A secular case against SSM

[_wenglund]

Wade, the reason that nobody is responding seriously is not that they're afraid of your towering intellect. It is that you are not a serious poster.

Riiiiighhhhtttt! Evasive response number nine out of nine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_JohnStuartMill]

Let's have the 50-year-old virgin preach sexual ethics at the rest of the world some more.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Gee, where'd Wade go? I answered his questions and he just tucked tail. I guess he must not have had a good argument.

[_Gadianton]

Your answer should be yes.

If you create a thread to be a case against SSM and the meat of the thread is to ask questions about SSM then obviously in advance, you've decided that the answers to the questions regarding SSM, no matter what they are, present a case against SSM.

Anyway, the answer to your first question is that governments aren't "sanctioning" and "bestowing benefits" so much as they are, and have been over hundreds or thousands of years, dealing with in one way or another cultural customs of marriage. Customs that essentially involve contracts between people that carry high stakes when the contract is violated or parties want to opt out. If there had never been such a thing as a divorce, cheating, or anything like that, then many secular governments might never had got involved in marriage. Formalization of marriage is merely a way for a large governments to deal realistically and fairly with disputes over what is essentially a verbal agreement and it isn't a clean process decided upon by the sages of government in a top-down fashion. Somewhere in some backwater town in Kentucky back in 1891, Jed and Nancy make this agreement in a church, there are witnesses to the agreement, but Nancy, that slut, breaks the deal. Now Jed doesn't want to live with Nancy, but he thinks he should have some way to retain his property and access to children and the government will have to get involved. See, the government doesn't have anything intrinsically to do with bestowing the "right to marry", as it is a deal made between to people who already had the right for a variety of reasons depending on culture, apparently, but has to figure out to what extent the deal was valid and gradually, from the town level up to the state, and then for some issues up to national level, figure out how to make consistent decisions about the verbal agreement considering the relationship between the parties involved and then in the relation between the parties and various governments and national institutions. It's by no means a clean process. How all these things have worked together from the church to town, to state and government level is messy. One small example that demonstrates this, for many years there was a tax burden to being married. Apparently, the wise council of Christian definers of marriage forgot that a lower tax bracket is beneficial when deciding that government bestows benefits to married people, that being married is a benefit, a gift from the government, and so on. It's a messy process that has been formalized very gradually and is in the process still, largely because it has never inherently been a matter of government defined right as Wade claims. The reason gay marriage should be allowed, is that gays want to get married, and apparently their verbal contracts are binding enough whereas that contract is dealt with in similar ways to "marriage" contracts. Within 50 years, it will be splitting hairs to speak of the two as something different.

[_solomarineris]

Wade,
Did they force you to stop posting about same sex marriage on MAD? I'm just curious, because I remember seeing a thread about banning the topic, and then you showed up back here.
Why are you so obsessed with it?

Beastie,
Let the man speak.
It's nice you expose bigoted way MADd is operated but here, thankfully owner of the board here isn't a Censorship monger. Besides it is interesting, I'd like to read what he thinks.

[_wenglund]

Hi there, Wade. I'll go ahead and do my best:

1. What reasons did governments have to regulate and sanction (i.e. extend the legal right of marriage to) opposite-sex marriages to begin with?

Well, I'm not that familiar with the history of marriage law, but as far as I know, EAllusion already answered your question, and I believe he's correct:

That said, governmental regulation of marriage arose organically and independently in different cultures generally, though not exclusively, as a means of forming, controlling, and resolving disputes over property distribution between families.

Can you cite or quote a different reason?

I can. There are several seemingly obvious reasons that are frequently mentioned both in legislative hearings and supreme court cases.

But, before I mention them, I think it might prove useful to ask a follow-up question. Given the significant costs to the government in resolving property disputes between families, what rational motive did the government have for taking on that costly responsibility?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Doctor Scratch]

But, before I mention them, I think it might prove useful to ask a follow-up question. Given the significant costs to the government in resolving property disputes between families, what rational motive did the government have for taking on that costly responsibility?

I don't think I quite follow your question, Wade. The government's responsibility is to govern. Cost is sort of beside the point, isn't it? It's is extremely costly to put prisoners into prison... So why not just execute all of them? Or, consider this: the appeals process, and prisons, and trials, and all of that are all very time-consuming and expensive... So what is the rationale for keeping things this way?

Is that what you're getting at? I guess the bottom line here, in my opinion, is that simple "cost" isn't a good enough rationale to prohibit SSM. Maybe you have an explanation for why it is, though?

[_beastie]

Beastie,
Let the man speak.
It's nice you expose bigoted way MADd is operated but here, thankfully owner of the board here isn't a Censorship monger. Besides it is interesting, I'd like to read what he thinks.

I'm not trying to censor him in any way. I'm genuinely interested in why this topic has obsessed him for as long as it has. I did start a new thread with my questions, though, so as not to derail this one.

[Gadianton]

Anyway, the answer to your first question is that governments aren't "sanctioning" and "bestowing benefits" so much as they are, and have been over hundreds or thousands of years, dealing with in one way or another cultural customs of marriage. Customs that essentially involve contracts between people that carry high stakes when the contract is violated or parties want to opt out. If there had never been such a thing as a divorce, cheating, or anything like that, then many secular governments might never had got involved in marriage. Formalization of marriage is merely a way for a large governments to deal realistically and fairly with disputes over what is essentially a verbal agreement and it isn't a clean process decided upon by the sages of government in a top-down fashion.

While I don't disagree with what you just said, and though I do think it only partially answers the first question, let me also ask you a follow-up question:

Given the sizable cost of formalizing marriage and adjudicating contractual disputes, what rationale did the governments have for taking on that cost?

See, the government doesn't have anything intrinsically to do with bestowing the "right to marry", as it is a deal made between to people who already had the right for a variety of reasons....largely because it has never inherently been a matter of government defined right as Wade claims.

Well...it is not just me who is claiming it is a right. Gay advocates have been claiming it for years--though illegitimately so. And, several state and federal judges have described opposite-sex marriage as a fundamental right and as a civil right. Also, those who understand the different types of rights, and who understand the nature of legal rights, will likely acknowledge that opposite sex marriage is a right (limited and conditional privilege) that is granted and defined by the law. If you would like me to explain further, I can.

The reason gay marriage should be allowed, is that gays want to get married, and apparently their verbal contracts are binding enough whereas that contract is dealt with in similar ways to "marriage" contracts.

I am affraid this betrays a fundamental misunderstanding as to why laws in general exist, and why marriage laws in particular have been legislated. When I am in a hurry, I may want the privilege to not have to stop at any red lights or stop signs. Is my wanting to drive this way reason alone for the governemnt to make laws permitting me to do so?

Within 50 years, it will be splitting hairs to speak of the two as something different.

Your wishful thinking aside, I do appreciate you engaging my questions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_EAllusion]

Transference of power and property management was important to the ruling classes among who state marriage institutions were the most meaningful. Dispute resolution, especially among the ruling classes, was an essential aspect of preventing violent conflict and maintaining the core functions of the state. It just coopted the human tendency to be longterm committed to sexual relationships with affairs on the side, which is precisely what you see in more ancient formal marriages regulated by the state.

But this is all really beside the point, as that's not what modern civil marriage is about at all. I'd argue that insofar as it is justifiable, the functions it performs are much closer to what Gad said. It special type of contractual arrangement.

The most popular secular anti-gay marriage argument you see right now among the anti-gay leaders is to argue that marriage as an institution is and ought to be state sanctioned to provide for procreation and what they argue is an ideal environment for child-rearing, as it provides the best case they got running in the courts where they need to provide some rational basis for discrimination. If you personally wish to argue this, go for it. If you don't, go for it. I don't think people here are particularly interested in your version of a Socratic dialogue.