One-on-one debate, Captain Chaos and Dirty Name: Gay Marriage

[Captain Chaos]

So, this is to be a one-on-one debate between Captain Chaos and Dirty Name.

I would politely ask others not to post comments in this thread. You can send us direct messages if you wish, or comment in other threads.

Thanks.


To get the ball rolling:

Dirty Name, do you feel that gay marriage is wrong as a civil institution, regardless of whether it is recognized by the government? For example, my church (I am a Unitarian Universalist) has been performing gay marriages for a long time. Do you feel that it is immoral for two people of the same gender to get married in a civil ceremony? In this hypothetical example, they would be calling it marriage, and would not be concerned with the government's opinion on this matter.

[Matt W]

We already have three, yes THREE threads on this. Bouncing it to Misc and I'd advise you to take it to PM. :rolleyes:

[Captain Chaos]

I would like to leave it in a thread, so that others may read it if they wish, and comment by PM. Is that OK?

I already discussed doing this with Dirty Name prior to creating the thread.

[Matt W]

Fine. But it stays here.

[Dirty Name]

Do you want to have some structure for this debate (i.e. opening/closing statements, rebuttals, etc.)?

[Captain Chaos]

Not really. I trust you to keep it focused. I will do so as well. Formal structure in debates is really annoying.

One of my personal beliefs is that I always maintain the right to change my mind, should new evidence or new arguments motivate me to do so. Formal competitive debates don't really lend themselves to intellectually honest discussion.

[Dirty Name]

Fine then. Please bear with me over the weekend. I'm going out of town and though I will have my computer with me, I have a full schedule and may not get a lot of time to post.

For starters, let's define the precise topic we are debating. To say we are debating "gay marriage" is a bit vague. What is the central question? I believe it is critical that the question be precisely worded.

[Captain Chaos]

How about these questions:

Is gay marriage a good thing?
Should gay marriage be legally recognized?


I believe the two questions are inextricably linked, and can only be separate artificially.


Please bear with me for this weekend as well - I have a guest coming over, and will be doing lots. I don't mind if this debate goes on for weeks, months, or years! :}

[Dirty Name]

I think the first question is still very vague. We would have to agree on the definition of "good" and as well as decide for whom it would be a "good thing."

I think your second question is fairly well worded and would likely answer the first question no matter how you define it.

So, if it's OK with you, I'd like to simply debate the question:

"Should same-sex marriage be legally recognized in the United States?"

[Captain Chaos]

OK...

The thing is, my opinion is slightly different. I believe that the government should not be in the business of recognizing marriage at all. If they are going to recognize straight marriage, then they should recognize gay marriage - but, Ideally, the government would get out of something that should be entirely a civil arrangement.

[Dirty Name]

What do you mean when you say:

the government should not be in the business of recognizing marriage at all.

?

To what extent would the government be involved in marriage disputes, custody issues, etc?

[Dirty Name]

Working on a formal position statement. Should have it sometime tonight.

[Captain Chaos]

To what extent would the government be involved in marriage disputes, custody issues, etc?

The legal aspect of marriage should be determined by a civil contract. Disputes would be settled in civil court, according to the terms of the contract. Custody issues would be decided the same way they are now.

There would be no tax incentives or penalties for marriage.


I believe in having as much freedom as is practical. If two guys want to get married - great, I am happy for them. That is their business, not the governments. It is not the government's place to say "yes, this is legitimate" or "No, this doesn't count."

[Dirty Name]

The legal aspect of marriage should be determined by a civil contract. Disputes would be settled in civil court, according to the terms of the contract. Custody issues would be decided the same way they are now.

So in effect, marriage is altered from the institution it is today to little more than a civil contract, and nothing more than that?

I need some clarification. Are there standard terms to these contracts, or must everyone draw up their own terms (with or without the help of a lawyer)?

Is it safe to assume that you are not FOR same-sex marriage, but rather you just don't think marriage is anything that should be treated special or different from other contracts?

[Captain Chaos]

So in effect, marriage is altered from the institution it is today to little more than a civil contract, and nothing more than that?

Marriage is much more than that. It is a very strong committment. The substance of marriage has little to do with whether or not the government recognizes it. It is the emtional bond that is most important.

Marriages of convenience, where they are only married for the sake of taxes or to obtain a green card, are not really marriages in my point of view. A gay couple that has held a committment ceremony and consider themselves life partners are married, in my point of view.

Marriage has been around a lot longer than marriage licenses.

I need some clarification. Are there standard terms to these contracts, or must everyone draw up their own terms (with or without the help of a lawyer)?

That would be up to the couple. There are already domestic partnership contracts available now. Creating or finding a marrage contract would not be difficult. Most churches would have them ready. Basically, nothing would change. Marriage would not 'just' be a contract, anymore than it is 'just' a legally sanctioned contract now.

Is it safe to assume that you are not FOR same-sex marriage, but rather you just don't think marriage is anything that should be treated special or different from other contracts?

I am definitely for same-sex marriage. My church (Unitarian Universalist) performs gay weddings. The state might not be a part of it - but so what. The strength and depth of a marriage has little to do with whether or not the state sanctions it.

You ask if marriage should be treated differently from other contracts - yes, of course it should be treated differently. Those people who get married should treat it as sacred.

[Dirty Name]

You ask if marriage should be treated differently from other contracts - yes, of course it should be treated differently. Those people who get married should treat it as sacred.

That's fine. I fully agree, but I don't understand how you can mandate such a thing. I'm not really interested in debating how people should view marriage, but rather in the practical application of marriage laws, incentives,etc. and how we as a society regulate it.

[Captain Chaos]

That's fine. I fully agree, but I don't understand how you can mandate such a thing. I'm not really interested in debating how people should view marriage, but rather in the practical application of marriage laws, incentives,etc. and how we as a society regulate it.

Why do we, as a society, need to regulate marriage at all?

There are a multple reasons that people espouse for the government recognizing marrage. They say it makes the legal aspects of the marriage easier, they feel it is conducive to the formation of nuclear families, they feel it encourages monogamy. There is no way to prove which of these reasons for government sponsorship of marriage are good reasons, and which are bad reasons. They are too subjective to be provable one way or the other.

I feel that if the government is going to sanction marriage, then it should sanction all types of marriages, with obvious exceptions. The reason I feel this way is because I think discrimination sucks. Basically, it hurts people's feelings to be left out.

[Dirty Name]

I'm pretty sure that there is very strong evidence which demonstrates children raised in a stable, two parent home fare much better than children from any other family structure.

If that point is not in dispute, we can then move on to the discussion of the best way to ensure that the maximum number of children are raised in stable, two-parent homes.

[Captain Chaos]

I'm pretty sure that there is very strong evidence which demonstrates children raised in a stable, two parent home fare much better than children from any other family structure.

You are pretty sure?

Are you talking about two parents of opposite gender?

[Dirty Name]

You are pretty sure?

Yes, I think so, but if you dispute it, I'll find sources.

Are you talking about two parents of opposite gender?

It doesn't matter at this point in our discussion. For starters, I don't think there is data to support anything other than "two parents are better than one." My research into opposite vs. same-gendered parents revealed information that contradicts both sides. I suspect that political agendas have motivated early research into that subject. But my point is that it doesn't matter for my argument.