The 14th Amendment does not require us to neuter marriage licensing. Those trying to impose neutered marriage via the 14th Amendment are simply hoping the courts will cut short the public debate and impose neutered marriage. To these wishful thinkers, just one question: Does the 14th Amendment allow the government to tax one citizen at a different rate than another? Explain your answer. Be careful not to provide an explanation that would contradict the rationale you hope neuters marriage without a vote.
"The 14th Amendment does not require us to neuter marriage licensing."
ReplyDeleteSure it does. As the Iowa Supreme Court noted, similarly situated persons must be treated equally, lacking a rational public purpose to do otherwise. Gay people are similarly situated as straight people: they form committed couples, they raise children, they pay taxes, they support their communities, etc.
Taxpayers are not similarly situated: some make more and some make less. The comparison doesn't really make much sense.
As the Iowa Supreme Court noted, similarly situated persons must be treated equally, lacking a rational public purpose to do otherwise.
ReplyDeleteAnd the New York, Maryland, Washington State, and Arizona Supreme Courts courts didn't see it that way. Again, it's not about "gay people" vs. "straight people". Straights who want to "marry" the same gender are treated no differently than gays are. What you are really arguing is that the forms of consummation be treated equally, and the Fourteeenth Amendment has never been interpreted as requiring that.
Oaker: As the Iowa Supreme Court noted...
ReplyDeleteThe Iowa Supreme Court did not base its ruling on the 14th Amendment, period. All same-sex "marriage" rulings based on the 14th Amendment are against neutering marriage.
Taxpayers are not similarly situated: some make more and some make less.
This is the contradiction neutered marriagists are forced to swallow. They must claim that two people are not "similarly situated" if their income is different by $1, but a bride-groom couple and a same-sex couple are. So the potential impact of a child on a couple's life isn't worth even $1 to neutered marriage activists. The contradiction is so obvious that if Oaker hadn't said so himself, people would accuse me of inventing a straw-man for saying he is overlooking it.
R.K., given the intimate and sexual nature of marriage, it is unreasonable to argue that gay people have the same right to marry as straight people so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex. If opposite-sex marriage were outlawed in favor of same-sex marriage, I'm sure you wouldn't feel the way you do. Besides, if you are encouraging gays to marry each other, or someone of the opposite gender and sexual orientation, you're redefining marriage away from sexual fidelity and life-time commitment: mixed orientation marriages foster sexual infidelity and more often end in divorce. These are not good things for society! That, and many other reasons, show how society benefits from same-sex marriage!
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing intrinsically sexual about the legal concept of SSM.
ReplyDeleteThe union of husband and wife, by contrast, is a sexual type of relationship, at law. The sexual basis is not one-sexed nor sex neutral: see consummation, grounds for annulment, grounds for adultery, and the marital presumption of paternity, for starters.
SSM cannot meet this sexual basis with some version of same-sex sexual behavior that would be identical for the all-male scenario and the all-female scenario; and so no SSM law even bothers to enact a sexual basis for SSM.
So, RO, the sexual nature of marriage is inapplicable to the one-sexed scenario. Further there is no gay requirement for those who'd SSM, anyplace where it has been enacted or imposed in the law. SSM does not have a gay nature nor a sexual nature. It is sex-neutral by design. Its merger with marriage would thus neuter the sexual nature of marriage in the law.
Unlike the marriage idea, the SSM idea provides no societal rationale for fostering sexual fidelity nor for fostering life-time commitment.
SSM does not share the sexual basis of marriage; nor does it share the societal regard for the social institution that unites the sexes and provides for responsible procreation; nor does SSM provide the significant societal benefits that flow from the core meaning of marriage. Indeed, the SSM idea stands in opposition to the social institution as a social institution; it stands against the normative influence of the marriage idea.
SSM argumentation effectively negates your remarks about what SSM makes normative; what it fosters; what good it would do for all of society.
The merger of SSM with marriage would only benefit the gay identity group; not for the benefits that might be realized by the lawful advantages for particular one-sexed arrangements (sexualied or not, gay or not), but for this socio-political group. The purpose of the SSM merger is to innoculate gay identity politics against dissent and opposition by appropriating the special status of marriage and by requiring Government to move its big hairy hand to shield the gay identity group and to suppress the rest of society.
It is analagous with the way in which white supremacy identity politics distorted society via the misuse of marriage law.
Oaker: ...given the intimate and sexual nature of marriage,...
ReplyDeleteHere Sean admits the link between marriage and procreation. Marriage has a "sexual nature" only because procreation does.
If opposite-sex marriage were outlawed in favor of same-sex marriage,...
Yet that is what Sean is trying to do: eliminate marriage as a child-centric institution and replace it with marriage as an adult-centric one. Once marriage is neutered, all marriages, even those entered into more than 50 years ago, will be treated as if they lacked either a bride or a groom.
Besides, if you are encouraging gays to marry each other...
Straw-man. Nothing R.K. said can even remotely be construed as meaning anything like this. R.K. merely pointed out the same thing I did, that "similarly situated" is too much of a hurdle for the neutered marriage crowd to overcome. Even Sean doesn't try to stick with his 14th Amendment claim.
Same –sex marriage provides some awesome benefits to society:
Notice how quickly Sean abandons the appeal to the 14th Amendment and instead adopts a strictly utilitarian argument: the possible benefits of neutering marriage - absent any consideration for harm, that is. While ignoring the potential for harm makes this line of discussion unconvincing, at least it is actually much more legitimate.
Royal Oaker: R.K., given the intimate and sexual nature of marriage...
ReplyDeleteOh, so now you are maintaining that marriage has an "intimate and sexual nature". You do realize, do you not, that it would be just as easy for me to try to dismiss and poke holes in that nature, using your method, as it is for you to try to dismiss and poke holes in the concept that marriage is based on procreation? Or do you maintain that we should not allow marriage for those who are incapable of having sex? Or who don't intend to have sex? Or that we should somehow determine for a fact whether a particular married couple has ever had sex or been intimate? Well, if you don't maintain any of the above, by your line of reasoning then there is no "intimate and sexual nature of marriage" any more than there is a link to procreation. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
But just as I do not contend that the link between procreation and marriage is somehow disproved by pointing to childless or infertile couples, I also do not contend that the link between sex and marriage is disproven by pointing to couples who don't have sex. That you contend the first but not the second is your logical dilemma to work out.
it is unreasonable to argue that gay people have the same right to marry as straight people so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex.
As a legal statement, if there is in fact a sexual basis to marriage, then that is not unreasonable to argue at all. If in fact marriage has a sexual basis, where is it ever stated in the law that every type of sexual act must be treated as equal?
Let's lay out what your real argument is. It is not the direct argument that "gays (by which, more accurately, you mean same-sex couples) are similarly situated in respect to marriage, and therefore must be treated equally". That is simply false.
Your real argument is less direct. It is that:
1) gay individuals are legally equal to straights, therefore 2) gay individuals should have the same right to marry the individual of their choice. But gays cannot be satisfied with marriage as traditionally defined, as they cannot enjoy the type of sexual intimacy around which marriage is defined. Therefore the type of sexual activity which gays can be comfortable with must be treated as equal to the type which marriage has been built around, and hence marriage must be redefined accordingly, and all types of sexual acts must be regarded as equally consummative, or equal in their centrality to marriage.
Is that not, in fact, a more accurate summary of your argument? If you say no, it seriously contradicts with your contention that marriage has a sexual nature.
OpEd
ReplyDelete“Marriage has a "sexual nature" only because procreation does.”
Most sex is not related to procreation. In fact, procreative couples spend a lot of money to avoid getting pregnant.
“eliminate marriage as a child-centric institution and replace it with marriage as an adult-centric one.”
Marriage is already an adult-centric institution: children are not allowed to get married. And no one who marries has to have children to get or stay married. And no one with children has to get married. And children have no more or fewer rights that depend upon the marital status of their parents. I guess I’m not really seeing the marriage/children connection!
“"similarly situated" is too much of a hurdle for the neutered marriage crowd to overcome.”
It seemed to be enough for the Iowa Supreme Court. And other state courts. And a federal judge in California. No one from the “traditional marriage” crowd appears capable of finding a legally adequate reason to distinguish between opposite-sex and same-sex couples for the purpose of legal marriage.
“Notice how quickly Sean abandons the appeal to the 14th Amendment”
Not at all! That’s the single biggest reason to adopt legal same-sex marriage: to avoid weakening the US Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection to all citizens!
“for you to try to dismiss and poke holes in the concept that marriage is based on procreation”
Marriage isn’t “based” on procreation: that’s why elderly and infertile couples can marry. It’s why couples who don’t want or refuse to have, children, are free to get and stay married. It’s why same-sex couples should be able to get married, too.
And even if marriage was in some way connected to procreation, that doesn’t create an exclusion for same-sex couples to marry.
“as they cannot enjoy the type of sexual intimacy around which marriage is defined. Therefore the type of sexual activity which gays can be comfortable with must be treated as equal to the type which marriage has been built around, and hence marriage must be redefined accordingly, and all types of sexual acts must be regarded as equally consummative, or equal in their centrality to marriage.”
Well then explain to me why straight sex is to be valued above gay sex in society.
No one from the “traditional marriage” crowd appears capable of finding a legally adequate reason to distinguish between opposite-sex and same-sex couples for the purpose of legal marriage.
ReplyDeleteWrong. It was legally adequate for the state courts in New York, Maryland, Washington State, and Arizona.
Marriage isn’t “based” on procreation: that’s why elderly and infertile couples can marry.
Read my post again, Rayal Oaker, and come back when you show that you understand it. And answer these questions which I asked of you:
You claimed that marriage has an "intimate and sexual nature". I stated: "You do realize, do you not, that it would be just as easy for me to try to dismiss and poke holes in that nature, using your method, as it is for you to try to dismiss and poke holes in the concept that marriage is based on procreation?"
In your post above, you just ignored the first part of the question to reiterate your broken-record response to the latter part. Please tell me, do you see how equally easy it is for me to poke holes in your statement that marriage has an intimate and sexual nature, or do you not?
Do you maintain that we should not allow marriage for those who are incapable of having sex?
Do you maintain that we should not allow marriage who don't intend to have sex?
Do you maintain that we should somehow determine for a fact whether a particular married couple has ever had sex or been intimate?
As I said, if you don't maintain any of the above, by your line of reasoning then there is no "intimate and sexual nature of marriage" any more than there is a link to procreation.
If in fact marriage has a sexual basis, where is it ever stated in the law that every type of sexual act must be treated as equal? Who's argued this?
Well then explain to me why straight sex is to be valued above gay sex in society.
Royal Oaker, do you understand basic mathematics? Do you understand the difference between every positive number and zero? Or do you believe every number less than 100 is equal to zero (where percentages are concerned)? To say that a form of sex which very frequently produces new human beings is no more important to society than a form of sex which never does has to involve nothing less than an act of personal denial.
You really did not answer my post at all. You just reiterated your own talking points.
Lastly, reread my second to last paragraph in my last post, which you only half responded to, and just tell me, is this not a more accurate summary of your argument?
An excellent read, which bears on these matters:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/-ldquo-One-very-simple-principle-rdquo--2973
Oaker (aka Sean): Most sex is not related to procreation.
ReplyDeleteAn utterly irrelevant tangent. Sean is simply dodging. For example, that most mammals are not cats does not mean that any cat is not a mammal, let alone all of them. Likewise whether "most sex is not related to procreation" does not contradict that procreation is sexual.
[The 14th Amendment] That’s the single biggest reason to adopt legal same-sex marriage...
And yet Sean cut the legs out of what he declares to be "the single biggest reason" when he declared that a single dollar is enough to overcome the 14th Amendment. Note also that Sean repeats his mistake about the Iowa Supreme Court.
By Sean's own standards his appeal to the 14th Amendment fails, but he repeats it anyway. There is just no way $1 in a year is significant but a potential child isn't. Sean is stuck on this course because the hope for a corrupt ruling is all he has to go on. He knows there is no rational case for neutering marriage that will bear sway over an informed electorate.
Well then explain to me why straight sex is to be valued above gay sex in society.
Sean can't credibly claim he doesn't know the difference. He simply pretends he doesn't know because he has to to reach his predetermined conclusion. When one finds the best way to support one's argument is to feign stupidity, one should really reconsider one's position.
R.K.: You really did not answer my post at all. You just reiterated your own talking points.
ReplyDeleteWhat Sean is doing is called flailing. When backed into a corner by an argument to which he has no response, he tries to invoke a bunch of new arguments (returning to "talking points") in the hopes a new argument will be easier to defend.
Most sex is not related to procreation.
ReplyDeleteAn utterly irrelevant tangent.
It’s not irrelevant at all: it further points out the similarity between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, “similarly situated” as the Iowa Supreme Court noted. Most sex is for recreation, expressing love, all sorts of stuff unrelated to procreation. These reasons are shared between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples.
“By Sean's own standards his appeal to the 14th Amendment fails, but he repeats it anyway.”
I’ll try to explain again, as usual. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution says that all citizens must be treated equally, lacking a rational public purpose to do otherwise. This Equal Protection guarantee repeats itself in various forms in most state constitutions. In Iowa, for example, a stunning unanimous decision found that Iowa’s marriage statute violated equal protection guarantees, disfavoring gay people (that is, treating them unequally to straight people). I suspect there is a similar “equal protection” issue brewing among the children being raised by same-sex couples, who suffer tangible and intangible harms by being denied the opportunity to have married parents. Let’s watch and see if there isn’t a lawsuit that gets filed soon, shall we?
“Sean can't credibly claim he doesn't know the difference.”
Yes Sean can! Tell me what’s valuable to society of an elderly couple having sex and what’s not valuable to society of two dudes having sex is. It seems to me that their non-babies are equally useless to society, assuming we need to encourage people have babies at all!
“When backed into a corner by an argument to which he has no response, he tries to invoke a bunch of new arguments (returning to "talking points") in the hopes a new argument will be easier to defend.”
Sean is so sorry about this! He didn’t know he was doing it, and will refrain from it in the future. Oh, he’d also like to apologize for the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Hawaii, Missouri, New Jersey and elsewhere who have similarly “flailed” about, and found that gay people are not second-class citizens. For flailers everywhere, this bud’s for you!
Sean, there is something I think we can agree on, believe it or not.
ReplyDeleteWe Opiners believe that the Supreme Courts of New York, Washington State, Maryland, and Arizona were right in their opinion, and that the courts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and California were wrong.
You, however, believe that the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and California were right in their opinion, and that the courts of New York, Washington State, Maryland, and Arizona were wrong.
Is that a fair assessment?
If the Supreme Court of the United States decides that there is a constitutional requirement to recognize same-sex marriages, you will believe the decision to have been right, and we will continue to argue that it was wrong.
If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court decides that there is not a constitutional requirement to recognize same-sex marriages, we will believe the decision to have been right, and you will continue to argue that it was wrong.
Is that a fair assessment? Or will you claim that the argument is over simply because the courts have spoken?
For my part, if the Court does rule as I believe to be right, I will not just brush off yours or anyone's argument to the contrary by saying "the Court has spoken, so that's the end of the argument, because the Court is always right".
In other words, can we agree on this much: Judges, even majorities of judges, are fallible. They are not always right.
Judges are fallible but if we start punishing them for making decisions we don't like, then we have redefined out nation's constitutional system of government. The notion that judge's should be tossed because they rendered a decision enough people didn't like is literally un-American. Wait until YOU are in the minority a court protects and see how you like it when the majority throws the judges out and tries for a "re-do"!
ReplyDeleteThis is one more attempt to put down gay people and their children. One more support of homophobia.
As far as legal proceedings and social developments ahead of us, here’s what I see on the horizon:
ReplyDelete1. Early next year, the Ninth Circuit will find that the Prop 8 defenders do not have standing to appeal Judge Walker’s decision. The Prop 8 defenders will breathe a huge sigh of relief because Walker’s decision will then be limited to California, and not potentially spread to all 9th Circuit states, if the appeal failed, which it would.
2. Later next year, DADT will be completely repealed. The military will continue to be bogged down in Afghanistan. Other than that, no other concerns. Our nation’s soldiers will behave professionally, and with honor.
3. Over the next couple of years, several more states will legalize same-sex marriage. Likely candidates? Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island and New Mexico, with some combination of court rulings and legislative action. Plus some total surprise state, like Iowa was. Wyoming, maybe, home of a former Vice-President with a lesbian daughter? No state that allows same-sex marriage will repeal that right. A few more states will recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, but still not perform them locally.
4. Within five years, a clear majority of Americans nationwide will support the right of gay Americans to marry. Probably ten states, the usual suspects, will still have majority support for marriage discrimination.
5. More people will come out of the closet, including famous people that nobody would have suspected, leading even the most homophobic Americans to observe, “gee, maybe gay people really aren’t so different/bad/immoral/trying to recruit my kids into homosexuality/etc. All it takes is a NASCAR driver, a couple of NFL football players, a few more conservative politicians/pundits/religious figures, and we’re good to go.
6. In ten years, extremists will continue to rail against homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and, evidently, individual liberty. They’ll use the same reasons that seem mainstream today, like “marriage is just for procreation!”, or “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!”, or “kids need a mom and a dad!” except that in ten years, it will seem so silly that most people will just roll their eyes and shake their heads when one of these extremists makes the news, much like the guy in Arkansas this past week who proclaimed that he was pleased that gay people commit suicide.
Well, Sean, by all means, when you can't answer the questions or the other person's arguments, resort to cheerleading and drawing rosy and optimistic predictions about the future.
ReplyDeleteNever discuss, of course, questions about things like what more will have to be done when "legal equality" does not turn out to be enough to make gay kids or adults feel equal (Legal equality is a great thing regardless in many situations, but I have to say I know of not one case in which it has resulted in a group actually feeling equal, or that its obstacles are substantially less than before). Or when, after the novelty wears off, the minority status of same-sex marriage will still effectively make gays feel that it is not as respected by the culture as opposite-sex marriage, even if just as legal.
In other words, what will have to be done after the battle for the de jure ends and you start to realize it's really much more about the de facto? Eventually I predict there will be more gays who will argue (as a gay friend of mine already does) that gay relationships can not be truly respected as long as they are merely trying to mimic an institution "made by and for" heterosexuals, and that gays should form their own institution for their relationships and give it their own special name.
Of course, I'd be interested in hearing what more you believe would need to be done if same-sex marriage does not magically minimize suicides or suicide attempts among gay teenagers (as it has not in Massachusetts so far), or does not substantially erase anti-gay prejudice.
Not that there will not also likely be problems arising for heterosexuals and (the likely growing number of) bisexuals, and, more than anyone, the children. I won't bore you with that now. But it will not be the panacea that advocates of same-sex marriage think it will be for gays, either. Panaceas don't happen.
But ignore all our questions and responses if you prefer, and cover up the lack of response with rosy talk of the future. Just to let you know it doesn't look good from a standpoint of argument.
“questions about things like what more will have to be done when "legal equality" does not turn out to be enough to make gay kids or adults feel equal”
ReplyDeleteWell, we can’t do much for people who have equal rights but we bad about themselves, can we? Straight people get married, too, thinking it will fix something inside them or make them happy. When it doesn’t, what can ya do?? I think you think gay people are desperate for your approval. I don’t think they are. I do think they are tired of disapproval. Now that homophobia is quickly becoming a minority viewpoint, I think gay citizens will get the respect they deserve, and will just ignore, well, you.
“after the novelty wears off, the minority status of same-sex marriage will still effectively make gays feel that it is not as respected by the culture as opposite-sex marriage, even if just as legal.”
The novelty may wear off but being legally married is still being legally married. That, evidently, is what gay couples want.
“I predict …………..that gays should form their own institution for their relationships and give it their own special name.”
Well, that would make you happy, right? Gays would stop getting married, and start getting something else’d.
“same-sex marriage does not magically minimize suicides or suicide attempts among gay teenagers (as it has not in Massachusetts so far), or does not substantially erase anti-gay prejudice.”
Same-sex marriage has no magical powers, which I’m aware of. The argument is that if society keeps sending signals to gay people that they or their relationships are unworthy of the same recognition that straight relationships are, it contributes to an environment where gays, especially young ones, feel despondent and sometimes even harm themselves. It also contributes to an environment where homophobic people feel they are at liberty to harm gay people, because, well, gay people are second-class citizens and radical and have an agenda and want to destroy families and hurt children and all the things you like to claim gays want to do.
I don’t know what questions I’ve avoided. I can’t respond credibly to non-sensical arguments, if those are the ones going unaddressed. I rarely shrink from an argument so if there’s some great issue I haven’t addressed, let me know. Oh and as patient as I am, I do draw the at having to explain something a dozen or so times, only to have you or someone else come back with the exact same argument I’ve refuted or explained.
....because, well, gay people are second-class citizens and radical and have an agenda and want to destroy families and hurt children and all the things you like to claim gays want to do.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's Halloween, so I guess it's a good time to put out straw men.
Our argument is not that gay people "want to destroy families and hurt children". It is that the wrong cultural message of what marriage is can, yes, ultimately affect the family infrastructure and children as well. You're engaging in a common tactic---trying to reduce an argument about cultural effect to a claim of a personal attack.
Let's understand something. I know you don't believe it's true. But if the cultural concept of marriage as an androgynous institution effectively sends messages that result in the destruction of the institution and mess up children's lives, there is nothing the most well-meaning, caring, loving, compassionate gay people can do to stop it. If the very nature of a change in a cultural institution itself has a negative effect, it has nothing to do with the people advocating it (or those who think they are going to be positively affected by it) being "bad people". It means they thought they had a good idea, but they failed to see the flaws in it, which only time would bring out.
Are you going to answer the questions I asked in the other thread?
“You're engaging in a common tactic---trying to reduce an argument about cultural effect to a claim of a personal attack.”
ReplyDeleteAnd you’re engaging in a common tactic: predicting doom without evidence or substantiation.
“But if the cultural concept of marriage as an androgynous institution effectively sends messages that result in the destruction of the institution and mess up children's lives, there is nothing the most well-meaning, caring, loving, compassionate gay people can do to stop it.”
See what I mean? Insert a time bomb into the question itself! If marriage goes away, children’s lives will be messed up! If marriage is so important to children’s lives, then why aren’t all parents required to get married? You still maintain that there’s a place for individual choice, right? But not for gay people, evidently.
“If the very nature of a change in a cultural institution itself has a negative effect, it has nothing to do with the people advocating it (or those who think they are going to be positively affected by it) being "bad people". It means they thought they had a good idea, but they failed to see the flaws in it, which only time would bring out.”
Why are the negative outcomes associated with divorce not met with similar levels of hand-wringing? Pre-marital sex and adultery are thought to have some negatives consequences to the well-being of a marriage, too. Should they be illegal also?
“Are you going to answer the questions I asked in the other thread?”
If I feel like it. I’m under no obligation to answer anybody’s questions. Especially when the audience has demonstrated no propensity to learn from the answers.
“It is that the wrong cultural message of what marriage is can, yes, ultimately affect the family infrastructure and children as well.”
ReplyDeleteWhat is the “right” “cultural” message of what marriage is? And why would two loving, committed gay people wanting to get married be a bad message to send?
I can’t help but wonder what your position is on gay people attending church. Does it send the wrong message about church and religion if gay people participate? What about gays serving in public office or in the military? I’m curious, what other institutions will be compromised if gay people participate?
What are your thoughts about protecting marriage’s public image with regard to divorce? If how the public feels about marriage, and presumably you want them to think it’s a good thing, it seems to me that divorce would be far worse than same-sex marriage. With divorce, the participants are saying they don’t like marriage, or at least the one they’re in, and want to end it. It undercuts the notion of marriage as a lifetime commitment, which maybe you’re ok with that redefinition. It also is unclear whether the divorce resulted from a personal mismatch, or the idea of being married turned out to be unpalatable. There are enough people out there who have been married and said, “never again!” and this telegraphs to society that maybe marriage isn’t such a great idea.
With same-sex marriage, participants are saying, wow, marriage is a great idea, we want to do this! This is a very positive affirmation of the desirability of marriage.
And you’re engaging in a common tactic: predicting doom without evidence or substantiation.
ReplyDeleteSo noting that a walk into an uncharted dark room without a flashlight means you are likely to bump into something unexpected is unnecessary fear-mongering, I take it.
If marriage is so important to children’s lives, then why aren’t all parents required to get married?
Pre-marital sex and adultery are thought to have some negatives consequences to the well-being of a marriage, too. Should they be illegal also?
False analogies. They would be relevant if I were arguing that gay relationships should be illegal, or if we were calling pre-marital sex and adultery "marriage".
If I feel like it. I’m under no obligation to answer anybody’s questions. Especially when the audience has demonstrated no propensity to learn from the answers.
What answers? Or are you, in fact, demonstrating that you don't want to learn from our answers, or questions? What you are doing is cherry-picking what you want to respond to so as to not expose the flaws in your position.
What is the “right” “cultural” message of what marriage is?
That marriage relates to the birth of children as much as it relates to sex. Also, that not all close relationships are potentially sexual. Ultimately, though, time, as in decades or centuries, is the real test here.
Does it send the wrong message about church and religion if gay people participate? What about gays serving in public office or in the military? I’m curious, what other institutions will be compromised if gay people participate?
1) I'm unaware of any church that tells gay people they can't come in and worship. So, in that sense, the answer is obviously no. But if you mean whether or not gays can openly proclaim their homosexuality in a church---come on, this is a no-brainer, it depends on what that church's doctrine regarding homosexuality is. If a church maintains that homosexuality is a sin, then for a member to publicly proclaim himself gay and proud undermines the church position. If your question is designed to get me to say that every church better change its position about what is and isn't a sin, forget it, the freedom of religion comes first. Is that what you want me to do?
2) Public office, no problem. Military...I really don't have a big concern about it, but realistically I know it depends on whether or not it effects unit cohesion. If not, no problem; if so, it is a problem. Is it your position that whether or not it effects cohesion (which could mean the difference between victory and defeat) shouldn't matter?
Believe me, I would very much like to eliminate no-fault divorce; it's been an unmitigated disaster for marriage (which people argued for because they thought it would be good, especially for the kids. They were well meaning, but time has shown they were wrong. I don't see any reason to believe SSM to be any different.) Right now, it may be politically impossible, but yes, it would be a good idea.
A couple articles to read (one by a gay man, one by a woman who is not taking a stand pro or con on the SSM issue):
http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/jane-galt-a-libertarian-view/
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/8020.
Not expecting conversion by any means, just hoping you can understand the argument.
“So noting that a walk into an uncharted dark room without a flashlight means you are likely to bump into something unexpected is unnecessary fear-mongering, I take it.”
ReplyDeleteWell, marriage has been around for a couple thousand years. I don’t see how comparing it to a dark room makes sense. It also creates a Catch-22 for marriage equality: we can’t be certain how this will turn out (fill in dire predictions here!) so we can’t do it. Well, if we don’t do it, we’ll never know hot it turns out. A more sensible way to process conservative’s concerns about dire consequences and the needs of American families, is to try it for 10 years or so, and then judge the pros and cons.
“They would be relevant if I were arguing that gay relationships should be illegal, or if we were calling pre-marital sex and adultery "marriage".”
No, if the claim is that same-sex marriage will “harm” marriage, then why not forbid other things that harm marriage, especially the nuclear option, divorce? The analogies makes perfect sense, in the context OSMers condemn same-sex marriage.
“That marriage relates to the birth of children as much as it relates to sex. Also, that not all close relationships are potentially sexual. Ultimately, though, time, as in decades or centuries, is the real test here.”
Outlawing same-sex marriage doesn’t advance the cause of relating marriage to the birth of children. Forcing parents to marry, however, would. What are your thoughts about marriage as an institution for raising children? Because many same-sex couples are raising children and research says that the kids of married parents do better in life.
A more sensible way to process conservative’s concerns about dire consequences and the needs of American families, is to try it for 10 years or so, and then judge the pros and cons.
ReplyDeleteI'll reply more tonight, Sean, but just for now, let me say that I agree with you on that, except for two things, 1)I'd make it 30 years, as this is a change which is not likely to show its full effects at least until a full generation has grown to adulthood who have perceived from childhood on that marriage is just between two persons regardless of gender, and 2) that in this experimental period, it would be agreed that SSM would be limited to only the one, or small number, of states or countries participating in the experiment. In other words, if advocates would agree to a freeze on seeking SSM elsewhere until the experimental period is over. Under those two conditions, I'd agree to that.
No, if the claim is that same-sex marriage will “harm” marriage, then why not forbid other things that harm marriage, especially the nuclear option, divorce?
Outlawing same-sex marriage doesn’t advance the cause of relating marriage to the birth of children. Forcing parents to marry, however, would.
Let's go all the way, Sean. You believe that marriage has a sexual basis. Would you agree to prohibit the other thing which not only harms marriage but by your logic disputes the sexual basis of marriage....premarital sex? Now, tell me how you would enforce it.
Your analogy does not work because advocates of traditional marriage are not advocating force upon anyone.
Well, marriage has been around for a couple thousand years.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that marriage is too resilient to be seriously harmed by a major change?
...then why not forbid other things that harm marriage, especially the nuclear option, divorce?
I guess you're saying it's not so resilient after all.
In a nutshell, you're saying "if you're unable to undo the things that have already harmed marriage, you should be willing to risk harming it even more."
Does this make sense, anyone?
"Your analogy does not work because advocates of traditional marriage are not advocating force upon anyone."
ReplyDeleteThey're forcibly preventing same-sex couples from getting married. That's the nature of passing constitutional amendments defining marriage for straight people only.
What's difficult for many of us in this discussion is that many persons who support marriage discrimination say they take the position they do is to "protect" or "defend" marriage. Yet, as I've noticed, there is little concern about legal adultery and legal divorce, both of which also "threaten" marriage.
I'd like to hear why adultery and divorce are not considered "threatening" to marriage, while same-sex marriage, somehow, is.
“Are you saying that marriage is too resilient to be seriously harmed by a major change?”
ReplyDeleteHonestly? Marriage can’t be “harmed” at all. If people don’t want to get married, what difference does it make? If they want to get married and divorced several times in their lifetimes, what difference does it make? If marriage has worth, then it’s just in the mind of the people who want to get married what that worth is. Marriage is no more and no less than any given married couple wants it to be.
“I guess you're saying it's not so resilient after all.”
I don’t know if marriage is resilient or not resilient. It’s just a tradition, and if its time is past, then so be it. Getting married continues to bring benefits to couples and their children. But obviously, some couples don’t think the benefits are worth whatever trouble or sacrifice getting married requires.
I would have thought pro-marriage types would have welcomes gay couples into the fold. I’m genuinely surprised that they haven’t taken the position, “the more, the merrier!”. With so many straight couples not getting married, with or without kids, and so many straight couples getting divorced, I thought people who thought about the “well-being” of marriage would have jumped for joy at seeing more couples wanting to get married. I definitely misread the conservative mindset on this one!
They're forcibly preventing same-sex couples from getting married.
ReplyDeleteOh. Tell me, what jail time or fines are they putting on those that do?
Marriage is no more and no less than any given married couple wants it to be.
It’s just a tradition, and if its time is past, then so be it.
Classic examples of the flawed thinking of "Millism". Have you read the article I linked to on 10/29 at 5:12 PM yet?
Notice Sean's technique. Repeatedly reiterate your own arguments, and if anybody answers them, notes flaws or inconsistencies in your arguments, or raises questions which bring these flaws or inconsistencies up front, just keep ignoring them and find some hook by which to keep latching on to the same argument of yours in the hope that people will not notice it's been shown to be flawed. And when it's pointed out that you have failed to answer others' questions or points, just plead "I don't have to", which sounds better than "I can't".
“what jail time or fines are they putting on those that do?”
ReplyDeleteIs this your definition of illegal or something? When someone is prohibited from doing something, it doesn’t have to be accompanied by fines or imprisonment: when women couldn’t vote, they weren’t imprisoned for voting, they just weren’t allowed to vote.
“Classic examples of the flawed thinking of "Millism". Have you read the article I linked to on 10/29 at 5:12 PM yet?”
No, have you read the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in Varnum yet?
Notice R.K.’s technique: keep repeating the same arguments that have already been discredited and hope to get traction the second (or third!) time around.
“just keep ignoring them and find some hook by which to keep latching on to the same argument of yours in the hope that people will not notice it's been shown to be flawed.”
Pot, meet kettle.
“And when it's pointed out that you have failed to answer others' questions or points, just plead "I don't have to", which sounds better than "I can't".”
I have addressed every assertion made by the Straight Supremacy/OSM only crowd. I don’t feel obligated to repeat every point, and re-address every issue, like I’m tasked with putting out forest fires. The burden isn’t on me to explain why same-sex marriage should be legalized but rather on you to explain why is should be outlawed. If the government is giving marriage licenses to some couples, but not other couples, it is the government’s burden to explain why it is doing this. Since you are arguing the case that it’s ok for the government to do so, come up with a rational reason. Like it or not, this is the context of whether, and how fast, marriage rights are extended to same-sex couples.
Sean: ...it doesn’t have to be accompanied by fines or imprisonment: when women couldn’t vote, they weren’t imprisoned for voting...
ReplyDeleteTell that to Susan B. Anthony. Sean once again proves his ignorance.
I have addressed every assertion made by the Straight Supremacy/OSM only crowd.
ReplyDeleteNope. Just for starters, Sean: You have still not explained how marriage, as you put it, can still have an "intimate sexual nature" unless we somehow insure that 100 per cent of married couples have intimate, sexual relations---and explain so without totally contradicting your reasoning as applied to procreation. Care to try now? Or don't you understand what I'm getting at?
The burden isn’t on me to explain why same-sex marriage should be legalized but rather on you to explain why is should be outlawed.
False, unless one takes the assumption that enlightenment always trumps experience. Again, classic "Millism". Will explain this more later.
Otherwise, you are now down to resorting to tu quoqes, which says something.
“You have still not explained how marriage, as you put it, can still have an "intimate sexual nature" unless we somehow insure that 100 per cent of married couples have intimate, sexual relations---and explain so without totally contradicting your reasoning as applied to procreation. Care to try now? Or don't you understand what I'm getting at?”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think I’ve ever said that 100 percent of married couples have to have intimate sexual relations. What I have said is, if marriage is primarily purposed with connecting parents to their children, and this reason is enough to exclude same-sex couples, how are the elderly and the infertile allowed to marry, even though they, like same-sex couples, can’t reproduce? If there’s no children, how is there a need for marriage, in other words? I think Judge Walker asked the same thing in the Prop 8 trial. On other websites, people are saying the same thing.
Even if “responsible procreation” was a relevant concept in today’s world, how does this or the “presumption of paternity” create a circumstance that precludes same-sex marriage? So long as straight marriage is legal, straight couples who would otherwise procreate irresponsibly would be allowed to procreate responsibly. Same-sex marriage does not negate the “responsible procreation” theory of marriage.
Granting marriage licenses to all straight couples, whether they can or will have children, says that being a straight couple is useful to the state, while being a gay couple is not useful to the state. There is no rational public purpose the supports this. How are straight people more useful to the state? Why is society better off when straight couples can marry but not gay couples?
I can think of a number of reasons by society is better off when both straight and gay couples can marry. I can think of no reason why society is better off when only straight couples can marry.
I don’t think I’ve ever said that 100 percent of married couples have to have intimate sexual relations.
ReplyDeleteTranslation: you still don't understand what I'm getting at, which means you don't understand the concept of using parallel logic.
Of course you didn't say that, which is just the point. You also didn't say that couples who don't intend to have a sexually intimate relationship should not be married, or that couples already married and not intimate should have the marriages dissolved, or that couples unable to have sex should be denied marriage....but you did say that marriage has an "intimate and sexual nature".
Do you see how this contradicts the following, or not?
What I have said is, if marriage is primarily purposed with connecting parents to their children, and this reason is enough to exclude same-sex couples, how are the elderly and the infertile allowed to marry, even though they, like same-sex couples, can’t reproduce? If there’s no children, how is there a need for marriage, in other words?
My point is, you are not applying your reasoning consistently. To you, procreative nature is disproved by any exceptions while sexual nature is not so disproved. Or is the sexual nature of marriage disproved by not ordering married couples to have sexual relations? If not, give up the "all or nothing" argument, your contradiction shows you only believe in it when it suits your case.
"To you, procreative nature is disproved by any exceptions"
ReplyDeleteYou're trying too hard not to understand. The point is, if procreative ability is the defining characteristic of marriage, then elderly and infertile couples wouldn't be allowed to marry: their non-babies and no different than same-sex couple non-babies. There is no state interest in permitting the elderly and infertile to marry, in order to produce non-babies, while preventing same-sex couples not to marry, even while they're producing the same non-babies.
I think it's clear that the procreation argument fails as a some kind of bulwark against same-sex marriage. Procreation and its relationship to marriage, whatever you perceive it to be, doesn't change when same-sex couples marry. We know this to be be true by virtue of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Maryland and one other state I can't remember, where both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage are recognized.
You're trying too hard not to understand.
ReplyDeleteI understand your argument perfectly, Sean. You either don't understand mine, or you do and just prefer not to deal with it, so you pretend to not understand. Could you please give me, in your own words, your understanding of my point above?
RK. I think instead of infertile couples, you may want to redefine it as 'sterilized couples' that would at least make a better argument. And just as common.
ReplyDeleteNo couple is truly infertile, unless diagnosed by a doctor which isn't until they actually try to have children via sexual intercourse w/o any birth control for a year. Even that, science's ability to pinpoint ovulation, to go around the IVF route, allows more and more couples to have a baby through sex.
Men don't ever really become infertile, women as long as her reproductive organs are intact that potential of fertility is present. In some culture/beliefs system sterilization bars one from marriage, because it doesn't open itself to procreation.
Oops directed to RO, not RK.
ReplyDeleteR.K. I don't know what point you are referring to. Repeat it, or in some way, reference it. I don't waste time tracking down arguments that I know don't make sense. I might respond to them but I will expend very little effort looking for something that teaches me noting.
ReplyDeleteRepeat it, or in some way, reference it.
ReplyDeleteAll in this very thread:
10/28, 1:04 PM
10/29, 4:47 PM
11/02, 5:06 PM
11/02, 6:45 PM
...but I will expend very little effort looking for something that teaches me noting.
Classic retort of the school smart-aleck as to why he doesn't listen. I'll continue when you've shown you have as much ability to accurately state my argument (even if you disagree) as you do to restate your own. Otherwise, it's obviously a case of in one ear, out the other.
“Classic retort of the school smart-aleck as to why he doesn't listen. I'll continue when you've shown you have as much ability to accurately state my argument (even if you disagree) as you do to restate your own. Otherwise, it's obviously a case of in one ear, out the other.”
ReplyDeleteWell I guess we’re at an impasse. I can’t keep finding new ways to explain reality to you if you have no intention of accepting it. At some point, facts have to rule the day, not personal prejudices or religious beliefs (that is, personal prejudices).
There hasn’t been a single rational reason given to prohibit legal same-sex marriage, and there are many, very weighty reasons to enact legal same-sex marriage. The best thing about all these blogs on the issue is that reasonable people can read the pros and cons of same-sex marriage and decide for themselves. Now that the homophobes are firing state judges in their ongoing fight to stop same-sex marriage, the battle may heat up even more. And it may not be to the homophobes’ liking!
I did what you asked, I referenced it. Very simply, it was restated in the 11/02 6:45 PM post. How much clearer can I be about it.
ReplyDeleteThere hasn’t been a single rational reason given to prohibit legal same-sex marriage...
See, this is the other way in which neutered marriage advocates demonstrate their immaturity. It isn't enough for them to feel that, in their opinion, the arguments for their side are better than those for the other side. They have to believe that there are simply no good arguments on the other side, and, as we've seen from RO/Sean, the method for persuading themselves of this is simply to ignore or not listen to those arguments. I've never had a hard time admitting that yes, the pro-neutered marriage side has its arguments, and yes, some of them seem persuasive. I just don't feel they are persuasive enough to overcome the arguments against it.
When dealing with someone who has to insist that they are the only ones who have any arguments, you are dealing with someone with a very immature understanding of debate.
Sean: > I can’t keep finding new ways to explain reality to you if you have no intention of accepting it.
ReplyDeleteSean is doubling down, trying to use his own confidence in his opinion to make up for the fact that it is not even credible at this point.
R.K. good job in showing that Sean can't even reasonably restate your position, I don't even see where he reasonably tried to listen in the first place.
Seems we have two people in the middle of a great discussion, one was considerate, tolerant, and genuinely involved in fairly representing both sides. The other was ignoring what the former was saying, stating the same thing over and over again because they like their own opinion so much.
In other words, R.K. has shown himself tolerant and open minded, and Sean has shown himself to be a closed-minded bigot.
R.K.
ReplyDeleteYou might also be interested in how the "exception contradiction" is playing out on Dr J's site.
There is both Mark and Sean there. Mark is arguing that "same-sex couple" can only mean a gay couple (not realizing that by so doing is proving Chairm's point, but that is another matter).
In short, both Mark and Sean have openly expressed that determined (or at least happy -- respectively) to limit same-sex marriage to only sexually intimate couples.
At the same time they argue that if marriage is meaningful for couples who have not procreated, it is meaningful for everyone who hasn't procreated.
They are, as the old saying goes, straining at gnats and swallowing camels. If they are complaining that marriage is meaningful to society to more couples than is currently recognized as married, then they are being even more exclusive in denying any other arrangement that would similarly benefit. They are straining at too much openness, and swallowing their much larger prejudices about intimacy, whole -- without any pause or even blinking at it.
I read Sean's and he appears to be rather well-informed, and in synch with constitutional issues and the welfare of children. I didn't see where Sean said same-sex marriage should be limited to sexually intimate couples. He did point out the non-procreative couples, like the elderly, can freely marry in all states. It is odd, then, to say that non-procreative same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
ReplyDeleteR.K., why should I compromise on my arguments when the marriage “traditionalists” never do on theirs? I’ve never once read an anti-gay marriage person say something like, “gee, I’m really against same-sex marriage but I hate to think that denying the right to marry to gay couples violates the constitution!” If you want someone to acknowledge your position, however weak it may be, why not extend the same courtesy to others?
ReplyDeleteMarriage equality supporters have some serious concerns: whether marriage discrimination violates the nation’s constitution; whether it is in the best interest of children to be raised by unmarried couples who might otherwise get married; whether it is worth it to perpetuate a climate of homophobia, since gay teens are killing themselves.
I never read a post by the homophobes/religionists/traditionalists about why they think it’s ok to violate the rights of gay people, or why it’s ok for the children of same-sex couples to enjoy less security in their lives than the children of opposite-sex couples.
Exactly what rights of the individual are violated, when public policy acknowledges the value that the act of copulation is necessary to a society, because it creates human life, and in lies obligations to that individual?
ReplyDeleteIt has nothing to with hating gays.
It has nothing to do with religion either.
It does have something to do with tradition, because between evolution and legal precedence we acknowledge the only reason why humanity exists is because of the sexual relations between one man and one woman.
Mother Nature may have created gay people, who are to be accepted and loved, but Mother Nature created gay people through one man and one woman. No differently then straight people, the same way. We carry around DNA from our mother and our father, including that gay gene floating around there.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are procreated in the same way. So where's the discrimination?
“Exactly what rights of the individual are violated, when public policy acknowledges the value that the act of copulation is necessary to a society, because it creates human life, and in lies obligations to that individual?”
ReplyDeleteEqual Protection rights are violated. Unless there’s a reason to determine that society is harmed if and when same-sex couples marry, gay people are being denied a marriage license, while straight people are not being denied a marriage license.
If society permitted white couples, but not black couples, to marry, do you think that would be constitutional? Of course not. So why make an exception for gay people?
Apart from the creepy statement about the “act of copulation,” which makes you sound like you belong to a sex club of some kind, why is it useful to society to value this particular sex act? It’s not like people won’t have sex if they don’t have access to marriage, or they need encouragement to have sex. It comes pretty naturally to most people!
“we acknowledge the only reason why humanity exists is because of the sexual relations between one man and one woman.”
And humanity seemed to exist well before marriage ever did!
R.K., why should I compromise on my arguments when the marriage “traditionalists” never do on theirs?
ReplyDeleteJust what do you mean by "compromising on your arguments"? If somebody makes an argument which they feel invalidates your argument, you are perfectly free to make a counter-argument as to why and how it does not do so. That is not "compromising your argument". If you can't or won't make a counter-argument to defend your argument against theirs (or refuse to even acknowlegge an understanding of what the other person's argument is), sorry, but it then looks very much like your argument has failed, and you just don't want to admit it.
I’ve never once read an anti-gay marriage person say something like, “gee, I’m really against same-sex marriage but I hate to think that denying the right to marry to gay couples violates the constitution!”
You have also refused to acknowledge that in addition to the judicial decisions which you cite which have mandated same-sex marriage, there have also been many which have upheld the constitutionality of man-woman-only marriage. What's your opinion of those decisions? Do they end the argument for you? Are we supposed to expect that they should end the argument for you? Of course not. So why do you talk as if you expect the Varnum decision or Judge Walker's decision in Perry to end the argument for everyone who disagrees with them?
If you want someone to acknowledge your position, however weak it may be, why not extend the same courtesy to others?
I understand your position---that allowing infertile heterosexual couples to marry indicates that procreation is not essentially at the core of marriage, and that it's hypocritical for those concerned about the effect of same-sex marriage on the meaning of marriage to not also illegalize adultery and rigidly enforce those laws and illegalize divorce even in the case of a husband who rapes and murders one of his own children. I understand those arguments. I find them seriously flawed. You have not answered my arguments as to why I find them flawed. That is the game you play here.
Marriage equality supporters have some serious concerns: whether marriage discrimination violates the nation’s constitution; whether it is in the best interest of children to be raised by unmarried couples who might otherwise get married; whether it is worth it to perpetuate a climate of homophobia, since gay teens are killing themselves.
I don't think your first contention is true, and several courts have agreed. I think the second contention is a somewhat better one for your side to make, though I think the benefit for those children may be outweighed by the overall harm in other areas and, ultimately, to children in general. As for your third contention, I think it is unlikely same-sex marriage will make those problems go away, and a good chance that ultimately it will make them worse, not better.
I never read a post by the homophobes/religionists/traditionalists about why they think it’s ok to violate the rights of gay people...
If marriage is simply asserted as a right without limitations, it's a right for anyone or four or five other people. I know, you said that doesn't bother you, but when you present the idea in those terms, be honest with the public about its implications.
And humanity seemed to exist well before marriage ever did!
ReplyDeleteSo why then did marriage develop as it did in every society which we know of?
My statement above, "If marriage is simply asserted as a right without limitations, it's a right for anyone or four or five other people" should read "If marriage is simply asserted as a right without limitations, it's a right for anyone, including siblings, or four or five other people."
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone is asserting that marriage is a right without limitations. If there are rational reasons to prohibit someone from marrying someone else, and no one's constitutional rights are violated, have all the limitations you want!
ReplyDeleteOaker, do you understand what the term begging the question means?
ReplyDeleteOf course I do! I frequently have to use "begged" questions when discussing this issue. Like, well, if marriage is about procreation, how come infertile couples and couples who don't want children can marry" and "even if marriage is about procreation, how does that preclude same-sex couples from marrying" and "why is there no concern about equal protection rights for gay people from the marriage discrimination crowd?" for example.
ReplyDeleteSean, let me step in an help you some.
ReplyDeleteIts true you use that fallacy a lot, but here is where you can find what it means.
Sean, are you willing to acknowledge that you misunderstood the meaning of the term begging the question?.
ReplyDeleteYour answer is irrelevant to the national debate over same-sex marriage.
However, it is very relevant to the question of whether it is of any use continuing the debate with you.
Well, Sean, are you willing or not?
ReplyDeletehow come infertile couples and couples who don't want children can marry
ReplyDeleteHeterosexual couples who claim not to want children, change their mind or surprises happen.
Infertility is unfortunate, and can be apart of marriage. The assumption that a man and woman are fertile by nature scientifically one past puberty. A couple may try for many years and without a child is something we can sympathize with but not equal in a same-sex couple because biologically the means to procreate are NOT PRESENT to begin with.
“Heterosexual couples who claim not to want children, change their mind or surprises happen.”
ReplyDeleteThen they can marry when they learn the sad news that the child they don’t even want is on the way, after they decide whether or not to abort it, as many straight couples do. If they decide to keep the baby, they can rush out and get married, if they believe that being married would be appropriate. They are under no legal obligation to marry, if it doesn’t fit into their plans.
But to give a marriage license to a couple who claims not to want children undermines any pretense that marriage and procreation are legally connected. Sorry ‘bout that.
“Infertility is unfortunate, and can be a part of marriage.”
Exactly. That’s why it’s just as easy to let same-sex couples marry for love and commitment, as the infertile opposite-sex couple.
“because biologically the means to procreate are NOT PRESENT to begin with.”
Exactly. Just like the opposite-sex couple where the woman is post-menopausal, had her tubes tied or is in some other way incapable of reproducing. Or where the husband has had a vasectomy. The couple can’t reproduce, yet can still get married. Just like same-sex couples should.
Maybe you should consider your views on raising children, not just conceiving them. Conceiving a child is a pretty simple thing. It happens whether society encourages it or not. Now raising a child, that takes some effort and planning! I don’t know anyone who thinks a child is better off being married outside of wedlock, do you? It’s my view, since it is legal in all 50 states for same-sex couples to be a couple and raise children together, that it would be better to let them marry, in order to create a more stable environment for their children. What do you think?
If they decide to keep the baby, they can rush out and get married, if they believe that being married would be appropriate.
ReplyDeleteYet, if they believed that being married would be appropriate, what is the difference between waiting until that happens, or getting married just because they think it might?
I mean, what would the difference be to the couple if they got married three years before, or just three weeks -- if they thought marriage was appropriate?
That’s why it’s just as easy to let same-sex couples marry for love and commitment, as the infertile opposite-sex couple.
Its just as easy to let the infertile couple marry for their commitment to a child they may still have in the future together, or otherwise would have if they weren't handicapped, and thus help keep marriage from devaluing to just an adult sign of "love and commitment" -- that is what CU's, DP's, etc... are built to accommodate.
Just like the opposite-sex couple where the woman is post-menopausal, had her tubes tied or is in some other way incapable of reproducing.
An example of poor reading comprehension from Sean, as "biologically the means to procreate are NOT PRESENT to begin with" is not at all "just like" where they are present to begin with.
Sean himself provided how they are different when he said homosexuality is not a medical condition or an impairment, but infertility is. Those conditions are no where near "just like" each other.
Sean can either reconcile that contradiction, or own up to it. Lets see what he tries to do.
Maybe you should consider your views on raising children, not just conceiving them. Conceiving a child is a pretty simple thing. It happens whether society encourages it or not. Now raising a child, that takes some effort and planning!
And in Sean's own way he's just summed up the immutable and rational reason why marriage is concerned with the continuity of conception and raising children, keeping them intact. And that is Renee has been a great spokesperson of.
I don’t know anyone who thinks a child is better off being married outside of wedlock, do you?
You should try writing that sentence again. How can you be married outside of wedlock?
“what would the difference be to the couple if they got married three years before, or just three weeks -- if they thought marriage was appropriate?”
ReplyDeleteNone I guess. Why do you ask?
“Its just as easy to let the infertile couple marry for their commitment to a child they may still have in the future together”
If a couple is infertile, they can’t have children. That’s what infertile means.
“thus help keep marriage from devaluing to just an adult sign of "love and commitment"”
Love and commitment may be superficial things to you but they’re not to most adult married couples. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that most adults marry for love and commitment, not to procreate responsibly. Marriage substitutes, like civil unions and domestic partnerships, represent “separate but equal” accommodations, constitutionally impermissible.
“Sean himself provided how they are different when he said homosexuality is not a medical condition or an impairment, but infertility is. Those conditions are no where near "just like" each other.”
Elderly infertility isn’t a disability, it’s completely natural. No post-menopausal woman, in other words, can’t qualify for disability insurance or benefits because of menopause. But in any event, regardless of causes, explain to me how the “non-babies” of the elderly and infertile are different from the “non-babies” of the same-sex couple!
“Sean can either reconcile that contradiction, or own up to it. Lets see what he tries to do.”
He did. See the “non-babies” comment above. If a couple can’t have babies, but still can marry, that must mean that procreation and procreative abilities, are not essential to marriage.
“And in Sean's own way he's just summed up the immutable and rational reason why marriage is concerned with the continuity of conception and raising children”
Read much? I just said procreating and raising children are separate issues, with raising children far more important than conceiving them. Since same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples both raise children, it’s easy to see why both should be allowed to marry.
“You should try writing that sentence again. How can you be married outside of wedlock?”
How about this: I know of no one who thinks a child is better off raised by unmarried parents than by married parents. Now that I’ve improved what was otherwise an obvious sentiment, where do you stand? Should we force the children being raised by same-sex couples to be raised outside of wedlock, even though their peers being raised by opposite-sex couples can be raised by married parents?
Me: >> “what would the difference be to the couple if they got married three years before, or just three weeks -- if they thought marriage was appropriate?”
ReplyDeleteSean: > None I guess. Why do you ask?
Because I wanted to see if you had any reason to advocate that they should wait -- if they thought marriage was appropriate to "acknowledge[] the value that the act of copulation is necessary to a society, because it creates human life, and in lies obligations to that individual?" To see if there was any difference at all in your advocacy between having a child together, and potentially having a child together even if that potential was only a small chance.
Sean: > If a couple is infertile, they can’t have children. That’s what infertile means.
Actually it means they didn't have a child after a year of trying, not that they can't. Medically it is not ruled as impossible to have a child together when someone is diagnosed as infertile.
Sean: > Love and commitment may be superficial things to you but they’re not to most adult married couples.
What makes you think they are superficial to me? That assumption seems out of touch with what I wrote, and contradicts what I believe.
So I'm interested in how you got that opinion from what I wrote.
Sean: > explain to me how the “non-babies” of the elderly and infertile are different from the “non-babies” of the same-sex couple!
Why should something that doesn't exist, "the non-babies", be considered rather than what does exist, namely the couples themselves?
Sean: > procreating and raising children are separate issues
Are they completely unrelated, or just separate aspects of the same issue?
Sean: > I know of no one who thinks a child is better off raised by unmarried parents than by married parents.
How many people that you know think children are better off when the parents who combined to create the child, are not married to each other? How many think children are better off when the parents divorce afterward?
Sean: > Now that I’ve improved what was otherwise an obvious sentiment
I'll agree it was an improvement, but how does the statement "a child is better off being married outside of wedlock" obvious about its meaning?
“Actually it means they didn't have a child after a year of trying, not that they can't. Medically it is not ruled as impossible to have a child together when someone is diagnosed as infertile.”
ReplyDeleteOk. What’s the term for when a couple cannot have a child together? And what’s the term for the couple that refuses to have a child together?
“What makes you think they are superficial to me?”
Because you wrote that they are inferior aspects of marriage, subordinated to procreation, which is rarely a reason given to marry.
“Why should something that doesn't exist, "the non-babies", be considered rather than what does exist, namely the couples themselves?”
I’m trying to help you understand that the value of procreation is in creating babies, not in performing a sex act that leads to creating babies. If creating babies, purposefully or accidently, is the state’s reason for valuing marriage, then there’s no reason to exclude same-sex couples from marriage, if other non-procreative couples aren’t similarly excluded.
“How many people that you know think children are better off when the parents who combined to create the child, are not married to each other?
If they create a child and they don’t want to be married to each other, but to other people, then the child is better off when the couple raising him are married. If a couple are together raising a child, they should be able to marry. It doesn’t matter what the biological parents want, if they aren’t together as a couple, does it?
“How many think children are better off when the parents divorce afterward?””
Some children are worse off, some are better after a divorce.
Me: > “What makes you think they are superficial to me?”
ReplyDeleteSean: > Because you wrote that they are inferior aspects of marriage, subordinated to procreation, which is rarely a reason given to marry.
That's not enough to say it is superficial. But that does invite the questions...
What makes you think they are inferior aspects of marriage to me? Can you quote anything to that effect?
What makes you think they are subordinated to procreation in my writing? Can you quote anything to that effect?
Me: >> “Why should something that doesn't exist, "the non-babies", be considered rather than what does exist, namely the couples themselves?”
Sean: > I’m trying to help you understand [...]
What I don't understand why you said that same-sex couples where "biologically the means to procreate are NOT PRESENT to begin with" are "[j]ust like the opposite-sex couple where the woman is post-menopausal, had her tubes tied or is in some other way incapable of reproducing".
And then rather than justify that remark against the apparent differences, you switched focus from the whether or not the couples were "just like" each other to the non-existance (i.e. "non-babies") being just alike between them.
Specifically, "[w]hy should something that doesn't exist, "the non-babies", be considered rather than what does exist, namely the couples themselves" and their own obvious differences noted by Renee, myself and even you?
Sean: > If they create a child and they don’t want to be married to each other
Wouldn't they be better off if they did want to be married to each other?
Wouldn't it be better if they were married to each other even before they had the child between them?
Sean: > Some children are worse off, some are better after a divorce.
What makes the difference?
“What I don't understand why you said that same-sex couples where "biologically the means to procreate are NOT PRESENT to begin with" are "[j]ust like the opposite-sex couple where the woman is post-menopausal, had her tubes tied or is in some other way incapable of reproducing".
ReplyDeleteAnd then rather than justify that remark against the apparent differences, you switched focus from the whether or not the couples were "just like" each other to the non-existance (i.e. "non-babies") being just alike between them.
Specifically, "[w]hy should something that doesn't exist, "the non-babies", be considered rather than what does exist, namely the couples themselves" and their own obvious differences noted by Renee, myself and even you?”
Because a main argument against same-sex marriage is that marriage is for procreation. While this is false, addressing the argument as it stands requires asking why, if marriage is about procreation, are elderly and infertile couples allowed to marry, as well as couples who refuse to have children? The response sometimes is, well, infertile couples could theoretically have children, or, sometimes an elderly couple might conceive. But the reality is such exceptions are exceedingly rare, and could easily be remedied with marriage as a response to pregnancy, rather than marriage in anticipation of pregnancy.
In other words, same-sex couples, elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples who refuse to have children are all the same: they don’t produce children within the confines of marital sex. That’s half of why the “procreation” argument fails. The other half is that whatever procreative attributes are associated with opposite-sex couples is in no way compromised when same-sex couples marry.
“Wouldn't they be better off if they did want to be married to each other?”
In a free country, citizens are allowed the right to associate, or not associate, with whom they wish. The issue of who would be “better off” if they were married is irrelevant, since personal choice is the ultimate decider of marriage partners.
“Wouldn't it be better if they were married to each other even before they had the child between them?”
I don’t think you’re understanding the circumstances here. Couples, straight or gay, often go outside their relationship for reproductive assistance. They don’t want to be married to the person who is providing some missing element of their ability to reproduce. That person assisting them does not want to be married to them. It is merely a helping role, in order for a person, or couple, to achieve parenthood.
“What makes the difference?”
I think it lies in the attitude and behavior of the divorced couple after the divorce, and how bad their relationship was during the marriage.
Sean: > In other words, same-sex couples, elderly couples, infertile couples, and couples who refuse to have children are all the same: they don’t produce children within the confines of marital sex.
ReplyDeleteThe couples themselves are very different, even in ways you have mentioned. The "non-babies" are the same.
Why should something that doesn't exist, "the non-babies", be considered rather than what does exist, namely the couples themselves" and their own obvious differences noted by Renee, myself and even you?
Sean: > The issue of who would be “better off” if they were married is irrelevant,
Can I quote you on that?
Sean: > personal choice is the ultimate decider of marriage partners.
Yet, wouldn't they be better off if they did want to be married to each other?
Sean: > They don’t want to be married to the person who is providing some missing element of their ability to reproduce.
Yet, wouldn't it be better if the two people who created the child together were married to each other?
Wouldn't it be better if they were married to each other even before they had the child between them?
Sean: > I think it lies in the attitude and behavior of the divorced couple after the divorce, and how bad their relationship was during the marriage.
Wouldn't it be better for the child then if they wanted to be married to each other, rather than have a bad attitude and get divorced?
Sean left a few questions unanswered above, I've pursued them where I feel they are more relevant to a discussion over here.
ReplyDelete“The couples themselves are very different, even in ways you have mentioned. The "non-babies" are the same.”
ReplyDeleteBut since it’s the babies that society worries about getting “responsibly procreated,” then couples who can’t or won’t have babies don’t need to get married. In some states, some of these couples can get married and others can’t, for no rational reason.
“Yet, wouldn't they be better off if they did want to be married to each other?”
They’d be better of married if they want to be married to each other. It’s not a good idea for couples who don’t want to be married to get married.
“Yet, wouldn't it be better if the two people who created the child together were married to each other?”
Better than what? If two people don’t want to be married to each other, then what difference does your theoretical construct make? If they aren’t raising a child together, intentionally, and aren’t involved with each other except to join reproductive material, why get married?
“Wouldn't it be better if they were married to each other even before they had the child between them?”
Not if they aren’t interested in each other for a committed relationship.
Sean: But since it’s the babies that society worries about...
ReplyDeleteThe babies, not the "non-babies." Two rocks also create "non-babies." Sean's (lack of) reasoning would insist that we start recognizing rock marriages.
This is Sean's standard defect. He says all sorts of ludicrous and facially irrational things, things which he himself will often later reject. Just read back to the topic of this post to see where Sean ends up arguing that a dollar is more important than a potential human life. It doesn't matter to him the rationality of what he says, just the conclusion that it draws. This is simply run-of-the-mill nonthinking by way of closed-mindedness: jump to a conclusion and then search desperately for an argument to justify the conclusion already reached. As justifications are discredited, drop them (or don't) and grasp for another reason but at all costs, don't change the conclusion that one reached on purely irrational grounds to begin with.
“The babies, not the "non-babies." Two rocks also create "non-babies." Sean's (lack of) reasoning would insist that we start recognizing rock marriages.”
ReplyDeleteHow do you manage to get through the day? Rock marriages? If you want “responsible procreation” to be the basis of marriage, then a couple has to be able to procreate, don’t they? If you want to exclude same-sex couples from marriage because they can’t reproduce, why make an exception for elderly couples or other couples who can’t reproduce? Your prohibition against same-sex couples is highly under-inclusive, and therefore, suspect.
“This is Sean's standard defect. He says all sorts of ludicrous and facially irrational things, things which he himself will often later reject.”
Really? Such as?
“Just read back to the topic of this post to see where Sean ends up arguing that a dollar is more important than a potential human life.”
Uh, ok.
“It doesn't matter to him the rationality of what he says, just the conclusion that it draws. This is simply run-of-the-mill nonthinking by way of closed-mindedness: jump to a conclusion and then search desperately for an argument to justify the conclusion already reached.”
This appears to be the modus operandi of the marriage discrimination crowd: make up any foolish argument that can pass as a rational reason to keep same-sex couples away from marriage. Like many arguments created by working backwards to a desired outcome, they fail.
“As justifications are discredited, drop them (or don't) and grasp for another reason but at all costs, don't change the conclusion that one reached on purely irrational grounds to begin with.”
There is nothing irrational about honoring the nation’s constitution, providing legal recognition of same-sex couples’ recognition, providing a more secure environment for the children being raised by same-sex couples, and reducing the animosity towards gay people by not having government support the Straight Supremacy movement.
Sean: ...why make an exception for elderly couples...
ReplyDeleteUtterly out of touch. There is no exception for the elderly in marriage law. Sean may want one to exist, but that doesn't mean it does. He cites no example here, nor will he in his response.