Gay marriage soapbox

My biggest issue with anti-gay rights is that is causes more work for me, which I abhor. Example: "Me and my partner were at that game last week!" That used to mean that a man and his business partner were at the game. Today, that could mean business partners, or life-partners, or civil-union partners, or whatever. I now have to tread carefully, and ask just the right questions, and delicately figure out what kind of partner this guy is talking about. If he could just say "me and my husband..." then I know what's up, and my work is done.

Everyone is concerned over the impact that gay-rights legislation has on religious groups, family values, morality, gender roles and such, but what about the lazy? Who is looking out for us?

alfadriver wrote: Still, I don't see what's the big deal about the word Marriage to religions.

What's funny is they already HAVE a term they can use exclusively... Holy Matrimony. Leave that as the religious term that churches can use exclusively.

Marriage just means the union of two or more things. Like the marriage of art and science. Or the marriage of chocolate and peanut butter. If you were in the UK, you wouldn't bolt the fender on the car, you'd marry the wing to it.

Legally, marriage is simply the legal union of two or more consenting citizens, which grants upwards of 100+ rights from the individual to the union, many of which are already granted to blood relatives (the visitation rights, ability to make medical decisions, estate issues, etc). The government is what guarantees those contractual rights (just as it does for any other legally binding contract) which is why the government is in the marriage business.

I don't see it as a slippery slope to marrying inanimate objects or animals or minors or even blood relatives. None of them can fulfill the obligations of said contract (you really think a goat is going to tell the doctors how to treat you when your in a coma?). Marriage to a brother or sister is going to be rare (you think there are many guys out there looking at their own sisters and thinking "Man, she's HOT, I want to spend my life with her!") besides, blood relatives already have most of the rights of a married couple as it is. And polygamy is a self limiting institution, especially when the potential for divorce is factored in (Alimony to 4 wives at once? And a bunch of wives having their period at the same time? You really want to risk that?)

Hoo boy...

I'd like to attempt to say a few things to hopefully get people thinking, and not really argue too much. (I don't think this conversation is terribly constructive at this point as far as I can tell.) I think my stance on it should be pretty clear. (Practicing Catholic :)

Let's get a little into social theory, etc. because that may actually prove to be somewhat constructive.

First of all, we should note that the family is the fundamental unit of society. In fact, family is a far more essential social structure than government. We can all think of situations where the government is, at best, largely absent (eg the "Old West"). The family is the primary place where children are raised and taught to live in society at large. It is the first place where they encounter others and learn how to get along with others. If that job is done well, the children are much more likely to become contributing members of society. Statistically, that tends to happen most often in an intact family of a mother, father and children.

Because the future of society depends on not just bodies existing, but upon educated, law-abiding citizens, it is in the society at large's best interest to incentivize and promote intact and loving families. Obviously, without people society doesn't exist. Without educated, law-abiding people, you have barbarism. You'd have either anarchy or dictatorships. Without virtue, then, you cannot have a well-ordered society that people like to live in that thrives.

Furthermore, family relationship is extremely important to inheritance and estate laws. Without state-recognized family relationships, the default option for inheritance becomes the state, as the state would recognize no relationships of its citizens other than their relationship to itself.

Insurance also is very tied to family relationships. Health insurance, life insurance, etc. all are restricted and guided by these family relationships.

So, there are a host of reasons that the state needs to recognize familial relationships and promote good, intact families. Fundamentally, promoting marriage is promoting the common good.

In reply to scardeal:

Are you supporting gay marriage? You just stated many reasons I do.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to scardeal: Are you supporting gay marriage? You just stated many reasons I do.

Nope. Gay couples, by their nature, cannot procreate and have children, so I don't see any reason to give legal status and incentive to those relationships. New educated, law-abiding citizens (ie children) are the fundamental common good that heterosexual families have to offer that homosexual couples cannot.

As far as society is concerned, what is the long-term effective difference between a gay couple and a pair of heterosexual bachelors who live together (say, professors, for instance) and don't have any sort of romantic relationship? What does the homosexual romantic relationship provide for society that does not exist in a purely platonic friendship between old friends?

scardeal wrote: Nope. Gay couples, by their nature, cannot procreate and have children, so I don't see any reason to give legal status and incentive to those relationships.

So, because my wife had a hysterectomy and cannot have children, I cannot be married to her? We are not having children of our own. Ever.

So, our fundamental purpose in life is to reproduce you're saying? Seems to me the planet could benefit from a few of us declining that route.

scardeal wrote: As far as society is concerned, what is the long-term effective difference between a gay couple and a pair of heterosexual bachelors who live together (say, professors, for instance) and don't have any sort of romantic relationship? What does the homosexual romantic relationship provide for society that does not exist in a purely platonic friendship between old friends?

marriage is acontract that provides the aprtners with many other legal rights to care and beefits. It affords non-blood relatives the right to make medical decisions for the partner, as well as estate continuity. Over 100 individual rights afforded to the couple that do not exist in a non married relationship. Sorry, you can't see any of that through your religious tinted glasses.

scardeal wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to scardeal: Are you supporting gay marriage? You just stated many reasons I do.

Nope. Gay couples, by their nature, cannot procreate and have children, so I don't see any reason to give legal status and incentive to those relationships. New educated, law-abiding citizens (ie children) are the fundamental common good that heterosexual families have to offer that homosexual couples cannot. As far as society is concerned, what is the long-term effective difference between a gay couple and a pair of heterosexual bachelors who live together (say, professors, for instance) and don't have any sort of romantic relationship? What does the homosexual romantic relationship provide for society that does not exist in a purely platonic friendship between old friends?

Wow... Just wow.

scardeal wrote: Nope. Gay couples, by their nature, cannot procreate and have children, so I don't see any reason to give legal status and incentive to those relationships. New educated, law-abiding citizens (ie children) are the fundamental common good that heterosexual families have to offer that homosexual couples cannot.

They can raise children. Allowing them to marry would likely lead to higher adoption rates and more children being raised as productive members of society. Even if we presume that a male and female parent is the ideal model for raising children, two parents of the same gender must be superior to a single parent (greater parental involvement, modeling of respectful behavior to a spouse), and infinitely better than no parent.

If we do accept that procreation is the reason for marriage, it makes no sense for people who are infertile or plan to not have children to get married. Should we say that women over 50years old should not get married?

As far as society is concerned, what is the long-term effective difference between a gay couple and a pair of heterosexual bachelors who live together (say, professors, for instance) and don't have any sort of romantic relationship? What does the homosexual romantic relationship provide for society that does not exist in a purely platonic friendship between old friends?

The same difference as there is between a romantic heterosexual couple and an opposite sex pair of roommates. If I must list something, I would say social stability. A male and female professor could decide to share living arrangements while working at the same university. If one gets a position elsewhere, the non-couple would separate. The married couple would expect society to make arrangements to allow them to stay together.

Your argument limits the value and purpose of marriage to procreation. That is something my girlfriend and I will probably not do. We do not have to provide anything for society in order to get married. If/when we do marry, the purpose is not about what we are providing for society but a promise we are making for each other. To us, marriage would be a legal recognized pact that we intend to remain together and supportive of what the other does for the rest of our lives, and that we expect society to give our relationship special consideration.

If I get a job somewhere that causes me to relocate, and my significant other wants to be with me, her company would be more inclined to give her leniency to follow her husband than to follow her boyfriend.

It's not about what people provide for society, it's about how society provides for its people. Marriage is a pact between two individuals that society recognizes that their relationship deserves special deference and protection.

Lesley wrote: So, our fundamental purpose in life is to reproduce you're saying? Seems to me the planet could benefit from a few of us declining that route.

As far as the state's concerned, it is the primary reason for supporting marriage institutionally.

I think it would be far better if people did a better job raising their children. Then far fewer people would fit such a description.

scardeal wrote:

Lesley wrote: So, our fundamental purpose in life is to reproduce you're saying? Seems to me the planet could benefit from a few of us declining that route.

As far as the state's concerned, it is the primary reason for supporting marriage institutionally.

The state presuming that my purpose in life is to raise children is like the state dictating to me what career I should have.

To reiterate...

Chris_V wrote:

scardeal wrote: Nope. Gay couples, by their nature, cannot procreate and have children, so I don't see any reason to give legal status and incentive to those relationships.

So, because my wife had a hysterectomy and cannot have children, I should not/cannot be married to her? We are not having children of our own. Ever.

Salanis wrote: The state presuming that my purpose in life is to raise children is like the state dictating to me what career I should have.

Why should it care otherwise? If you're taking freedom of religion seriously, then the government should only care if an action it takes adds to the common good. If the rest of the effects of marriage and family are fundamentally private in nature, then it can only incentivize that which promotes the common public good. And that, fundamentally, is the addition of new citizens who contribute to that common good.

Why can't religious wingnuts see that humans are already overburdening the planet and therefore destroying it through overpopulation? Oh yea, I forgot, when things get really bad, they can prey and the magical guy in the sky can wave his wand and make it all better. Problem solved.

scardeal wrote:

Salanis wrote: The state presuming that my purpose in life is to raise children is like the state dictating to me what career I should have.

Why should it care otherwise? If you're taking freedom of religion seriously, then the government should only care if an action it takes adds to the common good. If the rest of the effects of marriage and family are fundamentally private in nature, then it can only incentivize that which promotes the common public good. And that, fundamentally, is the addition of new citizens who contribute to that common good.

So adding more kids to an already over populated country is for the common good but having people joined in a loving supportive nature is not? Either way that argument is pretty much made invalid by the fact that couples who have no intention or are incapable of having kids can get married so why shouldn't gay couples be able to.

We should just love the people that are already here and not focus so much energy on the ones that don't exist yet.

Where are the hot redheads?

Chris_V wrote: To reiterate...

Chris_V wrote:

scardeal wrote: Nope. Gay couples, by their nature, cannot procreate and have children, so I don't see any reason to give legal status and incentive to those relationships.

So, because my wife had a hysterectomy and cannot have children, I should not/cannot be married to her? We are not having children of our own. Ever.

I'm waiting for this answer, too.

If procreation is the only reason, we are not legal, nor are many of our friends. IMHO, that's just a justification not to allow laws to cover every person , equally. And a bad one at that.

Oh, and gay couples CAN procreate. I have neighbors who have kids. It may take some work, but they ARE making children....

To the people that oppose gay marriage--

I'm assuming you have properly procreated and you have childeren. If you child grows up, falls in love with someone of the same sex and decides to spend the rest of their life with them, could you honestly look them in the eye and say that they should not have every right that you and your spouse have in life?

scardeal wrote:

Salanis wrote: The state presuming that my purpose in life is to raise children is like the state dictating to me what career I should have.

Why should it care otherwise? If you're taking freedom of religion seriously, then the government should only care if an action it takes adds to the common good. If the rest of the effects of marriage and family are fundamentally private in nature, then it can only incentivize that which promotes the common public good. And that, fundamentally, is the addition of new citizens who contribute to that common good.

I don't care what the state thinks. I do not exist to serve the state. The state exists to protect my rights.

Chris_V wrote: So, because my wife had a hysterectomy and cannot have children, I should not/cannot be married to her? We are not having children of our own. Ever.

Why should the state care then? Why do you care that the government recognizes your union or not? Do you need the state to give you some sort of approval for your life? Are you not comfortable in knowing that you've committed yourself to your wife?

Think about this from the government's perspective: why give tax incentives to married couples at all? Why should married couples be allowed to file for income taxes as a couple? What's the point of tax incentives (credits, deductions, etc.) in the first place? Why should it care to the point that it's willing to reduce its income (especially considering our deficit)?

Here is why our nation should offer the protections of marriage in general and legalize homosexual marriage in particular:

Our nation was founded on the notion that all people are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Our government exists, above all else, to protect these rights.

An individual's inherent rights are only limited by the point at which they infringe upon the equal or greater right of another.

The rights of the individual override the desire or preferences of society.

The institution of marriage offers protection for two people to pursue happiness together as a married unit. That happiness may be monetary, social, sexual, or procreative. The government does not get to dictate what form anyone's pursuit of happiness takes until it infringes upon the rights of another.

Homosexual marriage would not limit the rights of anyone else and therefore our government has no reason to not extend equal protection to any pair. It should extend equal protection to pursue happiness as a couple to people of any sex.

scardeal wrote:

Chris_V wrote: So, because my wife had a hysterectomy and cannot have children, I should not/cannot be married to her? We are not having children of our own. Ever.

Why should the state care then? Why do you care that the government recognizes your union or not? Do you need the state to give you some sort of approval for your life? Are you not comfortable in knowing that you've committed yourself to your wife?

because of the hundred other goddamn rights that married couple have, from legally making decisions on each other's behalf (for example if you are in a coma) to continuity of estate (i.e if you die, your spouse has rights that a mere roommate does not). The REST of the reasons for the damn contract. Did you simply skim over that part of the debate, too? A marrige contract allows you the same rights with your spouse that blood relatives already have, but mere roommates do not.

For the record, I'm with Rotard on this.

I think homosexual couples need to have access to the SAME rights as hetero couples. Call it marriage, call it a civil union, call it whatever you like if you want to keep "marriage" a strictly heterosexual union, but I can't see it being anything short of infringement of rights if homosexual couples are denied access to the benefits associated with a legal union.

Alternatively, if they wanted to eliminate the government benefits to married heterosexuals rather than legalizing gay marriage, it would provide equal rights and take care of the issue, in my mind.