Homosexuality, Choice or Genetic

[Lorisco]

[quote]orion wrote:

Anyway, my point is , and it still stands, that a certain percentage of homosexuals in the extended family could have survival benefits, even for the genes of the homosexuals themselves.

Like the worker bees that never procreate themselves but spread their genes by helping the queen spreading her genes.
[/quote]

I agree that it is possible that the homosexual “gene”, if it exists, could have future benefits or it could just be a defect. And yes, nature makes defects or traits that are non-functional in the current environment. But since this kind of process is very rare in complex organisms it is likely that it is a defect that will be weeded out.

Or just as likely that it isn’t a gene at all and that it is more social/psychological in nature and would be removed as an expectable option in the future based on social norms, etc. It’s hard to say how it will play out in the future.

[Lorisco]

[quote]orion wrote:
MMG wrote:
HotCarl28 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

u falsely seem to give purpose to evolution

"no scientific reason for nature to purposely create gays. "

nature does nothing purposefully and i see this misconception crop up all over this thread… many posters assume some teleological reason behind evolutionary forces when there is none

I think he meant that there is no selective advantage for there to be gays and so why are they present in nature.

Whereas the real question would be, IF they ARE present on nature , WHAT IS THEIR SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE?

That there is one is really undebatable, nature has already answered that question by making so many.

[/quote]

A tip on evolutionary theory: differences created in nature do not always turn out to be advantageous. That is why there are a lot of species that no longer exist. Their “mutation” was incompatible with the changing environment, so they were wiped out.

[orion]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
MMG wrote:
HotCarl28 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

u falsely seem to give purpose to evolution

"no scientific reason for nature to purposely create gays. "

nature does nothing purposefully and i see this misconception crop up all over this thread… many posters assume some teleological reason behind evolutionary forces when there is none

I think he meant that there is no selective advantage for there to be gays and so why are they present in nature.

Whereas the real question would be, IF they ARE present on nature , WHAT IS THEIR SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE?

That there is one is really undebatable, nature has already answered that question by making so many.

A tip on evolutionary theory: differences created in nature do not always turn out to be advantageous. That is why there are a lot of species that no longer exist. Their “mutation” was incompatible with the changing environment, so they were wiped out.

[/quote]

Sure, do you also know how incredibly fast they are weeded out?

Sometimes it is a matter of decades.

Strange that homosexuality is still around isn`t it?

Anyway, my main point was that the argument that homosexuality must be “unnatural” because they rarely procreate is way, way, way, too simple.

We don´t know and cheap pseudo-darwinism does not help.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
No: Having the law assign a particular benefit based on a rational objective of government, and having a segment of society that chooses not to avail itself of that benefit, is what we’re discussing.
[/quote]

Many homosexuals would prefer to avail themselves of that benefit, but are (so far) excluded.

Let’s get this out here: Race is a poor analogy in this case because of the fact it has almost no bearing on a rational policy goal and can only be for a discriminatory purpose outside of a few obvious situations (e.g., a grant for sickle-cell anemia research limited to blacks might have a rational policy reason).

Also, let’s get to another point now. The idea that no one is disallowed to get a benefit holds in every context except for race - and this is because of the special nature of race. It’s an accepted fact that race is not a rational basis, and does not correlate with any rational bases, as a cause for differential treatment (minus a very few scenarios such as the sickle-cell anemia example above). See below for how race and gender are not the same.

Yes, NOW its accepted that race is not a rational bias; the same way its accepted now that sex is a rational bias. Thats what I’m challenging. What “rational policy goal” is attained by denying same sex marriage?

No, it’s simply an extension of the idea that the government can use a rational reason for defining the limits of a benefit it chooses to create.

Again, still fail to see that the partners being two men or two women is a rational reason for such a limit.

Speaking of bad logic, let me explain a little bit of logic to you here. Just because bigotry is a possible cause for a discriminatory treatment does not mean that it is a cause. In other words, you cannot look at a situation that could have been caused by bigotry and discrimination and determine simply from that fact that it was caused by discrimination.

This is true, but neither proves nor disproves yours or anyone elses motives.

Each and every time the government creates a benefit, it creates limits on who can avail himself of it, or around the circumstances that it can be obtained. Many tax deductions are phased out at certain income levels. This means that people earning greater amounts than the thresholds set cannot avail themselves of those tax benefits and are thus legally discriminated against. This could have been done because Congress is bigoted against higher-income people; or, it could have been done because there was a rational policy reason to focus the benefit on lower-income people. Another example: voting is limited to citizens 18 years of age or older, and thus younger citizens are legally discriminated against. This could be because the government is biased against 17 year olds, or it could be because there is a rational policy reason.

You’re operating on the same fallacy: that, since some discrimination is not bigotry, this particular discrimination is not bigotry. Also, that, since one could say that any particular discrimination is bigotry (even if it isn’t), that takes away from calling a bigoted discrimination bigoted.

A corporation refusing to promote a woman is bigoted, even if women cannot play in the NBA. A company that discriminates against hiring hispanic employees is bigoted, even if people under 18 cannot vote.

It sounds like we can agree that the key issue here is determining if sex is a rational reason for stopping two people from getting married. If there is rational reason, then it is not bigotry, if there is no rational reason, it is. Agreed?

Note that it’s not necessary that you agree with the policy reason. Maybe the line should be drawn at 16 and not at 18. This is immaterial to whether it’s based in irrational discrimination. If you think that infants should vote, then you might consider it irrational discrimination, but arguing about line drawing concedes rationality for the point.

Yes, I get the point: In some cases, discrimination is not bigotry; however, that has no bearing on if it is or is not in this particular case.

Note also that the policy reason does not need to hold true in each individual case in order to be a rational, valid policy reason across society generally. More to that later.

No, your point was that race as a category was equivalent of gender as a category when it came to whether the government could have a rational basis to create a limit on a benefit. Your analogy does not hold water.

My point was that your logic could easily be used to defend an irrational basis for a limit, and it still could. Race was just an example of a number of irrational possibilities that could be defended by saying “they can still get married!”.

If A then B does not mean if B then A. You’ve yet to refute the idea that there is a rational basis for defining marriage with respect to a union that will tend to result in children. And I’ve suggested a few different examples over the course of this thread.

Are there legal restritions against people who are sterile or infertile being married? If a man has a vasectomy, does he now have any less right to marry, since he can no longer produce children?

Why isn’t the issue of marriage being for those who will have kids brought up here?

Can homosexuals not adopt? Can a person who is bisexual have children from a past (hetero) relationship, but now be in a homosexual relationship?

Why should children in these situations suffer?

Lastly, and probably most importantly: Will allowing gays to marry each other suddenly take away the benefits (as they apply to having and raising children) from any others?

BTW, I like your draft reasoning. It shows a rational basis for a gender-based legal discrimination based on society-wide familial concerns.

Thanks, but that doesnt mean disallowing same sex marriage is a rational basis.

A telltale sign of not understanding the argument is an attempt to refute a point about the rationality of a policy considered generally over society by pointing out individual cases in which it doesn’t apply.

It doesn’t matter whether a particular marriage between an individual man and an individual woman is capable of producing children; it matters whether marriages between a man and a woman will generally result in children.

So then, since, generally, those over the age of 80 cannot have children, it would be a rational basis to say that they cannot marry either? Remember, a marriage between them will “generally” not result in children.

The government can take policies aimed at encouraging those couples - two-gender couples whose union tends to produce children - to stay together in order to promote stable environments for children irrespective of whether marriage is “sacred.” In fact, it makes more sense for the government to take those positions when marriages seem to be under more stress than it would in a society with a divorce rate of 0%.

I really dont see how disallowing those who cannot promotes an action from those who can.

To explain: would a man and a woman, on the verge of parenthood, decide NOT to get married, simply because homosexuals can? Does homosexuals marrying take away the benefits heterosexuals have? Not at all.

Does making marriage exclusive to heterosexuals make it more appealing to heterosexuals who would otherwise be uninterested? Not at all.

So, yes, the government has rational basis for encouraging child making/raising couples to get married, however, the government does not have rational basis for disallowing nonchild raising couples to marry.

Also, it is not bigotry against homosexuals to, say, give married couples with children tax breaks in the form of X amount per child, because homosexuals can “have” kids (adoption, etc), even if homosexual sex does not produce children.

Besides, there are many more aspects to marriage than simply how it applies to children. Hospital visitation rights, rights of estate, tax laws which would be present with or without children.

What you have, again, is a rational basis for giving benefits to couples with children, not to disallow other benefits from couples without.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
No: Having the law assign a particular benefit based on a rational objective of government, and having a segment of society that chooses not to avail itself of that benefit, is what we’re discussing.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Many homosexuals would prefer to avail themselves of that benefit, but are (so far) excluded.[/quote]

No, they would prefer if the structure of the benefit were changed to fit what they want to do.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:

Speaking of bad logic, let me explain a little bit of logic to you here. Just because bigotry is a possible cause for a discriminatory treatment does not mean that it is a cause. In other words, you cannot look at a situation that could have been caused by bigotry and discrimination and determine simply from that fact that it was caused by discrimination.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

This is true, but neither proves nor disproves yours or anyone elses motives.[/quote]

There is no need to disprove an allegation of bigotry. You must prove it. The assumption is its absence, unless and until you prove it. Racism/sexism/whateverism is the accusation that needs to be proved, not the baseline from which we start.

BostonBarrister wrote:

Each and every time the government creates a benefit, it creates limits on who can avail himself of it, or around the circumstances that it can be obtained. Many tax deductions are phased out at certain income levels. This means that people earning greater amounts than the thresholds set cannot avail themselves of those tax benefits and are thus legally discriminated against. This could have been done because Congress is bigoted against higher-income people; or, it could have been done because there was a rational policy reason to focus the benefit on lower-income people. Another example: voting is limited to citizens 18 years of age or older, and thus younger citizens are legally discriminated against. This could be because the government is biased against 17 year olds, or it could be because there is a rational policy reason.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

You’re operating on the same fallacy: that, since some discrimination is not bigotry, this particular discrimination is not bigotry. Also, that, since one could say that any particular discrimination is bigotry (even if it isn’t), that takes away from calling a bigoted discrimination bigoted.

A corporation refusing to promote a woman is bigoted, even if women cannot play in the NBA. A company that discriminates against hiring hispanic employees is bigoted, even if people under 18 cannot vote.

No, I’m operating under the idea that you cannot prove your accusation. See above.

As to your examples, those are both irrelevant to the point and incorrect in a manner that illustrates what I’m trying to say: you can’t assume your conclusion. It’s only bigoted discrimination if a company refuses to promote a woman because she’s a woman. It’s only racially bigoted discrimination by a company if it refuses to hire Hispanics because they are Hispanic.

[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
It sounds like we can agree that the key issue here is determining if sex is a rational reason for stopping two people from getting married. If there is rational reason, then it is not bigotry, if there is no rational reason, it is. Agreed?[/quote]

No. The issue here is determining whether promoting mixed-gender unions is a rational reason for handing out a tax benefit. If there is a rational reason, then it’s not bigotry; if there is not a rational reason, then it is bigotry.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Note also that the policy reason does not need to hold true in each individual case in order to be a rational, valid policy reason across society generally. More to that later.

…

If A then B does not mean if B then A. You’ve yet to refute the idea that there is a rational basis for defining marriage with respect to a union that will tend to result in children. And I’ve suggested a few different examples over the course of this thread.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Are there legal restritions against people who are sterile or infertile being married? If a man has a vasectomy, does he now have any less right to marry, since he can no longer produce children?

Why isn’t the issue of marriage being for those who will have kids brought up here?

Can homosexuals not adopt? Can a person who is bisexual have children from a past (hetero) relationship, but now be in a homosexual relationship?

Why should children in these situations suffer?[/quote]

These are all irrelevant to the question of whether the government has a rational basis to hand out a benefit to support mixed-gender couples that will tend to produce children. The relevant question is that, in the aggregate, across society, is the policy reasonably likely to have the desired effect: the encouragement of the formation and survival of those unions.

Your reasoning appears to be that if the government does not discriminate in one case, it must be irrational to discriminate in another case. This assumption is flawed on its face if the situations are not close from the government’s perspective. There are cost/benefit and privacy issues involved with trying to control the sterile or impotent.

The benefit is also not a direct benefit to kids - it’s an indirect benefit to encourage couples to stay together to raise the kids that are likely to be the products of marriage - and maybe even a benefit to encourage those couples to produce kids, but that’s more indirect. If they wanted to give a tax cut on the basis of having dependents, they could just do it that way (and they do - that’s a separate benefit that can be claimed by single, gay, straight, married and non-parents with dependents).

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Lastly, and probably most importantly: Will allowing gays to marry each other suddenly take away the benefits (as they apply to having and raising children) from any others?[/quote]

This is almost a relevant question. The relevant version of this question would be whether there is a rational basis for believing that extending the benefit to same-sex couples could be counter-productive to the goal of the benefit, which is the encouragement of the formation and survival of mixed-gender couples.

To answer that, review these:

Asymmetrical Information

somerville.pdf

http://www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107

The rest of your points can be similarly answered by reviewing the above, so I’m not reproducing them to avoid redundancy.

[BostonBarrister]

There was one issue you brought up that I addressed at the genesis of this discussion, but we’ll rehash.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

…

Besides, there are many more aspects to marriage than simply how it applies to children. Hospital visitation rights, rights of estate, tax laws which would be present with or without children.

The tax laws are the benefit we’re discussing.

The other rights can all be easily accomplished through private contracts.

This is actually preferable from an individual’s point of view because you don’t need to accept “one-size-fits-all” precedents - which is why it’s better to have a will than to rely on estate law. It’s preferable to contract ex ante about child custody and other such issues if you’re going to adopt, rather than sue each other afterward. It’s more efficient to deal with property ownership and division by ex ante contract than to rely on inapplicable legal precedents on allocation via divorce and child support payments.

This does not mean it would be a bad thing for the state to create some form of “domestic partnership” for same-sex couples to provide a set of pre-packaged legal rights if that’s something people want. My personal view is that such an option should be different from “traditional marriage” and also not available to different-gender couples, for reasons elucidated in the links I provided in my prior post.

[BodyBldgBabe]

I think this thread needs pictures!!

[BodyBldgBabe]

Cute panties…

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
No: Having the law assign a particular benefit based on a rational objective of government, and having a segment of society that chooses not to avail itself of that benefit, is what we’re discussing.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Many homosexuals would prefer to avail themselves of that benefit, but are (so far) excluded.

No, they would prefer if the structure of the benefit were changed to fit what they want to do.

I don’t see what about the benefit would change, other than the fact of the gender of the persons involved. A gay marriage would be the same as a straight marriage (it would be no more important a distinction than an interracial marriage or a second marriage or a commonlaw marriage).

BostonBarrister wrote:

Speaking of bad logic, let me explain a little bit of logic to you here. Just because bigotry is a possible cause for a discriminatory treatment does not mean that it is a cause. In other words, you cannot look at a situation that could have been caused by bigotry and discrimination and determine simply from that fact that it was caused by discrimination.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

This is true, but neither proves nor disproves yours or anyone elses motives.

There is no need to disprove an allegation of bigotry. You must prove it. The assumption is its absence, unless and until you prove it. Racism/sexism/whateverism is the accusation that needs to be proved, not the baseline from which we start.
[/quote]

And I’ve already outlined what I see as being evidence of bigotry.

BostonBarrister wrote:

Each and every time the government creates a benefit, it creates limits on who can avail himself of it, or around the circumstances that it can be obtained. Many tax deductions are phased out at certain income levels. This means that people earning greater amounts than the thresholds set cannot avail themselves of those tax benefits and are thus legally discriminated against. This could have been done because Congress is bigoted against higher-income people; or, it could have been done because there was a rational policy reason to focus the benefit on lower-income people. Another example: voting is limited to citizens 18 years of age or older, and thus younger citizens are legally discriminated against. This could be because the government is biased against 17 year olds, or it could be because there is a rational policy reason.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

You’re operating on the same fallacy: that, since some discrimination is not bigotry, this particular discrimination is not bigotry. Also, that, since one could say that any particular discrimination is bigotry (even if it isn’t), that takes away from calling a bigoted discrimination bigoted.

A corporation refusing to promote a woman is bigoted, even if women cannot play in the NBA. A company that discriminates against hiring hispanic employees is bigoted, even if people under 18 cannot vote.

No, I’m operating under the idea that you cannot prove your accusation. See above.

As to your examples, those are both irrelevant to the point and incorrect in a manner that illustrates what I’m trying to say: you can’t assume your conclusion. It’s only bigoted discrimination if a company refuses to promote a woman because she’s a woman. It’s only racially bigoted discrimination by a company if it refuses to hire Hispanics because they are Hispanic.

Do you think the people in either company will come out and say it? Or will they find “other reasons” to “happen to end up with” the same result?

This reminds me of the racist grandfather laws for voting. See, for a little while there, once it was illegal to say that blacks couldnt vote, the law was that you could vote if your grandfather could, and if your grandfather couldnt, you couldnt.

This worked well for racists who didnt want blacks to vote: suddenly blacks still couldnt vote, but it wasnt because they were black…its just that the new rule (whoops!) prevented them from doing so.

So now, its not “Its because they’re gay!” its “Its because they dont have kids!”… now the rule (whoops!) is still against them, but, of course, not because the government is trying to force people to be heterosexuals.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
It sounds like we can agree that the key issue here is determining if sex is a rational reason for stopping two people from getting married. If there is rational reason, then it is not bigotry, if there is no rational reason, it is. Agreed?

No. The issue here is determining whether promoting mixed-gender unions is a rational reason for handing out a tax benefit. If there is a rational reason, then it’s not bigotry; if there is not a rational reason, then it is bigotry.

The benefit can promote mixed-gender and same gender unions, to the same benefit for all. There is no rational reason to disallow the latter as it does not affect the former.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Note also that the policy reason does not need to hold true in each individual case in order to be a rational, valid policy reason across society generally. More to that later.

…

If A then B does not mean if B then A. You’ve yet to refute the idea that there is a rational basis for defining marriage with respect to a union that will tend to result in children. And I’ve suggested a few different examples over the course of this thread.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Are there legal restritions against people who are sterile or infertile being married? If a man has a vasectomy, does he now have any less right to marry, since he can no longer produce children?

Why isn’t the issue of marriage being for those who will have kids brought up here?

Can homosexuals not adopt? Can a person who is bisexual have children from a past (hetero) relationship, but now be in a homosexual relationship?

Why should children in these situations suffer?

These are all irrelevant to the question of whether the government has a rational basis to hand out a benefit to support mixed-gender couples that will tend to produce children. The relevant question is that, in the aggregate, across society, is the policy reasonably likely to have the desired effect: the encouragement of the formation and survival of those unions.

Again, allowing same sex couples the same benefits would not have a negative impact on enouraging the formation and survival of different sex couples.

Your reasoning appears to be that if the government does not discriminate in one case, it must be irrational to discriminate in another case. This assumption is flawed on its face if the situations are not close from the government’s perspective. There are cost/benefit and privacy issues involved with trying to control the sterile or impotent.

That is not my reasoning, I’ve already explained. There are rational reasons the government can discriminate, and irrational ones. The one we’re debating, now, is, in my opinion, an irrational one. Sometimes, to explain my position, I’ll compare it to other irrational reasons. This does not mean I think the government can never discriminate for any reason.

Consider the fact that the government doesnt need to control the marriage habits of the sterile or infertile or impotent; even with those minorities in the picture, marriage benefits (as you said) still give just as much incentive and help to child rearing couples.

Now, consider that homosexuals are what…6? 8 percent of the population? Also, the number of homosexuals who have kids from adoption or previous relationships… wouldnt gays just be another minority that has no bearing on the government helping people who want to have kids?

The benefit is also not a direct benefit to kids - it’s an indirect benefit to encourage couples to stay together to raise the kids that are likely to be the products of marriage - and maybe even a benefit to encourage those couples to produce kids, but that’s more indirect. If they wanted to give a tax cut on the basis of having dependents, they could just do it that way (and they do - that’s a separate benefit that can be claimed by single, gay, straight, married and non-parents with dependents).

So wait a second.

First, you argue that marriage should be an exclusive option for heterosexuals, since they are the most likely to have dependents.

Now, you argue that marriage is not necessary for people with dependents.

So, whats the point of marriage again? If its for people to have kids, why not just give tax cuts on the basis of having depenents? That would certainly give just as many people incentive to have kids.

[/quote]

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Lastly, and probably most importantly: Will allowing gays to marry each other suddenly take away the benefits (as they apply to having and raising children) from any others?

This is almost a relevant question. The relevant version of this question would be whether there is a rational basis for believing that extending the benefit to same-sex couples could be counter-productive to the goal of the benefit, which is the encouragement of the formation and survival of mixed-gender couples.

To answer that, review these:

Asymmetrical Information

somerville.pdf

http://www.gideonsblog.blogspot.com/2003_07_01_gideonsblog_archive.html#105952165206390107

The rest of your points can be similarly answered by reviewing the above, so I’m not reproducing them to avoid redundancy.
[/quote]

I’ll read over those and finish my reply later.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
There was one issue you brought up that I addressed at the genesis of this discussion, but we’ll rehash.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

…

Besides, there are many more aspects to marriage than simply how it applies to children. Hospital visitation rights, rights of estate, tax laws which would be present with or without children.

The tax laws are the benefit we’re discussing.

The other rights can all be easily accomplished through private contracts.

This is actually preferable from an individual’s point of view because you don’t need to accept “one-size-fits-all” precedents - which is why it’s better to have a will than to rely on estate law. It’s preferable to contract ex ante about child custody and other such issues if you’re going to adopt, rather than sue each other afterward. It’s more efficient to deal with property ownership and division by ex ante contract than to rely on inapplicable legal precedents on allocation via divorce and child support payments.

This does not mean it would be a bad thing for the state to create some form of “domestic partnership” for same-sex couples to provide a set of pre-packaged legal rights if that’s something people want. My personal view is that such an option should be different from “traditional marriage” and also not available to different-gender couples, for reasons elucidated in the links I provided in my prior post.[/quote]

So you agree that gays should have access to the same legal rights as straights… but they should have to do more paperwork? Instead of one contract (marriage), they should have several contracts that basically add up to marriage (for estate, for tax benefits, for custody, etc, etc, etc)?

I’m really trying to understand your postion here.

What, specifically, about a domestic partnership would be different than traditional marriage? Other than the title and the respective genders of the people involved, I mean.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

The first brings up some interesting topics and is well written; I’m on my way out, but a few things come to mind:

There seems to be some extreme paranoia that same sex marriage will ultimately result in a 0% childbirth rate. While I can see where making it more socially acceptable for people to not have kids would result in less kids, it sounds a little ridiculous to ignore biological programming; that is, the innate desire to reproduce. Humans were having kids long before “marriage” was ever considered.

Is this really a concern? Is there really that much “all or nothing” kind of thinking?

Secondly, as a country, and, further, as a species, are we facing problems with underpopulation or overpopulation? Now, please, dont reply with some strawman like “We should just all stop having kids and die as a species!”, because thats not my point.

My point is, if we are having overpopulation problems with our current structure, what would the cost/benefit ration of something that decreases the expanse rate of the population (read: not decrease the population) be?

[zephead4747]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The first brings up some interesting topics and is well written; I’m on my way out, but a few things come to mind:

There seems to be some extreme paranoia that same sex marriage will ultimately result in a 0% childbirth rate. While I can see where making it more socially acceptable for people to not have kids would result in less kids, it sounds a little ridiculous to ignore biological programming; that is, the innate desire to reproduce. Humans were having kids long before “marriage” was ever considered.

Is this really a concern? Is there really that much “all or nothing” kind of thinking?

Secondly, as a country, and, further, as a species, are we facing problems with underpopulation or overpopulation? Now, please, dont reply with some strawman like “We should just all stop having kids and die as a species!”, because thats not my point.

My point is, if we are having overpopulation problems with our current structure, what would the cost/benefit ration of something that decreases the expanse rate of the population (read: not decrease the population) be?[/quote]

I think 2 children per couple, and at birth the child is bound to one or the other parent. As in if they divorced and remarried, their one child would count towards the 2 in their new relationship. After 2 were born, extra children would have a heafty fine attached, based on how much $$ you make, so rich can’t just pay their way to more children easily.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

And I’ve already outlined what I see as being evidence of bigotry.[/quote]

Yes, but the baseline assumption is you need to prove your accusation. Your reasons were all conclusions that included your assumptions without proving them or relied on the “If A then B equals if B then A” logical fallacy.

[quote]
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Do you think the people in either company will come out and say it? Or will they find “other reasons” to “happen to end up with” the same result?[/quote]

We’re not assuming the cause from the result again, are we? It’s no wonder we end up with quotas out of good intentions… I blame the public schools.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

This reminds me of the racist grandfather laws for voting. See, for a little while there, once it was illegal to say that blacks couldnt vote, the law was that you could vote if your grandfather could, and if your grandfather couldnt, you couldnt.

This worked well for racists who didnt want blacks to vote: suddenly blacks still couldnt vote, but it wasnt because they were black…its just that the new rule (whoops!) prevented them from doing so.

So now, its not “Its because they’re gay!” its “Its because they dont have kids!”… now the rule (whoops!) is still against them, but, of course, not because the government is trying to force people to be heterosexuals.[/quote]

Another bad analogy to race. Aside from the fact that race and sexual preference/gender aren’t analogous, what was the separate, non-racial and rational reason for the grandfather clause laws?

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
It sounds like we can agree that the key issue here is determining if sex is a rational reason for stopping two people from getting married. If there is rational reason, then it is not bigotry, if there is no rational reason, it is. Agreed?

BostonBarrister wrote:
No. The issue here is determining whether promoting mixed-gender unions is a rational reason for handing out a tax benefit. If there is a rational reason, then it’s not bigotry; if there is not a rational reason, then it is bigotry.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The benefit can promote mixed-gender and same gender unions, to the same benefit for all. There is no rational reason to disallow the latter as it does not affect the former.[/quote]

You keep mistaking stating your conclusions for making a persuasive argument.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Note also that the policy reason does not need to hold true in each individual case in order to be a rational, valid policy reason across society generally. More to that later.

…

If A then B does not mean if B then A. You’ve yet to refute the idea that there is a rational basis for defining marriage with respect to a union that will tend to result in children. And I’ve suggested a few different examples over the course of this thread.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Are there legal restritions against people who are sterile or infertile being married? If a man has a vasectomy, does he now have any less right to marry, since he can no longer produce children?

Why isn’t the issue of marriage being for those who will have kids brought up here?

Can homosexuals not adopt? Can a person who is bisexual have children from a past (hetero) relationship, but now be in a homosexual relationship?

Why should children in these situations suffer?

BostonBarrister wrote:
These are all irrelevant to the question of whether the government has a rational basis to hand out a benefit to support mixed-gender couples that will tend to produce children. The relevant question is that, in the aggregate, across society, is the policy reasonably likely to have the desired effect: the encouragement of the formation and survival of those unions.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Again, allowing same sex couples the same benefits would not have a negative impact on enouraging the formation and survival of different sex couples.[/quote]

Again, you keep mistaking stating your conclusions for making a persuasive argument.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Your reasoning appears to be that if the government does not discriminate in one case, it must be irrational to discriminate in another case. This assumption is flawed on its face if the situations are not close from the government’s perspective. There are cost/benefit and privacy issues involved with trying to control the sterile or impotent.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
That is not my reasoning, I’ve already explained. There are rational reasons the government can discriminate, and irrational ones. The one we’re debating, now, is, in my opinion, an irrational one. Sometimes, to explain my position, I’ll compare it to other irrational reasons. This does not mean I think the government can never discriminate for any reason.

Consider the fact that the government doesnt need to control the marriage habits of the sterile or infertile or impotent; even with those minorities in the picture, marriage benefits (as you said) still give just as much incentive and help to child rearing couples.[/quote]

You’re going against your own point. Your point was that the fact the government didn’t stop sterile/infertile people from marrying proved the government was bigoted against homosexuals and did not care about promoting different-gendered couples for child-rearing purposes. That was and is flatly incorrect.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Now, consider that homosexuals are what…6? 8 percent of the population? Also, the number of homosexuals who have kids from adoption or previous relationships… wouldnt gays just be another minority that has no bearing on the government helping people who want to have kids?[/quote]

Again, the purpose is not “helping people who want to have kids” - it is encouraging, across society, the formation and survival a type of union that tends to produce children.

So, first, same-sex unions don’t qualify for the purpose. Second, if there is a rational basis to believe same-sex marriages would negatively affect the purpose, that is even more reason to keep them separate.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

The benefit is also not a direct benefit to kids - it’s an indirect benefit to encourage couples to stay together to raise the kids that are likely to be the products of marriage - and maybe even a benefit to encourage those couples to produce kids, but that’s more indirect. If they wanted to give a tax cut on the basis of having dependents, they could just do it that way (and they do - that’s a separate benefit that can be claimed by single, gay, straight, married and non-parents with dependents).

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

So wait a second.

First, you argue that marriage should be an exclusive option for heterosexuals, since they are the most likely to have dependents.

Now, you argue that marriage is not necessary for people with dependents.

So, whats the point of marriage again? If its for people to have kids, why not just give tax cuts on the basis of having depenents? That would certainly give just as many people incentive to have kids. [/quote]

Firstly, I just wrote that above - the government already does give a dependent benefit, separately - this should imply that a particular marriage benefit is separate from that.

So, I never maintained it was because heterosexuals were more likely to have dependents. Let me write this one more time, for clarity’s sake: The government has a rational reason to promote the formation and survival of different-gender unions because they tend to lead to children. There are multiple policy goals embedded in that statement.

[BostonBarrister]

BostonBarrister wrote:
There was one issue you brought up that I addressed at the genesis of this discussion, but we’ll rehash.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

…

Besides, there are many more aspects to marriage than simply how it applies to children. Hospital visitation rights, rights of estate, tax laws which would be present with or without children.

The tax laws are the benefit we’re discussing.

The other rights can all be easily accomplished through private contracts.

This is actually preferable from an individual’s point of view because you don’t need to accept “one-size-fits-all” precedents - which is why it’s better to have a will than to rely on estate law. It’s preferable to contract ex ante about child custody and other such issues if you’re going to adopt, rather than sue each other afterward. It’s more efficient to deal with property ownership and division by ex ante contract than to rely on inapplicable legal precedents on allocation via divorce and child support payments.

This does not mean it would be a bad thing for the state to create some form of “domestic partnership” for same-sex couples to provide a set of pre-packaged legal rights if that’s something people want. My personal view is that such an option should be different from “traditional marriage” and also not available to different-gender couples, for reasons elucidated in the links I provided in my prior post.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

So you agree that gays should have access to the same legal rights as straights… but they should have to do more paperwork? Instead of one contract (marriage), they should have several contracts that basically add up to marriage (for estate, for tax benefits, for custody, etc, etc, etc)?

I’m really trying to understand your postion here.[/quote]

I’m not against any particular right for gays. But FYI, you can’t contract to get a tax benefit, insomuch as you can’t contract around government rules.

I actually think that a series of contracts would be preferable for most people because it would be an individualized solution - though of course it would give the more desirable member of the couple (at least according to their perceptions) more bargaining power. But try explaining that to your fiancee… (actually, don’t, if you want to keep your fiancee).

But if there were a large market for a “less paperwork” contract for gays encompassing all of the popular relationships, I’m sure an easy form would be quickly developed.

Also, in certain contexts, I think heterosexual couples should be forced to enter into ex ante contracts, e.g., if the couple is going to adopt a child, they should necessarily contract about future contingencies involving custody and child support.

For my legal position on this issue, it’s essentially that no one is entitled to government benefits, and if the government chooses to create a benefit it can set criteria for that benefit based on any rational reason it chooses. My personal position is that I’m wary of the government taking any action that might weaken marriage or weaken the incentives for marriage, because of its importance to the future of society.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

What, specifically, about a domestic partnership would be different than traditional marriage? Other than the title and the respective genders of the people involved, I mean.

I don’t have a particular prescription for what a domestic partnership should entail - just the slightly nebulous idea that it should be distinct from traditional marriage and the very concrete idea that it should not be an option for heterosexual couples.

[BostonBarrister]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The first brings up some interesting topics and is well written; I’m on my way out, but a few things come to mind:

There seems to be some extreme paranoia that same sex marriage will ultimately result in a 0% childbirth rate. While I can see where making it more socially acceptable for people to not have kids would result in less kids, it sounds a little ridiculous to ignore biological programming; that is, the innate desire to reproduce. Humans were having kids long before “marriage” was ever considered.

Is this really a concern? Is there really that much “all or nothing” kind of thinking?[/quote]

I don’t think there is any sort of “all or nothing” idea going on. There is the idea of lessened incentives or negative incentives lessening the birth rate. There is the separate idea of lessened or negative incentives increasing the divorce rate or lessening the marriage rate, either of which might lead to more out-of-wedlock births.

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Secondly, as a country, and, further, as a species, are we facing problems with underpopulation or overpopulation? Now, please, dont reply with some strawman like “We should just all stop having kids and die as a species!”, because thats not my point.

My point is, if we are having overpopulation problems with our current structure, what would the cost/benefit ration of something that decreases the expanse rate of the population (read: not decrease the population) be?[/quote]

Who says we are having overpopulation problems?

Decrease in population would be potentially catastrophic - at least from a societal and economic perspective. Unless we advanced enough to mechanize the productivity of the workers that are necessary to support a population that would include a whole lot of older and sicklier people relative to the younger productive people, we’d have one hell of a depression.

And from a societal perspective, don’t forget that the future belongs to those who show up. If you don’t think countries understand this, look at what the Russians are trying to do to increase their birth rate.

[ZEB]

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:

I think 2 children per couple, and at birth the child is bound to one or the other parent. As in if they divorced and remarried, their one child would count towards the 2 in their new relationship. After 2 were born, extra children would have a heafty fine attached, based on how much $$ you make, so rich can’t just pay their way to more children easily.[/quote]

Please tell me that you’re joking.

[HotCarl28]

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
HotCarl28 wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

Dude, try and keep up alright? I said NATURE! Show me a couple of monkeys artificially inseminating each other in the wild and you would have a point. But since you can’t, you don’t!

Really?

So global warming is a natural occurrence? All the trees cut down in the rain forest is a natural occurrence? Polluted air and water is a natural occurrence?

Pleeeease! You are going to have to use your brain a little more on this one brother.[/quote]

yes all of those things are a natural occurrence. the thing u are overlooking (because of ur obvious anthropocentric viewpoint) is that humans are just as much part of nature as any other organism. Is a person’s house natural? What about a bird’s nest? A human circular saw? What about the rudimentary tools chimps use? Now I know many think this is more of a semantics game but the truth is that anything that happens is “natural” Words such as supernatural are basically nonsense words that merely describe things we dont yet understand.

Im also not sure why ur tone is so rude

Aaah, sounds like you are a chaos theory guy.

Well, let me just tell you that there and thousands of scientists much smarter than I who would disagree with you.

You ascribe no purpose to nature, but that is clearly contrary to what is observed. Here is just a small list of the things that occur in nature that are driven by purpose:

1. A lion chases a deer, the deer runs : purpose - self preservation. The deer does not just randomly start running for no reason.

2. A human or animal is exposed to virus, the immune system sends white cells, macrophages, etc to contain and remove the virus: purpose - self preservation, not a random occurrence.

The list could go on, but most will get my point. Your ideas are clearly not supported by literature.

Oh, and my background, I’m in medical research. And you? Just a kid with a computer, that’s what I thought.

What about my very simple explanation would cause u to draw any conclusions on chaos theory?

Well in my example purpose refers to evolution. I was under the impression that u thought that DNA mutated in order to suit a particular need of an organism, or had some purpose, as opposed to DNA mutations occurring randomly and some just happening to be advantageous in a particular environment.

The problem with defining purpose here is that there are ultimate and proximate purpose. Ultimately i believe there is no purpose to anything. There is no end goal in my mind. Only events that occur. Purpose is a cognitive construct created by humans to better understand phenomena. You can’t show that lions or the immune system have a sense of purpose. Humans simply attribute purpose to what they see.

Ah wow that turned much more into a philosophical semantics argument

Lorisco im still not totally clear on ur educational background what was ur undergrad in, what about grad school?

Lorisco are u religious?

Also theres no need to be rude… Im honestly not trying to be rude to you

[HotCarl28]

Id also like to add Orion seems to be the only person that has a good and extensive grasp on evolution. Many other ppl it seems are misinterpreting several important details.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Yes, but the baseline assumption is you need to prove your accusation. Your reasons were all conclusions that included your assumptions without proving them or relied on the “If A then B equals if B then A” logical fallacy.
[/quote]

No, my logic was “If A equals B, than B may equal A”, and have since been pointing out my reasons for believing that, in this case, B equals A.

Just because B does not always equal A does not mean that B never equals A. This is a fallacy in itself.

We’re not assuming the cause from the result again, are we? It’s no wonder we end up with quotas out of good intentions… I blame the public schools.

No, we’re rightly assuming that bigotry will often be covered by other “rational motives” that are, in fact, actually irrational. Hence I pointed out all the double standard logic used against same sex marriage.

Another bad analogy to race. Aside from the fact that race and sexual preference/gender aren’t analogous, what was the separate, non-racial and rational reason for the grandfather clause laws?

I dont know, what was?

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
The benefit can promote mixed-gender and same gender unions, to the same benefit for all. There is no rational reason to disallow the latter as it does not affect the former.

You keep mistaking stating your conclusions for making a persuasive argument.

How would allowing same sex marriage or domestic partnerships for same sex couples interfere with marriage between mixed-sex couples?

These are all irrelevant to the question of whether the government has a rational basis to hand out a benefit to support mixed-gender couples that will tend to produce children.

They are relevant to the question of if the government has the right to withold that same benefit from couples that tend to not produce or involve children.

The relevant question is that, in the aggregate, across society, is the policy reasonably likely to have the desired effect: the encouragement of the formation and survival of those unions.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Again, allowing same sex couples the same benefits would not have a negative impact on enouraging the formation and survival of different sex couples.

Again, you keep mistaking stating your conclusions for making a persuasive argument.

You keep saying that, as though making predicitions that people will suddenly be marrying sheep is a persuasive argument and not stating a conclusion.

Consider the fact that the government doesnt need to control the marriage habits of the sterile or infertile or impotent; even with those minorities in the picture, marriage benefits (as you said) still give just as much incentive and help to child rearing couples.

You’re going against your own point. Your point was that the fact the government didn’t stop sterile/infertile people from marrying proved the government was bigoted against homosexuals and did not care about promoting different-gendered couples for child-rearing purposes. That was and is flatly incorrect.

No, my point was that promoting the formation of family units between citizens promotes child-rearing couples, EVEN IF that includes some couples that are inherently/generally non-child-rearing, as the elderly and sterile/infertile already are.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Now, consider that homosexuals are what…6? 8 percent of the population? Also, the number of homosexuals who have kids from adoption or previous relationships… wouldnt gays just be another minority that has no bearing on the government helping people who want to have kids?

Again, the purpose is not “helping people who want to have kids” - it is encouraging, across society, the formation and survival a type of union that tends to produce children.

And that type of union would still be encouraged.

So, first, same-sex unions don’t qualify for the purpose. Second, if there is a rational basis to believe same-sex marriages would negatively affect the purpose, that is even more reason to keep them separate.

What, besides personal bigotry on the part of people who would refuse to marry on the grounds that homosexuals now could, would be the “rational basis” to believe same-sex marriages would negatively affect the encouragment of citizens forming family units? This is the “rational basis” you’ve still yet to come close to proving, but, rather, keep stating your conclusions as though they are persuasive arguments.

Firstly, I just wrote that above - the government already does give a dependent benefit, separately - this should imply that a particular marriage benefit is separate from that.

So, I never maintained it was because heterosexuals were more likely to have dependents. Let me write this one more time, for clarity’s sake: The government has a rational reason to promote the formation and survival of different-gender unions because they tend to lead to children. There are multiple policy goals embedded in that statement.

The government has a rational reason to promote the practice of citizens forming social units, since they tend to lead to children. Promoting such formations, even in the minority cases where they do not produce children, encourages such practices.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

What, specifically, about a domestic partnership would be different than traditional marriage? Other than the title and the respective genders of the people involved, I mean.

I don’t have a particular prescription for what a domestic partnership should entail - just the slightly nebulous idea that it should be distinct from traditional marriage and the very concrete idea that it should not be an option for heterosexual couples.
[/quote]

Give it some thought and get back to me, I’m interested to hear.