What is the rationale for opposition to same-sex marriage?

[42fish]

@NaSultainne

Love isn’t in the law as a requirement of marriage.

Neither is the ability to have children with each other, yet you want to use that as your basis to prevent same-sex marriage.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@NaSultainne

Didn’t say it, so won’t argue it. I said, for the upteenth time, marriage is the framework for the family, a benefit to society. That’s why it is valued above other relationships.

Valued by who? Are childless marriages less valuable than ones with children? Does the state have an interest in invalidating marriages that don’t produce children? Does it have an interest in treating such marriages differently when it comes to inheritance and next-of-kin issues? What is (or should be) the legal weight of this “value” you describe?

[NaSultainne]

@ElvisL1ves

Reverse reasoning. You’ve tried to identify differences *for the purpose of *defining them not to be equal. Those differences you claim to have found are all somewhere between hypocritical and ridiculous on their faces, though. Even as rationalizations, they aren’t even plausible.

Nope, you’re the one doing the dancing, fella. I’ve described marriage as it is. Today. And as it has been for all our country’s history.

As to being hypocritical and ridiculous? Bold words. How 'bout showing your work?

[hobscrk777]

@Bryan_Ekers

Valued by who? Are childless marriages less valuable than ones with children? Does the state have an interest in invalidating marriages that don’t produce children? Does it have an interest in treating such marriages differently when it comes to inheritance and next-of-kin issues? What is (or should be) the legal weight of this “value” you describe?

To continue along this train of thought, what about couples (both gay and infertile heterosexual) who don’t have biological children but adopt?

[pravnik]

@NaSultainne

Never said it was “exactly impossible”. Never thought it, so, once more, please don’t put words in my mouth. I said that marriage provides a benefit to society and for this reason is rewarded in a number of ways by that society. Other relationships are, well, whatever they are, swell if you think so, but not the same. In those areas where they are the same, parenting being the obvious, all rights of parenting should be accorded them. That does not mean marriage.

What about other areas, such as economic? Let’s say two same sex partners live together in a house for many years, pool their funds into a business they own as well as various investments together, and then after many years go their separate ways. How should their property be treated?

[NaSultainne]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Neither can non-fertile heterosexual relationships. So what? What does the ability to naturally reproduce have to do with the entitlement to a civil right?

And, how, exactly, does one know in advance that a couple is infertile? Perhaps this would be legitimate if, as I mentioned at least twice, it were true that society mandated child-bearing. Which it does not.

[hobscrk777]

@NaSultainne

And, how, exactly, does one know in advance that a couple is infertile?

Uh…seriously? How about a medical assessment?

[Miller]

@NaSultainne

Love isn’t in the law as a requirement of marriage.

Oddly enough, neither is having children. If you can demand that marriage be restricted on the grounds of something that does not appear under any definition of marriage, or statute pertaining thereto, then jayjay has just as much right to demand that it be expanded on the same grounds.

As to the rest of the argument, can you not see what you’ve done? You’ve equated a marginally similar relationship to marriage and, presto change-o, demanded that the merest appearance of similiarity be accorded identical treatment under law. That’s my dispute. Two different things cannot be the same.

No, actually, he’s equated two identical relationships, and asked that two things which are identical be treated the same under the law. You keep claiming that they aren’t identical, but you haven’t yet shown any cause for that claim. Children? Gay people have children all the time. They have to spend slightly more effort on it than your average straight couple, but much less than any straight couple who has fertility problems. Since marriage rights don’t restrict straight couples who have problems conceiving, why should they restrict gay couples who have no problem conceiving? Is it the fact that only one member at most is going to be a direct biological parent? There’s a term for that, too: step-parent. If we recognize that relationship for straight people, why not for gay people, as well?

In those areas where they are the same, parenting being the obvious, all rights of parenting should be accorded them. That does not mean marriage.

But has your argument not been that the difference between straight and gay marriage is the ability to be a parent? If they are the same in that area, then in what area do they differ?

Didn’t say it, so won’t argue it. I said, for the upteenth time, marriage is the framework for the family, a benefit to society. That’s why it is valued above other relationships.

And how are gay marriages not of the same value to society as straight marraiges, given your above admission that gays are just as capable of parenting as straights?

[Miller]

@NaSultainne

And, how, exactly, does one know in advance that a couple is infertile? Perhaps this would be legitimate if, as I mentioned at least twice, it were true that society mandated child-bearing. Which it does not.

Well, age is one pretty good indicator. We don’t prevent 70 year old women from getting married, even though it’s clear just by lookin’ at them that they aren’t getting pregnant any time soon.

And since society, as you have mentioned at least twice, does not mandate child-bearing for marriage, what is your argument against allowing gays to marry, again?

[42fish]

@NaSultainne

And, how, exactly, does one know in advance that a couple is infertile? Perhaps this would be legitimate if, as I mentioned at least twice, it were true that society mandated child-bearing. Which it does not.

Well, if the woman was post-menopausal that would be a pretty good sign the marriage wouldn’t be producing any kids. Yet, strangely, such people are still allowed to get married.

[Mrs.Cake]

When I got married, it was a short-form contract that bypassed the need to have endless additional contracts in order for my husband and I to be legally next of kin. The ceremony, such as it was, was barely icing on the cake of that handy legal shortcut. Sex aside, we got married because we were best friends who wanted to spend the rest of our lives together, and after 18 years, we have a pretty good chance of achieving that. We mingled our stuff and our bank accounts. We bought a house together. In case of dire circumtstances, I’d rather have his hand on the off switch than any of my blood relatives. That’s why we got married, and I can’t see any of that being gender-specific.

Neither of us are religious and we had already decided not to have children (and taken necessary steps to prevent same), yet we were allowed to have all the legal advantages and perks of being married. I see no problem at all with allowing any two two adults to do the same - its cheaper, faster (well, it is if you elope like we did - Barbie’s Dream Wedding can take years and cost the moon), and more efficient than any other way. Why should we be allowed to have an advantage other couples don’t? Its beyond me why this should even be an issue.

Personally, I think marriage is not for everyone and I see couples getting married all the time whose marriaged are likely to end in disaster, but I don’t want the state to tell them they can’t get married. Some of the worst mariages I’ve seen came about because of the child issue - oops, someone got pregnant, or gotta stay together or the psycho will take the kids away.

Oh, and as an Iowan, I can’t say I’ve noticed my marriage or any of my friends’ marriages suddenly become unstable in the last few days. In fact, it has hardly even been discussed other than “huh, about time” anywhere I have been.

[NaSultainne]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Or adopted children or same-sex partners.

Yep, okay. I’m not quibbling over the definition of family. I’m saying that ‘family’ does not dictate ‘marriage’. The two are related, not the same.

That’s exactly what YOU are trying to do. You want to say that YOUR definition of “family” is the right one, and that you are therefore entitled to special rights that should NOT be granted to families which don’t fit your own, personal, arbitray, capricious, self-serving definition.

See above. And my definition is not “personal, arbitrary, capricious, self-serving”. It’s a definition based on biological relations, which is a common frame of reference. I’m also not, just to be clear, relying upon this definition to defend marriage.

This is factually incorrect in every detail. Is a sexless marriage still a marriage? If not, then you can’t say sex is “integral.”

Damn, now you’re really stretching the boundaries, aren’t you? So, what is marriage, then? A business relationship? We’ve got those, called ‘contracts’. A couple of particularly close people? We have those too, called ‘friends’. A parent of a parent of a child? Yep, ‘grandparents.’ Words mean things.

It’s also not true that any heterosexual sex has a chance to result in offspring. A woman who has had a hysteectomy, for instance, has no more theoretical chance of getting pregnant than I do. Should infertile or post-menopausal people be prevented from getting married?

Asked and answered. Geez, how many women do you know with hysterectomies getting married? Is this a large enough group and are they demanding legal protections? Get a grip. Stop arguing from the outliers.

Reproduction has fuck-all to do with the definition of marriage. It’s just an option that married people can exercise like buying a house or playing Scrabble. If you’re going to persist in this line of argument, you have to justify letting non-fertile heterosexual couple get married.

Okay, say you’re right. Then of what benefit is it to society? Why are tax preferences given to married couples?

As to non-fertile couples, again, asked and answered. Since society merely encourages reproduction, rather than mandates it, society is not…harmed…when no children result. That’s why additional tax benefits accrue one children are born.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@NaSultainne

Now you’re just playing with language. If you want to argue that a chair is a desk, but I insist the desk is a desk and a chair is a chair, you don’t then get to argue that “there’s no evidence that anyone, including society, would be harmed by [calling] it [a desk].”

This is fatuous and tautological. We’re talking about the expansion of a privilege which is defined legislatively, not lexicographically, and even if lexicography mattered, you’d still be wrong since the lexicographic definition includes polygamous and same-sex marriage.

[NaSultainne]

@cosmosdan

OKay, given that it will not hinder, according to your description of those differences is there any valid reason to deny gays that right any more than the elderly getting married or infertile couples getting married, considering jayjay’s post?

Yes, it’s not the same. Society is promoting what is of benefit, not just something to be arbitrary and piss-off the gays. Stop picking on the old folks and the infertile. Since society, for the last time, does not mandate childbearing, it does not penalize those past fertility or lacking thereof. Presuming we can even know this in advance, and what the hell kind of world would we be living in when the government is looking up women’s skirts???

It’s not just about benefiting society by having productive offspring. Marriage laws are also about protecting and defining the civil rights of the individuals involved. That’s why there are laws about property rights, child custody and support. Protecting the right of individuals is not only a responsibility of the government it also promotes the best interest if society in general.

Okay, now this is an argument. You’re right. Property rights, child custody and support are all or can be related to…marriage. Not always, and not necessarily. But, it is reasonable for society to protect the family unit integrity by assuring continuance of support in the event of disruption. Otherwise, in a perfect world, you’d have no need to lock your doors at night, so to speak.

[ElvisL1ves]

@NaSultainne

I’ve described marriage as it is. Today.

As you want it to be.

And as it has been for all our country’s history.

Irrelevant.

As to being hypocritical and ridiculous? Bold words. How 'bout showing your work?

How about picking a side on the children issue for once, then?

[NaSultainne]

@Bryan_Ekers

Is there any evidence that switching the names of desks and chairs harms society? If I want to write a story or produce a movie in which the names are switched, is there any reason anyone should try to stop me? Surely I “get to argue” whatever I want, no?

So what is the harm to society posed by gay marriage and thus the rationale for opposing it? Quantify, please.

Again with the harm. I haven’t said gay marriage will harm society.

As to chairs and desks, they’re, like, different. They look different, have different purposes, are used and designed and produced differently. They’re friggin’ different! Why would you insist that chairs and desks are all the same???

[Miller]

I wonder if NaSultainne would do me the honor of identifying this item. Desk? Or chair?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@NaSultainne

And, how, exactly, does one know in advance that a couple is infertile?

Well, just as an example, having had a hysterectomy would be a pretty big clue. So would being 80 years old. Do you really think people can’t know if they’re infertile before they get married? Ever heard of a vasectomy?

Perhaps this would be legitimate if, as I mentioned at least twice, it were true that society mandated child-bearing. Which it does not.

You’re saying that the potential for a sexual relationship to naturally reproduce children grants the practitioners privileges that should be denied to anybody else…and you’re not even consistent about that since you want to make irrational exceptions for it.

[magellan01]

@jayjay

The only people trying to say that that’s our position is the other side. How about:

Straight people fall in love and want to intertwine their lives and affairs (not THAT kind) with each other and protect that intertwining with government enforcement.
Straight people can get married.
Gay people fall in love and want to intertwine their lives and affairs (again, not THAT kind) with each other and protect that intertwining with government enforcement.
Therefore gay people should be able to get married.

Don’t have much time now, but a quick comment or two:

You’re assuming that for people to intertwine their lives and affairs and protect that intertwining with government enforcement they MUST be “married”. That’s not the case. Just as marriage laws were crafted to grant protections, Civil Union laws can be crafted to grant exactly the same protections. That reduces your argument ito one of convenience. That it would be easier to do it through “marriage”. It might be, but that assumes it’s a thing society wants. At the very least this moves you off the the high horse you confuse with moral high ground. By seeking the protections through a civil union you allow marriage to mean what the majority think and want it to mean AND you get the RIGHTS you claim are so important to you. I’ve come to realize that the rights argument is one of total bullshit for strong SSM proponents. They seek to grab on to the coattails of the word for some degree of “legitimacy”, a degree of “normalcy”. This is fine to seek, but it has nothing to do with the “rights” issue. Granting rights needn’t be confused with approving of what people do, and your tactic is to force acceptance beyond rights. Again, that is a fine goal to have, but it is not a valid argument for the rights being granted.

[42fish]

@NaSultainne

Geez, how many women do you know with hysterectomies getting married? Is this a large enough group and are they demanding legal protections?

1. Are you actually arguing that if a group is sufficiently small, their rights don’t matter? (And if that’s not what you’re arguing, what’s the meaning behind that “large enough group” comment?)

2. Maybe women with hysterectomies (and the post-menopausal, the otherwise infertile, etc.) aren’t demanding legal protection because they already have those protections. On the other hand, if there was legislation pending to deny them the right to marriage because of their infertility, then I suspect that, yes, they’d start demanding equal protection.