Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[bluethread]

Oh, I see. You are not interested in determining why government recognition of marrage is limited to male/female relationships, but are simply advocating for the expansion of that recognition regardless. The two cases you present do tug at the heart strings. However, in the first case, the same concern could be presented by a poligamist. Should the government be required to pay benefits to that individual's spouses and how many? Regardless of where the line is drawn, there will be someone on the other side of it. That is why it is important to understand the actual purpose of a law and not just its perceived purpose. Though it can be tedious to determine the actual purpose, it is not just a matter of semantics. In the second case it was stated that there was no legal limitation, but simply a violation of existing law by the staff. This requires no change in the law, but proper enforcement or litigation to ensure enforcement. In short, it may appear to be the best solution for a particular problem to change an existing law. However, on examination, it may be little more than scapegoating and may have unintended consequences that undermine an important and honorable purpose for which the law was established. That is why it is best to examine the underpinnings of a law and not just change it because bad things happen to certain individuals.

[Polyatheist]

This is a common problem with making this point. Whatever example is used one will focus on the specifics of the example and not the point of the arguement. I am not saying that the government should regulate one action or another. I am saying that government has no interest in one's preferences, whatever they may be, unless those preferences at least have a manifest potentiality of resulting in actions in which the government has a compelling interest. In my example, "animal rape" was not stated, just a sexual attraction. As many who defend homosexuality like to point out attraction does not equal action, let alone rape.

If you provided some evidence to back up your examples it may make your point seem more valid. If the government could regulate sexual attraction then they would be preemptively punishing people for an act not yet committed. Sounds rather orwellian to me. "As many who defend homosexuality like to point out attraction does not equal action, let alone rape." Rape was in reference to beastiality I don't know why you brought it into the homosexuality argument. You say attraction does not always equal action, but most of the time it does. Most heterosexual people will have sex at least once in their lifetime with the gender they are attracted to, same with homosexuals. You seem to think that is not the case and people go their whole lives never acting on their attractions.

This is all besides the point, you have yet to cite a legitimate argument against gay marriage. Making gay marriage legal will cause the most people the greatest well-being, by definition that is what's right.

[bluethread]

This is a common problem with making this point. Whatever example is used one will focus on the specifics of the example and not the point of the arguement. I am not saying that the government should regulate one action or another. I am saying that government has no interest in one's preferences, whatever they may be, unless those preferences at least have a manifest potentiality of resulting in actions in which the government has a compelling interest. In my example, "animal rape" was not stated, just a sexual attraction. As many who defend homosexuality like to point out attraction does not equal action, let alone rape.

If you provided some evidence to back up your examples it may make your point seem more valid. If the government could regulate sexual attraction then they would be preemptively punishing people for an act not yet committed. Sounds rather orwellian to me.

Emphasis Mine

You do need to pay closer attention. I was even more direct than you in that point.

"As many who defend homosexuality like to point out attraction does not equal action, let alone rape." Rape was in reference to beastiality I don't know why you brought it into the homosexuality argument.

I didn't. I merely refered to an attraction to dog. It is you who expanded this to an action. That is why I quoted an argument I have seen made by homosexuals in response to the objection related to the fear of some heterosexuals regarding being propositioned. Given you propensity to jump to conclusions, I am not mkaing that arguement here.

You say attraction does not always equal action, but most of the time it does. Most heterosexual people will have sex at least once in their lifetime with the gender they are attracted to, same with homosexuals. You seem to think that is not the case and people go their whole lives never acting on their attractions.

Then I am wrong in not making the argument above?

This is all besides the point, you have yet to cite a legitimate argument against gay marriage. Making gay marriage legal will cause the most people the greatest well-being, by definition that is what's right.

It was not my intent to simply throw out objections, but to examine the various factors to see if the existing laws are indeed inappropriate.

[Autodidact]

Oh, I see. You are not interested in determining why government recognition of marrage is limited to male/female relationships, but are simply advocating for the expansion of that recognition regardless.

Regardless of what?

The two cases you present do tug at the heart strings. However, in the first case, the same concern could be presented by a poligamist.

If you want to discuss polygamy, there is a thread open to do that.

Should the government be required to pay benefits to that individual's spouses and how many?

Yes. One.

Regardless of where the line is drawn, there will be someone on the other side of it.

Yup.

That is why it is important to understand the actual purpose of a law and not just its perceived purpose. Though it can be tedious to determine the actual purpose, it is not just a matter of semantics. In the second case it was stated that there was no legal limitation, but simply a violation of existing law by the staff

. You will be suprised to learn that the family lost their lawsuit. Do you think this would have happened had the two women been married?

This requires no change in the law, but proper enforcement or litigation to ensure enforcement.

Changing the law would solve the problem. In short, it may appear to be the best solution for a particular problem to change an existing law.

However, on examination, it may be little more than scapegoating and may have unintended consequences that undermine an important and honorable purpose for which the law was established. That is why it is best to examine the underpinnings of a law and not just change it because bad things happen to certain individuals.

If you have an argument, please go right ahead and make it.

Here's another one--these happen all the time. My friend R. She's been not married to K for 25 years. They have two children, now 22 and 16. K is a doctor. For most of the children's lives, R stayed at home with them. As a result of the family decision for her to be a mother and homemaker, she has very little earnings record, and will not be allowed to draw Social Security on K's earnings record. If K predeceases her, or if they split up, she will finish her life in poverty.

I know several families who wanted one of them to stay home with the kids, but they couldn't, because she would not be covered on the other's health insurance. And you really cannot live without health insurance.

The surviving non-spouses of people who were killed in the twin towers on September 11 were deprived of the settlements that spouses got.

There are innumerable injustices being perpetrated on gay families every day, because their relationships are not recognized as marriages.

This is what same-sex marriage is about, not "curtailing liberties." They are real families who are really being screwed over, paying the same taxes as everyone else, and not getting the same benefits.

[Autodidact]

This is a common problem with making this point. Whatever example is used one will focus on the specifics of the example and not the point of the arguement. I am not saying that the government should regulate one action or another. I am saying that government has no interest in one's preferences, whatever they may be, unless those preferences at least have a manifest potentiality of resulting in actions in which the government has a compelling interest. In my example, "animal rape" was not stated, just a sexual attraction. As many who defend homosexuality like to point out attraction does not equal action, let alone rape.

If you provided some evidence to back up your examples it may make your point seem more valid. If the government could regulate sexual attraction then they would be preemptively punishing people for an act not yet committed. Sounds rather orwellian to me.

Emphasis Mine

You do need to pay closer attention. I was even more direct than you in that point.

"As many who defend homosexuality like to point out attraction does not equal action, let alone rape." Rape was in reference to beastiality I don't know why you brought it into the homosexuality argument.

I didn't. I merely refered to an attraction to dog. It is you who expanded this to an action. That is why I quoted an argument I have seen made by homosexuals in response to the objection related to the fear of some heterosexuals regarding being propositioned. Given you propensity to jump to conclusions, I am not mkaing that arguement here.

You say attraction does not always equal action, but most of the time it does. Most heterosexual people will have sex at least once in their lifetime with the gender they are attracted to, same with homosexuals. You seem to think that is not the case and people go their whole lives never acting on their attractions.

Then I am wrong in not making the argument above?

This is all besides the point, you have yet to cite a legitimate argument against gay marriage. Making gay marriage legal will cause the most people the greatest well-being, by definition that is what's right.

It was not my intent to simply throw out objections, but to examine the various factors to see if the existing laws are indeed inappropriate.

Well, feel free to start doing that at some point. So far you've filled pages without saying anything.

[Angel]

Oh, I see. You are not interested in determining why government recognition of marrage is limited to male/female relationships, but are simply advocating for the expansion of that recognition regardless. The two cases you present do tug at the heart strings. However, in the first case, the same concern could be presented by a poligamist. Should the government be required to pay benefits to that individual's spouses and how many? Regardless of where the line is drawn, there will be someone on the other side of it. That is why it is important to understand the actual purpose of a law and not just its perceived purpose. Though it can be tedious to determine the actual purpose, it is not just a matter of semantics. In the second case it was stated that there was no legal limitation, but simply a violation of existing law by the staff. This requires no change in the law, but proper enforcement or litigation to ensure enforcement. In short, it may appear to be the best solution for a particular problem to change an existing law. However, on examination, it may be little more than scapegoating and may have unintended consequences that undermine an important and honorable purpose for which the law was established. That is why it is best to examine the underpinnings of a law and not just change it because bad things happen to certain individuals.

From some of the court rulings that I've read, marriage is lawfully restricted to a man and a woman because of the traditional thought that a hetero marital arrangement is part of the foundation of society. I don't see that anyone disagrees with that thought but to say that's the only marital arrangement is when it seems overly restrictive. I tend to focus on this issue from the point of if it causes harm, and I've yet to come across any evidenced and logical reason that shows that non-hetero or even non-monogamous marriage would cause harm. It's sure a hek of a lot better than the govornment promoting or supporting people who have kids with different men when the men won't stick around to take responsibility or in some cases where the paternity is unknown.

[Polyatheist]

It was not my intent to simply throw out objections, but to examine the various factors to see if the existing laws are indeed inappropriate.

So you view yourself as some sort of judge? That's fine, the evidence has been presented and the conclusion is fairly obvious. I don't understand why this is still being discussed. It would make sense if you were arguing the opposite, but as you said that is not the case.

[bluethread]

Oh, I see. You are not interested in determining why government recognition of marrage is limited to male/female relationships, but are simply advocating for the expansion of that recognition regardless.

Regardless of what?

Well, regardless of why there is a law that recognizes marrage as between one man and one woman, for starters.

The two cases you present do tug at the heart strings. However, in the first case, the same concern could be presented by a poligamist.

If you want to discuss polygamy, there is a thread open to do that.

This goes to consistancy. If you hold that polygamy should also receive parity or can show a significant difference with regard to receiving government benefits. Then, your argument for the expansion of government benefits to cover same sex partners would have greater weight.

Regardless of where the line is drawn, there will be someone on the other side of it.

Yup.

That is why it is important to understand the actual purpose of a law and not just its perceived purpose. Though it can be tedious to determine the actual purpose, it is not just a matter of semantics.

Then, one must identify the significant factors that determine where that line should be drawn.

In the second case it was stated that there was no legal limitation, but simply a violation of existing law by the staff.

You will be suprised to learn that the family lost their lawsuit. Do you think this would have happened had the two women been married?

Then, the doctor was wrong and there was a legal limitation. What legal limitation was it that kept the children from seeing their parent? Was the patient an established relative of the children. Or is the use of the word parent just semantics designed to force an exception for the nonrelative children with regard to a live-in lover?

This requires no change in the law, but proper enforcement or litigation to ensure enforcement.

Changing the law would solve the problem. In short, it may appear to be the best solution for a particular problem to change an existing law.

It also, may not. Laws can not be changed based on the possibility of something being the best solution in particular situations. Had the courts wished, they could have forced the rewriting of the law to account for a particular situation, if that situation had been deemed to be substantial. However, that does not appear to be the case. In order to determine that one must examine the reasoning of the majority opinion. What was that reasoning and why do you consider it to be in error.

However, on examination, it may be little more than scapegoating and may have unintended consequences that undermine an important and honorable purpose for which the law was established. That is why it is best to examine the underpinnings of a law and not just change it because bad things happen to certain individuals.

If you have an argument, please go right ahead and make it.

That is my argument. Examining the underpinnings of a law is not just semantics. It is an integral part of analyzing the appropriateness of a law and any roposed change in it.

Here's another one--these happen all the time. My friend R. She's been not married to K for 25 years. They have two children, now 22 and 16. K is a doctor. For most of the children's lives, R stayed at home with them. As a result of the family decision for her to be a mother and homemaker, she has very little earnings record, and will not be allowed to draw Social Security on K's earnings record. If K predeceases her, or if they split up, she will finish her life in poverty.

They have been aware of this for the entire 25 years, so why is it the state's fault that proper alternatives were not taken by the couple? Expecting that existing circumstances will change to fit one's personal decisions is like counting on the lottery to provide forone's retirement. Maybe it is the good doctor's fault for not contributing to an account in the name of R. Is this not the femnist argument for calling a homemaker in a hetrosexual relationship a slave?

I know several families who wanted one of them to stay home with the kids, but they couldn't, because she would not be covered on the other's health insurance. And you really cannot live without health insurance.

Then I must be dead!

The surviving non-spouses of people who were killed in the twin towers on September 11 were deprived of the settlements that spouses got.

No, they were not deprived, they were deemed as not meeting the underlying purpose(s) of spousal compensation. That is yet another reason why examining the underlying purposes of a law is not just semantics.

There are innumerable injustices being perpetrated on gay families every day, because their relationships are not recognized as marriages.

This presumes that not being recognized as married is the proximate and only cause of those "injustices". I put the term in quotes, not because Iam saying they are not injustices, but because the various cases must be evaluated in light of the underlying purposes of the marrage laws.

This is what same-sex marriage is about, not "curtailing liberties." They are real families who are really being screwed over, paying the same taxes as everyone else, and not getting the same benefits.

I pay the same taxes as everyone else, but do not receive the same benefits, ie. health insurance. However, I appreciate your honesty regarding a desire for largese from the government being a major motivation behind your desire to have the laws changed. Government largese really muddys the waters when trying to sort out proper legislation.

It was not my intent to simply throw out objections, but to examine the various factors to see if the existing laws are indeed inappropriate.

Well, feel free to start doing that at some point. So far you've filled pages without saying anything.

You have a right to your opinion, but much of those post were spent attempting to find a point of agreement to work from, finding agreement regarding what the purposes of marrage are and how they relate to existing marrage laws. We had just gotten to a point of agreement, when you decided to switch to arguing from anecdotal evidence. Without a clear understanding of the underpinnings of the marrage laws, we can not really determine if the anecdotes really justify the changing of the laws.

[bluethread]

From some of the court rulings that I've read, marriage is lawfully restricted to a man and a woman because of the traditional thought that a hetero marital arrangement is part of the foundation of society. I don't see that anyone disagrees with that thought but to say that's the only marital arrangement is when it seems overly restrictive. I tend to focus on this issue from the point of if it causes harm, and I've yet to come across any evidenced and logical reason that shows that non-hetero or even non-monogamous marriage would cause harm. It's sure a hek of a lot better than the govornment promoting or supporting people who have kids with different men when the men won't stick around to take responsibility or in some cases where the paternity is unknown.

Without examining that "traditional thought", one is left with legislation by dogma and not reason. As I have stated to autodidact, I am not calling for the abolishment of marrage law, but a clear understanding of it's purposes. Without such understanding, one might very well end up effectively abolishing it in ones attempt to solve problems one might have in making it apply as one would like. In short, one can not determine if harm is done, if one does not systematically compare any specific proposal to each of the purposes of the law.

[bluethread]

It was not my intent to simply throw out objections, but to examine the various factors to see if the existing laws are indeed inappropriate.

So you view yourself as some sort of judge? That's fine, the evidence has been presented and the conclusion is fairly obvious. I don't understand why this is still being discussed. It would make sense if you were arguing the opposite, but as you said that is not the case.

Not as your question appears to imply. I believe it behooves us all to examine various laws that we may find onerous and the reasoning behind those laws, before making any judgements regarding demands to change those laws.

The reason this is still being discussed is because, after wrangling with presumptions and biases, we had just begun to find a clear definition of marrage and a parent, such that they can be applied to the existing laws and thus determine if a change to those laws would improve, deminish or have no effect on the underlying purposes of those laws.

I am sorry if you find the throwing out of objections as more reasonable. I believe that approach would be ad hoc at best. It is also prone to focusing more on proving one's point than understanding the role laws have in safeguarding a society and the rights of it's citizens.