Homosexual marriage

[capacitor]

With about half of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce, how can gays do any worse?

[Windwalker]

The arguments against homosexual marriage are pretty ridiculous, as many of you have pointed out here. The only erosion of values I see is that of the “anti-homosexual value”, which certainly has no value in my opinion. Can the original author Sinful explain how homosexual marriage erodes any meaningful value? Studies showing rates of cheating and such shouldn’t need to be used, as we can all pick nits about which demographics are better at certain things than others. Maybe black people have a higher rate of crime-- does that mean they shouldn’t be able to be police officers? We give heterosexual people a chance to succeed or fork up in a marriage, and I don’t know any decent reason not to give homosexuals that same chance. It really shouldn’t matter, but having the title of “married” would allow partners to visit their partner in the hospital, have the final say in what gets done with their body, etc. that hetero partners have. It’s really a shame that two people who want to have this bond recognized between them are not able to. I mean, for the title of “legal guardian”, we allow all sorts of random relatives, adopted parents, foster parents, even older friends. Why? Because it works for the people involved. The government should not be a tool to pass judgment on these types of issue, but merely to regulate them, a la Dept of Social Services and such. Denying homosexual marriage is no regulation, it is a cruel rebuttal of a way of life.

[Freyr]

*Originally posted by ElJeffe *
So how does the idea of same-sex marriage undermine this structure? Well, for one thing, it undoes the idea that a man and woman getting together to raise a family is anything uniquely special. But most importantly, it in part legitimizes the ideal of monogamy. Gay couples, on average, are three times as likely to be unfaithful as straight couples. A common argument for gay marriage is that marriage will somehow force these men into being faithful, but that’s doubtful, given that gay men are far less likely to be monogamous than unmarried straight couples, as well.

This reduces down to the old chestnut that marriage is all about children. I’ll agree, raising children is an important aspect of married life, but it’s not the ONLY aspect of it. We let infertile couples (either thru age or other factors) get married. Clearly there, the issue of children isn’t central. If they can get married, why not gay couples?

**

More likely is that the lack of monogamy inherent in gay relationships will cross over into marriage in general. Infidelity will be seen as the “enlightened” state of being, with stuffy monogamous couples being implictly encouraged to shed their shackles and try out polygamy, for a change. With infidelity already far less of a stigma now than it used to be, this doesn’t seem too far of a stretch.**

I think you’re repeating the argument that the Concern Women For America preach. I’ll agree, infidelity is a problem, but it’s not caused by or encouraged by homosexuality. If it is, I want to see a reputable citation for it.

**

There’s also the possibility of a slippery-slope into polygamous marriage. How hard is to imagine a lesbian couple using a mutual friend to father a child, then wanting to include the father as part of the family proper? And since marriage is no longer an exclusive one-man-one-woman entity, why not expand marriage to include this new type of family? I mean, shouldn’t this “family” be granted legal recognition? I’m curious to hear an argument for same-sex marriage that doesn’t also apply to polygamous marriage.**

With a careful re-writing of the laws, I think polygamous marriages could be included with little trouble. Many societies across the planet practice polygamy in one form or another and they don’t have many problems.

**

Of course, nothing here excludes gays from living together, or even from holding religious ceremonies in order to marry in a non-legal sense. And I would support civil unions that grant most or all of the benefits of marriage, as long as they are not actually called marriages. But I strongly feel that it’s in the best interests of our society to preserves the traditional notion of marriage, and continue to push that as the preferred way of raising a family.**

You’ve conflated marriage and family. While one is certainly based upon the other, they’re not the same thing. I’m all for protecting and promoting families, but I’ve yet to hear any valid, reasoned arguments as to how homosexual marriages destroy or demean traditional marriages, other than some vague hand-waving and talk about ‘sanctity’ of an old tradition.

[iampunha]

Originally posted by El Jeffe:
Oh, please. A homosexual man has every right a straight man has - he can marry any consenting woman of legal age he chooses. Unless you’re arguing that his right of marrying whomever he loves is being violated, in which case you’ve just argued in favor of incestual marriage, as well.

To borrow from Polycarp, then, you get to marry Linda Tripp, and Mr Visible marries, oh, Beyoncé Knowles.

But … you don’t love Linda, do you? You probably don’t envision sharing a life (and everything it has to offer) with her, or spending weekend mornings cuddling or watching television or shopping or anything else. So while you’re legally allowed to marry her, there’s no point.

Similarly for those who are in love with human consenting adults of the same gender as they are. They’re allowed to marry single people of the opposite sex, but those people aren’t the object of their desires in the way that their lovers are. So while the law is fair in a “hey, all us men have the same lot to pick from, and the women, too” sense, it is unfair in a “well, but men aren’t allowed to marry men, nor women women” sense. IOW it is sexist specifically because it differentiates allowable partners based exclusively on the genetic makeup of the partners in question.

[Futile_Gesture]

*Originally posted by ElJeffe *
Oh, please. A homosexual man has every right a straight man has - he can marry any consenting woman of legal age he chooses. Unless you’re arguing that his right of marrying whomever he loves is being violated, in which case you’ve just argued in favor of incestual marriage, as well.

I much prefer Pepsi to Coke. So I say we ban Coke. Then every man is equal and free with the same right to drink Pepsi.

Unless you’re arguing that his right of drinking whatever he pleases is being violated. In which case you’ve just argued in favour of drinking the blood of virgins, as well.

[Priam]

Oh, please. A homosexual man has every right a straight man has - he can marry any consenting woman of legal age he chooses. Unless you’re arguing that his right of marrying whomever he loves is being violated, in which case you’ve just argued in favor of incestual marriage, as well.
Jeff

Oh, please. A heterosexual man has every right a gay man has - he can marry any consenting man of legal age he chooses. Unless you’re arguing that his right of marrying whomever he loves is being violated, in which case you’ve just argued in favor of incestual marriage, as well.
Priam

[Guinastasia]

Incest is a whole different ball of wax from homosexuality.

[ElJeffe]

Lilarien:

The class of people with two life-partners.

Well, congratulations, you’ve managed to do what most can’t. That doesn’t make your experience the norm.
Siege:

By the way, why don’t I hear the “homosexual marriage is a threat to marriage” crowd talk about Mr. King or the way the media glorifies Jennifer Lopez, Elizabeth Taylor, etc. Ronald Reagan, a champion of family values was married twice; Newt Gingrich, I believe, is on his 3rd wife. How is it my homosexual friends who are very happy in their first and what they intend to be their only marriage are a greater threat to that institution than these folks?

I don’t know, because we’re not asked about it? I think the standard of marriage as embodied by Hollywood is deplorable. I think that is a large part of why marriages today are such a crapshoot. But surely you’re not arguing that I should stop fighting against what I see as one threat against marriage because there exists a different threat elsewhere?
Hamish:

IIRC, it was not so long ago that blacks were frequently described as a seperate species. I suspect the America of two hundred years ago would have seen a wider biological gulf between a black man and a white man, than between a white man and a white woman.

What should I make of this? There is a fundamental difference between a man and a woman that is hugely different than that between a white man and a black man. Are you denying this? You think men and women are the same? I think if people, 200 hundred years from now, decide that men and women are the same thing, then people 200 years from now are quite stupid.
Survivor:

It’s also interesting that you seem to think that 20 percent of the Gay men not being monogamous is horrible, but in the University of Vermont Study 21 percent of straight men agreed with non-monogamy… Seems like there isn’t too much difference between straight men and Gay men according to your studies…

Those figures are from different studies. Each one showed large differences between gay and straight individuals, although the exact numbers they gave were different. Chalk it up to differences in methodology.

And… you seem to have left out the part of the study that showed there was NO difference in the support for monogamy between lesbians and heterosexual women… Guess that didn’t fit into what you wanted to prove?

Well, given that I’ve mentioned here at least once that lesbian couples tend to be at least, if not more, monogamous than hetero couples, I guess that throws your theory all out of whack, hmm? The non-monogamy argument doesn’t work against lesbian couples, but that’s okay, because A, you can’t very well, as a practical matter, grant lesbians the right to marry and not grant it to gays, and B, monogamy does not address the issue of the best parenting environment still being a man and a woman.

Hmmm… trends that are quoted from the National Review might be a little biased, don’t you think?

They might be, but to dismiss them out of hand is a pretty poor debating tactic, don’t you think? Tell you what. I’ll dismiss National Review, and you dismiss the opinions of all homosexuals, and we’ll call it even.
Freyr:

This reduces down to the old chestnut that marriage is all about children. I’ll agree, raising children is an important aspect of married life, but it’s not the ONLY aspect of it.

No, it’s not the only aspect of marriage. However, it is the only aspect of marriage that warrants it being officially recognized and sanctioned by the state. If you remove the child factor, there’s no longer any reason for the state to recognize the marriage of anyone, hetero or otherwise.

We let infertile couples (either thru age or other factors) get married. Clearly there, the issue of children isn’t central. If they can get married, why not gay couples?

As I said before, that’s as much a matter of political simplicity than anything. And as I also said before, as you have more marriages, marriage becomes more ingrained into society, which leads to yet more marriages. It’s already difficult enough to manage the sole dissenting voice in this thread without having to repeat myself.

I think you’re repeating the argument that the Concern Women For America preach. I’ll agree, infidelity is a problem, but it’s not caused by or encouraged by homosexuality. If it is, I want to see a reputable citation for it.

You’re right, infidelity is not caused by homosexuality. It is, to be blunt, caused by men. That is why gay couples are tend to be far less monogamous than hetero couples, while lesbian couples are not. Women domesticate men. So the best way to keep men from cheating is to pair them with women. Hence, marriage.

You’ve conflated marriage and family. While one is certainly based upon the other, they’re not the same thing. I’m all for protecting and promoting families, but I’ve yet to hear any valid, reasoned arguments as to how homosexual marriages destroy or demean traditional marriages, other than some vague hand-waving and talk about ‘sanctity’ of an old tradition.

I have conflated nothing. What I am asserting is that the only justification for marriage is family. Without the notion of family, there’s zero justification for the state to recognize and promote marriage.

And if you think my argument involves nothing but “handwaving and talk about ‘sanctity’ of an old tradition,” then either you aren’t reading my posts, or you don’t take this debate too seriously.
iampunha:

To borrow from Polycarp, then, you get to marry Linda Tripp, and Mr Visible marries, oh, Beyoncé Knowles.

But … you don’t love Linda, do you? You probably don’t envision sharing a life (and everything it has to offer) with her, or spending weekend mornings cuddling or watching television or shopping or anything else. So while you’re legally allowed to marry her, there’s no point.

Fine. Say I’m madly in love with my sister. Sure, I can marry someone who’s not my sister, but… I don’t love her. I can’t envision sharing a life with her. Legally, I’m allowed to marry a non-sibling, but what’s the point? She wants to marry me, I want marry her, so what’s the big deal?
Guinastasia:

Incest is a whole different ball of wax from homosexuality.

Please explain the differences in the context of why homosexual marriage should be allowed, but incestual marriage should not be.
DISCLAIMER:
Before a bunch of addled folks start jumping on me for saying that homosexuality is the same as incest, that’s not what I’m saying. But some useful parallels can be drawn between the two for the purposes of debating gay marriage.
Jeff

[Lilairen]

Nor does it make my experience something that denied me the ability to marry one of my life-partners, which is the argument that you were making: that members of non-monogamous groups should not be permitted to marry.

There are no intrinsically non-monogamous groups aside from those with multiple partners, of course, so bringing up nonmonogamy as an argument opposing the fight for gay people to have their families recognised by the law is specious. But I’m sure you knew that.

People will form families whether the law protects those families or not. I at least can get partial protection for mine.

[iampunha]

There are, as I see it, two main opponents (which is not meant to imply credibility on the face of things) to the idea of incestual relationships becoming marriages.

1. The Oogines factor, which to many is a reason also to disallow gay marriages (and was a reason to disallow marriages between, say, a white person and a black person).

2. The genetics factor. IOW two people closely-related are going to churn out some really, ah, messed-in-the-head (and elsewhere) babies, unless I am unaware of some new studies that have come out speaking against this.

The first point speaks only to the sensibilities of some, and really isn’t a legal point at all (porn’s legal, after all, and it’s certainly oogy to some. Free speech produces some stuff that’s incredibly oogy to me and others, but that’s no reason to ban it).

The second is moot regarding homosexual marriages, because in the case of two men it is currently impossible for them to produce genetically-linked (ie “bio kids”) offspring. I do not think the issue is relevant to the case of two women who wished to be married, because IIRC the issue is the same: two woman engaging in intercourse with each other are unable to conceive …this, of course, ignores a point brought up long ago by KellyM regarding transgender people in marriages. I hope that, since this is not entirely related, that argument does not need rehashing. The point, for those who were not involved, is that a pre-op transgender person who is a woman in how society thinks of her, but a man in terms of raw genetics, is sometimes (depending on how successful a particular pre-op drug is. I do not remember the name but I do remember KellyM saying that her continued fertility was rare) able to impregnate another woman. For purposes of this discussion I am assuming that a lesbian marriage contains two people who are unable to conceive a child absent outside intervention (ie one sex gamete is missing).

I hope, El Jeffe, that this addresses your concerns regarding any slippery slope of “if we allow gay marriage, why not incest?” They are separate issues just as “if we allow watermelons, why not oranges?” is a separate issue.

[iampunha]

“for purposes of this discussion … two human consenting adult women who are unable” etc. I hope we can avoid the issue, in this thread, of at what point one is an adult:)

[ElJeffe]

Lilarien:

Nor does it make my experience something that denied me the ability to marry one of my life-partners, which is the argument that you were making: that members of non-monogamous groups should not be permitted to marry.

While that’s close to my argument, it’s not entirely accurate. More accurate would be to say that the government should not be explicitly or implicitly promoting the unions of non-monogamous groups. Polygamists are not forbidden to marry; they’re forbidden to marry multiple partners. Gay men are not forbidden to marry; they’re forbidden to marry men. You say that they’re not permitted to marry anyone they want, and you’re right - but nobody is permitted to marry anyone they want. The most obvious example is that I cannot marry my sister.

There are no intrinsically non-monogamous groups aside from those with multiple partners, of course, so bringing up nonmonogamy as an argument opposing the fight for gay people to have their families recognised by the law is specious. But I’m sure you knew that.

You’re partly right - there are no inherently non-monogamous groups. But there are groups that are, on average, significantly less monogamous than others. I have provided cites to two studies, both of which seem to have been disregarded because they claimed things that people don’t like. If somebody would like to direct me to a study that demonstrates that gay men are every bit as monogamous as hetero couples, I’d be happy to check it out.

People will form families whether the law protects those families or not. I at least can get partial protection for mine.

You’re right, and I support the right of people to pursue whatever type of family floats their respective boats. Wanna live with a same-sex life partner? Go for it. Wanna live in a commune with 50 other people and have nightly orgies? Fine with me. But I don’t feel that it’s necessary to have a state-sanctioned seal of approval for such lifestyles.
iampunha:

So your primary argument against incestual marriage is that incestual marriage is likely to produce children with genetic defects. So why not just ban siblings from breeding? Why not let them get married, but, say, only if one or both of them is fixed? And moreover, I’m not concerned about a slippery slope leading from gay marriage to incest. As I said before, I’m just trying to draw parallels to hopefully get the people on this board to understand my argument, even if you don’t agree with it. Because frankly, I’m not sure anyone here really does. It’s not based on the “ick” factor (I think homosexual sex is icky, but in the same way I think the eating of avocados is icky), and it’s not because I think homosexuals are bad, or even that homosexuality is wrong. I just strongly believe that the allowing of same-sex marriages will further erode the institution of marriage, and that it is possible to address all the practical problems facing same-sex couples without resorting to a fundamental change in the idea of marriage.
Jeff

[Guinastasia]

And HOW will it “erode the institution of marriage”? I still have yet to see a decent answer about that.

Incest-if the people were willing to be sterilized, and were of legal age-well, perhaps then. However, over time, you do see some horrors with incest:

When Incest Becomes a Religious Tenet-here you see both incest and polygamy. The results aren’t pretty, to put it mildly.

As for polygamy-well, I don’t really care one way or another, although I could never live like that.

[iampunha]

*Originally posted by ElJeffe *
So your primary argument against incestual marriage is that incestual marriage is likely to produce children with genetic defects. So why not just ban siblings from breeding? Why not let them get married, but, say, only if one or both of them is fixed?

You err here, though it is completely understandable. It is not my argument (and I nowhere state that it is, merely saying “here are the arguments against it, as I see them”), as I have no firm beliefs one way or another specifically regarding marriage between siblings/close relatives. It is an argument often cited, and as it relates to the topic of homosexual marriage I see any possible analogy between the two inherently flawed, as only the most ill-taught scientist could possibly assert that there would be some inherent genetic problem with the offspring of a homosexual relationship/marriage.

The issue of a ban on sibling breeding gets into another subject entirely, which is the role of an outside agency on the natural ability to reproduce. If you are interested in discussing it, my recommendation would be to open another thread (after first asking the board hamsters if they can find you anything on it), where I am sure you will be met with much strength of opinion and voice;)

And moreover, I’m not concerned about a slippery slope leading from gay marriage to incest.

Good for you. It exists and it’s a nasty thing and we ought to stay away from it because this is not a thread about the merits or demerits of an incestuous relationship. Per my recommendation above, start another thread if you wanna discuss it.

As I said before, I’m just trying to draw parallels to hopefully get the people on this board to understand my argument, even if you don’t agree with it.

I do not understand your argument because your analogy to other forms of marriage is flawed and you have yet to provide substantive proof for your assertation that the foundation or purpose of a family is fatally wounded if same-sex legal unions are allowed to exist.

I just strongly believe that the allowing of same-sex marriages will further erode the institution of marriage, and that it is possible to address all the practical problems facing same-sex couples without resorting to a fundamental change in the idea of marriage.

I understand that this is your belief. However, I have yet to see substantive proof of that. Marriage as an institution is a human invention (unless, for example, you have some photographs or other depictions of gerbil marriage, or something like that), and monogamy is really not entirely prevalent even within our human society, nor is the similar exclusion of all others for one person. The notion that it is, which you have been pushing since page 1 of this thread, is an overly-simplified and romanticized version of a viewpoint that largely ignores anything that disputes it (which is not necessarily your fault … I was raised to believe, as I am sure countless others were, that monogamy was the case throughout the animal kingdom … Goldilocks and the three bears, for example).

Your key points seem to be monogamy and the continuation of the family as an important element to the rearing of children. Since I have addressed the former issue, let me see if I can tackle (albeit in a fashion similar to others you have seen already in this thread) the issue of children.

I believe, in short, that it is important that children are reared in an environment conducive to their growth. There is nothing in particular about a man-woman relationship that I find offensive or exclusively desirable in the raising of children, and I extend that similarly to same-sex couples. I do not think you have raised, in this thread, any evidence other than your own opinion (however well-founded it may be) as proof that it would be detrimental to children. Unless and until that proof is shown, my opinion remains the same.

[Lilairen]

First, ElJeffe, you’re going to have to demonstrate that statistical evidence that a group may be more non-monogamous than other groups is convincing support for a position that individuals should not be permitted to form legally protected families if they are members of those groups.

Remember: I’m a straight, non-monogamous woman. Your treatment of a predominant statistic as a law of nature is equivalent to an argument that I do not exist.

I find this less than perfectly convincing.

[matt_mcl]

Listen, however much you are jonesing on equating the set of people belonging to an entire sex to the set of an individual’s siblings, and on saying that there are as good reasons for preventing me from marrying Potter as there are for preventing me from marrying my mom, it’s just not happening, I’m afraid. Les chiens aboient, le caravan passe.

[Chicago_Faucet]

You have my support, El Jeffe. Just so you know. I feel the exact same way as you do, although you are more eloquent than myself.

[iampunha]

Chicago Faucet, rather than attempting to corrale El Jeffe’s well-meant, but fallacious, arguments as your own, would you care to have a go at it yourself, or are you content with the education he (and of course, by association, you) is receiving?

[Chicago_Faucet]

You have my support, El Jeffe. Just so you know. I feel the exact same way as you do, although you are more eloquent than myself.

[ElJeffe]

Two quick things:

First, thank you, Chicago Faucet. It’s nice to know I’m not completely alone here.

Secondly, I’m going to have to call it quits today, because I really need to get some work done. I’ll try to get back tomorrow with some responses for you folks. Thanks for your patience.
Jeff