Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Wrong - that is your definition of murder based on your beliefs. You are imposing your Judeo-Christian ethic on a member of a belief system that does not make the same assumptions as you.[/quote]

I’m Hindu.

[quote]Your “no harm” principle is just as belief-based as someone who wants to go the other way - yet you categorically have said that we must make space for other belief systems and one cannot dominate another.

You cannot reconcile your position - either restriction of some beliefs - or more specifically, public recognition of some beliefs by enactments of positive rights - can and will be restricted, or they aren’t.

If some can be - and you just said they can with your “murder” example - then your statement is facially wrong.

Again, we run into your limitations - it’s clear you are parroting the predictable “multicultural” line and you clearly haven’t thought about the consequences of such silliness as “any restriction based on beliefs is bigotry”.

Cultures set ground rules based on what the cultural values are - and marriage is no different. And, with marriage, as it has grown up under the umbrella of the Enlightenment and Western civilization, is not merely based on cultural momentum and past practices, but is also the creature of Reason.

You preach the typical “one culture isn’t better than another, so privileging one over another” line - great for freshman philosophy class and the coffee-house - absolute nonsense beyond that.[/quote]

No it’s more the “I don’t care what you do behind closed doors, just leave me out of it” line. Also given the way courts handle divorce and just how many marriages fail in this day and age, I’d say marriage is hardly a creature of Reason.

Just as an aside, isn’t denial of rights or benefits without due process a direct contradiction of the Fourteenth Amendment?

502

[quote]Makavali wrote:

I’m Hindu.[/quote]

Irrelevant to the purpose. By your own standard, you are imposing your belief on someone. Care to reconcile your comment? Can you?

“Reason” has nothing to do with modern attitudes toward marriage - the question is the institution itself, not whether people are screwing up what was a good thing.

Sure - now you tell me, what “Due Process” was denied when a properly sitting legislature with a proper political question before it decided, as a policy matter, with the needed amount of votes and the signature of the executive, that there is only one kind of marriage - traditional marriage?

Can’t wait to hear your answer.

503

Honestly, I don’t know why I’m still arguing about this.

Quite frankly, you all seem to be afraid of society crashing down around you because of “teh ghey” infecting everyone.

All I’ve heard from people against it is fear-mongering and slippery slope arguments. I’ve seen no real evidence of society crashing and burning because of gay marriage.

504

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Honestly, I don’t know why I’m still arguing about this.

Quite frankly, you all seem to be afraid of society crashing down around you because of “teh ghey” infecting everyone.

All I’ve heard from people against it is fear-mongering and slippery slope arguments. I’ve seen no real evidence of society crashing and burning because of gay marriage.[/quote]

I see - so you have effectively ducked the hard questions put to you. I’ll make a note.

As a parallel, using your language to come to a conclusion, I’ve seen no real evidence of society crashing and burning by maintaining traditional marriage as the exclusive version.

505

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I see - so you have effectively ducked the hard questions put to you. I’ll make a note.

As a parallel, using your language to come to a conclusion, I’ve seen no real evidence of society crashing and burning by maintaining traditional marriage as the exclusive version.[/quote]

Ducked/Lazy, it’s all the same to me.

I’m not the one afraid of change. I know “traditional” marriage can work, and I believe gay marriage won’t bring down society. You can speculate all you want about the slippery slope and how Western society will fall, but it doesn’t change the fact that the anti-gay marriage sentiment is rooted in fear of change.

506

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Honestly, I don’t know why I’m still arguing about this.

Quite frankly, you all seem to be afraid of society crashing down around you because of “teh ghey” infecting everyone.

All I’ve heard from people against it is fear-mongering and slippery slope arguments. I’ve seen no real evidence of society crashing and burning because of gay marriage.[/quote]

I don’t believe anyone is worried that “teh ghey” will infect anyone. It’s a matter of whether extending the institution of marriage (particularly as opposed to creating a separate institution) would adversely affect the rate of formation and the length of survival of traditional marriages (particularly when children are involved).

See:

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

As to slippery slope arguments in this context, see:

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1210877596.shtml

507

[quote]
thunderbolt23 wrote:
I see - so you have effectively ducked the hard questions put to you. I’ll make a note.

As a parallel, using your language to come to a conclusion, I’ve seen no real evidence of society crashing and burning by maintaining traditional marriage as the exclusive version.

Makavali wrote:
Ducked/Lazy, it’s all the same to me.

I’m not the one afraid of change. I know “traditional” marriage can work, and I believe gay marriage won’t bring down society. You can speculate all you want about the slippery slope and how Western society will fall, but it doesn’t change the fact that the anti-gay marriage sentiment is rooted in fear of change.[/quote]

Conservatism in general is rooted in avoidance of the hubris of assuming one has enough understanding of complex institutions that have evolved over generations to monkey with their essences, as well as a healthy appreciation of the law of unintended consequences.

508

[quote]

thunderbolt23 wrote:
We are talking about a general rule - that parents who created the child should be incentivized to take care of that child. Period.

Beowolf wrote:
I’m just asking the appropriate gadfly questions here. Like this doozy:

If, as a general rule, biological parents do not, statistically, raise better children on average than non biological parents, than why should we incentivize such a process? If it holds no advantages, why should we give incentives to do it?

If, ceteris paribus - all other things being equal - biological parents do no better than any other type of two parent setting, why is an incentive necessary or efficient? Why am I asking the same exact question in three different ways?

BostonBarrister wrote:
I will be presumptious enough to answer for Thunder, who can of course feel free to tell me I’ve completely missed his point.

However, his statement is compound: 1) People who have children 2) should be incentivized to raise them.

So, if that’s the set up, then your question requires some further information. Do you mean biological parents don’t tend to do a better job than adoptive parents? Or do you mean that breaking up a biological two-parent unit and leaving the children with one biological parent is no better?

Obviously, I think the second scenario is by far the most important one to ponder.

And also, we need to think about it not in terms of any particular anecdotal case, but in the aggregate.

I’d say that, in the aggregate, two-biological-parent units are better than the alternative, which is what you end up with if you have biological parents producing kids without forming units that stay together to raise them.

Beowolf wrote:
Good answer. However, by allowing other kinds of marriages, you are still encouraging two people that create kids to stay together. They won’t get the benefit apart, but they’ll get it together. I don’t see how gay marriage ruins this set up.[/quote]

Off the top of my head, there are a few different ways that opening marriage (again, as opposed to having a separate legal status available only to homosexual couples) could negatively impact formation and/or survival of traditional marriages.

First, there’s the slippery slope argument: if marriage were opened on the principle that the gender of the persons involved was an irrational restriction, we’d need to closely address what restrictions could be considered rational. Number? Genetic relationship?

Second, there’s the behavioral modeling issue. Let’s focus on gay men particularly. Gay men are generally more promiscuous (not too surprising given it’s just men involved); if one were to assume that this would hold within their marriages as well as outside of marriages, you would have behavioral modeling that would be undermining the “two people to the exclusion of all others”. I suppose this would really be “further” behavioral modeling, but what’s the tipping point?

I don’t blame you for skipping over what I posted to Cap’n Crunch, but I linked an article by Stanley Kurtz looks at the model in Scandinavian countries, and there seems to be at least a strong correlation between expanding marriage to a decrease in marriage formations. Here it is again, with a few others from Kurtz:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200402050842.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602280810.asp

People are fighting over whether there’s causation, but the correlation itself should at least give one pause if we aren’t sure of causation.

509

[quote]
abcd1234 wrote:
Maybe it’s some sort of emotional detachment from the concept of marriage that I have, but I fail to see what makes gay marriages(or even polygamy) that reprehensible. As long as consent is established between all rational parties, what’s the big deal?

Marriage is a contract. You can not make a legally binding contract with something that lacks the ability to consent to it.(a child, animal, vegetable, etc.) Thus, any willing adults should be able to participate in the contract that is marriage. Forget all the religious nonsense underlying the arguments against it. All of that is irrelevant as “marriage” in this context is simply a contract. It is not some signifier of the family unit, no matter how common the two may be together. It does not equate to raising a family and spawning brood. It is ultimately just an agreement between adults.

jsbrook wrote:
I see polygamy and gay marriage as different. Gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone unless you take the view that it hurts our civilization as a broad societal matter. Which I don’t subscribe to. Theoretically, polygamy doesn’t have to hurt anyone either. But as a practical matter almost all polygamy takes the form of polyandry, multiple wives for one man. And they are usually young girls who are not mature enough to decide to be in a plural marriage or any marriage.

Who end up oppressed and suffer all of the problems of plural marriage. And receive none of the benefits, if there are any, that would ensue if it was an informed decision made by consenting adults. It ain’t Big Love. Almost all polygamy in this country has been much more like the Compound for anyone who has watched that show.[/quote]

Polygamy is problematic for society mostly because of your polyandry point - but the problem is for low-status males, who get aced out of the marriage market all together. Wide spread polyandry would effectively create for a society the same thing China will be facing because of its demographic policies: lots of angry young men with no women available to them.

It used to work back in the day when the men were constantly killing each other in wars, leaving a male/female ratio that was decidedly higher in females.

510

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Polygamy is problematic for society mostly because of your polyandry point - but the problem is for low-status males, who get aced out of the marriage market all together. Wide spread polyandry would effectively create for a society the same thing China will be facing because of its demographic policies: lots of angry young men with no women available to them.
[/quote]

Sounds like you’re just bitching that you wouldn’t have a chance at getting laid. Why should the government consider your feelings on the matter? “Waaah! I’m afraid of the alpha males getting all the women and none of them being forced to settle for me!”

511

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t blame you for skipping over what I posted to Cap’n Crunch,
[/quote]

This actually made me laugh. Thanks, guy.

512

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Honestly, I don’t know why I’m still arguing about this.

Quite frankly, you all seem to be afraid of society crashing down around you because of “teh ghey” infecting everyone.

All I’ve heard from people against it is fear-mongering and slippery slope arguments. I’ve seen no real evidence of society crashing and burning because of gay marriage.[/quote]

See, like BB said, it really comes down to hurt feelings. As it stands, straight people enjoy not only the legal benefits, but the cultural benefits of marriage.

“If we get married, other people will respect us and our relationship more. They’ll agree that we’re doing the right thing, hell, they’ll throw a big party and give us gifts in order to assure us of what a good decision we’ve made!”

Why, then, would allowing homosexuals to marry (or polygamous marriages) cause problems? Simple: American society is bigoted towards binary heterosexual unions. To allow other couplings the opprotunity to marry, one of two things must happen: you must either (a)respect the decision of the people involved the same way you would respect the same decision from two heterosexuals and thus respect their relationship, or (b)suddenly devalue the decision and institution itself.

To make an analogy, its like claiming that girls shouldnt be allowed on the baseball team, because people will be so offended that they will lose all their respect for the sport.

I’m absolutely certain all the arguments about devaluing marriage were made w/r/t interracial marriage. But what actually happened, instead of interracial marriage destroying the public perception of the institution of marriage, society changed in such a way as to, now, respect and validate interracial relationships.

513

Look at the gamma-male thinking he’s funny when he’s missing the point…

The government should consider overall societal effects, not feelings. The point is obvious for anyone reading the post for whom English is a first language - but I don’t mean to be xenophobic, so maybe we should be proud of your efforts? A trophy for you for “Miss Congeniality.”

514

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I don’t blame you for skipping over what I posted to Cap’n Crunch,

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
This actually made me laugh. Thanks, guy.[/quote]

Well you’re obviously not reading, or thinking, so at least you’re doing something…

515

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Look at the gamma-male thinking he’s funny when he’s missing the point…

The government should consider overall societal effects, not feelings. The point is obvious for anyone reading the post for whom English is a first language - but I don’t mean to be xenophobic, so maybe we should be proud of your efforts? A trophy for you for “Miss Congeniality.”[/quote]

I don’t think he missed the point at all. The whole concept of the so-called “alpha male” was to get lots of females pregnant and spread his genes around i.e. have LOTS of offspring.

You seem afraid of polygamy because you think you (or someone else) might “miss out”.

Are people afraid of gay marriage because they think there might be more lesbians than previously thought?

516

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:

Polygamy is problematic for society mostly because of your polyandry point - but the problem is for low-status males, who get aced out of the marriage market all together. Wide spread polyandry would effectively create for a society the same thing China will be facing because of its demographic policies: lots of angry young men with no women available to them.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Sounds like you’re just bitching that you wouldn’t have a chance at getting laid. Why should the government consider your feelings on the matter? “Waaah! I’m afraid of the alpha males getting all the women and none of them being forced to settle for me!”

Look at the gamma-male thinking he’s funny when he’s missing the point…
[/quote]

Aw, you sound hurt. You should have known that when I said you I wasnt talking about you. Duh.

You mean like the overall societal effect of supporting homophobia? Hmmmm.

Oh, I get it. When its a societal effect you’re comfortable with, challenging it is “Just whining about hurt feelings”. But when its something that doesnt sit well with you, suddenly the government should give it grave consideration.

And you wonder why someone would call you a bigot…

[quote]

not feelings. The point is obvious for anyone reading the post for whom English is a first language - but I don’t mean to be xenophobic, so maybe we should be proud of your efforts? A trophy for you for “Miss Congeniality.”[/quote]

…is it shiny?

517

[quote]Makavali wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Look at the gamma-male thinking he’s funny when he’s missing the point…

The government should consider overall societal effects, not feelings. The point is obvious for anyone reading the post for whom English is a first language - but I don’t mean to be xenophobic, so maybe we should be proud of your efforts? A trophy for you for “Miss Congeniality.”

I don’t think he missed the point at all. The whole concept of the so-called “Alpha Male” was to get lots of females pregnant and spread his genes around i.e. have LOTS of offspring.

You seem afraid of polygamy because you think you (or someone else) might “miss out”.

Are people afraid of gay marriage because they think there might be more lesbians than previously thought?[/quote]

BINGO.

A society where alpha males mate with numerous females and form family structures promotes (a)the creation of children and (b)the formation of social units well suited for raising children. You know, those two things the government wants to incentivize so bad. Right BB?

Not only that, consider that alpha males and alpha females tend to do well in other endeavors, so allowing the majority of procreation to be done by alpha males/females even further promotes better situations for children to be raised in.

518

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Look at the gamma-male thinking he’s funny when he’s missing the point…

The government should consider overall societal effects, not feelings. The point is obvious for anyone reading the post for whom English is a first language - but I don’t mean to be xenophobic, so maybe we should be proud of your efforts? A trophy for you for “Miss Congeniality.”

Makavali wrote:
I don’t think he missed the point at all. The whole concept of the so-called “Alpha Male” was to get lots of females pregnant and spread his genes around i.e. have LOTS of offspring.

You seem afraid of polygamy because you think you (or someone else) might “miss out”.

Are people afraid of gay marriage because they think there might be more lesbians than previously thought?[/quote]

Apparently you missed my point as well. It’s not the hurt feelings from missing out (e.g., the government isn’t legitimizing someone’s feelings of self worth) - it’s the potential destructive tendencies of a bunch of young men with no hopes of marriage or families. See the Arab world, for example… or, as stated before, what happens in China soon (and to a lesser extent, India, which has the same trend coming down the pike demographically). You may not be able to control the problem of aimless males with dim future prospects completely, but it would be nice not to exacerbate the issue.

Also, it would tend to hurt beta males more, but you may also get a critical mass of poor males who might otherwise tend to be alphas in that situation - maybe not as relevant a threat in a richer country such as the U.S., but still something that should be considered from a societal risk point of view.

Potential destructive tendencies of young males, BTW, is also one of the underlying concerns with any weakening of traditional marriage, given procreation will happen irrespective (and we want it to happen in circumstances that will lead to productive citizens). Cap’n Crunch would’ve realized that, had he read my links. Perhaps you should review as well.

519

[quote]

BostonBarrister wrote:

Polygamy is problematic for society mostly because of your polyandry point - but the problem is for low-status males, who get aced out of the marriage market all together. Wide spread polyandry would effectively create for a society the same thing China will be facing because of its demographic policies: lots of angry young men with no women available to them.

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

Sounds like you’re just bitching that you wouldn’t have a chance at getting laid. Why should the government consider your feelings on the matter? “Waaah! I’m afraid of the alpha males getting all the women and none of them being forced to settle for me!”

BostonBarrister wrote:

Look at the gamma-male thinking he’s funny when he’s missing the point…

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Aw, you sound hurt. You should have known that when I said you I wasnt talking about you. Duh.[/quote]

I didn’t think you were - it’s just your stupidity is painful. My eyes ache from intaking it. To think that you honed this skill through years of wasted education only
makes it worse.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
The government should consider overall societal effects,

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You mean like the overall societal effect of supporting homophobia? Hmmmm.

Oh, I get it. When its a societal effect you’re comfortable with, challenging it is “Just whining about hurt feelings”. But when its something that doesnt sit well with you, suddenly the government should give it grave consideration.

And you wonder why someone would call you a bigot…[/quote]

Really, you’re harming my retina. Your posts should come with a warning: Shield your eyes or look away to avoid damage from concentrated retardation. I see a class-action lawsuit from T-Nation readers in the offing…

The overall societal effects to which I was referring actually impact society overall, as opposed to offending your sensibilities, or failing to provide governmental validation that sub-group of the approximately 4% of the adult population who might desire it.

BTW, no one wonders why you would call someone a bigot: your arguments fail, so it’s your best line. And I mean that in its most relative sense.

[quote]

BostonBarrister wrote:

not feelings. The point is obvious for anyone reading the post for whom English is a first language - but I don’t mean to be xenophobic, so maybe we should be proud of your efforts? A trophy for you for “Miss Congeniality.”

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

…is it shiny?[/quote]

“You could shine it up real nice, turn it sideways and stick it straight up your candy @$$.”

  • The Rock
520

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Also, it would tend to hurt beta males more, but you may also get a critical mass of poor males who might otherwise tend to be alphas in that situation - maybe not as relevant a threat in a richer country such as the U.S., but still something that should be considered from a societal risk point of view.[/quote]

Who might OTHERWISE be Alpha? Then they were never meant to be Alpha.