Opposition to Gay Marriage--is it necessarily hypocritical?

[_Sethbag]

It is forbearance, not "conscience", that ought to guide peoples' votes. Consider whether you would appreciate having people ban your own practices, and then act the same way toward them.

That's not quite what's happening here. We aren't making homosexual practices illegal. We are simply refusing to have the government grant those homosexual relationships a special status.

Equal status with heterosexual marriages would be good enough - it doesn't need to be "special". They just want a level playing field, and I don't see why they shouldn't get it.

It would be more like having the government no longer recognize my marriage but continuing to allow the church to perform temple sealings or any other religious ceremony.

I don't think it would be like that at all. Though, I do believe the government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether. They should recognize civil unions that embody the legal benefits that today accrue to marriage, and then let the various religions define what "marriage" means in the eyes of whatever God or Gods they believe exist.

A free and democratic society needs citizens who are willing to forbear trying to enforce their own particular opinions and beliefs on each other.

But even citizens such as yourself will insist on enforcing some particular opinions and beliefs on others. Legal age for marriage comes to mind along with statutory rape (and I'm glad the nation agrees on it for the most part)... [and some other laws I'm snipping to save space - Seth ]

This is why I said that the hurdle should be high, not impossible. I think it's very justifiable that there be a concept like legal competence to consent to things, and that laws which forbid things like sexual activity between those able to consent and those unable to consent exist. Rape, underage sex, etc. all fall under the umbrella of things which are forbidden because one party does not or cannot consent. Having a minimum legal age for marriage makes sense because people under that age fall under what our society has defined as an age where one is not legally competent to consent to such a binding arrangement, sexual activity, etc. Such laws ultimately protect the interests of liberty by protecting those who are too young to know what they're doing from being prey to those who should know better. The youth then enter into their adulthood with the most options still open to them.

[_beastie]

There are some societies in which religious ideas* are empowered by law, due to the fact that the majority if the citizens of those respective countries all adhere to one particular religion.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in any of those societies.

*by "religious ideas" I mean ideas that are justified solely by religious edict

[_asbestosman]

...and paying the extra fee...?
...and then doing that a thousand times over for all the other 'rights' you'd be missing in relation to that person...?

Really?
I think it's very easy for you to say you wouldn't care because you're not the one that has to do it.

As long as it's not prohibitively expensive, I'm fine with it.

Same thing goes with if I live with an aging relative or even just a lifelong friend in old age

So you'll make these people jump through 1000's of extra hoops because you want to 'preference' heterosexual marriage - correct?

...is the idea that the person looking to have a legal 'union' in relation to their 'aging relative' or 'lifelong friend' will have actively kept themselves away from the possibility of 'heterosexual marriage' their entire lives because they were so allured by this 'other possibility'?![/quote]
No, the idea is to have the government encourage the beneficial activity of heterosexual marriage while not having to encourage homosexual marriage. The government encourages home ownership because it is beneficial while not providing the same incentives for renting (at least here in the states).

This is the most tragic thing about this stance asbestosman: It will not change a thing when it comes to any related behaviors. Heterosexuals will continue being heterosexuals, and homosexuals will continue being homosexuals.

It's not about encouraging homosexuals to change. It's about rewarding heterosexuals for benefitting society in the vital role of producing and raising children. The government does not need to reward homosexual relationships since they do not provide the same benefits as heterosexual marriage.

The idea that heterosexuals will want heterosexual marriage less just because homosexuals can marry is ludicrous.
The idea that homosexuals will decide "Meh - this homosexual stuff is a losing street. I'm going hetro!" is nonsense.

Agreed (save perhaps in a few cases of bisexuals, but it's low enough that I agree).

The idea that if you allow people to secure 'legal unions' with a lifelong friend or 'aging relative' is suddenly going to convince people that heterosexual marriage 'isn't that appealing' is ludicrous.

I think you're right there too. That said, the government does not need to reward them the same way they reward heterosexual marriage since they do not provide the same benefits to society.

Asb - can you tell me why it was wrong to make black people ride on a certain part of the bus?
...they were allowed to ride on the bus. Correct? What 'right' was being denied them?

Race is not the same thing as lifestyle, in my opinion. That said, I think all races provide equal benefits to society. Not all behaviors are equally beneficial. Yes, I believe that homosexuals provide equal benefits to society as citizens. I do not believe that homosexual relationships are equally beneficial as heterosexual relationships to society. That is the key difference and that is why: I am a bigot. I guess I'm bigoted against bachelors too though. I think as citizens they also provide equal benefits, but they do not provide the same crucial benefits to society as married heterosexuals.

[_asbestosman]

Such laws ultimately protect the interests of liberty by protecting those who are too young to know what they're doing from being prey to those who should know better. The youth then enter into their adulthood with the most options still open to them.

At least in theory. I keep hearing about people who get pressured into marrying too young right off their missions. Did I know what I was doing when I got married at 23? No, and I've changed over the years which can make things hard in ways I could not predict. Should I be held accountable regardless? Yes. Should we up the age of marriage? in my opinion, no.

Equal status with heterosexual marriages would be good enough - it doesn't need to be "special". They just want a level playing field, and I don't see why they shouldn't get it.

Because their relationships / lifestyle does not provide the same vital benefits as heterosexual marriage.

[_Jersey Girl]

abman,

If you already addressed this, just ignore it.

How do heterosexual couples benefit society?

[_asbestosman]

abman,

If you already addressed this, just ignore it.

How do heterosexual couples benefit society?

They provide new citizens for it in the environment most likely to be best for raising them. Also, women have a taming effect on men when they are married. The same taming effect does not occur with homosexuals. The MADB poster Confidential Informant has more details on these things.

[Guest]

As long as it's not prohibitively expensive, I'm fine with it.

I think you are going to have to define 'prohibitively expensive' for us.
Bear in mind that I think - statistically - you have a fairly decent job with a reasonable wage. (If you're paid similarly to me at least - I believe we do similar jobs...). Please bear that in mind when you define 'prohibitively expensive'.

The government encourages home ownership because it is beneficial while not providing the same incentives for renting (at least here in the states).

And what does 'encourage' mean? You are saying that one of the reasons that the government 'encourages' home ownership is NOT to try and get more people to own homes...?!!

How you pay for the place you live in is an entirely materialistic affair. You are paying for a product.

Buying a 'heterosexual marriage' is not a reasonable equivalent - mainly because it doesn't accurately describe the situation. Often / usually, for the people involved, the primary motive is NOT about what makes financial sense. It's about who you have ended up falling in love with.

Hence why homosexuals aren't going to 'shack up with the opposite sex' just for the rights, breaks and benefits.
But potential renters could - of course - be swayed by the advantages of buying a home. Materialistic benefits make sense in relation to a materialistic endeavor.

The comparison is bogus.

It's not about encouraging homosexuals to change.

Then you admit that allowing the same rights for homosexuals will not alter the 'state of play' for the overall society.
It would be just as effective for the government to require places of marriage to display large disclaimer signs saying 'The government does not approve of homosexual marriage' whilst still allowing them to happen.

The end effect would be the same. Except that homosexuals - whilst still being treated like second class citizens to the extent that the obnoxious, Neanderthal-like signs would be in place - wouldn't be shelling out thousands more dollars to secure the rights they should have had anyway - in a 'fair' society.

Race is not the same thing as lifestyle, in my opinion.

Glad you had something to say after this.

You'd have had a situation where Mormons have to sit at the back of the NYC buses to deal with if you hadn't! :)
You'd have also had to answer to a situation where buses weren't segregated, but blacks had to pay 100 times the normal bus fare to 'sit where they wanted'.

As it is, you're managing to play for more time. Admirable in a way. ;)

Not all behaviors are equally beneficial.

The day you are in favour of taking away marriage privileges for infertile couples, this will make some kind of secular sense. Until that day, you are only objecting on religious grounds, and no other grounds.

I guess I'm bigoted against bachelors too though.

Maybe. But you still aren't consistent. You still haven't demonstrated you are bigoted against infertile couples. This would make you consistent.

[_Ren]

The MADB poster Confidential Informant has more details on these things.

Hmmm.

As far as I remember, CI - the last time I was discussing this with him on MAD - was quite open to the idea of 'domestic partnerships'. Unions that bestow at least almost all the same rights as marriage, but without the moral 'entanglements' of the word marriage.
I mean, we disagreed on whether it should be considered a 'right' (as in they can be federally forced upon the states), but he certainly wasn't against them in principle.

[_asbestosman]

I think you are going to have to define 'prohibitively expensive' for us.

I would certainly prefer that the sum of the fees not exceed that of a marriage liscence. In fact it wouldn't be a huge deal if people could easily procure all those things so long as it wasn't specifically for gay marriages. If it treats people living with and helping an aging friend / relative the same then I guess it's fine. I do, however, think that heterosexual couples should enjoy some extra benefits just as they currently do over bachelors.

And what does 'encourage' mean? You are saying that one of the reasons that the government 'encourages' home ownership is NOT to try and get more people to own homes...?!!

How you pay for the place you live in is an entirely materialistic affair. You are paying for a product.

Buying a 'heterosexual marriage' is not a reasonable equivalent - mainly because it doesn't accurately describe the situation. Usually, for the people involved, the primary motive is NOT about what makes financial sense. It's about who you have ended up falling in love with.

Perhaps it's not the biggest consideration for choosing marriage, but it helps to stabalize the marrige. Finances are one of the top things couples argue over. Furthermore there is a poster on this board who got married over financial considerations about healthcare for her good friend. So yes, financial considerations certainly help. Finally, the financial considerations may help encourage men to actually stick with the woman and his children instead of merely falling in love with someone else.

Hence why homosexuals aren't going to 'shack up with the opposite sex' just for the rights, breaks and benefits.
But potential renters could - of course - be swayed by the advantages of buying a home. Materialistic benefits make sense in relation to a materialistic endeavor.

Right. The parallel is that more heterosexuals will be encouraged to marry and in fact have been so encouraged. Some people never wish to own a home (I believe I heard that Jehovah's Witnesses are supposed to rent only). That is their choice and incentives won't sway them. I'm fine with that.

The day you are in favour of taking away marriage privileges for infertile couples, this will make some kind of secular sense. Until that day, you are only objecting on religious grounds, and no other grounds.

Infertile couples are often helped by medical advances. Your own country pioneered the first IVF child if I remember correctly. Furthermore, women have a taming effect on men in marriage which is not seen in homosexual relationships (according to information from Confidential Informant).

[Guest]

I would certainly prefer that the sum of the fees not exceed that of a marriage liscence.

Just how expensive are marriage certificates in the USA?!
We are talking about having to secure 100's of individual legal rights here...

In fact it wouldn't be a huge deal if people could easily procure all those things so long as it wasn't specifically for gay marriages.

I thought this wasn't so much about discouraging homosexual behaviour (since you know you can't achieve that by anything less than facism) but rewarding heterosexual behavior...?!

Have you changed your mind?

I do, however, think that heterosexual couples should enjoy some extra benefits just as they currently do over bachelors.

If bachelors don't have any kind of significant other (wife, sister, brother, cousin, friend etc.) who they want to share these rights with, then what good are such visitation, "power of attorney", inheritance rights anyway?!

Why give 'bachelors' useless rights they don't need...?

Furthermore there is a poster on this board who got married over financial considerations about healthcare for her good friend.

So 'fake' marriages are just as useful as 'real' marriages in the eyes of the state?
(Note - I'm not making any judgement call on the particular marriage you've pointed out. I'm talking about the principle. You are happy to encourage heterosexual marriage even if it is 'faked'?)

If they had a choice of a civil union, what would they have done?
If they lived in England, and had access to the NHS what would they have done?

So yes, financial considerations certainly help.

I didn't say that finances aren't a consideration 'at all'. I said that often / usually, they aren't the main motivation.

Again, homosexuals aren't going to start shacking up with the opposite sex for the 'benefits'. But a renter may well go for the buying option purely based on the financial advantages.

..can you reasonably disagree with this...?

Infertile couples are often helped by medical advances. Your own country pioneered the first IVF child if I remember correctly.

And some day we can perhaps 'zap' homosexuals in heterosexuals with a magic pill.
...but until that day - to be consistent - you shouldn't be encouraging fertile women to marry infertile men. Or vice versa. Doing such is against one of the primary reasons you have given for your 'bigotry'.

If you don't think this is anything to do with it, then please remove the reason of 'bearing children' as one of your legitmate reasons. Because you aren't being consistent with it.

Furthermore, women have a taming effect on men in marriage which is not seen in homosexual relationships (according to information from Confidential Informant).

So this is the one benefit you have left? Homosexuals need to jump through 1000's of hoops because women need to 'tame men'...?!

..that's it?

I think I'm going to need you to confirm that you are serious about this position before continuing. Because right now, I'm finding it quite hard to...