction as "arbitrary"? Regardless of its prudence, it is obviously not determined by chance, caprice or whimsy.


I'm stunned at your bigotry Ceo, which is obvious no matter how much you try to clothe it in bombastic rhetoric.

What on earth are you talking about? What bigotry? Please be specific and tie it to something I've said. Otherwise, consider apologizing or simply shutting up.

[Schneibster]

Also, if any American thinks his right to free speech is absolute, he should read up the libel and slander laws. The right to free speech does not imply the right to say, print or otherwise publish anything, anywhere, any time.Hmmm, I'd add "without consequence" to the end of that.

[kmortis]

As a prefatory matter, we have no reason to suspect that you have a better understanding of the principles of liberal democracy than you do of religion, history, or any other topic on which you are demonstrably ill-informed. That said, I didn't address whether the point was "incompatible with the principles of a liberal democracy", but whether it was an irrational or imaginary consideration (as had been insinuated). Also, what do you mean by characterizing the distinction as "arbitrary"? Regardless of its prudence, it is obviously not determined by chance, caprice or whimsy.




What on earth are you talking about? What bigotry? Please be specific and tie it to something I've said. Otherwise, consider apologizing or simply shutting up.
How is it NOT arbitrary? By what objective standard does one judge "mystique"? Is there a "mystique-a-meter" that I missed somewhere along the way in my pursuit of test equipment? Or is it just some BS that some bigot wants to throw up cause he can't logically support his argument?

I vote for the latter.

[ceo_esq]

How is it NOT arbitrary? By what objective standard does one judge "mystique"? Is there a "mystique-a-meter" that I missed somewhere along the way in my pursuit of test equipment? Or is it just some BS that some bigot wants to throw up cause he can't logically support his argument?

You misunderstand. When ID used the phrase "arbitrarily blocking people", I took him to be referring to blocking people from entering a given marriage on the basis of sexual orientation (or more exactly on the basis of choice of a same-sex partner). Hence, when I spoke of ID's "characterizing the distinction as arbitrary", I was speaking of the classification itself (same-sex versus opposite-sex couples). I did not mean the quality of "mystique" as such. A distinction between same-sex and opposite-sex couples is not inherently arbitrary (though it some contexts it could be); in the context of marriage, rather than being random or capricious, it bears a rational relation to certain outcomes that the matrimonial legislative scheme is intended to incentivize.

That said, I would note two things. First, if you think that a legislature is not permitted to rely on certain factors in its decisions merely because those factors are only capable of subjective evaluation, you're mistaken. Consider, just as one small but obvious example, the use of aesthetic criteria in selecting the design of a public monument. Consider also that at some level almost any policy judgment could fairly be described as subjective, because no amount of objective assessment or quantification can really determine whether one policy is more wise, prudent, good or enlightened than another (think Hume's is-ought problem here).

Second, Art's "mystique" issue (if I've correctly understood him) alludes to how (1) the psychological perceptions of individuals regarding the degree of exclusivity, privilege, specialness or what have you, associated with a preferential status can affect (2) their views of how desirable such status is and consequently their responsiveness to a legislative program designed to incentivize it. Now, even if (1) above is subjective on the part of each member of the public, it hardly seems irrational or invalid for a legislator to consider the possibility that (1) might sooner or later end up having some effect on (2), and to take that possibility into account when formulating a scheme of legislative incentives (whether a special tax regime, a civic award or military decoration program, a matrimonial code, or something else entirely). Note that I'm not arguing that this necessarily results in a convincing justification in any given case, simply that it's not off-the-wall.

For these reasons, your wry reference to a "mystique-a-meter" seems to me to miss the mark completely.


I vote for the latter.

Would that reality were a democracy.

[bruto]

I'm heterosexual, and married, and I would even go so far as to say that I think there is some kind of mystique in a good marriage, but try as I might, I cannot figure out how sharing the practice with homosexuals threatens my marriage or its value in any way. The only possible explanation for gay marriage being a threat to the mystique of heterosexual marriage seems to be that the mystique is the sense of heterosexual exclusiveness itself. But if "mine, can't have any" is what it's all about, it's not much of a loss, is it? That's a pretty pathetic excuse for a mystique.

Vermont has had civil unions for some time now, and Massachusetts has had gay marriage. Dire rhetoric aside, what has this actually done to traditional marriage in these places? We don't seem to have slipped down that slope and started marrying our sisters or our cats. I have not noticed much change, except that now gay couples can enjoy a certain amount of legal protection, and, yes, a certain amount of official acceptance, which some might even call approval, of what was once a marginal situation. But I have not heard any heterosexuals lamenting that the mystique has left their marriages because of it, or using it as an excuse for the collapse of their own marriages. Have you? Is there a statistic that shows any decline in traditional marriages in states that sanction gay unions?

Now that civil unions are a fact, and gay marriage is a fact, it's time for opponents to substantiate the so-called threat or drop it.

[foxfroggy]

The sad truth is that most of these types don't care how well you refute their claims since truth and accuracy have little to do with why they think the way they do. Whether because of their own repressed sexuality, indoctrination by family and/or faith or just some need to find a group to denigrate, they "know" they are right and will likely argue with God when corrected at their final judgment.

Homosexuality, for example, is not only normal for homo sapiens, but also for a myriad of other species. Tell this to the diehard homophobe and most will puff up and say we humans are "not animals." This is good because it's the opening to ask whether they then think we are vegetable or mineral. (In their cases, I would vote for "mineral" recalling the old saw about being "dumber than a sack of rocks.")

For the AIDS nonsense, it's curious that 90% of those with HIV worldwide are heterosexual, isn't it?

And it is more likely in a grossly overpopulated world that homosexuality is beneficial since those persons are less llikely to breed. But good luck getting through to the self-deluded.

[Blue Mountain]

Vermont has had civil unions for some time now, and Massachusetts has had gay marriage. Dire rhetoric aside, what has this actually done to traditional marriage in these places? We don't seem to have slipped down that slope and started marrying our sisters or our cats. I have not noticed much change, except that now gay couples can enjoy a certain amount of legal protection, and, yes, a certain amount of official acceptance, which some might even call approval, of what was once a marginal situation. But I have not heard any heterosexuals lamenting that the mystique has left their marriages because of it, or using it as an excuse for the collapse of their own marriages. Have you? Is there a statistic that shows any decline in traditional marriages in states that sanction gay unions?

Now that civil unions are a fact, and gay marriage is a fact, it's time for opponents to substantiate the so-called threat or drop it.
Same-sex marriage is a fact all across Canada, too, even in socially conservative areas like Alberta and the Maritime provinces. The bill to legalize it was passed two years ago under a Liberal Government, and an attempt to re-visit the bill under a (minority) Conservative government went nowhere.

So far same-sex marriage has not in any way damaged my parents' 52 year union.

The Anglican church is still grappling with the issue, though, and will discuss it at their biannual Synod in June. The issue there is whether or not the church should bless same-sex unions that have been performed by a civil authority; for the moment they won't be performing the marriage itself, even if the bishops decide to accept the idea they can bless such unions.

PS. I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage and the wonders that did for the (heterosexual) institution!

[bruto]

Same-sex marriage is a fact all across Canada, too, even in socially conservative areas like Alberta and the Maritime provinces. The bill to legalize it was passed two years ago under a Liberal Government, and an attempt to re-visit the bill under a (minority) Conservative government went nowhere.

So far same-sex marriage has not in any way damaged my parents' 52 year union.

The Anglican church is still grappling with the issue, though, and will discuss it at their biannual Synod in June. The issue there is whether or not the church should bless same-sex unions that have been performed by a civil authority; for the moment they won't be performing the marriage itself, even if the bishops decide to accept the idea they can bless such unions.

PS. I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned Britney Spears' 55 hour marriage and the wonders that did for the (heterosexual) institution!

I actually had written a bit in my previous post about Britney and her ilk, but it seemed a digression from my other point, so I took it out and figured maybe it would come up later.

One of the things that should be mentioned too is that of course homosexuals can marry anywhere, as long as they do so (whether out of uncertainty or dishonesty) against their own inclination, and as someone whose ex came out after the divorce, I can't see how such debacles serve the institution of matrimony any better than allowing homosexuals to marry each other. I'm reminded of the comment by someone (Samuel Johnson, perhaps?) on Thomas Carlyle and his wife, that it was a good thing they had married, because they made only two people miserable rather than four.

[blobru]

Second, Art's "mystique" issue (if I've correctly understood him) alludes to how (1) the psychological perceptions of individuals regarding the degree of exclusivity, privilege, specialness or what have you, associated with a preferential status can affect (2) their views of how desirable such status is and consequently their responsiveness to a legislative program designed to incentivize it. Now, even if (1) above is subjective on the part of each member of the public, it hardly seems irrational or invalid for a legislator to consider the possibility that (1) might sooner or later end up having some effect on (2), and to take that possibility into account when formulating a scheme of legislative incentives (whether a special tax regime, a civic award or military decoration program, a matrimonial code, or something else entirely). Note that I'm not arguing that this necessarily results in a convincing justification in any given case, simply that it's not off-the-wall.


Thanks, ceo, for your definition of "mystique".
As you say, not sure whether it is Art's definition (or, if it can be defined, the proper definition),
but let's assume, for the sake of debate, it is.

I would point out that the parenthetical examples you give --

a special tax regime, a civic award or military decoration program --

all differ from "a matrimonial code" in that they are based on merit: work done to amass enough wealth to qualify for a special tax regime; service or heroism for the civic award or military decoration.

Merit is not at issue in the gay marriage debate (slobs can marry), and so unrelated to the question of marriage's "mystique", as you define it.

You do note that you're not arguing "mystique" is a convincing justification [for banning gay marriage]; so far, assuredly it is not.

[Warge]

From dictionary.com:


marriage

mar-riage -noun
1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
[snip]



I put some boldness there to show the definitions. Which side, pro- or anti-gay wants to be right about marriage?


www.homo.se writes (my translation):


In the investigation work of 1984 about homosexuals and societ (SOU 1984:63) conclusion was drawn that the only difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals were that homosexuals in their choice of love partner prefer a person of the same gender.


A gender neutral marriage bill is right now under investigation in Sweden and probably some other European countries, and I would be surprised if it didn't pass. A few European countries already have conventional marriages for homosexuals (Netherlands, Spain and Belgium).

Also, the right to be married is a human right according to the European convention about human rights (article 12). This is in the addition of the registred parnership the homosexuals have today in Europe which is an equal form of marriage but not marriage so to speak.

A European perspective.

[ponderingturtle]

Second, Art's "mystique" issue (if I've correctly understood him) alludes to how (1) the psychological perceptions of individuals regarding the degree of exclusivity, privilege, specialness or what have you, associated with a preferential status can affect (2) their views of how desirable such status is and consequently their responsiveness to a legislative program designed to incentivize it. Now, even if (1) above is subjective on the part of each member of the public, it hardly seems irrational or invalid for a legislator to consider the possibility that (1) might sooner or later end up having some effect on (2), and to take that possibility into account when formulating a scheme of legislative incentives (whether a special tax regime, a civic award or military decoration program, a matrimonial code, or something else entirely). Note that I'm not arguing that this necessarily results in a convincing justification in any given case, simply that it's not off-the-wall.


The problem with this is that I have not seen anything that show why heterosexual marriage should be the only form of marriage. Why is heterosexual marriage so much of a benefit to our society? If one argues about children then you are poorly mapping that to straight marriage as there are many homosexuals with children and also many straight couples with out.

As for long term poverty rates and such why would only promoting hetero be something that the society wants?

I can certainly see say special tax breaks for children to promote reproduction(a lack of which is hurting a number of European countries for example)

[Morrigan]

The one point I think Art makes well, is this: why wouldn't gays not be satisfied with civil unions that guarantee the same rights as marriage?

Assuming they aren't satisfied, that is. But if it's true, then yeah, they do want that share of the "mystique". Now, whether that "harms the mystique" of heterosexual marriages is another story...

[Lonewulf]

The one point I think Art makes well, is this: why wouldn't gays not be satisfied with civil unions that guarantee the same rights as marriage?

I have an idea. Let's not give women the right to vote, but let's give them something similar, and just call it "suggesting".

Whaddya think? It's the same thing, and they don't deserve to have the same name. 'Cause they're women, you know.

[kmortis]

The one point I think Art makes well, is this: why wouldn't gays not be satisfied with civil unions that guarantee the same rights as marriage?

Assuming they aren't satisfied, that is. But if it's true, then yeah, they do want that share of the "mystique". Now, whether that "harms the mystique" of heterosexual marriages is another story...

If the Civil Unions provided all the benefits of Marriage, then why call it something else? Why clutter up our already complex legal system with yet another term? If it does everything that a Marriage does, then call it a freakin' Marriage and be done with it. Or, get rid of the term all together and call them all living-contracts or some-such rot. If it looks like a duck, and acts like a duck....

[ponderingturtle]

The one point I think Art makes well, is this: why wouldn't gays not be satisfied with civil unions that guarantee the same rights as marriage?

Assuming they aren't satisfied, that is. But if it's true, then yeah, they do want that share of the "mystique". Now, whether that "harms the mystique" of heterosexual marriages is another story...

Because unless you specifically have a law that says that everything that applies to marriage in the law applies equally to civil unions, meaning they are the same thing and why are you calling them different things? OR they are different and you have certain things that apply only to one or the other.

So having two terms makes it easier to discriminate because you can say such and such only applies to one of them. Or you are creating two terms that mean exactly the same thing. Neither of those seems like a good thing to me.

There might be certain political benefit to being like Britain and having what seems to be linguistic judo to say that you are defending marriage, but it seems more likely to be like what most people think of as Separate but Equal.

So really it is that America does not have a good history with Separate but Equal.

[ceo_esq]

The only possible explanation for gay marriage being a threat to the mystique of heterosexual marriage seems to be that the mystique is the sense of heterosexual exclusiveness itself. But if "mine, can't have any" is what it's all about, it's not much of a loss, is it? That's a pretty pathetic excuse for a mystique.

I agree that it seems pretty far down the list of arguments for maintaining the current marital regime in place, to say the least. However, to whatever extent the perception of and attraction to a certain exclusivity might be petty, vain or pathetic in an individual deciding whether or not to get married, that's not the relevant consideration - which is the possibility that it some cases, such perceptions may exert an influence (however subtle or even unconscious) on individual choices. A legislative incentive scheme (like any other inducement scheme) may obviously take into account individuals' baser instincts and motives (cowardice, vanity, greed, etc.). The legislator need not necessarily care about how pathetic they are, just about the possibility that it might influence someone's behavior.

In that connection, one thing we might be overlooking here is that the "mystique" issue hinges on perception. Remember that regardless of whom the government might let marry, the group of people it's primarily interested in inducing to marry are people who choose to form a relationship with an opposite-sex partner. We'll call them the "target demographic" of the marriage laws. If there are a bunch of people in the target demographic who think that opening up marriage to same-sex couples makes marital status even marginally less "special" - ought a rational legislator necessarily care whether those people are crazy or ignorant to think so? What arguably matters to the legislator is the perceptions those people have about "mystique", because it's their perceptions - not whether they're right - that factor into their subjective decisions and hence the overall effectiveness of government inducements. The mere fact that some yahoo asserts that same-sex marriage would, in his opinion, damage the attractiveness of the marriage option, arguably confers all by itself a limited degree of weight to the "mystique" argument. This might be one of those cases where the perception determines the reality.


Vermont has had civil unions for some time now, and Massachusetts has had gay marriage. Dire rhetoric aside, what has this actually done to traditional marriage in these places?

I don't know the answer to that; I think the body of rigorous, comprehensive investigations in Vermont and Massachusetts thus far must be small or nil. On the other hand, it seems to me that the pertinent question isn't so much "what happens to traditional marriage" as "what happens to the effectiveness of the marriage laws in promoting the underlying state interests". It's rather difficult to say at this point.


But I have not heard any heterosexuals lamenting that the mystique has left their marriages because of it, or using it as an excuse for the collapse of their own marriages.

I share your perception here - although it's hard to draw firm conclusions about what it means, because it can be difficult for people to recognize (or if they realize, to admit) all of the things that are actually pushing their buttons. But doesn't the "mystique" issue (man, I'm now regretting that Art's term stuck) relate more to prospective marriages than existing ones?


Is there a statistic that shows any decline in traditional marriages in states that sanction gay unions?

Good question. How about taking that on as a mini-research project for the thread?


For the AIDS nonsense, it's curious that 90% of those with HIV worldwide are heterosexual, isn't it?

Assuming arguendo that the figure is correct, I don't see why it's curious to you. One could as easily argue that, given the relative distribution of the heterosexual and homosexual populations, it's curious that only 90% of those with HIV worldwide are heterosexual.


And it is more likely in a grossly overpopulated world that homosexuality is beneficial since those persons are less llikely to breed.

In the event that, many years from now, our descendants ever come to inhabit a grossly overpopulated world, that observation might hold some interest. Although even then, I don't see why it would be relevant to our discussion, unless you mean to suggest that allowing same-sex couples to form legal marriages would increase the incidence of homosexuality in the general population. You don't really want to go there, do you?


I would point out that the parenthetical examples you give --

a special tax regime, a civic award or military decoration program --

all differ from "a matrimonial code" in that they are based on merit: work done to amass enough wealth to qualify for a special tax regime; service or heroism for the civic award or military decoration.

Merit is not at issue in the gay marriage debate (slobs can marry), and so unrelated to the question of marriage's "mystique", as you define it.

I think you may be focusing on a distinction that is not necessarily relevant in this context. Even though a given inducement scheme might be said to "reward" certain behavior, the question of whether the behavior is really meritorious is, in a sense, neither here nor there. Buying a hybrid car, moving your business to New Orleans after Katrina, killing a group of enemy soldiers, donating to an NGO, forming an opposite-sex household, or doing anything else the government happens to decide to encourage you to do - does it even matter for our purposes here whether or to what degree any of these things are truly meritorious? More important to the government, arguably, is creating the impression in your mind that they are.


I'm reminded of the comment by someone (Samuel Johnson, perhaps?) on Thomas Carlyle and his wife, that it was a good thing they had married, because they made only two people miserable rather than four.

Good one! I think that was Samuel Butler.


Also, the right to be married is a human right according to the European convention about human rights (article 12).

For the sake of accuracy, though, the article's text suggests that it protects the right to be married to someone of the opposite sex, or rather that gender complementarity is incorporated into the notion of "to be married" in the language of the Convention. The Cour de Strasbourg, as you probably know, has always agreed with this reading. In this regard, Europe is more or less aligned with the jurisprudence of the United States, the Constitution of which likewise protects (implicitly) marriage between a man and a woman as a fundamental right.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree that it seems pretty far down the list of arguments for maintaining the current marital regime in place, to say the least. However, to whatever extent the perception of and attraction to a certain exclusivity might be petty, vain or pathetic in an individual deciding whether or not to get married, that's not the relevant consideration - which is the possibility that it some cases, such perceptions may exert an influence (however subtle or even unconscious) on individual choices. A legislative incentive scheme (like any other inducement scheme) may obviously take into account individuals' baser instincts and motives (cowardice, vanity, greed, etc.). The legislator need not necessarily care about how pathetic they are, just about the possibility that it might influence someone's behavior.

In that connection, one thing we might be overlooking here is that the "mystique" issue hinges on perception. Remember that regardless of whom the government might let marry, the group of people it's primarily interested in inducing to marry are people who choose to form a relationship with an opposite-sex partner. We'll call them the "target demographic" of the marriage laws. If there are a bunch of people in the target demographic who think that opening up marriage to same-sex couples makes marital status even marginally less "special" - ought a rational legislator necessarily care whether those people are crazy or ignorant to think so? What arguably matters to the legislator is the perceptions those people have about "mystique", because it's their perceptions - not whether they're right - that factor into their subjective decisions and hence the overall effectiveness of government inducements. The mere fact that some yahoo asserts that same-sex marriage would, in his opinion, damage the attractiveness of the marriage option, arguably confers all by itself a limited degree of weight to the "mystique" argument. This might be one of those cases where the perception determines the reality.

A marketing based legal structure? As same race marriages are the majority and if the lack of anti miscegenation laws make marriage less attractive to that group isn't this an argument just as valid for the support of laws banning miscegenation?

Also the problem is that marriage is not intended to promote any one activity, but a great many. So if you are claiming that marriage laws where written to promote one activity I would like to see that.

The thing that many people wanted to promote is marriage itself, not an activity associated with it, so it seems odd now to look and say that marriage is something to promote something else. This is a mark of how much marriage has changed.

So when people bring up that marriage exists to protect a certain action I always ask what is it supposed to protect or promote? And given how poorly it maps to most anything that it is supposed to promote how can you honestly claim that its intent was to promote such an activity?

Example if marriage exists to promote a stable environment for child raising, then why can't homosexuals with children be married while heterosexuals who can never have children can?

I also have to say, it is very odd to be having a gay marriage debate in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology, it seems like not quite the right section.

[Warge]

For the sake of accuracy, though, the article's text suggests that it protects the right to be married to someone of the opposite sex, or rather that gender complementarity is incorporated into the notion of "to be married" in the language of the Convention. The Cour de Strasbourg, as you probably know, has always agreed with this reading. In this regard, Europe is more or less aligned with the jurisprudence of the United States, the Constitution of which likewise protects (implicitly) marriage between a man and a woman as a fundamental right.

Uh, did you read my entire post? In it I stated that a number of European states have gay marriage (plus South Africa and Canada even if they aren't European). Also, the ECHR talks about this in article 12:


Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.


Per definition, a family is any household consisting of at least 2 adult persons. So it doesn't matter if this family produces offspring or not.

[bruto]

I agree that it seems pretty far down the list of arguments for maintaining the current marital regime in place, to say the least. However, to whatever extent the perception of and attraction to a certain exclusivity might be petty, vain or pathetic in an individual deciding whether or not to get married, that's not the relevant consideration - which is the possibility that it some cases, such perceptions may exert an influence (however subtle or even unconscious) on individual choices. A legislative incentive scheme (like any other inducement scheme) may obviously take into account individuals' baser instincts and motives (cowardice, vanity, greed, etc.). The legislator need not necessarily care about how pathetic they are, just about the possibility that it might influence someone's behavior.

In that connection, one thing we might be overlooking here is that the "mystique" issue hinges on perception. Remember that regardless of whom the government might let marry, the group of people it's primarily interested in inducing to marry are people who choose to form a relationship with an opposite-sex partner. We'll call them the "target demographic" of the marriage laws. If there are a bunch of people in the target demographic who think that opening up marriage to same-sex couples makes marital status even marginally less "special" - ought a rational legislator necessarily care whether those people are crazy or ignorant to think so? What arguably matters to the legislator is the perceptions those people have about "mystique", because it's their perceptions - not whether they're right - that factor into their subjective decisions and hence the overall effectiveness of government inducements. The mere fact that some yahoo asserts that same-sex marriage would, in his opinion, damage the attractiveness of the marriage option, arguably confers all by itself a limited degree of weight to the "mystique" argument. This might be one of those cases where the perception determines the reality.




I don't know the answer to that; I think the body of rigorous, comprehensive investigations in Vermont and Massachusetts thus far must be small or nil. On the other hand, it seems to me that the pertinent question isn't so much "what happens to traditional marriage" as "what happens to the effectiveness of the marriage laws in promoting the underlying state interests". It's rather difficult to say at this point.




I share your perception here - although it's hard to draw firm conclusions about what it means, because it can be difficult for people to recognize (or if they realize, to admit) all of the things that are actually pushing their buttons. But doesn't the "mystique" issue (man, I'm now regretting that Art's term stuck) relate more to prospective marriages than existing ones?




Good question. How about taking that on as a mini-research project for the thread?



I can see your argument on the mystique, but can't quite buy it. Yes, the mystique argument applies more to prospective than existing marriages, but I have yet to hear of a couple seriously considering marriage who have decided not to bother because of the loss of exclusivity. Since most of the most vociferous opponents of gay marriage are religious conservatives, who tend not to favor "living in sin," it seems unlikely that they would concede marriage to the gays and opt for cohabitation. I don't have any statistics on this, but really, does anybody think this is likely? What seems most likely is that those with religious objections to homosexual marriage will opt for ecclesiastical weddings instead of civil, but from any point of view but their own, this is a wash.

Of course, legislators must take into account perception, but the speculative perceptions of people with a heavily religious bias against homosexuality seem a poor gauge of social benefit, and similar arguments could probably be made, for example, against interracial or interreligious marriages, which at least a few vociferous yahoos (even a few who occasionally frequent these forums) find offensive. At some point, we have to judge whether or not the ideas on which those perceptions are based are themselves acceptable. We do base some decisions on feelings, but it's still reasonable to weigh whether or not those feelings are venal, bigoted, stupid or (as I think is the case here) rhetorical and not likely to be carried through. If there is a civil benefit to marriage which the state legitimately promotes (something I believe is probably true), then using that argument against gay marriage would require two things, in addition to addressing the question of whether the benefit to the parties should outweigh the benefit their marriage confers on others. First, it would require that the civil benefit of marriage to society is absent or at least diminished in the case of gay marriages, and second it would require evidence that the perceived disincentive to straight marriages actually outweighs the social benefit of the gay marriages that occur. I will indeed try to find out what, if any, statistical evidence there is in Vermont to go with that argument, if I have time. My un-researched perception is that civil unions have had very little effect on straight marriage, and considering the bitter and divisive battles that took place over the initial legislation, it's surprising how quickly it has become routine and uncontroversial, even to the point that those who fought it hard initially now use the success of civil unions as an argument against the need to go further and introduce gay marriage.

[ceo_esq]

A marketing based legal structure? As same race marriages are the majority and if the lack of anti miscegenation laws make marriage less attractive to that group isn't this an argument just as valid for the support of laws banning miscegenation?

In some hypothetical world where mixed-race marriages had some fundamental difference from same-race marriages vis-à-vis the purposes of the incentive scheme we've been discussing; where we were confronted with an actual "mystique" argument regarding miscegenation; and where anti-miscegenation laws did not pose other legal problems distinct from the opposite-sex requirement, possibly. In this world, the comparison is not even worth pursuing, in my view.


The thing that many people wanted to promote is marriage itself, not an activity associated with it, so it seems odd now to look and say that marriage is something to promote something else. This is a mark of how much marriage has changed.

I think it might be closer to the opposite. The increasingly widespread notion of marriage, at least in a civil sense, being promoted for its own sake (and particularly for the sake of the emotions of the couple) represents the change. The idea that civil marriage is largely instrumental (that is, a means to an end) is the historical one.


Example if marriage exists to promote a stable environment for child raising, then why can't homosexuals with children be married while heterosexuals who can never have children can?

I believe I've already explained this to you. Please see this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2380071#post2380071) as well as the other posts linked therein. By the way, upon re-reading that link, I think I responded snappishly to you in the other thread, and I apologize belatedly for the tone. I think I must simply have been frustrated to see the same questions turn up again and again from various people.

At any rate, I'm not sure why the explanation did not "take". Perhaps you could tell me what you thought of the explanation, and why you still have essentially the same question on your mind. Then I might be able to explain it in a different or better way. I do think it's important for people discussing same-sex marriage to understand the answer to that question.


I also have to say, it is very odd to be having a gay marriage debate in Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology, it seems like not quite the right section.

I agree, but I guess we're stuck with it now. The upside is the potential for participation from Sci/Math/Med/Tech readers who might not spend much time in the sections where same-sex marriage is typically discussed.

[ceo_esq]

Uh, did you read my entire post? In it I stated that a number of European states have gay marriage (plus South Africa and Canada even if they aren't European). Also, the ECHR talks about this in article 12:

[snip]

Per definition, a family is any household consisting of at least 2 adult persons. So it doesn't matter if this family produces offspring or not.

Yes, I read your entire post. Everything you just said is consistent with what I said. Having spent much of my adult life (and legal practice) in Europe, I'm aware that some European countries have now permitted same-sex marriages under their national laws. What I was saying, however, was that the ECHR jurisprudence (which you brought up) is broadly consistent with U.S. constitutional jurisprudence on this point. That is, the marriage right legally protected under both the ECHR and the U.S. Constitution is a right of opposite-sex marriage (per the European Court of Human Rights and the U.S. Supreme Court, respectively). The laws of subsidiary jurisdictions (European member states or U.S. states) are another question entirely.

[kmortis]

I believe I've already explained this to you. Please see this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2380071#post2380071) as well as the other posts linked therein. By the way, upon re-reading that link, I think I responded snappishly to you in the other thread, and I apologize belatedly for the tone. I think I must simply have been frustrated to see the same questions turn up again and again from various people.

At any rate, I'm not sure why the explanation did not "take". Perhaps you could tell me what you thought of the explanation, and why you still have essentially the same question on your mind. Then I might be able to explain it in a different or better way. I do think it's important for people discussing same-sex marriage to understand the answer to that question.

I'll take a stab at trying to explain why I'm not getting your discussion. At least part of it come from your writing style. From past discussions with you, I understand that you're an attorney by profession, and your writing style reflects this. Much of what you write reads as so much word salad. I know there's some meat in there, but I get lost in the rhetoric.

For example, I've read, what, a dozen or so of your posts now trying to explain this, and yet I still cannot tell just WTF you're trying to say is the State's interest in favoring heterosexual over homosexual couples in terms of marriage is. I gather that child rearing enters into it, but you state in one of the posts that that's not it, or at least seem to say that.

Is there anyway you can clearly, in plain English, describe what you think the State's interest in Marriage is?

[ceo_esq]

Of course, legislators must take into account perception, but the speculative perceptions of people with a heavily religious bias against homosexuality seem a poor gauge of social benefit[.]

I don't think the perceptions are being used to gauge social benefit in the scenario I outlined. The social benefit in the legislator's mind consists in - all other things being equal - successfully inducing what I earlier called the "target demographic" to marry. The "mystique" perceptions did not determine the state's policy priorities in the first place. They're simply something that could rationally be taken into consideration in the design of the method, and that can be done without any value judgment.

[bruto]

I don't think the perceptions are being used to gauge social benefit in the scenario I outlined. The social benefit in the legislator's mind consists in - all other things being equal - successfully inducing what I earlier called the "target demographic" to marry. The "mystique" perceptions did not determine the state's policy priorities in the first place. They're simply something that could rationally be taken into consideration in the design of the method, and that can be done without any value judgment.

I'm not entirely sure that government decisions on marriage have ever been made without religious value judgment, and I'm even less confident that many legislators are thinking in terms of actual social benefit. I suspect that the mystique is higher on their list than we would like it to be. Perhaps I'm cynical, but I suspect that in the minds of many, the goal remains not so much to induce a target demographic to marry, but to exclude a different target demographic, based largely on religious scruples.

Anyway, from a cursory preliminary look (hard statistical charts not yet found) , it appears that since civil unions were introduced in Vermont, hetero marriage rates in general have remained pretty steady, and that the percentage of those which are civil rather than ecclesiastical has actually increased. It's probably too soon to get a real idea from Massachusetts, but Vermont seems to be running pretty smoothly.

[blobru]

I'm reminded of the comment by someone (Samuel Johnson, perhaps?) on Thomas Carlyle and his wife, that it was a good thing they had married, because they made only two people miserable rather than four.

Good one! I think that was Samuel Butler.

Misquote of the [mis]quote: 'twas bruto, not me. I wish I had the literary chops to [mis]quote either Samuel. Unfortunately, I'm much more likely to quote Samuel L. Jackson, and unless we want to argue that Snakes on a Plane by merging two phallic symbols subverts the mystique of heterosexual unions, well...

I think you may be focusing on a distinction that is not necessarily relevant in this context. Even though a given inducement scheme might be said to "reward" certain behavior, the question of whether the behavior is really meritorious is, in a sense, neither here nor there. Buying a hybrid car, moving your business to New Orleans after Katrina, killing a group of enemy soldiers, donating to an NGO, forming an opposite-sex household, or doing anything else the government happens to decide to encourage you to do - does it even matter for our purposes here whether or to what degree any of these things are truly meritorious? More important to the government, arguably, is creating the impression in your mind that they are.

About merit and marriage. I see your point about the "perception of merit" and "incentive". I was equating "merit" with "reward for performance"; "reward" would have been a better choice in hindsight. I agree all your examples, including marriage, are incentives. But marriage differs in that it is a promise to perform: whether that promise is honored remains to be seen. Reward is for performance, not promise. The examples you cite assume some service has already been performed. Alongside marriage, they give it a lustre neither party has earned.

I think bruto [of the mighty backhoe] makes an excellent point in post #102:
I can see your argument on the mystique, but can't quite buy it. Yes, the mystique argument applies more to prospective than existing marriages, but I have yet to hear of a couple seriously considering marriage who have decided not to bother because of the loss of exclusivity. ... I don't have any statistics on this, but really, does anybody think this is likely?

As he says, there may be no statistics at the moment to confirm the absurdity of the assumption, so I guess we'll have to play a little make believe instead, to illustate his argument. To exclude gays from marriage based on loss of mystique as you define it, no matter how you slice it, at some point we have to assume:
Jack wants to marry Jill, and Jack will marry Jill, and live happily ever after, just so long as Ole King Cole can't marry Prince Charming, or Goldilocks swap spit and vows with Rapunzel.

I can remember believing a lot of strange things in bedtime stories, but even as a fairy tale, that's a stretch.
But it is make believe after all. And nonsense. Not meant to be taken seriously.

IMO: In the real world, this mystical scruple against gay marriage is just another form of the child's fear of the dark, and while fairy tales may soothe that fear, they should never impair our judgement in the light of day.

BTW, it's none of my business, but are you playing devil's advocate here, pro bono Art, or is this an argument from conviction? It doesn't impact the logic of anything you've said, I'm just nosey. :)

[The Grave]

The problem with the church is that for years they outlawed homosexuality and thereby increased the proportion of those genes in the gene pool, that, together, act to make a gay person the way they are.:D

I have no problem with gay people - their just people. Some of my friends are gay (although they don't know it!) and some of the best super stars are gay.:eek:

Your sexuality is your own affair...not god's or IT's minions!:p

Viruses like HIV are nothing to do with gay people...and compared to some other viruses it's pants!

The misnomer "smallpox" would play school bully to the 7 stone HIV wimp any day!:jaw-dropp

The nasty way gay people have been treated by the bible and faithers over the years is another example of their....nonexistent...."kind"-ness!

Griff

[cloudshipsrule]

Homosexuality, for example, is not only normal for homo sapiens, but also for a myriad of other species.

Define 'normal'.

[ceo_esq]

Is there anyway you can clearly, in plain English, describe what you think the State's interest in Marriage is?

OK. I can at least tell you something about what the state thinks the state's interest in marriage is.

The state has a number of interests in marriage, though most of the major ones seem to be related. At the risk of oversimplifying, I'll just go over the interest(s) that relate(s) most directly to ponderingturtle's question, which was "Why can't homosexuals with children be married while heterosexuals who can never have children can?"

The particular interest at stake here is basically this (as I said, this risks oversimplifying): the state has decided that, all other things being equal, society is better off if the greatest proportion of children are raised by the people who made them, or at least by a man and a woman legally bound to each other. This isn't the only interest, and there are other permutations of it as well, but for the sake of simplicity here, let's call this the "Interest".

(Leave aside the separate question and argument concerning whether the state is right about that. That's just what it's determined is in its interest.)

Let's consider the Interest in relation to ponderingturtle's question, which is really a composite of two questions:

1. Why does the state let an opposite-sex couple who can't have or don't want children get married? After all, it seems as though the Interest is served by allowing such couples to marry, right?

Allowing such couples to marry actually does advance the Interest. Say a couple who didn't want children get "surprised" or change their minds. Or a couple believed to be sterile turn out later to have been misdiagnosed. Or a couple that were genuinely sterile at one time end up becoming fertile (for whatever reason) at a later time. Or a sterile couple adopt or find themselves legal guardians of children (often happens with grandparents, for example). In each of these cases, you have a situation where the Interest suddenly kicks in. The state can't predict when, or even if, one of these things will happen for a given couple, but it can still promote the Interest in a general way by allowing such couples to marry.


The state lacks the practical or legal ability to exclude such couples from marriage. Sure, the big legislative incentive program we call "marriage law" would arguably be more efficient if the state could ensure that it was more narrowly tailored to the target audience. But that's a tricky proposition. It would be administratively burdensome and probably unreliable for the state to investigate the childbearing plans and reproductive health of all those couples. It would also probably get the state sued. Not to mention the fact that the Supreme Court has already held that opposite-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. How is the state supposed to get around that? In sum: no upside for the state in even trying to exclude child-challenged opposite-sex couples from marriage, and a considerable downside.

2. Why doesn't the state let same-sex couples with children (or who want to arrange to have children in some manner) marry?

Allowing those couples to marry doesn't advance the Interest. Strictly speaking, it's hard to see how their marriages will increase the likelihood that a child will be raised by its mother and father, or by another married man and woman. One might argue that their marriage serves one or more other state interests, such as simply having people who rear children be legally bound to one another. But even if the state does have an interest in that, the state is mostly preoccupied with legally binding couples that could have unplanned pregnancies, because historically they have often caused one partner to leave. The quintessential beneficiary of the protections of marriage is an unplanned child, and marriage incentives are supposed to give easily panicked dads a nudge in the right direction. Same-sex couples can't have unplanned children, so the concern isn't as pressing for the state. On the whole, the state can be discretionary about which of several valid interests it will pursue, and whether the costs to the state of allowing a group of people to marry are justified by the return it hopes to get.

I hope I managed to say that in plain English without being overly reductive. It's only a small aspect of the overall argument, of course, but I'd be interested to know if people think it answers the question of why the conventional marriage laws extend to opposite-sex couples who can't have or don't want kids, yet not to same-sex couples who do have or want kids. At the very least I think it shows that, upon closer scrutiny, it's not as bizarrely or necessarily contradictory as some people have made it out to be.

[ceo_esq]

Misquote of the [mis]quote: 'twas bruto, not me. I wish I had the literary chops to [mis]quote either Samuel. Unfortunately, I'm much more likely to quote Samuel L. Jackson, and unless we want to argue that Snakes on a Plane by merging two phallic symbols subverts the mystique of heterosexual unions, well...

Sorry, I got a little sloppy with my cut-and-paste job there.


About merit and marriage. I see your point about the "perception of merit" and "incentive". I was equating "merit" with "reward for performance"; "reward" would have been a better choice in hindsight. I agree all your examples, including marriage, are incentives. But marriage differs in that it is a promise to perform: whether that promise is honored remains to be seen. Reward is for performance, not promise. The examples you cite assume some service has already been performed. Alongside marriage, they give it a lustre neither party has earned.

Considered in one aspect, marriage is indeed a promise of future performance. But from the incentive-scheme perspective, the rewarded performance is the act of getting married - it's a past performance. By getting married, you've already done a large part of what the state wanted you to encourage you to do: put yourself in a position where the state can extract certain things (including compensation) from you, particularly if you fail later on to respect your responsibilities. Think along the lines of the difference between an inducement to sign a contract and an inducement to perform an existing contract.

[qayak]

OK. I can at least tell you something about what the state thinks the state's interest in marriage is.

The state has a number of interests in marriage, though most of the major ones seem to be related. At the risk of oversimplifying, I'll just go over the interest(s) that relate(s) most directly to ponderingturtle's question, which was "Why can't homosexuals with children be married while heterosexuals who can never have children can?"

The particular interest at stake here is basically this (as I said, this risks oversimplifying): the state has decided that, all other things being equal, society is better off if the greatest proportion of children are raised by the people who made them, or at least by a man and a woman legally bound to each other. This isn't the only interest, and there are other permutations of it as well, but for the sake of simplicity here, let's call this the "Interest".

(Leave aside the separate question and argument concerning whether the state is right about that. That's just what it's determined is in its interest.)

Let's consider the Interest in relation to ponderingturtle's question, which is really a composite of two questions:

1. Why does the state let an opposite-sex couple who can't have or don't want children get married? After all, it seems as though the Interest is served by allowing such couples to marry, right?

Allowing such couples to marry actually does advance the Interest. Say a couple who didn't want children get "surprised" or change their minds. Or a couple believed to be sterile turn out later to have been misdiagnosed. Or a couple that were genuinely sterile at one time end up becoming fertile (for whatever reason) at a later time. Or a sterile couple adopt or find themselves legal guardians of children (often happens with grandparents, for example). In each of these cases, you have a situation where the Interest suddenly kicks in. The state can't predict when, or even if, one of these things will happen for a given couple, but it can still promote the Interest in a general way by allowing such couples to marry.


The state lacks the practical or legal ability to exclude such couples from marriage. Sure, the big legislative incentive program we call "marriage law" would arguably be more efficient if the state could ensure that it was more narrowly tailored to the target audience. But that's a tricky proposition. It would be administratively burdensome and probably unreliable for the state to investigate the childbearing plans and reproductive health of all those couples. It would also probably get the state sued. Not to mention the fact that the Supreme Court has already held that opposite-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. How is the state supposed to get around that? In sum: no upside for the state in even trying to exclude child-challenged opposite-sex couples from marriage, and a considerable downside.

2. Why doesn't the state let same-sex couples with children (or who want to arrange to have children in some manner) marry?

Allowing those couples to marry doesn't advance the Interest. Strictly speaking, it's hard to see how their marriages will increase the likelihood that a child will be raised by its mother and father, or by another married man and woman. One might argue that their marriage serves one or more other state interests, such as simply having people who rear children be legally bound to one another. But even if the state does have an interest in that, the state is mostly preoccupied with legally binding couples that could have unplanned pregnancies, because historically they have often caused one partner to leave. The quintessential beneficiary of the protections of marriage is an unplanned child, and marriage incentives are supposed to give easily panicked dads a nudge in the right direction. Same-sex couples can't have unplanned children, so the concern isn't as pressing for the state. On the whole, the state can be discretionary about which of several valid interests it will pursue, and whether the costs to the state of allowing a group of people to marry are justified by the return it hopes to get.

I hope I managed to say that in plain English without being overly reductive. It's only a small aspect of the overall argument, of course, but I'd be interested to know if people think it answers the question of why the conventional marriage laws extend to opposite-sex couples who can't have or don't want kids, yet not to same-sex couples who do have or want kids. At the very least I think it shows that, upon closer scrutiny, it's not as bizarrely or necessarily contradictory as some people have made it out to be.

So, the state decided this did it? I doubt it. I think this is simply an after the fact excuse used to justify discrimination.

The fact is, historically, same sex marriage has been illegal because the old men in power find it icky for two men to have sex. They have found that this stance also gets them re-elected by religious people who believed the world would end as soon as gays get these rights.

Fortunately enlightened countries around the world have given same sex couples the right to marry and proven that the world won't end. These countries realized that the world didn't end when gays were allowed to hold office, when they were allowed to teach in schools, or to adopt children.

Fortunately, there are enlightened people in this world who refuse to make excuses for denying people their rights.

[blobru]

Considered in one aspect, marriage is indeed a promise of future performance. But from the incentive-scheme perspective, the rewarded performance is the act of getting married - it's a past performance. By getting married, you've already done a large part of what the state wanted you to encourage you to do: put yourself in a position where the state can extract certain things (including compensation) from you, particularly if you fail later on to respect your responsibilities. Think along the lines of the difference between an inducement to sign a contract and an inducement to perform an existing contract.

Ok. The reward for marriage (i.e. getting married) is marriage (i.e. being married -- and all that entails as defined by the State in its own Interest). Then marriage is its own reward, and it must be a virtue, etc.

I withdraw my objection to its analogy with the other examples you cite.

In fact, for summary purposes, I'll even proceed by analogy with one of those examples and blend in some other posts so we can see where we're at overall (I hope).

Recall we defined "mystique" as "incentive based on exclusivity".

E.g.: military decoration. Say a certain medal is awarded to a soldier who kills a minimum of 4 enemies in a single mission. Then say that minimum is lowered to 3. Less mystique. The danger is:

A soldier on a mission who's already killed 3 enemies (which is in the State's Interest), may decide not to risk trying to kill a 4th enemy (also in the State's Interest), or not risk as much as he might have, because he knows some other soldier at some point might get or might have already gotten the medal by only exposing himself to the risk of killing 3 enemies, one of his inducements for killing the 4th enemy, the mystique of the medal, having thus been removed once the 3rd enemy was dead.

Just like {analogy to mystique of matrimonial code}:

A guy on the verge of marrying a girl (which is in the State's Interest), may decide not to risk entering into a contract that may require him to care for an unplanned pregnancy and the child[ren] therefrom (also in the State's Interest), because he knows some other guy at some point might or might have already entered into that same contract by marrying a guy, so with no risk of unplanned pregnancy, one of his motivations for marrying the girl, the mystique of the marriage, having thus been removed once he realized that some people [gays] were getting all the benefits of marriage without risking as much as he'd have to, in terms of unplanned pregnancies. Or something like that.

Anyway... furthermore:

It is in the State's Interest that gays not receive the same inducement to adopt that straights, through marriage, receive to bear children because the more children raised by their birth parents the better, and

It is in the State's Interest that gays, unable to procreate, not receive the same inducement to pair-bond that sterile or childless straights do because the State is unable to forecast whether a sterile or childless straight couple will remain that way.

Whew! :relieved:

That's a crazy mouthful, but as you lay it out, it seems consistent, logic no guarantor of morality of course. I guess proponents of gay marriage, like myself, then have to examine those articles which the State argues (and you posit hypotheticaly) are in its Interest, namely:

(1) provision for unplanned pregnancy;
(2) birth parents better parents;
(3) childless straights better couples because potential birth parents.

I think all of these assumed State Interests are assailable, but leave it alone for now, as you were only asking above (reply #111) whether posters thought your description of the State's rationale against gay marriage was consistent, not true.

Good thread this; vital topic too.

[bruto]

OK. I can at least tell you something about what the state thinks the state's interest in marriage is.

The state has a number of interests in marriage, though most of the major ones seem to be related. At the risk of oversimplifying, I'll just go over the interest(s) that relate(s) most directly to ponderingturtle's question, which was "Why can't homosexuals with children be married while heterosexuals who can never have children can?"

The particular interest at stake here is basically this (as I said, this risks oversimplifying): the state has decided that, all other things being equal, society is better off if the greatest proportion of children are raised by the people who made them, or at least by a man and a woman legally bound to each other. This isn't the only interest, and there are other permutations of it as well, but for the sake of simplicity here, let's call this the "Interest".

(Leave aside the separate question and argument concerning whether the state is right about that. That's just what it's determined is in its interest.)

Let's consider the Interest in relation to ponderingturtle's question, which is really a composite of two questions:

1. Why does the state let an opposite-sex couple who can't have or don't want children get married? After all, it seems as though the Interest is served by allowing such couples to marry, right?

Allowing such couples to marry actually does advance the Interest. Say a couple who didn't want children get "surprised" or change their minds. Or a couple believed to be sterile turn out later to have been misdiagnosed. Or a couple that were genuinely sterile at one time end up becoming fertile (for whatever reason) at a later time. Or a sterile couple adopt or find themselves legal guardians of children (often happens with grandparents, for example). In each of these cases, you have a situation where the Interest suddenly kicks in. The state can't predict when, or even if, one of these things will happen for a given couple, but it can still promote the Interest in a general way by allowing such couples to marry.


The state lacks the practical or legal ability to exclude such couples from marriage. Sure, the big legislative incentive program we call "marriage law" would arguably be more efficient if the state could ensure that it was more narrowly tailored to the target audience. But that's a tricky proposition. It would be administratively burdensome and probably unreliable for the state to investigate the childbearing plans and reproductive health of all those couples. It would also probably get the state sued. Not to mention the fact that the Supreme Court has already held that opposite-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. How is the state supposed to get around that? In sum: no upside for the state in even trying to exclude child-challenged opposite-sex couples from marriage, and a considerable downside.

2. Why doesn't the state let same-sex couples with children (or who want to arrange to have children in some manner) marry?

Allowing those couples to marry doesn't advance the Interest. Strictly speaking, it's hard to see how their marriages will increase the likelihood that a child will be raised by its mother and father, or by another married man and woman. One might argue that their marriage serves one or more other state interests, such as simply having people who rear children be legally bound to one another. But even if the state does have an interest in that, the state is mostly preoccupied with legally binding couples that could have unplanned pregnancies, because historically they have often caused one partner to leave. The quintessential beneficiary of the protections of marriage is an unplanned child, and marriage incentives are supposed to give easily panicked dads a nudge in the right direction. Same-sex couples can't have unplanned children, so the concern isn't as pressing for the state. On the whole, the state can be discretionary about which of several valid interests it will pursue, and whether the costs to the state of allowing a group of people to marry are justified by the return it hopes to get.

I hope I managed to say that in plain English without being overly reductive. It's only a small aspect of the overall argument, of course, but I'd be interested to know if people think it answers the question of why the conventional marriage laws extend to opposite-sex couples who can't have or don't want kids, yet not to same-sex couples who do have or want kids. At the very least I think it shows that, upon closer scrutiny, it's not as bizarrely or necessarily contradictory as some people have made it out to be.

I think it's a good explanation as far as it goes, but I don't think it's complete. Obviously one of the major reasons for the state promoting marriage is to provide at least the hope of stable parental family units for kids, which is both a social and an economic benefit to the state insofar as it gets the kids raised moderately well on average, at less cost to the state. But I am not sure why these protections should apply only to the unplanned child. Planned, adopted, artificially inseminated, etc. children also are subject to the vagaries of unsanctioned relationships, and can also benefit from the obligations of marriage. Under the circumstances of the real world, it would appear that the state would have a fairly sound interest in extending marriage at least to lesbian couples, since in the real world, such couples often do manage to have kids within their relationship. Gay men, of course, can't produce a kid quite so easily, but adoption is still possible. Of course, the prospect of a gay couple adopting is also one of the major arguments used by some against gay marriage, and against the very idea of raising gay relationships to the level of social acceptance implied by marriages and civil unions, but again, it would appear that if the state cannot prevent that occurrence, then the interest in the welfare of the children would be to bind those couples legally as parents.

I think there may be other, less tangible, but still real, social benefits to marriage, some questionable as to whether they should be even considered by governments, but present nonetheless. The statistically demonstrated benefits to health, the care of the elderly, the legal protection of spouses when the marriage ends, and other such issues, are independent of whether a couple can bear children. Of course, some of the arguments for marriage stray into the area of morality, where it is then difficult to exclude the moral arguments against homosexuality itself, but mystique and child welfare aside, marriage is a strong component of our overall social order.

Much of the argument that carried the civil union bill here in Vermont centered around the civil amenities that marriage provides to partners: rights of succession, hospital visitation, housing issues, parental status, and so forth. Insofar as the state is ultimately made of its people, it shouldn't be too hard to argue that the interests of the state are, if not quite identical, at least intimately bound up with the rights and vital interests of its citizens, and because of this, it seems to me at least that banning gay marriage should require not only the absence of whatever is on the top of the state's list of reasons to promote marriage, but also an overall negative effect on society that justifies denying the positive benefit to those who seek it.

[ArmillarySphere]

For me, the issue is very simple. Children aside, marriage carries with it a lot of the previously mentioned rights (I would claim hospital visiting rights as one of the most important ones - how would *you* like to be excluded when your loved one's life is in the balance?). When children are involved, you have guardian status, visiting rights to them in school, hospitals and whatnot, inheritance rights, and so on and so forth. Assuming the children are the issue of one of the spouses, the other spouse would be barred from having any of those rights.

So you have a whole package of legal rights and codes called marriage. And for some unfathomable reason, the only people who can get this status vis-a-vis their loved one are those who love someone of the opposite sex.

If this isn't discrimination, then I don't know what is. Denying those rights to some people simply due to their sexual orientation is downright inhumane.

And who says homosexual unions are necessarily free of unplanned children? Infidelity isn't restricted to heterosexual couples. Now that the stigma of 'bastard' is all but archaic, don't those children deserve a family to be raised in, or the rights of inheritance etc from the other spouse?

For those claiming exclusivity as a requirement for the 'mystique', I would direct you to our glorious past, when homosexuals were considered mentally ill, and thus "everyone" was heterosexual and thus entitled to marry. No exclusivity there, right? Was the status of marriage *less* in those days? I think you'll find the historical record argues against you...

With all this being said, if a legal code does not distinguish other than semantically between a homosexual and heterosexual union, it makes no sense to make use of two different legal terms for them.

[ceo_esq]

And who says homosexual unions are necessarily free of unplanned children? Infidelity isn't restricted to heterosexual couples.

If by homosexual union you mean a union of two homosexuals, it's hard to see how infidelity could result in one of the members of the union getting accidentally pregnant. I suppose if one of the members of a lesbian union were bisexual and had adulterous sex with a man, it could happen. Not often enough to pose a major concern for what is a broadly tailored legislative program. But at any rate, it's really more aimed at modifying the behavior of couples whose sexual activity might give rise to a child, such that the people who created the child will take responsibility for rearing it. In the case of infidelity (or otherwise, really), the existence of a same-sex union is not going to make it more likely that that happens.

[Morrigan]

I have an idea. Let's not give women the right to vote, but let's give them something similar, and just call it "suggesting".

Whaddya think? It's the same thing, and they don't deserve to have the same name. 'Cause they're women, you know.
Oh please. If "suggesting" had the same results and same effect as "voting", and the only difference was that one would be done by women and the others by men, I know I wouldn't care. It'd just be a language quirk.

If the Civil Unions provided all the benefits of Marriage, then why call it something else? Why clutter up our already complex legal system with yet another term? If it does everything that a Marriage does, then call it a freakin' Marriage and be done with it. Or, get rid of the term all together and call them all living-contracts or some-such rot. If it looks like a duck, and acts like a duck....

I don't disagree. I admit I am unfamiliar with civil unions, but is thereanything mariages do that these unions don't already? If not, then why is there such a term? The only difference I can see is the religious aspect. Then again, we wouldn't want to force churches to marry couples they don't want to marry, and very few churches would marry gays, so...

[Lonewulf]

Oh please. If "suggesting" had the same results and same effect as "voting", and the only difference was that one would be done by women and the others by men, I know I wouldn't care. It'd just be a language quirk.

"Oh please" indeed. The entire argument is ridiculous in the first place. :rolleyes:

[baskett_case]

Quote from the essay in question:

Of the 5,700 couples that got civil unions in Vermont after that state legalized them “nearly 40 percent have had a previous heterosexual marriage.”

This argument is false for one main reason: heterosexuals are the majority and homosexuals are the minority. Therefore, homosexuals will often date people of the opposite sex while establishing their sexuality, whether they are aware of their true sexuality or not. In rural areas for instance, a homosexual may not know other homosexuals, and can only date the opposite sex.

The author of the essay doesn't take into account the fact that heterosexuality is greatly favored within our society over homosexuality, and that many homosexuals will attempt to "make" themselves straight or to at least have the appearance of being straight. This could account for the 40% of homosexuals who have had heterosexual relationships.

The argument that heterosexuals will become homosexuals if same-sex marriage is allowed is ludicrous. Many people have both heterosexual and homosexual encounters in their lives, and this has no effect whatsoever on their sexuality.

The tone of the essay IMO is that the author believes homosexual behavior should be banned, and that it is a homosexual's job to not have homosexual relationships in order to make the author (and like minded individuals) more comfortable.

Well, too f&$#@g bad the author (and like minded individuals) won't modify their behavior to make the rest of us more comfortable. This seems to be a very hegemonic relationship.

[kmortis]

I don't disagree. I admit I am unfamiliar with civil unions, but is thereanything mariages do that these unions don't already? If not, then why is there such a term? The only difference I can see is the religious aspect. Then again, we wouldn't want to force churches to marry couples they don't want to marry, and very few churches would marry gays, so...
I don't want to force the churches to do anything. If the First Church of the Flaming Sisterhood doesn't want to perform weddings for gay couples, then that's their right. There's enough of ordained agnostics/atheists who have no such qualms that will happily perform the wedding to make up for it.

Ok, so the State wants a stable platform upon which children can be raised (what? Me, an engineer? naaa). Fine, no one has of yet put forth any evidence that heterosexual couples are any more stable than homosexual. There are some down right sh**ty heterosexual parents out there, was witnessed by the busy-ness of all the Child Welfare departments of every state. So, really, a child rearing argument doesn't hold too much water.

Look all I'm saying is that from a State position, since the barring of gays from marrying is a religious argument, then it should be eliminated from the equation. We seemed to have weathered the multi-racial marriages alright, without any of the horrible backlashes that were predicted, I think we'll be ok if we let the gays marry too.

[ceo_esq]

So, the state decided this did it? I doubt it. I think this is simply an after the fact excuse used to justify discrimination.

When I said that the state had decided it, I was distilling many centuries of development of marriage law (statutory and jurisprudential) for the sake of simplicity. This is a complex field in which I have certain amount of legitimate expert knowledge, frankly, but you're obviously free to reject what I'm telling you.


The fact is, historically, same sex marriage has been illegal because the old men in power find it icky for two men to have sex. They have found that this stance also gets them re-elected by religious people who believed the world would end as soon as gays get these rights.

Your second remark might be true in some places now, but is a non-issue for most historical purposes. Your first remark makes a possibly correct observation, but you ascribe far to much significance to it. Distaste for homosexual activity does not, and could not possibly, account for why marriage has evolved the way it has. Conventional marriage law, as we know it, is a fairly fine-tuned system (as far as legislative schemes generally go) "designed and evolved to regulate incentive problems that arise between a man and a woman over the life cycle of procreation", to borrow legal economist Doug Allen's phrase. Most changes and innovations in marriage law over time have at some level been motivated by the desire to reduce the social costs generated by those incentive problems and other related problems.


Obviously one of the major reasons for the state promoting marriage is to provide at least the hope of stable parental family units for kids, which is both a social and an economic benefit to the state insofar as it gets the kids raised moderately well on average, at less cost to the state. But I am not sure why these protections should apply only to the unplanned child. Planned, adopted, artificially inseminated, etc. children also are subject to the vagaries of unsanctioned relationships, and can also benefit from the obligations of marriage.

Sure, the state benefits when the parents of planned children stay together. (I didn't mean to suggest otherwise when I characterized an unplanned child as a quintessential protectee of the basic civil marriage regime). However, people being what they are, the unplanned child (or the family unit into which one is born) is clearly more vulnerable. There is a materially greater chance that the parents of a planned child will independently decide to stick around to raise it together, without any additional incentive from the state. So the state applies the incentive where it will arguably do the most good (and the state will get the most "bang for its buck"): couples where there is a potential risk of unplanned pregnancy.

[ceo_esq]

Look all I'm saying is that from a State position, since the barring of gays from marrying is a religious argument, then it should be eliminated from the equation.

I can honestly say, speaking from familiarity with a great deal of judicial and legislative documentation on the subject, that since the "marriage war" kicked off in the past decade, I have virtually never seen a state advance a religious argument.

[shecky]

I can honestly say, speaking from familiarity with a great deal of judicial and legislative documentation on the subject, that since the "marriage war" kicked off in the past decade, I have virtually never seen a state advance a religious argument.



Nor a coherent one.

[FenrisWolf]

The particular interest at stake here is basically this (as I said, this risks oversimplifying): the state has decided that, all other things being equal, society is better off if the greatest proportion of children are raised by the people who made them, or at least by a man and a woman legally bound to each other. This isn't the only interest, and there are other permutations of it as well, but for the sake of simplicity here, let's call this the "Interest".

(Leave aside the separate question and argument concerning whether the state is right about that. That's just what it's determined is in its interest.)


I don't see how you can leave aside the issue of whether the state's primary interest has been correctly determined. In fact it seems to me that that's the most important thing to discuss!

If we're talking about a group of people (gays) challenging a state-imposed status quo, it seems totally unreasonable to set aside their challenges to the underlying goals of the state.

This phrase is key:

"Society is better off if the greatest proportion of children are raised by the people who made them, or at least by a man and a woman legally bound to each other."

I would rephrase this to expose the "why" behind it:

"Society is better off if the greatest proportion of children are raised such that they become productive members of society. A productive member of society is, among other things, a law-abiding, tax-paying consumer who contributes to economic growth by having a job and consuming goods & services."

Then the question becomes, does "raised by the people who made them" equal "productive member of society" in most cases? Or, does "NOT raised by the people who made them" equal "UNproductive member of society" in most cases?

I'm guessing, no to both questions. Which is problematic for people who want to deny homosexuals the right to raise children.

[kmortis]

I can honestly say, speaking from familiarity with a great deal of judicial and legislative documentation on the subject, that since the "marriage war" kicked off in the past decade, I have virtually never seen a state advance a religious argument.

I assume that you work here in the States. If that is the case, then I'm not surprised to hear you say that. I would be surprised to find a judge or legislator to cite their religion as a source for barring gays in a decision or piece of legislation, but I can see them toe the religious line implicitly. Now, in a public speech, on the other hand....

[blobru]

the state has decided that, all other things being equal, society is better off if the greatest proportion of children are raised by the people who made them, or at least by a man and a woman legally bound to each other [my italics].

About that: has the state decided that an adoptive straight couple, where neither is the birth parent, "trumps" an artificially inseminated lesbian couple, where one is the birth parent, or a gay male couple who hire a surrogate, where again one will be the birth parent, because the adoptive straights give their child a facsimile of a natural birth family (kid won't know the difference until he's told), whereas in the same-sex household, as soon as he or a friend is hip to the birds and bees, the kid will know at least one mom or pop isn't a birth parent, and that his family isn't the norm.

In other words, more important than the fact of birth parentage is the child's perception.

So there should be a fourth article (see summary, post #114), re heterosexual marriage, posited in the State's Interest in the status quo:

(1) provision for unplanned pregnancy;
(2) birth parents better parents;*
(3) childless straights better couples because potential birth parents;
(4) heterosexual families better than homosexual (because perceived "normal").
*and (4) trumps (2) -- vis a vis gays -- heterosexual family better than one birth parent.

Or is this unfairly oversimplifying the State's position, as defined so far?

[ceo_esq]

Nor a coherent one.

Would that that were true, shecky. Much I've what I've done in this thread, for example, has been to present certain arguments advanced (in one form or another) by states, and none of it is incoherent. That said, a coherent argument, obviously, is not necessarily stronger than an argument opposing it. But if one follows the litigation closely as I do, for example, one finds that pro-same-sex- marriage litigants have not done a very good job overall (and occasionally do an embarrassingly bad one) of effectively countering state arguments - which is a real shame. I suspect that stubborn adherence to the view that arguments in support of the status quo are per se irrational, incoherent, religious, etc., creates a sort of mental block that makes people less capable of adequately confronting opposing arguments and effectively advocating a pro-same-sex-marriage position in the nation's statehouses and courts.


I don't see how you can leave aside the issue of whether the state's primary interest has been correctly determined. In fact it seems to me that that's the most important thing to discuss!

Well, there I was responding to a request to summarize specific aspect of an argument, in particular how the state reasoned from a given premise to a given conclusion. In the particular case, whether the state was correct about its own interest was not relevant to illustrating its subsequent reasoning. Therefore, I rhetorically put it aside. I didn't mean to suggest that it is not otherwise an important thing to discuss.


This phrase is key:

"Society is better off if the greatest proportion of children are raised by the people who made them, or at least by a man and a woman legally bound to each other."

I would rephrase this to expose the "why" behind it:

"Society is better off if the greatest proportion of children are raised such that they become productive members of society. A productive member of society is, among other things, a law-abiding, tax-paying consumer who contributes to economic growth by having a job and consuming goods & services."

Well, that's certainly one possible "why", but in fairness I wouldn't bind the state to it alone.


Then the question becomes, does "raised by the people who made them" equal "productive member of society" in most cases?

"In most cases", (1) productive members of society are raised by the people who made them and (2) people raised by the people who made them are productive members of society. This is to some extent incidental to the facts that most people are productive members of society, and most people happen to have been raised by the people who made them. I'm not making more of the correspondence here. But I'm also not sure exactly what you're getting at.

That said, among other possible reasons for wanting children to be raised (all other things being equal) by the people who made them are internalizing child-rearing costs and having that burden borne by the biological parents as opposed to the state or another third party. I suppose you could characterize that motivation as related partly to economics and partly to perceived fairness principles (all other things being equal, why shouldn't the two people who physically made the kid take the resulting responsibility?).

[ceo_esq]

About that: has the state decided that an adoptive straight couple, where neither is the birth parent, "trumps" an artificially inseminated lesbian couple, where one is the birth parent, or a gay male couple who hire a surrogate, where again one will be the birth parent, because the adoptive straights give their child a facsimile of a natural birth family (kid won't know the difference until he's told), whereas in the same-sex household, as soon as he or a friend is hip to the birds and bees, the kid will know at least one mom or pop isn't a birth parent, and that his family isn't the norm.

You make some interesting points in that post. Just thinking out loud here (so to speak), but I'm turning over in my head whether anyone would say that (A) an adoptive straight couple where neither is a biological parent "trumps" (B) a same-sex couple where one is a birth parent, because "A" and "B" don't really compete with each other. I'm not even sure they're comparable. A child in situation "A" generally is there because, due to one unhappy circumstance or another, there's no feasible way for her to be raised by her biological mother and father (or even one of them). On the other hand, a child in situation "B" was in a sense created not to be raised by her biological mother and father (or any mother/father pair, for that matter).

[FenrisWolf]

"In most cases", (1) productive members of society are raised by the people who made them and (2) people raised by the people who made them are productive members of society. This is to some extent incidental to the facts that most people are productive members of society, and most people happen to have been raised by the people who made them. I'm not making more of the correspondence here. But I'm also not sure exactly what you're getting at.


Let me lay out what I'm getting out more explicitly. This is a just the broad strokes; obviously each point would need detailed examination on its own.

I think the state should, in determining its interest:

1) Examine what attributes make a citizen maximally productive.
2) Make policies designed to encourage the growth of those attributes.

Focusing on marriage, this could mean:

A) Child rearing is how new citizens are formed (excluding immigrants for the moment) and therefore the state has an interest in child rearing, and therefore parenting, and therefore marriage.

B) Attributes parents may possess that should be encouraged include:
-- Active (instead of passive) involvement in a child's development
-- Willingness to stress education and work ethic as important values
-- Respect for laws and civic duty

Focusing on gay marriage, the question then would become:

Are same-sex couples more likely or less likely than opposite-sex couples to possess these attributes?

My entirely-unresearched guesses are that those attributes in B) correlate roughly with socio-economic status, and that gays tend to have a higher SES on average than the mean for the country. If true, this would indicate that the state should be ENCOURAGING same-sex marriage.


That said, among other possible reasons for wanting children to be raised (all other things being equal) by the people who made them are internalizing child-rearing costs and having that burden borne by the biological parents as opposed to the state or another third party. I suppose you could characterize that motivation as related partly to economics and partly to perceived fairness principles (all other things being equal, why shouldn't the two people who physically made the kid take the resulting responsibility?).

I think I've covered the economic motivation above. As for fairness, it seems to argue in favor of gay adoption. Given the impossibility of same-sex reproduction, gay couples can never contribute to an "unfairly unwanted baby" problem. The relatively small percentage of gays in society indicates that there should always be enough children for them to adopt, for which society should be thankful as this removes a burden from the state.

[ceo_esq]

My entirely-unresearched guesses are that those attributes in B) correlate roughly with socio-economic status, and that gays tend to have a higher SES on average than the mean for the country. If true, this would indicate that the state should be ENCOURAGING same-sex marriage.

I don't see why the opposite conclusion couldn't as validly be drawn. For example, I believe it is generally acknowledged that couples in a less economically comfortable situation are at higher risk of partnership breakdown. Marriage is a way of reducing both the likelihood of partnership breakdown (because it raises the cost of splitting) and the consequences of partnership breakdown (because it enables the state to extract certain compensatory arrangements). Of course, allowing and incentivizing people to marry represents a certain cost to the state, so it has the most interest in applying the incentive where it is most needed and will do the most good. By your logic, that would actually be opposite-sex couples, because they tend to be less economically comfortable than same-sex couples.

Obviously, I've taken your assumptions at face value here, and I don't mean to put forth the foregoing as any kind of rigorous argument. It was more of a thought experiment, to show that there are more ways of looking at each aspect of this question than most people prefer to believe.


As for fairness, it seems to argue in favor of gay adoption. Given the impossibility of same-sex reproduction, gay couples can never contribute to an "unfairly unwanted baby" problem. The relatively small percentage of gays in society indicates that there should always be enough children for them to adopt, for which society should be thankful as this removes a burden from the state.

I don't believe I said anything about gay adoption in the post to which you were responding.

[ceo_esq]

My entirely-unresearched guesses are that those attributes in B) correlate roughly with socio-economic status, and that gays tend to have a higher SES on average than the mean for the country. If true, this would indicate that the state should be ENCOURAGING same-sex marriage.

I don't see why the opposite conclusion couldn't as validly be drawn. For example, I believe it is generally acknowledged that couples in a less economically comfortable situation are at higher risk of partnership breakdown. Marriage is a way of reducing both the likelihood of partnership breakdown (because it raises the costs to the individual of splitting) and the consequences of partnership breakdown (because it enables the state to extract certain compensatory arrangements). Of course, allowing and incentivizing people to marry represents a certain cost to the state, so it has the most interest in applying the incentive where it is most needed and will do the most good. By your logic, that would actually be opposite-sex couples, because they tend to be less economically comfortable than same-sex couples.

Obviously, I've taken your assumptions at face value here, and I don't mean to put forth the foregoing as any kind of rigorous argument. It was more of a thought experiment, to show that there are more ways of looking at each aspect of this question than most people prefer to believe.


As for fairness, it seems to argue in favor of gay adoption. Given the impossibility of same-sex reproduction, gay couples can never contribute to an "unfairly unwanted baby" problem. The relatively small percentage of gays in society indicates that there should always be enough children for them to adopt, for which society should be thankful as this removes a burden from the state.

I don't believe I said anything about gay adoption in the post to which you were responding.

[kjkent1]

Any homosexual OR hetrosexual couples who are ignorant enough to voluntarily and legally bind themselves together deserve exactly what they will likely get: no benefits while married, and an expensive dissolution when it's over.

The government shouldn't be in the marriage licensing or prohibiting business, because marriage is primarily a religious institution. But, as the government is in the biz, I'll be more than happy to take all those new gay clients' money when things go south -- thanks to a family law system that should have been thrown on the ash heap of history 40 years ago.

[bruto]

For me, the issue is very simple. Children aside, marriage carries with it a lot of the previously mentioned rights (I would claim hospital visiting rights as one of the most important ones - how would *you* like to be excluded when your loved one's life is in the balance?). When children are involved, you have guardian status, visiting rights to them in school, hospitals and whatnot, inheritance rights, and so on and so forth. Assuming the children are the issue of one of the spouses, the other spouse would be barred from having any of those rights.

So you have a whole package of legal rights and codes called marriage. And for some unfathomable reason, the only people who can get this status vis-a-vis their loved one are those who love someone of the opposite sex.

If this isn't discrimination, then I don't know what is. Denying those rights to some people simply due to their sexual orientation is downright inhumane.

And who says homosexual unions are necessarily free of unplanned children? Infidelity isn't restricted to heterosexual couples. Now that the stigma of 'bastard' is all but archaic, don't those children deserve a family to be raised in, or the rights of inheritance etc from the other spouse?

For those claiming exclusivity as a requirement for the 'mystique', I would direct you to our glorious past, when homosexuals were considered mentally ill, and thus "everyone" was heterosexual and thus entitled to marry. No exclusivity there, right? Was the status of marriage *less* in those days? I think you'll find the historical record argues against you...While I agree with the first part of your argument (and so did the Vermont Supreme Court, essentially, which is why there are civil unions in Vermont), I must say that this part does not make sense. Nobody has ever said homosexuals could not marry heterosexually. Anybody has always been entitled to marry in the traditional sense. It's not whether or not homosexuals can marry, but whether they can marry each other, which is the issue.

With all this being said, if a legal code does not distinguish other than semantically between a homosexual and heterosexual union, it makes no sense to make use of two different legal terms for them. As a civil matter it makes no sense, but as a social one, it makes sense (even if one considers it wrong, it still makes sense), as a sematic distinction that "saves" the traditional definition of marriage, for those who have strong religious feelings about it. Of course some of the sense it makes is to deny homosexual couples that last measure of social equality, something that some people find bothersome and some do not.

[qayak]

Your second remark might be true in some places now, but is a non-issue for most historical purposes. Your first remark makes a possibly correct observation, but you ascribe far to much significance to it. Distaste for homosexual activity does not, and could not possibly, account for why marriage has evolved the way it has.

There is no reason to ban same sex marriage. It was done when homosexuality was illegal and when that was finally changed, the ban was never lifted. The people fighting to keep same sex marriage illegal do so on religious grounds.

That's how the same sex marriage law got to be the way it is. You are trying to say that all other marriage laws developed to benefit heterosexuals having kids. That has nothing to do with the ban on same sex marriage.

Conventional marriage law, as we know it, is a fairly fine-tuned system (as far as legislative schemes generally go) "designed and evolved to regulate incentive problems that arise between a man and a woman over the life cycle of procreation", to borrow legal economist Doug Allen's phrase. Most changes and innovations in marriage law over time have at some level been motivated by the desire to reduce the social costs generated by those incentive problems and other related problems.

This maybe true but you will have to show how allowing same sex marriage will cause some problem to society before I buy your line of reasoning. Are you suggesting that governments are actually protecting gays by not letting them marry, that allowing gays to marry will cause a major new problem, or that marriage itself is a bad thing and banning same sex marriage is the first step in banning all marriage? What exactly are you trying to say here?

Sure, the state benefits when the parents of planned children stay together. (I didn't mean to suggest otherwise when I characterized an unplanned child as a quintessential protectee of the basic civil marriage regime). However, people being what they are, the unplanned child (or the family unit into which one is born) is clearly more vulnerable. There is a materially greater chance that the parents of a planned child will independently decide to stick around to raise it together, without any additional incentive from the state. So the state applies the incentive where it will arguably do the most good (and the state will get the most "bang for its buck"): couples where there is a potential risk of unplanned pregnancy.

Okay, explain this to me. Are you saying that marriage is an incentive for those people who don't want to have children, or at least don't plan on it anytime soon. What is the incentive?

You do realize that all abused and neglected children are the products of heterosexual couples.

[bruto]

Any homosexual OR hetrosexual couples who are ignorant enough to voluntarily and legally bind themselves together deserve exactly what they will likely get: no benefits while married, and an expensive dissolution when it's over.

The government shouldn't be in the marriage licensing or prohibiting business, because marriage is primarily a religious institution. But, as the government is in the biz, I'll be more than happy to take all those new gay clients' money when things go south -- thanks to a family law system that should have been thrown on the ash heap of history 40 years ago.

I would disagree with this. Marriage is a social institution, and a civil one. The obligations and rights conferred by marriage and civil union are well within the province of government. In The United States, and the colonies before them, marriage was a civil institution from the start, even among the fanatically religious Puritans.

[bruto]

You do realize that all abused and neglected children are the products of heterosexual couples.

No, they are the products of heterosexual couplings. There's a difference.

[qayak]

No, they are the products of heterosexual couplings. There's a difference.

Only a difference of time.

The point is, every child of homosexual couples is a wanted child. This is further proof that homosexuals make better parents. :D

[bruto]

Only a difference of time.

The point is, every child of homosexual couples is a wanted child. This is further proof that homosexuals make better parents. :D

Every child of homosexual couples, but not necessarily of homosexuals. This would probably be applicable to heterosexuals anomalously paired in homosexual relationships as it is inapplicable to the more common circumstance of homosexuals in conventional marriages. The argument is forceful for gay marriage, but neutral on orientation of the participants.

[ceo_esq]

There is no reason to ban same sex marriage. It was done when homosexuality was illegal and when that was finally changed, the ban was never lifted. The people fighting to keep same sex marriage illegal do so on religious grounds.

First of all, same-sex marriage was never "banned" as such, apart from a handful of very recent initiatives. Our marriage laws developed from the beginning to address a specific context. The regime was simply never extended beyond the original opposite-sex context. It's not really the maintenance of some "ban" tacked on to the marriage laws that needs to be justified, it's the extension of the legislative scheme beyond the originally conceived context. If we can accept that, it's the first step toward changing the law.

As an aside, if same-sex marriage had been conceived and practiced beginning, say, 1,500 years ago, the situation would likely be much different today. Either the rules applicable to same-sex marriages would have evolved along a different path from the rules applicable to same-sex marriages, or else they would have evolved together in a somewhat different direction from the legal regime we know today, in a way not especially well tailored to one situation or the other. Remember how I said that conventional marriage laws developed to deal with the specific incentive problems of opposite-sex relationships during the procreative life cycle? Same-sex couples have a somewhat different set of incentive problems, which would have influenced the evolution of rules applicable to those couples.

Finally, it's just not generally true that "The people fighting to keep same sex marriage illegal do so on religious grounds." It's at least partly true in some cases. But not the important ones. The important fights (in courts and statehouses) are virtually religion-free. The failure of the same-sex marriage movement to come to grips with the falsity of your statement is partly responsible, in my view, for its inability to mount a consistently effective response to the issue. I suppose the other side should thank you.


You are trying to say that all other marriage laws developed to benefit heterosexuals having kids. That has nothing to do with the ban on same sex marriage.

I'm afraid it has a very great deal indeed to do with why conventional marriage laws only extend as far as opposite-sex couples.


This maybe true but you will have to show how allowing same sex marriage will cause some problem to society before I buy your line of reasoning.

What line of reasoning? I wasn't reasoning anything, as such, in the text to which you were responding. I was simply telling you the facts. You gave your layman's opinion on a complex question of legal history ("The fact is ..."); I told you otherwise.


Are you suggesting that governments are actually protecting gays by not letting them marry, that allowing gays to marry will cause a major new problem, or that marriage itself is a bad thing and banning same sex marriage is the first step in banning all marriage? What exactly are you trying to say here?

I was trying to say there that the reason that the marriage regime has not, historically, encompassed same-sex unions is not "because the old men in power find it icky for two men to have sex."


Okay, explain this to me. Are you saying that marriage is an incentive for those people who don't want to have children, or at least don't plan on it anytime soon. What is the incentive?

To simplify the matter somewhat, the legal benefits of marriage provide those people with incentive to marry. Once married, the legal burdens of marriage provide those people with an incentive not to split up. That incentive becomes more valuable to the state in the event that children appear, obviously. And it becomes especially handy in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, because that's historically been a situation when people - being what they are - often need a little extra nudge in the direction of staying together. Does that make sense, so far as it goes?


You do realize that all abused and neglected children are the products of heterosexual couples.

So are all street mimes, so far as I am personally aware. What's your point?

[Edited to add:] Strike that; you clarified while I was typing my response. Your point was that "every child of homosexual couples is a wanted child." However, that, precisely, is one reason why a state could rationally conclude that its incentives would be better and more efficiently allocated elsewhere. Wanted children are less at risk of their parents splitting up.

[Complexity]

I just can't bring myself to read anything that Art V writes. Seems long and nasty.

ceo_esq... I wish he could leave his lawyer head at the office. I get uneasy reading his posts - he often seems to come off as an apologist.

As to the topic... sigh. So many have been hurt for nothing.

[kjkent1]

I would disagree with this. Marriage is a social institution, and a civil one. The obligations and rights conferred by marriage and civil union are well within the province of government. In The United States, and the colonies before them, marriage was a civil institution from the start, even among the fanatically religious Puritans.I didn't say that government-regulated marriage licenses are unconstitutional. I said that the government shouldn't be in the biz because it's a primarily a religious institution. As far as I'm aware every one of the 13 original Colonies permitted marriage via the call of banns (public announcement), rather than by government license, at the time of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. New York didn't require a government license until 1908.

There was a time when marriage was essential to creating an environment for successful child rearing, because a woman was subsumed into one legal entity controlled by her husband through marriage, and generally speaking women had no rights and didn't work to produce income. In that environment, governmental control over marriage makes sense, because of the opportunity of a man to exploit his spouse and then unload her in favor of a new (younger) partner.

But, modernly, women are legal equals to men, and marriage does little more than provide a woman with an opportunity to snag a man with more money and then dump him and have the court order him to pay her spousal support. Marriage is an anachronism.

Regardless, if gays want marriage, I say let them have it, because it just means more money for me when they get divorced.

[blobru]

You make some interesting points in that post. Just thinking out loud here (so to speak), but I'm turning over in my head whether anyone would say that (A) an adoptive straight couple where neither is a biological parent "trumps" (B) a same-sex couple where one is a birth parent, because "A" and "B" don't really compete with each other. I'm not even sure they're comparable. A child in situation "A" generally is there because, due to one unhappy circumstance or another, there's no feasible way for her to be raised by her biological mother and father (or even one of them). On the other hand, a child in situation "B" was in a sense created not to be raised by her biological mother and father (or any mother/father pair, for that matter).

I'm thinking of a version of Solomon's choice.

Say a baby, the issue of (B), through no fault of (B)'s, is separated from them, and as an "anonymous orphan", becomes the ward of (A). At some point, the baby is identified, and (B) wants her back, but (A) says no.
(A) and (B) are now in competition.
If,

the state has decided that, all other things being equal, society is better off if (my bold) the greatest proportion of children are raised by the people who made them (my underline), or at least by a man and a woman legally bound to each other (my italic). [ed.: I take "at least" to mean "last choice": i.e., married man and woman less desirable than biological parent[s]]

and in its estimation there's nothing else to choose between them ("Solomon's choice"),
then the State seems logically committed to award the baby to (B), the same-sex couple (unless (A) trumps (B) because marriage is the norm or (B) is only "half" a birth family).

Such a ruling would imply that (B) the gay couple's union is more legitimate, for the purposes the State sets out for "families" in its own Interest, than (A) the straight couple's union -- in this case.

Yet the State must deny the gay couple and its child the benefit of marriage, to protect its larger Interest I suppose (incentivizing straights to marry and tough out unplanned pregnancies).
Much of the larger debate might hinge on this: calculus of benefits to the birth children of gay marriages (pro-GM) vs (anti-GM) benefits to the unplanned children of straight marriages.

The State can argue that, clearly, unplanned straight pregnancies outnumber gay birth children; I would however counter that the State's incentive-based-on-mystique assumption is flawed, absent statistics albeit, but as several posters have pointed out who live in places where gay marriage or at least civil union has been legalized, the incentive for straights to marry hasn't fallen drastically or even at all as far as anyone can tell -- no reports of embittered single straights wandering the dating wilderness unable to bring themselves to marry because gays can too.

The harm to gay birth children, whom by its own logic the State would protect with marriage except for its concern for loss of mystique (which seems to me and others a bogus concern), is not controversial -- the State sanctions marriage in large part to shelter children from harms (spousal desertion, social stigma, economic vagaries, etc). In this light, not affording these children the very protection for which marriage is designed by banning gay marriage seems myopic, superstitious and perverse on the State's part, and to contradict its own expressed Interest, as well as the children's, and everyone else's.

[Pup]

"In most cases", (1) productive members of society are raised by the people who made them and (2) people raised by the people who made them are productive members of society. (snip)

That said, among other possible reasons for wanting children to be raised (all other things being equal) by the people who made them are internalizing child-rearing costs and having that burden borne by the biological parents as opposed to the state or another third party. I suppose you could characterize that motivation as related partly to economics and partly to perceived fairness principles (all other things being equal, why shouldn't the two people who physically made the kid take the resulting responsibility?).

Something not really brought up in this discussion is the state's use of divorce laws to affect incentives. With the increasing ease of divorce over the last 150-200 years, the state seems to be shifting its position from wanting children to be raised by the two parents who created them, to wanting children to be raised by parents who are happy. Thus the state is making it easier for unhappy couples to split up and find better mates or remain single, rather than forcing them to stay together except in extreme cases.

I'd say that the divorce trend already in place for decades is a good argument for allowing same-sex marriage. If the state believes it's more important for happy families to raise children than for birth-parents to raise children, same-sex marriage is a logical extension of that.

[kjkent1]

Something not really brought up in this discussion is the state's use of divorce laws to affect incentives. With the increasing ease of divorce over the last 150-200 years, the state seems to be shifting its position from wanting children to be raised by the two parents who created them, to wanting children to be raised by parents who are happy. Thus the state is making it easier for unhappy couples to split up and find better mates or remain single, rather than forcing them to stay together except in extreme cases.

I'd say that the divorce trend already in place for decades is a good argument for allowing same-sex marriage. If the state believes it's more important for happy families to raise children than for birth-parents to raise children, same-sex marriage is a logical extension of that.The federal government rebates 15 cents for every dollar of child support collected by the various State child support enforcement agencies. Thus divorcing parents with children is now a profit center for State government -- and the revenue is substantial.

[bruto]

I didn't say that government-regulated marriage licenses are unconstitutional. I said that the government shouldn't be in the biz because it's a primarily a religious institution. As far as I'm aware every one of the 13 original Colonies permitted marriage via the call of banns (public announcement), rather than by government license, at the time of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. New York didn't require a government license until 1908.

There was a time when marriage was essential to creating an environment for successful child rearing, because a woman was subsumed into one legal entity controlled by her husband through marriage, and generally speaking women had no rights and didn't work to produce income. In that environment, governmental control over marriage makes sense, because of the opportunity of a man to exploit his spouse and then unload her in favor of a new (younger) partner.

But, modernly, women are legal equals to men, and marriage does little more than provide a woman with an opportunity to snag a man with more money and then dump him and have the court order him to pay her spousal support. Marriage is an anachronism.

Regardless, if gays want marriage, I say let them have it, because it just means more money for me when they get divorced.

I never introduced the idea of constitutionality either. I simply don't agree that marriage is primarily a religious institution, even though religions always try to take it over and regulate it, and the boundaries have always been muddled. However the marriage is performed and entered into, it includes secular obligations and rights which are under civil rather than church jurisdiction. I'm sure many of the laws and customs relating to marriage are an anachronism, but I'm not so sure that means marriage itself is.

[qayak]

First of all, same-sex marriage was never "banned" as such, apart from a handful of very recent initiatives. Our marriage laws developed from the beginning to address a specific context. The regime was simply never extended beyond the original opposite-sex context. It's not really the maintenance of some "ban" tacked on to the marriage laws that needs to be justified, it's the extension of the legislative scheme beyond the originally conceived context. If we can accept that, it's the first step toward changing the law.

I think this is completely wrong. Marriage was defined as the legal union between a man and a woman creating a partnership of husband and wife.
This specifically bans all other types of relationships being a marriage. There is no other reason for the definition to be as such. They don't do it to include all other types of relationships, they do it to EXCLUDE them.

We are back to the "My Sister is Female" argument. By definition, my sister can never be male and by definition, gays are banned from marrying.

As an aside, if same-sex marriage had been conceived and practiced beginning, say, 1,500 years ago, the situation would likely be much different today.

Absolutely. However, things couldn't have been different because of discrimination. You don't think there were gay people 1500 years ago? Apparently the people who wrote the bible knew there were gays. Things couldn't be different because of religions', and their followers', feelings of ickiness about men sleeping with men.

Remember how I said that conventional marriage laws developed to deal with the specific incentive problems of opposite-sex relationships during the procreative life cycle? Same-sex couples have a somewhat different set of incentive problems, which would have influenced the evolution of rules applicable to those couples.

The only reason they have a different set of problems is because they have been discriminated against for so long. If there hadn't of been the outcry about gays adopting children, they would have benefitted from marriage just like opposite sex couples.

It always comes back to discrimination as being the basis for the banning of same sex marriage. We don't want them to have the same benefits as us!

Finally, it's just not generally true that "The people fighting to keep same sex marriage illegal do so on religious grounds." It's at least partly true in some cases. But not the important ones. The important fights (in courts and statehouses) are virtually religion-free. The failure of the same-sex marriage movement to come to grips with the falsity of your statement is partly responsible, in my view, for its inability to mount a consistently effective response to the issue. I suppose the other side should thank you.

They are religion free by the same measure as intelligent design is religion free. :rolleyes:

The same sex marriage movement didn't fail. Many countries, including the one I live in, have recognized that there is no legal, social or moral argument to justify preventing same sex marriage and they have corrected the discriminating nature of the law. That the US is the most religious of Western countries and is the last to cast off religions bonds, isn't surprising to anyone I know.

What line of reasoning? I wasn't reasoning anything, as such, in the text to which you were responding. I was simply telling you the facts. You gave your layman's opinion on a complex question of legal history ("The fact is ..."); I told you otherwise.

And you gave an opinion. It is a rosey view of history, too bad it has no support from the evidence.

I was trying to say there that the reason that the marriage regime has not, historically, encompassed same-sex unions is not "because the old men in power find it icky for two men to have sex."

I think you are wrong. You seem to think that society is some entity that contemplates what is best and makes laws to make it happen. Society is made up of people and the people in power make laws based on the desires of the people they represent. When a society is controlled by a religious fundamentalist regime, you tend to get the same set of discriminatory laws no matter what the religion. Those laws almost always include laws that discriminate heavily against homosexuals.

Your argument does not explain why same sex marriage has been banned for so long and why US society is so resistant to it. You have not shown that same sex marriage would not benefit fromt he incentives you claim.

It also doesn't explain why it took so long for women to been seen as more than just the property of their husband. Once again, you paint a rosey picture that doesn't explain anything we observe in history.

To simplify the matter somewhat, the legal benefits of marriage provide those people with incentive to marry. Once married, the legal burdens of marriage provide those people with an incentive not to split up. That incentive becomes more valuable to the state in the event that children appear, obviously. And it becomes especially handy in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, because that's historically been a situation when people - being what they are - often need a little extra nudge in the direction of staying together. Does that make sense, so far as it goes?

This is so full of assumptions it is hard to know where to start. Marriage is a legal contract and anyone who doesn't want kids or the responsibility of them is not going to get married. It isn't the marriage laws that protect unplanned children, it is child maintenance laws. Saving a few dollars on taxes is no incentive to get into a relationship that is likely to fail or result in individual misery. There is no benefit to society in this.

And it leads one to wonder how effective this incentive system is. It doesn't seem to work. Marriages fail regularly.

Your point was that "every child of homosexual couples is a wanted child." However, that, precisely, is one reason why a state could rationally conclude that its incentives would be better and more efficiently allocated elsewhere. Wanted children are less at risk of their parents splitting up.

Homosexuals have a tough time adopting and any children they do get are not protected because they don't allow them to marry. This tears down your incentive to child rearing theory. If your idea about allocating elsewhere were true, wouldn't they make it easy for homosexuals to get as many wanted children as they could before they allocated elsewhere?

Think about it. If I was running a business and made a budget for each department, I might say, "Hey, that department is running so well, let's allocate some extra funds to the one that is struggling!" but I wouldn't make it impossible for the department that is doing well to do business before I took all their money, would I? Well, actually, this is government so it could happen! :D

[kjkent1]

I never introduced the idea of constitutionality either. I simply don't agree that marriage is primarily a religious institution, even though religions always try to take it over and regulate it, and the boundaries have always been muddled. However the marriage is performed and entered into, it includes secular obligations and rights which are under civil rather than church jurisdiction. I'm sure many of the laws and customs relating to marriage are an anachronism, but I'm not so sure that means marriage itself is.You "don't agree that marriage is primarily a religious institution", but you do agree that "religions always try to take it over and regulate it."

Alrighty then.

[qayak]

Ironic that this appeared on Yahoo right after I made my post.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070607/ap_on_re_us/politics_of_sex

"To conservatives, the initiative is an alarming effort to eliminate abstinence-only sex education, strengthen abortion-rights groups and encourage sex outside of marriage"

"'They say they're searching for common ground, but it's more likely they're looking for more funding for Planned Parenthood,' said Tom McClusky, the Family Research Council's vice president for government affairs.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=HOME

"'There's a utopian view that women ought to be able to have sex any time they want to without consequences — that's the bottom line of all these bills,' said Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America, a conservative group which opposes the measures."

http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp

Concerned Women for America is based on prayer and action!

Nope, no religious agenda here!

[catbasket]

You "don't agree that marriage is primarily a religious institution", but you do agree that "religions always try to take it over and regulate it."

Alrighty then.

Personally I have no problem with Bruto's two statements. My marriage was entirely secular, held in the old town hall of my home town by an officer of the local council. There was absolutely no mention of religion in the entire service. I agree with Bruto that "religions always try to take it over and regulate it" (here in the UK) but I still believe that marriage is, or should be, a matter for the two people involved.

My wife and I do not think a religion that we do not believe in should have any say in telling us what our marriage means or should be like just because they have some invisible friend in the sky.

[ArmillarySphere]

So you have a whole package of legal rights and codes called marriage. And for some unfathomable reason, the only people who can get this status vis-a-vis their loved one are those who love someone of the opposite sex.
(I assume this is the part the text below was in reply to.)
While I agree with the first part of your argument (and so did the Vermont Supreme Court, essentially, which is why there are civil unions in Vermont), I must say that this part does not make sense. Nobody has ever said homosexuals could not marry heterosexually. Anybody has always been entitled to marry in the traditional sense. It's not whether or not homosexuals can marry, but whether they can marry each other, which is the issue.
The difference is that heterosexuals can marry the one they love, whereas homosexuals would be explicitly denied marrying the one they love. Who gives a damn about all the other people in the world - when you're in this situation, it's all about marrying this specific person. And that is something only heteros would be able to do.

With all this being said, if a legal code does not distinguish other than semantically between a homosexual and heterosexual union, it makes no sense to make use of two different legal terms for them.
As a civil matter it makes no sense, but as a social one, it makes sense (even if one considers it wrong, it still makes sense), as a sematic distinction that "saves" the traditional definition of marriage, for those who have strong religious feelings about it. Of course some of the sense it makes is to deny homosexual couples that last measure of social equality, something that some people find bothersome and some do not.
Quite. So it makes sense from a "traditionalist" point of view, but my point was that it makes no sense from a legal point of view, since any legislation that deals with marriages must be amended with "or civil union" in every place where marriage is mentioned, or risk being interpreted differently. It complicates the text for no reason, and runs the risk that future discrepancies creep in by intent or accident. Leave the distinction to colloquial use for those traditionalists that want it.

[Morrigan]

I guess no one can answer my question? :\ (No offense kmortis, but I don't think your reply had anything to do with what I wrote...)


Absolutely. However, things couldn't have been different because of discrimination. You don't think there were gay people 1500 years ago?
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the concept of long-term homosexual couples, living together in the same way as heterosexual relationships, is a modern phenomenon. Homosexuality in antiquity wasn't reviled like it was in, say, the christian Middle Ages, but it was not seen at all in the same way.

[Lonewulf]

I guess no one can answer my question? :\ (No offense kmortis, but I don't think your reply had anything to do with what I wrote...)

Let me try.

I am assuming you mean this question. If I am wrong, then please point me out to a different question to attempt to answer to the best of my abilities.

The one point I think Art makes well, is this: why wouldn't gays not be satisfied with civil unions that guarantee the same rights as marriage?

Assuming they aren't satisfied, that is. But if it's true, then yeah, they do want that share of the "mystique". Now, whether that "harms the mystique" of heterosexual marriages is another story...

Give me one legitimate reason to call them "civil unions". Just one. Uno.

When a couple gets married -- a HETEROSEXUAL couple -- outside of religious boundaries (I.E., by a court), it's still referred to as a marriage. It's a marriage, even though religion has been cut out of the picture. Thus, your later point about religions not wanting to accept homosexuals has no standing. This is not a religious issue, this is a state issue. Remember "seperation of church and state"? Marriage can be arranged outside of religion, and in many different varying religions including paganism, or within secular communities. Marriage, as it exists in the U.S., is mainly a legal function. Not a religious one.

Further, and this is an important point: Why should the state bow to the wishes of any religion, majority or not? The answer is that it shouldn't. The state should not make it illegal to marry homosexuals. This is an important point, and I want you to read this until it makes your eyes bleed. There is a fine line between a majority of religions not marrying homosexuals, and the state MAKING IT ILLEGAL to. Get it?

However, let me fire up wikipedia to further answer your question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions

Many people are critical of civil unions because they say they represent separate status unequal to marriage ("marriage apartheid"). Others are critical because they say civil unions allow same-sex marriage by using a different name.

So it's either unequal to marriage, or it won't fool the bigots that are against gay marriage. It's lose-lose.

What legitimate reason is there to call it any other name, other than trying to "trick" populations into accepting it by giving them the feint? Quite frankly, if we're going to oppose bigotry, we should at the least be honest about it. Either we're supporting bigotry, or we're pretending to support it. Either we're giving homosexuals less of a marriage, or we're giving them the exact same marriage under a different label to trick people that are against it. (Okay, that's a false dichotomy; we might be giving them MORE benefits. But I somehow doubt it).

Does that answer your question?

[kjkent1]

Personally I have no problem with Bruto's two statements. My marriage was entirely secular, held in the old town hall of my home town by an officer of the local council. There was absolutely no mention of religion in the entire service. I agree with Bruto that "religions always try to take it over and regulate it" (here in the UK) but I still believe that marriage is, or should be, a matter for the two people involved.

My wife and I do not think a religion that we do not believe in should have any say in telling us what our marriage means or should be like just because they have some invisible friend in the sky.The marital "contract" is one which is (most frequently believed to be) confirmed before a deity, rather than before a judge. The traditional "call of banns" required throughout most of English history had to be conducted at a church in order to be valid. The courts which controlled the rules surrounding marriage were Ecclesiastical, not civil.

So, while modernly, marriage is government-sanctioned, rather than sanctioned by the tribal witch doctor, it is nevertheless, "primarily" a religious institution.

I think you may be misinterpreting my position. I don't care if homosexuals marry. Frankly, I wonder why single heterosexuals don't demand that government provide equal benefits for everyone -- especially as the argument in favor of gay marriage is that the reason for providing dissimilar treatment of homosexuals does not have a "rational basis" for the purposes of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Why should "people" who "live together" not automatically obtain the same benefits as married persons, if the singular difference between homosexual and heterosexual marriage is that the parties wish to cohabitate?

The whole family law system is irremediably broken, due to its roots in ancient taboos which are mostly anachronisms today. But, no one wants to touch it, because it's a political hot potato.

All of which is fine for me. Family law is a profitable biz.

[catbasket]

So, while modernly, marriage is government-sanctioned, rather than sanctioned by the tribal witch doctor, it is nevertheless, "primarily" a religious institution.
Replace "primarily" with "originally" and I agree. But it is 2007 and marriage is not now primarily a religious institution, in my opinion, for many people.
I think you may be misinterpreting my position.
I don't think so ... apart from the minor quibble over the word "primarily" we're in more or less total agreement (on the subject of homosexual marriage).

[bruto]

You "don't agree that marriage is primarily a religious institution", but you do agree that "religions always try to take it over and regulate it."

Alrighty then.

Religions always try to take over social functions. Sex isn't a religious function, despite what David Jay Jordan may think, but it's one of the first things religion tries to take charge of. I think marriage of some sort would exist even in the absence of religion. Atheists and communists marry too. However you enter into the union, and whoever performs the ceremony, once you're married, it's an institution governed by civil law as well as ecclesiastical.

[Darat]

The marital "contract" is one which is (most frequently believed to be) confirmed before a deity, rather than before a judge. The traditional "call of banns" required throughout most of English history had to be conducted at a church in order to be valid. The courts which controlled the rules surrounding marriage were Ecclesiastical, not civil.

...snip...

I presume you mean after about the 15th or 16th centuries?

[bruto]

Let me try.

I am assuming you mean this question. If I am wrong, then please point me out to a different question to attempt to answer to the best of my abilities.



Give me one legitimate reason to call them "civil unions". Just one. Uno.

When a couple gets married -- a HETEROSEXUAL couple -- outside of religious boundaries (I.E., by a court), it's still referred to as a marriage. It's a marriage, even though religion has been cut out of the picture. Thus, your later point about religions not wanting to accept homosexuals has no standing. This is not a religious issue, this is a state issue. Remember "seperation of church and state"? Marriage can be arranged outside of religion, and in many different varying religions including paganism, or within secular communities. Marriage, as it exists in the U.S., is mainly a legal function. Not a religious one.

Further, and this is an important point: Why should the state bow to the wishes of any religion, majority or not? The answer is that it shouldn't. The state should not make it illegal to marry homosexuals. This is an important point, and I want you to read this until it makes your eyes bleed. There is a fine line between a majority of religions not marrying homosexuals, and the state MAKING IT ILLEGAL to. Get it?

However, let me fire up wikipedia to further answer your question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions



So it's either unequal to marriage, or it won't fool the bigots that are against gay marriage. It's lose-lose.

What legitimate reason is there to call it any other name, other than trying to "trick" populations into accepting it by giving them the feint? Quite frankly, if we're going to oppose bigotry, we should at the least be honest about it. Either we're supporting bigotry, or we're pretending to support it. Either we're giving homosexuals less of a marriage, or we're giving them the exact same marriage under a different label to trick people that are against it. (Okay, that's a false dichotomy; we might be giving them MORE benefits. But I somehow doubt it).

Does that answer your question?


Lone, you bring up an important contradiction in the way some people view this. If, indeed, marriage is a religious function, then the state should have no part in making it illegal for, say, the Unitarian church or the church of Satan, to marry homosexuals. If it is within the province of states to prevent churches from marrying homosexuals, then one must conclude that marriage is a civil function, and we should be able to argue the gay marriage issue as a civil issue.

I don't think there's any real dispute that the idea of "civil unions" is a sop to those who cannot abide gay marriage for religious reasons. It's a compromise, and how you view it depends a little on how seriously you take the idea that there's a mystique to marriage. Some people accept civil unions as good enough, because they do not accept the idea that there's a special mystique about the word "marriage," and others to not because they do.

[Lonewulf]

Lone, you bring up an important contradiction in the way some people view this. If, indeed, marriage is a religious function, then the state should have no part in making it illegal for, say, the Unitarian church or the church of Satan, to marry homosexuals. If it is within the province of states to prevent churches from marrying homosexuals, then one must conclude that marriage is a civil function, and we should be able to argue the gay marriage issue as a civil issue.

Exactly.

Either religions are free to marry who they wish and the states have no say at all, or marriage is primarily a social government function. There's really little room for middle ground, unless you want to appoint a state religion...

I don't think there's any real dispute that the idea of "civil unions" is a sop to those who cannot abide gay marriage for religious reasons. It's a compromise, and how you view it depends a little on how seriously you take the idea that there's a mystique to marriage. Some people accept civil unions as good enough, because they do not accept the idea that there's a special mystique about the word "marriage," and others to not because they do.

I don't accept civil unions, not because of this "sense of mystique", but because as long as you recognize it as different than marriage, lawmakers can justify gimping civil union benefits as opposed to all-around marriage benefits. I want equality across the board, and no room for bigotry. Marriage is marriage; people of the same sex should be 100% equal to those married to the opposite sex -- In name and in benefits. Period.

Segregation was once considered a compromise. It is no longer. I want to skip that step personally, and just skip to the end.

[Tanstaafl]

Either religions are free to marry who they wish and the states have no say at all, or marriage is primarily a social government function. There's really little room for middle ground, unless you want to appoint a state religion...


This is exactly why I have long believed that the two aspects of marriage should be separated. That is, I think that civil unions should be the only thing that the government does in this area. Shouldn't matter if the two people are the same or different sex. Whether it's a romantic or sexual relationship or not shouldn't matter. It's a contract that two adults enter into.

Marriage can then be left to the churches and whatever non-religious organizations might want to have them. They can make up their own rules for their own marriages however they like, and they can recognize or not recognize unions from other organizations as they see fit.

And people like me would be free to ignore them altogether.

Get government out of the marriage business altogether, I say!

[ceo_esq]

I'm thinking of a version of Solomon's choice.

Say a baby, the issue of (B), through no fault of (B)'s, is separated from them, and as an "anonymous orphan", becomes the ward of (A). At some point, the baby is identified, and (B) wants her back, but (A) says no.
(A) and (B) are now in competition.

I'm not sure this specific scenario is likely to be repeated often enough to be a major consideration to the state in developing a set of relatively simple and easy-to-apply rules for where it will allocate the incentive to marry. But at any rate, aren't (A) and (B) in competition there only incidentally? Behind the dressing-up, isn't it at some level a garden-variety parental rights dispute?


Much of the larger debate might hinge on this: calculus of benefits to the birth children of gay marriages (pro-GM) vs (anti-GM) benefits to the unplanned children of straight marriages.

I think that that's certainly a pertinent consideration. "Benefits" being evaluated relative to the typical needs and risks in each case, of course.


The State can argue that, clearly, unplanned straight pregnancies outnumber gay birth children; I would however counter that the State's incentive-based-on-mystique assumption is flawed, absent statistics albeit, but as several posters have pointed out who live in places where gay marriage or at least civil union has been legalized, the incentive for straights to marry hasn't fallen drastically or even at all as far as anyone can tell -- no reports of embittered single straights wandering the dating wilderness unable to bring themselves to marry because gays can too.

I thought we'd moved past the mystique question. It's not a completely irrational point for the state to raise, but neither is it (nor should it be) a major element of the case typically advanced by states.


Marriage was defined as the legal union between a man and a woman creating a partnership of husband and wife.
This specifically bans all other types of relationships being a marriage. There is no other reason for the definition to be as such.

The scope of marriage is a function of the specific situation and set of problems it evolved to address.


Absolutely. However, things couldn't have been different because of discrimination. You don't think there were gay people 1500 years ago? Apparently the people who wrote the bible knew there were gays. Things couldn't be different because of religions', and their followers', feelings of ickiness about men sleeping with men.

...

The only reason they have a different set of problems is because they have been discriminated against for so long. If there hadn't of been the outcry about gays adopting children, they would have benefitted from marriage just like opposite sex couples.

No. Not "just like" them. Marriage is an economically efficient (though not perfectly so, obviously) set of rules that have developed in many respects specifically to regulate conflicts between private (individual) and social incentives in the context of heterosexual relationships, and those conflicts are often linked to heterosexual biology. It is false to say that homosexual couples present a different set of problems purely because they have been discriminated against for so long. They present a different set of problems largely due to biological considerations. Those are a set of problems to which the conventional institution of marriage (considered in its legal aspect) was not designed to address efficiently. More on this later.


Personally I have no problem with Bruto's two statements. My marriage was entirely secular, held in the old town hall of my home town by an officer of the local council. There was absolutely no mention of religion in the entire service. I agree with Bruto that "religions always try to take it over and regulate it" (here in the UK) but I still believe that marriage is, or should be, a matter for the two people involved.

Are you suggesting that there should not be any civil marriage? There are, after all, more than "two people involved" in a civil marriage. The state is also effectively a party, and there are other intended third party beneficiaries, such as children that issue from the couple.


To be fair, I'm pretty sure the concept of long-term homosexual couples, living together in the same way as heterosexual relationships, is a modern phenomenon. Homosexuality in antiquity wasn't reviled like it was in, say, the christian Middle Ages, but it was not seen at all in the same way.

You're right about it not being seen the same way. The way we tend to think of homosexual relationships, as "the reciprocal desire of partners belonging to the same age-category", was, according to Kenneth Dover, "virtually unknown in Greek homosexuality", and I don't think we can say it would have met with any more social acceptance than in later eras. I discussed this briefly in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1534206#post1534206). I would also recommend to any interested reader Dover's Greek Homosexuality, widely considered the definitive academic work on the subject.


The same sex marriage movement didn't fail. Many countries, including the one I live in, have recognized that there is no legal, social or moral argument to justify preventing same sex marriage and they have corrected the discriminating nature of the law. That the US is the most religious of Western countries and is the last to cast off religions bonds, isn't surprising to anyone I know.

First of all, no one said that the same-sex marriage movement had failed, period; I said that it had failed thus far (particularly in the litigation, which I study extensively) to persuasively and consistently counter many of its opponents' arguments, which is true. I was referring specifically to the United States, but it's far from clear that the worldwide movement has been consistently effective either. I wonder if by "many countries", you mean the seven (if we generously include the United States and Israel) where full marriage for same-sex couples is recognized somewhere within the juridisiction, none of which countries (unless one counts the entire United States for this purpose) are among, say, the 25 most populous. Within the United States, particularly, the failures are substantially marring the successes.


And you gave an opinion. It is a rosey view of history, too bad it has no support from the evidence.

I do so love it when some random person attempts to instruct me within my own field.


I think you are wrong. You seem to think that society is some entity that contemplates what is best and makes laws to make it happen. Society is made up of people and the people in power make laws based on the desires of the people they represent. When a society is controlled by a religious fundamentalist regime, you tend to get the same set of discriminatory laws no matter what the religion. Those laws almost always include laws that discriminate heavily against homosexuals.

You keep getting hung up on what you perceive as religious bias, and you really need to let it go if you want to understand the relevant issues here.

To borrow again from marriage-law-and-economics expert Doug Allen, "Institutions do not come into existence ex nihilo. Institutions result from intentional actions on the part of collections of humans for the purpose of achieving some objective." Although social cooperation leads to social benefit,

... such cooperation also enables people to take advantage of one another or behave opportunistically. For example, employees shirk their duties, people write bad checks, spouses commit adultery, and so on. To mitigate these opportunistic behaviors, successful societies create institutions that constrain private incentives. These institutions are wide ranging, and at a general level include firms, families, laws, customs, and governments. Within each of these there are vast arrays of rules and norms to regulate opportunistic behavior at the relevant level. When societies were successful in adopting the optimal rules for their particular circumstances, they tended to outperform other societies. Eventually, only those societies with optimal rules survive.

How institutions actually come into being is irrelevant to the question of efficiency. Intentions do not matter; whether constructed in order to achieve a specific goal or developing by chance, only optimal institutions survive in the competitive world of social interactions. The implication is that surviving, or long-lasting, institutions are economically efficient. ... In dealing with the legal regulation of marriage, courts and legislatures form laws that either work well or do not in varying degree. Poorly designed laws lead to lobbying efforts and appeals that result either in [successful or unsuccessful regulation of marriage relationships].

(Source: D.W. Allen, "An Economic Assessment of Same-Sex Marriage Laws", 29 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 949 (2006) (footnotes omitted))


That is how the conventional regulatory regime of marriage has developed over time. Modern marriage laws are the result of many centuries of evolution and adaptation to a particular task: the regulation of the specific incentive problems (many of which are linked to procreation) of heterosexual relationships . That is not to say that marriage as we know it could not be also be used to regulate some of the issues in homosexual relationships, but it will not do so in as efficient a way from the standpoint of the state or, for that matter, the standpoint of the spouses. Why would we expect it to?


It isn't the marriage laws that protect unplanned children, it is child maintenance laws.

That appears to be a common misperception among people not actually trained in law. Child maintenance laws do not confer the same degree or range of protections as matrimonial law, and they are not an appropriate substitute for it.


And it leads one to wonder how effective this incentive system is. It doesn't seem to work. Marriages fail regularly.

If you tried removing those incentives, you'd quickly realize you were wrong about them. And bear in mind that spouses splits up, that doesn't mean that the scheme has failed the interests of the state (or necessarily even private interests of the spouses). The fact that there was a marriage at all means the state is in a position to enforce its interests in the divorce, which goes toward compensating the negative impact of the divorce. If I have a business venture with two other business partners that is governed by a partnership contract, and the partnership contract is terminated prematurely or is breached, I'm now in a much better position by virtue of the fact that there was a contract to begin with than I would be if we'd only had a "gentlemen's agreement".

[Morrigan]

Let me try.

Give me one legitimate reason to call them "civil unions". Just one. Uno.

Please don't misunderstand me. I have not stated any opinion on this so far, nor do I have any desire to argue this point by giving you reasons, I'm merely trying to understand the differences between the two concepts. Civil unions do already exist, don't they? I assume that they don't have the same benefits as mariages, otherwise gays ought to be satisfied with them. Initially I thought they were the same as marriages, but without the religion, but apparently that's not the case.


When a couple gets married -- a HETEROSEXUAL couple -- outside of religious boundaries (I.E., by a court), it's still referred to as a marriage.

Is it? Okay. I thought "secular marriages" were actually called civil unions. I was wrong, no big deal. So civil unions don't have as many benefits, is that the key difference? Honestly the Wikipedia article is unclear, as it seems to vary depending on the country. Go figure.


The state should not make it illegal to marry homosexuals. This is an important point, and I want you to read this until it makes your eyes bleed.
There is a fine line between a majority of religions not marrying homosexuals, and the state MAKING IT ILLEGAL to. Get it?


Must you be so condescending? Why do you want my eyes to bleed, exactly? I am not anti- or pro-gay marriages, I didn't even state an opinion on the matter. To be perfectly honest, I think marriage is an outdated institution, and I think the state should definitely stay out of this, so you are preaching to the choir here.
Again, I was merely trying to understand the nuances between (secular) marriages and civil unions.

[bruto]

Exactly.

Either religions are free to marry who they wish and the states have no say at all, or marriage is primarily a social government function. There's really little room for middle ground, unless you want to appoint a state religion...



I don't accept civil unions, not because of this "sense of mystique", but because as long as you recognize it as different than marriage, lawmakers can justify gimping civil union benefits as opposed to all-around marriage benefits. I want equality across the board, and no room for bigotry. Marriage is marriage; people of the same sex should be 100% equal to those married to the opposite sex -- In name and in benefits. Period.

Segregation was once considered a compromise. It is no longer. I want to skip that step personally, and just skip to the end.


I tend to agree with you, but feel I must point out that in Vermont, at least, the Supreme Court ruling that resulted in civil unions made it pretty explicit that whatever benefits were under the control of the state must be equal, and at least as long as civil unions and gay marriages both remain on a state by state basis without reciprocity, there really isn't anything but a name difference. It certainly would be possible for some other state to come up with a civil union bill that would stint on rights and benefits, but I don't think the underlying Supreme Court ruling in Vermont would allow it here. Of course it's still a form of segregation, and I think ultimately that will change, but so far it's that or nothing.

What it came down to in Vermont was a decision on whether to come up with a law that actually exists and works, or to hold out for something guaranteed not to pass at all. It's an incomplete step, for sure, but realistically, not all things can be accomplished in one step. At the time, it was uncharted territory, and it took a lot of gumption for the legislators to do as much as they did. A number of legislators, especially Republicans who voted their conscience over their constituency, lost elections as a result.

[qayak]

I don't accept civil unions, not because of this "sense of mystique", but because as long as you recognize it as different than marriage, lawmakers can justify gimping civil union benefits as opposed to all-around marriage benefits. I want equality across the board, and no room for bigotry. Marriage is marriage; people of the same sex should be 100% equal to those married to the opposite sex -- In name and in benefits. Period.

HEAR, HEAR!

Let's raise everyone up as high as possible instead of holding one group back based on semantics and bigotry.

[blobru]

Again, I was merely trying to understand the nuances between (secular) marriages and civil unions.

Good question.
As far as I can see, based on all I've read in this thread, there is no difference. Only in name.
It's like "marriage" is the m-word, and gays aren't allowed to say it. And whatever that implies...???

[bruto]

Good question.
As far as I can see, based on all I've read in this thread, there is no difference. Only in name.
It's like "marriage" is the m-word, and gays aren't allowed to say it. And whatever that implies...???

Pretty much. The more you think about it the sillier it seems. I've noticed that some gay Vermonters, and some non gay as well, have addressed the problem by simply taking over the "m" word anyway. When two guys say they're married, everyone knows what they mean. If the vernacular meaning of "married" comes to include civil union as it now includes both civil and ecclesiastical marriages, then perhaps the dictionary will proclaim the victory before the legislature has to take it up again.

[kjkent1]

I presume you mean after about the 15th or 16th centuries?Most of the original 13 Colonies permitted posting of banns as an alternative to a marriage license well into the 1800s. New York didn't require a marriage license until 1908.

[kjkent1]

Marriage is an economically efficient (though not perfectly so, obviously) set of rules that have developed in many respects specifically to regulate conflicts between private (individual) and social incentives in the context of heterosexual relationships, and those conflicts are often linked to heterosexual biology. It is false to say that homosexual couples present a different set of problems purely because they have been discriminated against for so long. They present a different set of problems largely due to biological considerations. Those are a set of problems to which the conventional institution of marriage (considered in its legal aspect) was not designed to address efficiently. More on this later.Modern child custody and support laws are entirely independent of marital property laws. There is no longer any rationale for civil marriage as a means of protecting the family to maintain a positive environment for raising children.Modern marriage laws are the result of many centuries of evolution and adaptation to a particular task: the regulation of the specific incentive problems (many of which are linked to procreation) of heterosexual relationships . That is not to say that marriage as we know it could not be also be used to regulate some of the issues in homosexual relationships, but it will not do so in as efficient a way from the standpoint of the state or, for that matter, the standpoint of the spouses. Why would we expect it to?Modern domestic relations law doesn't work for hetrosexual couples, so there's no reason not to impose in on homosexuals, too. LOL!That appears to be a common misperception among people not actually trained in law. Child maintenance laws do not confer the same degree or range of protections as matrimonial law, and they are not an appropriate substitute for it.Please cite an example, because you're writing like someone whose family law experience is from the 1950s, counselor.If you tried removing those incentives, you'd quickly realize you were wrong about them. And bear in mind that spouses splits up, that doesn't mean that the scheme has failed the interests of the state (or necessarily even private interests of the spouses). The fact that there was a marriage at all means the state is in a position to enforce its interests in the divorce, which goes toward compensating the negative impact of the divorce.Marriage and divorce are all about money. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, in my view. The state has an interest in children, as innocent victims of divorce. Other than that, the state has no legitimate interest beyond maintaining a forum to resolve disputes without resort to violence.

[qayak]

To borrow again from marriage-law-and-economics expert Doug Allen, "Institutions do not come into existence ex nihilo. Institutions result from intentional actions on the part of collections of humans for the purpose of achieving some objective." Although social cooperation leads to social benefit,

Now, instead of applying this to marriage, apply it to religions. They do benefit through co-operation and they have had a long time to work out the bugs. Of course, they tend to benefit themselves and restrict others.

If you see marriage as an institution, that's fine but I don't. I see it as a contract between two people. To say that it has been developed as an incentive program for children is ridiculous to me. Everything in the laws of marriage is covered under contract law. The only difference is that it is not seen as a business deal but as a private contract between two individuals.

That is how the conventional regulatory regime of marriage has developed over time. Modern marriage laws are the result of many centuries of evolution and adaptation to a particular task: the regulation of the specific incentive problems (many of which are linked to procreation) of heterosexual relationships . That is not to say that marriage as we know it could not be also be used to regulate some of the issues in homosexual relationships, but it will not do so in as efficient a way from the standpoint of the state or, for that matter, the standpoint of the spouses. Why would we expect it to?

Okay, specifics. Give me some examples of current marriage laws that would have to be changed in order to deal with the special requirements of same sex marriage.

That appears to be a common misperception among people not actually trained in law. Child maintenance laws do not confer the same degree or range of protections as matrimonial law, and they are not an appropriate substitute for it.

This definitely isn't true from my experience. I almost every case I have seen, it is child maintenance laws that take presedence over marriage laws. Judges today, and my divorce was a perfect example, care little about marriage laws until there is an assurance that the children have been taken care of.

Marriage is between two adults and the laws pertain to them. In my case, the courts only concern was for the welfare of my three children and they used child maintenance laws to ensure the kids came first.

Marriage is not a living, reasoning entity and it seems to me to be a huge leap to give it those human qualities. You may wish that it was that way and people dealing with the legal aspects may try to justify their belief in the system by seeing it that way but it doesn't line up with any real world marriage I have ever seen.

And, contrary to what others think, I don't think marriage is outdated. I think the archaic marriage laws are. I think that two people wanting to declare their relationship and remain exclusive to each other forever, is something that should be held dear. I think it is one way to live a life but not the only way. I also think that the gender of the people involved does not matter and I have never seen a reasonable argument to not allow same sex marriages.





If you tried removing those incentives, you'd quickly realize you were wrong about them. And bear in mind that spouses splits up, that doesn't mean that the scheme has failed the interests of the state (or necessarily even private interests of the spouses). The fact that there was a marriage at all means the state is in a position to enforce its interests in the divorce, which goes toward compensating the negative impact of the divorce. If I have a business venture with two other business partners that is governed by a partnership contract, and the partnership contract is terminated prematurely or is breached, I'm now in a much better position by virtue of the fact that there was a contract to begin with than I would be if we'd only had a "gentlemen's agreement".[/QUOTE]

[Darat]

...snip...

That is how the conventional regulatory regime of marriage has developed over time. Modern marriage laws are the result of many centuries of evolution and adaptation to a particular task: the regulation of the specific incentive problems (many of which are linked to procreation) of heterosexual relationships . That is not to say that marriage as we know it could not be also be used to regulate some of the issues in homosexual relationships, but it will not do so in as efficient a way from the standpoint of the state or, for that matter, the standpoint of the spouses. Why would we expect it to?

...snip...


Since you have to acknowledged therefore that at times the "conventional regulatory regime of marriage" was not well adapted to whatever "particular task" that you believe it was 'intended' to support, the answer to your point is that we could just allow the same processes that got us to where we are today to continue i.e. continue to allow "marriage" to evolve and adapt to the particular task required today.

Why should today represent some "set in stone" point?

[chulbert]

You need to look at legal marriage as a solution to a set of problems at least partially unique heterosexual relationships, a set of problems that the State has determined in its interest to help solve. Some subset of these problems are also common to homosexual but some are not, and presumably homosexual relationships have some unique problems of their own.

From this perspective, a legal one, it's not obvious why marriage should be expanded to same-sex couples. First, why is it in the State's interest to help solve some of the problems inherent in same-sex relationships? Second, assuming the first is true, why is marriage, expanded in definition, the best solution to those problems?

Looked at this way, it makes little sense for same-sex couples claim discrimination when marriage is a solution to problems they don't even have.

Amusingly, when considered from this angle, marriage is really the mother of all social welfare programs.

[Darat]

You need to look at legal marriage as a solution to a set of problems at least partially unique heterosexual relationships, a set of problems that the State has determined in its interest to help solve. Some subset of these problems are also common to homosexual but some are not, and presumably homosexual relationships have some unique problems of their own.



What are these unique "heterosexual relationship" problems? (That the legislation on marriage addresses.)


From this perspective, a legal one, it's not obvious why marriage should be expanded to same-sex couples. First, why is it in the State's interest to help solve some of the problems inherent in same-sex relationships? Second, assuming the first is true, why is marriage, expanded in definition, the best solution to those problems?

Looked at this way, it makes little sense for same-sex couples claim discrimination when marriage is a solution to problems they don't even have.



Again which problems don't (all) same-sex couple have (that marriage legalisation covers) that (all) non-same sex-couples don't have?

Certainly some of the problems that face two people of the same sex wishing to make a commitment to each other in a way understood by society would be solved in the same way that it solves them for a straight marriage if they could marry. (For example inheritance rights and next of kin & power of attorney rights.)

Why is marriage expanded the best way to deal with those problems? I'd say because the solutions already exist for a 2 person marriage, the legislation is all there, the legal precedences and case law are all in place. Why re-invent the wheel when all you need is another wheel?

[bruto]

What are these unique "heterosexual relationship" problems? (That the legislation on marriage addresses.)



Again which problems don't (all) same-sex couple have (that marriage legalisation covers) that (all) non-same sex-couples don't have?

Certainly some of the problems that face two people of the same sex wishing to make a commitment to each other in a way understood by society would be solved in the same way that it solves them for a straight marriage if they could marry. (For example inheritance rights and next of kin & power of attorney rights.)

Why is marriage expanded the best way to deal with those problems? I'd say because the solutions already exist for a 2 person marriage, the legislation is all there, the legal precedences and case law are all in place. Why re-invent the wheel when all you need is another wheel?

I agree. By the way, if I recall, you (Darat) had a civil union, though as I recall also, marriage would have been more to your liking. If it isn't too personal, could you say how the whole process has worked or not worked for you? Has the difference made a difference personally and socially?

[Lonewulf]

Please don't misunderstand me. I have not stated any opinion on this so far, nor do I have any desire to argue this point by giving you reasons, I'm merely trying to understand the differences between the two concepts. Civil unions do already exist, don't they? I assume that they don't have the same benefits as mariages, otherwise gays ought to be satisfied with them. Initially I thought they were the same as marriages, but without the religion, but apparently that's not the case.

I don't think they are, no.

Is it? Okay. I thought "secular marriages" were actually called civil unions. I was wrong, no big deal. So civil unions don't have as many benefits, is that the key difference? Honestly the Wikipedia article is unclear, as it seems to vary depending on the country. Go figure.

Indeed, go figure. As I stated before, though, I'd rather just call it marriage and get it over with. These semantics and naming conventions are really ridiculous IMO. I don't want to change my vocabulary every time the state starts recognizing certain rights.

Must you be so condescending?

You're right, my apologies.

Why do you want my eyes to bleed, exactly?

Bleeding eyes are sexy.

I am not anti- or pro-gay marriages, I didn't even state an opinion on the matter. To be perfectly honest, I think marriage is an outdated institution, and I think the state should definitely stay out of this, so you are preaching to the choir here.
Again, I was merely trying to understand the nuances between (secular) marriages and civil unions.

I understand now.

[ceo_esq]

Good comments, everyone. I'll try to get to all these as time permits. Meanwhile, in no particular order of priority (apart from my fondness for Darat):

What are these unique "heterosexual relationship" problems? (That the legislation on marriage addresses.)

...

Again which problems don't (all) same-sex couple have (that marriage legalisation covers) that (all) non-same sex-couples don't have?

First of all, your parenthetical "all" in the second sentence don't belong. It doesn't matter much to this argument, for example, whether all non-same-sex couples present all of the same problems, so long as the problems remain relatively constant across heterosexual couples.

Professor Allen, whom I cited earlier, gives a couple of good examples of some classic incentive problems that commonly arise in male-female relationships and which marriage rules are designed to regulate:

In the context of marriage, the conflict between the private and social incentives is often linked to the biology of procreation. For example, because women bear children at a young age [relative to the procreative life cycle of men, at any rate], they make large, family-specific investments early in their lives. Such investments place them at risk of abandonment by men who initially indicate commitment in exchange for sex. But biology cuts both ways; because men seldom know the paternity of their children with certainty, a woman who mates with a given man might be able to "breed up" by exchanging sexual intercourse with a higher quality male, allowing the original mate to raise the latter's child unknowingly. These are just two examples of how biology could create a conflict between private and social incentives.

...

[M]any institutional rules within marriage are designed to restrict males from exploiting the specific investments women must make in childbearing. For gay men in a same-sex marriage, these institutional rules make no sense. Neither partner makes specific human capital investments in childbirth, even if children are present in their marriage. ... Second, many institutional features of marriage are designed to protect paternity and avoid births out of wedlock. Again, these issues are of little concern to same-sex couples where sex does not lead to children. ... Third, given that same-sex relationships are [more] often [than heterosexual relationships] composed of two financially independent individuals, there will be pressure for even easier divorce, as the problem of financial dependency will be reduced. Although forming an incomplete list, these problems demonstrate the inadequacy of the current two-parent model to deal with the contractual issues that will arise in same-sex divorce.


* * *

Since you have to acknowledged therefore that at times the "conventional regulatory regime of marriage" was not well adapted to whatever "particular task" that you believe it was 'intended' to support, the answer to your point is that we could just allow the same processes that got us to where we are today to continue i.e. continue to allow "marriage" to evolve and adapt to the particular task required today.

Why should today represent some "set in stone" point?

With regard to the tasks I've been speaking of, Darat, and the development of marriage rules in response thereto, I'm afraid that this is not simply a matter of personal belief, but of specialized academic and professional familiarity with the relevant historical jurisprudence and related matters.

That said, it's true that there have been times where marriage conventions were not as well adapted to regulate these problems; that is the nature of an evolutive process. However, from a legal-historical standpoint, certain aspects of marriage law have remained remarkably (if not absolutely) constant regardless of time and indeed of culture because of their efficiency in regulating these issues.

It would obviously be possible to, as you say, allow the same processes to cause the institution of marriage to evolve in response to the cases of both same-sex and opposite-sex unions (that's actually three different kinds of union: heterosexual, gay and lesbian). That means that all three types of union will be contributing "feedback" to this evolutive process, just as the real-life cases of countless heterosexual marriages have contributed the "feedback" that has driven the development so far. Assuming we do so, I can see two possible ways in which that would work.

The first scenario is that the marriage rules, however they might evolve, are constrained to apply to both same-sex and opposite-sex unions (that is, we apply all changes to both, so that at all future times both kinds of unions - really all three kinds - are treated the same). Now, remember what institutional economics, which we discussed earlier, tells us about how institutions develop over time. Unless we imagine, improbably, that the courts and legislators will simply ignore the feedback from gay and lesbian marriages, then that feedback, over time, is going to modify the marriage rules to some extent. It will push them, however modestly, in a direction that is adapted to the needs of those unions, and which will make them at least marginally more efficient to the circumstances that are most typical of either gay or lesbian (or both) unions across time. At the same time, the large number of heterosexual unions will continue to exert feedback in a somewhat different direction. Unfortunately, that will end up with an institution that is not as efficient for any of the three kinds of union as it would be if we had not artificially decided to maintain the same rules in place for all of them. That's seems to me to be the inevitable result of forcing a "one-size-fits-all" feedback loop.

The second scenario is where the development of marriage rules for same-sex unions is permitted to diverge from the one of opposite-sex unions. Thus, at the beginning every union must observe the rules that evolved for heterosexual unions, and which are therefore less efficient for same-sex unions, but thereafter each broad type of union evolves independently as an institution, driven by social efficiency considerations. The end result of this second scenario is arguably better than the first scenario. But if we choose to do that, why even bother starting off by applying the heterosexual model to everyone? We might be able to get a head-start on the institutional development process by trying to craft a new set (or sets) of rules for non-same-sex unions right off the bat.


Why re-invent the wheel when all you need is another wheel?

Hopefully it's now clearer why this is not a case of needing another wheel and re-inventing it. Ideally, tools should be adapted to the task at hand. If I wanted new tires to go offroading in a Jeep, I could borrow the ones off my neighbor's sports car. They'd probably work passably well, at least for a while. But unless I were lazy, short-sighted, obsessed with my neighbor's tires, or simply didn't care about results (a wheel's a wheel, right?), I'd probably give serious consideration to alternatives.

[Darat]

I agree. By the way, if I recall, you (Darat) had a civil union, though as I recall also, marriage would have been more to your liking. If it isn't too personal, could you say how the whole process has worked or not worked for you? Has the difference made a difference personally and socially?

It has been quite interesting; for instance when completing forms for various insurances there are always questions about marital status and of course "civil partner" is not one of the options (single, divorced, married, widowed are) but then there are problems putting another male in as a partner or co-named. So far not one of the insurance applications (either new or renewal) I've had to deal with have had "civil partner" listed or available as an acceptable option and I've had to then either contact them by phone and complete my application that way (and in one instance lose a 10% discount for on-line purchase of car insurance since I wasn't able to complete their on-line form).

A small but significant example of "separate but equal" in practice. Simply but as usual "separate but equal" means "not equal".

[Darat]

...snip...

First of all, your parenthetical "all" in the second sentence don't belong. It doesn't matter much to this argument, for example, whether all non-same-sex couples present all of the same problems, so long as the problems remain relatively constant across heterosexual couples.

...snip...

So then it also most also not matter whether the same incentives apply to all homosexual marriages or not.

...snip...
Professor Allen, whom I cited earlier, gives a couple of good examples of some classic incentive problems that commonly arise in male-female relationships and which marriage rules are designed to regulate:

...snip...

Disagree with pretty much everything he says. (As marriage actually is today.)

...snip...

With regard to the tasks I've been speaking of, Darat, and the development of marriage rules in response thereto, I'm afraid that this is not simply a matter of personal belief, but of specialized academic and professional familiarity with the relevant historical jurisprudence and related matters.

...snip...


And so is my view of the history and development of marriage as a "European" institution.

...snip...

That said, it's true that there have been times where marriage conventions were not as well adapted to regulate these problems; that is the nature of an evolutive process. However, from a legal-historical standpoint, certain aspects of marriage law have remained remarkably (if not absolutely) constant regardless of time and indeed of culture because of their efficiency in regulating these issues.

...snip...


I agree to a large extent unfortunately for your argument those aspects are no longer part of marriage in any EU country (or as far as I am aware the USA), for example dowry, woman's property before marriage becoming the man's afterwards, woman not being able to divorce but men can and so.

...snip....

Hopefully it's now clearer why this is not a case of needing another wheel and re-inventing it. Ideally, tools should be adapted to the task at hand. If I wanted new tires to go offroading in a Jeep, I could borrow the ones off my neighbor's sports car. They'd probably work passably well, at least for a while. But unless I were lazy, short-sighted, obsessed with my neighbor's tires, or simply didn't care about results (a wheel's a wheel, right?), I'd probably give serious consideration to alternatives.

No it isn't, I'll ask you same type of question to you that I asked chulbert.

Given what marriage actually is today what are these unique "heterosexual relationship" problems (and incentives) that the legislation on marriage addresses?

[bruto]

It has been quite interesting; for instance when completing forms for various insurances there are always questions about marital status and of course "civil partner" is not one of the options (single, divorced, married, widowed are) but then there are problems putting another male in as a partner or co-named. So far not one of the insurance applications (either new or renewal) I've had to deal with have had "civil partner" listed or available as an acceptable option and I've had to then either contact them by phone and complete my application that way (and in one instance lose a 10% discount for on-line purchase of car insurance since I wasn't able to complete their on-line form).

A small but significant example of "separate but equal" in practice. Simply but as usual "separate but equal" means "not equal".

Thanks for the info. This is one of those areas where those not directly involved are likely simply not to be observant. State forms here in Vermont have all been updated, but I haven't noticed how private entities like insurance companies are handling it.

[ceo_esq]

So then it also most also not matter whether the same incentives apply to all homosexual marriages or not.

If what you mean is that an institution effective in addressing incentive problems that are fairly constant across homosexual unions can be basically efficient even if those problems do not arise in all such unions, then I agree. Now, how does that observation factor into your argument?


Disagree with pretty much everything he says. (As marriage actually is today.)

OK. So far as I know, nearly all economists studying marriage agree that the chief transaction cost issues revolve around procreation and that the institution is responsive to those costs in various ways. You're entitled to your own opinion, of course.


And so is my view of the history and development of marriage as a "European" institution.

How so? You seem to be suggesting that you have independent expertise in a field relevant to the history and development of the legal regulation of marriage. Is that the case?


I agree to a large extent unfortunately for your argument those aspects are no longer part of marriage in any EU country (or as far as I am aware the USA), for example dowry, woman's property before marriage becoming the man's afterwards, woman not being able to divorce but men can and so.

Those changes were largely responsive to shifts in relative transaction costs, but where did you get the idea that marriage isn't still regulating the types of incentive problems I outlined? They're still present. Can you cite some authority for that proposition?


No it isn't, I'll ask you same type of question to you that I asked chulbert.

Given what marriage actually is today what are these unique "heterosexual relationship" problems (and incentives) that the legislation on marriage addresses?

The question I answered was the one you asked chulbert. What makes you think those problems went away? What's fundamentally changed in the private incentives I spoke of?

[Darat]

If what you mean is that an institution effective in addressing incentive problems that are fairly constant across homosexual unions can be basically efficient even if those problems do not arise in all such unions, then I agree. Now, how does that observation factor into your argument?

Which was not my point. My point was that you acknoledge that the "incentives" you brought up do not apply to all different-sex marriages, therefore there is no reason why they should have to apply to all same-sex marriages either.




OK. So far as I know, nearly all economists studying marriage agree that the chief transaction cost issues revolve around procreation and that the institution is responsive to those costs in various ways. You're entitled to your own opinion, of course.



A simple question - when and which marriage does this apply to?



How so? You seem to be suggesting that you have independent expertise in a field relevant to the history and development of the legal regulation of marriage. Is that the case?

...snip...


No I am just saying that I could (if I was inclined to) type out swathes of information from the experts of social history who wrote the texts I have access to that demonstrates that marriage has constantly changed over recorded history.

What marriage is and what it means has always changed, therefore any attempt to say "this is what marriage is" has to be bounded by defining exactly when you are talking about.




...snip...

The question I answered was the one you asked chulbert. What makes you think those problems went away? What's fundamentally changed in the private incentives I spoke of?

Many things for instance once children were no longer considered the property of their parents (and usually the father), once children were recognised to have inherent rights not just rights inherited from their parents.

Your argument boils down to (although as usual very well represented and supported) "marriage today is this, adding same-sex marriage changes it". That argument could have been applied to marriage at any particular time, however that argument ignores a very important fact. That fact is that what marriage means and what it is has never been static - it has changed just as much as society has changed, which is of course stating the obvious since marriage is only what society says it is.

What is so special, so unique about what marriage means/is today that means it cannot do what it has always done and adapt and change so that tomorrow it means something else?

[Morrigan]

Good question.
As far as I can see, based on all I've read in this thread, there is no difference. Only in name.
It's like "marriage" is the m-word, and gays aren't allowed to say it. And whatever that implies...???

Ah, so they are? But then, didn't "civil unions" exist before gays were even part of the picture? Or was the concept specifically created for gays?

That's mainly what is confusing me. Gay marriage is a relatively recent issue, and I could have sworn that "civil unions" were around before it was one, though of course I could be wrong. So...
- If I'm correct, AND that civil unions are really just "marriage minus religion" then gays ought to be content with those.
- If I'm correct, BUT that civil unions don't have all the same benefits as "ordinary" marriages, then the gays have a point in feeling discriminated against.
- If I'm wrong and in fact "civil unions" were just introduced to deal with the gay marriage issues, then yeah, it's a pretty useless semantical distinction at best (if the benefits are the same), and discrimination at worst (if the benefits are inferior).


You're right, my apologies.

:) Apologies accepted.

Bleeding eyes are sexy.
Ah yes, you're that weirdo with the weird sexual fantasies (making you a dangerous and disgusting evil pervert, according to our token intellectually dishonest trolling douchebag, was it?), right? :D

[ceo_esq]

Which was not my point. My point was that you acknoledge that the "incentives" you brought up do not apply to all different-sex marriages, therefore there is no reason why they should have to apply to all same-sex marriages either.

I'm wasn't speaking there about the state's inducements to marry or its rules to encourage or discourage certain behavior, I meant the (largely procreation-related) incentive problems that remain relatively constant across heterosexual relationships. The relevant rules in each jurisdiction apply to all opposite-sex marriages, because they address the situation in which the great majority of heterosexual couples find themselves naturally. I agree that the relevant rules probably shouldn't have to apply to same-sex unions, because the underlying procreative issues they address aren't found in same-sex unions. Indeed, it would generally be in the interest of someone in (or contemplating) a same-sex marriage to challenge (through lobbying or suit) the applicability of "heterosexual" restrictions to his or her kind of union. For example, the costs of homosexual promiscuity (while arguably nontrivial due to disease risk factors, among other things) are lower than those of heterosexual promiscuity because of the absence of risk of children. It makes institutional and individual sense, then, for society to impose on homosexual spouses a somewhat lower responsibility of fidelity than on heterosexual spouses.


A simple question - when and which marriage does this apply to?

Almost all of them. The incentive problems of which Allen gave examples arise in the typical heterosexual marriage. They're not really specific to a time, place, or pair of individuals. Because of biology, men and women have different ("asymmetrical", you often see in the literature) reproductive characteristics, behaviors, strategies and motivations. These asymmetries create conflicts not only between the two partners' interests, but between the interests of the state and those of the partners.

A recent (2007) paper by Dirk Bethmann of Korea University, Seoul and Michael Kvasnicka of Humboldt University, Berlin explores one of those conflicts, relating to how certainty of paternity affects partners' investment in marriage and offspring, echoing my earlier citation to Allen:

Outside economics, in evolutionary biology, sociology, anthropology, and psychology, sex differences have long been recognized as important determinants of both individual and group behavior. Asymmetries in offspring recognition and in reproductive capacity between women and men constitute two prominent examples of such differences. Both asymmetries arise from the human mode of reproduction and entail different constraints, risks, and incentives for the two sexes that significantly influence their respective reproductive strategies.

Because of internal fertilization and live birth, women but not men can identify their progeny with certainty. ... Misattributed fatherhood constitutes a major threat to the reproductive success of men and entails significant economic costs [to them] in terms of both time and resources expended for parenting. Internal fertilization and gestation, as well as a shorter female than male life-time span of fertility, furthermore significantly constrain the reproductive capacity of women relative to that of men. For men more than women, as a consequence, reproduction is limited by access to fertile mating partners. Both asymmetries are suggested in the literature to exert a qualitatively similar influence on the respective mating behavior of women and men and on the amount of parental investment each sex is willing to devote to offspring, i.e. the respective reproductive strategies pursued by the two sexes. ... For the more uncertain is paternity, the less willing are men on average to invest in their alleged progeny, and the more attractive is promiscuity as a means to increase their expected number of offspring and to diversify potential risks of cuckoldry. As motherhood, in contrast, is certain and female reproductive capacity limited, women do not have these incentives to engage in promiscuity. They have other motives, however, in particular, the prospects of acquiring additional (yet misplaced) parental investment from other males. ...

[T]he institution of marriage serves [inter alia] the purpose of attenuating the risk of mating market failure that arises from incomplete information on individual paternity.

In other words, if each sex pursues its own individual natural mating strategy, mating market failure results (that is, the market fails to bring about the efficient, and thus socially optimal, outcome). A lot of complicated economic modeling goes into demonstrating this, but to continue in general terms:

Asymmetries in offspring recognition and in reproductive capacity between the two sexes are intrinsic features of the human mode of reproduction. Misattributed fatherhood and mating market failure are therefore ubiquitous risks faced by societies and in no way confined to particular cultures, times, economic systems, or regions of the world.

The authors then go on to examine different kinds of marriage regimes, including monogamy as well as the less common polygyny and even rarer polyandry, concluding:

As to common features, the most basic characteristic to note is that in all three marriage regimes, conjugal unions are intersexual in nature, i.e. they involve at least one member of each sex. This ubiquitous trait is extremely important, for it underscores that reproduction must be of central importance for the institution of marriage, as well as for individual marriage decisions. [No other economically studied motive besides own offspring] requires inputs of both sexes for its production ... [or] can explain why societies since time immemorial have regulated the mating behavior of individuals by institutionalizing, enforcing, and promoting intersexual marriages.

Summarizing the above, in all marriage regimes does the institution of marriage serve the purpose of regulating and organizing reproduction in society. The general entitlement of spouses ... with exclusive reproductive property rights, the ubiquity of bans on adultery, and the universality across marriage regimes of the legal principle of presumed paternity, underscore this function.

...

This paper [demonstrates a] ... microeconomic foundation for the institution of marriage. In our account of the origin and purpose of this institution, fertility considerations both at the individual and societal level are of primary importance. Based on a model of mating behavior, reproduction, and parental investment in children, we have shown that marriage as an institution can be explained as a societal response to mating market failure that arises from incomplete information on individual paternity. By circumscribing promiscuity, the institution of men makes paternity of men more certain and induces them to invest more in their putative offspring. Able to raise the welfare of both women and men, as well as average levels of parental care, the institution of marriage can realize Pareto improvements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency) ... central to an understanding of why societies around the world have at all times circumscribed the mating behavior of individuals by endorsing and enforcing marriage as the preferred ... form of union between the two sexes. Our foundation of the institution of marriage is consistent with both the traditional role of conjugal unions as the primary place for the bearing and rearing of children in societies, and the general requirement of fidelity between spouses.

D. Bethmann & M. Kvasnicka, "Uncertain Paternity, Mating Market Failure, and the Institution of Marriage" (SFB 649 Discussion Paper 2007-013) (internal citations and footnotes omitted).


No I am just saying that I could (if I was inclined to) type out swathes of information from the experts of social history who wrote the texts I have access to that demonstrates that marriage has constantly changed over recorded history.

What marriage is and what it means has always changed, therefore any attempt to say "this is what marriage is" has to be bounded by defining exactly when you are talking about.

...

Many things for instance once children were no longer considered the property of their parents (and usually the father), once children were recognised to have inherent rights not just rights inherited from their parents.

Your argument boils down to (although as usual very well represented and supported) "marriage today is this, adding same-sex marriage changes it". That argument could have been applied to marriage at any particular time, however that argument ignores a very important fact. That fact is that what marriage means and what it is has never been static - it has changed just as much as society has changed, which is of course stating the obvious since marriage is only what society says it is.

What is so special, so unique about what marriage means/is today that means it cannot do what it has always done and adapt and change so that tomorrow it means something else?

If you think this argument boils down to just "marriage today is this, adding same-sex marriage changes it", then perhaps I haven't explained it adequately. Marriage has changed in many respects over time, and remained fairly constant in others. But the changes in marriage over time (at least the changes that have proven to have staying power in the long term) have generally been changes that increased the efficiency of the institution with regard to certain fundamental purposes. Changes can occur in environment, demographics and so forth that cause certain existing rules to be less well adapted than before, prompting a modification of marital rules to raise efficiency again. That's to be expected. But change without noticeable gains in efficiency in regulating the primary goals which the current structure addresses, and with the risk of a loss in such efficiency as a result, is a different matter. It's hardly irrational to suggest that that's what same-sex marriage arguably proposes, and the state is right to weigh it carefully (whether it is ultimately rejected or not).

Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Consider the now-obsolete (in most places) doctrine of coverture, under which a wife was deemed legally merged for many civil purposes with her husband. Why did coverture arise and remain in place for so long? Well, a long time ago lifespans were shorter, birthrates were higher, and as a result most women were pregnant for a significant percentage of their adult lives. Thus, the costs of restricting women to home production were low. At the same time, the problem of establishing paternity was even greater than it is now (although it's still a problem, as previously discussed), so the benefits of isolating a wife from other men were correspondingly higher. The result? Coverture - an efficiently evolved solution under the circumstances of the time. But conditions on the ground changed over the years, and coverture eventually became sort of a dinosaur. Controls on pregnancy improved; industrialization brought new occupations in which women had less of a disadvantage; and so forth. Finally, greater market efficiencies could be achieved by abolishing coverture (conferring greater incentives on wives through the granting of more independent legal rights) than could be achieved by keeping it. Sure enough, coverture became extinct via the same mechanisms through which it had evolved in the first place.

So I'm not suggesting that the law of marriage has never changed, and in fact I'm reasonably sure that I could come up with more examples of such changes than most people. But I also understand something of what drives this process: why, in the long term, some things change and other things don't.

[Darat]

...snip...

In other words, if each sex pursues its own individual natural mating strategy,

...snip...



There is no such thing as a "natural mating strategy" for humans - unless you wish to extend the common use of "natural" to include society and culture. (Or rather whatever was human natural mating strategy we can make a good guess that it had no resemblance to a state sanctioned/controlled marriage partnership as the yare understood today.)

...snip...

But the changes in marriage over time (at least the changes that have proven to have staying power in the long term) have generally been changes that increased the efficiency of the institution with regard to certain fundamental purposes.

...snip...


That is just an extended assertion, well written but in the end nothing but your opinion. (And the rest of your response is also nothing but assertion after assertion of your own opinions so there is really nothing more I can respond to apart from a "we shall have to agree to disagree".)

[ceo_esq]

There is no such thing as a "natural mating strategy" for humans - unless you wish to extend the common use of "natural" to include society and culture. (Or rather whatever was human natural mating strategy we can make a good guess that it had no resemblance to a state sanctioned/controlled marriage partnership as the yare understood today.)

I should clarify. I was referring to the optimal individual reproductive strategies in light of the physiological constraints and other parameters we discussed (which can be modeled mathematically). The point was that on average, left to their own devices without outside intervention, a man can be expected to generally pursue his optimal individual reproductive strategy, and a woman can be expected to generally pursue her optimal individual reproductive strategy - but thanks to biology, those strategies (and the incentive to pursue them) conflict in such a way as to yield market failure (where the individual efforts do not yield the most productive overall result). The state-sanctioned marriage regime moderates this conflict in such a way as to improve the overall result from an efficiency standpoint, so everyone - including the state - benefits.


That is just an extended assertion, well written but in the end nothing but your opinion. (And the rest of your response is also nothing but assertion after assertion of your own opinions so there is really nothing more I can respond to apart from a "we shall have to agree to disagree".)

On the other hand, these are expert opinions, and moreover they are largely views about non-subjective matters (indeed, I've taken some pains to steer this away from more subjective questions, such as whether one policy is wiser or more moral than another). It makes sense to agree to disagree about whether Schubert was better than Beethoven, for example. But agreeing to have different views on what the facts are (whether historical, mathematical, empirical or otherwise) seems like a good idea only as a temporary measure pending further data and/or analysis.

(Wouldn't you agree? :D)

[blobru]

Ah, so they are? But then, didn't "civil unions" exist before gays were even part of the picture? Or was the concept specifically created for gays?

I think it's the latter: civil unions were created as a sort of legalistic shunt for same-sex couples, separate but equal (in theory) to secular "marriage". (As Darat relates above, those quotes in fact lead to some [costly] hassles.)

It seems to me that if state Law would only get over itself -- pop the question already -- and marry Language (even if it is common), Darat for one would have all that extra $ he saves on car insurance to spend on cat toys, and via this complementary incentive scheme, the State would surely have fulfilled its own primary, overriding and from time immemorial eternally-unchanging self-Interest (I admit to some coaching on this last point from my sister's ragamuffin, "Marlowe"). :o

[kjkent1]

In California, the civil union statutes are substantially identical to the marital statutes. There are literally no differences, except that in some situations, federal law preempts and does not provide the same protection to those persons in a lawful civil union, due to the fact that the federal statutes were written prior to the time that anyone contemplated civil unions between same-sex partners, and as it's a political football, no one in Congress wants to mess with, e.g., Social Security.

However, the point is that there's nothing inherent in California law, at least, which makes the existing family code any less palatable for the legislature to provide it to both homosexual and heterosexuals partners. And, the only "real" difference, is purely definitional: the legislature doesn't call homosexual civil unions "marriage," because to do so will infuriate a larger voting block than it will please.

So, contrary to ceo_esq's assertions, it's demonstrably all about money and power and nothing else.

People just don't want gays to be able to call themselves "married," because that's the way it's been for the past 3,000 years, and we live in a predominantly Christian culture, which generally abhors homosexuality as a sin.

PS. I'm not venturing a value judgment either way here -- just stating the facts.

[ceo_esq]

In California, the civil union statutes are substantially identical to the marital statutes. There are literally no differences, except that in some situations, federal law preempts and does not provide the same protection to those persons in a lawful civil union, due to the fact that the federal statutes were written prior to the time that anyone contemplated civil unions between same-sex partners, and as it's a political football, no one in Congress wants to mess with, e.g., Social Security.

However, the point is that there's nothing inherent in California law, at least, which makes the existing family code any less palatable for the legislature to provide it to both homosexual and heterosexuals partners. And, the only "real" difference, is purely definitional: the legislature doesn't call homosexual civil unions "marriage," because to do so will infuriate a larger voting block than it will please.

So, contrary to ceo_esq's assertions, it's demonstrably all about money and power and nothing else.

It's not clear to me how the fact that the California legislature has granted substantially the same benefits to same-sex couples demonstrates the contrary of anything I've said. Without more, that only makes the fairly banal demonstration that it was a politically palatable course for the California legislature to take, which I certainly never denied. Yet one could draw essentially the same conclusion from the passage of any legislation.

[kjkent1]

It's not clear to me how the fact that the California legislature has granted substantially the same benefits to same-sex couples demonstrates the contrary of anything I've said. Without more, that only makes the fairly banal demonstration that it was a politically palatable course for the California legislature to take, which I certainly never denied. Yet one could draw essentially the same conclusion from the passage of any legislation.Your position, as I understand it, is that the existing laws are ill suited to homosexual relationships -- therefore, keeping things separate is the preferred logical position.

The facts, however, empirically demonstrate the contrary is true. To wit:

1. California is the most populous state (and I'll bet has the highest percentage of homosexuals).

2. No one is complaining that the civil union law for homosexuals does not work in Cal.,though it is substantially equivalent to the family law for heterosexuals. The only complaint is that the laws are not identical in "name."

Thus, your stated theory fails on the facts. What remains is simply about money, power, and Christian intolerance.

Note: I don't deny, as you point out, that things happen for a reason, and that family law has evolved over a long period of time. Nevertheless, modern family law bears little resemblance to the family law which evolved over the many millennia, because the last century has radically changed the face of the legal landscape, due to the radical increase in women's legal rights.

Were family law like it was even 50 years ago, it would have little relevance for the homosexual. But, modernly, men and women are presumed equal in family court, so treating man and man, or woman and woman similarly, does not alter the legal calculus in the slightest.

[ceo_esq]

Your position, as I understand it, is that the existing laws are ill suited to homosexual relationships -- therefore, keeping things separate is the preferred logical position.

Leaving aside the much earlier discussions about how the intersexual marriage question relates to state interests, my position in the recent portion of the thread has been basically that laws that are more or less efficiently designed for regulating incentive conflicts and transaction costs in typical heterosexual relationships will not be as efficient in regulating homosexual relationships (they can be used for that purpose, but at a loss of efficiency). I have not taken the position that keeping them separate is necessarily to be preferred, just that it is more efficient.


The facts, however, empirically demonstrate the contrary is true. To wit:

1. California is the most populous state (and I'll bet has the highest percentage of homosexuals).

2. No one is complaining that the civil union law for homosexuals does not work in Cal.,though it is substantially equivalent to the family law for heterosexuals. The only complaint is that the laws are not identical in "name."

Thus, your stated theory fails on the facts. What remains is simply about money, power, and Christian intolerance.

Assuming arguendo that #1 and #2 above are true, I'm afraid that they do not demonstrate what you think they do, kjkent1. They certainly do not demonstrate the contrary of anything I've said. An inefficient system can be popular, particularly in the short term, and institutional inefficiencies are not always apparent to individuals (and legislators, as we know, are frequently blind to them). Nor, even where people perceive and understand them, do they necessarily care much on an individual level. Accordingly, everything I've said is entirely compatible with "No one ... complaining that the civil union law for homosexuals does not work in Cal." So what have you really demonstrated vis-à-vis my posts?

[kjkent1]

Leaving aside the much earlier discussions about how the intersexual marriage question relates to state interests, my position in the recent portion of the thread has been basically that laws that are more or less efficiently designed for regulating incentive conflicts and transaction costs in typical heterosexual relationships will not be as efficient in regulating homosexual relationships (they can be used for that purpose, but at a loss of efficiency). I have not taken the position that keeping them separate is necessarily to be preferred, just that it is more efficient.Yes, you've taken that position. Do you have any evidence in support thereof?Assuming arguendo that #1 and #2 above are true, I'm afraid that they do not demonstrate what you think they do, kjkent1. They certainly do not demonstrate the contrary of anything I've said. An inefficient system can be popular, particularly in the short term, and institutional inefficiencies are not always apparent to individuals (and legislators, as we know, are frequently blind to them). Nor, even where people perceive and understand them, do they necessarily care much on an individual level. Accordingly, everything I've said is entirely compatible with "No one ... complaining that the civil union law for homosexuals does not work in Cal." So what have you really demonstrated vis-à-vis my posts?Arguing over subject matter without first defining the terms is an exercise in futility. You claim that family law is "inefficient" with respect to homosexual relationships. The statement suggests that some other set of laws would be more efficient, and that there is a means of measuring the efficiency of both sets of laws.

The only empirical data of which I am aware are the facts which I have already stated. California has instituted civil union laws for homosexuals; said laws are substantially identical to those imposed upon heterosexuals, and no one is complaining. You may view this as evidence of nothing. I view it as a persuasive demonstration that the laws as currently established are efficient "enough" to satisfy the voters and their duly elected representatives.

The law is one of the least efficient social constructions, because the participants are entitled to legislatively impose their beliefs and prejudices on others, in the absence of supporting evidence, and in the face of opposing evidence.

"...a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." Lochner v. N.Y., 198 U.S. 45 (1905), Justice Holmes dissenting.

My point being that your argument that existing family law should not be imposed on homosexual relationships due to inefficiency, is unsupported by any factual data, and even if it were so supported, the People can do whatever they wish, as long as it doesn't violate the State/Federal Constitution.

I suggest that your position is mostly based on a Christian theistic bias against homosexuals, and is absent any scientific evidence. Such a position is fine by me, and completely lawful, because, as I'm certain your aware, homosexuals are not a "suspect class" for the purposes of equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

However, there's simply no reason to cloak your position in irrelevant historical precedent, unless you are advocating a return to simpler times and laws -- in which case, I would thoroughly agree with you, that traditional family law was not designed with homosexuals in mind, and would not have been a good fit.

But, we don't live in simpler times -- and the law as currently adopted, works, at least with respect to the absence of complaints by the millions of homosexuals residing in California. Their main complaint is simply that "if it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck." Politicians don't want to call civil union, marriage, because to do so is to enrage a larger voting block than the voting block such an enactment would please, and that's bad for re-election chances.

Regardless, modern family law works equally well (or, rather equally badly) for both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Thus, there is no logical or legal rationale for concluding that the talisman of civil "marriage" is any more nor less appropriate for either/both group than is "civil union."

This sort of argument is prone to an endless cycle of response-reply. So, I will leave you with the last word.

[ceo_esq]

Yes, you've taken that position. Do you have any evidence in support thereof?

For starters, I cited the work of Allen, Bethmann and Kvasnicka. You could begin there if you have any interest in seriously contesting these notions.


Arguing over subject matter without first defining the terms is an exercise in futility. You claim that family law is "inefficient" with respect to homosexual relationships. The statement suggests that some other set of laws would be more efficient, and that there is a means of measuring the efficiency of both sets of laws.

Don't be shocked. There is an entire field (law and economics)devoted to analyzing and predicting the economic consequences of laws (evaluated according to the various efficiency standards conventionally employed in economics). Given that you appear to have at least some formal legal training, I'm a little surprised that so little of what I've been saying seems to ring any bells for you.

If you're interested in the way in which legal rules impact both individual behavior and social returns in the area of family relations, I highly recommend the collection The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce (Cambridge UP, 2002) as an introduction to the current state of the field.


The only empirical data of which I am aware are the facts which I have already stated. California has instituted civil union laws for homosexuals; said laws are substantially identical to those imposed upon heterosexuals, and no one is complaining. You may view this as evidence of nothing. I view it as a persuasive demonstration that the laws as currently established are efficient "enough" to satisfy the voters and their duly elected representatives.

Kind of irrelevant to this argument, isn't it? In a different jurisdiction, the extant laws also presumably satisfy the voters and legislators. That tells us very little about the merits of a given law, and also is not at issue here.


The law is one of the least efficient social constructions, because the participants are entitled to legislatively impose their beliefs and prejudices on others, in the absence of supporting evidence, and in the face of opposing evidence.

"...a Constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or of laissez faire. It is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar, or novel, and even shocking, ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States." Lochner v. N.Y., 198 U.S. 45 (1905), Justice Holmes dissenting.

I love a good Lochner citation as much as anyone. That one, however, is of little discernible relevance to anything I've said.


My point being that your argument that existing family law should not be imposed on homosexual relationships due to inefficiency, is unsupported by any factual data, and even if it were so supported, the People can do whatever they wish, as long as it doesn't violate the State/Federal Constitution.

If you think the data, econometric models, etc. used by Allen et al. are deficient, I encourage you to publish your critique. As for your second point, I'm afraid you are engaging a strawman. No one's said that the People can't do as they wish within constitutional limits.


I suggest that your position is mostly based on a Christian theistic bias against homosexuals, and is absent any scientific evidence.

That is a singularly imprudent suggestion.


However, there's simply no reason to cloak your position in irrelevant historical precedent...

How have I done so?


But, we don't live in simpler times -- and the law as currently adopted, works, at least with respect to the absence of complaints by the millions of homosexuals residing in California. Their main complaint is simply that "if it quacks like a duck, then it's a duck."

Why we would judge the efficiency of any scheme by that standard is beyond me.

[kjkent1]

I love a good Lochner citation as much as anyone. That one, however, is of little discernible relevance to anything I've said.You are an excellent inflammatory agent. Please continue to create havoc without me.

[bruto]

I suppose if sheer volume and thoroughness are enough to carry an argument, CEO wins the day, but I still have some reservations. First of all, I'm not entirely convinced that the interest of churches or governments in marriage is so much to promote it as to regulate it; I suspect that something we could call marriage has existed at least as long as has anything we could call society or civilization, and the fact that both religions and governments have seen fit to bend it to their sense of what is correct, orderly, socially or morally advantageous, does not necessarily mean that marriage is their construct as much as that it is (depending on your viewpoint) either their hostage or their ward.

That question aside, we are left with another. Assuming for the moment that civil unions are a done deal, and that, at least from my Vermont perspective, the intention and requirement ( via a Supreme Court ruling) is that they provide equality under the law to homosexual couples, the question then remains: why not make it marriage?

The arguments against "gay marriage" appear to be twofold. The first is an echo of the argument the same people have used against civil unions, and before that against even the hiring in certain positions of conspicuous homosexuals: that this would confer some sanction or legitimacy on behavior that they consider immoral and sinful, and would thus harm society and encourage (or fail to discourage) children to follow deviant life styles. If civil unions are acceptable, however, that argument can, I think, be considered essentially lost. The second argument is that of "mystique," essentially an argument to feeling: calling civil unions marriages would offend the religious sensibilities of certain people. It would make them feel bad. I have seen no compelling argument, or statistical data, that suggest that extension of the term would affect heterosexual marriages in any tangible way, either by discouraging them, making them less effective, reducing their benefits, or destabilizing existing ones.

The counter argument is that if the institution of civil unions is to meet the civil rights criteria that brought the institution about in the first place, it must be found to be workable, and to confer on its participants the rights, privileges and reciprocal obligations that are intended. And this, of course, is why I asked Darat specifically whether this was occurring in his case. He reported that it is not. The semantic distinction can be seen to result, at least occasionally, in the complication, delay or denial of the very rights which civil unions were designed to provide. A second argument echoes the negative arguments above: the term "marriage" would confer on gay couples the feeling of full social acceptance and equality. Whether or not this results in any material differences, if the feelings of homophobic heterosexuals are to be given weight, the reciprocal feelings of homosexuals must also.

At the risk of falling into the utilitarian snake pit, I suggest that the tangible negative consequences of this semantic distinction should be considered to outweigh the intangible and theoretical negative consequences of eliminating it.

[chulbert]

That question aside, we are left with another. Assuming for the moment that civil unions are a done deal, and that, at least from my Vermont perspective, the intention and requirement ( via a Supreme Court ruling) is that they provide equality under the law to homosexual couples, the question then remains: why not make it marriage?

As has been touched upon earlier in this thread, separate institutions for same-sex and opposite-sex unions would be free to evolve independently to better meet the needs of their target audiences.

If the definition of civil unions is essentially "see: marriage", then I would consider it discriminatory.

[bruto]

As has been touched upon earlier in this thread, separate institutions for same-sex and opposite-sex unions would be free to evolve independently to better meet the needs of their target audiences.

If the definition of civil unions is essentially "see: marriage", then I would consider it discriminatory.

That is essentially the definition, at least in Vermont, where the litigation and the ultimate Supreme Court ruling addressed not the needs of same sex unions for some special status, but the constitutional requirement for equality under the "common benefits" clause. The Civil Unions Act, while making a clear semantic distinction between civil union and civil marriage, also explicitly states that the State's reasons (a la CEO_esq.) for promoting civil marriage are served the same by civil unions. There's also a clause suggesting that the separation might allow adjustment as different needs arise, but so far no such adjustment has been made, and I doubt any could be without triggering a challenge from one or the other side, based on common benefits. For all intents and purposes, a civil union is a marriage in all but name, within the boundaries of the state and its jurisdiction.

We've more or less progressed from the love that dare not speak its name to the marriage that dare not.

http://www.sec.state.vt.us/otherprg/civilunions/civilunionlaw.html

[blobru]

So the anti-GM point yet to be countered is this:
straight couples face unique risks -- unplanned pregnancy, uncertain paternity -- that gay couples don't;
the marriage contract needs to be designed and incentivized with this in mind: the yoke binding straights heavier and harder to slip;
straight marriage and gay civil union should thus be kept separate, so the state can better serve their different needs.

Nevertheless, it seems gays, given the choice, would rather submit to that heavier yoke, "marriage", the state would reserve for straights. Who can use the "m_word" might seem a trivial matter, but gays are sick of being marginalized, and for them I think it spotlights the larger issue: social integration versus economic efficiency. And would "one marriage fits all" necessarily be less efficient? Even if gay couples were integrated into a universal marriage scheme, their small fraction shouldn't distract legislators from the straight majority. In fact, if the needs of gay couples are but a subset of the needs of straights, as they seem, the marriage law will continue to be driven by straights' needs, and including gays won't dilute its efficiency at all. Never mind the bureacratic savings of having one law for all couples, and the public perception that justice is fairest that discriminates (in the worst sense) least.

It's a very strong defense that has been laid out for the state, rooting the anti-GM argument in jurisprudence, rather than the prejudice one encounters in the "court of public opinion"; but... I remain... unconvinced.

[Belz...]

Kind of irrelevant to this argument, isn't it? In a different jurisdiction, the extant laws also presumably satisfy the voters and legislators. That tells us very little about the merits of a given law, and also is not at issue here.

What other merit would a law have except to satisfy the voters and legislators ?

[kjkent1]

So the anti-GM point yet to be countered is this:
straight couples face unique risks -- unplanned pregnancy, uncertain paternity -- that gay couples don't;
the marriage contract needs to be designed and incentivized with this in mind: the yoke binding straights heavier and harder to slip;
straight marriage and gay civil union should thus be kept separate, so the state can better serve their different needs.This point is entirely irrelevant, at least under the modern family law in general practice in the USA, because the current statutory construction surrounding marriage and property issues is entirely bifurcated from the construction surrounding marriage and children issues.

In fact, attorneys (like me) frequently expressly petition/move that the court bifurcate a marital dissolution, so as to resolve the property issues and the parties legal marital status, while leaving the issue of child custody and support for later. This is done to aid in resolving a particularly adverse situation where getting the parties closure on some issues is believed to increase the probability of resolving the remaining issues.

So, it's a strawman: the argument against gay marriage is being intentionally weakened by a misrepresentation of the current status of the law, so as to make it easy to undermine -- rather than to accept the fact that current law is presents no substantive impediment to declaring only one class of "marriage."

It's all about prejudice -- likely lawful prejudice, but prejudice nonetheless. I just wish the combatants had the courage to admit that's what at issue.

[ceo_esq]

What other merit would a law have except to satisfy the voters and legislators ?

How about actually promoting the common good in the best way practicable? A law can be satisfactory and even popular with voters and legislators alike, but that doesn't mean it's a wise, prudent, just or economically efficient law. And even if it were any or all of those things, that doesn't mean that it's the best possible law (i.e. that a different law could not have merits that the existing one doesn't). That's basically a form of argumentum ad populum - which, although it has its place in a representative democracy, doesn't fully determine the merits of any public policy.

We all know that some kinds of legislation tend to go over well with voters (and, because of the absence of political cost, with legislators too), with legislators too. Does that by itself mean that enacting such legislation is the wisest course?

I daresay that South Carolina's antebellum Negro Act was reasonably satisfactory to South Carolina voters and legislators. I'm not about to stand behind the merits of the law, however.

[kjkent1]

What other merit would a law have except to satisfy the voters and legislators ?In the U.S., Constitutional requirements must be satisfied, mainly that any law which treats persons in similar circumstances differently, must, at a minimum, be reasonably related to a legitimate/rational government interest.

So far, all courts which have considered modern marital statutes, have concluded, that because the statutes no longer are constructed to encourage procreation, thus the government has no rational interest in treating homo and heterosexuals differently.

The legislative response from the fearful public has been to try to pass (and in many cases succeed in passing) Constitutional amendments which define/declare marriage as only between a man and woman -- thereby avoiding the otherwise likely invalidation of prohibition of gay marriage statutes.

The government simply would be better of getting out of the marriage licensing biz. It doesn't provide any revenue stream to the public fisc, and it isn't necessary to legally protect persons who voluntarily cohabitate. That can be accomplished by extending ordinary partnership law to such circumstances (see e.g., Beal v. Beal, 282 Or. 115, 577 P.2d 507 (Oregon 04/18/1978)).

[Darat]

So the anti-GM point yet to be countered is this:
straight couples face unique risks -- unplanned pregnancy, uncertain paternity -- that gay couples don't;
the marriage contract needs to be designed and incentivized with this in mind: the yoke binding straights heavier and harder to slip;
straight marriage and gay civil union should thus be kept separate, so the state can better serve their different needs.

...snip...

Yes it has, one way it has been counted is just by the facts of what marriage is today i.e. modern marriage legislation does not discriminate between fertile and non-fertile marriages (not even between potentially fertile and non-fertile marriages - although of course marriage legislation at one time did i.e. barrenness was grounds for dissolving the marriage). Therefore the current marriage legalisation already is adapted for marriages that the issues of unwanted pregnancy and uncertain paternity plays no part in.

ETA: I should add that one time when only allowing different-sex marriages was being debated we found that many USA states actually would only allow marriage in some circumstance if there was no possibility of procreation by the couple. So current marriage legislation is already adapted for some couples for whom the issues of unwanted pregnancy and uncertain paternity don't come into it.

[Beerina]

Well, if we look at pheremones and their affect on the brain, we can reason why homosexuals are attracted to each other and not to the opposite sex.

Too much thinking. Have we ruled out the fact that, in scientific terms, men are horny, horny bastards?

Also, it's sad that gay people have to rely on the argument of "born with it" legally. In a properly-defined, free society, the people never grant the government the power to regulate adult sexuality to begin with. Hence "why you are" becomes an issue of academic interest only. But, lacking a proper foundation of why people should be free, it isn't surprising you end up having to make this argument.

[ceo_esq]

So far, all courts which have considered modern marital statutes, have concluded, that because the statutes no longer are constructed to encourage procreation, thus the government has no rational interest in treating homo and heterosexuals differently.


Wait a minute there, counselor. How do you reconcile that assertion with - inter alia - Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (2006) ("We hold that … laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests" in "steering procreation into marriage"); Standhardt v. Arizona, 77 P.3d 451 (2003) ("We hold that the State has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the marital relationship, and that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is rationally related to that interest."); Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (2005) ("opposite-sex marriage is recognized and supported by law in large part to encourage 'responsible procreation' by opposite-sex couples. … Extending the benefits of civil marriage to same-sex couples would not further the State's interest in 'responsible procreation' by opposite sex couples. The differentiation between opposite-sex and same-sex couples in Indiana marriage law is based on inherent differences reasonably and rationally distinguishing the two classes: the ability to procreate 'naturally.'"); Hernandez v. Robles, 7 N.Y.3d 338 (2006) (link between procreation and marriage is among "rational grounds on which the Legislature could choose to restrict marriage to couples of opposite sex"); Irwin v. Lupardus, 1980 Ohio App. LEXIS 12106 (1980) (Because natural capacity to procreate "is absent in relationships between persons of the same sex, we cannot say that the exclusion of such relationships from the definition of marriage … lacks a rational basis."); and Andersen v. Washington, 138 P.3d 963 (2006) ("We conclude that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State's interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.")?

[Pup]

There's already a relatively large group of people who can't have biological children and yet who want to marry: women past menopause. While younger men and women have to be taken on a case-by-case basis to prove they're infertile, has there traditionally been any discrimination against women over, say, 55 marrying men? I can't bring any to mind.

I suppose, though, one could say it goes back to the need for older widows to "be taken care of by a man" just as much as younger women.

[kjkent1]

Wait a minute there, counselor. How do you reconcile that assertion with - inter alia - Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (2006) ("We hold that … laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples are rationally related to legitimate state interests" in "steering procreation into marriage");...I'm just trying to see if you're paying attention. If you're actually a lawyer and you want to argue the merits of the law, state your case and I'll respond. Otherwise, I congratulate you on finding so many contrary rulings.

[ceo_esq]

Yes it has, one way it has been counted is just by the facts of what marriage is today i.e. modern marriage legislation does not discriminate between fertile and non-fertile marriages (not even between potentially fertile and non-fertile marriages - although of course marriage legislation at one time did i.e. barrenness was grounds for dissolving the marriage).

There's already a relatively large group of people who can't have biological children and yet who want to marry: women past menopause.

I think the issue of infertile heterosexuals was dealt with adequately in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2669626#post2669626), and it should now be clear why the inclusion of these individuals and couples within the marriage regime does not undermine arguments that assert a relationship between marriage and procreation.


Therefore the current marriage legalisation already is adapted for marriages that the issues of unwanted pregnancy and uncertain paternity plays no part in.

[snip]

So current marriage legislation is already adapted for some couples for whom the issues of unwanted pregnancy and uncertain paternity don't come into it.

We can certainly say that the current civil marriage rules are applied to certain couples for whom unwanted pregnancy and uncertain paternity are not issues, but that doesn't mean that those rules are well adapted to such cases. Those couples are the exception. The institution as a whole is adapted to the norm - that is, those features that remain relatively constant across heterosexual relationships.

[ceo_esq]

I'm just trying to see if you're paying attention. If you're actually a lawyer and you want to argue the merits of the law, state your case and I'll respond. Otherwise, I congratulate you on finding so many contrary rulings.

From a legal perspective, I know of no good grounds (excluding possibly applicable state constitutional provisions) for challenging either a law that prevents same-sex marriage or a law that allows it. Both have a defensible rational basis and neither one is required or prohibited by the federal Constitution.

[Dorian Gray]

I just have one question: I know what sodomy is, but what is gomorrohy?

[bruto]

Well, I'm not a lawyer for sure, but it seems to me that the argument revolving around "state interests" has one major flaw, and that is that it seems to regard the "state" (either generically or as one of the 50) as a singular beast that can devour its members as needed. I would contend that ever since the Declaration of Independence, at least, we are the state. Sure, the state has its own institutional interests as well, and some level of utility must be served, but the first and foremost state interest is the well being of its people, not just as a collective noun, but as the actual individuals whose life, liberty and property the state is founded to promote. A close second in the list of state interests in any state that has a constitution is the observance of that constitution, which is the character or personality the people have chosen their state to embody. The presumed state interest in procreation, real and rational though it may be, is pretty far down the list, which is, I suppose, why the state cannot and will not deny the privilege of marriage to infertile couples; and if the constitution demands equality without regard to orientation, and the people (or the supreme court on their behalf) demand it, then I don't see why the state's interest in the rights of its citizens, and its interest in implementing its constitution, would not take precedence over other arguments. I would submit that since homosexuals are a significant component of our society, since their rights do not appear to impinge on those of heterosexuals, and since civil unions, despite their benefits, do not ultimately satisfy the requirements of equality, the argument for gay marriage is compelling in any state where equality is a constitutionally guaranteed right.

[SomeGuy]

I just have one question: I know what sodomy is, but what is gomorrohy?

First hit I get on google seems to indicate that it is what in chasing Amy was the topic of this discussion:

Guy: Ouch! Doesn't that hurt?
Girl: Yes, but it is a nice kind of pain.

http://www.gomorrahy.com/sin-of-gomorrah.htm (depending on your sensitivities you might consider this not child safe)

[ceo_esq]

Well, I'm not a lawyer for sure, but it seems to me that the argument revolving around "state interests" has one major flaw, and that is that it seems to regard the "state" (either generically or as one of the 50) as a singular beast that can devour its members as needed. I would contend that ever since the Declaration of Independence, at least, we are the state.

I'm with you so far. In a sense, "we are the state". (Though that sounds like a rejected title for a "Live Aid" single.) But what makes you think that in these "arguments revolving around 'state interests'", that same sense is not being invoked (so that "state interests" can be understood as "our interests")?

Obviously, even though everyone at some level can be said to share in the public good, private interests can weigh more heavily than public ones in the mind of an individual. We are to some extent selfish creatures, after all. Yet marriage has always been recognized in our Republic as "a civil institution ... 'Public interests overshadow private, -one which public policy holds specially in the hands of the law for the public good[.]'" [I]Neilson v. Kilgore, 145 U.S. 487 (1892).


Sure, the state has its own institutional interests as well, and some level of utility must be served, but the first and foremost state interest is the well being of its people, not just as a collective noun, but as the actual individuals whose life, liberty and property the state is founded to promote.

Well, that was very well put, and the state should never forget that, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the state is failing to serve the well-being of its citizens any time some subset of them perceive that their liberty interests are not being adequately promoted by existing marriage laws. After all, "the parties to a marriage do not comprehend ... all the interests that the relation contains." Sherrer v. Sherrer, 334 U.S. 343 (1948).


The presumed state interest in procreation, real and rational though it may be, is pretty far down the list, which is, I suppose, why the state cannot and will not deny the privilege of marriage to infertile couples ...

I'm not sure why that interest wouldn't be right up near the top of the list. The Supreme Court, for example, has consistently characterized it as being of fundamental importance to civilization, progress and indeed our very survival.

Also, the reasons for which "the state cannot and will not deny the privilege of marriage to infertile couples", which we've discussed some length before, have nothing to do with the interest in procreation being a low priority.


A close second in the list of state interests in any state that has a constitution is the observance of that constitution, which is the character or personality the people have chosen their state to embody.

[Snip]

... if the constitution demands equality without regard to orientation, and the people (or the supreme court on their behalf) demand it, then I don't see why the state's interest in the rights of its citizens, and its interest in implementing its constitution, would not take precedence over other arguments.

That's an interesting approach, and not without appeal. Yet it seems to boil down to saying "states have a compelling interest in enforcing their own constitutional law." Instead of resolving these questions, doesn't that really just move them up one level? We're left to ponder whether the state's interests are better served by having a constitution that prohibits it from restricting marriage to intersexual unions, which is really just a variation on what we're already debating.


... since their rights do not appear to impinge on those of heterosexuals ...

Did you have particular rights in mind here?

[blobru]

... since their rights do not appear to impinge on those of heterosexuals ...Did you have particular rights in mind here?
That's what I was trying to get at last post, in regards to the rights of gays to marry.

Granted, traditional "marriage" has evolved in response to the risks that straight couples face, including the extra risks (unplanned pregnancy, uncertain paternity) tied to straight procreation. But if gay couples don't face these extra risks, if in fact the risks they face and the incentives they need are a subset of the straight couples', then their rights (with respect to marriage) do not appear to impinge on those of heterosexuals. Legislators hence needn't worry that either "marriage" or its efficacy will be weakened by including gays among the norm.

Maybe it's lack of imagination, but try as I might I can't think why the institutional incentives evolved for straight couples, embodied in traditional marriage contracts, wouldn't work just as well for gay. Is there an obvious 'worst case' states usually trot out when arguing for discrimination?

(& apologies for butting in...)

[Darat]

...snip...Those couples are the exception.

...snip...

But catered for within current marriage customs and in some places an explicit part of marriage legislation.

...snip...
The institution as a whole is adapted to the norm - that is, those features that remain relatively constant across heterosexual relationships.

Infertile couples (for whatever reason biology, age and so on) have to have been a "relatively constant" matter for marriage to deal with since the institution started since human biology hasn't changed. That is why marriage did at one time deal with non-procreative marriages e.g. required evidence of "consummation" of the marriage, allowing marriage to be dissolved if the woman was barren. That those types of things are no longer part of marriage I would argue is evidence that marriage today is adapted to dealing with non-procreative couples. (Further evidence is that there is legalisation that only allows marriage if the couples can't procreate.)

Since couples that can't procreate are already part of marriage both by custom and by legislation your argument again is nothing more than "marriage today is one man and one woman so that is what it should remain".

[Belz...]

How about actually promoting the common good in the best way practicable?

Hopefully, that ALSO satisfies the voters and legislators. How is that different from what I said ?

A law can be satisfactory and even popular with voters and legislators alike, but that doesn't mean it's a wise, prudent, just or economically efficient law.

Uh-huh. But who passes that law if not the legislators ?

And even if it were any or all of those things, that doesn't mean that it's the best possible law

Irrelevant to the discussion.

That's basically a form of argumentum ad populum

Well, in a democracy, that's not a fallacy.

We all know that some kinds of legislation tend to go over well with voters (and, because of the absence of political cost, with legislators too), with legislators too. Does that by itself mean that enacting such legislation is the wisest course?

Of course not, and that wasn't my point. That's the flaw of democracy, but it's a hell of a lot better than most alternatives.

[bruto]

Did you have particular rights in mind here?

As usual, I cannot speak for the world, but base my discussion on what I see here in "the Gay Mountain State."

In the case of Vermont the rights were pretty well spelled out, I think, as a list of specific benefits that the state applies to married couples and families, as well as the invocation of the "equal protection" clause of the constitution (and here Vermont had already affirmed the legality of gay sexual activity and relationships, including the right of gay couples to adopt). Of course, in order to perceive these rights as rights, one must already have come to some acceptance of the idea that gay relationships are acceptable in the legal sense, and that a gay couple qualifies, or should qualify, as a "family." If this is not the case, then you can exclude gay couples from the rights of families. In Vermont this exclusion would have violated legal precedents, but it was at the heart of much of the heated (and often vicious) debate on the subject.

Even a pretty basic right might be mitigated if you find a compelling reason for why it endangers the community - certain people are denied the right to bear arms, for example, even in Vermont (where Supreme Court precedent has resulted in the affirmation of the right of anyone to carry any weapon, concealed or not), and others are forbidden certain rights and privileges owing to illness, prior bad behavior and incapacity, while illness and incapacity might also confer additional rights (e.g. benefits, parking spaces, other exemptions). But in the case of civil unions and gay marriage, there appears to be no such problem. The only problems are perceived problems based on a fundamental disapproval of homosexuality itself. The parties who initiated the court case asked for no special privileges, and the debate in general has not involved any such privileges, unless you stretch the point to say that consideration of gay relationships itself is a "special privilege." The only area in which it would appear that gay marriage has any negative effect at all on the lives of others is in the feelings of a portion of the population who oppose homosexual unions as a matter of religious principle. It does not deprive them or the state as a whole of anything that can otherwise be measured, and it compels of them nothing but tolerance. If those feelings are of importance in considering a legal decision, then one must also admit the feelings of those on the other side. But what seems to be at the end of the argument is the basic question of whether requirement of equal protection has been met by civil unions in their practical application, and my perception is that, although it comes very close, it's fallen short.

What I see here in Vermont is that civil unions are working pretty well, and there is the hope that as time passes (and especially as more states provide reciprocity, and if the IRS ever recognizes civil unions), the equality issue may resolve itself, but it would do so essentially through a public perception that civil union really is marriage and that the difference really is only semantic, as one might say there's no difference between an actor and an actress except for the sex of the participants. I have heard a few such unions described by others as marriages, and if that trend becomes universal, of course "gay marriage" and real satisfaction of the equal protection clause might occur by a natural process, but removing the semantic distinction would be more efficient.

[ceo_esq]

Hopefully, that ALSO satisfies the voters and legislators. How is that different from what I said ?

As you say, a law promoting the common good in the best way practicable hopefully, though not necessarily, also satisfies the voters and legislators. My point, however, is that they are not identical criteria.


Uh-huh. But who passes that law if not the legislators ?

Ordinarily (leaving aside veto quirks and such), it's 50%-plus-one of the legislators, and absent a referendum, none of the actual voters.


And even if it were any or all of those things, that doesn't mean that it's the best possible law[.]Irrelevant to the discussion.

You made it relevant, and I'll explain why. In effect, it relates to your (implied) assertion, in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2690168#post2690168), that a law can have no other merit than to satisfy voters and legislators (or perhaps, at least, enough of them to get it passed). But a simple reductio ad absurdum shows that's not true. Let's assume that the proposition "a law can have no other merit than to satisfy voters and legislators" is true. If so, then a law that fully satisfies that criterion has the all the merit a law can have; we cannot say that another possible law would be better. Yet it is absurd to suggest that a law that fully satisfies voters and legislators is the best possible law. Accordingly, the proposition "a law can have no other merit than to satisfy voters and legislators" is false.


Well, in a democracy, [an argumentum ad populum is] not a fallacy.

As long as we allow, as I think we must, that a law can have other merits besides popularity, then you're still committing a fallacy. Think about it: we'd be constrained, among other things, to conclude that if one law is popular in one democratic jurisdiction, and a contrary law is equally unpopular in another democratic jurisdiction, that they are equally good laws.


Of course not, and that wasn't my point. That's the flaw of democracy, but it's a hell of a lot better than most alternatives.

No one's suggesting that it's not better than most alternatives. But while paying lip service to the existence of the flaw, in practice you're denying that it exists (because the flaw in question basically boils down to the fact that democracies risk running afoul, in some sense, of the argumentum ad populum fallacy: a popular law is not necessarily a good one, and the most popular law is not necessarily the best one).

[ceo_esq]

Infertile couples (for whatever reason biology, age and so on) have to have been a "relatively constant" matter for marriage to deal with since the institution started since human biology hasn't changed.

I meant relatively constant from one heterosexual couple to the next, not constant across time.

[ceo_esq]

That's what I was trying to get at last post, in regards to the rights of gays to marry.

Granted, traditional "marriage" has evolved in response to the risks that straight couples face, including the extra risks (unplanned pregnancy, uncertain paternity) tied to straight procreation. But if gay couples don't face these extra risks, if in fact the risks they face and the incentives they need are a subset of the straight couples', then their rights (with respect to marriage) do not appear to impinge on those of heterosexuals. Legislators hence needn't worry that either "marriage" or its efficacy will be weakened by including gays among the norm.

Maybe it's lack of imagination, but try as I might I can't think why the institutional incentives evolved for straight couples, embodied in traditional marriage contracts, wouldn't work just as well for gay. Is there an obvious 'worst case' states usually trot out when arguing for discrimination?

(& apologies for butting in...)


Some of this is well covered in Professor Allen's previously cited recent article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. I just noticed that it's available online here (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Allen.pdf) as a PDF. I'd be genuinely interested to get your impressions.

[bruto]

Not responding to any one post here, I was mulling over this whole issue today as I went out for a bike ride. Since my riding like my arguing occurs in a Vermont context, this has the double advantage that hauling my fat old arse up these hills gives plenty of time to think, and any errors and fallacies can preemptively be put down to oxygen deprivation, but....

I think CEO's habit of looking under every stone for judicial arguments and principles misses the context of the actual issue in society, as it has arisen here. All he says would have a great deal of relevance if this were, say 1907, and a lesbian couple had come seemingly out of nowhere and sued for the right to marry. But this is not how the issue has actually arisen. At least here in the birthplace of civil unions, the issue came to a head in a society where it was firmly established as a social and a legal fact that families based on same sex couples are real, and are properly considered as families, just as those based on a heterosexual couple are. Whatever you may put forth as the reason for the state's interest in promoting or regulating marriage, it is in the context of the rights of families and their members that this matter has been addressed. Of course if kjkent1's ideal were realized, this would be irrelevant, as family matters would be organized and regulated without reference to marriage, but as it happens, here and now, the state grants or withholds many of the privileges and rights, obligations and protections associated with family life based on the willingness of a couple to enter into marriage. Clearly, then, if the state's interest is in preserving, promoting, guarding and regulating families, and if, as was clearly established already, homosexual couples can and do form the basis for a family, then disallowing their marriage excludes them, as families, from equal protection.

As far as the actual effectiveness of equality between civil union and marriage is concerned, I have a thought exercise for those who truly question the difference and its significance.

Take your mind for a ride down to Virginia, USA, where within living memory, interracial marriages were not legally recognized as valid and were not legal to perform within the state. Now you can say that this is pretty obviously bigoted and unfair, but there it is and there it was, and the reasons for it are not that far different from those put forth against gay marriage. It really comes down to the belief of a significant portion of the voting or legislating population that it is wrong and immoral for a person of one race to have sex with another, that the formation of families based on this is harmful to society, and that even if one must reluctantly allow such things to happen, calling it "marriage" puts the state's imprint of acceptance on an immoral practice. Right or wrong, this opinion is sincerely held by many people with a firm belief in its righteousness. For what reason other than our own moral perspective might we give shorter shrift to discrimination on the basis of race than we do to that on the basis of sexual orientation?

So here's the thought exercise: If civil union is "good enough," then what objection could you legitimately raise if the State of Virginia legislated that from now on, interracial couples would not be allowed to marry, but instead would be allowed civil unions, conveying equal legal protection, family law status, etc., but not the name of marriage (and of course, since the Federal government remains so far aloof on such issues, benefits which the Federal government extends to marriage but not to civil union would also fall by the wayside, but that's not the State's business, is it... )? Would you accept that? If not, why not?

[ceo_esq]

Take your mind for a ride down to Virginia, USA, where within living memory, interracial marriages were not legally recognized as valid and were not legal to perform within the state. Now you can say that this is pretty obviously bigoted and unfair, but there it is and there it was, and the reasons for it are not that far different from those put forth against gay marriage.

Really nice post, bruto.

I would point out just with respect to the portion that I've quoted, though, that the reasons put forth in defense of Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute are nothing like the reasons put forth against same-sex marriage. Virginia's Supreme Court, before it was ultimately overturned in Loving v. Virginia, had accepted as legitimate the reasons put forth by the state, which were - and I quote - "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens" in order to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and the "obliteration of racial pride." What do obvious and explicit allusions to White Supremacy have to do with what we've been discussing here?

In fact, if you think about it, the types of arguments against same-sex marriage that we've been considering all militate against anti-miscegenation laws as well (because interracial couples and same-race couples are not distinguishable from one another with respect to the problems chiefly regulated by conventional marriage rules). Oughtn't that, by itself, be taken as an indication that we're dealing with something much different here?

[bruto]

Really nice post, bruto.

I would point out just with respect to the portion that I've quoted, though, that the reasons put forth in defense of Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute are nothing like the reasons put forth against same-sex marriage. Virginia's Supreme Court, before it was ultimately overturned in Loving v. Virginia, had accepted as legitimate the reasons put forth by the state, which were - and I quote - "to preserve the racial integrity of its citizens" in order to prevent "the corruption of blood," "a mongrel breed of citizens," and the "obliteration of racial pride." What do obvious and explicit allusions to White Supremacy have to do with what we've been discussing here?

In fact, if you think about it, the types of arguments against same-sex marriage that we've been considering all militate against anti-miscegenation laws as well (because interracial couples and same-race couples are not distinguishable from one another with respect to the problems chiefly regulated by conventional marriage rules). Oughtn't that, by itself, be taken as an indication that we're dealing with something much different here?

True enough, and the point is taken insofar as you can trust the reasons put forth publicly for either position. There are differences in the motivation for opposing the different sorts of unions. I think, however, from the debate I heard during the fight for civil unions (which was often quite vicious, and often characterized by a level of sanctimonious hypocrisy and outright mendacity that made it necessary to read between the lines), that there is at least some parallel in that after much surface rhetoric was peeled away, the real fear of opponents was that legitimizing gay marriage or civil unions would, in effect, cause the spread of homosexuality and the corruption of society; and after all, much of the "mystique" argument could be rephrased as "obliteration of heterosexual pride," couldn't it?


Anyway, I'm still not entirely convinced that the differences between gay and straight based families are sufficient, (if they are operative at all with regard to the governmental benefits and protections at issue), to warrant a separate sort of union, or that the needs of one or the other group are sufficiently special to make the benefit of separation greater than the benefit of inclusion.

[ceo_esq]

True enough, and the point is taken insofar as you can trust the reasons put forth publicly for either position.

Does anyone actually have a problem believing that many white opponents of interracial marriage were honestly worried about "the corruption of blood" and creating "a mongrel breed of citizens"? Somehow this doesn't raise major trust issues for me. (Probably at least some of the many blacks who also opposed interracial marriage had similar reasons.)

At any rate, I'm not sure that trust enters into it much, since an argument is an argument and should be addressed once raised.


... and after all, much of the "mystique" argument could be rephrased as "obliteration of heterosexual pride," couldn't it?

I think I see what you mean, except that I think the basic point of the old "pride" argument (such as it was) was that if enough members of one group married members of the other group, the result would be a large number of citizens who didn't belong to either group. I can't say I've ever really seen a variation on that argument proposed in the context of the same-sex marriage.debate. Anyhow, the "mystique" argument has such a minor role in that debate that it's probably not worth worrying about much.


Anyway, I'm still not entirely convinced that the differences between gay and straight based families are sufficient, (if they are operative at all with regard to the governmental benefits and protections at issue), to warrant a separate sort of union, or that the needs of one or the other group are sufficiently special to make the benefit of separation greater than the benefit of inclusion.

I'm still not entirely convinced either.

[blobru]

Some of this is well covered in Professor Allen's previously cited recent article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. I just noticed that it's available online here (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Allen.pdf) as a PDF. I'd be genuinely interested to get your impressions.

Hey, thanks for the link up. I see what you mean by "well covered"! Wow--- Allen might almost have written this article in premonition of my post. (tempted to nominate him for Randi's $1,000,000) :)

Anyway, here the naive impressions of a layman (law hurt brain so); hope I haven't been too unfair to the author, or too daft in my replies:

Thesis:

Allen argues that a "one-size fits all" solution would mix two models of marriage/family: for opposite-sex unions, of primary importance is the status (rights, roles and responsibilities) of biological parents; for same sex unions, it is the status of legal parents. In the heterosexual case, the status of biological parents carries much more weight -- traditional marriage law evolved to reflect that -- than in the homosexual case, where the status of legal parents carries almost all the weight, making a unisex marriage law problematic. Any ruling in a homosexual case would likely have unintended consequences when applied to a heterosexual case under a unisex law, and vice versa.

His examples:

What are the potential rights of "third-party" parents (egg/sperm donor, gender role models) in homosexual relationships? (What weight if any should courts give to biological, non-legal parents' complaints?)
What might be the effect of overlapping "presumption of [biological] paternity" and "presumption of [legal] parentage" statutes? (Will fathers of illegitimate children use no "presumption of parentage" as a loophole?)

My reply:

But haven't there already been exceptional cases of this sort ruled on? Where a sexual surrogate for example sought some sort of visitation rights (I seem to remember a case along these lines): the court's ruling in favor of the contracting couple's status as legal parents versus hers as biological parent didn't change the way courts viewed the status of fathers of illegitimate children. So why shouldn't courts be able to differentiate between the status of biological parents (surrogates, sperm/egg donors) contracted by homosexual couples and the status of biological parents, either legitimate or illegitimate, in a heterosexual relationship. Wouldn't courts continue to note the particular circumstances of legal rulings and settle precedents on that basis, even under a universal marriage law? That is, to rule on a case-by-case basis, as they have always done.

Example:

Won't child support need to be calculated differently for same-sex and opposite-sex divorces, based on differences in relative earning power? (current predictive tables based on heterosexual families would be skewed.)

Reply:

Well, maybe, I don't have any statistics at hand. (Neither does Allen.) It seems the court would want to gather some statistics first to determine whether grouping same- and opposite-sex families together made a significant difference or not. If it did, then those jurisdictions that rely on them could use two different child support tables (or three, if they wanted to differentiate between gay and lesbian). As long as the statistics supported it, it wouldn't require anything more fundamental than a little extra accounting.

My sense is Allen's problem with same-sex marriage boils down to this: So the law books don't become cluttered with these circumstantial exceptions to parental rights based strictly on the genders of the couples involved, why not just keep the two (or three -- straight, gay & lesbian) "marriages" separate to begin with, and avoid all the exceptions.
The counter-argument I think is that while a lot of circumstantial exceptions might arise, there would also be considerable overlap; moreover, the social symbolism of integrating same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, of the courts saying that discrimination based on sexuality is outmoded and no longer tolerated in any legal context, is important enough to add a few more appendices to the law books, however lengthy.

Then again, I may be missing his point completely... :confused:

[ceo_esq]

It seems the court would want to gather some statistics first to determine whether grouping same- and opposite-sex families together made a significant difference or not.

[snip]

... moreover, the social symbolism of integrating same-sex and opposite-sex marriages, of the courts saying that discrimination based on sexuality is outmoded and no longer tolerated ...

I'm thinking over your very well-written post, but wanted to point out that "courts" in the snippets above should really be "legislatures".

[ETA:] Also, with respect to your point about "social symbolism", remember that although there is certainly discrimination against homosexuals based on prejudice, that's not really what accounts for why conventional marriage rules are the way they are (or could be under a double or triple matrimonial regime) So if the desire is to send a didactic message that prejudice is not to be tolerated, is eliminating a legal distinction that doesn't result from prejudice a particularly sensible way of going about it?

[laxmatt]

Oh my god not only is the author retarded but he's an egomaniac.

Here's a short story from his website. It's so awful. So so awful. And the sad thing is this kid could be the next Jerry Falwell if he wanted to.

Dinner Party for the Deceased

By Michael Gryboski

It was quite exciting to think of it. Amazing that they were coming here, to my place of all places! By nature I am good at suppressing my emotions, so my countenance did not expose to my seven famous and infamous guests my elation, which was to the point of having me look like a cover band leader meeting the group he models. It is almost time; I cannot wait for them to come. I had set the dinner to be at six on the dot, though I was more than certain that O’Hair would be fashionably late. The first automobile showed up, and to my surprise it was Karl Marx and his newfound friend Francois Marie Arouet, both of them noted thinkers of their time.

Marx drove the vehicle, as he opposed having a butler do it for him. Francois Marie Arouet was indifferent, and felt as though Marx reminded him of an old rival. Both men came to the door, with Marx ringing the bell and I answering it, fearing what Karl would do if a servant did instead. Marx did not shave for the occasion, so he had that lion mane of a hairstyle when I saw him. Arouet had his favorite wig on, as well as some of the finest garments worn before the revolution. I immediately introduced myself in formal manner as the two men stood in the pleasant placid weather.

“Greetings, welcome Marx and Arouet,” I said.

“Glad to be here,” said Marx.

“Please, sir, call me Voltaire,” said Arouet.

“Vol?—“

“Taire, Voltaire. That is my preferred name.”

“A revolution unto itself, I might add,” said Marx. I said my further hellos and then had them enter the house, going through the well-lit hallway and into the nicely decorated dining hall. Voltaire felt quite at home, and Marx, although showing some contempt for the embroidered table cloth, also approved. As I was about to shut the door, another automobile showed up, driven by an English butler. In it there was a fellow who looked like he had dissolved something big and by his side a man whom smoke went from his mouth like a dragon. Yet, as the nice guy came closer, I could see that it was a breath from a cigar smoked on the way to the party. I could hear the two Britons as they came to the open door.

“I really pray that you would not chain thyself to such a detestable sinful practice.”

“Smoking this cigar is one of three things: it is enjoyable, painful, or insane. It’s not painful to me and I’m not crazy, so it must be enjoyable,” quickly replied the man.

“Why do you have people call you that anyway, it’s not your real name?”

“Consider what my loving mother named me.”

They came to the door and said their greetings to me and formally addressed them.

“Hello, Oliver Cromwell, and welcome to the dinner party.”

“Content to be here, I say.”

“And hello Clive Staples—“

“Call me Jack, everyone else does.”

“Sure, why not?” I said.

“I have heard the meal is supposed to be jolly good.”

“That is what I have heard as well, Oliver,” said Jack as the two men made their way to the dining room, where I made sure that cigars were at the ready for Lewis, but also Cuban ones for Marx. As ten minutes went by, the rest of the males guests arrived: Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle, both of whom I invited although Aristotle had been rumored to have it in for Thomas given that it’s been said that he plagiarized his work. We all by the seats assigned, with three seats on each side, and one seat on either short end of the rectangular table. To my left and closest to me on that side was Karl Marx, next to him Voltaire, and next to Voltaire Lewis. On the other side to my right was Thomas Aquinas, and next to him Aristotle, and next to Aristotle was Oliver Cromwell.

“I guess our only female guest decided not to arrive,” I had to say after we waited for a half an hour.

“Close the door to the Ark already!” declared Cromwell in a booming voice. So I decided to get things rolling.

“Alright then, we are about to receive our first course, tomato soup with precious basil and saltine crackers. Before that, shall I say grace?” I asked, more of a plea given that Voltaire, Marx, and Aristotle might get offended. But all three decided and spoke to me that they did not mind, with Marx saying he could survive a small dosage of opium, whatever relevance to the topic, I had no idea. As the heads bowed and I was about to start, a door slammed and there entered in street clothes an old angry looking woman with short white hair and big glasses.

“I object to this prayer stuff, it’s unconstitutional!” she shouted, to the annoyance of all present including the servants about to give the soup. My last guest, and the only female, Madalyn Murray O’Hair had arrived. “Why don’t you lousy pigs wait for me? I thought you were all nice gentlemen folks, but I guess not. Pathetic!”

Because of her bellyaching, grace was never said. But the first course was served; baize plates filled with mildly simmering tomato soup were put before each guest. The soup would have been warmer had it not been for the lateness of O’Hair. Worse yet, she complained about the soup not tasting real enough, amongst other things. She is not acting like a lady, this I know. Regardless, our guests went about their talk as they happily dipped their spoons into the course, and tipped them at their lips, letting the pleasant substance flow into their hungry mouths.

“I am telling you, Gzrybowski, that you need to free your workers. They should be your equals.”

“True, Marx, but I think that the fact I pay them on the hour, and with efficient pay at that justifies it. After all, that’s why your ideology never got to expand in Western Europe and America. Some people like their lot in life.”

“That is only because they were brought up to believe that it was what was meant to be by Divine Providence,” he said as he slurped more of the soup, which he had an unknown fascination with the hue. As I spoke with Marx, I was taking note of the conversation between Aristotle and Aquinas, both of whom were ahead of the others in their soup consumption.

“The fact remains is that you stole from me, Tom. Very few of those ideas were actually yours, and that cuts me to the quick.”

“All I was doing was harmonizing your philosophy with the Church’s. I can’t help it if you had so many good ideas. It’s not like I didn’t cite you. My whole purpose was no secret.”

“And I remember hearing about it from a friend: make me talk like a Christian was what I heard,” he said with some disdain though not much as he finished off the bowl of soup, apparently rather hungry.

“You should be happy,” said Aquinas, slightly diverting the conversation.

“Why?” said Aristotle, as a servant took his finished white bowl with thin streaks of tomato red from his sight.

“If it had not been for my efforts, your ideas would have been lost to the whole world. I brought you back into the mainstream. You had an organization as powerful and influential as the Church in medieval times actually adhering to a worldview shaped by your writings.”

“You do have a point, Tom,” said a conceding Aristotle. He continued, “And I guess those ideas on the Crusades and sexual morality came from your mind, not mine. People do remember you for different things.”

“Yes, they do.”

“Also, the inaccurate assessment of our solar system did make you pay bad enough for copying me,” said Aristotle with a laugh.

“It was your fault in the end,” countered Aquinas.

“Yeah but everyone thinks of you when they hear the name Galileo,” said the Greek with another pleasant laugh. I was happy to see them getting along, for I feared a bit of tension might ensue. But, to my surprise, it was O’Hair who was causing the ruckus on her side of the table, arguing with Cromwell, a man brought up to not do such with a lady. Then again, this was under the assumption O’Hair falls under that category. Aquinas was quick to take the side of Cromwell, comparing the English Civil War to the Crusades and Marx took the side, though with remorse, of Madalyn, arguing that it was done in the name of an opiate, but indeed the English Civil War kept him silent due to the fact that it was in the name of this “conforming opiate” that Cromwell and his ironsides fought.

Course number two came along, which was Greek Salad with French bread. This course had minor talks about it, with O’Hair scolding Lewis for his smoking, the one thing I agreed with that woman about when it came to the evening. As she delved into the French bread, Madalyn called it uncooked and claimed I was trying to kill her for her beliefs in a strong separation of church and state. It took Voltaire to be a voice of reason, mentioning that he liked the bread just as it was and he also despised the Church. I felt very ambivalent when it came to his defense of me.

“I still say you’re trying to kill me,” muttered the grumpy old woman.

“No offense, madam, but if Gzrybowski here wanted to kill you for the reasons aforementioned he would have done away with us intellectual adversaries first,” dissented Karl Marx.

“Whatever, you lousy Jew. It’s your people’s fault that we even have a Christianity. Anyway, where’s the last meal Dumbski?”

“That’s Gzrybowski.”

“Whatever.”

I had some remorse about ever even thinking about inviting her as the servants gave the blessing of the last course. Marx was happy to learn that I cooked this one myself: spaghetti with three kinds of tomato sauce, as well as more bread that was warm and melted the butter placed on it, and lastly some champagne for the alcoholic drinkers of the party and cola for the rest. But before we could even take a bite, O’Hair was scolding one of the servants, and said to the one wearing a cross over his outfit in a loud obnoxious voice:

“You stupid little slave, when will you ever stand on your own two feet?”

With that, the “stupid little slave” grabbed the woman by the neck, led her out, and saw her to the ground with a thump, with her cursing extensively in the background as the door was slammed shut. There was silence, with Marx thinking he had seen a proletarian revolution, Aquinas and Cromwell seeing a religious revolt, and the rest just plain knowing better. Voltaire was the one who broke the silence as the servants tacitly left the dining room: “I did not want to hurt that woman, so I am very glad someone else did it for me instead.”

With that, every guest broke out into laughter as well as I. The noise was not loud, but it was long, lasting several moments, only dying down because of self-suppression. With a saying of grace, we went into our well-cooked meal and were pleasantly filled as the clock struck seven. We went on to talk about profound intellectual topics as the night wore on.

[ceo_esq]

Oh my god not only is the author retarded but he's an egomaniac.

Here's a short story from his website. It's so awful. So so awful. And the sad thing is this kid could be the next Jerry Falwell if he wanted to.


I agree about the story, but reproducing it in its entirety here raises copyright infringement issues. Consider replacing it with just a hyperlink (or asking a moderator to do it for you, if you don't have a high enough post count to be able to do so yourself).

[laxmatt]

It's not copyrighted. Here's the link. If you post it I'll take down the story.

http://www.cross-nation.com/dficdinnerpartydead.html

Here's the most pathetic line from this piece of trash
True, Marx, but I think that the fact I pay them on the hour, and with efficient pay at that justifies it. After all, that’s why your ideology never got to expand in Western Europe and America. Some people like their lot in life.

[laxmatt]

someone please

[laxmatt]

delete the entire story post

[laxmatt]

above, thank you

[ceo_esq]

It's not copyrighted. Here's the link. If you post it I'll take down the story.


The link seems to work OK. Just FYI, though, copyrightable works are copyrighted automatically from the moment they're created (or "fixed in a tangible medium", at any rate). No registration or special notice is required.

[blobru]

[ETA:] Also, with respect to your point about "social symbolism", remember that although there is certainly discrimination against homosexuals based on prejudice, that's not really what accounts for why conventional marriage rules are the way they are (or could be under a double or triple matrimonial regime) So if the desire is to send a didactic message that prejudice is not to be tolerated, is eliminating a legal distinction that doesn't result from prejudice a particularly sensible way of going about it?

Yeah, didn't mean to muddy the waters there, but I have a hard time separating the legal argument from the larger social debate.

I'm afraid the general perception of any law that keeps same-sex marriage separate from traditional marriage will be: "if it's ok for government to 'discriminate', it's ok for anyone to 'discriminate'" -- the difference between 'reasonable classification' and 'unabashed prejudice' probably lost on most people.

Reminds me a bit of the Dixie flag debate: each side argues its case based on symbolism, what the flag means to them, what it says about them. True, in this case there is a history that ties the flag to a war fought over among other things slavery. But the same-sex marriage debate doesn't seem all that different. One group excluded by a flag it can't honor, another by a rite that won't honor it. The reason we're having this debate so late in the day is that discrimination against homosexuals is only now being recognized as such in more and places, by more and people, where historically that wasn't the case. And as many posters have pointed out, bruto most eloquently, the marriage debate is still thick with the dross of that historical discrimination.

Alongside the flag, baseball, holidays and apple pie, marriage -- for Americans at least -- is a "motherhood" issue (maybe the "motherhood" issue). Something symbolic for people to rally around. How that symbol is perceived popularly is as important as how it is defined legally. Without extraordinary justification, it seems wantonly 'discriminatory' to hoist two flags over any institution, when one might do as well.

However, I take your point, the legislature shouldn't have to read our hearts and minds in order to debate matters of law.

[kjkent1]

Some of this is well covered in Professor Allen's previously cited recent article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. I just noticed that it's available online here (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No3_Allen.pdf) as a PDF. I'd be genuinely interested to get your impressions.Not impressed with Prof.Allen's article. It is highly ivory tower. Examples of false premises:

1. Most people believe that marriage is about love.
Response: Who cares what most people believe? What matters is whether or not the laws resolve disputes between parties and care for innocent minor children.

2. No-fault divorce is a disaster.
Response: Prior to no-fault divorce, husbands moved away from their wives, paid support behind the scenes to support the false impression of a continuing marriage, children grew up and knew parents hated each other. The only difference is that women didn't change their names back to their family name as they are doing today.

Reality is that modern child support law requires support payments far greater than any man would have voluntarily paid during the fault era of legal divorce, and the enforcement mechanisms to collect child support are infinitely more sophisticated. So, calling no-fault divorce a failure, fails to recognize the reality that during fault divorce everything happened the same way, only the statistics didn't recognize the legal divorce because it never reached the courthouse doors.

The real issue with modern marriage is that most women don't want men except for their sperm, resources and physical security, and that's the way it's been since the beginning of time. Modern divorce law simply recognizes reality -- and the statistics are the empirical proof of what we've always known.

Modern marital property laws treat spouses equally (in the USA), because the equal protection clause requires this outcome. There's no reason why these laws don't work equally well for homosexuals. As for custody and child support, such issues are bifurcated modernly, so they have no impact on marital property, and thus no impact on homosexuals who don't share children.

The only outstanding issue, then is spousal support, which is no longer needed modernly, because modern child support laws accomplish the same end for divorcing spouses. The fact that spousal support remains in the body of family law is merely that one half of the electorate is female, and it's pretty much a windfall for women, who are the main recipients of spousal support due to their generally reduced earning capacity and the laws of equity which prevail in family court. But for spousal support, such women, who don't have custody of their children, would have to do what men do when single: get off their respective asses and earn a living.

Spousal support has never existed in Texas, and Texas women are not sitting on street corners begging for food in greater numbers than in any other jurisdiction. So, spousal support should go straight onto the ash heap of history, and the rest of family law works just find for hetero and homo alike.

So, at the risk of repeating myself, this entire issue is all about a large group of theists whose holy books hold that homosexuality is an abomination against God, and they don't want homos married because that imports this believed sinful behavior into an approved status under law.

The whole discussion is all a crock of ****, bandied about by a bunch of cowards who need to get over themselves and move on to something else.

Frankly, anyone stupid enough to get married deserves exactly what they get in a divorce: a big expensive headache -- which I get to charge a lot of parasitic dollars to fix for them.

Happy days.

[Schneibster]

Has anyone considered the fact that they're not against gay marriage per se, but against what they're sure will follow: polygamy, polyandry, line marriages, group marriages, etc., etc.

Personally I have no problem with it; but religious folks have these odd prejudices about sex and stuff.

I really think that's what the whole "protection of marriage" thing is about. Heinlein probably scares the living s**t out of these people.

[kmortis]

Has anyone considered the fact that they're not against gay marriage per se, but against what they're sure will follow: polygamy, polyandry, line marriages, group marriages, etc., etc.

Personally I have no problem with it; but religious folks have these odd prejudices about sex and stuff.

I really think that's what the whole "protection of marriage" thing is about. Heinlein probably scares the living s**t out of these people.

The polys were brought up earlier in this thread. I find it funny that the religious (primarily Christians) would have an issue with polygamy as that's the mode that's put forth in the OT.

Personally, I look on all the pols like I do Marx. A really good theory that just doesn't translate well into practice because it ignores one of the basest of human behaviours, greed. What's mine is mine, what's your's is mine.

This is not to say that as individuals we cannot overcome this, just taken on a whole, there are enough greedy MFers out there to spoil it for the rest of us.

[bruto]

Has anyone considered the fact that they're not against gay marriage per se, but against what they're sure will follow: polygamy, polyandry, line marriages, group marriages, etc., etc.

Personally I have no problem with it; but religious folks have these odd prejudices about sex and stuff.

I really think that's what the whole "protection of marriage" thing is about. Heinlein probably scares the living s**t out of these people.

It's been brought up in the debate, but I think it's a red herring, a disingenuous slippery slope argument that is intended to obscure the real issues through fear and misdirection. It might seem a good argument for a homophobe who continues to address homosexuality as a lifestyle choice, but it has considerably less appeal to anyone who thinks clearly about what is being discussed, and whose ox is being gored. Choosing an alternative mode of marriage, for whatever reason, good or bad, is not the same as being a homosexual, and there is no compelling reason in the debate about equal protection to consider it so.

Have you actually heard someone argue that they would approve of gay marriage except for the fear that it would open some floodgate? I have heard that argument only from those who find gay marriage objectionable in the first place.

[NobbyNobbs]

I think the issue of infertile heterosexuals was dealt with adequately in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2669626#post2669626), and it should now be clear why the inclusion of these individuals and couples within the marriage regime does not undermine arguments that assert a relationship between marriage and procreation.

From that post..

1. Why does the state let an opposite-sex couple who can't have or don't want children get married? After all, it seems as though the Interest is served by allowing such couples to marry, right?

--Allowing such couples to marry actually does advance the Interest. Say a couple who didn't want children get "surprised" or change their minds. Or a couple believed to be sterile turn out later to have been misdiagnosed. Or a couple that were genuinely sterile at one time end up becoming fertile (for whatever reason) at a later time. Or a sterile couple adopt or find themselves legal guardians of children (often happens with grandparents, for example). In each of these cases, you have a situation where the Interest suddenly kicks in. The state can't predict when, or even if, one of these things will happen for a given couple, but it can still promote the Interest in a general way by allowing such couples to marry.


--The state lacks the practical or legal ability to exclude such couples from marriage. Sure, the big legislative incentive program we call "marriage law" would arguably be more efficient if the state could ensure that it was more narrowly tailored to the target audience. But that's a tricky proposition. It would be administratively burdensome and probably unreliable for the state to investigate the childbearing plans and reproductive health of all those couples. It would also probably get the state sued. Not to mention the fact that the Supreme Court has already held that opposite-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. How is the state supposed to get around that? In sum: no upside for the state in even trying to exclude child-challenged opposite-sex couples from marriage, and a considerable downside.


Forgive me if this has been hashed already, but considering bullet point 1, if a sterile couple can adopt or find themselves legal guardians and be protected under marriage law, what reason is there that a homosexual couple couldn't adopt or find themselves legal guardians and be protected under the same law?

Under bullet point 2, why does the state lack the ability to exclude such heterosexual couples from marriage, but finds itslef able to exclude homosexual couples?



Also, the reasons for which "the state cannot and will not deny the privilege of marriage to infertile couples", which we've discussed some length before, have nothing to do with the interest in procreation being a low priority.



If you believe that "the state cannot and will not deny the privilege of marriage to infertile couples" (I am making an assumption about your belief; please correct me if I am wrong), then in what way do homosexuals not qualify as "infertile couples"?

I meant relatively constant from one heterosexual couple to the next, not constant across time.

Again, I may misunderstand, but by including the word "heterosexual" here, aren't you begging the question? (Did I quote the correct logical fallacy here? I meant the one where you assume your conclusion when presenting the problem).


All legalese aside, I view the gay marriage issue very simply. The analogy I use in my own mind is as such:

Let's provide separate water fountains for blacks. They will appear every place there is a water fountain for white, and be just as available. They will use the same water supply, and be maintained just as often. There will be no difference whatsoever, except that whites will drink at one and blacks at another.

I imagine most folks who are against gay marriage would have a problem with the above scenario, yet I feel that in most cases, the two are very analogous.

[bruto]

From that post..



Forgive me if this has been hashed already, but considering bullet point 1, if a sterile couple can adopt or find themselves legal guardians and be protected under marriage law, what reason is there that a homosexual couple couldn't adopt or find themselves legal guardians and be protected under the same law?

Under bullet point 2, why does the state lack the ability to exclude such heterosexual couples from marriage, but finds itslef able to exclude homosexual couples?




If you believe that "the state cannot and will not deny the privilege of marriage to infertile couples" (I am making an assumption about your belief; please correct me if I am wrong), then in what way do homosexuals not qualify as "infertile couples"?



Again, I may misunderstand, but by including the word "heterosexual" here, aren't you begging the question? (Did I quote the correct logical fallacy here? I meant the one where you assume your conclusion when presenting the problem).


All legalese aside, I view the gay marriage issue very simply. The analogy I use in my own mind is as such:

Let's provide separate water fountains for blacks. They will appear every place there is a water fountain for white, and be just as available. They will use the same water supply, and be maintained just as often. There will be no difference whatsoever, except that whites will drink at one and blacks at another.

I imagine most folks who are against gay marriage would have a problem with the above scenario, yet I feel that in most cases, the two are very analogous.

Your first points are very close to those used in the invention of civil unions, and the language of the law that resulted in Vermont.

The segregation parallel is a little trickier, though I tend to agree that time will prove it to be reasonably apt. "Separate but equal" fell apart not only because it was wrong and stupid, but because it did not function in the real world. The water fountains weren't identical, the schools weren't equal, and the back of the bus is not the same as the front. From a practical point of view, separate and equal are incompatible. It might be harder to argue that civil unions will be so dysfunctional, since the separateness is largely abstract and administrative. It's closer in some ways to a requirement for bilinqual forms. To win the argument against what one might call orientationally segregated unions requires some tangible inequality that affects their operation. Do gay-based families actually get the equal protection that they are supposed to? The problems that Darat, for example, has mentioned, suggest that these inequalities do arise, but it's not conclusively evident that these problems are inherent in the system, especially when it is so new, or are just teething problems. One could argue that the problem is a correctable administrative one, but that argument should have a short shelf life if the corrections do not occur. My sense of it is that the inequality is inherent in the system, and corrections will never be sufficient to offset the inherent bias of the distinction unless it is removed either by social convention, which is uncertain and unlikely to be complete, or by legislative correction, which would be more efficient.

[Belz...]

Has anyone considered the fact that they're not against gay marriage per se, but against what they're sure will follow: polygamy, polyandry, line marriages, group marriages, etc., etc.

I think people can and should do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't cause other people harm. Polygamy ? Sure. I have no idea how that could work, but hey! I they can, and want to, why not ?

[Belz...]

Yet it is absurd to suggest that a law that fully satisfies voters and legislators is the best possible law. Accordingly, the proposition "a law can have no other merit than to satisfy voters and legislators" is false.

Okay, what other merits can it have ?

[Belz...]

The real issue with modern marriage is that most women don't want men except for their sperm, resources and physical security, and that's the way it's been since the beginning of time.

"Most" ? I hope not. Especially now that many of them make more money than I do!

[Lonewulf]

I think people can and should do whatever the hell they want as long as it doesn't cause other people harm. Polygamy ? Sure. I have no idea how that could work, but hey! I they can, and want to, why not ?

You heathen, godless man. :mad:

[Belz...]

Indeed.

Can you give me a reason why the hell they shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want ?

[Lonewulf]

Indeed.

:mad:

Can you give me a reason why the hell they shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want ?

If you took my post seriously, methinks you don't pay too much attention to my posts.

[ceo_esq]

Okay, what other merits can [a law] have [besides simply being viewed by voters and/or legislators as satisfactory]?

I thought this was already asked and answered (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2690647#post2690647) (if not exhaustively). Round and round the mulberry bush! Why are we back to that question?

Does the law promote the common good?
Is it just?
Is it economically efficient?
Is it narrowly tailored?
Is it easy to interpret?
Is it easy to enforce and administer?
Is it easy to follow?
Is it hard to circumvent?
Is it unlikely to become obsolete quickly?
Does it do what it's supposed to do in the best way feasible?
Could it be improved in any of these areas?

[Belz...]

If you took my post seriously, methinks you don't pay too much attention to my posts.

Sorry, Lonewulf, but when someones uses the :mad: smiley, I tend to take them seriously.

[Belz...]

Does the law promote the common good?
Is it just?
Is it economically efficient?
Is it narrowly tailored?
Is it easy to interpret?
Is it easy to enforce and administer?
Is it easy to follow?
Is it hard to circumvent?
Is it unlikely to become obsolete quickly?
Does it do what it's supposed to do in the best way feasible?
Could it be improved in any of these areas?

Aren't all those simply factors that determine whether or not the law satisfies voters and legislators alike ?

[Lonewulf]

Sorry, Lonewulf, but when someones uses the :mad: smiley, I tend to take them seriously.

Really? I've always thought of it as the opposite. Most people I've seen that use it are not serious.

Still, the mad smiley was enough to ignore a vast plethora of posts I have made in the past where I have specifically defended polygamy and gay marriage? ;)

Not to mention ignoring the fact that I'm an open atheist? ;)

[Blue Mountain]

Aren't all those simply factors that determine whether or not the law satisfies voters and legislators alike ?
No. CEO's list is much more extensive. The PATRIOT Act, for example, met the condition of satisfying both voters and legislators, but fails the first point on CEO's list.

All sorts of bad laws get passed when both the voters and the legislators are on the same side. Canada's no-fly list is like that. So was the head tax paid by Chinese wanting to come into Canada. Laws that prohibit consentual homosexual behaviour are popular with both voters and the legislators they elect (after all, by and large they are drawn from the same pool), but they are not good laws.

I might also risk mentioning certain laws passed in Germany about 70 years ago. Unfortunately, by the time they were passed the voters didn't have much say anymore.

[bruto]

Aren't all those simply factors that determine whether or not the law satisfies voters and legislators alike ?

I would say not entirely, though of course it depends a little on how you define "satisfy." In some sense, perhaps, strong medicine satisfies you if it does its job, but it's a different sense of the word. In many cases those factors determine whether the law satisfies standards that legislators and voters alike would waive if they could. The subject under discussion might be one of the best illustrations of the mirror-opposite of CEO's example of laws that are satisfactory but essentially without merit. Vermont's civil union law was brought about and ultimately shaped not by the desire of legislators to do something demanded by the voters, but by a Supreme Court mandate and the expectation of immediate judicial review. The voters didn't want it, and the legislature dreaded it. In some districts the voters made their dissatisfaction clear by dumping the legislators. Even Howard Dean, despite his later pride in the whole business, signed the law behind closed doors.

I think to CEO's little list of qualifications for merit I would have added "Is it constitutional?"