Homosexual Marriage

[RickSp]

Quote by: Isherwood We were once unenlightened enough to believe that race was "fundamental to marriage". Public attitudes change with time and increased awareness.

I do have to laugh at Dirty Name's solid certainty. I grew up in the segregated South and remember hearing the bigots, one school bus driver in particular, go on and on about the dangers of "race-mixing". The "race-mixers" were going to breed a race of mongrels who would corrupt and destroy the purity of White Christian America. Dogs don't mate with cats and whites shouldn't mate with blacks. It was just that simple.

I thought that his diatribe was both disturbing and amusing, given that it was obvious that his family tree clearly contained a strong strain of jackass.

It doesn't take much to change DN's argument about a "compelling state interest" in procreation to argue that there is a "compelling state interest" in avoid "mongrellization. The differences are not large.

The unspoken question is - why does "procreation ...represents the compelling state interest?" This sentiment doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. The only recent state for whom procreation was considered a "compelling state interest" was Nazi Germany. Not a model I would prefer to emulate.

Whether or not procreation is a "compelling state interest", (I would argue it is absolutely not), it is still an absurd reason to prevent gay marriage. We can agree that, with some exceptions, gay folks do not procreate, whether married or not. Is DN really claiming that if gay folks are allowed to marry that straight couples will suddenly stop having sex? His argument is not against gay marriage but against birth control and heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids. A rather totalitarian position to be sure.

Bottom line - the argument that in order to promote procreation one must oppose gay marriage is stupid on its face, even if one considers promoting procreation to be a necessary or appropriate goal, which I do not.

[Dirty Name]

The unspoken question is - why does "procreation ...represents the compelling state interest?" This sentiment doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution. The only recent state for whom procreation was considered a "compelling state interest" was Nazi Germany. Not a model I would prefer to emulate.

There you go again... Please re-read my post. There is a substantial difference in what I said versus what you claim I said.

The state's interest in potential procreation exists because of the huge disparity between the success of the nuclear family and the failure of broken homes, and the corresponding impact of each on society at large.

That is clearly different from your comparison to Nazi Germany and their "compelling state interest" in increasing procreation of a particular race.

Of course, you are intelligent enough to know this, so I'm wondering why you would be so disingenuous? Trying to score points like that cheapens the debate and makes you look desperate, even if you aren't.

Bottom line - the argument that in order to promote procreation one must oppose gay marriage is stupid on its face

Bottom line - My argument has nothing to do with "promoting procreation." You've been told this countless times over the past year. To continually seize on this misconception indicates you don't understand the issue.

[Dirty Name]

We were once unenlightened enough to believe that race was "fundamental to marriage". Public attitudes change with time and increased awareness.

Zzzzz. To compare my argument with a racial one is a pathetic debate tactic. To demonstrate the useless nature of your post:

We should legalize selling alcohol to minors. After all, we once were so unenlightened enough to outlaw alcohol altogether (prohibition), and since public attitudes change with increased awareness, it's only a matter of time before we realize that it's wrong to deprive minors of their liquor.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name There you go again... Please re-read my post. There is a substantial difference in what I said versus what you claim I said. The state's interest in potential procreation exists because of the huge disparity between the success of the nuclear family and the failure of broken homes, and the corresponding impact of each on society at large. That is clearly different from your comparison to Nazi Germany and their "compelling state interest" in increasing procreation of a particular race. Of course, you are intelligent enough to know this, so I'm wondering why you would be so disingenuous? Trying to score points like that cheapens the debate and makes you look desperate, even if you aren't.

My statement was completely accurate. If you prefer not to address the implications of your own post, that is up to you.

While I do not necessarily agree that it is the state's business to dictate the structure of families, your argument still makes no sense. Procreation is not necessarily related to nuclear families. One third of all children are born out of wedlock in the US every year, which has nothing to do with gay marriage. Whatever you are referring to, has nothing to due with gay relationships.

At the risk of repeating my previous post, your argument implies that if gay folks are allowed to marry, straight married couples will for some reason stop having sex. That is insane.

Obviously the rate of procreation among gay couples will not be altered one way or the other by marital status. So the only way that gay marriage would impact your spurious "compelling state interest" in procreation would be if gay marriage changed behavior patterns in straight couples. If my gay neighbors, one of whom is a retired minister, are allowed to marriage, I can guarantee that it will have no impact whatsoever on my relationship with my wife.

[Dirty Name]

One third of all children are born out of wedlock in the US every year, which has nothing to do with gay marriage.

And of those, how many become wards of the state? That IS the point.

Compare the percentages of children who are wards of the state born out-of-wedlock versus wards of the state who were born into nuclear families and my argument becomes crystal clear.

The state has a compelling interest to promote, protect and encourage marriage among potentially procreative couples (excepting incest).

What is the compelling state interest in same-sex relationships?

If you can name one, you still have to show that it's EQUAL to the compelling state interest in potential procreation.

[Kite]

So...the states won't support it, because it doesn't generate any money for them? That might be part of it, but I don't think thats the major factor thats going to make or break this issue. The one for all the marbles will be voter appeasement, you just watch.

[Dirty Name]

At the risk of repeating my previous post, your argument implies that if gay folks are allowed to marry, straight married couples will for some reason stop having sex. That is insane.

It implies no such thing. I've never made the argument, and can point to several posts where I've refuted that charge. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

Procreation happens, period. Marriage or no marriage. Statistics show that when it happens inside of a marriage, the children tend not to become wards of the state...therefore, the state has a compelling interest to protect the relationship via marriage (not procreation!) amongst potentially procreative couples.

[Dirty Name]

So...the states won't support it, because it doesn't generate any money for them?

No, the states shouldn't support it because there isn't any reason for the state to get involved, period. It's just a sexual relationship, as irrelevant to the state/society as two highschoolers making out at a party. To society (not their friends and family, but society at large), their love for one another is irrelevant, unmeasurable, and of no more consequence than two people sharing an apartment.

Here's hoping people aren't going to get all emotional about this last post and derail our discussion.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name And of those, how many become wards of the state? That IS the point. Compare the percentages of children who are wards of the state born out-of-wedlock versus wards of the state who were born into nuclear families and my argument becomes crystal clear. The state has a compelling interest to promote, protect and encourage marriage among potentially procreative couples (excepting incest). What is the compelling state interest in same-sex relationships? If you can name one, you still have to show that it's EQUAL to the compelling state interest in potential procreation.

And everything you are arguing has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. Whether gay folks marry or not will have zero effect on children born out of wedlock or the number of children that straighht couples do or do not have.

I do not agree with your mantra that the state has a "compelling state interest in potential procreation." You even argue against it yourself by arguing against out of wedlock births. They count as procreation last I looked. While there may be a social interest in the nuclear family that should be addressed in churches and social organizations, I strongly disagree that the state has a "compelling interest in potential procreation," to use your oddly totalitarian phrase. The government has no business in my bedroom or yours.

Under any circumstances this has nothing to do with gay marriage. Gay marriage will not change heterosexual marriage, despite the right wing nut cases like Rick Santorum who has suggested that we will all have sex with our pets if gays are allowed to marry.

If you can explain to me how letting my gays neighbors, who have lived in a committed relationship for over a decade, get married will have any impact whatsoever on my wife and family I would be intersted in hearing it.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Dirty Name Procreation happens, period. Marriage or no marriage. Statistics show that when it happens inside of a marriage, the children tend not to become wards of the state...therefore, the state has a compelling interest to protect the relationship via marriage (not procreation!) amongst potentially procreative couples.

Your argument is COMPLETELY negated by the fact that married hetero couples are under no obligation to have children. If parenting children were a requirement of marriage, there could be some argument to be made here, though you are looking at tendencies and not hard facts.

Show me where hetero married couples are required to have children and you'll have an argument. Until then...

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Dirty Name No, the states shouldn't support it because there isn't any reason for the state to get involved, period. It's just a sexual relationship, as irrelevant to the state/society as two highschoolers making out at a party. To society (not their friends and family, but society at large), their love for one another is irrelevant, unmeasurable, and of no more consequence than two people sharing an apartment. Here's hoping people aren't going to get all emotional about this last post and derail our discussion.

Indeed. You already took care of that by conveniently forgetting that there's a lot more to marriage than procreation such as tax issues, inheritence, medical privacy issues, etc.

The argument against gay marriage based on the state encouraging couples to have children is no argument at all as we established above.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name It implies no such thing. I've never made the argument, and can point to several posts where I've refuted that charge. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT. Procreation happens, period. Marriage or no marriage. Statistics show that when it happens inside of a marriage, the children tend not to become wards of the state...therefore, the state has a compelling interest to protect the relationship via marriage (not procreation!) amongst potentially procreative couples.

Why are you shouting? You would deny equal protection under the law to gay folks because of your assertion that the state should encourage marriage between procreative couples. Obviously gay folks do not fall in that category. Why should gays be persecuted because you wish to use the power of the state to enforce your social views on others?

[Dirty Name]

And everything you are arguing has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. Whether gay folks marry or not will have zero effect on children born out of wedlock or the number of children that straighht couples do or do not have.

Nonsense. You want to alter the very definition of what marriage is supposed to be about. You can't argue with a straight face that it will have no impact on the institution, and particularly on the nuclear family. Same-sex marriage opens the door to "anything goes," which in turn means that there would no longer be any point in the state offering the incentive in the first place.

Tell me - why do YOU think the state should offer legal recognition and benefits (such as married tax filing status and social security survivor benefits) to same-sex married couples?

If your answer is only because traditional married couples get them, then you don't really have a case.

[Dirty Name]

You would deny equal protection under the law to gay folks because of your assertion that the state should encourage marriage between procreative couples.

This isn't an equal protection case because individuals ARE treated equally. Marriage is technically blind to sexual orientation - e.g. a gay male and a lesbian may marry one another - thus orientation is irrelevant and not even considered.

A gender discrimination claim would be laughed out of court since no particular gender is harmed by the law. Your best bet would be to try and prove that sexual orientation is the underlying reason for the discrimination - even though I can make a strong case that it isn't the reason...

Good luck.

[Dirty Name]

The argument against gay marriage based on the state encouraging couples to have children is no argument at all as we established above.

Again - I am not arguing that the state should encourage couples to have children!

I am simply saying that opposite-sex couples DO have children. And those children have a lower chance of becoming wards of the state when their parents are married. For that reason, the state encourages and protects the institution of marriage - again, not to encourage child rearing, which is going to happen anyway - but rather to encourage people to form stable family relationships for the good of their offspring.

Sheesh. I get tired of repeating myself and having people take my argument out of context and/or put words in my mouth.

[Jack]

I get tired of repeating myself

If your arguments were convincing, you wouldn't have to.

[Dirty Name]

Your argument is COMPLETELY negated by the fact that married hetero couples are under no obligation to have children.

Hardly. You think I haven't dealt with this absurd argument before? Give me a break.

1) Granting benefits to only those couples who have children is an incentive for procreation, not for forming a strong relationship to begin with.

2) Recognizing marriage only after childbirth or conception does little to strengthen a relationship that is going to become very stressed with the arrival of children. It's important to establish a strong relationship, whenever possible, long before the children arrive.

3) Regardless of marital status, the government already offers tax breaks to parents, including single mothers and fathers, and yes, gay parents.

In short, my argument is that marriage exists to encourage and strengthen potentially procreative relationships - regardless of whether they are ultimately "fruitful."

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Nonsense. You want to alter the very definition of what marriage is supposed to be about. You can't argue with a straight face that it will have no impact on the institution, and particularly on the nuclear family. Same-sex marriage opens the door to "anything goes," which in turn means that there would no longer be any point in the state offering the incentive in the first place. Tell me - why do YOU think the state should offer legal recognition and benefits (such as married tax filing status and social security survivor benefits) to same-sex married couples? If your answer is only because traditional married couples get them, then you don't really have a case.

This is what it comes down to. Cut through all the verbiage and it is reduced to the absurd claim that giving gay folks equal rights will destroy the institution of marriage. Where have I heard this before? The same warning was given about the evils of "race-mixing" that I heard so many years ago in the segregated South.

Your argument, if it can be possibly be called that, is ludicrous, to be kind. It is exactly the same sort of argument raised against mixed-race marriage. The "anything goes" crap reflects your biases rather than any particular line of reasoning. Are you going to pull a full Santorum on us and suggest sex with pets or do you have some other lunacy in mind?

Your claim that gay marriage will destroy the nuclear family is absurd on its face and is also based not on rationality but simple bigotry, just like all the "mixed race" marriage arguments ultimately were. Committed long term relationship are the heart of the nuclear family, even if your biases will not let you acknowledge the basic humanity of gay people, that they too can form long term and abiding relationships around which families can be based.

I finally think I understand your position, as shallow and ugly as indeed it is.

[Dirty Name]

Cut through all the verbiage and it is reduced to the absurd claim that giving gay folks equal rights will destroy the institution of marriage.

Close. Very close. But unfortunately for you, this issue isn't so simple:

Giving gay people "equal rights" as you say, isn't really the issue at all. It has NOTHING to do with equal rights whatsoever. It has everything to do with alterning the definition of marriage so that ANY COMBINATION OF PEOPLE may be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as a "married couple."

If you don't think that will undermine the current institution of marriage and how it is perceived by future generations, you aren't being honest with yourself.

You can try and limit this debate to "gay people" if you wish, but I've long maintained that "Gay Marriage" is a misnomer and serves to distract from the real issues here.

Finally, you and I have made the rounds before, and this debate always logically follows this course:

1) Gay marriage opens the door to other forms of marriage
2) Other forms of marriage being legal begs the question, why recognize marriage legally at all?
3) Abolishing legal marriage follows.

Logically speaking, your only argument is to take the position that marriage should be relegated to religious institutions and private groups, and is not the busines of the state.

While I would still disagree, at least you are being logical and not emotional.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Close. Very close. But unfortunately for you, this issue isn't so simple: Giving gay people "equal rights" as you say, isn't really the issue at all. It has NOTHING to do with equal rights whatsoever. It has everything to do with alterning the definition of marriage so that ANY COMBINATION OF PEOPLE may be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as a "married couple." If you don't think that will undermine the current institution of marriage and how it is perceived by future generations, you aren't being honest with yourself. You can try and limit this debate to "gay people" if you wish, but I've long maintained that "Gay Marriage" is a misnomer and serves to distract from the real issues here. Finally, you and I have made the rounds before, and this debate always logically follows this course: 1) Gay marriage opens the door to other forms of marriage 2) Other forms of marriage being legal begs the question, why recognize marriage legally at all? 3) Abolishing legal marriage follows. Logically speaking, your only argument is to take the position that marriage should be relegated to religious institutions and private groups, and is not the busines of the state. While I would still disagree, at least you are being logical and not emotional.

I would prefer you not to advice me what "my only arguement is" given the tortured irrationaity of yours. My argument is that marriage is a legal contract that should be available to all responsible adults. Whether the individuals involved care to invoke religion is their choice.

Your non-argument that providing gay folks with equal protection under the law will damage or lead to the collapse of the institution of marriage is irrational, just poorly disguised bigotry.

As I 've noted before, your arguments, despite your assertions to the contrary, follow closely those in opposition to mixed-race marriage. To give them credit, those opposing miscegination were right in saying that allowing blacks and whites to marry would overturn all standards of "traditional marriage". Loving vs Viginia did overturn 340 years of juris prudence. And of course, the institution of marriage has not suffered in the intervening thirty years. Or, at least, it has not suffered due to mixed-marraige.