Gay Marriage

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: jdbolick
What I don't want is my government subsidizing their homosexual union with my tax money (which is what this is all about, given that the only tangible benefits of government recogniition besides pride are the tax breaks).

I'll leave the argument about whether or not they're harmful to someone else, but numerous independent, scholarly (meaning you can't dismiss those conducting the studies as theocratic homophobes) sources have concluded that children raised in stable heterosexual households are far better off emotionally and psychologically than those raised in stable homosexual households.

Removing benefits from government reduces its ability to promote individual aspects of society, presumably damaging the whole.

Your first point is simply not true. Even something so basic as a homosexual life partner being denied access to his/her lover in the hospital because they are not "family" pertains.

As for your second point, would you please provide links to these "numerous, independent, scholarly" studies, as I am truly unaware of them and wish to learn.

The first part of your third statement is as true as it is obvious, but I question your otherwise unsupported presumption that it would "damage the whole" of society. Please expand and expound on this, if you would.

Don't bother Perk, this guy was obviuosly some troll that was banned. He's been spewing some god awful stuff with no links to back any of it up.

 

[jdbolick]

First dmcowen674, it has already been established that I am in fact new to the forums, so try to keep up. After all, I'm using my own actual name. Somehow I doubt that someone banned would reappear under their own name. Moreover, it isn't "god awful stuff" just because you disagree with it. In fact, if it was such "god awful stuff" one would think you might actually have the ability to argue against it. You haven't, which appears to leave two major possibilities, one being that you could prove me wrong and simply choose not to, or that you can't prove me wrong and in light of that seek to dismiss the things I say out of hand precisely because you are powerless to rebut them. Please show me the courtesy of either making the effort or keeping your evaluations of my opinions to yourself. Someone who finds that intelligent yet Republican thoughts are "god awful stuff" isn't likely to function at anything resembling a high level in this world, any more than I would get by thinking the same thing about an intelligent Democrat. Grow up, get a grip, and realize that there is such a thing as intelligent disagreement.



Perknose:
Fair enough on the first count, that's a good example. But isn't that more a matter of hospital policy than government intervention? Justifying government recognition of homosexual marriage with the argument that hospitals won't allow gay partners unfettered access strikes me a bit like killing a butterfly with a bazooka. For the most part I do think that the only real motivation for government recognition is the receipt of government benefits, given that concerns over hospital policy should and have been directed at individual hospitals, sometimes with the desired results. As far as I know some hospitals do allow "partners," homosexual or heterosexual, access similar to family members, while others still do not. Even in cases where they refuse I can't think that it's such an intrusion that government recognition of homosexual marriage is necessary to remedy the issue.


As for the studies, we pored over them in sociology. I'll see if I can give you some links, but most academic research isn't available online. I fully expect anyone who supports gay marriage to consider that a cop-out, and I agree that they shouldn't take my word at face value. The studies exist, but it wouldn't be right for you to assume it exists until I can at least find the sources you can look up for yourself. For now I'd ask that it be considered a hypothetical argument, and therefore if the evidence is true, that it would then be considered valid. After all, I believe that's all the thread asked for. Furthermore, I think everyone is familiar with or at least cognizant of studies that show a child is much better off in a two-parent stable environment than a one-parent stable environment, and presumably many know that the study indicates the loss to not only be a function of time, meaning that it's not just the presence of two people as opposed to one but also the presence of both genders.


Regarding the damage to society, my principal concerns are the continued disintegration of the traditional family unit (homosexual marriages are hardly the sole or even the biggest threat to that, merely one of them), the degradation of child-rearing through an ideology of forced equality (valuing the appearance of enlightenment over any real effects on the child), and the loss of legal justification for government subsidies. I'm certainly not of the opinion that giving gays the right to marry will cause society to crumble, but I do think these arguments demonstrate ways in which it could weaken the overall structure. Other than that, is there a specific aspect of my concerns that you would like me to expound upon?


Edit:
All the research I have found so far claims that there is no substantive difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples when it comes to raising children. I know we read a study that claimed otherwise, but since I cannot find it and given the abundance of these studies stating the opposite, I'd have to say that considerable doubt has been cast on that claim. If it doesn't happen to be true then I suppose there isn't much reason to oppose gay marriage beyond the idea that it is subsidizing an arrangement with little as opposed to no positive societal utility.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Hmmmm... We'll lets agree to disagree for the time being. I believe this comes down fundamentally to a question of "is same sex intercourse immoral".

ok, I agree; it comes down to our personal moral beliefs about what constitutes moral sex?

Now I?m happy to give people the same rights and responsibilities as marriage? but 1.) I don?t want it to be called marriage 2.) I don?t want to limit it in any way amongst adults 3.) I don?t want to imply any sexuality with it and 4.) I think it only pragmatic not to extend citizenship through it.

I want 2 sisters who raze some adopted children to have the same rights as 2 lesbians. I want to respect Native Americans who have no one ?father? or ?mother? but that are raised by the tribe. Over all, I don?t want to imply sexual morality of someone?s actions in sanctioning a pragmatic protection for a group.

The problem is that these sorts of compromise aren?t acceptable to those who want to use the legal system to redefine societal views of morality.

I'm willing to accept point 1 as a compromise.

Point 2 is interesting. I can see some merit to it.

Point 3 seems to be just an extension of point 2

Point 4 has merit too, allthough I think I'd wait on that one. People can do the same thing now they just have to get a willing person from the opposite sex to "marry" them.

An interesting idea is to completely remove marriage from the government. Instead make all unions between man/woman and man/woman a "civil union". Marriages would be recognised through the church. Is that a compromise you're willing to accept?

Absolutely, though I?d still not want to discriminate against two sisters who live together and want to adopt.

as far as right now, i support a constitutional amendment to make this a state?s rights issue.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Hmmmm... We'll lets agree to disagree for the time being. I believe this comes down fundamentally to a question of "is same sex intercourse immoral".

ok, I agree; it comes down to our personal moral beliefs about what constitutes moral sex?

Now I?m happy to give people the same rights and responsibilities as marriage? but 1.) I don?t want it to be called marriage 2.) I don?t want to limit it in any way amongst adults 3.) I don?t want to imply any sexuality with it and 4.) I think it only pragmatic not to extend citizenship through it.

I want 2 sisters who raze some adopted children to have the same rights as 2 lesbians. I want to respect Native Americans who have no one ?father? or ?mother? but that are raised by the tribe. Over all, I don?t want to imply sexual morality of someone?s actions in sanctioning a pragmatic protection for a group.

The problem is that these sorts of compromise aren?t acceptable to those who want to use the legal system to redefine societal views of morality.

I'm willing to accept point 1 as a compromise.

Point 2 is interesting. I can see some merit to it.

Point 3 seems to be just an extension of point 2

Point 4 has merit too, allthough I think I'd wait on that one. People can do the same thing now they just have to get a willing person from the opposite sex to "marry" them.

An interesting idea is to completely remove marriage from the government. Instead make all unions between man/woman and man/woman a "civil union". Marriages would be recognised through the church. Is that a compromise you're willing to accept?

Absolutely, though I?d still not want to discriminate against two sisters who live together and want to adopt.

as far as right now, i support a constitutional amendment to make this a state?s rights issue.

When it comes to adopting, let it go throught the proper channels and without discrimination, you are ok with two sisters, how about two lesbians? Or two male homosexuals, studies show that the child is just as likely to become homosexual as any kid in a hetero relationship.

I would like to remove the word marriage too, but if the churches are going to handle the "marriage" part of it then you have to realize that there WILL be churches who will wed homosexuals too.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

you are ok with two sisters, how about two lesbians?

I?m good with any 2 people that are wiling to live together for the remainder of the child?s childhood being able to adopt.

But I?m not OK with discriminating against sisters who are non sexual with each other, or even good friends who live together, who are non sexual with each other.

Freedom for all or keep things traditional, be intellectually honest, or be ignored.

but if the churches are going to handle the "marriage" part of it then you have to realize that there WILL be churches who will wed homosexuals too.

I?m fine with that, when you say ?we?re married? you?ll have to say ?we?re married by the Catholic Church? or two gays can say ?we?re married by the UnitaryLifeChurch?.

People have right to commit their life and love to one another, but they don?t have right to force the state to approve of any sexual relations.

 

[jdbolick]

How about no federal tax benefits for homosexual couples unless it is approved in a nation-wide referendum, and states can decide individually? (although I still think it should be called marriage if that's what it really is)

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

you are ok with two sisters, how about two lesbians?

I?m good with any 2 people that are wiling to live together for the remainder of the child?s childhood being able to adopt.

But I?m not OK with discriminating against sisters who are non sexual with each other, or even good friends who live together, who are non sexual with each other.

Freedom for all or keep things traditional, be intellectually honest, or be ignored.

but if the churches are going to handle the "marriage" part of it then you have to realize that there WILL be churches who will wed homosexuals too.

I?m fine with that, when you say ?we?re married? you?ll have to say ?we?re married by the Catholic Church? or two gays can say ?we?re married by the UnitaryLifeChurch?.

People have right to commit their life and love to one another, but they don?t have right to force the state to approve of any sexual relations.

A good friend of mine is gay and is a pastor at a local church (a state church, not catholic, but it's what we refer to as "the church", so i assume anyone married there would be married by "the church".

When it comes to adopting, no couple can guarantee anything, i know, i am a divorced dad (and when i had kids, no one could ever see that coming), there are no guarantees for anyone, not even a highly religious heterosexual couple, so the entire argument is lost there, the two sisters, maybe one of them falls in love and moves out, well, things happen in life that are not always forseeable, let's not even try to forsee their future, let's take a look at the persons involved instead.

Considering the divorce rate of today, where over 50% get a divorce i don't see how marriage could become any less worth, we are a changing civilization and holding on to old ideals doesn't change that, unless you want reality to be what it is not.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: jdbolick
How about no federal tax benefits for homosexual couples unless it is approved in a nation-wide referendum, and states can decide individually? (although I still think it should be called marriage if that's what it really is)

Are you stupid? That would be discrimination, how about no federal tax benefits for ANY couples?

The thing is that different is not equal no matter how hard you try.

How about not having federal tax benefits for interracial marriages, it was not to long ago it was illegal.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: jdbolick
Perknose:
Fair enough on the first count, that's a good example. But isn't that more a matter of hospital policy than government intervention? Justifying government recognition of homosexual marriage with the argument that hospitals won't allow gay partners unfettered access strikes me a bit like killing a butterfly with a bazooka. For the most part I do think that the only real motivation for government recognition is the receipt of government benefits, given that concerns over hospital policy should and have been directed at individual hospitals, sometimes with the desired results. As far as I know some hospitals do allow "partners," homosexual or heterosexual, access similar to family members, while others still do not. Even in cases where they refuse I can't think that it's such an intrusion that government recognition of homosexual marriage is necessary to remedy the issue.


As for the studies, we pored over them in sociology. I'll see if I can give you some links, but most academic research isn't available online. I fully expect anyone who supports gay marriage to consider that a cop-out, and I agree that they shouldn't take my word at face value. The studies exist, but it wouldn't be right for you to assume it exists until I can at least find the sources you can look up for yourself. For now I'd ask that it be considered a hypothetical argument, and therefore if the evidence is true, that it would then be considered valid. After all, I believe that's all the thread asked for. Furthermore, I think everyone is familiar with or at least cognizant of studies that show a child is much better off in a two-parent stable environment than a one-parent stable environment, and presumably many know that the study indicates the loss to not only be a function of time, meaning that it's not just the presence of two people as opposed to one but also the presence of both genders.


Regarding the damage to society, my principal concerns are the continued disintegration of the traditional family unit (homosexual marriages are hardly the sole or even the biggest threat to that, merely one of them), the degradation of child-rearing through an ideology of forced equality (valuing the appearance of enlightenment over any real effects on the child), and the loss of legal justification for government subsidies. I'm certainly not of the opinion that giving gays the right to marry will cause society to crumble, but I do think these arguments demonstrate ways in which it could weaken the overall structure. Other than that, is there a specific aspect of my concerns that you would like me to expound upon?


Edit:
All the research I have found so far claims that there is no substantive difference between heterosexual and homosexual couples when it comes to raising children. I know we read a study that claimed otherwise, but since I cannot find it and given the abundance of these studies stating the opposite, I'd have to say that considerable doubt has been cast on that claim. If it doesn't happen to be true then I suppose there isn't much reason to oppose gay marriage beyond the idea that it is subsidizing an arrangement with little as opposed to no positive societal utility.

Point one. Allowing those life mates who wish to to marry removes all doubt here (while also being simple justice IMHO). The most problematic scenarios occur when a dying homosexual mate's homophobe family takes charge and bars the still healthy mate from any and all contact up to and including the funeral. This has happened often enough, and is an tragedy and an obscenity. That whole logically unbalanced and morally repugnant situation stems from stems from our government's continued unwillingness to accord homosexual life mates the same legal status that heterosexual life mates enjoy.

Second point. Referring to your edit, spoken like a man. Your stated willingness to "admit the obvious" IS a breathe of fresh air. As you so disarmingly state, it is a decided advantage for you over others, both on this board and in real life.

So it would be perhapsa bit churlish of me to contrast your current position -- "I know we read a study that claimed otherwise, but since I cannot find it" -- with your previous position -- " but numerous independent, scholarly (meaning you can't dismiss those conducting the studies as theocratic homophobes) sources have concluded" -- so I won't do so. :laugh: (A bit of my humor.)

Regarding your response to my third point. Absent any harm that same sex couples rearing children may cause, since all the studies I have also ever read state that they cause NONE, your contention that same sex marriages harm society disappears, as far as I can tell. If you are making a further contention that same sex marriages per se somehow degrade tradtional marriages, I must strenuously disagree and ask you to provide proof.

All that could possibly remain are your stark utilitarian arguments about your tax dollars. To this, I first say that simple justice pertains -- either give these breaks to all married folks regardless of sexual orientation, or to none. Studies do show that people in stable, happy relationships live longer and happier -- so all the benefits and government recognition of same should go to all, for the greater benefit of all.

Many, many gays wish to have children, and go to great lenghts to do so. For those who use artificial means of insemination to procreate, is it not better for all of us that these children are born into loving, financially capable environments and raised by people who will cherish and love and nourish them? Does this not benefit us all.

For those who adopt domestically. Please look at the figures. There is a huge backlong of American children in long term foster care who would dearly love to have actual parents! I forget the exact figures, but out of something like 70,000 kids a year only 20,000 are now adopted. In your utilitarian terms, this is a FINE use of our marriage tax break dollars!

Absent from this entire discussion is the last point I wish to make. Gays are people, and American gays are citizens, and they deserve the same opportunities and recognition as all other Americans. This is only right, and this is quintessentiallly American.

 

[totalcommand]

jdbolick, i am glad someone has tried to make a rational argument against homosexual marriage on this forum. thanks for your post. please allow me to analyze your argument.

Originally posted by: jdbolick
I'm not a member of any religion and I think my objection to gay marriage is pretty straight-forward.


First, let's establish what exactly is at issue here:

Point A) The debate is not about what people are allowed to do, but whether or not the government will acknowledge and support their union.

I don't care if two gay people want to live together, exchange rings, have a ceremony, or even call themselves married. That's all fine with me. What I don't want is my government subsidizing their homosexual union with my tax money (which is what this is all about, given that the only tangible benefits of government recogniition besides pride are the tax breaks).

Point B) I don't want to subsidize homosexual unions because they aren't helpful to society.

I'll leave the argument about whether or not they're harmful to someone else, but numerous independent, scholarly (meaning you can't dismiss those conducting the studies as theocratic homophobes) sources have concluded that children raised in stable heterosexual households are far better off emotionally and psychologically than those raised in stable homosexual households. Much of that has to do with simple biology and the roles that nature associates with each sex. That's where the value to society comes in. The "one man - one woman" theoretically monogamous arrangement predates the monotheistic religions we traditionally associate with modern morality. I would presume that this developed because it does appear to be beneficial to society, specifically in terms of procreation and child-rearing.

Your argument is basically: The government should not subsidize a homosexual union with tax money because they aren't helpful to society. I think you were a little modest in this argument. Something that is not helpful to society is not necessarily something that shouldn't be allowed. What your argument really is: The government should not subsidize a homosexual union with tax money because they harm society. As perknose has pointed out, and you admitted, with such a controversial premise - homosexual marriage/unions harm society - you must provide some evidence; the smallest link will do. A lot of people here are part of educational institutions that provide free subscriptions to journals online, and if the studies you're talking about aren't in one of those journals, well, I'm not sure how much they can be trusted even without seeing the study. I would be very, very interested to read these studies.

Point C) Marriage is not a right.

There's a reason you have to get a marriage license. It's the same as driving or any other activity where the government is sanctioning a particular action. It's not something accorded to all individuals at birth. Behaviors are "rights," institutions are not. That's why the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, because those governed private behaviors that had no perceived negative effect on society. Marriage, on the other hand, is associated with those aforementioned benefits. After all, we're not talking about just living together or any number of other arrangements. This is an official institution.

Very true. Marriage in its non-religious form (it's legal form) is not a right. It is the legal recognition (read tax breaks, etc.) of marriage that is not a right, but marriage in its idea of a union is a right - it is a social behavior.

Point D) Turning marriage into a "right" threatens other systems.

It's not so much the homosexuals "tainting" society, as some claim, but rather the precedent that is set in according special privileges to certain groups that provide a perceived benefit to society. That, after all, is why married couples get tax benefits in the first place, because marriage is deemed to be beneficial to our society. But if courts rule that marriage benefits cannot be limited in any way, that not only opens the doors for polygamists, heterosexuals who just want to live together, and others, but it also would appear to invalidate other current benefit programs. How could anyone say that homosexuals married couples deserve the same benefits as heterosexual married couples and then defend the fact that military servicemen receive tax benefits that normal citizens do not? If we change these "benefits" from what benefits are supposed to mean into something everyone automatically qualifies for, or at least whatever boundaires the court deems reasonable rather than the legislature, how can there be any such thing as benefits anymore? Everyone would be treated equally, which theoretically would seem like a good thing, but actually isn't. I'm not saying that homosexual unions lead to communism, but they would induce one of the failings of that particular system. Removing benefits from government reduces its ability to promote individual aspects of society, presumably damaging the whole.

I think this argument is seriously flawed. Your basic argument:

(1)If tax breaks are given to homosexual marriages, then marriage benefits will not be limited in any way.
(2)Marriage benefits not being limited in any way is bad because there would be no idea of benefit for something that helps society.
____________________________
(3) Tax breaks for homosexual marriages are bad.

(4) If tax breaks are given to homosexual marriages, then marriage benefits will not be limited in any way.
(5) If marriage benefits are not limited in any way, polygamists will get tax benefits.
(6) If marriage benefits are not limited in any way, others who just want to live together will get tax benefits.
(7) Polygamists getting tax benefits and others who just want to live together getting tax benefits is bad.
_______________________________
(8) Tax breaks given to homosexual marriages is bad.

Now, there is a non-sequitor in (1). Please show how tax breaks given to homosexual marriages would mean that marriage benefits would not be limited in any way. There really is no connection between these two statements otherwise. Also, define limited. There are very few limitations on marriage today, just that it must be heterosexual and between two people. What stops a male and female friends from marrying each other even if they don't want the "union" part? Nothing. Homosexual marriage would get rid of one of those limitations. Now, you might say that what's next? Getting rid of the other? This would be a slippery slope fallacy. A separate argument must be formulated for that.

Now, (5)-(8). All of these arguments depend on (1),(4) which is a non-sequitor, so they fall like a house of cards.

Also, lining your whole paragraph is a slippery slope argument, that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy, and any other union. This argument is a logical fallacy, even if you had showed that gay marriage harmed society, which you do not have evidence for. I'd refer you to the polygamy thread for further information on this.

Finally, (2). Had you cleared up the above problems, your argument comes down to this point. Marriage will always be limited in some way, as long as it maintains its sociological signficance. When you look at marriage as it exists now, and ask why male and female friends don't just get married for the tax breaks, it is because they believe marriage is a significant event. For some people, marriage is a religious event. For others, however, it is simply a powerful signature of commitment to another person of the opposite sex. Let us hypothetically say that there were no limitations on marriage whatsoever. People would still shy away from marriage, because for the large majority of people it carries this social significance. No court, no legislature, no president can take away this social significance.

Now, if marriage somehow loses its final limitation (I would say it's extremely, extremely unlikely given the social nature of humans, and even other animals), social significance, there would be no reason to provide a tax benefit at all, because, as you said, marriage would not be benefiting society.

I think the real problem you have is not that people will lose the idea of what a benefit is, or that benefits would not exist. The real problem I think you have is that marriage would lose its social significance. Please, if this is your real problem, formulate an argument for this. This, IMO, is the crux of the whole issue. Since most people attribute religious significance to marriage, they believe that their religion is attacked if marriage loses this social significance.

My argument is that the social significance of marriage in its idea of a union will never be diminished because the idea of this union is inherent in human nature. Now, I know this is a pretty weak argument without evidence, but I'll leave it to the philosophers until I can come up with some better support.

Somewhat unrelated point E) A rose by any other name...

Those who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions are kidding themselves. What you call something is irrelevant, and people who oppose gay marriage on those grounds aren't objecting in any logical manner in my opinion. The issue isn't what you call something and therefore whether or not someone else might be offended, but whether or not this is a practical, beneficial move for our society. I think it's pretty clear that gay marriage would do nothing good for society and could significantly harm it, as I haven't yet been able to envision any scenarios where it would benefit the nation beyond some amorphous, idealistic notion of "equality."

To summarize: Point D has numerous logical flaws. You need to flesh out that argument a lot more. Points A and B are your strongest arguments, yet you do not provide any evidence at all. However, there is counterevidence that gay marriage does not threaten society or heterosexual marriage - see Europe's netherlands.

I think my response to (2) is the most important part of my post. Hope to read your reply soon jdbolick.

Edit: I hope you don't mind me posting your ideas and my response over at philosophyforums.com.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Klixxer: do we just agree?

 

[Ethex]

This is what happens when you don?t separate church and state. The god most people believe in doesn?t allow men to lay down with men. (I don?t think it says the same for women.) If you can find a god that allows it have at it, spend more on your taxes and get your partners crappy credit. It amazes me how someone can take as great of a leap of faith as believing in something as ridiculous as god and then picking and choosing which rules they want to follow. Damn hippies, always wanting it both ways.

 

[TuxDave]

Quick question....

1) If a couple is married and one of them performs a sex change, what happens to the marriage?
2) If one member of a homosexual couple has a sex change, can they then get married?

I think these are serious double standards if the answer is 1) Nullified and 2) Yes