Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

[Major Robert Dump]

Marriage is on the decline.
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

The economy is in a rut
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Fewer people are buying houses
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

There are too many single parent households
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

There are too many uninsured Americans
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

We need more educated immigrants
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Marriage creates a more stable tax base
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Its too hard to get financial aid for college
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

We need more tax revenue without raising taxes
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

America is secular
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

America is free
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

[Husar]

I disagree.
So legalize same sex marriage, dummy

[Lemur]

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think gay marriage as a social and moral issue should be conflated with economic imperatives.

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't think gay marriage as a social and moral issue should be conflated with economic imperatives.

There is no social or moral issue.

And since Republicans are all economy and taxation experts and stuff, and they talk about how totally awesome family values are and stuff, then I would think they would be all about creating some more families and some more good old dependable tax payers and economic stimuli.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is no social or moral issue.

The issue is primarily social and moral in nature, for both sides of the argument. Some people see homosexuality as immoral, some people see the denial of marriage rights to homosexual couples as immoral.

While you are obviously free to challenge this focus on the moral side of things, you need to offer some sort of refutation of it before you start calling people dummy and making points that most people regard more as tangential than disagreeable.

And since Republicans are all economy and taxation experts and stuff, and they talk about how totally awesome family values are and stuff, then I would think they would be all about creating some more families and some more good old dependable tax payers and economic stimuli.

If you're going to take the liberty of completely redefining what they mean when they talk about certain concepts, how can you expect to engage with them?

[drone]

The injection of fresh, gay money into the Wedding Industrial Complex would be a definite boon to the economy. Because, you know, those weddings have to be faaaaabulous!

[Major Robert Dump]

I don't expect to engage them. There is nothing to engage.

We are a secular society. Marriage is already secular. The vast majority of the opposition to gay marriage is based on religious grounds.

The rest of the opposition is in the "ewwww, gross!" camp. If that is the standard, then I have a list of gross and unappealing behavior I would like to add to the list.

Consenting adults want to do adult things. Let them.

Use of the word "dummy" is not an attack. It's meant to emphasize that this entire issue is a no-brainer. DOMA is unconstitutional and they knew it when they passed it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I'm not American, but from the articles I've read and the stuff I've seen on the internet, the arguments against gay marriage are rarely expressed in outright religious terms, whatever the underlying motivations might be.

I think a big reason behind why people are shooting past each other on this issue is because for some bizzare reason, whenever it is brought up, everybody seems to be come over with some sort of Ayn Rand idealism. Yeah, OK, its unfair and discrimination that two gay guys don't get tax breaks and legal recognition like a straight couple do. The thing is its not just unfair to gay people, its unfair to everybody that isn't part of a heterosexual couple. It's unfair to people who choose to be single (oh but they were born that way!), it's unfair to people who don't practice monogamy etc.

The problem with that take on things is that while idealism is nice, it's not realistic. To oppose traditional marriage on that basis will fail in that same way that it fails to challenge concepts like progressive taxation. Heterosexual couples get the privileges they do because of their historic and continuing social role.

If you want that privilege extended to gay couples, then make a case for it. You can challenge to modern relevance of theheterosexual couple. You can argue the social benefits of allowing gay marriage and the role they could have in adopting foster kids, for example.

But don't reduce this issue to being about petty economic gains.

[Major Robert Dump]

I'm not American, but from the articles I've read and the stuff I've seen on the internet, the arguments against gay marriage are rarely expressed in outright religious terms, whatever the underlying motivations might be.

I think a big reason behind why people are shooting past each other on this issue is because for some bizzare reason, whenever it is brought up, everybody seems to be come over with some sort of Ayn Rand idealism. Yeah, OK, its unfair and discrimination that two gay guys don't get tax breaks and legal recognition like a straight couple do. The thing is its not just unfair to gay people, its unfair to everybody that isn't part of a heterosexual couple. It's unfair to people who choose to be single (oh but they were born that way!), it's unfair to people who don't practice monogamy etc.

The problem with that take on things is that while idealism is nice, it's not realistic. To oppose traditional marriage on that basis will fail in that same way that it fails to challenge concepts like progressive taxation. Heterosexual couples get the privileges they do because of their historic and continuing social role.

If you want that privilege extended to gay couples, then make a case for it. You can challenge to modern relevance of theheterosexual couple. You can argue the social benefits of allowing gay marriage and the role they could have in adopting foster kids, for example.

But don't reduce this issue to being about petty economic gains.

I do not need to argue the social benefits because they are the same social benefits that exist for hetero couples, the same social benefits so espoused by pro family rhetoric.

Two parent households, in general, raise more stable kids. People who get married tend to drop anchor, grow roots and become stable, predictable taxpayers. Communities with more homeowners and 2 parents households tend to create more prosperous communities, better social services, less crime, better schools. No couple in the history of couples ever said "hey lets move to the neighborhood with lots of crappy apartments and absentee parents." All of this is a no brainer. Families = stability. Let them make families.

To argue that marriage is something sanctimonious is to ignore the state of marriage today. People get married less and later. And here you have this one demographic that is begging to be married, begging to share benefits (like the whole reason the DOMA case from New York is before SCOTUS), begging to adopt children that are living in state custody or bouncing between foster homes, and we are denying them that right with the left hand while reaching out our right hand and telling people to espouse family values.

Everything in this post was also contained in the first post. I was happy to explain it to you, though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Everything in this post was also contained in the first post. I was happy to explain it to you, though.

No, minus a couple of rehashed economic benefits that I have already acknowledged, there is not a single point you made there that was also in the first post. Apart from maybe some sort of implied benefit by mentioning the number of single-parent households.

I do not need to argue the social benefits because they are the same social benefits that exist for hetero couples, the same social benefits so espoused by pro family rhetoric.

Two parent households, in general, raise more stable kids. People who get married tend to drop anchor, grow roots and become stable, predictable taxpayers. Communities with more homeowners and 2 parents households tend to create more prosperous communities, better social services, less crime, better schools. No couple in the history of couples ever said "hey lets move to the neighborhood with lots of crappy apartments and absentee parents." All of this is a no brainer. Families = stability. Let them make families.

Well it's nature that doesn't let them make families the traditional way, and the reality is that that has always been by a long shot the biggest social role of marriage. Much of the social stability of marriage that you mention also comes at least in part from the process of raising kids - without it couples will not "drop anchor" in the same way. Of course we can take artificial measures to get round that by giving them other peoples' kids, but........

To argue that marriage is something sanctimonious is to ignore the state of marriage today. People get married less and later. And here you have this one demographic that is begging to be married, begging to share benefits (like the whole reason the DOMA case from New York is before SCOTUS), begging to adopt children that are living in state custody or bouncing between foster homes, and we are denying them that right with the left hand while reaching out our right hand and telling people to espouse family values.

I know the situation in American could be different from that of the UK, but here there is a massive demand for foster kids from heterosexual couples that is not being taken advantage of because of excessive red-tape. So how far homosexual couple would help in that regard is very much questionable, if the demand is already there they won't make a difference. As far as taxes go, any tax breaks they get are a personal benefit, not a societal contribution. Married couples get those in return for the social contribution of raising kids.

I also don't see how the current poor state of marriage can be an argument in favour of gay marriage until we establish whether or not gay marriage can really fulfill the same social roles of heteresexual ones or strengthen the institution of marriage in general.

As opposed, you know, just pronouncing it to be so and making that an axiom of debate when you know full well the other side doesn't agree with it.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well it's nature that doesn't let them make families the traditional way, and the reality is that that has always been by a long shot the biggest social role of marriage. Much of the social stability of marriage that you mention also comes at least in part from the process of raising kids - without it couples will not "drop anchor" in the same way. Of course we can take artificial measures to get round that by giving them other peoples' kids, but........

The question is not really about "what used to be the biggest [social] role of marriage" the question is about "what is the social role of marriage" or what should it be? Different tense is not merely being pedantic, it is the core of the argument. We do not live in the 18th or 19th century slums any more, so why let 19th century ideals borne out of that situation and fitted to the limits of that era rule us now?

Does the children argument still apply (if it ever did at all) ?

[Ibrahim]

well, it's an unimportant issue. at least compared to the overseas fighting, the wasteful spending, and so on.

just let people marry who they want, however many they want. there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage, and even if there was, I don't see how it is relevant to the national level.

[Xiahou]

Does the children argument still apply (if it ever did at all) ?

And if it doesn't, why do we even need marriage?

Marriage is on the decline.
Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

Homosexuals make up about 3-4% of the population. How many would like to get married? Half? Claiming this is the solution to the decline of marriage and the myriad of other problems you tick off is.... dumb?

[Major Robert Dump]

Rhyfelwyr I hope you understand that I am being a smart ass and not trying to pick a fight with you. But "there are too many single parent households" and "we need a stable tax base" covers much of the family/social aspect of my subsequent posts. A same sex couple raising kids yet not recognized as a legal couple and qualifies as a single parent household since both parties cannot legally adopt the child unless they are married. Incidentally, the additional able bodied adult in the house will, however, reduce their eligibility for public assistance. This is funny, because it is typically a way to get unwed parents to marry, and a way to keep a woman from breeding with multiple partners with no intent of staying with any, it is a way to keep people from "shacking up" with children if they are not also going to marry..... and here we have people who are actually trying to get married and stabilize a home and they are rejected. Funny

I read that there are 40,000 kids in California in same sex parental homes. That is just in California. Banning same sex marriage seems to be working at getting same sex couples not to raise kids. OH WAIT......

Yes there is red tape on adoption. But adoption from an agency IS NOT the only mechanism for same sex couples to raise kids. There are plenty of people who try heterosexuality, have kids, and then "go gay" mid life. I -- just me -- know a dozen people that fit this description, and they all have kids, and they all now have same sex partners. In addition to kids from previous marriages, there is also the significant number (20 percentiles??) of grandparents/siblings etc becoming legal guardians of children. If a parent/brother/aunt has the ability and desire to raise a related child and they happen to be homosexual, it is patently unfair that they are willing to sacrifice themselves to raise kids that are not theirs, yet they cannot even get married to their same sex partner to make the child rearing easier.

The arguments that two dads or two moms cannot provide guidance to a child of the opposite sex are untrue. There are actually people out there arguing that My Two Dads will not be able to get a teenage girl through her first period, or that My Two Moms will not be able to guide their son through a bullying situation. Seriously? Have no single parents ever done this? and please do not say that single parents get remarried, because that is patently false, and in the event that he/she does remarry the chances that it will be in time to contribute to the social adjustment of the child are completely based on situation and not some written rule that can be measured or used for statistics.

It also ignores the fact that hetero parents can be terrible parents, can be abusive, can be absent even in marriage, all of which are things that will happen with gay couples as well. It is called being human. Deal.

Do I want to explain to my kids about the two men kissing in public, or his friend with two moms? No more or less than I want to explain intercourse, how the Senate works or why his/her mom is half my age. I'm a grown up, I will figure it out.

We are not pioneers and villagers fighting a 50% birth mortality rate anymore. There is no race to out populate the enemy, or to build a big tribe so we can take down the saber tooth. We can practically engineer our own babies. The traditional purpose of marriage is irrelevant in this industrialized country, and that role needs to evolve. Few reasons that anyone gives in opposition to gay marriage is a problem that is exclusive to same sex couples, and the reasons that are exclusive go back to the "eeeew gross" and the religious camps.

People are doing it. They live together in same sex partnerships for decades. They will continue to do it, no matter how much hate and rage and politics keeps them down, and eventually it will be legal, like we said all along, just like so many other things involving equal rights and people just wanting to live and let live. And in 30 years, our kids will think we were monsters and dinosaurs, and wonder what the big deal was.

Party of small government my ass

[Major Robert Dump]

And if it doesn't, why do we even need marriage?

Homosexuals make up about 3-4% of the population. How many would like to get married? Half? Claiming this is the solution to the decline of marriage and the myriad of other problems you tick off is.... dumb?

Never said it was the solution. Never said it will reverse or solve a problem. Merely pointing out my fascination of people talking out of both sides of their mouth. People who oppose gay marriage should also work to prohibit marriage and breeding between stupid people, poor people, ugly people, and people who like Creed.

[Xiahou]

Never said it was the solution. Never said it will reverse or solve a problem.

I guess I wasn't following you then. I thought you were talking about how marriage makes for stable communities and creates economic stimulus and that homosexuals want to get married. I thought you were trying to make the connection that it helps address certain problems that you outlined in your OP. My mistake.

[Major Robert Dump]

I guess I wasn't following you then. I thought you were talking about how marriage makes for stable communities and creates economic stimulus and that homosexuals want to get married. I thought you were trying to make the connection that it helps address certain problems that you outlined in your OP. My mistake.

That is exactly what I was saying. And if people want in on the action that is supposed to benefit society, then why not let them in on the action so they can contribute, even if it is small? That, however, is not the same saying that it is a solution.

If so few people are gay, and it affects such a small percentile, then what is the problem? Are we scared the gay agenda is going to turn into a snowball of gay momentum and cover us with a big gay avalanche? Is it irrelevant because they are single digit representative of the population? If that is the yardstick by which we measure the worth of a cause, or a law, or a debate, then I am afraid Congress and SCOTUS just became irrelevant, and that argument itself defeats the entire spirit of DOMA to begin with, i.e. whats.the.big.deal?

[Strike For The South]

I disagree with your notion of cake

[Major Robert Dump]

I disagree with your notion of cake

I took it out, Boo, just for you

[Lemur]

If so few people are gay, and it affects such a small percentile, then what is the problem?

Most recent large-scale polling suggests homosexuals make up approx 2.5% of the general population. Which makes plenty of sense.

Allowing gay marriage can be quite honestly argued as a conservative stance. (Assuming normal linguistic meaning for the word "conservative," and not the radical, ideology-bound, utopian Theory of Everything that it currently means in the USA.)

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am in favor of gay marriage, but it is important that we listen to what Rhy has to say. It's lazy and borderline scary to say that since people don't take an institution seriously, then we are allowed to change the institution as we see fit. Talking only about how we treat marriage now is also lazy.

What needs to happen is a comprehensive discussion on the purpose of marriage that take into account its history and the whys/hows it came to be how it is today. If institutionalized marriage was originally put in place by Christians who wanted to promote Judeo-Christian values, then how can we say that the secularization of it over time invalidates the reason why we have it in the first place? It would be akin to saying that undeclared wars are a-ok now because that is how the institution of government is operating currently when its original form had checks and balances and an emphasis on Congress declaring hostilities beforehand.

[Catiline]

2.5 % seems remarkably low.

Most recent large-scale polling suggests homosexuals make up approx 2.5% of the general population. Which makes plenty of sense.

Allowing gay marriage can be quite honestly argued as a conservative stance. (Assuming normal linguistic meaning for the word "conservative," and not the radical, ideology-bound, utopian Theory of Everything that it currently means in the USA.)

[Fragony]

I am in favor of gay marriage, but it is important that we listen to what Rhy has to say. It's lazy and borderline scary to say that since people don't take an institution seriously, then we are allowed to change the institution as we see fit. Talking only about how we treat marriage now is also lazy.

What needs to happen is a comprehensive discussion on the purpose of marriage that take into account its history and the whys/hows it came to be how it is today. If institutionalized marriage was originally put in place by Christians who wanted to promote Judeo-Christian values, then how can we say that the secularization of it over time invalidates the reason why we have it in the first place? It would be akin to saying that undeclared wars are a-ok now because that is how the institution of government is operating currently when its original form had checks and balances and an emphasis on Congress declaring hostilities beforehand.

Keep it seperately, there isn't any mixture between marriage as a holy institution and legal discrmination that is worth considering. It aren't the same things, marriage as an institution isn't under attack here. Gay couples should get all the benefits a heterosexual couples gets. It's unfair to deny them that, if they want some ceremony with that power to them. They aren't asking for recognision of any church

[The Lurker Below]

Sorry, I'm sure this is off topic, but I was just wondering if anybody else noticed this:

when my 2.5% gay personality takes over it seems like a lot more people enjoy my company.

no? ah, maybe it's just me.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Matrimony is a sacrament, granted by the church. The Church is unlikely to sanctify a same-sex union in the foreseeable future.

Marriage, however, has ALWAYS been a civil contract issue centered on property. The state has always been involved and always taxed it. That said, it is a fairly simple logic chain to reach MRD's conclusion. The DOMA will be struck down...probably pretty soon...and more same-sex unions will style themselves as "married." Any other conclusion is legally insupportable short of an ammendment to the Constitution.

Eventually, this will also lead to the adoption/sanction of other, less-frequent forms of marriage such as group marriages, triads, and the like. Heinlein's view of marriage in the future will seem more and more prescient as we continue blundering our way through history.

[Lemur]

this will also lead to the adoption/sanction of other, less-frequent forms of marriage such as group marriages, triads, and the like.

On the face of it, this seems unlikely. Our system of law and property is well established for two-person issues, not so much for multiples.

Figuring out benefits, inheritance, custody, etc., for 3+ people? I dunno. I'd be interested to hear from a person who practices family law.

But speaking with nothing more than layman knowledge, seems to me that same-sex marriage can be integrated with minimal fuss, while group marriage would open a big ol' can of worms.

[The Lurker Below]

open a big ol' can of worms.

Most issues deserve to be discussed on the merits of that issue alone, not on those that may possibly be related to it. Is gay marriage ok, yes or no? I remember back in 1994 there was a huge outcry about the assault weapons ban and the resulting loss of rights that would follow. Everything was going to be banned after that. Didn't work out that way. The ban came, and went, and nothing more was made of it. Based on the outcry at the time though, one would expet that the Constitution, the government, and all life as we know it were in serious danger.

When the issue of group marriage comes up for discussion, then it's merits should be considered without thought of gay marriage.

I agree with you, I also think gay marriage can and should be implemented with minimal fuss.

edit - Actually I want to rant some more. I never bothered to respond but on the facebook somebody posted something that annoyed me. There were a couple implications that I took issue with. They started with something like "even if gay is a choice, what difference does that make, we allow people that choose to be assholes to marry." First, I don't believe that people wake up in the morning and decide that today they want to be an asshole. I believe that their genetics and environment has shaped them to respond as they do. Secondly, it pissed me off that they used the term asshole. Now readers of that are going to relate gays to assholes, which is way off base. I wish that person had used the term "brunette lovers" instead.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On the face of it, this seems unlikely. Our system of law and property is well established for two-person issues, not so much for multiples.

Figuring out benefits, inheritance, custody, etc., for 3+ people? I dunno. I'd be interested to hear from a person who practices family law.

But speaking with nothing more than layman knowledge, seems to me that same-sex marriage can be integrated with minimal fuss, while group marriage would open a big ol' can of worms.

Can of worms indeed. But, as Sotomeyor [sic?] herself questioned, once you establish that marriage is an individual right and constitutionally protected, how can you curtail that right, not just for sex but for a slew of other conditions that might appertain? Aside from the ability to require "informed consent" what restrictions can be reasonably imposed? And the argument before the court is very much centered on an individual's right to marry.

[Lemur]

once you establish that marriage is an individual right and constitutionally protected, how can you curtail that right

I find this argument fishy. Lots of rights are curtailed, heck, under the correct conditions all of our rights are curtailed. Theaters and yelling "fire" come to mind. My 2nd Amendment right is curtailed if I am a felon. My voting rights are curtailed if I'm in prison. My right to life can be kinda curtailed if I join the military. And so on and so forth. Seems like you're indulging in a slippery-slope moment.

Also, look at the time, population, and pressure required to get same-sex marriage to a point where Americans are ready for it. Do you honestly see anything of the sort for polygamy? Can you point to anyone or anything that indicates there's a groundswell growing?

As a legalistic thought-exercise, I guess you've sorta-kinda got a point, but I don't think it would stand up in court. And given that well over half of Americans are in favor of SSM, note that the Supremes are still wobbly about giving it protection. So ... nah. Not a very compelling or realistic scenario.