Argument from Consistency Contra Same-Sex Marriage

[Amandi]

I had never heard of such a movement.

By "irresponsible reproduction" I think they mean lots of children, like the Dugars. It doesnt matter to me how many children a couple have as long as they can afford them. Oh, and no, I am not advocating any forced birth control. I want them to be able to afford their children but that is an opinion and not a statement of what should be enforced by law.

 

[Amandi]

You don't need a government to tell people to form sexually-based pair bonds with each other. There's never been a documented instance of a society in history in which people didn't in one way or another pair off in marriage. Abolish legal marriage today and people would still form marriages. This whole issue is more about what role the government should or should not have in marriage. But marriage itself is an institution that humans have always had in one form or another.

QFT :yes:

 

[idav]

I do think a lot of legal hurtles would have to be worked out. Once that is done, it is fine with me for them to get legally married.

Not really hard. My county just started issuing the licenses to same sex, without approval but the bonds were legal.

Edit: I suppose theyd need a new form with more signatures.

 

[Amandi]

Not really hard. My county just started issuing the licenses to same sex, without approval but the bonds were legal.

Edit: I suppose theyd need a new form with more signatures.

That is a good start. However I was referring to poligamy about the legal problems.

 

[m.ramdeen]

Yow Sovereign dream, I think maybe you may have used too many words when trying to make your point, possibly the meaning you were trying to bring across got muddled up in there somewhere.

For instance:

Magic Man
This doesn't make any sense. Legal marriage is a legal contract between two people. That's all it is.

In response to this point, you could maybe ask

If its just a legal contract, why do you need to get married then?

If the couple was worried about the legal issues that would arise from this new partnership, then it would be easier to just write up some contract where the couple agrees to X, Y and Z. The couple can even throw in a ring and a big party and a getaway to Hawaii if they feel like it.

So again, what is the purpose of going engaging in traditional marriage ceremony

I see sovereign dream is purposely avoiding giving the answer so I guess that question needs to be answered before this debate can move further

Am I right or am I right? :beach:

 

[Magic Man]

In response to this point, you could maybe ask

If the couple was worried about the legal issues that would arise from this new partnership, then it would be easier to just write up some contract where the couple agrees to X, Y and Z. The couple can even throw in a ring and a big party and a getaway to Hawaii if they feel like it.

You do realize that such a legal contract is not legal, which is the entire point. "Writing up a contract" is exactly what is trying to be made legal. Currently, same-sex couples in most states can't have that kind of contract. That's the entire issue.

I see sovereign dream is purposely avoiding giving the answer so I guess that question needs to be answered before this debate can move further

Am I right or am I right? :beach:

It's already been answered. The purpose of marriage as a legal contract is simply to sort out legal issues that pertain to a couple sharing their lives with each other.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the couple was worried about the legal issues that would arise from this new partnership, then it would be easier to just write up some contract where the couple agrees to X, Y and Z. The couple can even throw in a ring and a big party and a getaway to Hawaii if they feel like it.

Please explain how a contract could be drawn up to deal with any of these legal issues:

- denial of pension benefits for a surviving spouse
- inability to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes
- inability to have one's spouse covered under a "family" health insurance policy
- eviction of a couple on the basis of "no roommates" clauses in one's lease
- tax advantages of filing as a married couple instead of individuals
- the requirement to pay estate tax on an inheritance from a departed spouse
- refusal by an employer to grant leave to care for an ailing spouse (which they would be required to give for an opposite-sex married couple)

... just to name a few.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Sorry to break the news but there has been unwanted children in every generation. It is not a "nowadays" phenomenon.

Of course there have been unwanted children ever since the dawn of time. I'm not denying that. What I pointed out was that, given the availability of contraception and the loosening of sexual moral mores (e.g. sexual exclusivity, marriage being the proper context for childbearing and sex, etc.), having "unwanted children" has become more or less the norm.

But there are other examples as well. A mother marries a man has a baby and the dad dies. The mother then falls in love with a woman and marries her.

Hopefully, parents that have children are planning to have children. This includes homosexual couples. I fail to see what the problem is with parents having kids when they WANT them is.

Well, isn't it just obvious? A same-sex couple cannot "have a child." In order for a same-sex couple to come across raising a child, the child must either accidentally or intentionally separated from his parents, and in 100% of the cases, at least one of the individuals in a same-sex couple will not be the child's parent. In the case of a single man or woman artificially producing a child, the man/woman is intentionally creating a state of affairs in which such a child will be deprived a relationship with his or her mother or father, if not both. Now, just think about how selfish and childish this is; an adult in such a case is implicitly saying that his/her wants or happiness is more important that the well-being of a child. That's just children behaving like toddlers, demanding they get something of their desire because "they want it" and running roughshod over the pernicious consequences of their petty desire being satisfied.

Furthermore, the idea that homosexual parents are depriving the child of a mother or father stereotypes both men and women into certain sexual roles.

This must be a joke. The claim that mothers and fathers (and men and women generally) are not interchangeable is not controversial in the slightest. Put to one side that fact that the claim that mothers and fathers provide unique contributions to the raising of child is well supported by decades of research; mind just how banal and obvious such a claim is. That you think that mothers and fathers don't offer unique contributions to the raising of a child is not just disconfirmed by empirical evidence; it is wholly and obviously contrary to our most basic intuitions and common wisdom. But, of course, your support of same-sex marriage compels you to cling to such absurd, counter-intuitive and preposterous suppositions. It is frankly just so sad that you think it offensive or "a stereotype" to suggest that men and women are not interchangeable or that mothers and fathers provide unique contributions to child-rearing.

I have yet to see you prove why a mother and a mother or a father and a father cannot do equally as good as a mother and a father.

Well, isn't it obvious? It is because, as years of empirical evidence and our empirically-verified common wisdom reveal, a child needs a mother and a father for his well-being and that depriving him of either is pernicious to his well-being.

In fact, it is you who is making the absurd claim here: you're claiming that men and women are interchangeable, that there are no differences between men and women, that mothers and fathers provide no unique contributions to child-rearing, and that, say, a woman could be a good father, or that a man could be a good mother. As I said, each one of these suppositions is utterly wildly absurd and contrary to our most basic apprehensions. But that is what a commitment to a gender-neutral idea of marriage compels you, of course.

Finally the assumption that homosexual parents adopting children deprives a child of a mother or a father assumes that the specific child in question would have a mother and a father but for the adoption. You are making logical errors all over the place.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

To Sovereign: what does "all things being equal" even mean? You cannot toss about cliches and generalities and expect others find your opinions sound.

How does it work once you step out of your "all things being equal" fantasy and into the real world where all things are seldom equal?

"Cliches and generalities"

Please, George. One cannot have an intelligible discussion about circumstantial topics without the use of phrases like "all things being equal." To illustrate:

Suppose someone asked me: “Isn’t it better for a child to be adopted by a gay couple than to not be adopted at all?” I often hear this question loaded with two scenarios:

• Scenario A: The child lives in an institution, is routinely neglected, given poor nutrition, and often physically and sexually abused.
• Scenario B: The child lives with two loving women who are lesbians, who have stable jobs, live in a house, and have lots of family in the area.
• The question: Wouldn’t it be better for the child to be adopted by the lesbians and grow up under scenario B?

Well, sure, I guess when you construct the options that way, who will argue with you? I guess the child would be better off with the lesbians. So what’s that prove? Nothing.


I could construct two scenarios in a different way. What if the lesbians didn’t have a stable relationship, couldn’t keep steady jobs, experienced domestic violence in their home, and often used drugs. The other adoptive option was a married heterosexual couple (one a doctor and the other a teacher), who lived in the same home for 18 years, and who had already adopted a child.


Given those two options, wouldn’t it be better for the child to be adopted by the heterosexual couple? Sure, but what’s that prove? That you can construct any combination of scenarios designed to prove that a certain set of people would be better parents.



But you don’t determine public policy based on the exception or extreme case. For example, there might be some instances when it’s justified to run a red light -- like rushing a dying person to the emergency room -- but that doesn’t mean we should make running red lights legal. That’s bad public policy.


It reminds me of Zach Wahls, the 19 year-old University of Iowa student who made an impassioned appeal for same-sex marriage and parenting to the Iowa House of Representatives. His YouTube video went viral after he argued that his lesbian mothers did a fine job of raising him. Maybe they did, but you can’t generalize one’s person’s experience for an entire group of people. Just because two homosexuals were able to raise a healthy, well-adjusted child (assuming they did), that doesn’t mean homosexual couples – as a group – make the best parents.


Many single fathers have to raise children by themselves. They do the best they can given their circumstances. I’m sure some of these children will declare themselves -- like Zach Wahls -- to be just fine. But does that mean we should promote single male adoption?


The real question is whether a child who needs to be adopted is best served by a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple -- all things being equal. The question focuses on the needs of the child, not the wants of homosexuals who are politically motivated to normalize same-sex marriage and parenting.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Seriously?
The Regnerus Study?

The same Regnerus Study that the American Sociological Association obliterated in a Supreme Court Brief?

American Sociological Association: ASA Files Amicus Brief with U.S. Supreme Court in Same-Sex Marriage Cases

The Regnerus Study is the most comprehensive study on same-sex parenting that there is available at the moment. The ASA, however, being the bastion of pro-same-sex marriage and LGBT thinking, is obviously motivated to dismiss the Regnerus study to the best of their ability, for its conclusions sit at odds with their prior ideological commitments. Never mind, of course, that the ASA has also been home to the sham advocate science "research" that has come to the conclusion that "it makes no difference whether children are raised in opposite-sex or same-sex couples" based on asking same-sex parents the question: "how are your kids doing?"

Regnerus Study Controversy Threatens Debate Over Marriage and Family Issues

Family Research Council

Was the Regnerus Study on Gay Parenting Defective? | Crisis Magazine

 

[Me Myself]

Suppose someone asked me: “Isn’t it better for a child to be adopted by a gay couple than to not be adopted at all?” I often hear this question loaded with two scenarios:

• Scenario A: The child lives in an institution, is routinely neglected, given poor nutrition, and often physically and sexually abused.
• Scenario B: The child lives with two loving women who are lesbians, who have stable jobs, live in a house, and have lots of family in the area.
• The question: Wouldn’t it be better for the child to be adopted by the lesbians and grow up under scenario B?

Well, sure, I guess when you construct the options that way, who will argue with you? I guess the child would be better off with the lesbians. So what’s that prove? Nothing.


I could construct two scenarios in a different way. What if the lesbians didn’t have a stable relationship, couldn’t keep steady jobs, experienced domestic violence in their home, and often used drugs. The other adoptive option was a married heterosexual couple (one a doctor and the other a teacher), who lived in the same home for 18 years, and who had already adopted a child.


Given those two options, wouldn’t it be better for the child to be adopted by the heterosexual couple? Sure, but what’s that prove? That you can construct any combination of scenarios designed to prove that a certain set of people would be better parents.
.

You keep mmaking it sound as if its an either hererosexual couple or homosexual coupe argument.

Again, a lot of children simply never get adopted.

About unstable homes, there are background checks for any of this organizations that are to be done.

If the couple has a good stable relationship, enough economic stability and a range of other factors then they might consider the couple able to take the child, whether homosexual or heterosexual couple.

 

[Me Myself]

The real question is whether a child who needs to be adopted is best served by a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple -- all things being equal. The question focuses on the needs of the child, not the wants of homosexuals who are politically motivated to normalize same-sex marriage and parenting.

And children need homes, and there are way more children in foster care than parents wanting to adopt.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Greetings all. I am a new user here in the forums and I am hoping to strike up some intellectually fruitful conversations here. Allow me, if you will, to begin launch such endeavor (pardon me if this is not the appropriate section for this topic).


Very often it is said in the web that "there are no good arguments against same-sex marriage that aren't religious." You will find sentiments like these are prevalent in the internet. Many are also convinced that individuals who oppose same-sex marriage do so "because they are mean" or "because they hate gay people" or "because they are bigots," etc.

I think, however, that, most of the time, these accusations are simply false. I think you will find that most people who oppose same-sex marriage oppose it on the grounds that they think it is pernicious (be it socially pernicious, morally pernicious, etc.). Take me, for example. I don't oppose same-sex marriage because "I am mean" nor because "I hate gay people" nor "because I am a bigot." I oppose same-sex marriage on various grounds. For one, I think that instituting same-sex marriage (and so same-sex parenting which follows from this) is going to prove to be pernicious socially. I am also opposed to same-sex marriage because the position of the same-sex marriage advocate is either incoherent or inchoate. I also think that there are quite good essentialistc arguments that purport to demonstrate that homosexual sexual acts are immoral. And so on.

-- SD

So where is all the damage? Gays get married in many countries, are allowed to adopt, and I see nothing to suggest this is pernicious.
I don't want "such and such said so," I want real documents of real social damage and harm that has been directly caused by homosexual marriage and/or adoption.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

It's a very simple concept. Marriage is a legal contract to sort out some legal issues for people who choose to commit to each other for life or a long period of time and share their lives. If you want to attach other ideas to it, go right ahead, but that's all it is at its base.

This doesn't help one bit:

P1. If one accepts the proposal that marriage is just a legal contract that exists to join people who want to commit to each other for some period of time, then logic demands that we accept 5 men and 5 women who want to "commit to each other for some period of time" to "marry," or 187 men and 2 women who want to "commit to each other for some period of time" to "marry," or a man and his sister who want to "commit to each other for some period of time" to "marry," or a woman and her son and his grandson who want to "commit to one another for some period of time" to "marry," or indeed any conceivable configuration of individuals who want to "commit to one another for some period of time" to "marry."

P2. Individuals who accept this proposal are opposed to many such configuration of "marriage."

C: Therefore, their position is incoherent.


Wholly apart from this, we may wonder: does having marriage exist for this purpose serve a compelling interest to the state and public good? Clearly it wouldn't on at least two accounts: (I) you don't need marriage to "commit" to someone else or "share your life" with someone. Neither of these two things add up to a single essential public purpose of marriage. (II) Redefining marriage inevitably redefines parenthood. Doing so is pernicious generally, but in this instance, it is even more clearly pernicious, for this position commits its adherent to the allowing and even promoting of the raising of children in absurd environments which no one in their right minds would ever condone (say, in which 190 individual are recognized as the legal "parents" of a child).

Ah, there we go. Let's hit all of the usual points. No, that's not what's being said. When two people get a legal marriage, it doesn't require anything from anyone else, including financial resources.

Yes it does, or you're just not talking about marriage. Marriage is an institution that confers on married couples certain benefits because these married couples serve a compelling interest to the state and the public good, namely, they unite mothers and fathers to one another and to their children and thus not only make society possible (by continuing it) but also stabilize it (by securing the biological, psychological, emotional, and cultural well-being of children vis-a-vis their being raised by their biological parents). Now, these benefits don't originate out of thin air; they are reaped from citizens vis-a-vis taxation, and this is justified because the marriage, so understood, serves an extremely compelling public purpose to the public good (indeed, it makes "the public good" possible in the first place).

But even if it did, you're still arguing that we "sponsor with financial resources" heterosexual couples, so excluding gay couples is then discrimination.

No, it is not discrimination. I wrote a number of paragraphs just to allay this elementary nonsense. It is not discriminatory to disallow, say, two men from "marrying" one another if marriage exists to join mothers and fathers to one another and to their children because two men cannot fulfill the public purpose of marriage so understood. Now, if marriage really was just people "committing to one another for some period of time," then it would be discriminatory to disallow, say, two men or 198,888 individuals who want to "commit to one another for some period of time" for they would meet the sufficient conditions for marriage so understood. But, of course, I have given you a multitude of paragraphs as to why (I) accepting that marriage is just people "committing to one another" is incoherent, but also (II) it would serve no compelling public purpose and would further no public good.
[/QUOTE]

1) Your stats about fatherless families are based on families with only one parent.

No, it doesn't

That only shows differences between single-parent families and families with two parents, and the gender of the parents is irrelevant.

No, these studies show exactly that the gender of the parents is of utmost importance, for what is lesbian couple but an example of a fatherless couple, or a gay male couple an example of a motherless couple?

2) There are plenty of studies showing children of same-sex couples do just as well or better than children of opposite-sex couples.

Yes, and I gave good reason to think they are not to be confided in, namely, most of them are methodologically faulty and most were no more sophisticated than asking same-sex couples "gee, how are your kids doing" who will presumably not ever answer "well, not too good," especially given their political motivation to normalize same-sex parenting.

You still didn't show that they can't have a baby biologically.

What? Isn't is just obvious? You know, the birds and the bees? Hump as hard as they might, two men or two women alone will not produce a child.

You do realize a lot of hetero couples can't have kids without external help, right?

Sure, but when a couple of the opposite sex cannot have a child, it is because of some accidental dysfunction in the relevant body parts. Between a man and a woman, procreation is always possible in principle whereas between a same-sex couple, procreation is impossible in principle.

Anyway, the point is none of this talk about children has anything to do with whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal.

Well sure it does.

Your previous statement still doesn't apply. You said: "Who advocates giving children to adults simply because they want a child?". That would apply to anyone who thinks anyone should be able to adopt or have kids; it wouldn't just apply to supporters of same-sex marriage, if it's true.

If I am understanding what you are saying, then I agree; I think adoption should, in principle, only be available to a relevant type of couple.

Now, you're still working off the assumption that there's something wrong with a child not having a father or a mother. Once we get rid of that assumption, since it's completely false, your concerns here go away.

No, it rather that we cannot coherently "get rid of" this "assumption" and that trying to "get rid of" this truth is just to embark on a road that will prove utterly pernicious to all children.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Please don't call a comment of mine asinine and then go on to provide this kind of nonsense as a rebuttal. Nothing I've said implies something can only be immoral if it causes some verifiable harm. What I've said quite clearly is that the legal system is only concerned with things that cause verifiable harm. I've also said you can argue your own opinion on morality all you want, but it will have no effect on the law unless you can prove some kind of harm.

Two things:

(I) That (the part I bolded) is false. Again, to be sure, the US does favor a Mill-style harm principle as a legal principle, but no only are there are cases in which it does not apply, but its favoring such a principle no more shows that no other non-utilitarian style of principle are available to the application of law than my favoring buying cars with black paint shows that there are no cars of other color paint.

(II) One could very well easily build a compelling utilitarian case against same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting.

I think you need to clean your mirror. The only thing naive here is thinking there's something wrong with a same-sex couple raising kids, despite the fact that common sense and studies show you're wrong.

I think you'll find that both studies and common sense show that you are wrong. Consider again: they said the same thing about no-fault divorce: that there is "nothing wrong with parents being divorced" and that the kids "will be fine as long as their parents love them." Plus, they said, "we have a lot of studies that show that the kids will be fine." Of course, no sane person today thinks that divorce is "just fine" as long as the child is still "loved by his/her parents."

This doesn't make any sense. Legal marriage is a legal contract between two people. That's all it is.

Refer to my immediately previous response.

Sorry, but this is indicative of a lack of knowledge on the nature of ethics and its relation with law. Harm is the basis for making something illegal. It's true that sometimes the majority gets to make something illegal simply because they don't like it (as with homosexuality in the past, and same-sex marriage now), but those mistakes tend to get remedied in time. Harm is the standard, as it should be. If we just go by people's personal opinions of morality, there's no way to judge which one to go with, since they're all just personal opinions. That's why we need a verifiable standard to use, and that is harm.

Again:

(I) That (the part I bolded) is false. Again, to be sure, the US does favor a Mill-style harm principle as a legal principle, but no only are there are cases in which it does not apply, but its favoring such a principle no more shows that no other non-utilitarian style of principle are available to the application of law than my favoring buying cars with black paint shows that there are no cars of other color paint.

(II) One could very well easily build a compelling utilitarian case against same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting.

Good, then you agree banning same-sex marriages is indeed discrimination.

No. Of course not. Have you even read what I have written? This is just getting painfully childish.

This would be a lot easier if you'd pay attention. I've already addressed your question and your argument. The premises are false because:

number one ignores the significant differences between marriages between several people and marriages between two people

This is irrelevant. If you would care to notice, the first premise doesn't read "there is no difference between a 'marriage' between several people and between two people." I'm not arguing that "there is no difference between a 'marriage' of, say, two people and a 'marriage' between 189 people." Obviously, there is at least a numerical difference between such pairings. What I am saying is that, if the supporter of same-sex marriage accepts marriage on x grounds, then he is committed on the pain of irrationality to y and z. So this is not at all an objection to P1.

and number two wrongly assumes that all supporters of same-sex marriage are against polygamous marriages.

Premise 2 is the wedge premise. So the supporter of same-sex marriage is not opposed to so-called polygamous marriages. Great. But will the supporter of same-sex marriage be opposed to a "marriage," say, between the population of San Fransisco? Or a "marriage" between a man, his sister and their mother and father? If he is so opposed, then he has no grounds for such opposition and so his position is incoherent. If he is not opposed, then he has simply revealed that his position is absurd.

Not only have I attempted, I have actually defeated it. Whether you want to acknowledge it is your problem. But I'm seeing how you've managed to keep your ridiculous views for so long.

Now, two terrible, point-missing objections are not enough to defeat an argument, are they?

As I've said, if the legal issues with polygamy can be ironed out, then there is no reason not to allow them, but they're still not on the same level as same-sex marriages, which is the implication with P1.

The "same level"? Do you even understand P1?

How has he reduces his position to the absurd? You can't just claim it as if it's fact without giving some kind of support. There's nothing absurd about letting any informed consenting adults get married, whether it's two or more of them. You seem to be going with the "But...but...that's just absurd", as if everyone's just supposed to accept your assumption.

The supposition that, say, the entire population of San Francisco should be able to "marry" just is egregiously absurd, raising children in such a "marriage" with some couple million legally recognized parents notwithstanding.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So basically you think that marriage is only for the raising of children and that if you support same-gender marriage, you're contributing to making the concept of marriage more and more vague? Then what about het couples who never have children? Infertile people?

The definition of marriage has been constantly changing throughout history and across cultures. I fail to see how this is any different.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

So basically you think that marriage is only for the raising of children and that if you support same-gender marriage, you're contributing to making the concept of marriage more and more vague? Then what about het couples who never have children? Infertile people?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Do read at least the OP, please.

The definition of marriage has been constantly changing throughout history and across cultures. I fail to see how this is any different.

That's not only dubious but irrelevant at any rate. If you'd notice, I'm not arguing or saying "marriage has been x-wise for a long time, therefore, we ought to keep it that way." What matters is what marriage should be.

 

[Me Myself]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Do read at least the OP, please.



That's not only dubious but irrelevant at any rate. If you'd notice, I'm not arguing or saying "marriage has been x-wise for a long time, therefore, we ought to keep it that way." What matters is what marriage should be.

Marriage should be what is best for it to be at the society at the time.

It is best for now that marriage can be recognised in the case if homosexual couples so to value their rights and validate their union to the same extent we value heterosexual union and to give them the legal rights that heterosexual couples do share today so that they can also enjoy them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here, the irony is just bitingly forthcoming: "Bigotry," contrary to what you may think, doesn't mean "being opposed to same-sex marriage." Rather, "bigotry" is dismissing a view on prejudice and emotion rather than actual knowledge and interaction. How surprising, then, is it that you are dismissing a view on prejudice and emotion rather than knowledge on the subject or interaction with it? All you have done is tantamount to saying “I don’t have to read your argument, I already know it’s crap” etc. In which case you are just the sort of ignorant, closed-minded bigot — resting his views on prejudice and emotion rather than actual knowledge of a subject — that you claim to deplore. But we knew that already.

How much consideration do you think an argument against interracial marriage would warrant?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's not only dubious but irrelevant at any rate.

How is it "dubious"? That's plain and simple truth. The concept of marriage is not static and never has been.

What matters is what marriage should be.

Well, the West is making the decision more and more that same-gender couples should be included. What, exactly, is the issue? I fail to see what the problem is.