Then legalize same sex marriage, dummy

[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]

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]

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