Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1001

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
However, all laws are based on morality and relative valuations. [/quote]

Good point. I’ve noticed that after stripping away the sham arguments (on both sides), these discussions are nearly always driven by a person’s core value system.

I rarely see anyone change their mind, which is why beebuddy’s stance is so refreshing. Some people do have an open mind, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

I don’t have an open mind, and am honest enough to admit it. I am gay, and I want equal rights for myself and my family. No amount of arguing is going to change that.

Likewise, I suspect that most fundamentalist Christians will not change their mind on gay marriage. They see homosexuality as a sin and will fight it tooth and nail, no matter what the objective research shows or what society values.

It’s nice to see various Christian churches like the Methodists and Episcopalians making progress toward equality, but as with other cases of civil rights the fundamentalists will be the last to conform, if they do so at all.

1002

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Because correlation is shown - and causation is still a relevant and likely possibility. Correlation should be interpreted as evidence of possible causation, not just dismissed out of hand as irrelevant - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that the correlation is unrelated.[/quote]

Likely? Not really. Ask most heterosexual males now why they don’t like marriage and I guarantee it’ll be because of the horror stories they ear about gold diggers and NOT the scary gay marriages.

1003

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Feel free to vote that way. However, all laws are based on morality and relative valuations. It would be an awfully stupid system that rejected laws on an irrational basis such as that they are related to Judeo-Christian mores - one might almost call such an irrational system its own religion…

mharmar wrote:
It’s called Logic and Reason. I don’t necessarily reject morals because of a christian link, hell most reasonable morals are in every culture and every religion(e.g. don’t kill, steal, rape) but most monotheistic social mores are just attempts at controlling the populace and telling them what do when it effects no one but them, other consenting adults and intolerant bigots.

For example other than the potential legal headaches in a society like ours what would be wrong with allowing polygamy? And for all the theoretical bullshit being posted in this thread in the countries that allow gay marriage polygamy hasn’t sprung up, beastiality isn’t a problem. So a few high-ranking officials have said we should abolish marriage have any steps been taken towards it nope. If I see talk of polygamy being legalized or decriminalized in Canada within the next decade I will be highly surprised. [/quote]

Well, the potential legal headaches are the biggest issue to me, given how complicated that would make things such as inheritance and family law - particularly in cases of break-ups/divorces. So saying “other than the potential legal headaches, what’s wrong with allowing polygamy” is kind of like saying “other than hitting the ground, what’s wrong with jumping out a 48 story window”.

However, there are some theoretical risks relating to depriving a contingent of lower-societal-status males with the potential to marry. Assuming you don’t have a giant surplus of women (so not in the aftermath of a major war) and assuming that polygamy would be polyandry, which it has been in virtually all known cases, then you’d have some faction of young men in the lower echelons of society with no marriage possibilities whatsoever - a bad outcome, I would think, with regard to other societal priorities such as crime prevention (both violent and otherwise). China and India have created analogous demographic situations for themselves as the unintended consequence of the one-child policy in China, and in India in the application of gender-determination technology to abort girls. We’ll see what happens…

With regard to beastiality, methinks you misstate the concern. The concern was that IF marriage was defined as an individual right, and IF restrictions based on sex and number of partners were considered irrational and disallowed, what would be the rational justification for restricting the right w/r/t animals?

Also, with regard to any effects of gay marriage, they’re going to be slow in coming - though there may well be a tipping point after awhile. One of the things that makes a slippery slope argument powerful in these kinds of contexts is if the initial act changes the probabilities on the future contingencies - i.e., you have dependent events. Take, for example, a law that makes it harder to own a gun - this might lower gun ownership, and make it easier in the future to further restrict guns because fewer people would have a vested interest because you had fewer gun owners. In the case of gay marriage, if it changes underlying attitudes about the importance and function of marriage, particularly in the younger generation, you will have a greater likelihood of the type of problems people bring up w/r/t marriage rates and stability.

1004

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
It would be an awfully stupid system that rejected laws on an irrational basis such as that they are related to Judeo-Christian mores - one might almost call such an irrational system its own religion…

Makavali wrote:
Who said anything about purging ALL laws related to a Judeo-Christian viewpoint? ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ seems to be a keeper. I think what he is suggesting is getting rid of archaic laws that are holding us back as a civilization.[/quote]

And how does one decide which to toss out? Moral judgments and relative prioritization…

1005

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
And how does one decide which to toss out? Moral judgments and relative prioritization…[/quote]

We have groundwork, now it’s a matter of sifting through and getting rid of the irrelevant ones. I can see cause for removing the restrictions on gay marriage because no credible reason was given to ban it in the first place.

1006

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Because correlation is shown - and causation is still a relevant and likely possibility. Correlation should be interpreted as evidence of possible causation, not just dismissed out of hand as irrelevant - unless, of course, you can demonstrate that the correlation is unrelated.

Makavali wrote:
Likely? Not really. Ask most heterosexual males now why they don’t like marriage and I guarantee it’ll be because of the horror stories they ear about gold diggers and NOT the scary gay marriages.[/quote]

I don’t think you’ve read this yet, so I am going to re-post:

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

1007

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

For example other than the potential legal headaches in a society like ours what would be wrong with allowing polygamy? And for all the theoretical bullshit being posted in this thread in the countries that allow gay marriage polygamy hasn’t sprung up, beastiality isn’t a problem. So a few high-ranking officials have said we should abolish marriage have any steps been taken towards it nope. If I see talk of polygamy being legalized or decriminalized in Canada within the next decade I will be highly surprised.

Well, the potential legal headaches are the biggest issue to me, given how complicated that would make things such as inheritance and family law - particularly in cases of break-ups/divorces. So saying “other than the potential legal headaches, what’s wrong with allowing polygamy” is kind of like saying “other than hitting the ground, what’s wrong with jumping out a 48 story window”.

However, there are some theoretical risks relating to depriving a contingent of lower-societal-status males with the potential to marry. Assuming you don’t have a giant surplus of women (so not in the aftermath of a major war) and assuming that polygamy would be polyandry, which it has been in virtually all known cases, then you’d have some faction of young men in the lower echelons of society with no marriage possibilities whatsoever - a bad outcome, I would think, with regard to other societal priorities such as crime prevention (both violent and otherwise). China and India have created analogous demographic situations for themselves as the unintended consequence of the one-child policy in China, and in India in the application of gender-determination technology to abort girls. We’ll see what happens…

With regard to beastiality, methinks you misstate the concern. The concern was that IF marriage was defined as an individual right, and IF restrictions based on sex and number of partners were considered irrational and disallowed, what would be the rational justification for restricting the right w/r/t animals?

Also, with regard to any effects of gay marriage, they’re going to be slow in coming - though there may well be a tipping point after awhile. One of the things that makes a slippery slope argument powerful in these kinds of contexts is if the initial act changes the probabilities on the future contingencies - i.e., you have dependent events. Take, for example, a law that makes it harder to own a gun - this might lower gun ownership, and make it easier in the future to further restrict guns because fewer people would have a vested interest because you had fewer gun owners. In the case of gay marriage, if it changes underlying attitudes about the importance and function of marriage, particularly in the younger generation, you will have a greater likelihood of the type of problems people bring up w/r/t marriage rates and stability.[/quote]

Thank you for a well thought out post. I will address the human animal marriages easily. Animals are not humans therefore we state only humans can marry eachother unless you are saying gay people aren’t human then that restriction right there makes a human-goat marriage based on the idea of allowing gay marriage irrational.

I understand your point about polygamy, to be honest I don’t think it would be that popular anyways, who wants 10 wives when they can have 1 wife and 9 mistresses. But polygamy has always only been in a patriarchal society we have a more equal society now and with the popularity of shows like Sex and the City I bet rich women would enjoy have more than 1 husband.

As for the importance of marriage, what is it’s importance? Other than the actual legal benefits what is it’s importance? Sure it can be important symbolically for one or both people in a relationship, but why is marriage more meaningful than a long-term relationship, other than the legal benefits? To me it seems like it is just an old tradition that many people are afraid to let go of.

1008

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
With regard to beastiality, methinks you misstate the concern. The concern was that IF marriage was defined as an individual right, and IF restrictions based on sex and number of partners were considered irrational and disallowed, what would be the rational justification for restricting the right w/r/t animals?
[/quote]

An animal cannot give informed consent, which also something that will stop pedophilia within polygamous sects.

1009

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
And how does one decide which to toss out? Moral judgments and relative prioritization…

Makavali wrote:
We have groundwork, now it’s a matter of sifting through and getting rid of the irrelevant ones. I can see cause for removing the restrictions on gay marriage because no credible reason was given to ban it in the first place.[/quote]

Technically, it’s not banned now - just not offered. Again, it seems like semantics, but it’s important. The government creates the legal status, and the government doesn’t offer the legal status to same-sex couples. Same-sex couples are not banned from having private marriage ceremonies.

As I said previously in this thread, this is a type of discrimination that goes on all the time, every day, based on innumerable factors: race (I can’t qualify for affirmative action benefits); class (rich people don’t get all the tax breaks available to poor people); intelligence (people who can’t qualify for admission to state universities aren’t eligible for the benefits); etc.

1010

[quote]forlife wrote:
…
I don’t have an open mind, and am honest enough to admit it. I am gay, and I want equal rights for myself and my family. No amount of arguing is going to change that.
…[/quote]

I understand. I am pissed I didn’t get any money from the “tax rebate”. I’m pissed I pay a larger percentage of my income in taxes than most people. I’m pissed my kids won’t qualify for a lot of tuition assistance when they go to college. But I also understand I don’t have a Constitutional right to equality in any of the above…

1011

[quote]mharmar wrote:

Thank you for a well thought out post. I will address the human animal marriages easily. Animals are not humans therefore we state only humans can marry eachother unless you are saying gay people aren’t human then that restriction right there makes a human-goat marriage based on the idea of allowing gay marriage irrational. [/quote]

But if it’s an individual right owned by each individual human, how is restricting its exercise by such individuals only to other humans any more or less rational than restricting its application only to pairs of individuals?

The point is, at the end of the day, that marriage was never intended to be an individual right as such. It’s not like freedom. It’s a legal status created with particular restrictions. Changing one doesn’t necessarily cause a problem - but declaring it an individual right and then declaring a restriction based on gender “irrational” would be highly problematic.

[quote]mharmar wrote:
I understand your point about polygamy, to be honest I don’t think it would be that popular anyways, who wants 10 wives when they can have 1 wife and 9 mistresses. But polygamy has always only been in a patriarchal society we have a more equal society now and with the popularity of shows like Sex and the City I bet rich women would enjoy have more than 1 husband. [/quote]

Women drive choices. The more stratified a society is based on wealth differences between the top and the bottom, the more a woman who, ceteris parabus, might want a single-partner marriage, might decide it’s a better option to take a partial share of a richer guy. This would be particularly problematic if there was a strata of very poor at the bottom rung of society - like, say, a large number of poor, uneducated immigrants (can’t imagine a society like that…). It would be a cascading effect, most hurting those on the very bottom but also perhaps creating mismatches in other rungs (in terms of matching individual mate desirability from a genetic and/or cultural basis). The main driver in preventing this would be a cultural preference for two-person marriages - but erode that and you’d get more and more (depending on the economics, again).

There may be a few situations in which one woman would marry a bunch of men, but I would think that this would be relatively swamped by the converse situation.

[quote]mharmar wrote:
As for the importance of marriage, what is it’s importance? Other than the actual legal benefits what is it’s importance? Sure it can be important symbolically for one or both people in a relationship, but why is marriage more meaningful than a long-term relationship, other than the legal benefits? To me it seems like it is just an old tradition that many people are afraid to let go of.

[/quote]

It’s important because it is a factor in making men stick around and help to raise their kids - particularly their male kids. Marriage isn’t just benefits - it’s also legal duties - and punishments for breaking up (see: alimony).

1012

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
With regard to beastiality, methinks you misstate the concern. The concern was that IF marriage was defined as an individual right, and IF restrictions based on sex and number of partners were considered irrational and disallowed, what would be the rational justification for restricting the right w/r/t animals?

Makavali wrote:
An animal cannot give informed consent, which also something that will stop pedophilia within polygamous sects.[/quote]

For that matter, why is an informed consent requirement rational?

1013

[quote]Makavali wrote:

I think Beebuddy is right - I believe you do think your marriage is cheapened just because your a bit squeamish about two men having sex.[/quote]

Sure thing, Makavali - you take all my posts in this thread, sum them up, and the totality of all that have written points to one inevitable conclusion:

I think gays are icky.

Heh.

1014

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

But if it’s an individual right owned by each individual human, how is restricting its exercise by such individuals only to other humans any more or less rational than restricting its application only to pairs of individuals?

The point is, at the end of the day, that marriage was never intended to be an individual right as such. It’s not like freedom. It’s a legal status created with particular restrictions. Changing one doesn’t necessarily cause a problem - but declaring it an individual right and then declaring a restriction based on gender “irrational” would be highly problematic.

Women drive choices. The more stratified a society is based on wealth differences between the top and the bottom, the more a woman who, ceteris parabus, might want a single-partner marriage, might decide it’s a better option to take a partial share of a richer guy. This would be particularly problematic if there was a strata of very poor at the bottom rung of society - like, say, a large number of poor, uneducated immigrants (can’t imagine a society like that…). It would be a cascading effect, most hurting those on the very bottom but also perhaps creating mismatches in other rungs (in terms of matching individual mate desirability from a genetic and/or cultural basis). The main driver in preventing this would be a cultural preference for two-person marriages - but erode that and you’d get more and more (depending on the economics, again).

There may be a few situations in which one woman would marry a bunch of men, but I would think that this would be relatively swamped by the converse situation.

It’s important because it is a factor in making men stick around and help to raise their kids - particularly their male kids. Marriage isn’t just benefits - it’s also legal duties - and punishments for breaking up (see: alimony).
[/quote]

Marriage is a contract between two humans, you can’t make a contract with an animal. With the polygamy argument it is really just hypothetical I highly doubt the practice would become very widespread and there is no way to know how it would turn out in this day and age unless we allowed it, I think like gay marriage it would much smoke with no fire.

I think those legal duties is more why marriage is falling than anything else, why should a man or woman for that matter be forced to stay with the mother/father of their child, you can take an active hand in child-raising without being married. Also what is more psychologically damaging growing up with no father/mother or having one that despises being around you. Not to mention in many ancient cultures the father didn’t have much to do with the raising of the child until it hit a certain age. The whole concept of both parents actively having a hand in raising the children is actually a relatively new one.

1015

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I understand. I am pissed I didn’t get any money from the “tax rebate”. I’m pissed I pay a larger percentage of my income in taxes than most people. I’m pissed my kids won’t qualify for a lot of tuition assistance when they go to college. But I also understand I don’t have a Constitutional right to equality in any of the above…[/quote]

I don’t think you do understand. It’s disingenuous to equate tax brackets based on income to the myriad of rights granted exclusively based on sexual orientation.

People don’t choose their sexual orientation and they can’t change it. Gays should have the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital, to receive benefits of survivorship, and to enjoy the hundreds of other rights only available to straight couples.

Out of curiosity: Do you admit, as I did, that you aren’t truly open minded about all of this?

1016

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
For that matter, why is an informed consent requirement rational?[/quote]

Because without it, there is nothing to stop people from taking advantage of those who don’t know any better i.e. children, animals, mentally handicapped.

1017

[quote]mharmar wrote:

Marriage is a contract between two humans, you can’t make a contract with an animal. With the polygamy argument it is really just hypothetical I highly doubt the practice would become very widespread and there is no way to know how it would turn out in this day and age unless we allowed it, I think like gay marriage it would much smoke with no fire. [/quote]

Exactly - marriage is a contract. It’s not an individual right. If it were an individual right, it would no longer be a contract. It doesn’t fit in the individual-rights framework, and jamming it in there creates problems.

[quote]mharmar wrote:
I think those legal duties is more why marriage is falling than anything else, why should a man or woman for that matter be forced to stay with the mother/father of their child, you can take an active hand in child-raising without being married. Also what is more psychologically damaging growing up with no father/mother or having one that despises being around you. Not to mention in many ancient cultures the father didn’t have much to do with the raising of the child until it hit a certain age. The whole concept of both parents actively having a hand in raising the children is actually a relatively new one.[/quote]

The research seems to indicate that kids coming out of broken homes are worse-off than kids coming out of two-parent homes overall. Whether any particular case would be improved by removing a bad father or bad mother can’t be the basis of a broad policy decision - at least not unless you want the state making that determination in each case…

As for the certain age thing: I do think it’s most important to have the father around for older boys - say, 11 or so through adulthood. They need adult males as role models, and to act as a control on their behavior.

I also agree that the duties are what makes marriage more unattractive - particularly to males. Which is why there generally need to be the incentives - and the societal pressures - on males to marry. Particularly given geographic mobility today, there need to be strong ties of males to their offspring.

1018

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I understand. I am pissed I didn’t get any money from the “tax rebate”. I’m pissed I pay a larger percentage of my income in taxes than most people. I’m pissed my kids won’t qualify for a lot of tuition assistance when they go to college. But I also understand I don’t have a Constitutional right to equality in any of the above…

forlife wrote:
I don’t think you do understand. It’s disingenuous to equate tax brackets based on income to the myriad of rights granted exclusively based on sexual orientation.

People don’t choose their sexual orientation and they can’t change it. Gays should have the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital, to receive benefits of survivorship, and to enjoy the hundreds of other rights only available to straight couples.[/quote]

Why? In both cases it’s essentially being disallowed from claiming a particular government-created benefit that attaches based on satisfying a precondition. It matters not a whit whether you choose your sexual orientation.

And if you want hospital-visitation rights, pass a law allowing anyone designated by the patient to be allowed to visit the patient. That doesn’t need to be included in a marriage discussion.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Out of curiosity: Do you admit, as I did, that you aren’t truly open minded about all of this?[/quote]

I admit that I’ve already thought about this issue quite a bit, so unless you tell me something new you aren’t going to change my mind by bringing up what I’ve already considered. So, if by open-minded you mean I have no opinions, I’m certainly not open-minded. If by open-minded you mean willing to listen to and include new information, then yes I am open-minded.

1019

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
For that matter, why is an informed consent requirement rational?

Makavali wrote:
Because without it, there is nothing to stop people from taking advantage of those who don’t know any better i.e. children, animals, mentally handicapped.[/quote]

And strictly speaking, why should we care about protecting animals?

1020

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Because… every married couple has children?[/quote]

Nothing I wrote in the post you responded to argues that. You’re just grasping, and not even trying to make sense.

Incorrect - there is no “social status” afforded a couple inherently. What exactly was great about the “man and wife” union in the ancient cultures that came up with marriage that had nothing to do with the physical union that produces children?

The reason we wanted people to “pair up” was to come together for purposes of taking care of their child.

You made up an answer out of your ass - and not even a decent one.

By what logic are you talking about? Logic doesn’t point to that outcome.

Marriage isn’t contingent on such fine-tuning - as I stated, and you completely ignored (predictably), marriage has to be overinclusive. A eunuch’s marriage is plenty valid because marriage naturally overincludes “men” as a category.

That isn’t correct, but you keep peddling it anyway - there was no comprehensive and accepted institution known as gay marriage as part of normal Western society prior to the Christians outlawing it. Stop relying on that myth.

Let me guess - you got that information the same place that you “got” the information that the US government couldn’t discriminate against gays, that you are, um, trying to remember where you found it?

[quote]As for discouraging cheating, your system has worked GREAT so far.

[i]Some authorities (for example Frank Pittman in ‘Grow Up’ Golden Books) observe infidelity is involved in 90% of first time divorces. A 1997 study with Kristina Gordon found ‘more than half of the marriages that experience infidelity ended in divorce’. By contrast John Gottman with his 35 years of research into marriage, is reported as saying “Only 20 percent of divorces are caused by an affair. Most marriages die with a whimper, as people turn away from one another, slowly growing apart.” Fifty United Kingdom divorce lawyers were asked to name the most common causes of their cases in 2003. Of those who cited extramarital affairs, 55% said it was usually the husbands and 45% said that it was the wives who cheated.

In addition between 10-15% of children are conceived as a result of an affair.[/i]

I hope your argument doesn’t hinge on infidelity.[/quote]

The argument(s) hinge on all sorts of things, and they have all been covered, your frequent amnesia notwithstanding. If infidelity is rampant in the modern age, marriage certainly isn’t the culprit. But more to the point, we can all agree - well, maybe not you - that infidelity is a bad thing. And, you have helped me make my point - as marriage continues to further be under assault in the modern age, we see higher levels of infidelity and failed marriages generally, which have terrible consequences.

So, that’s for assisting my point - we need to correct the ills of infidelity, etc., and strengthening marriage is certainly one of the weapons of the arsenal to do exactly that.

Don’t think so? Ask Forlife or any other gay marriage advocate - one of the main reasons they want gay marriage is that it will help promote fidelity and monogamy in a culture where the consequences of not being faithful have been devastating.

You need to coordinate your information with other gay marriage advocates, Makavali - you are actually making arguments against their cause.

Oops.