Homosexual Marriage

[Athena]

Quote by: YourTokah http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_gay_marriage.html The article is a bit long, but it is so worth it. A very interesting read with compelling points! I'll argue some later.

YourTokah, would you please post this in the "why have marriage laws at all" thread. There is soooooo much I want to say in response to the article that is not restricted to the gay issue. However on the gay issue, and marriage, I am reminded of the animal world where sex is method of establishing dominance and social position. It is my understanidng that this dominance issue comes up in both homosexual and hetersexual marriages. Marriage is not easy, and I believe it does hold us to standard of cooperation.
If gays think they can remain commited to each other, let them give it a try. The ultimate goal of humanity, in my opinion, is to discover truths, and this requires human experimentation. If anyone thinks they can do the marriage thing well, let them go for it.
This is far, far better then causal sex and no rules.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name I've already proven that there is no logical case for individual discrimination, nor illegal discrimination.

No, you did not. You said that it can't be discrimination, because it isn't just men who aren't allowed to marry or women so it can't be "sexual discrimination", something no-one ever claimed. And you said that gays are allowed to marry, just not a same sex partner, and therefore it isn't discrimination against gays. I brought up school segragation as a counter-point, a clear parralel, as black kids weren't barred from school, they were just barred from an equal equivalent. It was still discrimination, as the law plainly states. You claim these proofs that you have never produced. Round and round. I could go back and show you several cases where, after numerous posts, you admit that you have not supported the case you are making, but then change the parameters, as if that means you "won" or "proved" the point. It does not.

Quote by: Dirty Name No, you just failed to grasp it. She was quite clear, and this paragraph sums the case up nicely:

"Gay marriage gives an enfeebled institution another injection of the toxin that got it sick in the first place: it reinforces the definition of marriage as a loving, self-determining couple engaging in an ordinary civil contract that has nothing to do with children."

Show me that this is, in fact, the toxin. Claiming that it is does not make it so. Is the problem the very concept that a marriage should be constituted of a loving, self-determining couple? Or is the problem that people have unrealistic ideas about what that means? Is the problem that people have divorced the idea of stuggle and commitment from marriage, that they have reduced the definition of "loving" to non-conflicted and contantly pleasing? Is the problem that they reacted so strongly against the concept of the 50's generation's "traditional" roles and ideals (ie, husband makes all decisions, wife must be compliant/ no sex before marriage,ever/ no matter how bad the marriage is, it is always better than divorce) that they lost a little perspective themselves? Ever hear of the golden mean? Most moral issues and behaviors exist on a continium, a point of ballance between two extremes. You know, the same kind of idea between "How much time should I devote to work and how much to my family?" Lean to far in either direction and you hurt one at the service of the other. That is the toxin that ails marriage. People don't divorce because they do not consider the children. They divorce because they never had a realistic idea of what marriage meant in the first place. You can not fix what ails marriage by pretening that the problem is that people's mistake is that they thought they had a right to be happy.

I need to finish this later... I just saw the time.

[Dirty Name]

I do not understand? I think if we look at the laws of nature, what we call homosexuality is natural. It is clearly away of establishing dominance and social position in species other than humans.

Natural or unnatural, it's all irrelevant. What IS relevant is the point that legal recognition of marriage in the United States of America is all about procreation and child rearing - even if that doesn't always happen.

[Dirty Name]

You said that it can't be discrimination, because it isn't just men who aren't allowed to marry or women so it can't be "sexual discrimination", something no-one ever claimed.

If by "sexual discrimination," you mean "gender discrimination," then I would point out that several people have attempted to claim that, which I have debunked and even you seem to believe is not worthy of being brought up.

If you mean "discrimination based on sexual orientation," I've already proven in post #1460 (where I clearly met all requirements for proving a logical fallacy) that sexual orientation is not the criterion used to exclude gays from marriage. The only way you could ever mount an appeal to equality based on sexual orientation discrimination is if you could show that gay people, regardless of whom they chose to marry, were always excluded from marriage. The fact is, if two opposite-sex gays wish to marry, they are allowed to do so. And two same sex heterosexuals are not allowed to marry. Clearly, sexual orientation is not a criterion that is considered for the legal recognition of marriage.

It couldn't be more obvious that the legal recognition of marriage isn't about "love" but more about the result of sexual relations between a male and a female.

I brought up school segragation as a counter-point, a clear parralel, as black kids weren't barred from school, they were just barred from an equal equivalent.

Is this the post you are referring to?

By your construct, the government could have justified continued segregation, because the costs to the government would ballon by elliminating the lower cost, less effective education given to African-Americans. It was only defacto discrimination, resulting from the unintended inequlity in seperate facilities, not codified discrimmintion. That is the essence of the issue here.

First of all, segregation was not "unintended." Second, at the risk of repeating myself, I will simply point out that school segregation was a clear case of discrimination because it was based purely on race, and equal access to the same institution was NOT allowed. This is not a "clear parallel" as you claim, it's the exact opposite - an obvious example of discrimination that has little in common with the marriage debate.

It is apparently your argument that withholding legal benefits from same-sex married people is "defacto discrimination against gays." How so? Because gays prefer the company of same sex individuals while straight people do not?

Could we apply that same standard to school segregation? Let's try: Is excluding black people from white schools defacto discrimination against blacks? Or is it ACTUAL, INTENTIONAL discrimination based on their race? One's preferences aren't even a factor in the segregation analogy, but they are necessary for you to make YOUR case.

Here's an analogy that is more accurate:

The Cincinnati Reds decide to offer free tickets to a game vs. the Chicago Cubs. If you want to claim your free ticket, you have to wear a red shirt when you come up to claim your ticket. Fans wearing blue shirts are not allowed to claim a free ticket, but can still go to the game.

Are people wearing blue shirts being illegally discriminated against? The answer, of course, is no. Fans who prefer blue shirts can always put on a red shirt to claim the ticket, then put on the blue shirt once inside. EVERYONE has equal access to the free tickets - preference for shirt color is NOT a factor. The ticket window doesn't ask people which team or which t-shirt color they prefer. The Cincinnati Reds ticket sales office is simply trying to maximize the number of fans in the game who are wearing red shirts.

That's your problem. You want to wear a blue shirt and when the RULES require something else. You are trying to tell the Cincinnati Reds that blue shirts are just as good as red shirts, when they just aren't going to accomplish what the team wanted.

[ihaQ]

You continue to miss the point. Regardless of the ability to adopt, the point is that marriage is once again seperated from procreation and parenthood - it's a take it or leave it proposition. With homosexual marriage, there is no chance the couple could accidently conceive a child through normal sexual relations. Again, there are already benefits in place for any couple who chooses to adopt. The second-tier safety net is long established. Further, any homosexual couple that chooses to adopt could only do so if the first order biological parents forfeit their rights.

Well, I hardly missed the 'point' as it were because I was responding to the quote in your post that had explicitly stated that there was no relationship between homosexual marriage and
child-rearing.

Ok, you're saying that even when homosexual marriage is legalized, people of all sexual orientations will still see a connection between marriage and love, dedication, monogamy between two humans, legal benefits, financial benefits, child-raising, but somehow not child-bearing? Do people in heterosexual relationships somehow forget they have genitalia? I don't understand how the fact that because a portion of the institution can not reproduce together, that those who can will somehow have their natural desires to spread their genetic material canceled out. Does society, in a situation where homosexuals can get married somehow see it as more acceptable that a non-commital couple have children? You see, it doesn't really make sense.

[Dirty Name]

explicitly stated that there was no relationship between homosexual marriage and child-rearing.

If you are going to respond to an "explicit point" that I made, I strongly urge you to quote me verbatim, and don't paraphrase my remarks to suit your argument. I've never said what you are claiming here, EVER.

[Dirty Name]

I don't understand how the fact that because a portion of the institution can not reproduce together, that those who can will somehow have their natural desires to spread their genetic material canceled out. Does society, in a situation where homosexuals can get married somehow see it as more acceptable that a non-commital couple have children? You see, it doesn't really make sense.

No, your post doesn't make any sense, but I'll try to decipher it as best I can.

I have NEVER claimed anything remotely resembling what you are talking about. Your post here seems to be trying to shoehorn my argument into a box that is only concerned with conception. Like many of your predecessors (Belverron, italiangm, lsbskins1, just to name a few), you are still not comprehending the totality of my argument. For the umpteenth time, here it is:

1) The state has a compelling interest in propagating itself in perpetuity.
2) The state recognizes that procreation will occur all on it's own - that no incentive on the part of the state is required or necessary. Thus, the state need not encourage procreation per se.
3) The state recognizes that biological parenthood is the parenting solution which places the least burden on the state, AND, that biological parenthood gives a child the greatest chance for success and well-being.
4) The state recognizes that biological parents are the ONLY people whom the state can hold accountable for the welfare of their mutually created child - all others have to volunteer for the duty.
5) The state has a compelling interest in maximizing the percentage of children (not maximizing the total number...important distinction here) who are raised by their biological parents.
6) The state believes that legal recognition of the institution of marriage is the best way to strengthen sexually-productive relationships and ensure successful outcomes for the child and for the state. By encouraging strong commitments via marriage before conception occurs, the state has found a highly efficient method for protecting the compelling interests of both propagation into perpituity AND for maximizing the percentage of children raised by their biological parents.

Now, your reply will of course be that gays can adopt children, so doesn't the state have a compelling interest to protect their relationships too?

The answer, is that gays are no different from any other type of person who adopts a child. The state already provides tax breaks ($10,300 just from the federal government alone) as well as numerous other protections for adoptive parents. Further, the state's interest in the adopted child is already protected by the adoption agency who decides to allow the adoption in the first place. Adoptive parents are more thoroughly investigated than normal parents. If the adoption agency believes the parent to be a qualified parent, the state's interest is protected. But there is no check and balance system like that for heterosexual couples. Which is why the best solution has always been the institution of marriage.

Finally, this question for all you homosexuals:

If you support the idea of gay marriage, do you also support the idea of domestic partnerships between family members who mutually care for one another? I'm not even talking about incest here. I'm talking about people like my aunt and my grandma who are joined at the hip and will die living in the same house together. Shouldn't they too get the same benefits you are demanding? And if so, shouldn't they be able to dissolve that relationship very quickly if a responsible suitor comes along for my aunt? Poor grandma! And if you allow THAT sort of relationship, then why not allow domestic partnerships between, say, a sexual relationship between a brother and a sister? Or father and adult daughter?

If you are going to base your entire claim of discrimination on the notion of who you "prefer" to marry, you must be prepared to admit that you just don't give a flying crap who gets married, nor do you care about the consequences of such a dramatic change in our society.

I for one, find a number of problems to such a change, starting with the fact that there is no good reason for altering the law in the first place because illegal discrimination doesn't exist in this case.

[Boetie]

I find it interesting how many will ignore the reality of this same sex marriage issue. As pointed out, the issue went beyond defining marriage, it went so far as to ban same sex couples from the political process.

When I point out that citizens have been barred from participating in the political process, there are those that will feign that they do not know what a political process is, this is a fake ignorance. The reality is the anti same sex crusaders foster hatred and bigotry to such an extent that they want treat same sex couples the same way the Nazis treated the jews.

Defining marriage is not their agenda, their real agenda is what happened in Nebraska, is what happened in the United States.

The anti same sex crusaders is all to happy that this country is asleep and ignorant. The real agenda of the anti same sex crusaders is to lead you to believe their issue is only to define marriage, when their real motive is to reduce same sex couples to level the Nazis reduced the jews.

[Dirty Name]

I find it interesting how many will ignore the reality of this same sex marriage issue. As pointed out, the issue went beyond defining marriage, it went so far as to ban same sex couples from the political process. When I point out that citizens have been barred from participating in the political process, there are those that will feign that they do not know what a political process is, this is a fake ignorance. The reality is the anti same sex crusaders foster hatred and bigotry to such an extent that they want treat same sex couples the same way the Nazis treated the jews. Defining marriage is not their agenda, their real agenda is what happened in Nebraska, is what happened in the United States. The anti same sex crusaders is all to happy that this country is asleep and ignorant. The real agenda of the anti same sex crusaders is to lead you to believe their issue is only to define marriage, when their real motive is to reduce same sex couples to level the Nazis reduced the jews.

Now prove to everyone here at volconvo that Section 29 does not act as a barrier to plaintiffs' participation in the political process... Note plaintiffs are same sex couples

Again, I don't know the specifics, and you may make as big a deal of this as you wish. But from what I've read of your post, it seems to me that homosexuals are NOT barred from the political process. This is mere sensationalism on the part of homosexual advocates.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm guessing that EVERYONE working in those organizations is equally barred from lobbying for the issues mentioned in "Section 29" - including heterosexual advocates of gay rights.

Thus, homosexuals are NOT barred from the political process. Only employees of specific institutions, regardless of sexual orientation. And it appears from the language contained in the laws you cited did not bar other people from advocating for pro-homosexual laws.

If I am missing something, then please set me straight, and spare me the finger-pointing, condescending, and arrogant tone. I admit I am not familiar with the law - I'm just a bit incredulous about your claims of "homosexuals being barred from the political process." Such a claim seems as outrageous as saying that blacks aren't allowed to vote - until we learn that we are talking about juvenile blacks and people of all races who are banned from the political process equally, and because they are minors.

When the law applies equally to everyone, and there is a sound reason for the law, illegal discrimination doesn't exist.

[Boetie]

DirtyName posts If I am missing something, then please set me straight

The following is written in the Nebraska Constitution

Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.

The second sentence has proved controversial. It reduces every loving, committed same-sex couple to a pair of roommates. i.e. under law, their relationship does not exist. It blocks gays and lesbians from obtaining any protection for their families through legislative means, in violation of the federal constitution.

When you are blocked from obtaining any protection through legislative means, you are shut out of the political process.

[ihaQ]

3) The state recognizes that biological parenthood is the parenting solution which places the least burden on the state, AND, that biological parenthood gives a child the greatest chance for success and well-being.

Unsubstanitiated. Biological parenting, per se, does use any less of the state's resources or put less of a 'burden' on the state any more than adoptive parenting. Also, I doubt the claim that biological parenting allows a child a greater chance for success and well-being than adoptive parenting has any proof or validity whatsoever.

4) The state recognizes that biological parents are the ONLY people whom the state can hold accountable for the welfare of their mutually created child - all others have to volunteer for the duty.

Wrong, biological parents may forfeit the guardianship rights to their child at any time.

5) The state has a compelling interest in maximizing the percentage of children (not maximizing the total number...important distinction here) who are raised by their biological parents.

The state has a compelling interest to maximize the number of children who are raised by responsible, caring parents. Whether they are biological parents or not isn't within the spectre of control or concern of the state but of the biological parents themselves.

6) The state believes that legal recognition of the institution of marriage is the best way to strengthen sexually-productive relationships and ensure successful outcomes for the child and for the state. By encouraging strong commitments via marriage before conception occurs, the state has found a highly efficient method for protecting the compelling interests of both propagation into perpituity AND for maximizing the percentage of children raised by their biological parents.

Conception within marriage is not the factor the state should consider important but rather the mutual acceptance of the responsibility of children within marriage.

From this perception, the institution of marriage does not damage or discourage the heterosexual method so to speak, which will remain the most popular, but also aids the parenting health of families of those who wish to adopt their child.

The answer, is that gays are no different from any other type of person who adopts a child. The state already provides tax breaks ($10,300 just from the federal government alone) as well as numerous other protections for adoptive parents. Further, the state's interest in the adopted child is already protected by the adoption agency who decides to allow the adoption in the first place.

But if marriage is an obvious benefit to a family, why should only heterosexuals who adopt be able to marry?

Adoptive parents are more thoroughly investigated than normal parents. If the adoption agency believes the parent to be a qualified parent, the state's interest is protected. But there is no check and balance system like that for heterosexual couples. Which is why the best solution has always been the institution of marriage.

Precisely, but the state's interests are protected when a child is raised in the best environment possible. Hence, a homosexual's adoptive family that is not protected by the institution of marriage is not as strong as even a heterosexual's biological family that is. This is merely negligent of the adopted child.

If you support the idea of gay marriage, do you also support the idea of domestic partnerships between family members who mutually care for one another? I'm not even talking about incest here. I'm talking about people like my aunt and my grandma who are joined at the hip and will die living in the same house together. Shouldn't they too get the same benefits you are demanding? And if so, shouldn't they be able to dissolve that relationship very quickly if a responsible suitor comes along for my aunt? Poor grandma! And if you allow THAT sort of relationship, then why not allow domestic partnerships between, say, a sexual relationship between a brother and a sister? Or father and adult daughter?

Well, I'm not necessarily a homosexual but I can answer that if you believe marriage to be about the state's interest in raising healthy children, then certainly allowing incestuous marriages would not be a good idea.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Dirty Name First of all, segregation was not "unintended." Second, at the risk of repeating myself, I will simply point out that school segregation was a clear case of discrimination because it was based purely on race, and equal access to the same institution was NOT allowed. This is not a "clear parallel" as you claim, it's the exact opposite - an obvious example of discrimination that has little in common with the marriage debate.

First of all, never did I claim the segragation was unintended. The southern governments never claimed segragation was unintended, what they claimed was that is was not discriminatory because they never "intended" to harm. They simply intended to segragate. The law said, the effect matters, not what your claimed intent was, and because the effect of segragation was discrimatory, the act of segragation became discriminatory and therefore it was illegal. Same situation, as you yourself admit when you say:

"Exclusion of gay sexual orientation is but one of many effects, and is not the cause of the discrimination."

[Dirty Name]

The second sentence has proved controversial. It reduces every loving, committed same-sex couple to a pair of roommates.

The law, as you quoted here, doesn't ban:

1) Living wills
2) Estate contracts
3) Any other legal arrangements available to family members or otherwise linked persons who share common interests and property.

It blocks gays and lesbians from obtaining any protection for their families through legislative means, in violation of the federal constitution.

What protections do you seek that aren't already available to you? It seems obvious to me that there aren't any protections gays require that aren't already available via a private contract. Further, to claim that gays are shut out of the political process is akin to claiming that lawyers who passed the state bar in Kansas, but who's licenses are not legally valid in Nebraska, are also shut out of the political process! While they may lobby for passage of a reciprocity law whereby their Kansas license is all that is required for them to practice law in Nebraska, they are shut out of the process because the law clearly states that legal licensure from other states are invalid in Nebraska.

Show me where it states that homosexuals are legally prohibitied from lobbying their elected officials in an effort to repeal the law. Show me that language, and how it specifically applies only to homosexuals, and THEN you will have made your point. Until that time, you're just blowing smoke.

[Dirty Name]

Unsubstanitiated. Biological parenting, per se, does use any less of the state's resources or put less of a 'burden' on the state any more than adoptive parenting. Also, I doubt the claim that biological parenting allows a child a greater chance for success and well-being than adoptive parenting has any proof or validity whatsoever.

You are completely wrong. Children abandoned by their biological parents become wards of the state. Get a clue.

[ihaQ]

You are completely wrong. Children abandoned by their biological parents become wards of the state. Get a clue.

Clue to you, adoptive parenting does not use more of the state's resources. Homosexual marriage is not (within any forseeable or provable certainty) going to up child-abandonment rates.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name The law, as you quoted here, doesn't ban: 1) Living wills 2) Estate contracts 3) Any other legal arrangements available to family members or otherwise linked persons who share common interests and property.

Those are unreliable at best, as I've pointed out. So, we have to do better: civil unions, at least. Creating an entirely new institution for just a few gay people--hardly practical. The pragmatic solution would seem to be....

[PatrickHenry]

California legislature set to vote on the issue: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20050902a.html
Passed the CA state senate yesterday.

[belverron]

Thanks, PatrickHenry. Anyone who would like to discuss it may do so here.

[Dirty Name]

Also, I doubt the claim that biological parenting allows a child a greater chance for success and well-being than adoptive parenting has any proof or validity whatsoever.

It all depends on what your starting point is for the comparison. If we have to decide between biological parenthood and all other options, AS THE STATE MUST, then it couldn't be clearer that biological parenthood is the best option, legally, socially, and economically. If you wish to "drill down" and compare a set of biological parents to a set of opposite-sex adoptive parents who have became guardians of their child when he/she was still a perfectly healthy newborn, then I suppose there wouldn't be much difference in outcomes. But the state doesn't have the luxury of comparison under ideal circumstances that you do.

The state has a compelling interest to maximize the number of children who are raised by responsible, caring parents. Whether they are biological parents or not isn't within the spectre of control or concern of the state but of the biological parents themselves.

This is about as misinformed a response as I have ever read. Do you have any idea who foots the bill to take care of children until they are adopted? Have you any clue as to the enormous expenditures related to adoption, child welfare, etc.?

The biological parents are the single cheapest solution for the state. There is no other solution that is better. Thus, your notion that the state "doesn't care" whether kids are raised by adoptive vs. biological parents is nothing more than wishful thinking. While the adoptive outcome for the child may be similar to that of biological parenting outcomes, the bill footed by the state to facilitate successful adoptions is significant.

An honest analysis could only conclude that it's in the state's best interest to encourage biological parenthood over all other arrangements.

Quote = Dirty Name 4) The state recognizes that biological parents are the ONLY people whom the state can hold accountable for the welfare of their mutually created child - all others have to volunteer for the duty. Quote=ihaQ: Wrong, biological parents may forfeit the guardianship rights to their child at any time.

Sadly, you're mistaken again. In your desperation to debunk my unassailable position, you failed to grasp the difference between "rights" and "responsibilities." While you may forfeit your rights to care for your child, the state can still hold you accountable for your failure to meet your responsibilities. Next time, follow this time tested forum protocol:

1) Read
2) Comprehend
3) Think
4) Post

I think you put #4 in front of either #2 or #3, or maybe both.

Conception within marriage is not the factor the state should consider important but rather the mutual acceptance of the responsibility of children within marriage. From this perception, the institution of marriage does not damage or discourage the heterosexual method so to speak, which will remain the most popular, but also aids the parenting health of families of those who wish to adopt their child.

You forgot to preface your remarks with the phrase, "In my opinion..." Because that's all that it is, not backed up by anything except how you feel. And your second paragraph sounds great sitting there all by itself, but it fails to consider the negative consequences of doing what you suggest. First, any dilution of an incentive necessarily weakens that incentive. If you offer $100 in incentives to your employees who are willing to wear business suits to work, then decide to also offer $100 in incentives for employees to wear anything they want, how many will be incited to wear business suits? While this example is far less complex than the issue of marriage, it serves to illustrate that the state's efforts to encourage biological parenthood via marriage would also be diluted if people could get the same benefits for any arrangement. Thus, your first sentence of the second paragraph:

From this perception, the institution of marriage does not damage or discourage the heterosexual method so to speak

is proven to be a fallacy.

But if marriage is an obvious benefit to a family, why should only heterosexuals who adopt be able to marry?

Because...they have the potential to create MORE children - not just the one the state already looked into and agreed they could handle.

Precisely, but the state's interests are protected when a child is raised in the best environment possible. Hence, a homosexual's adoptive family that is not protected by the institution of marriage is not as strong as even a heterosexual's biological family that is. This is merely negligent of the adopted child.

Your statement of "Precisely," I will remind you, was