There is no compelling problem to fix here. Give it a rest.
[/quote]
Its frustrating that so many people will use the logic “Homosexuality is wrong! Just look at how many STDs there are in the gay community! And bisexual men spread them to the heterosexual community too!” (I’m not accusing you of saying any of this) Meanwhile, the idea that allowing homosexuals to marry would reduce the prevalence of STDs among homosexuals “Isn’t a good enough reason.”
It seems to add up to “STDs are a reason to hate gays, but not reason enough to allow them to marry”
What are these? How does marriage make heteroseuxals more psychologically “happy”? Why is affirmation of their relationship from the state going to provide “psychological benefits”?
[/quote]
You don’t think heterosexuals gain psychological benefits from marriage?
The argument was that single men are dangerous in many other ways. But, since that was never your argument, I’ll gladly drop the line of conversation.
Problem is everyones interpretation will be different based on a variety of factors. How do we know one persons interpretation isn’t influenced by conscious or subsconcious bias?[/quote]
Uh, who cares if it is or isn’t? The answer to this question is “so what?” This would be true of every single law passed ever. This isn’t useful or especially rational.
Well, no - the “religion” could be stridently anti-homosexual, but if that “religion” began utilizing marriage to solve other problems that didn’t have anything to do with homosexuality, it would be irrelevant in any event.
You aren’t focused on the function of marriage - you are focused on looking past the entire corpus of the obvious history and understanding of marriage to find some suggestable “taint” of intolerance and then argue that that “taint” somehow discredits the entire enterprise.
You strangely think a bias somehow transforms into a deliberate intent to create an institution that serves only the function to operate at the expense of a certain class of persons, despite the fact that the institution exists to remedy certain social problems and no one can reasonably dispute this.
Sorry, it’s unconvincing. There has never been a discriminatory intent to enact marriage at the expense of homosexuals. Marriage functions to affirmatively solve certain problems, and you simply can’t find your past that, no matter how hard you look.
You don’t think heterosexuals gain psychological benefits from marriage?[/quote]
No, I am asking you what they are (outside of the procreative angle, of course) - and, in particular, why these benefits are a function of having their relationship recoginzed and sanctioned by the state.
I’m game - in what other ways? And how does state-sanctioned marriage remedy these dangerous behaviors by single men?
You don’t think heterosexuals gain psychological benefits from marriage?[/quote]
No, I am asking you what they are (outside of the procreative angle, of course) - and, in particular, why these benefits are a function of having their relationship recoginzed and sanctioned by the state.
I’m game - in what other ways? And how does state-sanctioned marriage remedy these dangerous behaviors by single men?
[/quote]
Psychological benefits include having a clutural story to follow, affirmation by others that they’re “doing the right thing”, greater respect for their own relationships (especially marriages), social status, etc.
Other ways single men are said to be dangerous - to be honest, I’m not sure what the whole argument is - perhaps hyperaggresive tendencies such as violence and rape?
Psychological benefits include having a clutural story to follow, affirmation by others that they’re “doing the right thing”, greater respect for their own relationships (especially marriages), social status, etc.[/quote]
I am not sure I agree with all of this, but in any event, it misses the point - what problems would marriage solve? Your take seems to be that marriage is purely symbolic - fine, but you never say why “permanent coupledom” is in and of itself good for heterosexuals to the point the state should provide this “symbolism” to heterosexuals.
Why is it “the right thing”? You don’t provide an answer to why this is. We know it’s the “right thing” in reality because of marriage’s ties to ordering society w/r/t procreation, etc. - and that society is better with it than the one chaotic one without it, all well-documented - but we are taking that issue off the table. Why would permanent coupling be “the right thing” for heterosexuals such that they should aspire to it and the state’s sanctioning of it?
Psychological benefits include having a clutural story to follow, affirmation by others that they’re “doing the right thing”, greater respect for their own relationships (especially marriages), social status, etc.[/quote]
I am not sure I agree with all of this, but in any event, it misses the point - what problems would marriage solve? Your take seems to be that marriage is purely symbolic - fine, but you never say why “permanent coupledom” is in and of itself good for heterosexuals to the point the state should provide this “symbolism” to heterosexuals.
Why is it “the right thing”? You don’t provide an answer to why this is. We know it’s the “right thing” in reality because of marriage’s ties to ordering society w/r/t procreation, etc. - and that society is better with it than the one chaotic one without it, all well-documented - but we are taking that issue off the table. Why would permanent coupling be “the right thing” for heterosexuals such that they should aspire to it and the state’s sanctioning of it?[/quote]
I’m not sure I agree with your assessment that I think marriage is purely symbolic.
Also, lets say you’re right - without the procreation factor, the government has little incentive to implement marriage laws. Even if that is the case, so what? We’re not talking about a country of just homosexual men, we’re talking about the laws as they apply to this country, where both homosexual and heterosexuals (and all other orientations) live.
I’m not sure I agree with your assessment that I think marriage is purely symbolic.[/quote]
Ok, so tell me - what is inherently good about permanent coupling such that it benefits society and we want to recognize it in law?
No, you answered my question for me. Homosexuals are, in susbtance, the exact same thing as heterosexuals removed of all procreation concerns in the scenario I provided. As such, you said it best - the government has little incentive to implement marriage laws for them.
Which brings me to the point I’ve always made - there is no real policy reason to enact gay marriage (as you recognized) and the only reason anyone really wants it enacted is the idea that, well, if you give it to one type of relationship, you have to give it to the other(s).
The project of gay marriage is about symbolism and is entirely therapeutic - gay marriage proponenst are only after cultural and social affirmation of the relationship.
Here is why this is so, explained easily - if the state abolished state-sanctioned marriage tomorrow (and thus no one’s marriage would be recognized civilly as a matter of law), gay marriage advocates would pack up and go home. They wouldn’t be clamoring for marriage as a public good in and of itself that should just plain exist because of all its benefits. No - they would then be “equal”, and that would be the end of it.
In other words, there’s no argument that marriage for homosexuals should exist independent of and irrespective of heterosexual marriage. That was the point demonstrated by the hypothetical - there is simply no good reason to have marriage in that event - it serves no purpose.
We should only enact gay marriage if it would be worthwhile independent of what heterosexuals do or don’t do - and no one has credibly made that argument that it solves some social problem or why permanent coupling is better and should be sanctioned by the state. And, as you noted through the hyopthetical, it just ain’t there.
That’s what all this is about: cultural validation - it isn’t that society needs to enact gay marriage to remedy some social problem, it’s more of a self-esteem project.
But, the relationships are not the same, and they are not equal in any sense of the word - they are very different, apples and oranges. And so, the isntitution doesn’t make sense for both.
I’m not sure I agree with your assessment that I think marriage is purely symbolic.[/quote]
Ok, so tell me - what is inherently good about permanent coupling such that it benefits society and we want to recognize it in law?
No, you answered my question for me. Homosexuals are, in susbtance, the exact same thing as heterosexuals removed of all procreation concerns in the scenario I provided. As such, you said it best - the government has little incentive to implement marriage laws for them.
Which brings me to the point I’ve always made - there is no real policy reason to enact gay marriage (as you recognized) and the only reason anyone really wants it enacted is the idea that, well, if you give it to one type of relationship, you have to give it to the other(s).
The project of gay marriage is about symbolism and is entirely therapeutic - gay marriage proponenst are only after cultural and social affirmation of the relationship.
Here is why this is so, explained easily - if the state abolished state-sanctioned marriage tomorrow (and thus no one’s marriage would be recognized civilly as a matter of law), gay marriage advocates would pack up and go home. They wouldn’t be clamoring for marriage as a public good in and of itself that should just plain exist because of all its benefits. No - they would then be “equal”, and that would be the end of it.
In other words, there’s no argument that marriage for homosexuals should exist independent of and irrespective of heterosexual marriage. That was the point demonstrated by the hypothetical - there is simply no good reason to have marriage in that event - it serves no purpose.
We should only enact gay marriage if it would be worthwhile independent of what heterosexuals do or don’t do - and no one has credibly made that argument that it solves some social problem or why permanent coupling is better and should be sanctioned by the state. And, as you noted through the hyopthetical, it just ain’t there.
That’s what all this is about: cultural validation - it isn’t that society needs to enact gay marriage to remedy some social problem, it’s more of a self-esteem project.
But, the relationships are not the same, and they are not equal in any sense of the word - they are very different, apples and oranges. And so, the isntitution doesn’t make sense for both.[/quote]
Would you say the government has specific reason not to implement gay marriage?
Would you say the government has specific reason not to implement gay marriage?[/quote]
Certainly. It is a waste of legislative resources that generates no discernible public good, and its enactment opens the door to dissembling marriage and the benefits it provides, which - in this day and age of seeing the institution faltering and the corrosive effects of that faltering on children and society generally - is the opposite of what we should be doing.
I’m not sure I agree with your assessment that I think marriage is purely symbolic.[/quote]
Ok, so tell me - what is inherently good about permanent coupling such that it benefits society and we want to recognize it in law?[/quote]
All of the benefits I’ve mentioned, that heterosexuals enjoy. I’d like to point out that the common perception of marriage is most certainly not “ordered procreation”. Marriage, to the vast majority of people, is a matter of emotional connection (usually involving sexual contact), companionship, and formation of families (sense of belonging, security, etc).
In all of those ways, homosexual couplings are equal to heterosexual couplings.
Would you say the government has specific reason not to implement gay marriage?[/quote]
Certainly. It is a waste of legislative resources that generates no discernible public good, and its enactment opens the door to dissembling marriage and the benefits it provides, which - in this day and age of seeing the institution faltering and the corrosive effects of that faltering on children and society generally - is the opposite of what we should be doing. [/quote]
All of the benefits I’ve mentioned, that heterosexuals enjoy. I’d like to point out that the common perception of marriage is most certainly not “ordered procreation”. Marriage, to the vast majority of people, is a matter of emotional connection (usually involving sexual contact), companionship, and formation of families (sense of belonging, security, etc).[/quote]
You still aren’t answering the question - why is this inherently good? And why does the state need to sanction it?
You simply assume that it is “good” and then say heterosexuals enjoy it because it is “good”. I’m not worried about what people enjoy - people can connect emotionally, etc. without a civil certificate and a legal proceeding necessary to separate. That isn’t the issue. I want to know what benefits society has in enacting a law that recognizes marriage - why is is so “good”?
You keep analyzing “marriage” from the perspective of what an individual wants/feels - that isn’t what is at issue, because individuals don’t need marriage laws to have that experience. Society passes laws because society presumes the law provides a public good. What is the public good that marriage laws provide, setting aside procreative issues?
Just tell me why society has a vested interest in encouraging permanent coupling (outside of procreative issues).
From a policy standpoint? Don’t enact alternatives that undermine the institution, and possibly ratchet up “no fault” divorce laws where divorce would be tougher.
Much of the improvement in this area, however, is cultural, and there isn’t necessarily a legal fix.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]
Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?
What are they thinking, really.[/quote]
You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]
This is a common misperception. My partner and I have done everything we can possibly do through our attorney, but we are still second class citizens in many ways. We don’t have social security survivorship, can’t file joint tax returns, can’t adopt children in some states, can’t immigrate our partners into the country, etc. [/quote]
Can’t procreate… I don’t understand how this makes you second class citizens. Originally, marriage benefits were given because it is in the states best interest to have more people (children), so if you can’t do that then why should you benefit like a married couple?
From a policy standpoint? Don’t enact alternatives that undermine the institution, and possibly ratchet up “no fault” divorce laws where divorce would be tougher.
Much of the improvement in this area, however, is cultural, and there isn’t necessarily a legal fix.
[/quote]
Was thinking about this today. Do you think marriage still effectively orders procreation, as it is today?
I also still think seeing sexual activity/coupling as “just an activity” is a bit myopic.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
It wont happen forlife. Also technically the JOD still has to defend the bill. It will just be put at the back of the line. And like Orion said why do the Homos want to marry so bad? Like I told you before I have nothing against you nor the gay community.
[/quote]
Yeah, who likes being able to visit their partner in the hospital? Or have power of attorney?
What are they thinking, really.[/quote]
You can do that now, it’s called paper work.[/quote]
This is a common misperception. My partner and I have done everything we can possibly do through our attorney, but we are still second class citizens in many ways. We don’t have social security survivorship, can’t file joint tax returns, can’t adopt children in some states, can’t immigrate our partners into the country, etc. [/quote]
Can’t procreate… I don’t understand how this makes you second class citizens. Originally, marriage benefits were given because it is in the states best interest to have more people (children), so if you can’t do that then why should you benefit like a married couple?[/quote]
It’s hard to understand that most people view marriage as an expression of love and commitment, centered around companionship. Its only the narrative we see every day, in every media outlet, all the time.
If you want to run with the point that marriage is a “procreation orderer”, go ahead. Don’t play dumb on why a gay couple might want to adopt or a gay person might want to immigrate a partner into the country.
Again I’d like to know if there’s any hard information on the original intent of marriage. It’d be an interesting project.
Also, the kind of marriage they enshrined in law was totally different from marriage today. From everything I can understand, marriage was a decision made by the parents of the married, not the people themselves. Divorce was unheard of.
Now two people can and will marry without consent of their parents (even against it). Divorces are increasingly common, including no fault divorce.
You’ll notice these two major changes obviously increase the autonomy of heterosexuals (especially men). Even if the quest for gay marriage is an entirely symbolic endeavor in the name of equality, its noteworthy that most support (or dont care about) other changes which undermine the effectiveness of marriage as a procreation orderer (to a much larger extent than gay marriage ever could), but rail against gay marriage on those very grounds.