Homosexual Marriage

[Jack]

The debate regarding same sex marriage isn't about whether or not they should be allowed to live together or to marry one another. It's about whether or not we elevate same-sex unions to the point where we consider them philosophically equal with traditional marriages.

I suspect many of these new and useless posts are a direct result of the poll question being improperly formulated.

As CoffeeSaint states, you're trying to change the rules of the game well into the ninth inning.
You didn't start this thread, you merely hijacked it. Perhaps that's why you aren't happy with the poll or the posts in it. Perhaps you should have started your own thread.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Dirty Name I suspect many of these new and useless posts are a direct result of the poll question being improperly formulated.

Well, it generated a bit of discussion considering how poorly it was "formulated." I suspect your opinion is that of a turkey...

[Dirty Name]

You say that the basis for the line where marriage is defined should be drawn at this eminently logical, practical place -- and then you say the entire debate is about the concept of philosophical equality.

You're half right. It isn't I who is arguing in support of the concept of "philosophical equality." My argument merely points out that anyone in support of legalizing same-sex marriage is clearly wanting to elevate those relationships to equal status on a philosophical, rather than literal basis.

It is my contention that it's perfectly legal and logical to discriminate against certain types of unions. There is no contradiction there.

it is about the practical nature of marriage as an environment created solely for the purpose of child-bearing.

You said you thought my persistence here is because I continue to fail to understand. I find that funny since in your post it is YOU who, like all the others I rail against, misquote, take my argument out of context, or otherwise illustrate that they don't understand the finer point of my position. But I have high hopes for you. So I'll try again:

Your quote above again misstates my argument. It's close, but you leave out an important distinction. The state's legal recognition of marriage is reserved for those couples who, at some point in their lives, either had, have, or will have the potential to procreate. The state defines "potential to procreate" as any couple comprised of a male and a female (with age and relational restrictions). Further, the state wishes to codify these unions as soon as they are formed, to strengthen them long before the stress and upheaval of child-rearing enters their relationship.

Other definitions and/or restrictions could easily be applied, but they just don't work as well.

I fully understand that there are people who will get married but who are infertile with zero chance for raising a child. But for the state to make the system perfect, it would require both an invasion of privacy and more money than the perfection is worth.

Some have attempted to argue that we could simply reward marriage benefits upon proof of a child. Such an idea is counterproductive and unnecessary, as stated above, the goal is to have strong male-female bonds before the child is introduced into the relationship. This increases the likelihood that the relationship will withstand the stress and strains during the child-rearing years.

People often point to elderly couples and say they shouldn't be allowed to marry under my logic because they are too old. I would make two points here:

1) How old is too old in your opinion? It's impossible to define, and accuracy requires the seizure of medical records or testing, when the reality is that the costs of testing and/or screening would exceed the cost savings.

2) The institution of marriage offers protection to those folks who have made sacrifices to raise a child, especially women. I know the feminists out there might like to pounce on this statement, but I derive it from statistics and reality, not my own male chauvanism. The fact is, a great deal of women in marital relationships make untold and countless sacrifices for the good of their children (and in turn, the state), including economic and career sacrifices, and as a result, they are worthy of legal protections even if they never got pregnant.

Now, while I appreciate all the scrutiny of my position, I'd love the opportunity to dissect whatever new definition of marriage you advocate.

If it is the basis for defining marriage, then you should say that my marriage doesn't count;

Of course your marriage counts. Because our government doesn’t screen for infertility, it is, in the view of the state, a potential child-producing one. Please keep in mind that your particular relationship is the exception to the rule – an extremely rare case. Governments can’t possibly create a perfect solution – it can only hope to get the best possible outcomes. Your relationship is one of the few that slip through the cracks.

This argument that the government cannot invade my privacy is ridiculous, and you know it; you can't even argue it rationally. If a lesbian has extramarital sex with a man and becomes pregnant, and she and her "wife" raise the child as their own, the government couldn't invade their privacy, either. They could declare it a miracle, and the government couldn't say a thing, by your standards.

Nonsense. The government has no right to seize your medical records, nor is it cost effective (or dignifying!) for them to require fertility testing prior to marriage.

Your lesbian example violates the marriage covenant - she still had to go outside her "marriage" relationship in order to get pregnant. This is, again, why the government doesn't care about requiring “love.” The lesbian could certainly have been in "love" with her same sex partner, but it is the sexual union between her and a male that produced a child. Now, the lesbian and her male sperm donor are both equally responsible for the care of their child - NOT the lesbian's "spouse." Granted, legal arrangements could be made to absolve the male of responsibility, but such arrangements are less than ideal for a number of reasons I've already covered and don't have time for here.

This makes it pretty clear to me; my marriage is on the wrong side of this line. There's no way you can get around that, not by how you have defined your own position.

Again, wrong. In the eyes of the state, your relationship has the "potential" to create offspring. Does the state have any idea that you and your wife are infertile? More importantly, are you 100% sure that there is 0% chance that medical science will not find a solution to your particular issue in the relevant future?

You think people who don't reproduce, who can't reproduce, should not be considered "married."

This is just further proof you aren't following the argument. I believe any male-female adult couple (not closely related) should be allowed to get married if they wish.

The state cannot expect people who "don't and can't" reproduce to always remain in that category. People who willingly refuse to reproduce still possess the potential to do so. Likewise, those who are infertile don't always know it, and even when they do, it's not always a permanent condition.

In the extreme case of, say, a hysterectomy at a very young age, it would still require a review of medical records prior to granting a marriage license if one wishes to exclude such cases. Putting up barriers like those are counterproductive and not cost-effective.

If you think that my marriage, which cannot produce children, should be considered a marriage, then you have a line you are drawing for marriage that is not based on reproduction -- not if it includes me.

Again, I do believe it should be considered a "marriage." I don't believe the state has any business trying to ferret out all the infertile couples in the world. As I've said, most people don't know until they finally decide to try and have kids anyway - and that should never happen until AFTER marriage.

If you would include me, you must include same-sex marriages, unless YOU can show me a point, no more arbitrary than mine, that allows my marriage but not a gay one.

I already have done so. The point should be - any adult couple who presents themselves for marriage, comprised of the opposite gender, and who are not related to one another, should be granted legal marriage status. The state doesn't ask about infertility, nor does it test for it, because the money saved by restricting marriage to fertile couples would be exceeded by the cost to society for requiring the test. It makes no sense to do so. You are simply trying to make me defend the lack of a perfect solution. I'll be the first to admit there isn't one.

[Dirty Name]

I define marriage as a partnership between two people, entered into by two consenting adults, who wish to be connected in some way. That connection should be recognized by the state. The sharing of their lives, of their homes and resources, should be recognized by the state.

Why? Again, you don't go into any detail here. Give me a reason the state should believe any two people living together and sharing their lives is somehow valuable to the state. And then, show me why this perceived "value" is a more logical place to draw the line.

As for your "everything goes" argument: polygamy and incest, both, are situations where the power in the couple cannot be equally shared; they are by nature exploitative. (That is, for cases of parent-child incest). That is not a marriage.

This little blurb serves to perfectly illustrate that it is your position which is totally arbitrary. My own position is completely tangible - males and females may be legally recognized because such unions have the potential to procreate. Ah...the power of a black-and-white definition.

Your position, on the other hand, seeks to allow an "anything goes" scenario where the government is handing out benefits willy-nilly to any "two" people who present themselves for marriage. But you DISCRIMINATE against multi-partner unions, and you discriminate against parent-child adult incest, citing "exploitation" as your reason. Well, my friend, did it ever occur to you that there are varying levels of exploitation, and that there are likely some incestuous and multi-partner relationships that just work for the people involved and aren't exploitive? Further, who is to define the standards for exploitation? Your position is the classic definition of "arbitrary." Most folks with your views, at this point, give up their initial argument and instead say "government should be out of marriage altogether." Since this is an even easier position to defeat at the ballot box, I'm all for everyone who converts from pro-gay marriage to this new but equally-flawed view.

And if your aunt wants to marry your grandmother, I say, mazel tov. If not, they have no place in this debate, which should be about marriage

Uh-oh. I'm now picking up some cognative dissonance in your position. First, you said you wouldn't allow this relationship because you deem it exploitive. Now you say you're all for it? Which is it?

Please clarify your position and the basis behind it.

[Dirty Name]

Well, it generated a bit of discussion considering how poorly it was "formulated." I suspect your opinion is that of a turkey...

Allow me to rephrase. The question is fine. The response choices are a bit limited, vague and useless. It has generated far too many "drive by" posts that add nothing. It doesn't provoke much thought because it asks for a gut reaction, which, for this subject, is valueless. For you to take any pride whatsoever in being the clever originator of this thread illustrates your own blindness to the fact that countless threads seem to veer off course into this same topic. Thus, anyone who created a poll with the terms "gay" and "marriage," regardless of the responses, would have likely had the same result.

I was merely lamenting the fact that it could have been even better. Don't get your panties in a wad over it though.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name The state's legal recognition of marriage is reserved for those couples who, at some point in their lives, either had, have, or will have the potential to procreate.

I do not have the potential to procreate. The fact that I had the potential to procreate has nothing whatsoever to do with my marriage. I will not have the potential to procreate at any time in the future -- my wife doesn't have a uterus. Real tough to carry an embryo to term in your pocket.

The state defines "potential to procreate" as any couple comprised of a male and a female (with age and relational restrictions).

You will allow "age and relational restrictions," but you will not allow gender restirctions. This is a contradiction. You arbitrarily choose to allow me to marry, because I once had the potential to procreate, but you will not allow gay couples to marry. Why not? they have as much ability as I do to procreate, just not with each other. I have the ability to procreate, just not with my wife. But since we are talking about marriage here, the only relationship that matters is the one between myself and my wife. That one will not produce children. Any further distinction you try to make based on biological ability is beside the point, as it is not germane to my marriage. By your standard, why couldn't two four-year-olds get married? They "will have" the potential to procreate.

Further, the state wishes to codify these unions as soon as they are formed, to strengthen them long before the stress and upheaval of child-rearing enters their relationship.

But my marriage will not produce children. Why should the state worry about the stresses that having children will put on my marriage?

Please keep in mind that your particular relationship is the exception to the rule – an extremely rare case. Governments can’t possibly create a perfect solution – it can only hope to get the best possible outcomes. Your relationship is one of the few that slip through the cracks.

I have to go to work now, so I will have to reply to the rest of your points later -- rest assured, I will reply to them, so please do not point out things I haven't responded to. As for saying my marriage is an "extremely rare" case, you have no idea what you are talking about, in my opinion; give me some proof of this, please.
As for saying my marriage slipped through the cracks, fuck you sideways.

[Dirty Name]

I do not have the potential to procreate. The fact that I had the potential to procreate has nothing whatsoever to do with my marriage. I will not have the potential to procreate at any time in the future -- my wife doesn't have a uterus. Real tough to carry an embryo to term in your pocket.

Wonderful! Thanks for sharing. But NOBODY ASKED. That's the key. The government doesn't CARE. You are the exception to the rule.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name ...nothing of import....

"Gosh - where would we be if the country weren't run according to the agenda of Godsoaked, authority-worshiping little cretins who think that having enough coordination to plug their genitalia together qualifies them to own another human being for 18 years." -- Mike Duvos

[Dirty Name]

You will allow "age and relational restrictions," but you will not allow gender restirctions. This is a contradiction. You arbitrarily choose to allow me to marry, because I once had the potential to procreate, but you will not allow gay couples to marry. Why not? they have as much ability as I do to procreate, just not with each other. I have the ability to procreate, just not with my wife.

First of all, I think there is a typo. Your first statement seems confusing. I would allow restrictions based on gender composition. This is consistent with the other restrictions, therefore, no contradiction.

You arbitrarily choose to allow me to marry

You really seem stuck on your own unique case. Nevertheless, my decision to "allow" you to marry is not "arbitrary." There is no individual discretion used in considering your relationship. You simply are able to meet the minimum requirements for legal marriage. It's no different from the US Army saying they will allow anyone into the Army who is in good physical condition. But while they don't screen for much on the physical exam, if you roll up to the doctor on a floor scooter because you don't have any legs, you're going to be one of the few who don't make it in. In this example, you and your wife are like a guy with athsma. You're going to be allowed in because you meet the minimum standards, whereas same-sex couples are like the guy on the floor scooter.

[Dirty Name]

"Gosh - where would we be if the country weren't run according to the agenda of Godsoaked, authority-worshiping little cretins who think that having enough coordination to plug their genitalia together qualifies them to own another human being for 18 years." -- Mike Duvos

Do tell.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Do tell.

A lot better off, obviously.

[Dirty Name]

you will not allow gay couples to marry. Why not? they have as much ability as I do to procreate, just not with each other. I have the ability to procreate, just not with my wife.

Now you conveniently wish to discuss inviduals. Too bad for you we already treat every individual exactly the same. I always get a chuckle out of the "just not with each other" argument.

By your standard, why couldn't two four-year-olds get married? They "will have" the potential to procreate.

This is probably the stupidest question I have ever been asked on Volvonvo. But in case you are genuinely lacking cognitive skills, I'll humor you.

First, there are likely already laws in place that restrict marriage to a certain age. But if there isn't, it really doesn't matter since my four year old doesn't care about anything except the toy "ninja turtles with spinning weapons, Dad!."

If this is your best argument, you've lost.

But my marriage will not produce children. Why should the state worry about the stresses that having children will put on my marriage?

Because the state doesn't know about the specifics of your marriage. Hopefully this is the last time I'll have to point that out.

As for saying my marriage is an "extremely rare" case, you have no idea what you are talking about, in my opinion; give me some proof of this, please.

A hysterectomy performed on a woman BEFORE her prime child rearing years is rare. I don't know the age of you or your wife, but the position you have taken requires that both of you knew she was infertile prior to your marriage. Otherwise, your point (already weak) is rendered completely moot.

As for saying my marriage slipped through the cracks, fuck you sideways.

Lighten up, Francis. Or should I call you "Psycho?"

The remark was meant to illustrate that there are indeed cracks in the system. If you continue to inject your own personal example into this discussion, be prepared to have it treated in a clinical fashion.

[Dirty Name]

A lot better off, obviously.

Sounds like a debate for another thread. I'm your huckleberry.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Sounds like a debate for another thread. I'm your huckleberry.

Your stance against personal liberty -- and for wasteful taxation -- is nothing to be proud of, sport.

A true conservative would conserve personal freedom and dump all special rights that result in a handout to married people at taxpayers expense.

It's time that boat got rocked. You want kid-supportive benefits? Produce some kids! Otherwise, get your selfish. special interest hands out of taxpayer's pockets.

[Dirty Name]

Your stance against personal liberty -- and for wasteful taxation -- is nothing to be proud of, sport. A true conservative would conserve personal freedom and dump all special rights that result in a handout to married people at taxpayers expense.

What special rights are you talking about? Everyone has the same right to those benefits.
Anyone can qualify by simply forming a legal, opposite-gender pair. Everyone has the same opportunity to do this. Special rights are defined by restricting them to specific individuals in a certain class. Marriage benefits don't quite fit because they apply only to pairs. Square peg, round hole.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name What special rights are you talking about? Everyone has the same right to those benefits. Anyone can qualify by simply forming a legal, opposite-gender pair..

Liberty is blind to gender. Except in your selfish, special interest world.

Quote by: Dirty Name Everyone has the same opportunity to do this. Special rights are defined by restricting them to specific individuals in a certain class. Marriage benefits don't quite fit.

Actually they fit perfectly. Opposite sex pairs claiming benefits is a clearly-defined, easily enumerated class.

Quote by: Dirty Name Square peg, round hole.

Only in selfish, liberty-depriving minds like yours, dear.

[Dirty Name]

Liberty is blind to gender. Except in your selfish, special interest world.

Again, the issue isn't about freedom to marry. You can pair up with anyone you like. But our society places a value on gender pairs, and some are more important to society than others. It has nothing to do with liberty. You freedom only extends so far. Make the wrong choices with that liberty, and you can expect different results. You are basically whining for equal outcomes again. I've already explained why that won't fly.

Actually they fit perfectly. Opposite sex pairs claiming benefits is a clearly-defined, easily enumerated class.

Actually, you missed the word "individuals." Special rights are granted to certain classes of individuals. Not certain classes of groups. To prove this doesn't apply to marriage - simply name the special right you think straight people have been granted that gay people are denied. You can't.

Further, the "special right" you claim exists is openly and freely available to anyone. So I guess it's not that special, is it?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Again, the issue isn't about freedom to marry. You can pair up with anyone you like. But our society places a value on gender pairs, and some are more important to society than others. It has nothing to do with liberty. You freedom only extends so far. Make the wrong choices with that liberty, and you can expect different results. You are basically whining for equal outcomes again. I've already explained why that won't fly.

Folks that are interested in liberty simply aren't buying your slanted logic, dear. And repeating this mantra won't magically grant it a single shred of legitimacy. But I must admit it's fun watching you try to convince folks that your argument holds any water just because you deem it so. :)

Quote by: Dirty Name Actually, you missed the word "individuals." Special rights are granted to certain classes of individuals. Not certain classes of groups. To prove this doesn't apply to marriage - simply name the special right you think straight people have been granted that gay people are denied. You can't.

I can. And have. Repeatedly.

It's so obviously transparent to folks that you ignore facts that don't fit your narrow definition and make up imaginary governmental purposes for marriage where none exist.

But you already know this. Heh. :)

[Dirty Name]

I can. And have. Repeatedly.

No, you haven't. You don't even try. You just make snide comments because your position isn't based on logic whatsoever. Your recent posts on the previous page are the deepest you have dared to go in quite some time.

As I've said before, if you want to engage in a discussion, then do so. But spare me the snarky, contempt-laden commentary.