You still won’t that you were wrong (mistaken) in how you represented TL’s comments?

To make the “culture” angle even more concrete, let’s talk about bacterial culture. In any given culture, each bacterium has a pseudo “choice” in moving towards the food or not (please bear with the analogy here) and is “responsible” for that choice, for sensing the food correctly, etc. The ones who don’t do it, don’t do it. That’s the micro level. But the “government” (the researcher) has an influence on the culture – that is, where the bacteria mostly swim to, which ones make it, etc. – by altering the incentives and the range of possibilities, like the type of food, amount of food, its placement, etc. Again, no contradiction.

You still won’t answer the question?

It seems we disagree only on (relatively) minor points such as the extent to which marriage influences an individual’s decision whether to be promiscuous. I disagree that your position is an argument for the sanction of same-sex marriages, so I’ll let it go at that.

It’s good to have a reasonable debate with a reasonable person. Thanks.

We value the importance of nurturing our children so that they grow up to be responsible citizens. I think we both agree that emotionally and physically abusing children is not only wrong, but will too often lead these children growing up and not being responsible adults. Now handing any of these persons now as an adult a piece of paper saying that child abuse is wrong is not going to change their behavior. On the other hand, if we find ways to limit the amount of child abuse in the future, we will have more responsible adults.

Pat, I think that all along we’ve really been talking about the difference between micro (the individual) and macro (the society).

At the micro level, each individual is 100% responsible for their choices. No amount of State-licensed marriage will stop a determined slut from being a slut, whether that person is straight or gay. No State pronouncements will make an irresponsible person responsible. Etc.

At the macro level, the *rates* of individuals adopting one course over another are influenced, at the margins, by the incentives society presents to them. If State marriage is available to a community with low morals – such as, for example, the straight communities that you alluded to earlier – then the community might achieve 25% stable couples, where without it, it would be only 22%. New STD rates might be 1.8% instead of 2.3%. And so on.

There is no conflict between the two perspectives. It is Economics 101. At the individual level, people have free will and should be held responsible for their actions. At the public-policy level, the incentives and options presented to individuals have some influence on how many individuals (rates) voluntarily choose one course or another. It isn’t rocket science… unless you’re Iggy, in which case, you are unable to recognize when ILC and The_Livewire are talking about voluntary system incentives influencing the macro rates of things, and (after repeated explanations) are unable to admit your mistake.

It does, Ignatius. I just disagree with your argument that the two lines of reasoning are basically the same.

I do agree that a person’s choice to be sexually irresponsible is an individual choice, not a community choice. No problem there. Perhaps the following will explain my point.

We value the importance of nurturing our children so that they grow up to be responsible citizens. I think we both agree that emotionally and physically abusing children is not only wrong, but will too often lead these children growing up and not being responsible adults. Now handing any of these persons now as an adult a piece of paper saying that child abuse is wrong is not going to change their behavior. On the other hand, if we find ways to limit the amount of child abuse in the future, we will have more responsible adults.

I realize there are exceptions to the rule here. I’m sure we all know people who had rough childhoods, and are thriving as adults, and those who had excellent childhoods, and are irresponsible adults. I’m looking at the big picture here.

Again, promiscuity is a choice that individuals make, either to continue/cease promiscuity after they’ve decided to begin engaging in it or to begin engaging in it. I hope I’ve made clear why my answer is the same in both cases — because the two cases are extremely similar.

Not quite, and perhaps this is where we disagree. The reason why I believe it is different is because the external influences are different, and as such may lead to a different choice by the individual.

The short answer is that laws cannot reasonably address every single exception to the satisfaction of all.

Agreed. That’s why even if I believed marriage was solely for procreation, I wouldn’t advocate changing the laws. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that we not only tolerate these marriages, we encourage them.

As an aside on my original essay, SSCC through the states and the legislatures would result in a net increase of freedom, both in giving a route for states to approve polygamy in the same way, and in shutting down the “If you allow gay marriage you allow x” arguments by pointing out it is passed in a method that strikes to the heart of the conservative arguement. It’s a limited (less prone to judicial meddling) legislative (again through the correct two branches for such a thing, not the courts) federalist measure, able to be addressed by the people.

Pat, Here’s what you wrote:

Ruh-roh! The snake’s rattle! LOL

Here’s what you wrote:

…perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. I agreed with you that I don’t believe a person will stop being promiscuous because of a piece of paper.

OK, you’ve stated my position correctly and I’ve stated yours correctly so far. We both agree on this point.

Here’s where you claim I’m not understanding:

What I have been arguing is that this piece of paper will help lessen the chances in future generations that a gay person will become promiscuous to begin with. I never argued that things will magically change overnight, or even in one generation.

Here’s what I wrote that prompted your above statement:

…yet at the same time you’re arguing that a piece of paper (state-sanctioned marriage) will prevent a person’s promiscuity, meaning lead a person to make better (less promiscuous) choices..

You’re arguing that the availability of marriage will encourage better behavior, meaning that state-sanctioned marriage will prevent someone from choosing a more promiscuous lifestyle (or if you prefer, encourage someone to make the less-promiscuous choice). Do we agree that you are making such an argument?

You then go on:

I never argued that things will magically change overnight, or even in one generation.

I never claimed you did. Pat, individuals make choices; the choice to live a sexually moral life (committed, monogamous, etc.) is not made collectively and so when we look at aggregate data or project our hopes for a community, we ought to be very careful in how we form our cause-effect logical relationships. You’re being careful to state that such choices will not necessarily be made immediately, meaning that the availability of marriage will not change the community’s “promiscuity profile” overnight. But communities don’t make moral choices, individuals do. At some point, your argument (eventual reduction in promiscuity) concerns choices that individuals make, whether the day same-sex marriage is legalized or 10 years after.

I hope the above makes clear why I consider the two following arguments basically the same:

1) By offering an alternative, same-sex marriage will reform individuals who engage in promiscuous behavior;

2) By offering an alternative, same-sex marriage will prevent individuals from engaging in promiscuous behavior

Again, promiscuity is a choice that individuals make, either to continue/cease promiscuity after they’ve decided to begin engaging in it or to begin engaging in it. I hope I’ve made clear why my answer is the same in both cases — because the two cases are extremely similar.

I’m glad you didn’t mean “compelled” — I didn’t think you did. However, I’m still not quite sure what you mean by “encouraged” vis-a-vis civil unions vs. marriage.

I’ll address the rest later. (I have work to do.) The short answer is that laws cannot reasonably address every single exception to the satisfaction of all. For example, most states have a drinking age. It can be logically argued that there are kids at age 16 that are far more responsible and better able to handle the responsibilities of alcohol than many of their 18 year-old counterparts. But as a society, we have to draw the line somewhere. I recognize that there are relationships and family situations our laws don’t specifically address, but rare cases should not frame the arguments that concern the vast majority. (And reproduction is not my only argument in favor of retaining traditional marriage, just to put that out there.) More later.

1) TL says that his SSCC idea will “promote” stability and “reward” people who voluntarily reduce their promiscuity. (TL’s words)

2) Iggy hears an altogether different argument, a claim that same-sex marriage “WILL [emphasis added] reduce” promiscuity and thus “Save us from ourselves”.

3) Hilarity ensues, as Iggy absolutely refuses to admit to his error, for the next 60 comments and beyond.

Similarly, I don’t agree that a piece of paper changes promisuity for straight people. There are obviously straight people that are promiscuous. It is my belief that there are less sexually irresponsible straight people because there is state recognized marriage.

Either way, my argument remains the same because either way, your argument is basically the same.

I don’t know if the above argument clarifies my position. But it looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether those two arguments are basically the same, because I don’t believe they are.

No, I believe this is for each state to decide.

That’s fine, but I suppose we disagree on federally recognized civil unions.

I support them because it does not change the definition of marriage and depending upon the definition of civil unions, allows for certain benefits that I support such as inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. My support is general, but again it depends upon how the civil union is defined so I cannot say my support is unqualified.

Understood. But what benefits should a same sex couple not have that an opposite sex couple that doesn’t procreate have?

I have no problem with heterosexual couples seeking civil unions, whatever their reason. Should non-reproductive heterosexual couples be “encouraged” to seek them? If what you mean is “compelled”, then no. If you simply mean that that would be an option, then yes. (Usually when the government ‘encourages’, it’s from the business end of a gun.)

I certainly don’t mean compelled. And I don’t want to restrict marriage to only those couples seeking to procreate for reasons of practicality (actually, I don’t want to restrict it at all). But you are saying that gay couples shouldn’t get married, because of the uniqueness that opposite sex couples can provide (i.e., procreation), shouldn’t the prevailing attitude be, “You know, I don’t want to change the laws, but this 70 year old couple should not marry. Marriage really is intended for those who will procreate, and help in the state’s interest in promoting family stability. They are trying to change what marriage is all about, and people should police themselves and stop it.”

But that’s not the attitude. In fact, we encourage opposite sex couples to marry, even if they cannot and/or have no intention of procreating. How is this relationship more unique than a homosexual relationship? Or if you still find it unique, how is it so more unique that we limit marriage based on the genders of the couple?

One more time (copy/paste from previous comments):

Now, once again: How does the following statement mis-state your argument?

You made an argument for same-sex marriage based upon the logic that it (marriage) will decrease promiscuity and STDs and encourage stability. It is a cause-effect argument with which I strongly disagree.

Is that not the argument you’ve made?

We’re going to have to agree to disagree. Again, a person chooses his morals (or by proxy makes a choice by not making a conscious choice). You state that you’re not making the argument that a piece of paper (state-sanctioned marriage) doesn’t change a person’s promiscuity, meaning lead a person to make better (less promiscuous) choices, yet at the same time you’re arguing that a piece of paper (state-sanctioned marriage) will prevent a person’s promiscuity, meaning lead a person to make better (less promiscuous) choices. Either way, my argument remains the same because either way, your argument is basically the same.

To answer your questions:

1) No, I believe this is for each state to decide.

2) I support them because it does not change the definition of marriage and depending upon the definition of civil unions, allows for certain benefits that I support such as inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. My support is general, but again it depends upon how the civil union is defined so I cannot say my support is unqualified.

3) I have no problem with heterosexual couples seeking civil unions, whatever their reason. Should non-reproductive heterosexual couples be “encouraged” to seek them? If what you mean is “compelled”, then no. If you simply mean that that would be an option, then yes. (Usually when the government ‘encourages’, it’s from the business end of a gun.) Should the presence of children determine how the state treats the relationship, i.e. what is demanded of it? Yes, but such responsibilities should supersede our definitions and categorizations of parent relationships, possibly with ad hoc legislation.