Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage

[Me Myself]

Iadoption is a child-centered institution that exists to provide children with the parents that they need, not to provide adults the children that they happen to want.

Absolutely, adoption is centered on giving children a good home.

This means that if a couple of women come to the center and they pass the regulations, they are good to go and give a fitting home to a child in need.

There are a lot more children needing parents than couples ready to take em, I am afraid.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Same sex parenting is absolutely relevant to the argument at hand, for it provides an alternative reason for the advocacy of same sex marriage. You have only isolated one narrow view and characterized that view as the view of all proponents of same sex marriage.

If the argument I presented above is sound, then the supporter of same-sex marriage, if he holds to same-sex marriage on the grounds that anyone who is "lovingly committed" should be able to marry. Notice, however, that the bestowing of marriage will inevitably concern matters of parental law. If, say, two men, by marrying, acquire the ability to parent a child, then what wouldn't prevent, say, 17 individuals in a "marriage" from all "being parents" to a child?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Do you have anything other than personal opinion to support this?

Various sources of research, yes. But isn't it just flatly intuitive that, all things being equal, a child is best raised by his biological mother and father? That some people's intuitions have become so muddled as to make this observation not forthcoming them is worrying, to say the least.

 

[McBell]

If the argument I presented above is sound, then the supporter of same-sex marriage, if he holds to same-sex marriage on the grounds that anyone who is "lovingly committed" should be able to marry. Notice, however, that the bestowing of marriage will inevitably concern matters of parental law. If, say, two men, by marrying, acquire the ability to parent a child, then what wouldn't prevent, say, 17 individuals in a "marriage" from all "being parents" to a child?

um...
The fact that marriage is defined as a legal contract between two people?

 

[McBell]

Various sources of research, yes. But isn't it just flatly intuitive that, all things being equal, a child is best raised by his biological mother and father? That some people's intuitions have become so muddled as to make this observation not forthcoming them is worrying, to say the least.

Or perhaps what is worrying is so many people pushing for the not so popular nuclear family and using this as a crutch to help it along?

 

[Me Myself]

Are you implying that I am just "rationalizing" my "bigotry," then? Consider how this childish supposition can quite readily be turned back on the person who utters it: Yes, many people who have a problem with traditional marriage come up with all sorts of verbose rationalizations for their bigotry."

These sort of petty accusations are a waste of everyone's time, not to mention insulting to the person they are leveled at.

Who here has problems with traditional marriage?

Certainly not me. I am well aware both heterosexual and homosexual marraige can be fruitful for everyone involved.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let me settle it for everyone.
1) Gay marriage is OK because there is no good reason to ban it, & it serves a useful purpose for the combatants...er, spouses.
2) The issues of people marrying animals or other bizarre marriage situations have no bearing on gay marriage.
3) There's nothing wrong with finding gay marriage icky. Just do as I do, ie, don't watch.
4) There's nothing wrong with opposing gay marriage for religious reasons. But it's gonna happen, so please lose graciously.
See how simple it is!

 

[averageJOE]

My first thought was to wonder what your opinion was on infertile women marrying...

..and to the 90 year old man and woman who want to get married...

 

[Amandi]

Every person I have spoken to F2F that supports same sex marriage either supports or doesnt care about polygamous marriages so your whole original post is wrong.

 

[Curious George]

Everything you mention here, though obviously related to the discourse on marriage, would field us to afar form the OP. To be sure, I would very much so like to discuss these issues, I would just rather we do so piecemeal, focusing on certain aspects as we go along.

I do not believe that dealing with children of homosexual relationships would lead us astray from the OP. Rather, I believe that this specific relationship that exists depicts the violation of the 14th amendment in a much more pronounced fashion.

However, if you want to table that part of the discussion, then I will do so. However, discussing the recognition and connection of the family unit at all is then also straying away from the topic. Thus, we are left with what marriage is without children.

Marriage without children is a series of obligations benefits that two people can enjoy by entering into a legal contract. This contract deals with many different aspects of the legal system including but not limited to:
Intestacy law
Family law
Property law
Tort law
insurance law
Tax law
.....

Now, when we disregard the children there are still plenty of obligations and benefits concerning these areas of law. In order to deny these legal benefits and obligations to a class of individuals the state or federal government must have a rational basis. This rational basis is different depending on which 14th amendment argument that we are focusing: equal protection or due process.

So the question is not what is the reason for same-sex marriage but rather what is the reason against same sex marriage.

With Polygamy there is no equal protection claim because an individual class is not denied the right to marry. Rather everyone is denied the right to have multiple marriages simultaneously. There is a potential due process complaint though. Thus, we must have a real and substantial reason for denying such a right. This is certainly much harder to do when we subtract children from the equation. However, it is not impossible. There are plenty of cases where a person, (usually a man), has married once and then left that wife only to marry again without pursuing a divorce. This action causes all sorts of problems. A married person might expect to find certain legal benefits only to find out that they must share those benefits. This is fraud. Allowing for the illegality of multiple marriages expedites any remedies the defrauded spouses pursue and helps resolve legal issues. Furthermore, it shelters innocent parties from liability. The state governments has a substantial interest in protecting its citizens from fraud and also from decreasing monies spent on court costs and lessening the burden of the courts by decreasing the docket.

 

[Curious George]

If the argument I presented above is sound, then the supporter of same-sex marriage, if he holds to same-sex marriage on the grounds that anyone who is "lovingly committed" should be able to marry. Notice, however, that the bestowing of marriage will inevitably concern matters of parental law. If, say, two men, by marrying, acquire the ability to parent a child, then what wouldn't prevent, say, 17 individuals in a "marriage" from all "being parents" to a child?

Bringing children back in for the moment-

Economics prevents this. If we have 2 people that have one kid then that kid is going to receive resources from 2 people. Though it may seem like 3 people would be economically better than 2, we run into a problem when a child becomes children. If every female in the relationship has one child and there are two females we now get a ratio of 2:1 vs. 3:2 quick math will tell you that the child in the 2:1 relationship is going to receive better support than the child in a 3:2 relationship if all factors are equal. Now, we compound this issue by adding even more wives and we see that the limit of support approaches 1. However, this problem can be avoided if we only allow polyandry. Since women are limited in the number of children they can likely produce, then we are left with a child having more and more resources depending on the number of spouses that the woman can retain. So, if we were going to allow polygamy of any sort polyandry would be the way to go. However, with the increase of people we also affect the decision making ability of the group. More chefs in the kitchen leads to more arguments. The theory is that the more arguments the less stability. Thus, with a combination of economics and psychology we can show that more often than not a child's best interests are served by focusing the decision making authority on fewer people. We have chosen to draw this line at two. This may seem arbitrary but it is based on more psychology. We assume that people do not like to share the person with whom they are the most intimate. We have found that three is often a crowd. So, in order to provide the most stable environment we have settled on two. Must it be so? no. But there is good reasoning behind the idea.

Alternatively, spousal obligations can come into conflict. People have a special duty that they owe to what many regard as the most sacred contract. If we allow this special duty to extend to multiple people then it is easily foreseeable that these duties can conflict. While we are often free to contract, allowing people to contract away spousal obligations while retaining benefits is unconscionable. And unconscionable contracts are void.

 

[Curious George]

I'm not inclined to think so. All things being equal, a child is best raised by his biological mother and father. Adoption exists for the exceptional cases in which this is not possible (e.g. the child's parents died, the child's parents abandoned him, the child's parents are drug addicts, etc.).

Bad logic. You are saying that a child is best raised by his biological mother and father except for when their not best raised by their biological mother and father.

Moreover, adoption is a child-centered institution that exists to provide children with the parents that they need, not to provide adults the children that they happen to want.

But not so Ironically, we find that the parents children need are the adults who want them.

 

[Curious George]

There are a lot more children needing parents than couples ready to take em, I am afraid.

^^ this ^^

 

[Amandi]

Bringing children back in for the moment-

Economics prevents this. If we have 2 people that have one kid then that kid is going to receive resources from 2 people. Though it may seem like 3 people would be economically better than 2, we run into a problem when a child becomes children. If every female in the relationship has one child and there are two females we now get a ratio of 2:1 vs. 3:2 quick math will tell you that the child in the 2:1 relationship is going to receive better support than the child in a 3:2 relationship if all factors are equal. Now, we compound this issue by adding even more wives and we see that the limit of support approaches 1. However, this problem can be avoided if we only allow polyandry. Since women are limited in the number of children they can likely produce, then we are left with a child having more and more resources depending on the number of spouses that the woman can retain. So, if we were going to allow polygamy of any sort polyandry would be the way to go. However, with the increase of people we also affect the decision making ability of the group. More chefs in the kitchen leads to more arguments. The theory is that the more arguments the less stability. Thus, with a combination of economics and psychology we can show that more often than not a child's best interests are served by focusing the decision making authority on fewer people. We have chosen to draw this line at two. This may seem arbitrary but it is based on more psychology. We assume that people do not like to share the person with whom they are the most intimate. We have found that three is often a crowd. So, in order to provide the most stable environment we have settled on two. Must it be so? no. But there is good reasoning behind the idea.

Alternatively, spousal obligations can come into conflict. People have a special duty that they owe to what many regard as the most sacred contract. If we allow this special duty to extend to multiple people then it is easily foreseeable that these duties can conflict. While we are often free to contract, allowing people to contract away spousal obligations while retaining benefits is unconscionable. And unconscionable contracts are void.

There are so many combinations this doesnt even seem a factor to me. A couple with 10 kids have a ratio of 2:10 and that is just one example. If the people can afford their children then the ratio is irrelevant.

 

[Magic Man]

Various sources of research, yes.

Good, then I await your posting of them.

But isn't it just flatly intuitive that, all things being equal, a child is best raised by his biological mother and father?

No, it's not. If your only argument is to ask whether your claim is intuitive, it's a bad sign.

That some people's intuitions have become so muddled as to make this observation not forthcoming them is worrying, to say the least.

That some people believe if they use college-level words and sentences, it will disguise the fact that their arguments are nothing more than the same tired bigoted arguments that have been made over and over is worrying, to say the least.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

1) Marriage as a legal contract is simply for two people to commit to each other in order to gain certain legal benefits and to clarify certain questions. For instance, one reason for two people to get married legally is to be able to see each other in the hospital when if they aren't married, they could be denied this right. That's only one example, but the point is marriage is just a legal contract to sort out some legal issues.

No, marriage is a social institution that exists for some purpose or other. By merely asserting that marriage is "a legal contract for two people to commit to each other in order to gain certain legal benefits and to clarify certain questions [whatever these questions are]," you've simply begged the question and assumed that marriage exists for x and not for y. Another thing we might ponder on the subject is: why does the state offer these legal benefits you mention in the first place? Surely it doesn't tautologically offer them just to offer them, as you seem to imply. As for the mention of hospital visitation rights, one needn't be married to obtain such rights. There exist legal resources to obtain those rights without having to get married. Furthermore, this is not at all a compelling interest that the state may be interested in furthering, as this is a mere private matter between some individuals which doesn't concern the public good. Marriage doesn't exist, to put it simply, so that Susan can visit Bob when he comes down with a case of explosive diarrhea, or so that some individuals can "declare their love for one another" or so that you can put on an expensive metal band on your finger and invite a select group of easily-inebriated socialites to some fancy wedding reception in a Thai resort to gain their favor. These are all private reasons one may have to marry, to be sure, but none of these reasons amount to any one public purpose for having an institution in the first place. We may also wonder on what grounds we could sensibly restrict such a "contract" to only two people. For the only reason that marriage has been traditionally restricted to two people is because of some procreative clause or other, namely, that marriage exists to protect a child's entitlement to have a relationship with his own mother and father. But, for obvious reasons, you won't accept such a clause (indeed, you will outright reject it). So what basis exists now for the limiting of this ostensible "contract" to two people? Surely more than two people can enter a contract, right? All one could do is simply impose some utterly arbitrary legal threshold to limit "marriage" to two individuals. But not only would that open the door to all manners of incestuous "marriages" and the like, but that would have no rational basis to maintain and would so be completely open to challenge. Or perhaps what the supporter of same-sex marriage could do, just as perhaps he (erroneously) accuses the opponent of same-sex marriage of doing, is damn the torpedoes, dig his heels in and provide a sort of inchoate stare decisis defense to maintain the limiting of "marriage" to two individuals, leaving his position utterly arbitrary and open to challenge.

Therefore, according to you, not allowing same-sex marriage is discrimination.

Not quite.

2) Gay couples are going to live together no matter what, and they're going to have children no matter what.

A couple points on this: (I) no one is trying to disallow them from living with one another, so the first comment amounts to a simple statement of a banality. (II) Surely a couple of men or a couple of women will not have children in any meaningful sense. Rather, to "have children," a same-sex couple must either adopt or otherwise impregnate some other person of the opposite sex. But then the child is in no meaningful way "theirs" (that is, the same-sex couple's). Rather, this child is either the child of some other man and a woman, in case of adoption, and at most only one of the individual's in the same-sex couple in the case of fertilization by other means.

Disallowing same-sex marriage isn't going to stop them from doing these things. All it does is disallow them a way to sort out legal matters, as I mentioned above.

As a matter of justice (among other reasons), I don't think that children ought to be treated as a commodity to be given to adults simply because they want a child. I also don't think that we should intentionally design a family in which a child is intentionally deprived of either a mother or a father, or deprived of being raised by his biological parents. This leads me to oppose IVF and other means of artificially creating a child in most if not all cases.

3) Same-sex marriage and homosexuality are not immoral according to any morality based on harm. You can argue it's immoral or pernicious, but that's just a personal opinion of yours. For it to be useful as an argument against same-sex marriage as a legal contract, you'd need to prove some kind of verifiable harm. Legal contracts are generally not concerned with morality, but instead with practical concerns of harm.

This is just silly. If one can "argue that it is immoral or pernicious," then it is in no sense a mere "opinion" of the one presenting such arguments but rather an objective matter which reason which determine whether is true or false. Another point: as I outlined in a prior post, you can most certainly develop a consequentialist argument contra same-sex marriage and homosexual sexual acts. Just consider, for example, that if children require a mother and a father for their well-being, then instituting same-sex marriage and thus promoting the intentional designing of families in which children are intentionally deprived of a mother and a father (if not both his biological mother and father) would result in a great harm to such children. To add further, I notice that you add that "same-sex marriage and homosexuality are not immoral according to any morality based on harm." But what good reason do you have to so eagerly rule out ethical theories which are not "based on harm" (which presumably means some form of consequentialist ethical theory or other)? That is just plainly and egregiously question-begging, Magic Man. You are also assuming that marriage is "just a legal contract" when it isn't.

4) In what way are the arguments of same-sex marriage advocates incoherent of inchoate?

I provided an argument for this, but you knew that already.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people for the purpose of deciding some legal issues.

Once again, we may question whether it is the case that marriage is "just a legal contract". We may also question what grounds would permit one to limit such a "marriage" to only to people or if there are any such grounds at all. And so forth.

Letting straight couples access this contract but not gay couples is discrimination.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't, but, again, why think that marriage is "just a contract between two people"?

1) Marriage is already a contract between two people. Changing the genders of the people involved doesn't present any legal challenges. Allowing same-sex marriage doesn't require any other legal changes to accommodate it. Polygamous marriages present a different challenge, requiring all kinds of issues to be sorted out in order to make them work.

More question-begging.

2) With that said, if people want this kind of marriage and the legal issues can be worked out, many supporters of same-sex marriage have no problem with it.

The argument I provided is strong, I think, because the supporter of same-sex marriage, if he is willing to hold to his support of same-sex marriage, must deny either premise when doing so is problematic for him. If he denies P1, he will usually deny that one ought to approve of same-sex marriage on the grounds that being "lovingly committed" to someone else is a sufficient condition for being married. Doing so, however, makes it so that the supporter of same-sex marriage has no leg to stand on, so to speak, to provide a reason as to why we should allow same-sex marriage anyways. If he denies P2, however, then he has simply embraced the reductio and demonstrated his position to be absurd as it entails that he support any conceivable configurations of individuals who are "lovingly committed to one another" to be able to "marry," even if perhaps only in principle. You seem to have done the latter.

Therefore your argument fails on two levels.

I fail to see how so. I don't see much in the way of you disagreeing with either premise with the exception of the last paragraph in which you seem to deny P2. Denying P2, however, is problematic for the reasons I mentioned above.

 

[McBell]

That some people believe if they use college-level words and sentences, it will disguise the fact that their arguments are nothing more than the same tired bigoted arguments that have been made over and over is worrying, to say the least.

Thus far this is my initial impression as well.

 

[Curious George]

There are so many combinations this doesnt even seem a factor to me. A couple with 10 kids have a ratio of 2:10 and that is just one example. If the people can afford their children then the ratio is irrelevant.

Well I hope you at least agree with the stability portion then.

But I will try to explain. A male has potentially unlimited reproduction potential while a female has a much more limited reproduction potential. Encouraging males to limit their reproductive partners to one female, encourages more responsible reproduction.

Yes, it is possible that one man have 9 wives and only 2 children. However, this is not what we often see in polygamous relationships. Moreover, we are then encouraging one man to have more than one wife. Doing this takes away from the our intent to encourage more responsible reproduction.

But even without this argument we still are confronted with the stability argument and the special duty argument. The obligations imposed by marriage are statutory creatures that the state has the authority and ability to preserve and protect. Thus, the practice of denying legal marriage to more than two people will survive a due process claim. This however, would not prevent people from living in this type of relationship or getting extra religious marriages, the extra marriages would just have no legal validity. This would also take care of the fraud issue. However, the stability issue is more sensitive.

 

[Curious George]

No, marriage is a social institution that exists for some purpose or other. By merely asserting that marriage is "a legal contract for two people to commit to each other in order to gain certain legal benefits and to clarify certain questions [whatever these questions are]," you've simply begged the question and assumed that marriage exists for x and not for y.

Then aren't you doing the same by suggesting that marriage exists for Some purpose X?

The problem here is that marriage is multifaceted. However, since legal marriage is that about which we are talking, we are talking about a civil right. thus we must consider only those purposes which the government has an interest in promoting.

Consider:

Civil marriage is at once a deeply personal commitment to another human being and a highly public celebration of the ideals of mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family...Because it fulfils yearnings for security, safe haven, and connection that express our common humanity, civil marriage is an esteemed institution, and the decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self definition....The supreme Court has described the right to marry as 'of fundamental importance for all individuals' and as 'part of the fundamental right of privacy implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.'"

 

[Magic Man]

No, marriage is a social institution that exists for some purpose or other. By merely asserting that marriage is "a legal contract for two people to commit to each other in order to gain certain legal benefits and to clarify certain questions [whatever these questions are]," you've simply begged the question and assumed that marriage exists for x and not for y. Another thing we might ponder on the subject is: why does the state offer these legal benefits you mention in the first place?

Whether you want to admit it or not, marriage is a legal contract that answers legal questions for different situations. That's all it is at its base. As for why it has some benefits, it's because they are obvious benefits relevant to the idea of two people sharing a life, like sharing insurance and being the default inheritor of the others' things when they die.

Not quite.

Yes, quite.

A couple points on this: (I) no one is trying to disallow them from living with one another, so the first comment amounts to a simple statement of a banality. (II) Surely a couple of men or a couple of women will not have children in any meaningful sense. Rather, to "have children," a same-sex couple must either adopt or otherwise impregnate some other person of the opposite sex. But then the child is in no meaningful way "theirs" (that is, the same-sex couple's). Rather, this child is either the child of some other man and a woman, in case of adoption, and at most only one of the individual's in the same-sex couple in the case of fertilization by other means.

1) The first point is important because of your argument against same-sex marriage. The fact is these couples are going to do everything other couples do, even if they can't get married, so the only question is whether to allow them to get legally married.

2) You must have a different definition of "meaningful" then I do. Adopting a child makes the child the parents' in a meaningful way. A gay couple who has a baby biologically has a baby that it theirs in a meaningful way no matter how you define that term. You can't just decide that your definition of "meaningful" has to apply for everyone.

As a matter of justice (among other reasons), I don't think that children ought to be treated as a commodity to be given to adults simply because they want a child. I also don't think that we should intentionally design a family in which a child is intentionally deprived of either a mother or a father, or deprived of being raised by his biological parents. This leads me to oppose IVF and other means of artificially creating a child in most if not all cases.

Who advocates giving children to adults simply because they want a child? This whole section, though, highlights the reason for part one above that you said was banal. As I said, gay couples are going to live together in committed relationships, and they're going to have children either by adoption or by other means. Whether or not you let them have the legal contract of marriage doesn't change that.

This is just silly. If one can "argue that it is immoral or pernicious," then it is in no sense a mere "opinion" of the one presenting such arguments but rather an objective matter which reason which determine whether is true or false.

What's just silly is this response. You can argue your opinion of what's immoral or pernicious, but unless you can prove some verifiable harm, it's just your opinion. If you want something to be illegal, you have to prove some kind of verifiable harm.

Just consider, for example, that if children require a mother and a father for their well-being, then instituting same-sex marriage and thus promoting the intentional designing of families in which children are intentionally deprived of a mother and a father (if not both his biological mother and father) would result in a great harm to such children.

That's true. If that was the case, you'd have a point. Fortunately, in reality it's not the case, and children only need a loving parent who has their best interests in mind and the ability to reasonably give them what they need. Whether that's one parent, 2 parents or more and the gender of those parents are irrelevant. This has been shown through studies.

To add further, I notice that you add that "same-sex marriage and homosexuality are not immoral according to any morality based on harm." But what good reason do you have to so eagerly rule out ethical theories which are not "based on harm" (which presumably means some form of consequentialist ethical theory or other)? That is just plainly and egregiously question-begging, Magic Man. You are also assuming that marriage is "just a legal contract" when it isn't.

No, marriage is just a legal contract. That part is fact. As for the morality part, the only way to legitimately argue for something to be illegal is to show that it causes harm. If you can't show that, then you're just trying to get your personal belief imposed on everyone else. I don't know what race you are, but let's say someone wanted to ban your race from getting a driver's license. There is no evidence that your race being able to legally drive cars causes any harm. Should their personal opinion have any bearing on whether it should be legal for you to get a driver's license?

I provided an argument for this, but you knew that already.

If you mean the one that failed on two premises, then sure, but then it also failed.

The argument I provided is strong, I think, because the supporter of same-sex marriage, if he is willing to hold to his support of same-sex marriage, must deny either premise when doing so is problematic for him. If he denies P1, he will usually deny that one ought to approve of same-sex marriage on the grounds that being "lovingly committed" to someone else is a sufficient condition for being married. Doing so, however, makes it so that the supporter of same-sex marriage has no leg to stand on, so to speak, to provide a reason as to why we should allow same-sex marriage anyways. If he denies P2, however, then he has simply embraced the reductio and demonstrated his position to be absurd as it entails that he support any conceivable configurations of individuals who are "lovingly committed to one another" to be able to "marry," even if perhaps only in principle. You seem to have done the latter.

I'm not sure which part you're misunderstanding. Your argument is that supporters of same-sex marriage would logically also have to support polygamous marriages. It's not a new argument, and it's been addressed many times.

First, polygamous marriages present a lot of legal problems. We have rules in place for how marriages between two people work, no matter what their genders are. Adding more people would significantly complicate how the contract works, and so we'd have to work out a lot of issues before it would be viable. So, it's not as simple as "if same-sex marriage should be legal, so should polygamous marriages". But if those issues can be worked out, most (or at least many) supporters of same-sex marriage don't have a problem with it.

The bottom line being your argument fails because supporters of same-sex marriage don't necessarily oppose polygamous ones (and because polygamous marriages are significantly different from "regular" marriages).