Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


The problem there is that unmarrieds includes non serious relationships, or relationships between one or more people under that age of ~25 which tend imo to be more unstable and have less longevity than other relationships. Consider a hypothetical scenario of two identical couples, one married one not, the marriage would be irrelevant to them lasting, and rightly so because the reasons why in times past they would have lasted was the womans subservitude.

Two childbearing couples that have "settled down", one married, one not, it is reasonable to say that each has an equal chance of outlasting the other.

Yes and no.

If the issue is the best interest of the child, and we had a choice of where the child should be raise, the state has an interest in placing the child in the most stable relationship possible.

Married couples are statistically more stable and should be preferred over unmarried couples if we have a choice and all other things are equal.

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


My partner and I have been together for twenty years come November.

That's longer than the first marriages of his sister and his cousin put together.

We aren't married, we don't have children (adopted or otherwise) and we're both gay men.

Do I win?

No, I do. I have been together with my wife for 24 years.

But, anywho, congrats Molly.

BTW, do you have domestic partner rights where you live like we do here in California?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
BTW, all us righties cannot think. We simply drag our knuckles and grunt like the troglydite we are.

You know that's sig material, don't you?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You know that's sig material, don't you?

Che, you got to give me something really juicy in return. We can then "trade."

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Married couples are statistically more stable and should be preferred over unmarried couples if we have a choice and all other things are equal.

Only because it's more dificult legally to get out of mariages. If marriage didn't have the backing of the state, I doubt it would be any more permanent than non-married relationships.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


No Molly, the formalities of marriage, support from the families and society, etc., have given marriages a lot more stability than just living together.

BTW, all us righties cannot think. We simply drag our knuckles and grunt like the troglydite we are.

That's troglodyte, Ned. If you're going to be a smarty-pants, get your spelling right.

Some other things that have given 'marriages' more stability:

inability in many societies for women to get a divorce

inability in many societies for women to inherit or own property

inability in many societies for women to control their own sexuality/body

the punishment inflicted on women who transgress
(honour killings in the Middle East, dowry killings in India, the servile status of women in many societies, Latin American 'machismo' culture)

the controls exerted by religion and community

and so on and so on.

You can find example of these stabilizers in all sorts of societies, in many different cultures and times throughout human history, Ned.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ned

Yes and no.

If the issue is the best interest of the child, and we had a choice of where the child should be raise, the state has an interest in placing the child in the most stable relationship possible.

Married couples are statistically more stable and should be preferred over unmarried couples if we have a choice and all other things are equal.

So,
if we allowed gays to marry (even if you call it "just" a civil union),
gay relationships (with Civil Union) should probably also be stable enough to be a choice for adopting children

[Whaleboy]

You called it before I did CG

If the issue is the best interest of the child, and we had a choice of where the child should be raise, the state has an interest in placing the child in the most stable relationship possible.

I think by definition this means judging it on a case by case basis. Then you can assess the actual merits and demerits of a case, rather than lumping in some statistics to which (even if they are canonically true to the point of usefulness which I very much doubt) one case may be the exception. As a result, the child loses out.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Married couples stay together longer than unmarried couples.

What exactly does this have to do with fertility?

[Whaleboy]

So,
if we allowed gays to marry (even if you call it "just" a civil union),
gay relationships (with Civil Union) should probably also be stable enough to be a choice for adopting children

That's some impressive reasoning going on there! I might just have to steal your brain...

MB deserves a for that!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


So,
if we allowed gays to marry (even if you call it "just" a civil union),
gay relationships (with Civil Union) should probably also be stable enough to be a choice for adopting children

What we need to do is recogize domestic partner rights that make it difficult for long term partners to simply walk away. Such rights are already recognized in California.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


No, I do. I have been together with my wife for 24 years.

But, anywho, congrats Molly.

BTW, do you have domestic partner rights where you live like we do here in California?

Not exactly, but I can become a resident of Australia based on proving that my partner and I have been in a committed relationship for X amount of time.

Of course, if we were heterosexuals, we'd have just been married before we came here, and could have waltzed in....

John Howard (Aussie Prime Miniature) thinks we're contributing to the downfall of civilization. I'm doing my best, but honestly, I don't want to go to Egypt to burn down the Library of Alexandria- perhaps I could just join the Australian National Party, or One Nation.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Only because it's more dificult legally to get out of mariages. If marriage didn't have the backing of the state, I doubt it would be any more permanent than non-married relationships.

In the progressive state of Kalifornia, the legal difficulties of breaking up are not confined to marriages.

[Whaleboy]

So increasing the stability of the family by force in the name of marriage? I think not.

[Whaleboy]

I don't want to go to Egypt to burn down the Library of Alexandria

You're a little late on that one I'm afraid

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor

What exactly does this have to do with fertility?

Nothing.

It has to do with choices.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
So increasing the stability of the family by force in the name of marriage? I think not.

Force?

No, force of law.

What I suggest is that all domestic partnerships be recognized by the state, all have the same benefits and the same burdens. The problem I see is that most jurisdictions allow unmarried couples to live together and split up with no legal consequences whatsoever.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


That's some impressive reasoning going on there! I might just have to steal your brain...

MB deserves a for that!

Whaleboy, and you are beginning to see the light.

[Whaleboy]

No, force of law.

That's what I mean. As far as the state is concerned, both are on the same scale of obligation.

What I suggest is that all domestic partnerships be recognized by the state, all have the same benefits and the same burdens. The problem I see is that most jurisdictions allow unmarried couples to live together and split up with no legal consequences whatsoever.

I dare say that a marriage where one or more side wants to leave but cannot is not a good one for raising kids in anyway. Nontheless, assuming it to be true, yours is a very minor point and the opposing arguments still stand.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, and you are beginning to see the light.

Say what now?

[Ben Kenobi]

Whaleboy:

Good!

Benefits: Children brought up in stable household which we can all agree are beneficial.

Agreed.

Married and non-married relationships are capable of bringing up children to an equal degree, the only variable is stability (and consequentially the effects of that on upbringing).

I challenge this assertion. Most children are brought up in marriages with two parents, even if they are not born into marriages with two parents. I'm not sure what you mean by the verb: brought up, which is rather vague.

Non-marrieds aren't discernably less stable than marrieds now, what with the divorce rate and women feeling that they no longer have to be trapped in marriage (which was after all, a form of slavery).

1. Non-marrieds are discernably less stable with respect to raising children.

2. Marriage is beneficial to women, in that they on average will be better off married, then single. Some will feel trapped, but these will be in the minority.

There is no evidence that isn't easily refuted (and I haven't yet seen statistics so perhaps you can provide?) that shows categorically that gay people bring up disadvantaged children.

Historically, very few children are brought up in families with gay people, so it is not really a good comparison. In fact, this could be one of the better arguments against gay marriage, in that the vast majority of those who marry, will not want children.

We have speculative, anecdotal evidence, particularly from homophobics, but that doesn't seem to be a problem.

As opposed to no positive evidence for the gay marriage side. No contest.

One concern of course to the welfare of the child is the reaction of homophobic elements in society to them but that is no reason to ban gay marriage, just as the prospect of racism is no reason to ban immigration.

Again, does it make much sense to say that there exist large numbers of homophobic elements in society? Even if these were to exist, why would they burden the child, who is not responsible for the situation into which he grows up?

In term of benefits to society however, one could argue it is creating a benefit by making a lot of people very happy,

1. Are gay people happier now then they were, on average?

2. Do gay people need to be married, in order to be happy? I would think both questions are not necessarily clear, when one looks not just at the bright cases portrayed by the media, but also the darker ones.

3. Is there any concrete way to measure this happiness?

4. Should the government have a responsibility to make people happy?

Again, not all people who are in the gay lifestyle are happy, there are many who want to leave and to get out. For them, increasing the commitment is not going to make them happier.

and finally showing that love is something that transcends, rather than sticks between definition.

Begging the question here Whaleboy.

We won't get over homophobia and a very old stigma attached to gay people when heterosexuals are given more basic rights (the right to marry) than gay people.

1. Are homosexuals denied the right to marry?
2. Is marriage a basic right?
3. Why do we need to get over 'homophobia?'
4. What exactly is homophobia, and who defines the term?

My argument is simple. I am pro gay marriage because there is no logical barrier to it (and indeed none in my mind but since it would benefit me, one can expect that ).

Just because there is no logical barrier does not provide us with the impetus to change the laws. To say that it makes people 'happy' is a rather difficult benefit to measure.

Attempts to counter that by referencing the "institution of marriage" back in history produces a conclusion that since marriage was initially a form of slavery, changes to that initial "sacred codex" are thus not marriage

False.

1. Is marriage originally a form of slavery?
2. If marriage is a form of slavery, why do gay people want to marry? Why should we allow anyone to marry at all?

It seems clear to me that we do not regard marriage as a form of slavery, as you imply, but rather a state in which the participants greatly benefit. Thus, it seems ludicrious to me to suggest that in one instance, it ought to be seen as slavery, and in another, as freedom.

is merely a contract between individuals, its meaning is entirely relative to the beholder.

Several problems with this argument. Marriage, by this definition is not relative to the beholder, but rather, implies commitments, held between two people. So your appeal to relativism fails. It must involve some form of common agreement.

Secondly, even if marriage is a contract, is it clear that the state is not involved? Marriage requires a witness, in order to be recognised by the state. The state also says that it may restrict marriages in certain cases, such as incest, and polygamy. Thus, marriage is not a private contract, but rather, requires some intervention on the part of the state. Thus, it should not be up to personal opinions, but rather those of the state to determine whom they will recognise as married.

To invoke, that the state has no such role, also denies that they should have any role in witnessing the marriage, and hence, cannot recognise the relationship. So one cannot appeal to libertarianism in order to justify changing the definition.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Say what now?

You agree that marriage increases stablity.

[chequita guevara]

Maybe stability increases marriage?

[Ben Kenobi]

If you are going into a debate with a mind to establish a logical, qualitative truth, or show your view to be necessarily "correct" over others, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

I seek the truth, not personal opinion. For what moral strength does appealing to personal opinion produce? You could not say that society ought to do what you believe, any more than I could say that society ought to do what I believe.

Hence, there would be no point to debate.

I do not believe that this is what you believe, rather you hide this point in your philosophy. You believe that what is right for you ought to be right for everyone else, even if you do not say that as such.

3000 years of philosophy have failed to do that

To establish the entire truth? No, as there is plenty more to find. What they have found so far is substantial.

Debates show by practical logical strength what is best in a particular situation,

Again, you show me that our debate is not whether there can be logic, but rather what is logical? What is practical? And also, is that which is both logical and practical, is it what we ought to do?

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Maybe stability increases marriage?

Actually, as you suggested Che, the legal difficulties involving "divorce" increases the stability of relationships. In Kalifornia, we extend these difficulties to couples living together.

[Whaleboy]

I challenge this assertion. Most children are brought up in marriages with two parents, even if they are not born into marriages with two parents. I'm not sure what you mean by the verb: brought up, which is rather vague.

A significant proportion here, and presumably in the US are brought up by single parents or unmarried couples. "Even if they are not born into marriages with two parents?" Brought up means to me primary socialisation. Birth and relationships with family until adulthood.

1. Non-marrieds are discernably less stable with respect to raising children.

I think I covered that one.

2. Marriage is beneficial to women, in that they on average will be better off married, then single. Some will feel trapped, but these will be in the minority.

Historically, it is a form of slavery, which is all I am asserting. The rest there is your subjective opinion and imo, inadmissible here.

Historically, very few children are brought up in families with gay people, so it is not really a good comparison. In fact, this could be one of the better arguments against gay marriage, in that the vast majority of those who marry, will not want children.

Which means that even if there are negative consequences (which I very much doubt), there will be such few numbers that they will be small. On the other hand, it is preferable from a utilitarian view to have more kids, and I assume that homosexual women are more likely to want kids than homosexual men.

As opposed to no positive evidence for the gay marriage side. No contest.

The burden of proof is on you to refute the defense made by the pro-gay marriage side. It works like this. Proposition= gay marriage. Burden of proof is there to back it up. Done. Refutation by anti-gay marriage. Made. Burden or proof is now on anti-gay marriage side.

Again, does it make much sense to say that there exist large numbers of homophobic elements in society? Even if these were to exist, why would they burden the child, who is not responsible for the situation into which he grows up?

Thankyou that strengthens my point. I was merely illustrating a possible situation in which the kid might be bullied.

1. Are gay people happier now then they were, on average?

Give someone a right they want and they are happy. And yes, the more restrictions that we lift from homosexuals, the happier they will be. Use even a very basic felicific calculus on that one.

2. Do gay people need to be married, in order to be happy? I would think both questions are not necessarily clear, when one looks not just at the bright cases portrayed by the media, but also the darker ones.

Red herring. It will increase happiness to grant the right. Therefore, according to utilitarianism (not the only direction I am addressing this argument from incidentally), grant the right.

3. Is there any concrete way to measure this happiness?

Not needed. See #1.

4. Should the government have a responsibility to make people happy?

According to many utilitarian theories, yes. Nonetheless there are several political reasons to grant the right, not least support for government from that community and stability of the country generally. But in answer to your question I think the government has a benevolent role, yes. Within logical consistency which also supports my case! . Thats a complex one, read the mill limit on my website.

1. Are homosexuals denied the right to marry?

*Whaleboy looks over shoulder...*

2. Is marriage a basic right?

In my opinion, the right to sign contracts is part of self-actualisation and freedom of association. I call it influence, and it is supported in most constitutions I know of, and where they disagree I call inconsistency. So in answer to your question, yes. The right to be recognised as such religiously however, is down to church and individual, not church and state.

3. Why do we need to get over 'homophobia?'

Lots of education, and accessible refutation of Leviticus 20:13 (?)

4. What exactly is homophobia, and who defines the term?

Prejudice against gay people. It's not the perfect word for it, but I use it in the familial sense. The word itself means fear and while I could launch into a long winded argument about emotivism, it's far easier here to call it a prejudice.

Just because there is no logical barrier does not provide us with the impetus to change the laws. To say that it makes people 'happy' is a rather difficult benefit to measure.

On the contrary, logical barriers in the legal sense mean illegal vs legal. If there is no conceptual logical barrier, then there should be no barrier in statute either.

1. Is marriage originally a form of slavery?

Yep!

2. If marriage is a form of slavery, why do gay people want to marry? Why should we allow anyone to marry at all?

Because it is not slavery any more. I am showing how definition of marriage as "between man and woman" is as good as a definition of marriage as it once was: slavery. Now it confers state recognition of a relationship, as well as basic rights we afford to married couples, to which I see no reason to grant gay people.

It seems clear to me that we do not regard marriage as a form of slavery, as you imply, but rather a state in which the participants greatly benefit. Thus, it seems ludicrious to me to suggest that in one instance, it ought to be seen as slavery, and in another, as freedom.

Strawman. Read my argument. I am saying it once was, and assessing the strength and objectivity of said definitions. They have none. Therefore, when making an attempt at independence from subjectivity, one would abandon it. Its logical conclusion therefore, is meaning in the eyes of the beholder.

Several problems with this argument. Marriage, by this definition is not relative to the beholder, but rather, implies commitments, held between two people.

Contractual. It is a consequence that marriage and civil unions are the same legally speaking.

So your appeal to relativism fails. It must involve some form of common agreement.

Wrong. The state has no right of intervention into marriage vows.

Secondly, even if marriage is a contract, is it clear that the state is not involved? Marriage requires a witness, in order to be recognised by the state.

The witness need not be a state representative. All it is asking is that a contract be recognised as such by the state as part of the freedom of association. Not that the state has the right to stipulate the terms of that contract.

he state also says that it may restrict marriages in certain cases, such as incest, and polygamy. Thus, marriage is not a private contract, but rather, requires some intervention on the part of the state.

This is erroneous in terms of its rational continuity therefore...

Thus, it should not be up to personal opinions, but rather those of the state to determine whom they will recognise as married.

...you're mixing up your "should's" and your is's.

To invoke, that the state has no such role, also denies that they should have any role in witnessing the marriage, and hence, cannot recognise the relationship. So one cannot appeal to libertarianism in order to justify changing the definition.

A blatant misrepresentation that I'll put down to misunderstanding. One has the right to witness something and claim truthfully that it is so, but needs another premise upon which one can claim it has the right to intervene. Assume I have the right to watch a play, but it takes another premise to reason that I can interrupt it. That extra premise in this case, contravenes the right of association and is thus erroneous and inconsistent to the concept of an open society.

You agree that marriage increases stablity.

No. Assuming you to be correct, it would increase longevity, by legal force, and not by a great deal. If one wants out of a relationship, chances are that will occur. I say that a marriage in which one or more partner wants out, particularly if there are kids involved, is now inherently unstable and it is best for the kids that they do part. I speak out of experience on this one .

I seek the truth, not personal opinion.

Then talk science or maths, not sociology or philosophy.

For what moral strength does appealing to personal opinion produce?

Absolutely none, that is not the object of the exercise here to me. Moral strength is a fallacy, read a chap called Stevenson about emotivism. We here debate to determine what society should do under a situation, a particularly context in which there are factors that colour the situation a particular way. Thus far, pro gay marriage has the best brush for the paint. If you want a piece about how we all have equally valid morality and that equal validity is founded in its equal worthlessness, I'd be more than happy, but on another thread or PM because that would be spam.

You could not say that society ought to do what you believe, any more than I could say that society ought to do what I believe.

I can say that, but society is presented with choices it regards with differing levels of logical applicability. That does not mean that they are more inherently moral than others, indeed there is a very strong argument that the notion of morality should be removed and replaced with ethics in government!

Hence, there would be no point to debate.

Wrong.

I do not believe that this is what you believe, rather you hide this point in your philosophy. You believe that what is right for you ought to be right for everyone else, even if you do not say that as such.

Wrong. I make a case, I believe it to be true, but if I believed it to be infallible, I would not open it up for attack here! If you can present me with a better argument, I would gladly drop mine and adopt yours, which has happened several times before with me on the OTF. Nonetheless, I would appreciate it if we keep a situation where I tell you what I believe and you do the same, and we both accept that. Otherwise this will degenerate into ad hominem.

To establish the entire truth? No, as there is plenty more to find. What they have found so far is substantial.

Please give me irrefutable examples that don't include Cogito ergo Sum (Descartes would most likely support my argument if he wasn't Catholic ).

Again, you show me that our debate is not whether there can be logic, but rather what is logical? What is practical? And also, is that which is both logical and practical, is it what we ought to do?

That is for society to decide. These are my opinions, supported and reasoned which in this case (politics, sociology, not merely philosophy) I tailor with logic to what I think is best for society.

Actually, as you suggested Che, the legal difficulties involving "divorce" increases the stability of relationships. In Kalifornia, we extend these difficulties to couples living together.

You surely cannot be seriously proposing they increase stability? Longevity perhaps but stability would decrease. That seems self-evident. I mentioned this point before in this post.

Anyways I really am off to bed now . Keep the thread warm for me!!!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
But this is only if this was a happiness issue - and here is where I have changed my mind. I have become convinced that this isn't about gay people having a better life - it is about political power. The gay community wants more and (perhaps more importantly) wants the traditional religious community to have less. By making gay 'marriage' legal it would make a statement that being gay is more acceptable than being religious (in a traditional sense). It would also cause havoc in the Christian churches.

Oh yes, it's solely a power play! Right...

Most gay people don't give two whits about the gay lobby groups or such political issues. The issue comes down to one of equality, and in the eyes of most gay people, separate but equal is still unequal. That's why the issue of the word "marriage" matters to them. Most gay people are religious and would love to have their relationships performed in their churches on an equal footing with their heterosexual friends and neighbors. You'll be happy to know that my intractable self, despite your assumptions to the contrary, would be fine accepting "Civil Union" as a legal name for the relationships, so long as that was the legal name for the heterosexual relationships as well. No more seperate but equal.

The fact is, "marriage" is the relationship ideal in the Western world, and the word itself implies a level of love, commitment and dedication that is not carried by "civil union" or "partnership" or whatever. So in that sense, it very much is about love, in terms of wanting to convey that their relationships do indeed carry the highest level of love.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


You're a little late on that one I'm afraid

Nah.

You're a tad late with your news. Egypt boasts a new 'Library of Alexandria' where presumably the most popular book will be 'The Satanic Verses.'

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...lexandria.html


Oh, and Obi Gyn, if you seek the 'truth' perhaps you could stop using meaningless phrases such as 'gay lifestyle'.

You haven't shown that a majority of gay men (or lesbians, for that matter) have a particular lifestyle, nor have you shown how the aspects of such a 'lifestyle' are exclusively 'gay' in nature.

Simply repeating your favourite propaganda doesn't make it any more 'true'.

[Ned]

Whaleboy, I do not understand your point about imposing legalities in separation of couples destablizing relationships even while making them last longer. Please explain.

[Ned]

Boris, if government were to get out of the marriage license business altogether and simply recognized defacto or other relationships (religious marriages) that people formed and provided benefits and burdens on an equal basis, would that satisfy you?