LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Tau]

Are you seriously suggesting that natural marriage is no more than the companionship of two individuals? Along the same lines, do you have any idea at all of the relevant science behind the assertion there is such a thing as natural marriage?

Indeed.
There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that marriage is somehow natural, it is a relatively recent phenomenon in human society.
In fact humans are not naturally inclined to monogamous relationships, polygamy is the natural state for humans.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's somewhat simliar to the home mortgage deduction. That tax deduction isn't there because the State wants to discriminate against renters - it is there as an incentive to get people to buy a home.

Marriage benefits for heterosexual partners are not there to discriminate against homosexuals, but as an incentive to get heterosexual people to marry.

I disagree with certain aspects of that. With some tax breaks, I imagine you'd be right (though these aren't universal beyond the United States... my taxes actually went up slightly when I got married - in Canada, certain tax credits are granted per household, not per person, so while two single people can each claim them, a cohabitating couple can only claim them once for both). I think that to a large degree, marriage benefits are acknowledgements of the intent of the married couple to join their lives in a very comprehensive way.

I certainly don't think that the right of a person to make medical and financial decisions for an incapacitated spouse have been put in place to encourage people to marry. I think they're common sense acknowledgement that it's eminently reasonable to expect that, without evidence to the contrary, this is what a person would want. I think those sorts of rights of marriage have everything to do with the intent of the two people getting married, and nothing to do with their orientation, gender, or plans for children.

 

[SoyLeche]

Are you seriously suggesting that natural marriage is no more than the companionship of two individuals? Along the same lines, do you have any idea at all of the relevant science behind the assertion there is such a thing as natural marriage?

You are the one who brought "Natural Marriage" into the conversation, so the polite thing to do would be for you to discuss the relevant science if you deem it helpful to the conversation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And such a marriage is currently available to homosexuals.

That's really beside the point though. Incentives aren't there because nobody would do whatever it is you are trying to incentivize them to do without them - they are there to promote the behavior.

The behaviour in question being to get married in cases where love alone wasn't enough to make it happen?

 

[Sunstone]

And such a marriage is currently available to homosexuals.

The state would have no moral right to, say, subsidize Catholics and Baptists without offering the same benefits to Mormons. By the same principle, the state has no moral right to subsidize or benefit heterosexual marriages without doing the same for homosexual marriages. Once you start arguing that it does, you are undermining a principle of such importance as to risk cutting your own throat. If the state is right to subsidize Jones' marriage, but not Smith's, then you yourself might someday end up being "Jones".

That's really beside the point though. Incentives aren't there because nobody would do whatever it is you are trying to incentivize them to do without them - they are there to promote the behavior.

I can't make sense of what you're trying to say here. Can you elaborate, please?

 

[SoyLeche]

I certainly don't think that the right of a person to make medical and financial decisions for an incapacitated spouse have been put in place to encourage people to marry. I think they're common sense acknowledgement that it's eminently reasonable to expect that, without evidence to the contrary, this is what a person would want. I think those sorts of rights of marriage have everything to do with the intent of the two people getting married, and nothing to do with their orientation, gender, or plans for children.

Those benefits are available to anyone that wants them. I could probably give you the ability to make medical and financial decisions on my behalf if I so desired.

I understand your point though. I still maintain that those rights are there as an incentive though.

 

[SoyLeche]

The behaviour in question being to get married in cases where love alone wasn't enough to make it happen?

The incentive most likely being to provide stability to family life.

 

[SoyLeche]

The state would have no moral right to, say, subsidize Catholics and Baptists without offering the same benefits to Mormons. By the same principle, the state has no moral right to subsidize or benefit heterosexual marriages without doing the same for homosexual marriages. Once you start arguing that it does, you are undermining a principle of such importance as to risk cutting your own throat. If the state is right to subsidize Jones' marriage, but not Smith's, then you yourself might someday end up being "Jones".

If the state had a reason to suppose that subsidizing Catholocism was in it's best interest it could. Many countries have a State Church for that very reason.

I can't make sense of what you're trying to say here. Can you elaborate, please?

Just trying to say that the fact that people would get married without the added incentive is irrelevant.

 

[Sunstone]

Indeed.
There is no scientific evidence to support the idea that marriage is somehow natural,it is a relatively recent phenomenon in human society.
In fact humans are not naturally inclined to monogamous relationships, polygamy is the natural state for humans.

On the contrary, my friend, there seems to be a considerable body of evidence suggesting that humans evolved more than one mating strategy, and that monogamy is one of the strategies they evolved. Put more poetically, humans have more than one tool in their reproductive toolkit. Neither the various kinds of polygamy, nor the various kinds of monogamy are the natural state for humans. Instead, both the various kinds of polygamy and the various kinds of monogamy are natural states for humans.

The evidence for that ranges across scientific disciplines and includes such things as the neurochemistry of love and attachment, cross-cultural studies of mating behaviors, human physiology, and so forth.

 

[Sunstone]

If the state had a reason to suppose that subsidizing Catholocism was in it's best interest it could.

Are you saying the interests of the state outweigh any moral considerations?

Many countries have a State Church for that very reason.

Many countries have a state church because of historical reasons, rather than because it is actually in the best interests of their societies to have a state church.

 

[SoyLeche]

Are you saying the interests of the state outweigh any moral considerations?

As long as the people choose to support said state, then they do as far as the state is concerned.

Many countries have a state church because of historical reasons, rather than because it is actually in the best interests of their societies to have a state church.

I agree. I don't believe that it is in the best interest of society to have a state church. That's why I don't support the US having one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those benefits are available to anyone that wants them. I could probably give you the ability to make medical and financial decisions on my behalf if I so desired.

Sure, if you or I felt like going through quite a bit of effort and legal fees to do it, because there's no good reason anyone would expect that you would want me to make those decisions for you. In the case of a same-sex couple, who have joined their lives just as thoroughly as an opposite-sex couple in every way but legally, that absence of reason isn't there.

I understand your point though. I still maintain that those rights are there as an incentive though.

And I think in some cases they're being treated that way - all the states that have bans on "marriage-like benefits" for unmarried couples spring to mind. However, I consider treating these rights as "incentives" as something awful. In many cases, it amounts to taking an unfortunate, unexpected event and making it even worse.

Put yourself in a situation that happened to some friends of mine recently: the husband had a very severe (and unexpected) respiratory attack. The doctors induced a coma while the damage of the attack could be repaired and healed; he was unconscious for more than a month, and unable to talk for a month after that. While dealing with all this as well as their two little girls, his wife also had to arrange with the bank to get into the accounts in his name to make sure that the bills and mortgage would get paid. Because they were married, she was able to do this.

Now... still imagining yourself as the wife, change it slightly: rather than giving control of your husband's accounts to you, the bank gives control to a vindictive relative of your husband who thoroughly disapproves of your relationship. How do you think things would play out? Do you think the result would be good, right, fair or just?

I think that denying people this sort of an ability doens't provide an "incentive"; it kicks them when they're down.

 

[Sunstone]

As long as the people choose to support said state, then they do as far as the state is concerned.

So, what is morally right is determined by what is popular opinion? Or, am I just confused here?

 

[SoyLeche]

Sure, if you or I felt like going through quite a bit of effort and legal fees to do it, because there's no good reason anyone would expect that you would want me to make those decisions for you. In the case of a same-sex couple, who have joined their lives just as thoroughly as an opposite-sex couple in every way but legally, that absence of reason isn't there.


And I think in some cases they're being treated that way - all the states that have bans on "marriage-like benefits" for unmarried couples spring to mind. However, I consider treating these rights as "incentives" as something awful. In many cases, it amounts to taking an unfortunate, unexpected event and making it even worse.

Put yourself in a situation that happened to some friends of mine recently: the husband had a very severe (and unexpected) respiratory attack. The doctors induced a coma while the damage of the attack could be repaired and healed; he was unconscious for more than a month, and unable to talk for a month after that. While dealing with all this as well as their two little girls, his wife also had to arrange with the bank to get into the accounts in his name to make sure that the bills and mortgage would get paid. Because they were married, she was able to do this.

Now... still imagining yourself as the wife, change it slightly: rather than giving control of your husband's accounts to you, the bank gives control to a vindictive relative of your husband who thoroughly disapproves of your relationship. How do you think things would play out? Do you think the result would be good, right, fair or just?

I think that denying people this sort of an ability doens't provide an "incentive"; it kicks them when they're down.

I agree with you. It should be made easier to declare a "next of kin" type relationship - whether someone is married or not. This situation isn't unique to homosexual partners - it could apply to any number of other relationships (i.e. - you hate your dad and would rather have your brother make these decisions for you)

I disagree that what you have called "rights" actually are rights though.

 

[SoyLeche]

So, what is morally right is determined by what is popular opinion? Or, am I just confused here?

I never said anything of the sort.

How the state works may or may not be by popular opinion (depending on the structure you are working under), and popular opinion may or may not be morrally right.

 

[SoyLeche]

I agree with you. It should be made easier to declare a "next of kin" type relationship - whether someone is married or not. This situation isn't unique to homosexual partners - it could apply to any number of other relationships (i.e. - you hate your dad and would rather have your brother make these decisions for you)

I disagree that what you have called "rights" actually are rights though.

It should also be noted that marriage doesn't guarantee these type of things either. I've heard of someone who's wife died, and then he found out that when she filled out her beneficiary form for her IRA - which she had done many years before, before she was married - she named her mother and sister as the beneficiaries. The sister got everything that was in the IRA and had no obligation whatsoever to give any to the husband.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree with you. It should be made easier to declare a "next of kin" type relationship - whether someone is married or not. This situation isn't unique to homosexual partners - it could apply to any number of other relationships (i.e. - you hate your dad and would rather have your brother make these decisions for you)

From what I know of the laws prohibiting "marriage-like" benefits to unmarried couples, there may be some states where declaring a relationship like that for an unmarried couple could be struck down.

I disagree that what you have called "rights" actually are rights though.

So far, all that I've argued are actual rights are

- equal treatment under the law
- freedom from the government using gender as a qualification for a benefit or privilege

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It should also be noted that marriage doesn't guarantee these type of things either. I've heard of someone who's wife died, and then he found out that when she filled out her beneficiary form for her IRA - which she had done many years before, before she was married - she named her mother and sister as the beneficiaries. The sister got everything that was in the IRA and had no obligation whatsoever to give any to the husband.

Yes... and a married person would still be able to name the kids, a friend, or a charity as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy or estate... however, I think I adressed this when I said that the right or benefit is assumed to go to the spouse unless there is evidence to the contrary.

 

[SoyLeche]

From what I know of the laws prohibiting "marriage-like" benefits to unmarried couples, there may be some states where declaring a relationship like that for an unmarried couple could be struck down.

I would be against such a law

So far, all that I've argued are actual rights are

- equal treatment under the law
- freedom from the government using gender as a qualification for a benefit or privilege

I don't see that either of those is being violated.

 

[SoyLeche]

Yes... and a married person would still be able to name the kids, a friend, or a charity as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy or estate... however, I think I adressed this when I said that the right or benefit is assumed to go to the spouse unless there is evidence to the contrary.

That whole system should probably be revised. Homosexual marriage isn't going to fix it.