Gay Marriage: Traditional Marriage Predates State and Church

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
542

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I was never pussing out - we were talking about different topics. Before your last post you said nothing about wanting to change the common perception of marriage to match the public policy.[/quote]

No, we weren’t - the issue is the public (not private) institution of marriage. What people choose to do privately is not in dispute at the moment.

Now, you said earlier that you weren’t saying that the public policy of marriage was to reward a person’s choice of “love, commitment, companionship” - ok, no problem.

Then what is the public policy of marriage, if it is not to reward a person’s choice of “love, commitment, companionship”?
[/quote]

To encourage the formation of social units thought best to raise children in?

543

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

To encourage the formation of social units thought best to raise children in?[/quote]

Let me make sure I understand you exactly right - your position is that marriage exists to encourage the “raising” of children a certain way, but only “raising”?

Does it/should it entail any encouragement for the circumstance of how children are first brought into the world, or is that irrelevant, and it is only about “raising”?

544

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’m NOT SAYING that the public policy of marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship”. Ok? Got that so far?

I’m saying the commonly held perception of marriage by the vast majority of our society is about “love, commitment, companionship”. Still with me?

You made two seperate but related claims. (A) That gay marriage falls outside of the scope of the intent of the public policy of marriage - and (B) That enacting gay marriage laws poses a direct risk to the marriage habits of heterosexuals.

My point about the commonly held perception of marriage is related to point B. Point 2. The second one. The one after the first one. The risk one, not the scope one.

Do you understand, now? This was really the best I can do to explain and if you’re going to keep misreading me, I give up.[/quote]

I understand you just fine, and this is getting dull. I am not saying that you think the public polciy of marriage is “love, commitment, companionship”. I am saying that if that is what marriage is about and has become about - because that’s what people think it is about these days - there is no longer a logical reason to have any kind of publicly recognized marriage.

I am pointing you to…wait for it…the conclusion of your assertion. I am not misunderstanding your assertion.

The majority of people may very well believe that marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship” - and my point is, if this is true - and you say it is - we no longer have a reason to have publicly recognized marriage. The public policy no longer exists.

This was something I raised with Forlife. Set aside gay marriage, for a moment. Now, take away the public policy angle of children, and ask one question: why would Society have any reason to publicly recognize and encourage in law the permanence of a coupling of two heterosexuals?

Answer? None. That is my point regarding the logical conclusion of your point about the majority thinking marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship”. If true, there’s no need for any kind of legal marriage.

That’s it. No, I don’t misunderstand you - I am just lighting the way to where your claim leads. If that is what marriage “is” now, that isn’t an argument for gay marriage - it’s an argument for no publicly recognized marriage at all. It would serve no purpose.

[/quote]

A few significant benefits come to mind:

  1. Reduction of STDs
  2. Improved average psychological and emotional health for society
  3. First level financial support from spouse, reducing drain on public coffers
  4. Drives commerce for an entire industry (wedding invitations, flowers, banquets, entertainment, travel, gifts, etc.)[/quote]

Pragmatic arguments should be made to voters and legislatures, not to courts. Do you agree or not?

545

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

A few significant benefits come to mind:

  1. Reduction of STDs
  2. Improved average psychological and emotional health for society
  3. First level financial support from spouse, reducing drain on public coffers
  4. Drives commerce for an entire industry (wedding invitations, flowers, banquets, entertainment, travel, gifts, etc.)[/quote]

Utter nonsense.

  1. There’d be negligible reduction of STDs.

  2. There is no connection to “emotional health” for society because of publicly available marriage, because society has no need to privilege that relationship.

  3. First level financial support can come in in the exact same way for someone who is simply cohabitating with a lover, a formally-recognized “spouse” provides no additional “financial support”

  4. Give me a break. Dumbest thing I may have ever read.
    [/quote]

  5. Married people are less likely to have multiple sex partners than unmarried people. Less sex partners means fewer STDs.

  6. If average emotional health is improved, society benefits from privileging the relationship responsible for that emotional health.

  7. Yes, but first level financial support is more likely, and it is more extensive, for married than for cohabitating couples.

  8. In 2006, there were 2.2 million marriages in the U.S., with an average wedding cost of $26,400. The direct market value of weddings was $58.5 billion, and the indirect market value of weddings was $139.8 billion. That means more jobs and increased commerce; as a conservative, I thought you might appreciate that.

546

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

I’m NOT SAYING that the public policy of marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship”. Ok? Got that so far?

I’m saying the commonly held perception of marriage by the vast majority of our society is about “love, commitment, companionship”. Still with me?

You made two seperate but related claims. (A) That gay marriage falls outside of the scope of the intent of the public policy of marriage - and (B) That enacting gay marriage laws poses a direct risk to the marriage habits of heterosexuals.

My point about the commonly held perception of marriage is related to point B. Point 2. The second one. The one after the first one. The risk one, not the scope one.

Do you understand, now? This was really the best I can do to explain and if you’re going to keep misreading me, I give up.[/quote]

I understand you just fine, and this is getting dull. I am not saying that you think the public polciy of marriage is “love, commitment, companionship”. I am saying that if that is what marriage is about and has become about - because that’s what people think it is about these days - there is no longer a logical reason to have any kind of publicly recognized marriage.

I am pointing you to…wait for it…the conclusion of your assertion. I am not misunderstanding your assertion.

The majority of people may very well believe that marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship” - and my point is, if this is true - and you say it is - we no longer have a reason to have publicly recognized marriage. The public policy no longer exists.

This was something I raised with Forlife. Set aside gay marriage, for a moment. Now, take away the public policy angle of children, and ask one question: why would Society have any reason to publicly recognize and encourage in law the permanence of a coupling of two heterosexuals?

Answer? None. That is my point regarding the logical conclusion of your point about the majority thinking marriage is about “love, commitment, companionship”. If true, there’s no need for any kind of legal marriage.

That’s it. No, I don’t misunderstand you - I am just lighting the way to where your claim leads. If that is what marriage “is” now, that isn’t an argument for gay marriage - it’s an argument for no publicly recognized marriage at all. It would serve no purpose.

[/quote]

A few significant benefits come to mind:

  1. Reduction of STDs
  2. Improved average psychological and emotional health for society
  3. First level financial support from spouse, reducing drain on public coffers
  4. Drives commerce for an entire industry (wedding invitations, flowers, banquets, entertainment, travel, gifts, etc.)[/quote]

Pragmatic arguments should be made to voters and legislatures, not to courts. Do you agree or not? [/quote]

Agreed.

547

[quote]forlife wrote:

  1. Married people are less likely to have multiple sex partners than unmarried people. Less sex partners means fewer STDs.

  2. If average emotional health is improved, society benefits from privileging the relationship responsible for that emotional health.

  3. Yes, but first level financial support is more likely, and it is more extensive, for married than for cohabitating couples.

  4. In 2006, there were 2.2 million marriages in the U.S., with an average wedding cost of $26,400. The direct market value of weddings was $58.5 billion, and the indirect market value of weddings was $139.8 billion. That means more jobs and increased commerce; as a conservative, I thought you might appreciate that.[/quote]

  5. This is a solution in search of a problem. We don’t have an epidemic of STDs. Any effect here is negligible. Try again.

  6. Average emotional health wouldn’t improve, that’s the point. There’s no reason to think that public recognition of coupling would improve “emotional health”. This is baloney.

  7. No, it isn’t - it is entirely dependent on the nature of the relationship between the two people. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

  8. This remains the dumbest argument I have ever read. Keeping marriage around because it “helps the economy”? Our public policy is 100% employment for wedding planners? An argument as dumb as a bag of hair.

548

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

  1. Married people are less likely to have multiple sex partners than unmarried people. Less sex partners means fewer STDs.

  2. If average emotional health is improved, society benefits from privileging the relationship responsible for that emotional health.

  3. Yes, but first level financial support is more likely, and it is more extensive, for married than for cohabitating couples.

  4. In 2006, there were 2.2 million marriages in the U.S., with an average wedding cost of $26,400. The direct market value of weddings was $58.5 billion, and the indirect market value of weddings was $139.8 billion. That means more jobs and increased commerce; as a conservative, I thought you might appreciate that.[/quote]

  5. This is a solution in search of a problem. We don’t have an epidemic of STDs. Any effect here is negligible. Try again.

  6. Average emotional health wouldn’t improve, that’s the point. There’s no reason to think that public recognition of coupling would improve “emotional health”. This is baloney.

  7. No, it isn’t - it is entirely dependent on the nature of the relationship between the two people. Marriage has nothing to do with it.

  8. This remains the dumbest argument I have ever read. Keeping marriage around because it “helps the economy”? Our public policy is 100% employment for wedding planners? An argument as dumb as a bag of hair.
    [/quote]

  9. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in the U.S. more than 13 million are infected each year and more than 65 million have an incurable STD. If it’s true that marriage significantly reduces STDs (and I argue that it is), this number would be even higher if marriage didn’t exist. On this point alone, marriage is an enormous benefit to society.

  10. “In numerous international studies, married people on average report fewer signs of psychological distress and higher rates of emotional well-being than do unmarried or divorced individuals. A study following 14,000 American adults over a ten-year period found that marital status was one of the most important predictors of happiness…When it comes to protecting emotional health cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage. Instead, international research suggests that cohabitors more closely resemble single individuals in their mental health profiles. In one recent seventeen-nation study of marriage and happiness, researchers found that in every country but one, married people were considerably happier than singles. Cohabitors were slightly happier than singles without live-in partners, but cohabitors received only a fraction of the boost to happiness that married couples enjoyed.”

  11. If you’re married, you are far more likely to support your spouse through a financial crisis than if you’re cohabitating. There’s higher commitment, more willingness to sacrifice for the other person, and a more secure safety net…all of which lowers the costs society would otherwise pay to support these same people.

  12. $200 billion is not chump change.

I’m out until Tuesday, but will respond when I get back. Have a good weekend.

549

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

A few significant benefits come to mind:

  1. Reduction of STDs
  2. Improved average psychological and emotional health for society
  3. First level financial support from spouse, reducing drain on public coffers
  4. Drives commerce for an entire industry (wedding invitations, flowers, banquets, entertainment, travel, gifts, etc.)[/quote]

Utter nonsense.

  1. There’d be negligible reduction of STDs.

  2. There is no connection to “emotional health” for society because of publicly available marriage, because society has no need to privilege that relationship.

  3. First level financial support can come in in the exact same way for someone who is simply cohabitating with a lover, a formally-recognized “spouse” provides no additional “financial support”

  4. Give me a break. Dumbest thing I may have ever read.
    [/quote]

  5. Says you.

  6. Says you.

  7. You know this isn’t true. Either that or you’re twisting definitions again. If you know what he means, don’t argue semantics.

  8. Says you (again).

550

Sane people chose marriage? Just joking.

But don’t gay men and women have higher rates of emotional problems, addictions etc? not being married could be the cause, or the higher rate of EPs for gays could explain the data.

It looks like you are trying to show that there is a cause and effect relationship: marriage improves mental health. Maybe we should force everyone to get married. If its just about having a recognized marriage then we can recognize people as being married. No relationship need be present, as the relationship alone does not seem to have the same effect on mental health.

551

[quote]forlife wrote:

  1. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in the U.S. more than 13 million are infected each year and more than 65 million have an incurable STD. If it’s true that marriage significantly reduces STDs (and I argue that it is), this number would be even higher if marriage didn’t exist. On this point alone, marriage is an enormous benefit to society.

  2. “In numerous international studies, married people on average report fewer signs of psychological distress and higher rates of emotional well-being than do unmarried or divorced individuals. A study following 14,000 American adults over a ten-year period found that marital status was one of the most important predictors of happiness…When it comes to protecting emotional health cohabitation is not the functional equivalent of marriage. Instead, international research suggests that cohabitors more closely resemble single individuals in their mental health profiles. In one recent seventeen-nation study of marriage and happiness, researchers found that in every country but one, married people were considerably happier than singles. Cohabitors were slightly happier than singles without live-in partners, but cohabitors received only a fraction of the boost to happiness that married couples enjoyed.”

  3. If you’re married, you are far more likely to support your spouse through a financial crisis than if you’re cohabitating. There’s higher commitment, more willingness to sacrifice for the other person, and a more secure safety net…all of which lowers the costs society would otherwise pay to support these same people.

  4. $200 billion is not chump change.

I’m out until Tuesday, but will respond when I get back. Have a good weekend.[/quote]

  1. Well, it doesn’t matter if you “argue that it is” - you have to argue it. And you don’t have an argument. We don’t have an epidemic with STDs. And, there’s no reason to suddenly think that non-married people would suddenly abandon the primary reason to protect against STDs - a raging desire not to be subjected to debilitating and lethal diseases. The effect would be negligiblem as I said - why? Because people have reasons independent of “marriage” to to protect themselves against STDs.

  2. Your statistics relate to marriage as we currently organize it - we privilege one relationship over another to reward certain outcomes (traditional families raising kids, etc.). Of course people will be happier pursuant to this model (it’s based on privilege and distinction, culturally we reinforce the idea that heterosexuals should be married and we do so because it provides social policy benefits re: child raising, etc.) - but we aren’t using this model in our hypothetical, remember? We are assuming people marry really only for “love, commitment, companionship”, and with that in mind, they’d have the exact same “love, commitment, companionship” whether they were married or not. What good would the extra step of a marriage certificate provide in this different context? None. Negligible at best. People’s happiness wouldn’t be ratcheted up, because the privilege is gone; we aren’t telling people they should be married. There’d be no reason to - they’d be no different with or without a marriage certificate.

EDIT: I don’t think I made clear exactly what I am talking about. People, of course, can still get married as a private matter in this hypothetical. Thus, any psychological benefits from the function of “love, commitment, companionship” would be achieved by this private (as opposed to publicly recognized) arrangement. No one has a reason to think that “psychological health” (whatever that means, in any event) would be improved by publicly recognizing what is already privately recognized by the parties. This, of course, sets aside criticism of the idea that our public policy needs to be working to improve the “psychological health” of the electorate, a goofball idea in and of itself. The state isn’t and shouldn’t be in the self-help business.

  1. No, you wouldn’t - if you truly love someone, your marriage “status” would not affect your willingness to provide financial assistance. If there’s an amount you’d provide in terms of financial assistance on the basis of a marriage certificate that you wouldn’t provide without it, then to hell with that relationship. That’s ludicrous. That isn’t marriage or anything like it. As for the requirements of spousal support - i.e., forced commitment - well, that isn’t any good. If someone doesn’t love someone enough in the first place to do it on their own volition, Society gains no benefit from forcing it to happen.

  2. This argument isn’t getting any smarter. And more besides, it doesn’t make sense - people would still have weddings and ceremonies and cakes, etc. in the absence of publicly recognized marriage. All of that is a matter of private choice - that wouldn’t go away just because the state got out of the business of recognizing marriage. As such, there’d be no policy reason to keep marriage around because it “generates” $200 billion - why? The public policy of marriage doesn’t generate the $200 billion…people’s private choices to blow tons of money on weddings do.

552

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

An argument as dumb as a bag of hair.
[/quote]

Worst comparison I’ve ever read.

553

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

To encourage the formation of social units thought best to raise children in?[/quote]

Let me make sure I understand you exactly right - your position is that marriage exists to encourage the “raising” of children a certain way, but only “raising”?

Does it/should it entail any encouragement for the circumstance of how children are first brought into the world, or is that irrelevant, and it is only about “raising”?
[/quote]

Not quite sure I follow.

554

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Worst comparison I’ve ever read.[/quote]

Never heard that, I guess? It’s actually a favorite of left-wing types when criticizing Sarah Palin. You really should get out more and engage in discussions with people.

555

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Not quite sure I follow. [/quote]

You said the public policy of marriage purports to encourage “raising” kids a certain way. Fine. Does the public policy of marriage purport to order reproduction of children in any particular way?

Or is it only about “raising” a kid a certain way, with no particular preference for the circumstances in which a child is born?

556

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Worst comparison I’ve ever read.[/quote]

Never heard that, I guess? It’s actually a favorite of left-wing types when criticizing Sarah Palin. You really should get out more and engage in discussions with people.
[/quote]

That would rob me of time on these forums.

557

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Not quite sure I follow. [/quote]

You said the public policy of marriage purports to encourage “raising” kids a certain way. Fine. Does the public policy of marriage purport to order reproduction of children in any particular way?

Or is it only about “raising” a kid a certain way, with no particular preference for the circumstances in which a child is born?
[/quote]

Ok… the answer you’re looking for is “To encourage the formation of family units for children to be born into/raised by”? I would think the “raise” part would be significantly more important than the “born” part - better a marriage after the birth than a divorce after, yeah?

558

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Ok… the answer you’re looking for is “To encourage the formation of family units for children to be born into/raised by”? I would think the “raise” part would be significantly more important than the “born” part - better a marriage after the birth than a divorce after, yeah?[/quote]

I am not “looking” for a particular answer - I want you to tell me what you think.

Instead of dodging the question, just answer it. Does the public policy of marriage encourage certain reproduction ordering or not? If so, what is it?

559

[quote]Makavali wrote:

  1. Says you.
  2. Says you.
  3. You know this isn’t true. Either that or you’re twisting definitions again. If you know what he means, don’t argue semantics.
  4. Says you (again).[/quote]

What’s the matter, Mak? Is the cable out, and with no cartoons to watch, you want to feel relevant?

Also, I had no idea that “says you” was such a handy, dandy substantive retort - all this time I have been debating and explaining my position, and all I had to say to people I disagreed with was “says you”.

Who knew?

560

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Ok… the answer you’re looking for is “To encourage the formation of family units for children to be born into/raised by”? I would think the “raise” part would be significantly more important than the “born” part - better a marriage after the birth than a divorce after, yeah?[/quote]

I am not “looking” for a particular answer - I want you to tell me what you think.

Instead of dodging the question, just answer it. Does the public policy of marriage encourage certain reproduction ordering or not? If so, what is it?

[/quote]

What I think is, according to you, stupid.

Yes, it does encourage certain reproduction ordering - that is, that men and women commit to long term relationships in which they birth and raise children.

I still think that marriage should be extended to homosexual couples, among the reasons being the chance for adoptive gay parents to have the same benefits/incentive to stay together.

561

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Instead of dodging the question, just answer it. Does the public policy of marriage encourage certain reproduction ordering or not? If so, what is it?[/quote]

Male and female reproduction organs do the ordering. It says nothing of who raises the child. Your arguments are based on wild hyperbole on things that have not happened anywhere where gay marriage is illegal.