Last week, when I summed up a bunch of my positions, I mentioned my support for gay marriage. A couple of commenters disagreed with me on that point. The elements they cited were the ties between marriage, children, and state support thereof. I’m not going to do an item-for-item rebuttal to those points they made, but I am going to use it as a springboard for a larger discussion.
Marriage came about, as I understand it, as a way for a society to provide for the raising of children, and the perpetuating of the society as a whole. It was a way of forming permanent bonds between unrelated people, allowing the culture to expand and widen its gene pool.
But that has changed drastically, especially in the last 50 years. Human reproduction has come under tremendous scrutiny in that time, and social, legal, and medical advances — especially medical — have virtually redefined human fertility. It has reached the point where conception — and non-conception — are, for about 99.99% of people entirely voluntary and under their control.
Want a child? Go for it. Try the natural way. If that doesn’t work, we have entire professions dedicated to getting people pregnant when they can’t do it on their own. And if they can’t pull it off, then we have professions lined up to arrange adoptions.
And then there’s Tom Cruise… but I digress.
Don’t want a child? Fine. There are a zillion ways to keep that from happening, too. Start off with abstinence. Then move on through the plethora of contraception out there. Wrap it, snip it, take the pill, have the shot, put on the patch, mark the calendar, put it somewhere else, and so on. Hell, do several at once.
If they don’t work, there are also abortion and adoption options waiting in the wings.
In brief, we have developed to the point where every single child should be welcomed, and no child should go unwanted — if people just show a modicum of personal responsibility.
I consider myself an exemplar of this. I decided several years ago that, for various and sundry reasons that apply to me and no one else, I did not want to father children. Then I spent a lot of time working up my nerve, and had the procedure.
Anyway, the point I am trying to make here is that child-rearing as a primary function of marriage is going out the window. Originally, it was for uniting couples who were likely to have children. The random element has been pretty much eliminated. If we continue that principle, then we ought to ban any people who can not or will not produce children should be banned from marrying.
With the child factor fading in significance, then why should we keep the institution around at all? Because it promotes social stability. It allows people to form social structures that promote and preserve the culture. A married couple is fundamentally more stable, more prosperous, more desirable from a social perspective than two unattached people.
And that is part of why I support gay marriage. It allows people to set up their own family unit, to become more stable and secure members of the society. It gives them a bond to their society and culture, and increases the general prosperity of the culture as a whole.
Yes, I understand the religious objections, and respect them. But there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country, and allowing a civil ceremony (or even a civil union) apart from religious sanction should be no skin off the church’s nose. They don’t have to perform the weddings, or sanction them, or even recognize them — they just need to butt out and let those of us who don’t ascribe to their beliefs to go our own way.
I think that, eventually, gay marriage will be widely tolerated, and even grudgingly accepted, by most people. But the virulent tactics being used by both sides will delay that coming, and a lot of people will suffer in the meantime.
It can be delayed, but I don’t think it can be denied. And I don’t think it should.
There is no natural right to be married as the term is currently defined in the U.S. The title “married” is not only a contract between individuals, but also with the state. For example, when one of the two dies, the other gets a share of the deceased partner’s social security pension. Same is true for military pensions and some private pensions. Gays, in arguing their case before the Massachusetts supreme court identified 50 some benefits bestowed on married couples by society (state and private). Those benefits justify society’s involvement in defining marriage.
Love between the partners is irrelevant to the marriage contract with society. Society bestows marriage benefits for the sole purpose of promoting the pro-creation and rearing of the next generation of productive law-abiding citizens, which is necessary for the continuance of society as we know it.
Government deals with people by type rather than by individual. One example is that people of type “65 years of age or older” get an extra exemption on their income tax regardless of their actual financial status. I gave more examples of “types” in my prior post on this topic. Government grants the title “married” to the type “genetically compatible pro-creation couples” It’s irrelevant that some genetically compatible pro-creation couples don’t or can’t pro-create just as it’s irrelevant that some 65 year-olds don’t need an extra tax exemption.
Marriage is founded on the principles of pro-creation and equality of the partners. Removing either of these foundations weakens the propagation of society itself and that entitles the people to vote on any changes to marriage laws. Every voter is entitled to vote their own beliefs regardless of the nature or source of their beliefs.
Consenting adults can already live in whatever relationships they choose, so there’s no human rights issue at stake. Power of attorney laws already allow unrelated individuals to exercise legal authority over each other’s property and even make medical decisions for others.
Government grants the title “married” to the type “genetically compatible pro-creation couples”
I must have missed that part of the law, that states people with conflicting genetic markers may not marry.
Consenting adults can already live in whatever relationships they choose, so there’s no human rights issue at stake. Power of attorney laws already allow unrelated individuals to exercise legal authority over each other’s property and even make medical decisions for others.
Bullshiat. A close family member (such as a parent) who disapproves of a gay individuals partner has far more recourse in courts to wrest control from a power-of-attorney partner than they do over a spouses similar authority.
What physical negative impact does allowing people to marry as they choose to have on you? Because kvetching about definitions of “marriage” and “because it’s always been done that way” is crap. Definitions and social meanings change constantly, and the way it’s always been done is more often a good argument for change. After all, prior to the 13th amendment, slavery was the way it’s always been done. Prior to suffrage, men having the sole vote was the way it had always been done.
It’s not “special rights,” it’s equal as much as ensuring wheelchair access to public buildings. Every 100% healthy adult can climb steps, but that shouldn’t exclude those who can’t.
WARNING…SOMEWHAT EXPLICIT CONTENT AHEAD…(edited slightly to not tip the search engines)
First, Mak….drop the “homophobic” bullshit. Nobody here is scared of a damned thing, and you know as well as anyone here that the term was coined to make a mockery of anyone who opposed the radcal homosexual agenda, not unlike a schoolyard accusation of being “chicken.” If we’re going to talk about “grown-up” issues, let’s use “grown-up” language, shall we?
Next, I make absolutely no bones about it…I’m anti-homosexuality. There’s a distinction between someone who enjoys homosexual sex, and someone who has an aversion to heterosexual sex. The first is a conscious choice…the latter is a psychological disorder.
To see this exemplified in another area of sexuality, look at the world of fetish. A person who enjoys b_ndage, s_do-m_sochism, or foot-w_rship isn’t considered imbalanced or abnormal, by and large…until their preferences towards those things precludes them from enjoying sex without incorporating those elements, in which case therapy is indicated.
To say that a predisposition exists towards homosexuality (therefore not a conscious choice), and to therefore normalize it does indeed open the door to normalization of other sexual activities, most notaby pedophilia. A solid argument can be made that the pedophiliac has never made a conscious choice to be attracted to young minors, but rather finds himself naturally satiated by sexual experiences with prepubescent girls.
Psychology has always recognized that a person’s “natural” tendencies aren’t necessarily “healthy and normal.” To blur the line here is a dishonest and agenda-motivated distortion of the facts.
Now, before anyone jumps to the wrong conclusion, because I say that homosexual behaviour shouldn’t be “normalized” doesn’t mean that I’m opposed to the freedom of adults to engage in whatever sexual deviance they prefer, so long as it occurs strictly between consentual adult parties. As I believe strongly in personal freedoms, what goes on in the bedroom is nobody’s business except those folks in the bedroom…but that goes both directions. At the same time that the government has no business in the bedroom, what happens in the bedroom has no business in public. I don’t care what you do, with whom you do it, or how you do it…just don’t insist that I call it “normal.”
The law doesn’t allow close relatives to merry because of the known problems with offspring. Some locations require a blood test to get a marriage license for the same reason.
Not so. A properly executed power of attorney along with a notarized letter explaining a person’s wishes is excepted by courts as that person’s will when they are unable to speak for themselves. There are also living wills and witnessed video tapes to bolster this. The only means a family member has of overcoming such documents is to prove to the court that the person making them was either not competent at the time or coerced.
It dilutes, and thus, weakens the benefits society provides to pro-creation couples in return for the next generation of productive law-abiding citizens. Society has a compelling interest in promoting such future generations as it’s existence is at stake. I listed the pension example in my prior post, but there are many more financial benefits society provides that would be diluted by homosexual marriage without any hope of increasing the quality or quantity of the next generation of citizen.
None of my arguments are based on keeping marriage as it is for the sake of keeping marriage as it is. I have highlighted the reasons society limits marriage benefits to pro-creation couples. Nothing you have said addresses those arguments.
Everyone has the same right to marry any genetically compatible person of the opposite sex. What you’re asking for is special rights, just as someone wanting to marry a sibling of the opposite sex would be asking for special rights. The fact that you love someone is irrelevant as it’s not a foundation of marriage. Marriage is based on pro-creation and the equality of the partners, which results in the best payoff for the continuance of society. Live with who you want, but don’t expect society to provide you with extra benefits just because you’re porking some guy.
I knew someone would bring up the pedophilia strawman.
Since the largest apparent generator of pedophiles is organized religion (particularly the Catholic Church, but others have shown similar faults), it is clearly abnormal and should be banned for the good of the children.
/snark
It’s been clinically shown multiple times that pedophilia is distinct from homosexuality.
Jamie, you’re confusing sexual behavior with relationships. Someone in any kind of adult, consensual relationship shouldn’t have to worry about your disapproval preventing them from taking care of each other.
kbiel – needed a night’s sleep. Thanks for your comment. I think we agree on something here. I don’t claim that the 14th amendment protects gay marriage as a civil right. I can’t imagine that the authors who wrote it had that in mind at all.
I think that, legally, the matter is one for the states…Of course, things get more complicated when one state recognizes gay marriages and another state refuses to recognize that marriage. Then, we have to ask…are they legally married or not? Or are they legally married in one state but not in another?
This brings the Feds in–to settle a dispute between states. Hopefully, if this happens, it’ll be settled more peacefully than the dispute of the 1860s–whatever the ruling.
Mac Lorry – interesting post. Re:
“Society bestows marriage benefits for the sole purpose of promoting the pro-creation and rearing of the next generation of productive law-abiding citizens, which is necessary for the continuance of society as we know it.”
I think this overstates things; I believe people would pro-crate without financial incentives from the state. I also don’t see that allowing gay marriages would discourage heterosexuals from marrying, procreating and, thus, preserving the state.
It dilutes, and thus, weakens the benefits society provides to pro-creation couples in return for the next generation of productive law-abiding citizens.
Oh geez. Society does not provide benefits, it recognizes rights. The right to choose your partner, lifemate, and caregiver is as fundamental as any other.
This is why I have to hold my nose when voting for Republicans. . . the Dems may be absolute crap when it comes to national security and economic policy, and I recognize that importance, but they stink on ice when it comes to social issues.
By the way, please show the statute that states “Everyone has the same right to marry any genetically compatible person of the opposite sex” because it smells like something pulled out of the back pocket. You’ve failed to show any statute that requires a genetic test for marriage, for one, but it sounds like your trying to provide a unified definition of legal marriage while disallowing incestous heterosexual marriages, but not all related individuals are genetically incompatible, and not all unrelated individuals are. Recessives can pop up in all manner of crossings. So your entire basis for your definition is false, which either you fail to realize or you’re just trying to cover for the current imbalance in the recognition of rights.
Personally I think the “gay marriage is bad, mmkay” crowd is as boring and annoying as the “guns are bad, mmkay” bunch. How exactly are we a free country, with the freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, when adults whose behavior has no material impact on others can have those same rights curtailed by closeminded reactionaries.
Jamie
Sorry, but you are no defender of some sacrosanct concept of marriage but rather you are a homophobe using contrived arguments in an attempt to justify your intolerance & predilection for discrimination.
Your position denies to some the right to have a life-long partner along w/ the traditional benefits that come from society’s recognition of that bond.
You wrote further:
“Next, I make absolutely no bones about it…I’m anti-homosexuality. There’s a distinction between someone who enjoys homosexual sex, and someone who has an aversion to heterosexual sex. The first is a conscious choice…the latter is a psychological disorder. “
Your labeling of homosexuality as a psychological disorder is totally unsupported in any mainstream field of psychology w/ rare exceptions coming from discriminatory religious fundamentalists citing archaic biblical references. Mainstream psychology dropped your label a long time ago.
Finally, if you had 1 shred of psychological understanding, you would know that your claim that “homosexuality is a choice” is absolutely false. That kind of statement from you that I quoted shows clearly that, if you are not homophobic, then you certainly have a passion for discrimination, which makes you a bigot. That is your conscious choice.
There is little doubt that, given your hateful discriminatory attitude, you would have been in the trenches w/ George Wallace & Strom Thurmond in opposition to the civil rights laws of the 1960’s when, at that time, it was still acceptable in some circles to be an avowed racist. People who think like you are always about imposing discriminatory limitations on some unfavored group.
As the Declaration of Independence was quoted
above, we are a society where one has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Intolerant people like you make a mockery of that Declaration and the Constitution that ensued.
Ok, let’s take a look at this from a rational viewpoint.
a.) no-one has proven why people are gay. There is no Gay-Gene, It may be psychological, but thus far there is no reason to believe that homosexuality is a physical process. Let’s just take that one off the table.
b.) marriage, was, until governments wormed their way into the business of licenses, fees, and bureacracy, an entirely religious practice, requiring the blessing of a priest, shaman, what-have-you. (thus the old english practice of the government and anglican church keeping records)It was for the sake of being able to justify a function, or functionaries.
c.) modern government seeks to protect minorities in western cultures. I’m not saying they are given excessive rights, but if a heterosexual beats up a homosexual, it’s a “hate crime”. However, if a homosexual beats up a heterosexual, it’s simple assault. Much different penalties. Should homosexuals be considered a minority if they are given the same rights to marriage as a heterosexual? They have all the same benefits, except procreation, and we must assume that if a man and a man are together they understand that neither of them will ever be pregnant. The same can be said for two monogamous women.
I know where I stand on this issue, but my point is this, calling each other names is NOT accomplishing anything for either side. Put up or shut up, and get out your petitions. It’s a national issue for the reason listed above, not a state issue, and last I looked, the courts of the united states do not have the authority (by the constitution) to create a law out of thin air(although that’s pretty much what they did with RvW). Let’s get it hashed out and settled with a vote of the people, as issues like this are supposed to be.
Publicus,
Pro-creation is only the first step in the process. The next step requires 18 plus years to rear a child, hopefully, into a productive law-abiding citizen. It’s in society’s own interest to help pro-creation couples accomplish that task.
That like say it doesn’t hurt to give social security retirement benefits to people who never paid into the system, as if there’s an infinite amount of money for that purpose. The harm in allowing gay marriage is that it dilutes, and thus, weakens the purpose for which society gives benefits to pro-creation couples, which is to secure future generations of productive law-abiding citizen.
John Irving
And gays already have that through existing laws as I pointed out in detail.
Genetics is a relatively new science. Science has only discovered a small number of genes involved in genetic diseases, so it’s too early to say that closely related individuals are genetically compatible for the purpose of producing offspring. Courts are still releasing prisoner who were convicted of rape before DNA testing was widely available and recognized by the courts. Until such time as science can make absolute determinations the law will continue to ban marriage of closely related individuals. Some states still requires couples to pass a blood test before they get a marriage license.
You ask how gay marriage materially impact others before and I responded with an example. Obviously you didn’t read that response or it’s you who are closed minded on the issue.
John, I did not, in any wise, assert any connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. To my knowledge, no such link exists, as pedophiliacs come in “both flavors.”
No, I’m distinguishing the two, asserting that homosexual behaviour is not the threat to society, but rather normalization of homosexuality as a lifestyle is, as it paves the way to acceptance of any other “natural” abnormal sexual urges.
Mak….grow up, shit-stain.
Jamie
Just who the f… are you to define “abnormal?”
You need to grow out of your predilection for discrimination and false labeling of that which you do not approve. It’s unfortunate that you are so steeped in hatred of others who happen to be different from you.
Apart from bigotry, you have no credible grounds for labeling homosexuals as abnormal.
That normalization of homosexuality would pave the way for acceptance of other abnormal behavior as you stated just reveals your bias. You have no demonstrable basis to make such a claim of abnormality or any definable reason to point to what something will lead apart from bigotry. You cannot find any mainstream psychology that supports such a claim. You are left w/ ranting religious whack jobs like Dobson, Robertson, Parshall, Falwell & Perkins to dredge up support for any of your claims about gays.
It would be cathartic to label a bigot like you as “abnormal” except that there are so many of your ilk that it would not be beyond the norm.
Your Creator or Evolution gave you a mind to think and you abuse it with your instinctive animal response of defense maifested with bigotry and discrimination. Your reaction is just a more complex human form of animal defensive behavior. No matter how you try to dress it, you are a bigot.
Chad
You wrote: “a.) no-one has proven why people are gay. There is no Gay-Gene, It may be psychological, but thus far there is no reason to believe that homosexuality is a physical process. Let’s just take that one off the table.”
Sorry, but you cannot just take that one off the table. Because no one has identified a gay gene as yet, does not mean that none exists. No one yet has been able to demonstrate that homosexuality is a matter of Nature or Nurture or a combination. One thing for sure; it has been persistent throughout history and has been observed in some species in the animal world as in the case of some same-sex bird pairings and the rearing of young among many examples.
To attempt to judge and/or proscribe certain behaviors solely because they appear not to meet a certain norm is short-sighted and most likely reflects a failure to understand the complex interactive world in which we abide.
“I knew someone would bring up the pedophilia strawman.
Since the largest apparent generator of pedophiles is organized religion (particularly the Catholic Church, but others have shown similar faults), it is clearly abnormal and should be banned for the good of the children.
/snark
It’s been clinically shown multiple times that pedophilia is distinct from homosexuality.”
Which makes the irony that the problems with the Church that you mentioned so prominently were homosexual in nature.
Just saying. You didn’t have men touching girls.
“Apart from bigotry, you have no credible grounds for labeling homosexuals as abnormal.”
Wouldn’t the fact that they are a small minority, by definition, mean that they are not of the norm? Which means that they are abnormal.
Going with textbook definitions here.
“That normalization of homosexuality would pave the way for acceptance of other abnormal behavior as you stated just reveals your bias. You have no demonstrable basis to make such a claim of abnormality or any definable reason to point to what something will lead apart from bigotry.”
Feel free to explain how incestual marriages can remain illegal if gay marriages are not. A single argument that would hold up would be lovely.
“Sorry, but you cannot just take that one off the table. Because no one has identified a gay gene as yet, does not mean that none exists.”
Since none has been found — yes, you can say none exists (using that logic, you can say “Well, you can say unicorns exist, even though nobody has ever seen one ever”). It’s up to you to prove that it DOES in fact exist in spite of nobody having isolated it.
-=Mike
MikeSC
No one, and not you either, has delivered a valid argument as to why sanctioning gay marriage leads next to & results in some campaign to sanction incestual marriage. This line of argument is just plain silly and relies on the use of a straw man. So I don’t feel compelled to explain how incestual marriages would be barred in the event that gay marriage becomes legal. That is not even close to a rational discussion of the issue. You can attempt to establish any nonsensical situation that you want: it has nothing yo do w/ gay marriage and you cannot prove otherwise.
Secondly, the human genome has only recently been decoded and there are millions of human traits yet to be identified and linked to specific genes. Again, your unicorn analogy is just assinine.
On the other hand, if you are attempting to suggest that homosexuality is a choice, there is absolutely NO evidence to substantiate stch a claim, apart from the lunatic bigoted rantings of Dobson, Robertson, Perkins, Parshall, Foulwell et al & their devolved rabid bible-thumping fanatics.
mak44,
How about incestual gay marriages? Do you have any objection to them? I hope you’re not incestualphobic. But what if the siblings aren’t really gay, but like many unmarried siblings, just live in the same house as roommates in order to save money? If pro-creation is overturned as a foundation of marriage, there’s no valid argument for denying same sex siblings the finical benefits of marriage. Does anyone think courts will require same sex siblings to perform sodomy in order to qualify for marriage benefits? It’s real simple, if any same sex couples are allowed to marry, then all same sex couples must be allowed to marry.
“No one, and not you either, has delivered a valid argument as to why sanctioning gay marriage leads next to & results in some campaign to sanction incestual marriage.”
We’ve simply pointed out that any barrier to it is shot down by the exact same arguments that are trying to shoot down the reason why same-sex marriages aren’t legal.
“This line of argument is just plain silly and relies on the use of a straw man. So I don’t feel compelled to explain how incestual marriages would be barred in the event that gay marriage becomes legal.”
You couldn’t do so.
“That is not even close to a rational discussion of the issue.”
Yes, because legalizing one thing never leads to more things getting legalized. Never happens.
“You can attempt to establish any nonsensical situation that you want: it has nothing yo do w/ gay marriage and you cannot prove otherwise.”
If you wish to believe that, feel free.
“Secondly, the human genome has only recently been decoded and there are millions of human traits yet to be identified and linked to specific genes. Again, your unicorn analogy is just assinine.”
No, it’s 100% apropos. You want to claim something is real when there is zero evidence that it is. Just because it’s a sacred cow for you does not make it one for me.
“On the other hand, if you are attempting to suggest that homosexuality is a choice, there is absolutely NO evidence to substantiate stch a claim, apart from the lunatic bigoted rantings of Dobson, Robertson, Perkins, Parshall, Foulwell et al & their devolved rabid bible-thumping fanatics.”
Seeing as how there is legitimately zero evidence of homosexuality being genetic — only one option exists, no?
-=Mike
Jay Tea,
Yet the vast majority of productive law-abiding citizens continue to come from married parents. Society as we know it depends on the continued pro-creation and competent rearing of future generations. No modification to the current family format of one man one woman has been shown to be as effective.
Only, the random element of having unwanted children has been pretty much eliminated. The random element of having children and raising them into productive law-abiding citizens has increased, and it’s for the sake of promoting future generations that society bestows benefits on genetically compatible pro-creation couples. The resources society gives married couples are not in unlimited supply, so opening marriage to others who can’t pro-create and competently rear the next generation, dilutes those resources. Society has the right to get the most bang for the buck, as it has a compelling interest in promoting future generations of productive law-abiding citizens. That interest is the very existence of society as we know it.
Apart from some as yet to be developed medical procedure, the only way to know for sure that a given man and a given woman can have offspring is to wait until the man gets the woman pregnant. Rather than deal with individual cases, government deals with types of people. People of type “65 years or older” get an extra income tax exemption regardless of their financial status. People of type “18 years or older” can vote regardless of their competency, while those younger than 18 can’t vote regardless of their competency. Consider all the other areas where government deals with people by type and not by individual. Examples include driver license (minimum age), military draft (gender and age), and affirmative action (gender and race). By what logic should the government deal with marriage on an individual basis while dealing with people by type in all other areas? It can’t be that marriage is the most valuable, because the military draft (still on the books) can be a life and death issue. It can’t be because marriage is some constitutional right, because so is voting. It can’t be because marriage is financially important, because so are extra tax exemptions.
I believe your support for gay marriage is based on inaccurate information and ideas and doesn’t recognize the consequences society faces should such experiments with the basic structure of society prove disastrous. Please reconsider.