Slow Blogging/The Sad Debate on Gay Marriage in CA
Shortly after learning last night how advocates of gay marriage intend to contest California’s Proposition 8 (focusing on how the number of the initiative rhymes with “hate”) I learned that some of those supporting the initiative, particularly those behind the website, ProtectMarriage.Com represent the most extreme Christian conservatives.
On the one hand, you have those who refuse to understand some people’s legitimate opposition to gay marriage (see e.g., this post). On the other, you have those who refuse to consider the legitimate religious beliefs of those who do not accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.
Doesn’t look like we’re going to get a very substantive debate on one of the most serious issues of our time (indeed of any time).
I had intended to blog on that, noting that similarity on both sides of the issues–a refusal to understand the arguments of their adversaries. David Blankenhorn and Jonathan Rauch seem to be two of the noble exceptions in this debate.
Not just that. There seems to be a dichotomy between the leaders of each movement and the people they claim to represent. While sensible people offer serious objections to gay marriage, the leaders of the movement seem to have a problem with any who do not accept Jesus as their personal savior. When most gay people who seek to have their relationships recognized as marriage understand the meaning of the institution, the leaders of the movement for gay marriage do not.
Anyway, I have already said more than I had thought I would be able to write today.
Since getting back from Cincinnati, while my mind has been aswirl with thoughts, ideas and images, I’ve really not been in much of a mood to do any more than scribble them down on a piece of paper as a reference for a future e-mail, post or other writing. That is, I haven’t really felt up to organizing them into a post.
Perhaps, it’s that I’ve been blogging so intensely since March that as per this post, I need to take a break to focus on other things and recharge my batteries (so to speak).
Anyway, I hope to build on the ideas I addressed in the first part of this post in a subsequent piece because of the importance of marriage to our society. Shouldn’t the debate on extending that ancient institution to same-sex couple be more than a series of insults hurled back and forth?
As I’ve said before, I’m amazed at the lameness of this debate. It’s why I single out Rauch so readily.
And I had wanted to say something about Tony Snow who, like me, is a native of Cincinnati and whose very presence taught me some important lessons about dealing with difficulty and finding one’s way in the world. I found Bruce’s tribute most touching.
Just as he didn’t know Bruce was at the table next to him at the Alexandria restaurant, he didn’t know how much his life had impacted mine. Yet, just as Bruce felt he was in his company, I often felt I had been in the presence of this man even though I had never come close to the man.
I hope to get the chance to explain why in a future post.
Hey Dan, if you need to relax and “recharge your batteries,” maybe we could find a nice LDS “man on a mission” like the post below and send him to you!
On second thought - send him my way.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 15, 2008 @ 12:10 pm - July 15, 2008
I’m not surprised that those leading the fight on both sides of the marriage issue are the most extreme. It takes a certain amount of blind dedication and singlemindness to be at the forefront of such political movements.
Sadly, I never expect these issues to lead to serious discussions. Our world has become ruled by sound bites - middle ground, grey areas never fit in this narrative.
As to refocusing, isn’t there a PHD thesis that needs to be researched and written?
Comment by Leah — July 15, 2008 @ 12:21 pm - July 15, 2008
There is no legitimate opposition to gay marriage.
For good or bad, the state (and Federal Government) got into the marriage business, and started placing governmental protections and benefits on those who were married and, due to this, it also became a reason to deny those same benefits to those who were not.
As society progressed, a lot of the ‘strict’ requirements of marriage were taken away, often for very good reason. Modernly, you do not need to be able to procreate to be married, nor do you do not need to want kids to be married, nor do you need to have a religious marriage. In fact, you don’t even need to know the person for any period of time.
These all happened well before the gay marriage debate and were not in response to any gay desire for marriage. It was a reflection of the society as a whole.
People may object because of the “historical significance” or marriage, but even that is a non-issue. First of all, modern marriage, as a whole, does not respect the ‘historical’ aspects of marriage. Modern marriage is an offspring, unique in its own right. Secondly, if you look at ‘historical’ marriage, it was not all that respectable either. Marriage has its roots in the protection and acquiring of property, and viewed women as chattel.
Any objection to gay marriage is a veiled objection to gay relationship, pure and simple, because there are no legitimate objections as to why the state should select couple 1 to give benefits to over couple 2.
(Note: This applies to civil marriage. Religious groups have always, and should be able to continue to decide who they can or can not marry).
[Your comment here that there is not legitimate opposition to gay marriage is just silly since the very definition of marriage in so many cultures for so many millennia has been the union of two people of different genders. Amazing that most advocates of gay marriage can't acknowledge that basic (and irrefutable) fact. The debate now should focus on the merits of changing that definition. Simply dismissing the reality of human history is not the way to frame a serious debate.
Why can't gay marriage advocates just acknowledge the way things have been and then go on and say why the institution should evolve to include our relationships? --Dan]
Comment by Henry — July 15, 2008 @ 3:37 pm - July 15, 2008
I’ve been a gay marriage supporter for 15 years - in various ways, not limited to arguing for gay marriage on this blog - and I never knew!!!! Now my problems are solved, because today I learned this ‘fact’. Thank you for enlightening us! I will have to rush out and tell my friends and loved ones who have been skeptical of gay marriage, that I’ve just discovered they (or their principles and questions) are ‘illegitimate’.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2008 @ 5:31 pm - July 15, 2008
4. I will have to rush out and tell my friends and loved ones who have been skeptical of gay marriage
Of which you have many, I’m sure.
And I didn’t say people, beliefs, or principles were illegitimate. I said arguments.
If your friends oppose gay marriage, they may have beliefs or principles for doing so– what they don’t have is a legitimate argument.
Comment by Henry — July 15, 2008 @ 6:10 pm - July 15, 2008
Oh. I’m sorry. My mind-reading abilities are off. Because I had tried to quote #3 accurately and I could swear it says this:
Instead of saying this:
In fact, I scanned for the string ‘argument’ and couldn’t find it until #5. I must be blind.
As it happens, the new/updated version is something I did know already, so I would have to withdraw my compliment. Also, I must register my disagreement to this:
Child marriages, anyone? Or incest? There are several legitimate reasons for the State to select couple 1 to give a license to over couple 2. Some people think same-sex-ness would be one of them. Their arguments fail close inspection, yes. But opposition to gay marriage is not illegitimate; only short-sighted.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2008 @ 6:33 pm - July 15, 2008
Child marriages
Right out of the right-wing play book. Simple: Children can’t consent.
But, I will apologize about the ‘opposition’ instead of ‘argument’. It was inaccurate.
Comment by Henry — July 15, 2008 @ 6:41 pm - July 15, 2008
Precisely. You have FINALLY understood a point that I was making obvious.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2008 @ 6:52 pm - July 15, 2008
So: There continue to be reasons for the State to select couple 1 to give a license to over couple 2. We agree that if one of the parties in couple 2 is underage, that’s one reason. If they’re too closely related by blood, that’s another.
Can anyone think of other reasons? If one or both parties is already married, that would be yet another reason. Personally I would add ‘incarcerated felon’ to the list; I don’t think they should be able to marry. I do happen to think same-sex couples should be able to marry (provided the parties are not underage, incestuous, bigamous or incarcerated). There it is.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2008 @ 6:55 pm - July 15, 2008
There continue to be reasons for the State to select couple 1 to give a license to over couple 2
Of course, those are arguments against allowing marriage, not gay marriage specifically.
Comment by Henry — July 15, 2008 @ 7:10 pm - July 15, 2008
#9
Both parties have to be of the same species. Although, that’s apparently debatable in some locals. What’s that place, V? Enumclaw?
I find it funny that a leftist would think that a child is too young to consent, but apparently not too young to be taught about all the forms of sex in public skewlz.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 15, 2008 @ 7:31 pm - July 15, 2008
Henry I have a question, you made this statement
Since modern marriage is unique, why is it limited to only two people?
Comment by Leah — July 15, 2008 @ 7:37 pm - July 15, 2008
Henry, depending how one reads the above observation, it is either so obvious as to signify nothing, or insensible. If you want to make a point, kindly restate it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2008 @ 7:44 pm - July 15, 2008
My point was, neither children nor incest are an argument against gay marriage specifically. They are tenious ‘slippery slope’ argument that if you allow gays to marry, then soon we can marry goats, therefore don’t allow gay marriage.
Neither of them are valid reasons to deny same-sex marriage.
Comment by Henry — July 15, 2008 @ 7:52 pm - July 15, 2008
A point so obvious that it signifies nothing. **Of course** the arguments to be made against underage marriage and incestuous marriages are not arguments against gay marriage. Likewise, the arguments to be made against gay marriage (such as they are) are not arguments against underage or incestuous marriages. They’re 3 different subjects.
Ah. Your concern is with the argument, “If we allow gay marriage, then we’ll have to allow child and incestuous marriages.” But that is simply another poor argument against gay marriage, that I am prepared to shoot down, as I indicated at #6 (”Their arguments fail close inspection”).
Meanwhile, my own point stands: There are *legitimate* reasons for the State to select among couples - deciding to give a license to couple 1, but not couple 2. For example, if the parties in couple 2 were in some way underage, incestuous, bigamous or incarcerated, I would not give the license. So, the *legitimacy* of the State (or the People) picking and choosing among couples is a given. Excluding gay couples simply happens to be a bad choice, a choice I have argued against for 15 years now.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2008 @ 8:06 pm - July 15, 2008
Oh - Or different species. (thanks TGC
)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2008 @ 8:17 pm - July 15, 2008
Since modern marriage is unique, why is it limited to only two people?
I don’t know. If you want to make an argument for multiple marriage, fee free.
Comment by Henry — July 15, 2008 @ 8:29 pm - July 15, 2008
I find it funny that a leftist would think that a child is too young to consent, but apparently not too young to be taught about all the forms of sex in public skewlz
I think age-appropriate sex education is fine, yes.
I don’t think teaching kids about same-sex marriage, though, is teaching them about sex.
Comment by Henry — July 15, 2008 @ 8:31 pm - July 15, 2008
#17 - Would that mean you personally are not able to make a valid argument *against* multiple marriage?
If gay marriage supporters do not understand Western marriage well enough to make reassuring arguments against things like multiple marriage, underage, incest, etc., then the pro-gay-marriage cause is lost. (Or at least it should be lost, in a culture where marriage isn’t just unraveling completely.)
And that goes to GPW’s point: It’s reasonable, or even morally right, for people to value marriage-as-it-is and challenge those who propose changes. Which means: “we”, the pro-gay-marriage community, should stop resenting the challenges and start getting better answers together.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2008 @ 8:44 pm - July 15, 2008
19. Would that mean you personally are not able to make a valid argument *against* multiple marriage?
Arguments for polygamous marriage are a distraction. I can make a ton of arguments against it, economics being primary among them, but I feel no need to argue for or against it.
Comment by Henry — July 15, 2008 @ 8:50 pm - July 15, 2008
I’m not interested in how non-Western cultures conduct marriage. Only the West.
I’ll make a deal with you Dan: I will, if you will. In other words, part of “the way things have been” is that Western countries had a place for gay relationships - if not exactly calling them “marriage” - until the late Middle Ages or so, when the iron curtain descended complete with historical revision to try to hide/erase all traces of the previous toleration (Boswell’s 2 books).
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 15, 2008 @ 8:57 pm - July 15, 2008
Actually, that is almost exactly my point. There is little need to argue that marriage needs to evolve to allow gays. It already has, to the point where it makes no sense to keep same-sex couples out.
Which is why I listed how the ‘historical’ aspects of marriage are no longer relevant – and that they changed long before the gays started asking for it.
Comment by Henry — July 15, 2008 @ 9:31 pm - July 15, 2008
I don’t want to make a case for multiple marriage, nor apparently do you. I am willing to state that my reason is based on traditional marriage. The West figured out that one man one woman works, even though other cultures to this day have no problem with polygamy.
You on the other hand accept the ‘two people’ as the basis for marriage while throwing out the rest. So again, my question to you is why? Why can you pick and chose, and you are being fair, and those of us who disagree with you are labeled anti any gay relationship.
Comment by Leah — July 15, 2008 @ 11:01 pm - July 15, 2008
Arguments for polygamous marriage are a distraction. I can make a ton of arguments against it, economics being primary among them, but I feel no need to argue for or against it.
Actually, given that Henry’s fellow gay liberals are already demanding that polygamous and incestuous relationships, among others, be given marriage rights, it is quite relevant.
Make a choice, Henry; either argue against your fellow gay liberals, or make it clear that you have no problem with the legalization of polygamous and incestuous unions.
Ah. Your concern is with the argument, “If we allow gay marriage, then we’ll have to allow child and incestuous marriages.”
Which is a valid argument, given the judicial rationales that have been put forward for it — i.e., that denying marriage to anyone is an unconstitutional denial of “respect” and “dignity”, that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be abridged, that procreation and family bonds are not relevant to marriage, and that “love”, as defined by the participants, should be the only valid determinant of who should be allowed to marry.
The Constitution does not say word one about marriage. Everything about marriage is inferred. Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment, says “person”, with no restriction whatsoever to age or blood relation, in its equal protection clause; if marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed to all “persons” by the Fourteenth Amendment, children and blood relations cannot be denied marriage constitutionally unless one argues that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect the rights of children (already proven false) or that it allows discrimination on the basis of family relation (also proven false).
Moving forward, since procreation and family ties are irrelevant according to court decisions, that eliminates both as an argument against polygamy, incest, and child marriage. Furthermore, since the courts do not believe that public distaste is grounds for banning marriage, none of these three can be legally banned; indeed, to do so denies children, polygamists, and incestuous groups their guaranteed “respect” and “dignity”.
The only reason Loving is remotely constitutional is because the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments establish that race is not automatically a valid qualification for discrimination under the law. Combine that with the obvious evidence that biracial couples are no different than monoracial couples in any respect other than race, and the answer is obvious.
However, same-sex and opposite-sex couples are radically different in biology, psychology, and sociological impact. That much is shown by the fact that gay liberals like Henry admit that marriage had to be radically redefined to eliminate commitment, social value, and procreation in order to accomodate gay liberals.
Moreover, Henry, from this point forward, since you argue that children are irrelevant to marriage, any attempt on your part to argue that you need marriage “to protect your children” will be utter and blatant hypocrisy.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 15, 2008 @ 11:11 pm - July 15, 2008
Henry,
Your entire argument is predicated on the supposition that marriage is a thing in and of itself that has evolved independently of the people’s wishes. In other words, that the people have no right to determine what the purpose of marriage to society is in the first place. An arguemtn that simply doesnt fly this side of the Iron Curtain.
Secondly, heres a perfectly legitimate objection to gay marriage: I think the only compelling state interest in the institution is the welfare of children and therefore I want the purpose of marriage to be encouraging as many children as possible to be born into legally binding relationships between their biological parents. I have zero interest in subsiding an institution that exists to serve the best interests of adults. Adults can take care of their own interests.
Comment by American Elephant — July 16, 2008 @ 12:18 am - July 16, 2008
Hmm, related story from the NYT about how Massachusetts is going to repeal the ban on out-of-state gay couples getting married: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/16/us/16gay.html?hp
The title of the article is, “State Sees Perks to Repealing Marriage Ban.” However, everyone interviewed there says that the economic benefit is an added perk, so maybe there’s hope that this is just how the media is spinning things. Not that it’s much better, though….
Comment by Joel — July 16, 2008 @ 12:19 am - July 16, 2008
Apparently, my comments are being moderated now, as I can’t seem to post.
Comment by Henry — July 16, 2008 @ 12:26 am - July 16, 2008
Nice. Get the implication that I’m a communist in. Very Nice.
And, no, that’s not entirely true. As I pointed out, several times, most of the requirements for marriage that would have been a barrier to same-sex couples were removed well before gays started looking. This was done socially, according to wsishes.
That said, as I pointed out to NDT, assuming the post appears, there are judicial limits on the majority to prevent them from being able to pick and choose who gets what rights. Tyranny of the majority, and all that. Just because you don’t agree with me, that doesn’t mean that you get to decide what rights I am entitled to.
That’s all well and good, but your personal belief as to what requirements should or should not exist for marriage are largely irrelevant (I say largely, because as a citizen you have the right to ask your representative to make changes to the law and thus could effect it). The ability (or desire) to procreate is not a pre-requisite to marry.
And, I might add, you argument fails on another level. If the purpose of marriage is to protect children (an assertion I obviously disagree with), then let my partner and I marry – we have a child.
Or, is it only intended to protect some children?
Comment by Henry — July 16, 2008 @ 12:37 am - July 16, 2008
I oppose same sex marriage. I also oppose heterosexual marriage that is not centered on commitment, monogamy, and the raising of children.
I also remember how viciously the left attacked ‘Promise-Keepers’ in the 90’s for promoting the idea that commitment, monogamy, and raising children were central to married life.
Comment by V the K — July 16, 2008 @ 7:19 am - July 16, 2008
My understanding of the recent CA decision is as follows. SCOCA said the CA legislature/people *can* constitutionally deny gay marriage. They only said that it isn’t OK for the CA legislature/people to create an institution for gays that is the same as marriage in all ways, and then refuse to call that identical thing “marriage”. (Which is what the CA legislature had done.) SCOCA’s reasoning is that CA effectively *does* want gay marriage (if it legislates an identical institution) and only refuses to call it marriage out of some animus, which is unconstitutional in CA.
I disagree with that reasoning. I think the people/legislate should be able to legislate marriage (the State license) as they see fit. But for purposes of the argument here, NDT, let me note that it doesn’t fit into the paradigm you outlined. In other words, SCOCA still recognized the State’s right to set qualifications for a marriage license, selecting couple 1 and not underage, polygamous or incestuous couple 2.
Now, I know (or concede) that in some other State decisions, marriage (gay or otherwise) has been treated as a right, as you say. Like you, I disagree with that. A State license to anything (compelling third parties to act differently) should always be treated as a privilege not a right.
Not if, again, we’re using SCOCA as an example. They affirmed the importance of marriage in creating family ties, i.e., the relevance of family ties. Basically they would see marriage as the means by which 2 unrelated, unattached adults declare themselves a family in the eyes of the State, in accordance with the State’s interest in encouraging them to do so. That polygamous and incestuous unions are excluded remains a logical implication. (For example, 2 siblings are already a family, and hence, are logically excluded from a license whose purpose is to form new ones.)
And, bi-gender couples are no different than mono-gender couples in any other respect than gender [ed: i.e., the presence or absence of a gender difference].
Your next move, I know from past experience, is to talk about procreation or reproductive ability. But marriage is already *partially* detached from that. As you yourself said. And anyway, on the reproductive and child-raising level, a gay couple is functionally no different from a infertile straight couple. I recognize the State’s right to treat gay couples differently from infertile straight couples; I just think it is profoundly stupid, i.e., the State should be encouraging gay couples as well as straight couples to form stable 2-person units.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2008 @ 10:24 am - July 16, 2008
Please replace “not automatically” with plain old “not”.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2008 @ 10:34 am - July 16, 2008
Oh, just to knock off a couple more moves of the game, so we don’t waste too much time:
“But you can’t tell a straight couple is infertile, just by looking.” Answer: Oh yes you can. Show me any straight couple where the woman is over 70, and I’ll show you an infertile straight couple. The State has their ages right on the form. Plus, some States do invasive blood tests which could easily be extended to include basic fertility tests if the State found it important; the point being, in straight marriage as it actually exists, the State does not find fertility important.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2008 @ 10:40 am - July 16, 2008
#27: “I also remember how viciously the left attacked ‘Promise-Keepers’ in the 90’s for promoting the idea that commitment, monogamy, and raising children were central to married life.”
I remember too, and it still turns my stomach. It wasn’t just the organization’s ideals of “commitment, monogamy, and raising children” that made it a target of the liberal press, but the fact that it was about promoting those ideals to MEN that made it suspect. O’Dowd and the usual man-hating hags likened the group to a misogynistic, dangerous cult, a characterization confirmed by the Time cover story. Like most of the things the MSM media told us we needed to fear in the 90s (everything except Islamic jihad), it’s only objective was to ridicule that which is “good” and turn it into something evil and sinister (thereby, preserving one of the usual discredited liberal axioms from the 60s–that men are the enemy and that a woman only reaches her true potential by factoring the patriarchal oppressors out of her–and her children’s–life completely). Useless and pathetic–the feminist press excused Clinton’s shocking sexual harassment and oppression of women and went after Promise-Keepers instead. They were whores then, whores now–the madonna/whore complex, minus the madonna part.
Comment by Sean A — July 16, 2008 @ 12:04 pm - July 16, 2008
V, just curious: Does your opposition mean that you oppose the idea of same-sex couples making a commitment, centered on monogamy (and possibly the raising of children), that to them is essentially a marriage? Or does it mean you support such couples, but oppose legal forms recognizing their commitment? Or does it mean you support such couples and having some legal form that protects/recognizes their commitment, but would reserve the term “marriage” (and perhaps the strongest legal forms) for heterosexuals?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2008 @ 12:46 pm - July 16, 2008
ILC, I realize I’m way out in right field, and that the system I would create would be politically impossible, but my beliefs are based on the idea that committed heterosexual marriage — by providing the best environment and best model for the raising of children — provides a unique benefit to society and should be advanced by unique levels of protection.
I think committed arrangements between two people should be worked out in the realm of contract law, and the law should facilitate that. The law should also preclude polygamous and incestuous relationships from being formed under those types of contracts. The standard contract would include things like inheritability of assets, medical visitation, co-ownership of property and so forth. It would be like civil unions for everybody, with marriage remaining as a religious institution.
I would reserve a higher level of benefit for long-term, committed marriages that produce children, including tax benefits. I would end no-fault divorce, make benefits subject to reversal in the event a marriage dissolved for reasons other than addiction, abuse or infidelity. In the case of at-fault, only the unfaithful, addicted, or abusive spouse would be on the hook for repaying benefits. I’d keep current incentives for adopting special needs children in place.
It wouldn’t be a perfect system. Obviously, if a child is conceived by a married couple through adultery, they might still claim the benefit. But that’s the sort of imperfection I could tolerate.
Comment by V the K — July 16, 2008 @ 1:22 pm - July 16, 2008
V, let me know if I’m understanding you correctly. It sounds like you envision:
1) What we now understand as “civil unions” available to gay and straight couples (still excluding polygamous, incestuous, etc.).
2) Extra benefits and extra obligations (such as “fault-only” divorce) for marriages that produce children.
Is that roughly it? I’m not clear on when (2) kicks in. Because the couple chooses it? or because the couple produced a kid? and then what about gay or lesbian couples that (in the manner of an infertile straight couple) produce a kid?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2008 @ 1:52 pm - July 16, 2008
V, let me know if I’m understanding you correctly. It sounds like you envision:
1) What we now understand as “civil unions” available to gay and straight couples (still excluding polygamous, incestuous, etc.).
2) Extra benefits and extra obligations (such as “fault-only” divorce) for marriages that produce children.
Is that roughly it? I’m not clear on when (2) kicks in. Because the couple chooses it? or because the couple produced a kid? Also, what do you envision for gay or lesbian couples that (in the manner of an infertile straight couple) produce a kid?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2008 @ 1:55 pm - July 16, 2008
V, let me know if I’m understanding you correctly. It sounds like you envision:
1) What we now understand as “civil unions” available to gay and straight couples (still excluding polygamous, incestuous, etc.).
2) Extra benefits and extra obligations (such as “fault-only” divorce) for marriages that produce children.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2008 @ 1:56 pm - July 16, 2008
I.e., is that roughly it? I’m not clear on when the second one kicks in. Because the couple chooses it? or because the couple produced a kid? and then what about gay/lesbian couples that (in the manner of an infertile straight couple) produce a kid?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2008 @ 1:56 pm - July 16, 2008
I’m not clear on when the second one kicks in. (Man, the comment system is flaky today, aargh!) I.e., because the couple chose it or because they had a kid?
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2008 @ 1:57 pm - July 16, 2008
To be honest, since there is no chance that any of that will ever come to pass, I had not thought about it to that degree. Without getting into the weeds, I would think some sort of ceremony would be involved to get to Stage 2, which could be religious or private. Some level of incentives would increase along with the longevity of the marriage and other incentives would be tied to the birth of children.
One incentive would simply be that the civil union contracts would be relatively easy to break, but a marriage would be much, much harder to get out of.
To me, it seems rational. A civil union would have fewer obligations and fewer rewards. A marriage would require greater commitment and greater rewards.
Comment by V the K — July 16, 2008 @ 2:10 pm - July 16, 2008
30. I oppose same sex marriage. I also oppose heterosexual marriage that is not centered on commitment, monogamy, and the raising of children
That’s nice, but that’s not the state of marriage today.
Also, the latter is not a valid reason for opposing same-sex marriage. Arguably, if a gay couple was together and centered on commitment, monogamy, and the raising of children, they would be eligible for marriage?
Comment by Henry — July 16, 2008 @ 2:11 pm - July 16, 2008
Show me any straight couple where the woman is over 70, and I’ll show you an infertile straight couple.
And again, ILC, you keep needing to stack decks to make your argument.
The situation is this; in order to deem whether an opposite-sex couple is fertile or not, you need to know their age, their individual reproductive health status, their attitudes toward childraising, and their futures. If you were forced to pick a heterosexual couple at random, without this information, you could not make a reliably-accurate determination.
However, I can look at a same-sex couple and make an declaration that they are not fertile and will never be capable of producing children that biologically belong to both of them and be absolutely accurate — WITHOUT knowing their age, reproductive health status, attitudes toward childraising, and their future.
That is a profound difference.
I recognize the State’s right to treat gay couples differently from infertile straight couples; I just think it is profoundly stupid, i.e., the State should be encouraging gay couples as well as straight couples to form stable 2-person units.
Why?
The reason government is involved in marriage in the first place has to do with the very real likelihood that children will be produced. This is both something that society wants to encourage and to protect, since children are its most vulnerable citizens. Hence, society has directed government to grant special privileges, legal conveniences, and benefits to unions that produce children.
In contrast, unions that have no chance of being procreative provide no particular benefit to society to recognize, and in fact cost society in terms of lost opportunity and tax revenue. When such unions are recognized as such, it is a result of being unable to precisely determine which ones actually have “no chance” consistently.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 16, 2008 @ 2:32 pm - July 16, 2008
40. However, I can look at a same-sex couple and make an declaration that they are not fertile and will never be capable of producing children that biologically belong to both of them and be absolutely accurate — WITHOUT knowing their age, reproductive health status, attitudes toward child raising, and their future
This is a silly argument, akin to the ‘biological imperative’ argument given by many on the right (even if they can’t reproduce, they’re designed for reproduction. Also, there are various requirements already (blood tests and the like) which could establish the ability to procreate.
The reason government is involved in marriage in the first place has to do with the very real likelihood that children will be produced. This is both something that society wants to encourage and to protect, since children are its most vulnerable citizens. Hence, society has directed government to grant special privileges, legal conveniences, and benefits to unions that produce children.
In contrast, unions that have no chance of being procreative provide no particular benefit to society to recognize, and in fact cost society in terms of lost opportunity and tax revenue. When such unions are recognized as such, it is a result of being unable to precisely determine which ones actually have “no chance” consistently.
Of course, for this to be correct, you need to start parsing how children are made. IE, Procreation, vs. medical intervention vs adoption. We know that gay couples can have offspring – but what you’re really saying is that they don’t do it the right way.
Comment by Henry — July 16, 2008 @ 2:55 pm - July 16, 2008
And again, ILC, you keep needing to stack decks to make your argument.
The situation is this; in order to deem whether an opposite-sex couple
NDT, if ILC “stacked the deck” you just did as well. Just as it always the case that same sex partners can procreate, it is also always the case that couples both over the age of 70 cannot procreate.
That is a profound difference.
That MAY have been profound many years ago. It no longer is now.
In contrast, unions that have no chance of being procreative provide no particular benefit to society to recognize, and in fact cost society in terms of lost opportunity and tax revenue. When such unions are recognized as such, it is a result of being unable to precisely determine which ones actually have “no chance” consistently.
But yet, as far as I know, you have not advocated eliminating marriage for those couples who cannot or will not procreate. For example, couples in which the woman is over 70 will not procreate. Period. No blood test needed for that. In fact, there’s no need to determine the genders in this couple couple. So there are situations where it can be PRECISELY determined which ones actually have no chance consistently.
Even so, by your argument, you should at least discourage couples who will not procreate from getting married, even if you think it is impractical to enforce it by law. So when a couple in their 70s gets married, do you say, “Oh, isn’t that a cute couple. I wish them well in their marriage” or “Gee whiz, another couple getting married who cannot procreate. Another lost opportunity and loss of tax revenue. How selfish of them.” According to your argument, it sounds like you would say the latter. Same sex marriage or not, I’m much more likely to say the former.
Comment by Pat — July 16, 2008 @ 3:01 pm - July 16, 2008
No, it isn’t. It’s a “so, what?” difference.
So, what?
No, no, no. We’re talking about capabilities, not about fortune-telling and mind-reading. (Talk about stacking the deck! Pot, meet kettle
)
On the contrary. They are 100% as fertile as a straight couple that faces issues with the infertility of one of the partners. That is: Both the infertile straight couple and the gay couple can raise children… and, with the assistance of technology and outsiders, they can both bring forth new children that are genetically related to one of the partners. You can tell that “JUST BY LOOKING”.
And all of this is neither here nor there. Again: If fertility were important to States as they hand out marriage licenses, they would do some basic health screening for it. They don’t. But a State does know the partners’ ages. It’s right there on the form. The State happily hands out marriage licenses to couples that it **knows** to be infertile.
Society benefits when people settle down / pair off in stable family units. The more people who do that, the more the whole system (of settling down / pairing off) flourishes.
If that were true, government would not marry couples where the woman is over 70. The real reason government is involved in marriage is that, whether or not children are produced, the whole society benefits when people pair off into stable family units. An infertile / childless couple is still a family; society still benefits from them being married.
Are you going to seriously arguing that single people deserve to pay higher taxes? And thereby make it a tax/benefits issue, like the gay lefties argue? LOL.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2008 @ 3:03 pm - July 16, 2008
NDT, if ILC “stacked the deck” you just did as well. Just as it always the case that same sex partners can procreate, it is also always the case that couples both over the age of 70 cannot procreate.
Unfortunately, not all heterosexual couples are over the age of 70.
Furthermore, not all heterosexual couples are physically abnormal.
However, all homosexual couples, regardless of age, physical abnormality, or desire, are incapable of procreation and incapable of producing children without additional assistance, legal or physical — no exceptions. Furthermore, the children they produce will not be biologically related to both members of the couple.
The reason gay marriage supporters are so obsessed with exceptions among heterosexuals is because the reality of the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexuals emphatically refutes their argument. The pattern of overemphasizing exceptions is akin to the argument that unlimited abortion is necessary to protect victims of rape and incest — despite the fact that abortions as a result of rape and incest constitute less than 5% of the abortions performed annually and the remainder are a matter of the mother choosing to kill the baby because it is personally inconvenient to her. It’s an analogue to banning gun ownership for everyone because a tiny fraction of the privately-owned guns that are out there are used to commit crimes, while the vast majority of gun owners do not.
Society benefits when people settle down / pair off in stable family units. The more people who do that, the more the whole system (of settling down / pairing off) flourishes.
None of which requires marriage.
If you want to settle down and pair off, no one’s stopping you. Society’s simply saying that relationships that produce and nurture children are more valuable to it, and it is acknowledging the fact that heterosexual couples can do that without artificial or legal assistance.
Are you going to seriously arguing that single people deserve to pay higher taxes? And thereby make it a tax/benefits issue, like the gay lefties argue?
Do you believe people should be penalized for having children, ILC?
The full scope of the benefits and protections of marriage are relevant only when children are involved. Heterosexual marriages that do not involve children do not access and do not receive the same tax and other benefits that ones that do access and receive.
The reason that doesn’t matter with gay couples is because there is no probability whatsoever of a gay couple accidentally or unexpectedly producing a child. Gay couples cannot be disadvantaged by perfectly-natural activity; therefore, there is no need to provide them the benefits and advantages that help those couples who do produce children.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 16, 2008 @ 6:46 pm - July 16, 2008
However, all homosexual couples, regardless of age, physical abnormality, or desire, are incapable of procreation and incapable of producing children without additional assistance, legal or physical — no exceptions.
You’re arguing the inverse, NDT. You argue that procreation is the primary focus of marriage and that, then, anyone who can’t procreate shouldn’t marry.
You then are willing to exclude all those who fail to meet that definition (if they are straight).
The correct argument is that if procreation was a prerequisite for civil marriage, then straight couples who couldn’t/wouldn’t procreate due to age, injury, or choice would not be able to marry. You may think that procreation should be the basis of marriage, but modern marriage simply doesn’t require it.
The reason gay marriage supporters are so obsessed with exceptions among heterosexuals is because the reality of the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexuals emphatically refutes their argument.
Or, inversely, the exceptions prove the rule. If procreation was such a value to marriage, then cases where procreation was clearly not possibly would be exceptions. They’re not. They were at one point, but society decided that it’s okay for two people who can’t procreate to marry. And it was decided long before gays started asking for marriage.
Society’s simply saying that relationships that produce and nurture children are more valuable to it, and it is acknowledging the fact that heterosexual couples can do that without artificial or legal assistance
Why is legal / physical assistance such a problem? Are children adopted less than children in your eyes? Are babies born of In-Vitro less children? Are the parents less parents?
You must, because you said this earlier:
Furthermore, the children they produce will not be biologically related to both members of the couple.
Adopted children are not biologically related to thier parents. Maybe we should do away with adoption?
The full scope of the benefits and protections of marriage are relevant only when children are involved.
The government and society would disagree with that. Otherwise, they would make such benefits and protections conditional on children.
Heterosexual marriages that do not involve children do not access and do not receive the same tax and other benefits that ones that do access and receive.
Again, this is a sill observations. Clearly if you don’t have children, then you don’t enjoy any of the protections/benefits associated with children. The difference being, straights have the right to those benefits, if they have children.
You don’t think gays should.
Comment by Henry — July 16, 2008 @ 7:35 pm - July 16, 2008
You then are willing to exclude all those who fail to meet that definition (if they are straight).
That is because the mere nature of being an opposite-sex couple does not automatically preclude procreation, where the mere nature of being a same-sex couple does.
Why is legal / physical assistance such a problem? Are children adopted less than children in your eyes? Are babies born of In-Vitro less children? Are the parents less parents?
Easy. In all the cases you mention, the law is clear that the biological parental rights to the child must be waived, or gross negligence sufficient to justify their being stripped, prior to its being able to be adopted or claimed by another person. That makes it obvious that biological relationship is esteemed first and foremost.
The difference being, straights have the right to those benefits, if they have children.
You don’t think gays should.
Your argument, Henry, is roughly akin to saying that, since the government gives benefits to people who drive hybrids and alternative-fuel cars, it should give benefits to you even though you drive an Escalade.
The Escalade is your choice. No one forced you to buy it, and indeed, you and your partners could go through your daily lives without ever having to purchase one. But if you choose to do so instead of a hybrid or alternative-fuel car, you have to live with the consequences of your decision.
In short, you chose to have a child despite knowing you wouldn’t receive tax or other benefits. The fact that you are arguing you need them now shows that you were either woefully ignorant when you adopted this child, or that you deliberately put a child into a situation that you knew was inferior.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 16, 2008 @ 8:38 pm - July 16, 2008
That is because the mere nature of being an opposite-sex couple does not automatically preclude procreation, where the mere nature of being a same-sex couple does.
And again, show me where procreation is at all a prerequisite to marriage. You argue gays shouldn’t be able to marry, because they can’t procreate naturally, but that is not a prerequisite to marriage, as much as you might think it should be.
But again, you would prefer gay couples have to meet stricter requirements than straight people.
That makes it obvious that biological relationship is esteemed first and foremost.
So, adopted children are ‘lesser’ children. Got it.
Your argument, Henry, is roughly akin to saying that, since the government gives benefits to people who drive hybrids and alternative-fuel cars, it should give benefits to you even though you drive an Escalade.
No, that’s not even close to being a good analogy for my argument.
You would deny the benefit to the owner of the Prius, because you prefer the Prius Hybrid. When the Saturn owner objects, you would point out that the Saturn wasn’t designed to be a hybrid at first, and that the Prius was. When the Saturn owner points out that wasn’t a requirement for the benefits, you say “it should be” as your only real argument.
The Escalade is your choice. No one forced you to buy it, and indeed, you and your partners could go through your daily lives without ever having to purchase one. But if you choose to do so instead of a hybrid or alternative-fuel car, you have to live with the consequences of your decision.
Ahh, the whole being gay is a choice, and you could choose to marry a straight person if you wanted. Very Dobson-esque. Those pamphlets are working for you.
In short, you chose to have a child despite knowing you wouldn’t receive tax or other benefits. The fact that you are arguing you need them now shows that you were either woefully ignorant when you adopted this child, or that you deliberately put a child into a situation that you knew was inferior.
Did that feel good? Passing judgment on my family because you are incapable of understanding the desire to have one? Pat yourself on the back.
I had a child because my partner and I wanted one. Because we knew we would be good parents and that we would make our child happy. In short, we had a child for the same reasons most straight people did. We wanted a family.
And you have no clue what you are talking about, so spare yourself the embarrassment of suggesting you have the first inkling of what being in a mature relationship is about.
You are clueless.
Comment by Henry — July 16, 2008 @ 9:08 pm - July 16, 2008
And again, show me where procreation is at all a prerequisite to marriage.
Again, Henry, you confuse the act with the capability.
Homosexuals are not capable regardless of the situation, heterosexuals are. Since the primary purpose of marriage is to stabilize and perpetuate society by producing and caring for that which does so — children — then society should esteem first and foremost those relationships which naturally do so.
So, adopted children are ‘lesser’ children. Got it.
Hardly. But, as society makes clear, adoption is less preferable than children being produced and raised by their biological parents.
The basic problem you have, Henry, is that you cannot acknowledge that things are different and that society is better served by one without attempting to insist that that makes one of them inferior. Adoption has its place, but it does not and should not supersede biological parents unless the biological parents are incapable of caring for their child.
Ahh, the whole being gay is a choice, and you could choose to marry a straight person if you wanted. Very Dobson-esque. Those pamphlets are working for you.
You certainly could. Why does that thought threaten you so much, Henry? Is it because it is harder for you to whine and complain when it is obvious that you are in your situation because of your choice to be there?
In your case, you value sex with men more than you do marrying and having children. That’s fine; your perogative. However, don’t whine that you should receive the same benefits; your choice and your situation preclude both.
Did that feel good? Passing judgment on my family because you are incapable of understanding the desire to have one?
I fully understand the desire to have one. I simply don’t understand why, if you are so concerned about your lack of marriage harming your child, that you would choose to go ahead and have one anyway. That would seem to be putting your own selfish motivations ahead of the welfare of a child.
Contrast that with V the K’s attitude.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 16, 2008 @ 9:40 pm - July 16, 2008
Irrelevant to my and Pat’s point. Some are… and the government knows exactly who they are. And happily gives them marriage licenses anyway (which I certainly agree with doing). So much for procreation.
Again: so what? Fact: They can and do still raise children. And produce new children with assistance. NO different from infertile straight couples.
Quite true. And yet, society still chooses to *encourage* it by providing powerful, easily-accessed legal forms that establish the relationship as a legal entity in its own right…. And *without any* fertility tests, not even when the couples involved are blatantly, self-evidently infertile (woman over 70). Again: I don’t argue that excluding gays from that is wrong… I argue that it’s stupid.
I believe that nobody should be financially penalized either for having children or not having children.
And yet blatantly, self-evidently infertile couples (woman over 70) allowed still allowed to marry. Imagine that.
Again, talk about stacking the deck. All those qualifiers! Aimed at ignoring or dismissing the fact that there *is* a positive probability of a gay couple *intentionally* producing a child.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2008 @ 9:44 pm - July 16, 2008
And now for my ‘Come to Jesus’ speech.
Henry, this is why you and I are actually NOT on the same side. I repudiate your immature and inaccurate insult of NDT.
NDT, I repudiate that as well. Two good parents are always better than one, if they can be had. V is great, I admire V, his children are blessed - and children who can be adopted by 2 good gay parents are even more blessed.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 16, 2008 @ 9:48 pm - July 16, 2008
you confuse the act with the capability
No. Neither the act nor the ability is required for a valid marriage, as much as you might like to cover your eyes and pretend either is.
Hardly. But, as society makes clear, adoption is less preferable than children being produced and raised by their biological parents.
Right. And since in your mind, only the ideal is worth pursuing, then adoption should neither be encouraged nor given any protections from the government.
Is it because it is harder for you to whine and complain when it is obvious that you are in your situation because of your choice to be there?
No, it’s just amusing to me how truly clueless you are.
I fully understand the desire to have one.
Clearly you don’t. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be making such a foolish suggestion.
I simply don’t understand why, if you are so concerned about your lack of marriage harming your child, that you would choose to go ahead and have one anyway.
I’m not. My child is protected to the best of my ability (and at significant cost). The fact that I had a child in spite of the lack of marriage protection doesn’t mean that now that I have a child, I have to pretend to like sitting on the back of the marriage bus.
That would seem to be putting your own selfish motivations ahead of the welfare of a child.
Which, again, shows how little you really understand.
Henry, this is why you and I are actually NOT on the same side.
I never thought we were.
I repudiate your immature and inaccurate insult of NDT
I don’t need you to repudiate anything. NDT said that my choice to have a child was ignorant and inferior. He further went on to suggest that my relationship with my child was less real, less valued than other families.
I’m fairly certain that gives me the right to call him an idiot, as both fair and accurate.
The fact is, unlike straight couples who have children on a whim, often by accident, my partner and I worked for years to have one. We planned each step, including spending many nights wondering what to do about people like NDT who would derive pleasure in pointing out our family was less real, less desired than others.
NDT is an idiot.
Comment by Henry — July 16, 2008 @ 9:58 pm - July 16, 2008
Sorry for the double post.
Comment by Henry — July 16, 2008 @ 9:59 pm - July 16, 2008
Henry, this is why you and I are actually NOT on the same side
Also, I see I need to add to the FAQ.
Calling Henry a 6 year old: OK.
Calling Henry a Supporter of Child Molesters: OK
Calling Henry a Liar: OK.
Calling Henry Self-Loathing, Supporter of Promiscuity: Ok.
Suggesting Henry supports NAMBLA: Ok.
Calling NDT an Idiot: Off limits.
Comment by Henry — July 16, 2008 @ 10:12 pm - July 16, 2008
#39 Henry opines:
What, pray tell, IS the state of marriage today?
Comment by heliotrope — July 16, 2008 @ 11:16 pm - July 16, 2008
No. Neither the act nor the ability is required for a valid marriage, as much as you might like to cover your eyes and pretend either is.
Among heterosexuals, yes, because heterosexuals are capable of making such choices.
However, homosexuals are biologically incapable of making the choice to procreate. Hence, the question that should be asked is if an institution that is designed around and optimized for procreation should be extended to a group of persons who, without exception, cannot procreate under any circumstances, regardless of health, age, or innumerable other factors.
Right. And since in your mind, only the ideal is worth pursuing, then adoption should neither be encouraged nor given any protections from the government.
The basic problem you have, Henry, is that you cannot acknowledge that things are different and that society is better served by one without attempting to insist that that makes one of them inferior.
The reason why in this case is because you have to deny the obvious advantages of biological procreation and children being raised by their two biological parents in order for you to argue that you should be treated “equally”.
The fact that I had a child in spite of the lack of marriage protection doesn’t mean that now that I have a child, I have to pretend to like sitting on the back of the marriage bus.
That was the choice you made. Deal with it.
NDT said that my choice to have a child was ignorant and inferior.
This is what I said:
In short, you chose to have a child despite knowing you wouldn’t receive tax or other benefits. The fact that you are arguing you need them now shows that you were either woefully ignorant when you adopted this child, or that you deliberately put a child into a situation that you knew was inferior.
He further went on to suggest that my relationship with my child was less real, less valued than other families.
Again, Henry, your attempt to argue that biological bonds are meaningless is little more than jealousy and spite.
The fact is, unlike straight couples who have children on a whim, often by accident, my partner and I worked for years to have one.</i.
Why was that necessary? After all, you insist that homosexual couples are just as fertile as heterosexual couples; why didn’t you just have sex with each other and pop out a baby?
We planned each step, including spending many nights wondering what to do about people like NDT who would derive pleasure in pointing out our family was less real, less desired than others.
Funny, most of the parents I know who adopted spent many nights planning how they were going to take care of the baby, not how they were going to market it socially. But I suppose in the gay liberal world, a child is like a BMW and shoes; you get them to impress others.
Comment by