Honestly, do you think this was Zebs intent? Or the intent of the vast majority of people who bring up poly/incest/etc in the gay marriage debate?[/quote]
I don’t know what anyone’s intent is - I am explaining why the issues of polygamy/incest/bestiality/etc. get brought up in these contexts all the time - and are relevant in a conversation (well, not really to the original topic of this thread, but to the marriage topic). They wouldn’t be at all relevant or applicable if it weren’t for the individual-right model of marriage that’s been created by the courts. How they’re relevant are solely as applications of an individual right to marriage.[/quote]
There’s a difference in bringing up the topic as an objective issue of the application of an individual right philosophy w/r/t marriage and bringing up the topic as a slippery slope warning.
The intent most have when bringing up those issues is to say “You have to support poly/incest marriage or you’re a bigot too!” (Just read any of Zebs posts in this thread).
I’m just tring to explain why so many people on my side of the debate roll our eyes or ignore the topic entirely.
The legal question is whether gay marriage is substantially similar to straight marriage. If so, it would be unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry. The California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is in fact substantially similar.
It is equally fair and requisite to ask whether polygamy, incest, and bestiality are substantially similar to straight marriage. The courts would have to weigh those comparisons on their own merits, independently of what they decide regarding gay marriage.
In all cases though, the standard of comparison is the same.
[quote]forlife wrote:
BostonBarrister, I think you make a good point.
The legal question is whether gay marriage is substantially similar to straight marriage. If so, it would be unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry. The California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is in fact substantially similar.
It is equally fair and requisite to ask whether polygamy, incest, and bestiality are substantially similar to straight marriage. The courts would have to weigh those comparisons on their own merits, independently of what they decide regarding gay marriage.
In all cases though, the standard of comparison is the same.[/quote]
The California Supreme Court ruled in Strauss v. Horton that proposition 8 was indeed lawful. The case you are referring to is Perry v. Schwarzenegger which was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (a federal court). In this case, Judge Walker declared Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional for reasons I discussed in earlier posts. The case is currently in the appeal process and is likely to reach the Supreme Court.
As for the incest/polygamy/bestiality issue:
Bestiality: A legal marriage is a contractual and legally binding agreement and since animals lack the sentience required by our legal system to enter into contractual agreements, a legal marriage between a person and an animal will most likely never occur in this country.
Incest: Since a legal marriage is not an inherently sexual relationship, there really is no reason to not allow two people who are already related to enter into a legal marriage.
Polygamy: Most of the legal benefits, rights, and obligations in a legal marriage simply cannot be distributed to more than one spouse so a polygamous marriage would need to fall under a different set of laws and statutes. As to why there are no laws governing polygamous marriages in the U.S, there is simply no demand for it. There are not enough polygamous couples pushing for these laws or fighting the constitutionality of not allowing polygamous marriage. The same goes for incestuous marriages.
[quote]forlife wrote:
BostonBarrister, I think you make a good point.
The legal question is whether gay marriage is substantially similar to straight marriage. If so, it would be unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry. The California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is in fact substantially similar.
It is equally fair and requisite to ask whether polygamy, incest, and bestiality are substantially similar to straight marriage. The courts would have to weigh those comparisons on their own merits, independently of what they decide regarding gay marriage.
In all cases though, the standard of comparison is the same.[/quote]
The California Supreme Court ruled in Strauss v. Horton that proposition 8 was indeed lawful. The case you are referring to is Perry v. Schwarzenegger which was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (a federal court). In this case, Judge Walker declared Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional for reasons I discussed in earlier posts. The case is currently in the appeal process and is likely to reach the Supreme Court.
As for the incest/polygamy/bestiality issue:
Bestiality: A legal marriage is a contractual and legally binding agreement and since animals lack the sentience required by our legal system to enter into contractual agreements, a legal marriage between a person and an animal will most likely never occur in this country.
Incest: Since a legal marriage is not an inherently sexual relationship, there really is no reason to not allow two people who are already related to enter into a legal marriage.
Polygamy: Most of the legal benefits, rights, and obligations in a legal marriage simply cannot be distributed to more than one spouse so a polygamous marriage would need to fall under a different set of laws and statutes. As to why there are no laws governing polygamous marriages in the U.S, there is simply no demand for it. There are not enough polygamous couples pushing for these laws or fighting the constitutionality of not allowing polygamous marriage. The same goes for incestuous marriages.
[/quote]
I was actually referring to the original Supreme Court decision on 5/15/08 that overturned the ban on gay marriage. My recollection was that Chief Justice Ronald George mentioned the standard of substantial similarity in writing the majority opinion of the court on the case.
Anyway, I agree that it’s likely the courts would rule that bestiality and polygamy aren’t substantially similar to marriage between one man and one woman. If incestuous marriage were disallowed, it would likely be for other reasons than for violating substantial similarity.
[quote]forlife wrote:
BostonBarrister, I think you make a good point.
The legal question is whether gay marriage is substantially similar to straight marriage. If so, it would be unconstitutional to deny gays the right to marry. The California Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is in fact substantially similar.
It is equally fair and requisite to ask whether polygamy, incest, and bestiality are substantially similar to straight marriage. The courts would have to weigh those comparisons on their own merits, independently of what they decide regarding gay marriage.
In all cases though, the standard of comparison is the same.[/quote]
The California Supreme Court ruled in Strauss v. Horton that proposition 8 was indeed lawful. The case you are referring to is Perry v. Schwarzenegger which was tried in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (a federal court). In this case, Judge Walker declared Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional for reasons I discussed in earlier posts. The case is currently in the appeal process and is likely to reach the Supreme Court.
As for the incest/polygamy/bestiality issue:
Bestiality: A legal marriage is a contractual and legally binding agreement and since animals lack the sentience required by our legal system to enter into contractual agreements, a legal marriage between a person and an animal will most likely never occur in this country.
Incest: Since a legal marriage is not an inherently sexual relationship, there really is no reason to not allow two people who are already related to enter into a legal marriage.
Polygamy: Most of the legal benefits, rights, and obligations in a legal marriage simply cannot be distributed to more than one spouse so a polygamous marriage would need to fall under a different set of laws and statutes. As to why there are no laws governing polygamous marriages in the U.S, there is simply no demand for it. There are not enough polygamous couples pushing for these laws or fighting the constitutionality of not allowing polygamous marriage. The same goes for incestuous marriages.
[/quote]
I was actually referring to the original Supreme Court decision on 5/15/08 that overturned the ban on gay marriage. My recollection was that Chief Justice Ronald George mentioned the standard of substantial similarity in writing the majority opinion of the court on the case.
Anyway, I agree that it’s likely the courts would rule that bestiality and polygamy aren’t substantially similar to marriage between one man and one woman. If incestuous marriage were disallowed, it would likely be for other reasons than for violating substantial similarity.
[/quote]
My bad, most people don’t even bring that case up anymore since the passing of Proposition 8. You are right, though, on 5/15/08 the California Supreme Court ruled in the case In re Marriage Cases that same sex marriages were legal due to equal protection clauses (Article 1 Section 7 of the California Constitution I think),almost the exact same reasons proposition 8 was overturned.
The movement to repeal DOMA actively discriminates against heterosexuals. Bearing children is enormously destructive to an individual in virtually every aspect (health, wealth, happiness [too many references to quote, look it up]). Bearing children is enormously beneficial to a society. Single parents are a much larger burden on society than couples or families.
Inherently, cohabitational heterosexuals carry a risk of reproduction. Forcing them to use contraception or rely on abortion is effectively taxing them on their ability to bear children. Heteros don’t choose to be heterosexual OR fertile. Cohabitational homosexuals do not carry similar risks or abilities.
Japan is flirting with paying people to have children. Would they be discriminating against ‘substantially equivalent’ individuals by not paying homosexuals? Isn’t paying individuals to co-habitate and not reproduce subsidizing whatever pretenses they use for compensation? If we force heterosexuals to have kids or pay to practice safe sex, aren’t we punishing a subpopulation of ‘substantially equivalent’ individuals?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
The movement to repeal DOMA actively discriminates against heterosexuals. Bearing children is enormously destructive to an individual in virtually every aspect (health, wealth, happiness [too many references to quote, look it up]). Bearing children is enormously beneficial to a society. Single parents are a much larger burden on society than couples or families.
Inherently, cohabitational heterosexuals carry a risk of reproduction. Forcing them to use contraception or rely on abortion is effectively taxing them on their ability to bear children. Heteros don’t choose to be heterosexual OR fertile. Cohabitational homosexuals do not carry similar risks or abilities.
Japan is flirting with paying people to have children. Would they be discriminating against ‘substantially equivalent’ individuals by not paying homosexuals? Isn’t paying individuals to co-habitate and not reproduce subsidizing whatever pretenses they use for compensation? If we force heterosexuals to have kids or pay to practice safe sex, aren’t we punishing a subpopulation of ‘substantially equivalent’ individuals?[/quote]
Your logic is flawed:
Just because 2 or more individuals are occupying the same residence does mean they are in a sexual relationship regardless if they are both heterosexual or homosexual, so reproduction is not an “inherent risk” of “cohabitation”. The reverse is also true, just because two or more people are in a sexual relationship whether it is heterosexual or homosexual does not mean they are living together. The only act that has an inherent risk of reproduction is sexual intercourse between a fertile male and female.
Nothing you said has anything to do do with the Defense of Marriage Act or why it discriminates against homosexuals. Half your post was about Japan. What does Japan have to do with DOMA?
You intimated that having children is always a boon to a society. This is not always the case. More children are only a definite boon to a society if it has a deficit in the ratio of healthy adults of child bearing age and the actual number of children already in existence and the societal infrastructure can support (house, feed, educate) the new children.
In the U.S., people are not paid to have kids. Nor are they paid to not have kids. Who cares about Japan?
There are more married couples with children on welfare than single parents.
There are probably more flaws in your post but to be honest most of it is unintelligible by your inability to use big words coherently.
Not flawed, just being presented out of certain contexts to get answers that aren’t predisposed to said contexts. The assumption of stupidity and commentary about big words is irritating, especially coming from someone who can’t use small words like does and doesn’t correctly (see sentence below).
I half disagree, the both the homosexuals and heterosexuals I know would say that, provided sexual compatibility, time is the only factor preventing a platonic relationship from being a sexual relationship. That said, It’s a rather cynical view to which I don’t entirely subscribe and the time of cohabitation is wildly variable and leaving lots of room for your take. Subscribing whole-heartedly to your assumption, If married people don’t live together and don’t bear children (sexual practices being immaterial) what exactly defines them as married? Tax returns? If it’s simply about tax returns, hospital visitations, and naming heirs, why not set up the framework for half-siblings, co-dependent retirees, active duty soldiers, veterans, etc., etc. They all love each other, right?
So you don’t deny the risk nor the burden? And that burden isn’t shared by homosexuals equally?
I didn’t mistype (Okay, I meant to type ‘effective repeal’). DOMA doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals anymore than repealing it discriminates against heterosexuals. I only mentioned Japan for one sentence. I mentioned it as a others have mentioned overpopulation by 2030 and favoring homosexuality in terms of possible population control. We are already facing a healthcare crisis that is only going to get more difficult as the population ages. Steps that move against heterosexuals or the values of the predominant portion of the reproductive population aren’t going to help the fact that we’re going to need more young to take care of more old. I’m not saying we are Japan, just querying as to the ‘gas pedal’ side of population control.
Untrue, I said having children is enormously beneficial to society. It is a requisite, a society that doesn’t reproduce inherently dies. An individual is going to die whether they reproduce or not. I’m not as stupid as you assert by placing the absurd conditional ‘always’ into a statement that was made without it. Now, after reminding you of the context that you contorted my statement out of, could you please pick out an example from anywhere in history where a human society literally bred itself to death? Does this society have any resemblance to societies like ours where we insure our pets?
Also, two smacks on the wrist and a “you’re stupid” for misusing the word ‘intimated’.
I’ll be sure to remember that I’m not paid to have kids the next time I put a number in the ‘dependents’ box and deduct childcare from my taxes.
Absolute numbers in a relative (and even more complex) context. I admit to not having seen the most recent census numbers, but as of 2007, 5.8% of married families live in poverty, 26% of single-parent families live in poverty. Overarchingly, are you arguing that marriage doesn’t carry financial benefits? Or more contextually, that society would benefit from less marriage?
I apologize if by my big words, this post does make sense to you. (Can we dispense with the ‘You might have a different view; therefore, I’m smarter, right, AND you can’t write!’ BS, yet?). Personally, I’d prefer no marriage with a commensurate drop in private individual taxes, or common law marriage based solely around time of stable cohabitation with possible exception for unexpected pregnancy or terminal illness. But that puts me in favor of homosexual, polyamorous, and arguably ‘incestuous’ marriage. I guess I’m just a stupid, backwards-thinking hyper-zealous bigot.
Not flawed, just being presented out of certain contexts to get answers that aren’t predisposed to said contexts. The assumption of stupidity and commentary about big words is irritating, especially coming from someone who can’t use small words like does and doesn’t correctly (see sentence below).
I half disagree, THE both the homosexuals and heterosexuals I know would say that, provided sexual compatibility, time is the only factor preventing a platonic relationship from being a sexual relationship. That said, It’s (IMPROPER CAPITALIZATION) a rather cynical view to which I don’t entirely subscribe and the time of cohabitation is wildly variable and leaving lots of room for your take. Subscribing whole-heartedly to your assumption, If married people don’t live together and don’t bear children (sexual practices being immaterial) what exactly defines them as married? Tax returns? If it’s simply about tax returns, hospital visitations, and naming heirs, why not set up the framework for half-siblings, co-dependent retirees, active duty soldiers, veterans, etc., etc. They all love each other, right?
So you don’t deny the risk nor the burden? And that burden isn’t shared by homosexuals equally?
I didn’t mistype (Okay, I meant to type ‘effective repeal’). DOMA doesn’t discriminate against homosexuals anymore than repealing it discriminates against heterosexuals. I only mentioned Japan for one sentence. I mentioned it as a others have mentioned overpopulation by 2030 and favoring homosexuality in terms of possible population control. We are already facing a healthcare crisis that is only going to get more difficult as the population ages. Steps that move against heterosexuals or the values of the predominant portion of the reproductive population aren’t going to help the fact that we’re going to need more young to take care of more old. I’m not saying we are Japan, just querying as to the ‘gas pedal’ side of population control.
Untrue, I said having children is enormously beneficial to society. It is a requisite, a society that doesn’t reproduce inherently dies. An individual is going to die whether they reproduce or not. I’m not as stupid as you assert by placing the absurd conditional ‘always’ into a statement that was made without it. Now, after reminding you of the context that you contorted my statement out of, could you please pick out an example from anywhere in history where a human society literally bred itself to death? Does this society have any resemblance to societies like ours where we insure our pets?
Also, two smacks on the wrist and a “you’re stupid” for misusing the word ‘intimated’.
I’ll be sure to remember that I’m not paid to have kids the next time I put a number in the ‘dependents’ box and deduct childcare from my taxes.
Absolute numbers in a relative (and even more complex) context. I admit to not having seen the most recent census numbers, but as of 2007, 5.8% of married families live in poverty, 26% of single-parent families live in poverty. Overarchingly (IMPROPER USE OF “OVERARCHINGLY”, WHICH I AM PRETTY SURE IS NOT A WORD.", are you arguing that marriage doesn’t carry financial benefits? Or more contextually, that society would benefit from less marriage? (YOUR USE OF THE WORD “OVERARCHINGLY” IMPLIES THIS IS THE MAJOR POINT OF MY POST. IT IS NOT. THE OVERARCHING POINT OF MY POST WAS THAT YOUR LOGIC IS FLAWED)
I apologize if by my big words, this post does make sense to you (THIS SENTENCE IS JUST WRONG). (Can we dispense with the ‘You might have a different view; therefore, I’m smarter, right,(YOU DON’T NEED A COMMA HERE) AND you can’t write!’ BS, yet?). Personally, I’d prefer no marriage with a commensurate drop in private individual taxes, or common law marriage based solely around time of stable cohabitation with possible exception for unexpected pregnancy or terminal illness. But that puts me in favor of homosexual, polyamorous, and arguably ‘incestuous’ marriage. I guess I’m just a stupid, backwards-thinking hyper-zealous bigot.[/quote]
Since you made such a big deal about me accidentally omitting a ‘not’ from my post, I took the liberty of pointing out all of your errors. I may even do the same for your other post.
Intimate: transitive verb
1. to make known especially or formally
2. to communicate directly or indirectly
How did I use this wrong? You communicated (indirectly in the first post and directly in the second) that having children children is “enormously beneficial to any society.” Your use of the phrase “An individual is going to die whether they reproduce or not” and the rest of that paragraph imply (or INTIMATE) that people should reproduce in order to make up for the fact that they will die. This in turns leads me to think you believe that human beings should at a minimum maintain their current population. This simply will not work in the long run. If a society cannot feed, house, and educate it’s current population it does not make sense to maintain or increase that population. You asked for historical examples, so here goes: every human society in history has at some point practiced some form of population control when either as a whole or individually it cannot support further growth or maintenance. In the old days, parents would leave children they could not feed in the woods. These days, most people use contraceptives or abortion. I already explained why a society would want to practice population control in my last post so I will not reiterate here.
You have still yet to explain why you think DOMA discriminates against homosexuals and why its repeal would discriminate against heterosexuals.
What does any of this have to do with DOMA or legalizing homosexual marriage?
That is not the government paying you for having children, that is a tax break for taking care of a human being that cannot legally care for itself. The government actually comes out ahead on this because if you didn’t take care of them, it would and would cost the government a lot more money. You can get the same tax credit by adopting or taking care a disabled person.
You seem to be equating “cohabitating” (why don’t you just say living together) with “marriage” here, which doesn’t make much sense. People can live together and not be married so if that is not what you mean could you please rephrase that so I can understand the point you are trying to make.
I am willing to call a truce on the grammar nazism if you are.
Polygamy: Most of the legal benefits, rights, and obligations in a legal marriage simply cannot be distributed to more than one spouse so a polygamous marriage would need to fall under a different set of laws and statutes. As to why there are no laws governing polygamous marriages in the U.S, there is simply no demand for it. There are not enough polygamous couples pushing for these laws or fighting the constitutionality of not allowing polygamous marriage. The same goes for incestuous marriages.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Universal Rule Utilitarianism can be used to unjustly criticize any number of otherwise harmless practices.
For example: You are a Catholic. Ascetics under the Rule of St. Benedict live under a vow of absolute chastity. The logic with which you condemned homosexuality works to condemn religious chastity as well.
But it doesn’t even matter because, thankfully, law in the United States does not consider universal rule utilitarianism.[/quote]
I’m not fully aware of Universal Rule Utilitarianism, I have not gotten to that, yet. Would you explain to me how it works in this case of the of a vow of absolute chastity?[/quote]
If value judgments are to be made on the basis of utilitarianism, many otherwise harmless practices and many aspects of everyday human life become “immoral.”
So, we take an action and we ask whether its existence betters or worsens the human condition. The most extreme way for us to do this is to imagine if every single human being on earth were to suddenly adopt the practice in question. Then we can easily see its impact on earthly life. In such a light, homosexuality is obviously detrimental to the human race–if we suddenly all turned gay, the human race would see itself extinguished within a century.
But the same applies to Monks under vows of celibacy. And many other people and practices throughout the world. If we all suddenly decided to live under the Rule of St. Benedict, the children born today would be the last to walk the earth. Judged solely for its universal utility, celibacy is immoral.
The point is that one human being’s behavior cannot be labeled “moral” or “immoral” on the sole basis of universal rule utilitarianism without the condemnation of many, many otherwise harmless human activities. Universal Rule Utilitarianism condemns with far too broad a stroke.[/quote]
That’s a vocation, not an act. That’s like saying it’s immoral to be an engineer over a doctor. And, not all people can be monk, even if they wanted to.
Now, if you were just to isolate the act of taking the vow of celibacy, then yes I suppose you could say that is immoral. Just like isolating the act of killing someone from the vocation of soldier can be seen as immoral, because if everyone did that then within a generation we would all be dead (as well, we could say as some countries did requiring celibacy from their soldiers, that if every man become soldier we’d be burning the candle at both ends and die off even if we were in a time of peace). However, it’s not, a soldier kills those that are enemy combatants, which their act of killing that person actually helps the human flourish (protecting the innocent masses from death and slavery). Just as the Benedictine Monks in Northern Europe helped the Barbarians and Vikings turn around and flourish and stop killing each other.[/quote]
Both of your arguments are invalid.
Chris,
Given your religious beliefs, would you say that prostitution is immoral? Because, last I checked, it’s definitely a vocation, regardless of whether or not you accept it as one, it is (i.e. people have this “job”).
Smh…
So the impact of behavior on the welfare of the community/human population should be taken into consideration? If a gay couple means a couple that cannot have children and that this inability is somehow “wrong” because they can’t reproduce, then what about straight couples who do no want kids? Are they “wasting” their marital union on a lifestyle that won’t result in offspring?
Why don’t they just give the same tax/legal benefits to gay couples and call their “marriage” something else?
Not asking like it’s the first time this idea has come up; I’m curious what anti-gay “marriage” people have to say or what pro-gay “marriage” people have to say about it. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a legit response to that inquiry.
Religious people,
Would you be ok with calling it a civil union or whatever and giving them identical benefits for their “status” ?
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Why don’t they just give the same tax/legal benefits to gay couples and call their “marriage” something else?
Not asking like it’s the first time this idea has come up; I’m curious what anti-gay “marriage” people have to say or what pro-gay “marriage” people have to say about it. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a legit response to that inquiry.
Religious people,
Would you be ok with calling it a civil union or whatever and giving them identical benefits for their “status” ? [/quote]
Reminiscent of “seperate but equal”. The only reason to call it a civil union would be to make it clear the difference between it and “real marriage”.
Women do not cast a “citizens opinion ballot”, they vote. Blacks are not “unowned persons”, they are citizens. Likewise, gays should be able to marry, not “civilly unionize”.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Why don’t they just give the same tax/legal benefits to gay couples and call their “marriage” something else?
Not asking like it’s the first time this idea has come up; I’m curious what anti-gay “marriage” people have to say or what pro-gay “marriage” people have to say about it. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard a legit response to that inquiry.
Religious people,
Would you be ok with calling it a civil union or whatever and giving them identical benefits for their “status” ? [/quote]
Now you’re talking! And it doesn’t matter what they call it as long as all “alternative” marriages get equal rights. I wonder why there is such a lack of empathy for polygamous couples? It’s like they have no feelings. I guess they just don’t have the organization that the homosexuals have YET.
How did I use this wrong? You communicated (indirectly in the first post and directly in the second) that having children children is “enormously beneficial to any society.”[/quote]
The statement you said I intimated, I didn’t intimate. Where’s the confusion? I agreed that an absolute imperative to reproduce at every opportunity or to otherwise constantly maintain maximal reproductive or population levels is absurd (reproduction isn’t ALWAYS good) .
Just because you think it, doesn’t mean I said it. Even if every nation on Earth agreed to lessen the world population by reproducing less, the immediate next decision would be which nations still enjoy the ‘luxury’ of outbreeding others and which countries get compensated for making a greater sacrifice.
First, under-populating doesn’t work in the long run either. Second, it’s not about making sense or not. A lack of resources inherently precludes reproduction. If you think societies as a whole are strictly sensible, I question your contribution to a forum debate which is based upon several levels of values and beliefs-based decisions.
First, just because a society has enacted some form of birth control a) doesn’t mean it was effective (at best they slowed, not stopped growth) and b) doesn’t mean it was warranted. The British did some pretty horrible things to their underclass at the turn of the century to ward off ‘overpopulation’ and consumption of the World’s resources. Second, this isn’t what I asked for. I asked for a society that has literally bread itself out of existence. I’ll even enlarge the field to all vertebrates and populations in general.
I don’t think you need me to explain how it discriminates against homosexuals. Given your predisposition you should already have a pretty good idea, additionally, there are certainly more and better posts, blogs, and literature. Personally, I think it is weird that you a) don’t see how not enforcing (effectively repealing without repeal) a duly processed act of Congress that supports homosexual marriage doesn’t discriminate against the overwhelming number (46-52%) of people (overwhelmingly heterosexual) who support the act and b) group homosexuals and heterosexuals together, but discriminate against other marriages or sexual arrangements.
Shared ownership and medical visitation exist outside of marriage. If marriage isn’t about sex, reproduction, and/or cohabitation and/or codependency, why have it at all?
Wait, so if I have a kid (being heterosexual I happen to be predisposed to acts of conception), I get more money from the Gov’t? And if the gov’t makes a small investment in encouraging me to have kids they can reap all kinds of payouts? It’s almost like the gov’t is paying (compensating? reimbursing? investing in?) me to have kids because kids aren’t as beneficial to me as they are to gov’t and the society at large.
Sex, love, cohabitation, reproduction, shared ownership, medical visitation, monogamy, heterosexuality. Aside from more overtly religious aspects, these are, IMO the entire components that make up a traditional marriage. Please add or eliminate all that don’t apply to alternative marriage.
The problem is we all have to be grammar nazis to some degree if we are to be understood clearly, but agreed.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Why don’t they just give the same tax/legal benefits to gay couples and call their “marriage” something else?[/quote]
I’m not threatening a slippery slope, I’m suggesting a pursuit of logical conclusion. Common-law marriage arguably predates ‘traditional marriage’ or ‘ceremonial marriage’ (it certainly predates the church) and was based around stable cohabitation (which society likes) rather than sex or reproduction (which society also likes). IMO, if ten people live in the same house together for 30 yrs., 9 of them die in a plane crash (or come down with a terminal illness, or die in military service), why not consider the survivor as de facto heir? If 9 of them are citizens for the thirty years, certainly the 10th could be considered a citizen as well.
IMO, (religion aside) traditional marriage rolls sex/reproduction and stable cohabitation into a neat, incentivized package for people to contribute to a given society. If you’re going to separate the sex/reproduction from the stable cohabitation why not package up stable cohabitation and offer it to everyone equally. If it’s not about sex/reproduction or stable cohabitation, why should the gov’t have anything to do with marriage at all? I see many problems with the frivolous application of ‘traditional marriage’ that doesn’t benefit individuals or society. Extending ‘traditional marriage’ to homosexuals (or others) only exacerbates these problems. If traditional marriage is inconsistent with today’s sexual practices, it’s certainly out of date with today’s social, legal, and regional practices as well.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Why don’t they just give the same tax/legal benefits to gay couples and call their “marriage” something else?[/quote]
I’m not threatening a slippery slope, I’m suggesting a pursuit of logical conclusion. Common-law marriage arguably predates ‘traditional marriage’ or ‘ceremonial marriage’ (it certainly predates the church) and was based around stable cohabitation (which society likes) rather than sex or reproduction (which society also likes). IMO, if ten people live in the same house together for 30 yrs., 9 of them die in a plane crash (or come down with a terminal illness, or die in military service), why not consider the survivor as de facto heir? If 9 of them are citizens for the thirty years, certainly the 10th could be considered a citizen as well.
IMO, (religion aside) traditional marriage rolls sex/reproduction and stable cohabitation into a neat, incentivized package for people to contribute to a given society. If you’re going to separate the sex/reproduction from the stable cohabitation why not package up stable cohabitation and offer it to everyone equally. If it’s not about sex/reproduction or stable cohabitation, why should the gov’t have anything to do with marriage at all? I see many problems with the frivolous application of ‘traditional marriage’ that doesn’t benefit individuals or society. Extending ‘traditional marriage’ to homosexuals (or others) only exacerbates these problems. If traditional marriage is inconsistent with today’s sexual practices, it’s certainly out of date with today’s social, legal, and regional practices as well.[/quote]
Marriage benefits society beyond reproduction. It reduces promiscuity and associated STDs, provides an immediate financial safety net before needing to draw from public coffers, fosters mental and emotional health, and improves social stability. None of these is guaranteed, but they are at least fostered by marriage.
And yes, in the case of children (which both heterosexuals and gays have), marriage provides additional important benefits.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
Why don’t they just give the same tax/legal benefits to gay couples and call their “marriage” something else?[/quote]
I’m not threatening a slippery slope, I’m suggesting a pursuit of logical conclusion. Common-law marriage arguably predates ‘traditional marriage’ or ‘ceremonial marriage’ (it certainly predates the church) and was based around stable cohabitation (which society likes) rather than sex or reproduction (which society also likes). IMO, if ten people live in the same house together for 30 yrs., 9 of them die in a plane crash (or come down with a terminal illness, or die in military service), why not consider the survivor as de facto heir? If 9 of them are citizens for the thirty years, certainly the 10th could be considered a citizen as well.
IMO, (religion aside) traditional marriage rolls sex/reproduction and stable cohabitation into a neat, incentivized package for people to contribute to a given society. If you’re going to separate the sex/reproduction from the stable cohabitation why not package up stable cohabitation and offer it to everyone equally. If it’s not about sex/reproduction or stable cohabitation, why should the gov’t have anything to do with marriage at all? I see many problems with the frivolous application of ‘traditional marriage’ that doesn’t benefit individuals or society. Extending ‘traditional marriage’ to homosexuals (or others) only exacerbates these problems. If traditional marriage is inconsistent with today’s sexual practices, it’s certainly out of date with today’s social, legal, and regional practices as well.[/quote]
Marriage benefits society beyond reproduction. It reduces promiscuity and associated STDs, provides an immediate financial safety net before needing to draw from public coffers, fosters mental and emotional health, and improves social stability. None of these is guaranteed, but they are at least fostered by marriage.
And yes, in the case of children (which both heterosexuals and gays have), marriage provides additional important benefits.[/quote]
You are absolutely correct. So why would you or anyone else be against polygamy, or for that matter any other sort of alternative union to traditional marriage? It seems to me that there is bigotry involved, and I mean that. Your cause is great yet the cause of other alternative relationships seems unimportant to you.
Marriage benefits society beyond reproduction. It reduces promiscuity and associated STDs, provides an immediate financial safety net before needing to draw from public coffers, fosters mental and emotional health, and improves social stability. None of these is guaranteed, but they are at least fostered by marriage.[/quote]
I don’t entirely agree with you. I think there are other social mores and norms that value fidelity and are embodied by marriage that decrease promiscuity.
But this is more to my point, why are only hetero and homosexuals allowed to benefit from these attributes? If marriage is such an across-the-board boon regardless of sexual preference or reproductive status, why limit it to just hetero and homosexuals?
Again, why exclude a widowed father and his brother or a war veteran and his/her nurse from getting ‘married’ and raising a child regardless of sexual proclivities? Doesn’t it take a village to raise a child?
Marriage benefits society beyond reproduction. It reduces promiscuity and associated STDs, provides an immediate financial safety net before needing to draw from public coffers, fosters mental and emotional health, and improves social stability. None of these is guaranteed, but they are at least fostered by marriage.[/quote]
I don’t entirely agree with you. I think there are other social mores and norms that value fidelity and are embodied by marriage that decrease promiscuity.
But this is more to my point, why are only hetero and homosexuals allowed to benefit from these attributes? If marriage is such an across-the-board boon regardless of sexual preference or reproductive status, why limit it to just hetero and homosexuals?
Again, why exclude a widowed father and his brother or a war veteran and his/her nurse from getting ‘married’ and raising a child regardless of sexual proclivities? Doesn’t it take a village to raise a child?[/quote]
I never argued that marriage exclusively provides these benefits, only that it fosters them.
As long as the union is deemed substantially similar by the courts and is not otherwise detrimental, I agree with you that marriage should be available to anyone meeting that standard.