Gay Marriage and Society -- the Sequel

[Charles Kozierok]

Let's try this again. And this time, I don't want to see any name-calling. Stick to the issues.

I'll open with a quick comment about the polygamy argument when it comes to gay marriage. In principle, I don't have a problem with polygamy. In practice, I do, because it ends up being a raw deal for women, and it can tend to lead to imbalances that are harmful for society. That said, I'd be okay with giving it a try and seeing what happens.

Gay marriage, in contrast, is strictly a benefit to society in a large number of ways. The suppression of gays in times past led many of them to marry despite their inclinations, inevitably leading to broken homes and other miseries. It also led to the gay "swinging" culture and all the problems that come from that, while marriage promotes stable, monogamous relationships.

Simply put: gay marriage is better for gays, and better for everyone else as well. The only problem is with people who decide to take offense to it despite these benefits, and despite there being no objective drawbacks to the matter. And my personal view on these people is that they will have to learn to adjust.

 

[Retro Rob]

Let's try this again. And this time, I don't want to see any name-calling. Stick to the issues.

I'll open with a quick comment about the polygamy argument when it comes to gay marriage. In principle, I don't have a problem with polygamy. In practice, I do, because it ends up being a raw deal for women, and it can tend to lead to imbalances that are harmful for society. That said, I'd be okay with giving it a try and seeing what happens.

Gay marriage, in contrast, is strictly a benefit to society in a large number of ways. The suppression of gays in times past led many of them to marry despite their inclinations, inevitably leading to broken homes and other miseries. It also led to the gay "swinging" culture and all the problems that come from that, while marriage promotes stable, monogamous relationships.

Simply put: gay marriage is better for gays, and better for everyone else as well. The only problem is with people who decide to take offense to it despite these benefits, and despite there being no objective drawbacks to the matter. And my personal view on these people is that they will have to learn to adjust.

As long as marriages stay monogamous, no big deal for me personally.

I think we'd have to overhaul our tax system, change hospital visitation rights and who gets the final say on care, estate, inheritance, child-care, etc..in polygamous marriages should someone(s) die or suffer a life threatening illness.

I don't like it -- it could be a big mess.

Then there's the parenting issue and child discipline. I don't even want to go there.

 

[randomrogue]

Same sex marriages have been legal where I live for a handful of years now. I have 2 friends who are a bit older and have been a couple for years and another friend who's been with his boyfriend for a while and they're working towards adopting a child. I don't quite understand how it's done but they can basically find a surrogate mother in the USA and pay her to be artificially inseminated and conceive with their sperm.

There is nothing you could logically tell me that these guys should be denied certain civil rights. If there is it would have to show me that they are harming people and I challenge you to do so.

Polygamy? No clue. I don't know anyone in a poly relationship. Once again though unless you can prove that someone is getting hurt it wouldn't bother me. They should all love each other in a true poly relationship. So I'll challenge people who by default are against it to show that it hurts people and even children in these relationships.

 

[alzan]

Polygamy concerns me also for the reasons Charles stated but also on a personal level; being married myself I can't possibly conceive of a reason where I would consider having more than one wife a "good thing". And I wasn't trying to be humorous.

Yes, dealing with changes to the tax code will be laborious but I don't see that as a reason not to do it. We could derive other benefits from changing it, but that's a different thread.

My only concerns with the parenting issue would be the same as they are for heterosexual couples. I would think gay parents would be even less likely to get caught up in child abuse situations, although the possibility exists. I don't think the child(ren) would be more or less likely to be hetero or gay.

 

[Retro Rob]

Polygamy? No clue. I don't know anyone in a poly relationship. Once again though unless you can prove that someone is getting hurt it wouldn't bother me. They should all love each other in a true poly relationship. So I'll challenge people who by default are against it to show that it hurts people and even children in these relationships.

I mean, just think about this for a moment -- it isn't always about love, in fact, this is probably the lamest reason to permit this sort of marriage arrangement.

One thing I learned about divorce in this country is that love doesn't matter as much as compatibility and sacrifice, willingness to forgive, etc. I bet that if you asked all of the divorced couples in this world, 99% of them would probably say love wasn't a problem... its normally, "irreconcilable differences" or over money most of the time.

Secondly, polygamy deprecates women, and would leave a lot of unmarried men in this world.

I see no benefit in allowing polygamy -- whoever wants to make it legal has to show why this would benefit society. "It doesn't hurt anyone" isn't a reason to overhaul our tax system among other things while putting the dignity and fair treatment of our women at risk.

If someone wants to change a law or make a new law, they can't put the onus on law makers to demonstrate why they shouldn't be afforded the law, but they have to give law makers valid reason to make a new law, or overturn a law. You're actually saying that polygamy should be legal be default unless it can be proven a bad idea.

Doesn't work that way.

 

[randomrogue]

I know people who have friends in the poly community and as I understand it they're pretty happy.

Is the burden of proof really on them to show that they are a benefit to society? Isn't personal freedom and happiness a benefit?

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

I think the burden is on you to show that they are hurting others since you're the one discriminating against them.

 

[Retro Rob]

I know people who have friends in the poly community and as I understand it they're pretty happy.

Good, then if they're happy already, they don't have a reason to make a law allowing them to marry.

Is the burden of proof really on them to show that they are a benefit to society? Isn't personal freedom and happiness a benefit?

Since they want to change an existing law, they HAVE the burden of proof. You can't just randomly walk into my house and ask me to prove why you can't randomly walk into my house.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Being happy isn't a right.

I think the burden is on you to show that they are hurting others since you're the one discriminating against them.

If polygamy is legal already, then I have the burden of proof. If not, polygamists have the burden.

 

[randomrogue]

This is such backwards thinking. How can you possibly post that?

I would rather stick to homosexual marriage for now since it's the thread topic but what you're basically saying is that the status quo of discrimination is ok because:

1. Being happy is not a right
2. If they are happy then there's no reason to allow them to marry
3. If they want to change the law...actually what you posted makes no sense so I'm not sure what you're saying there.

Honestly I can't make sense of what you wrote.

Once again, you are discriminating against a group of individuals because of their sexual preference. Why? Why do they deserve less civil rights than heterosexual couples?

 

[OinkBoink]

I think "love", the way a lot of people see it, is very mystified and romanticised. Obesity, bad teeth, low intelligence etc. deprecate women and men in the sense that they're perceived as less attractive and less desirable. Do you blame the men/women who find them less desirable or the men/women who are perceived as less desirable? As an aside (probably very loosely connected to the topic), there is a difference between preference and prejudice. Everyone deserves basic human respect and dignity. Apart from that, some factors are out of our hand to an extent as of now (till we can come up with solutions to address those factors). Morals are good as an ideal and must always be kept in mind as a basic framework of how to run things. But pragmatism makes the world run (even if not in an absolute manner). The universe doesn't operate on morals. We do. And we often make a delicate balance between both to keep things running and to be as fair as we can be at the same time.

I like fairness, equality, morals etc. But I do not ignore reality. It simply leads to a lot of problems. Even if we want to change things, we must first understand how they work in order to change them.

Sorry, this deviates from the original topic.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is such backwards thinking. How can you possibly post that?

I would rather stick to homosexual marriage for now since it's the thread topic but what you're basically saying is that the status quo of discrimination is ok because:

1. Being happy is not a right
2. If they are happy then there's no reason to allow them to marry
3. If they want to change the law...actually what you posted makes no sense so I'm not sure what you're saying there.

Honestly I can't make sense of what you wrote.

Once again, you are discriminating against a group of individuals because of their sexual preference. Why? Why do they deserve less civil rights than heterosexual couples?

If you walk into a country that doesn't allow people to wear red shirts for whatever reason, and you go to the President and tell him people should be able to wear red shirts, you have to show him why he should change his red shirt prohibition.

You can't walk into his country and ask that people be allowed to wear red shirts, then make him demonstrate to you why they shouldn't be able to wear red shirts. You have to tell him why you think people should be able to wear red shirts.

When YOU want to change rules, YOU have to show why, not me.

 

[randomrogue]

If you walk into a country that doesn't allow people to wear red shirts for whatever reason, and you go to the President and tell him people should be able to wear red shirts, you have to show him why he should change his red shirt prohibition.

You can't walk into his country and ask that people be allowed to wear red shirts, then make him demonstrate to you why they shouldn't be able to wear red shirts. You have to tell him why you think people should be able to wear red shirts.

When YOU want to change rules, YOU have to show why, not me.

This is not about red shirts. THIS IS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS, DISCRIMINATION, AND BIGOTRY!

 

[alzan]

If you walk into a country that doesn't allow people to wear red shirts for whatever reason, and you go to the President and tell him people should be able to wear red shirts, you have to show him why he should change his red shirt prohibition.

You can't walk into his country and ask that people be allowed to wear red shirts, then make him demonstrate to you why they shouldn't be able to wear red shirts. You have to tell him why you think people should be able to wear red shirts.

When YOU want to change rules, YOU have to show why, not me.

How is granting all citizens their Constitutional rights and protections changing the rule? If you mean striking down DOMA, we've had and still have bad laws that have been struck down by the courts or need to be. I'd rather err on the side of equality.

 

[Retro Rob]

This is not about red shirts. THIS IS ABOUT CIVIL RIGHTS, DISCRIMINATION, AND BIGOTRY!

I didn't say it was about red shirts -- it's to demonstrate why you think people should have the right to marry more than one person, and then you have to show how this will benefit society.

If you want to say I'm bigoted against polygamy, then yes I am because I care about how women are affected, and I care about the potential shortage of women for young men to marry.

You don't have the right to change laws because you personally think we should be able to marry how many people we want. This is a free country, but it has (and needs) barriers so that people can't just trample over women in polygamous marriages -- violatinf their right to pursue happiness as well.

The US isn't a country designed to cater to your every wish.

 

[Retro Rob]

How is granting all citizens their Constitutional rights and protections changing the rule? If you mean striking down DOMA, we've had and still have bad laws that have been struck down by the courts or need to be. I'd rather err on the side of equality.

I wasn't aware that there is a Constitutional right to marry multiple partners... my bad if there is.

But my point is that just because we *can* do something doesn't mean its a good idea or that we should do it.

 

[alzan]

I wasn't aware that there is a Constitutional right to marry multiple partners... my bad if there is.

But my point is that just because we *can* do something doesn't mean its a good idea or that we should do it.

When did the thread topic change from Gay Marriage and Society to Polygamous Marriage and Society? I realize you were talking to randomrogue on polygamy, just trying to keep on topic.

 

[Vaux]

But my point is that just because we *can* do something doesn't mean its a good idea or that we should do it.

I completely agree with this. Rob has a very valid point about polygamy that I agree with also. Too bad the best people can do is throw the word bigot at him (and me) and complain about how rights that people are not entitled to have are trampled on.

 

[preCRT]

Re polygamy, why are you only viewing it as one man with multiple female spouses? It can also mean one woman with multiple male spouses, or even a mix of more than one of each sex.

 

[randomrogue]

There is a strawman happening here. The issue is that people are being denied civil rights because of their sexual orientation.

 

[nehalem256]

If you walk into a country that doesn't allow people to wear red shirts for whatever reason, and you go to the President and tell him people should be able to wear red shirts, you have to show him why he should change his red shirt prohibition.

You can't walk into his country and ask that people be allowed to wear red shirts, then make him demonstrate to you why they shouldn't be able to wear red shirts. You have to tell him why you think people should be able to wear red shirts.

When YOU want to change rules, YOU have to show why, not me.

Well said. This is why supporters of same-sex marriages spend so much time screaming about discrimination. As if society has just arbitrarily decided for 1000s of years to have marriage between people of the opposite sex.

 

[Retro Rob]

When did the thread topic change from Gay Marriage and Society to Polygamous Marriage and Society? I realize you were talking to randomrogue on polygamy, just trying to keep on topic.

Yeah, you're right. But I don't have any arguments against gay marriage, and I will respect the law if they're legally allowed to marry nation-wide.

Sure, I have my personal feelings, but they really don't matter.

Now I don't think that gay marriage will somehow lower the divorce rate, or "spread more love" because they're really no different than they're hetero counterparts -- they have marital issues, argue, fight, breakups, and the list goes on.

Eventually, I think this will eventually trickle down to religious institutions to some extent because sooner or later, I can't help but to anticipate that this country will NOT indefinitely give them a free-pass on rejecting gays as members and not marrying them. Some do, but some don't.

If they can allow gays, why can't you? This is a valid question.

 

[nehalem256]

Once again, you are discriminating against a group of individuals because of their sexual preference. Why? Why do they deserve less civil rights than heterosexual couples?

There are all sorts of sexual preferences that the government does not recognize, and in fact that no one is seriously proposing to recognize. Why do they deserve less civil rights than heterosexual or homosexual couples?

 

[nehalem256]

Gay marriage, in contrast, is strictly a benefit to society in a large number of ways. The suppression of gays in times past led many of them to marry despite their inclinations, inevitably leading to broken homes and other miseries. It also led to the gay "swinging" culture and all the problems that come from that, while marriage promotes stable, monogamous relationships.

There is an awful lot of ground between stoning people for being gay and recognizing gay marriages. If the government holds a neutral view on gay relationships why would gays pretend to be straight?

I will also counter that marriage, in and of itself, does very little to promote stable monogamous relationships. Just look at heterosexual marriage nowadays with a 50% divorce rate. Do you really that that people who will be involved with "swinging" will suddenly start having a long term monogamous relationship just because the government starts recognizing such a relationship?

 

[randomrogue]

There are all sorts of sexual preferences that the government does not recognize, and in fact that no one is seriously proposing to recognize. Why do they deserve less civil rights than heterosexual or homosexual couples?

I don't have a problem with people getting the same civil rights as long as nobody is getting hurt. Clearly bestiality is a problem since you have a non-consenting partner. Same thing with necrophilia. You're not going to use a slippery slope with me.

 

[Retro Rob]

Well said. This is why supporters of same-sex marriages spend so much time screaming about discrimination. As if society has just arbitrarily decided for 1000s of years to have marriage between people of the opposite sex.

True, I don't think that we intentionally denied homosexuals marriage rights. it's just something that didn't happen, IMO.

At one point in time, there were no homosexuals or we probably wouldn't be here, so gay marriage never was even thought about.

 

[Retro Rob]

I completely agree with this. Rob has a very valid point about polygamy that I agree with also. Too bad the best people can do is throw the word bigot at him (and me) and complain about how rights that people are not entitled to have are trampled on.

No counter-argument, bigot seems to be a trump card used by some people because of the history behind that word.