Gay Marriage is not "Progressive"

[VladK]

You know it seems to me that most religious people have argued their case so poorly against gay marriage that atheists and other secular-minded folks have forgotten that, yes, there can be secular arguments against gay marriage too. Sorry, the issue is not limited to religion vs. secularism or atheism.

Not too long ago I also used to support gay marriage and the LGBT movement in general, so I don't think anyone can seriously accuse me of "hating homosexuals" or "homophobia".


Now first of all, let's establish what the point of marriage (as a purely legal institution, not religious) even is.

Property? No. If it was all about property management there are other arrangements that you can make, such as donations and wills and testaments.

Love? Many people would be tempted to say yes, marriage is about two people loving each other and living together and stuff. But if love is all there is to marriage, then why do you even need marriage? Is there any legitimate reason why the government should know or keep track of who you're fucking? Keep in mind that depending on what country you live in, marriage may include certain legal benefits such as tax breaks or the ability to claim half the pension of your loved one if he dies EVEN if you've never worked a day in your life and have no pension, as is the case in Romania.

None of this is actually justified by "love" and as for being necessary so if you die the police notify your lover or whatever, that's probably going to happen anyway when they pay a visit to the residence as part of their investigation. Also with Facebook now word gets out pretty fast.

At best this might be an argument in favor of some form of legal partnership. NOT redefining marriage altogether.

So what is the real purpose of having this institution? Children. Marriage provides a stable environment in which to raise them and involves a level of committment above simply "boyfriend and girlfriend", which can end at any time in a heartbeat. Since children are the future generation it makes sense that a government would have some interest in their upbringing as well, hence marriage as a legal institution exists.

Given that homosexual or lesbian couples can neither produce children of their own, nor provide the most optimal substitute parents for orphans, children best being raised by a mother and a father (preferably their natural mother and father as the connection is stronger) rather than simply two people of random genders, I don't really see what's so "progressive" about redefining marriage from male+female to person+person.

In fact I see just the exact opposite. A society that no longer deems motherhood and fatherhood to be valuable has in fact regressed. In a way it already has now with single mothers encouraged to remain single through government programs. And lack of fathers and mothers is arguably the biggest factor in youth dysfunctionality, young people without fathers or without mothers being far more likely to drop out of school, do drugs or get in trouble with the authorities.

The consequences of "marriage equality" may include for example the inability to prioritize adoption of orphans to straight normal male+female couples over other couples or single people. Something that should definitely be supported in any sane society.

It may also pave the way for unlimited polygamy and given the aggressive nature of political correctors on the left "polygamophobia" will likely be their next social crusade against the "evil intolerant" west.


"Progressives" will argue that this definition of marriage as male+female is "discriminatory" because it means gays and lesbians "aren't allowed to marry". But this is pure sophistry given that gay and lesbian inviduals can in fact enter into marriage, they just have to find a partner of the opposite sex. The fact that they are not interested in such a relation is no excuse for accusing the system of being "discriminatory" any more than a single lonely person accusing the system of being "discriminatory" because nobody willl marry him/her.

This is essentially a fallacy of division:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division

Assuming that because unions (groups) of people are treated differently (in this case a gay couple and a straight couple, OR for that matter a straight couple that's monogamous vs. a straight polygamous group), then automatically individuals that makeup those unions are treated differently, and therefore their rights are being infringed on or something.

"Progressives" will then argue that this is no different than racial segregation and bans on interracial marriage. But again this is a bad example. There is no basis in either reason or natural law for defining marriage as only between men and women of the same race, given that interracial unions produce healthy children just as much as monoracial unions. There's also no difference between a black male and a white male. There are tremendous differences between males and females, both in terms of body and mind (in terms of preferences and behavior, not level of intellect).

[Mermaid]

Not too long ago I also used to support gay marriage and the LGBT movement in general, so I don't think anyone can seriously accuse me of "hating homosexuals" or "homophobia".

Sure I can. I can also seriously accuse you of being a bigot and a moron.

[VladK]

Sure I can. I can also seriously accuse you of being a bigot and a moron.

And I could accuse you of hating children (let's call it childphobia) because you don't recognize the importance of having a mother and a father, but that wouldn't be very productive would it?

[Mermaid]

And I could accuse you of hating children (let's call it childphobia) because you don't recognize the importance of having a mother and a father, but that wouldn't be very productive would it?

Posting trollish bigotry is not very productive either.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And I could accuse you of hating children (let's call it childphobia) because you don't recognize the importance of having a mother and a father, but that wouldn't be very productive would it?

Having a mother and a father is nice. Having a married couple that includes a mother and a father is nice. But you don't have to have loving parents that include both a mother and a father. Your attempt to prove otherwise will be amusing.

[Atheon]

The OP's premise is wrong. Marriage is not about children.

If marriage were about children, then elderly couples, infertile couples and people who do not intend to have children would be forbidden from getting married, and gay couples who plan to have children will be welcomed to marry with fanfare.

[VladK]

The OP's premise is wrong. Marriage is not about children.

If marriage were about children, then elderly couples, infertile couples and people who do not intend to have children would be forbidden from getting married, and gay couples who plan to have children will be welcomed to marry with fanfare.

Government policies are often based on what is likely to happen, not on what is guaranteed to happen. No law or institution ever addresses issues perfectly because it's impossible. By your logic there shouldn't be ages of consent laws because not everyone over 16 or 18 or whatever is actually mature enough for sex and maybe there shouldn't be a speed limit either if you're a super skilled driver eh?

elderly couples

That I disagree with too. Elderly couples often become grandparents so they still have a role to play in raising the next generation. They may also continue to provide support for their off-spring even past 18.

people who do not intend to have children

That can still happen by the way even if you protect youself, so better they be raised in a marriage if that happens. It's not full proof but it's definitely a level of commitment above just "dating".

As for gay couples having children, that's biologically impossible. At best they can only adopt other children that straight couples abandon or can't take care of, but if they want to do that they should wait in line along with single people and other non-conventional family structures.

Posting trollish bigotry is not very productive either.

That is all you've done so far here.

[Atheon]

Elderly couples often become grandparents so they still have a role to play in raising the next generation.

Ok, so two elderly, childless people get married... and then grandchildren are suddenly generated out of thin air. Makes sense... (facepalm)

I smell me a troll. Nobody is this stupid.

[GSOgymrat]

If the goal is truly to improve the quality of life for children a more effective strategy is to provide incentives for being a better parent, not for being married. Marriage doesn't equal better parenting.

[stromboli]

What about couples that get married and never have kids? It is about making a commitment to another person and it has a legal basis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_law

A marriage, by definition, bestows rights and obligations on the married parties, and sometimes on relatives as well, being the sole mechanism for the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). These may include:

Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over some portion of a spouse’s labor or property.
Giving a husband/wife responsibility for some portion of a spouse’s debts.
Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.
Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.
These rights and obligations vary considerably among societies, and among groups within a society.[1]

You can do several things that establish guardianship for a child, confer property rights or establish inheritances and what ever you want. In marriage, with one act, you confer several rights to a couple that in may supercede other rights and obligations. Marriage is for a reason. My opinion is that you are looking for reasons to object to gay marriage which makes you a bigot.

[Mermaid]

That is all you've done so far here.

You are accusing me of being a bigot? Really? You aren't even thinking about what you write here, are you?

[stromboli]

The argument is a straw man from the outset. first of all there are several reasons for marriage as I showed in my post. Read the article. To assume one reason ignores many others. The fact that you have chosen to stipulate a particular reason and ignore others indicates a biased viewpoint.

It isn't about "supporting gay marriage." Consider the fact that the judges who have approved through the legal system the concept of gay marriage are learned men who know the law very well. If it were in fact a lackluster argument there would be a number of different decisions, but they have in fact been uniform in nature. It is a single act defined by law set down clear back in jolly old England centuries ago, that defines a set of legal rights between two people and is one of the foundations of our legal system and modern law. Gee, all of them pre-law classes I took back in college finally have some use.

(edit) Stromboli likes Mermaid. Stromboli thinks Mermaid is awesome.

[SGOS]

Now first of all, let's establish what the point of marriage (as a purely legal institution, not religious) even is.

Property? No. If it was all about property management there are other arrangements that you can make, such as donations and wills and testaments.

None of this is actually justified by "love".

So what is the real purpose of having this institution? Children. Marriage provides a stable environment in which to raise them and involves a level of committment above simply "boyfriend and girlfriend", which can end at any time in a heartbeat. Since children are the future generation it makes sense that a government would have some interest in their upbringing as well, hence marriage as a legal institution exists.

So marriage is not about property or love?  It's about having children?  And apparently only about children?  Way to create a definition to support your argument!  You do realize that people do marry for love and for property issues.  And you do realize that not everyone marries for the purpose of procreation.  I say the purpose of marriage is to make a commitment; Nothing more.  See?  You or I can arbitrarily decree what the purpose of marriage is, and we can even exclude every other reason why people marry, but it's just arbitrary, nothing more than an opinion, and neither one is universally true for everyone else.

In fact, you ARE a homophobe.  You're just denying it by hiding behind some crap you made up.

[VladK]

What about couples that get married and never have kids? It is about making a commitment to another person and it has a legal basis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_law

You can do several things that establish guardianship for a child, confer property rights or establish inheritances and what ever you want. In marriage, with one act, you confer several rights to a couple that in may supercede other rights and obligations. Marriage is for a reason. My opinion is that you are looking for reasons to object to gay marriage which makes you a bigot.

"Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over some portion of a spouse’s labor or property.
Giving a husband/wife responsibility for some portion of a spouse’s debts.
Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.
Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses."

That is true, but there is a purpose to all these rights and obligations. An end-game if you will, and that's to foster an environment as suitable as possible to bringing children into this world and raising them.

I see that as a good reason to get government involved.

I don't see "love" or "fucking" as good enough reasons to get the government involved and some of the things on that list could be handled either by changing laws or establishing civil partnerships. Personally I think anyone should be able to visit anyone in prison or hospital, provided the person hospitalized or incarcerated agrees and it's barred by law as part of his punishment, such as mafia bosses who try to run their empire from prison or terrorists in supermax prisons.

Why do you need to redefine marriage itself, explain that?

If the goal is truly to improve the quality of life for children a more effective strategy is to provide incentives for being a better parent, not for being married. Marriage doesn't equal better parenting.

Again, marriage shows a level of committment from both people involved. If you can't take that step, then maybe you're not ready to raise children. Because it's much easier to walk away from a dating relationship than from marriage. A phone call or message can end a relationship. To end marriage you need to go to court.

Ok, so two elderly, childless people get married... and then grandchildren are suddenly generated out of thin air. Makes sense... (facepalm)

I smell me a troll. Nobody is this stupid.

I really hate strawmen. The truth is most married elderly couples you see around you married while they were young and I pointed out their union doesn't suddenly become irrelevant when they stop having children. They still provide support for their adult children and sometimes contribute to raising their children.

As for elderly couples who marry now and can't possibly have children or live long enough to raise them if they could, again, laws aren't perfect, and I would even argue they shouldn't try to be because it would require too much work and too much intrusion into personal life to verify every case in particular at such detail. It can also lead to abuse to due corruption in government. Should we allow adults to molest 12 year olds if the 12 year old can be proven to be "mature enough"? We we prevent full grown 18+ adults from consenting to sex if they're "immature", some of them probably are? Should we allow professional drivers to break the speed limit cause they're "awesome" at driving and will NEVER make accidents, allegedly? Like this is the type of shit you're saying when you make such statements. I already addressed it and I'm not going to bother again unless you can counter it.

Having a mother and a father is nice. Having a married couple that includes a mother and a father is nice. But you don't have to have loving parents that include both a mother and a father. Your attempt to prove otherwise will be amusing.

No, it's not just "nice to have", it's pretty important so the child can learn different personality traits. Boys and girls also need role models for their own gender and you might not get that in a gay family upbringing.

I would bring up Elliot Rodger to point out this problem. Now, he didn't actually lack a father, but his father was largely absent from his life which is almost as bad. He never learned how to "be a man" which lead to his misery from failure with women. And you're seriously going to sit there an tell me fathers are irrelevant?

I dunno about you but growing up there were things I could not discuss with my mother, such as male sexual issues.

Girls - how are they going to develop their feminine personalities without a positive female role model, i.e. the mother? The first contact children have with the real world is through their mother.

Now girls without fathers are far more likely to end up being exploited by unscrupulous men, the kind who hook them on drugs, exploit them sexually and emotionally as teens, get them to run away from home etc.

I'm sorry but this social engineering program is dangerous and is not going to work.

[VladK]

So marriage is not about property or love?  It's about having children?  And apparently only about children?  Way to create a definition to support your argument!  You do realize that people do marry for love and for property issues.  And you do realize that not everyone marries for the purpose of procreation.  I say the purpose of marriage is to make a commitment; Nothing more.  See?  You or I can arbitrarily decree what the purpose of marriage is, and we can even exclude every other reason why people marry, but it's just arbitrary, nothing more than an opinion, and neither one is universally true for everyone else.

In fact, you ARE a homophobe.  You're just denying it by hiding behind some crap you made up.

To address your point, and maybe I should have clarified, when I said it's not about property I meant don't need to be legally married to someone to do thing like:

1. Co-own property. Like, if I want to share half of my house with my friend (whether that's a female friend, gay lover, or just BFF), all I have to do (at least as far as my country's laws go) is go to the notary's office and legally donate half of my house to him or her. Oh sure, some taxes but will be paid, but that goes for any transaction.
2. Inherit - I can write a will and testament where I can include anyone I want for any reason.
3. Donate property.
4. Even manage someone else's property. Attorneys can do it. So can your friends if you empower them through a legal document to act on your behalf.

If this isn't easily doable by any two individuals in your country, including two friends, then maybe the laws should be changed to make things easier. Or maybe we can discuss civil partnerships. You do not need to redefine marriage which has far more complex implications than changing how property or inheritance works. Got it?

As for "love", the idea that I need the government's involvement to love someone or fuck them is quite absurd.