Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1141

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
the main issue is decoupling marriage from kids…

Thanks for presenting a debatable hypothesis. I don’t think it is a good one, but it is at least something we can discuss.

forlife wrote:
This hypothesis fails on two counts:

  1. Straight couples aren’t required to have children in order to marry. Does it devalue or in any way threaten marriage to allow infertile straight couples to marry? I think most would agree the answer to this is no. It doesn’t devalue marriage for people to choose not to have children as part of their marriage commitment.

  2. Allowing gays to marry doesn’t decouple marriage from kids. Gay couples can and do have children. Some (like myself) have children from a prior relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Others (like several of my friends) have children through adoption.

These children are better off with the stability provided by a marriage, since the legal and moral commitments associated with marriage make it less likely the couple will split up. [/quote]

Actually, that’s wrong in part and irrelevant in part, because what matters is the perception of what marriage is about. People need to believe that it is an institution that is about kids.

It doesn’t matter what an individual heterosexual couple chooses to do, because in the aggregate heterosexual couples are going to produce kids (with or without marriage, actually…). Heterosexual couplings lead to kids in general - and marriage is there because of that fact.

Allowing homosexuals into marriage proper changes that perception - homosexual couplings don’t inherently produce kids or naturally lead to kids. The fact that some homosexual couples may choose to have kids also doesn’t change this.

In other words, including homosexual couples generally within marriage breaks the link with procreation.

See this: http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/images/somerville.pdf

and http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200405040841.asp

Also, this doesn’t account for whether an individual child would be better off within a homosexual marriage - this is about the strength of marriage as an institution across society.

But, concerns about individual children is one of the reasons why I am for some sort of civil union for gay couples. You could easily get all the good things you argue for above with something like that - what you wouldn’t be getting is the implicit goal of forcing social acceptance.

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
holding that marriage isn’t a necessary (or even desirable) precondition for procreation

forlife wrote:
This is a logical fallacy.

If A → B, this in no way implies that B → A.

Allowing marriage without procreation in no way implies that procreation should be allowed without marriage.

The entire hypothesis falls apart when you realize that.[/quote]

It’s not a logical fallacy. It’s dependent variables. Including homosexuals into the definition of marriage necessarily weakens the link to making and taking care of kids, because homosexual unions don’t tend to lead to procreation in the aggregate.

Once that is weakened, then it’s marginally easier to further weaken that principle - kind of like how denting a can weakens the strength of the cylinder.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Additionally, there is the particular worry that promiscuity among gay male couples who are married would serve to undermine the social prohibitions on adultery in marriage.

forlife wrote:
This is like saying:

“A certain percentage of people in straight marriages commit adultery. Therefore, marriage is useless as an institution designed to prevent adultery, and should not be granted to straight couples.”

Marriage discourages promiscuity, but it doesn’t guarantee against it. Marriage makes it less likely that people would be promiscuous, due to the legal commitments it entails, and the potential repercussions to someone that chooses to cheat on their relationship.[/quote]

No, this is like saying that homosexual men are in general more promiscuous than straight men, and that many homosexuals have expressed no interest in changing that behavior. If both partners go in with that expectation, why would they be worried about ending a relationship, or even “cheating” - it’s consensual after all. Marriage only discourages promiscuity because we expect it to do so.

1142

Note, this is also good.

What’s unsaid is the for marriage itself - not just gay marriage - to be successful, it needs to be the societal norm, not a lifestyle choice.

I’m going on vacation now, so don’t take my absence as an insult or a concession. Cheers.

1143

Can’t homosexuals “marry” now? Will they be thrown in jail if they hold a ceremony and pronounce themselves husband and husband?

1144

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Can’t homosexuals “marry” now? Will they be thrown in jail if they hold a ceremony and pronounce themselves husband and husband?[/quote]

The issue is that the same rights aren’t awarded to them as a heterosexual couple.

1145

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Can’t homosexuals “marry” now? Will they be thrown in jail if they hold a ceremony and pronounce themselves husband and husband?

The issue is that the same rights aren’t awarded to them as a heterosexual couple.[/quote]

Well, they’re not awarded to single people either.

1146

BB, I’ll respond to your post in detail tomorrow. In the meantime, have a good vacation. I look forward to continuing the discussion when you get back :slight_smile:

Sloth, that’s the point. Gay couples are treated like single people, which ignores the equality issue as well as the advantages to society from fostering secure, stable gay relationships.

1147

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Can’t homosexuals “marry” now? Will they be thrown in jail if they hold a ceremony and pronounce themselves husband and husband?

The issue is that the same rights aren’t awarded to them as a heterosexual couple.

Well, they’re not awarded to single people either.[/quote]

Well, is it fair for lesbian and gay couple to be seperated in the ER? Is it fair that they should be denied the right to make medical decisions for their spouse?

Rights like that. Personally I couldn’t care less (anymore) about the word being “given” to gays. They can call themselves married if they want - nobody can lay claim to a word.

It’s more a question of granting those rights to a gay couple.

Like:

  • Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from “due-on-sale” clauses.
  • Funeral and bereavement leave (?)
  • Legal status with stepchildren
  • Making spousal medical decisions
  • Right to inheritance of property
  • Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
  • Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime

… and I’m sure there’s more.

1148

[quote]forlife wrote:
BB, I’ll respond to your post in detail tomorrow. In the meantime, have a good vacation. I look forward to continuing the discussion when you get back :slight_smile:

Sloth, that’s the point. Gay couples are treated like single people, which ignores the equality issue as well as the advantages to society from fostering secure, stable gay relationships.[/quote]

I shouldn’t have said single. I was thinking more like couples who don’t want to be “married” but wouldn’t mind cohabitating.

1149

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Can’t homosexuals “marry” now? Will they be thrown in jail if they hold a ceremony and pronounce themselves husband and husband?

The issue is that the same rights aren’t awarded to them as a heterosexual couple.

Well, they’re not awarded to single people either.

Well, is it fair for lesbian and gay couple to be seperated in the ER? Is it fair that they should be denied the right to make medical decisions for their spouse?

Rights like that. Personally I couldn’t care less (anymore) about the word being “given” to gays. They can call themselves married if they want - nobody can lay claim to a word.

It’s more a question of granting those rights to a gay couple.

Like:

  • Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from “due-on-sale” clauses.
  • Funeral and bereavement leave (?)
  • Legal status with stepchildren
  • Making spousal medical decisions
  • Right to inheritance of property
  • Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
  • Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime

… and I’m sure there’s more.[/quote]

Aren’t there legal measures such as wills and guardianship for most of this?

1150

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Aren’t there legal measures such as wills and guardianship for most of this? [/quote]

Most, not all.

1151

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I shouldn’t have said single. I was thinking more like couples who don’t want to be “married” but wouldn’t mind cohabitating.[/quote]

De facto partners?

1152

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Aren’t there legal measures such as wills and guardianship for most of this?

Most, not all.[/quote]

Then why not just get a will, guardship as it is now and possibly legalize allowing the rest of to be covered by these. Then there is no arguement for legal equality and takes away that arguement for legalizing gay marriage

1154

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I shouldn’t have said single. I was thinking more like couples who don’t want to be “married” but wouldn’t mind cohabitating.[/quote]

Couples who want to cohabitate aren’t the same as couples that want to make the commitments and receive the benefits of being married.

1155

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Aren’t there legal measures such as wills and guardianship for most of this? [/quote]

My partner and I have done everything we can legally do as far as guardianship, wills, power of attorney, etc. However, we still fall far short of the benefits and commitments that are part of marriage. Social security, federal tax benefits, legal consequences for breaking our commitment, etc. are all very different for us than if we were married.

1156

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Oxymoron.[/quote]

Tell that to my friends Ian and Ambrose, who have been together for 55 years.

Besides, if you want gay relationships to be stable and long term doesn’t that make the case for allowing gay marriage? If people are bound by legal benefits and consequences, they are more likely to stay together.

1157

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
People need to believe that it is an institution that is about kids.[/quote]

Are you saying that people need to believe marriage is an institution that is only about kids? If marriage serves other purposes beneficial to society, is that not a good thing as well?

Again, how is that any different from allowing sterile couples to marry? And you can’t ignore that gay couples can and do have children. I know quite a few couples that have kids (including me), and that is going to promote the relationship between marriage and children.

We may not be disagreeing as much as would appear on the surface, then. I’m perfectly happy with calling it a civil union, as long as it includes the same benefits and responsibilities as marriage.

You missed the reason that it is a logical fallacy.

You were arguing that allowing gays to marry encourages straight couples to have children outside of marriage.

That doesn’t logically follow. Allowing gays to marry in no way changes the fact or even the perception that children benefit from marriage.

[quote]No, this is like saying that homosexual men are in general more promiscuous than straight men, and that many homosexuals have expressed no interest in changing that behavior. If both partners go in with that expectation, why would they be worried about ending a relationship, or even “cheating” - it’s consensual after all. Marriage only discourages promiscuity because we expect it to do so.
[/quote]

You are catering to stereotypes by making a sweeping statement about gay men being more promiscuous than gay men. I don’t have sex outside of my relationship, but I know straight men that do. It would be equally incorrect for me to generalize that to a statement about straight men being more promiscuous than gay men.

Setting that aside, you are also confusing cause and effect. Have you considered that maybe one reason gay men have sex with multiple partners is because marriage isn’t an option for them? If marriage didn’t exist, would you expect many straight men to similary have sex with more women?

As you point out, marriage is associated with less promiscuity. Gay marriage would help decrease promiscuity just as straight marriage helps decrease promiscuity.

Also, don’t forget that gay men not wanting to make a life commitment to a partner would not want to be married in the first place. I have several gay friends that have no interest in getting married. Not coincidentally, those of my friends that do want to get married are those that are in monogamous relationships.

1159

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I shouldn’t have said single. I was thinking more like couples who don’t want to be “married” but wouldn’t mind cohabitating.

Couples who want to cohabitate aren’t the same as couples that want to make the commitments and receive the benefits of being married.
[/quote]

Why?

1160

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I’d rather tell it to the majority of gay blades who are more promiscuous than my neighbors tom cat.[/quote]

How many of those “gay blades” do you know personally? You’re operating on blind stereotypes. The reality is that gays, just like straights, vary greatly in their “promiscuity”. Sweeping generalizations only underline your ignorance.

Use some common sense. Obviously, if marriage isn’t available to gays then they cannot benefit from the stability that marriage provides in a relationship.

You mean like all those unmarried straight couples that stay together long term?