The Marriage Equality Thread

[sarthaz]

That's assuming that marriage is about procreation. Perhaps it was in the stone age and up to a couple of hundred years ago even but no longer. Since society doesn't have a procreation requirement, I submit that the comparison is entirely valid and there really is no actual difference. Especially since many gay are parents or have natural children or adopt as you said.

Jan

I think the difference is substantial. You think it's inconsequential. But we should be able to agree it is an actual difference. An interracial couple is no different from a same-race couple in any capacity of any kind. A homosexual couple is different from a heterosexual couple in the fundamental building block of all mankind (man+woman=child). That's a difference, whether you think it matters or not. And in my opinion, it renders the comparison poor. I do agree with Looney, though, that this behavior is driven by a similar fear and meanness.

In any case, we are definitely in agreement on the core belief here, even if I don't agree with Joe's analogy. And he's right on one point -- our children will look back on the comments people make today with the same horror and disgust that we feel when reading Seaborn Roddenberry's remarks from barely 100 years ago. It's difficult to stomach how people can be so filled with hate.

[Jan]

I think the difference is substantial. You think it's inconsequential. But we should be able to agree it is an actual difference. An interracial couple is no different from a same-race couple in any capacity of any kind. A homosexual couple is different from a heterosexual couple in the fundamental building block of all mankind (man+woman=child). That's a difference, whether you think it matters or not. And in my opinion, it renders the comparison poor.

To quote that wise philosopher Mr. Spock (or rather, James Blish who wrote the novel) in "Spock Must Die", "A difference that makes no difference is no difference." And for all you think it's a relevant distinction, it's no more relevant when talking about same sex marriages than it is when talking about couples that don't want or can't have children for whatever reason (or none).

Jan

[Jonas]

Heterosexual marriage does not result in procreation. Heterosexual sex results in procreation.

People can have sex without being married.
People can (or could) adopt without being heterosexual.
People can get married without having children - or being able to have children.

Is there some old cultural connection between marriage and having children? Sure. Is there a logical connection in modern society? No.

[sarthaz]

Heterosexual marriage does not result in procreation. Heterosexual sex results in procreation.

People can have sex without being married.
People can (or could) adopt without being heterosexual.
People can get married without having children - or being able to have children.

Is there some old cultural connection between marriage and having children? Sure. Is there a logical connection in modern society? No.

I don't entirely disagree. In fact, I think one could make a solid argument that marriage has no function in current society. I would disagree, since I'm happily married and appreciate the advantages it provides, but I still think the argument could be rationally made.

I would disagree with the assertion that the cultural connection between marriage and having children is "old". Sure, there is a small percentage of the population who are homosexual or heterosexual without wanting kids, but the overwhelming majority of couples who get married do so with the intent of living together and raising a family of their own sexually-conceived children. There are exceptions to every commonality, but I don't think it's fair to say it's some antiquated idea that's long in the past.

In fact, I might argue that what's really "old" is the idea of marrying for *more* than sex/kids. In the long-long-ago, people actually treated marriage as a commitment beyond the convenient. There are long periods in our human history where marriage was far more about property and security than any notion of "love". And it's only the last few generations of Americans who have completely destroyed the notion of "for better, for worse". People don't work through "for worse" anymore. Is it because we live longer? Is it because women are as successful as men in the workforce and can now escape crappy marriages? Are we just a nation of entitled jerks who can't follow through on anything that isn't easy? I don't know ... but marriage isn't exactly a successful social construct these days.

As homosexual marriage becomes more prominent, it will be interesting to see statistics on divorce rates and successful children. I would bet that homosexual marriages with adopted children will actually be more beneficial to society as a whole than heterosexual marriages currently are. When that happens, I'll return to remind everyone that it's because they're fundamentally different relationships!

[Jan]

As homosexual marriage becomes more prominent, it will be interesting to see statistics on divorce rates and successful children. I would bet that homosexual marriages with adopted children will actually be more beneficial to society as a whole than heterosexual marriages currently are. When that happens, I'll return to remind everyone that it's because they're fundamentally different relationships!

I guess I'm slow. Why is a homosexual couple with children fundamentally different from a heterosexual couple with children? Or is the adoption that makes it so different? If so, what about homosexual couples who have natural children? It won't be so long before there are plenty of 'blended' families among the gay community.

Jan

[sarthaz]

I guess I'm slow. Why is a homosexual couple with children fundamentally different from a heterosexual couple with children? Or is the adoption that makes it so different? If so, what about homosexual couples who have natural children? It won't be so long before there are plenty of 'blended' families among the gay community.

Jan

It's not the state of having children that's fundamentally different, per se, but the state *before* that. It's the marriage itself that's different, not the raising of the kids; although, I guess I'm arguing that the differing state of the marriage will in turn create a differing state of child rearing. The biggest difference I would say is intent. Homosexual couples don't accidentally get pregnant unless there's some shenanigans afoot. Heterosexual couples run a wide gamut: some get pregnant and are forced to marry; some marry and get pregnant long before they want; some try for years, miscarriage after miscarriage, fertility treatments, IVF, etc -- often this sadness and loss drives them apart; some adopt or find a clever way to have a natural child with one partner. It's really only this last category, a small minority, that homosexual couples have in common with heterosexual couples. For that reason, a homosexual marriage is simply different from the vast majority of heterosexual marriages when it comes to the approach of having children.

Now, some might try to argue that having kids does not define a marriage, but let's be honest -- most marriages result in kids, or at least the attempt to have kids or adopt. So it's relevant. And for the majority of heterosexual marriages, it's just a case of one day deciding to stop birth control and start trying to make a baby. Not for a homosexual marriage. When they decide to raise a child, it's a whole different approach, one that requires much more planning and intent and often a buttload of money, persistence, disappointment, and hopefully one day joy. It's just different. And I'm hazarding a guess that this difference, the fact that homosexual couples aren't going to accidentally have kids or simply do so because "that's what you do", ultimately leads to better parenting on the average; studies already show that children of gay parents excel in self-esteem and confidence and perform better in school. Whether that comes from the level of intent and commitment behind adoption in general or whether it comes from exposure to more liberal and complicated topics that arise in a gay household, I don't know -- probably a combination of both.

I must be clear again that I don't believe one marriage is *better* than another, but I think the fact that heterosexual couples are genetically designed to create babies and homosexual couples have to find another way *is* a significant difference that must be acknowledged ... especially if you're going to claim it's the exact same thing as an interracial heterosexual marriage ... because it's not. Instead of lazily appealing to our horror at racism in our past to convince people to support gay marriage, I'd prefer an approach that acknowledges the differences and celebrates the advantages. It's a more honest discussion IMO.

[Jan]

I must be clear again that I don't believe one marriage is *better* than another, but I think the fact that heterosexual couples are genetically designed to create babies and homosexual couples have to find another way *is* a significant difference that must be acknowledged ... especially if you're going to claim it's the exact same thing as an interracial heterosexual marriage ... because it's not. Instead of lazily appealing to our horror at racism in our past to convince people to support gay marriage, I'd prefer an approach that acknowledges the differences and celebrates the advantages. It's a more honest discussion IMO.

Here's a question, and please believe that I'm not trolling - why is it significant? And why must it be acknowledged? You didn't address my point that a difference that makes no difference is no difference. You're asserting an 'intellectual dishonesty' for no good reason that I can see. To me it's the practical equivalent of 'awareness' campaigns - fine for the start of a cultural conversation but best left behind after a short time because it's immaterial.

And yes, the ban on same-sex marriages is exactly the same as the ban interracial marriage because of one key factor: It's denying rights for no valid reason whatsoever.

Jan

[sarthaz]

Here's a question, and please believe that I'm not trolling - why is it significant? And why must it be acknowledged? You didn't address my point that a difference that makes no difference is no difference. You're asserting an 'intellectual dishonesty' for no good reason that I can see. To me it's the practical equivalent of 'awareness' campaigns - fine for the start of a cultural conversation but best left behind after a short time because it's immaterial.

And yes, the ban on same-sex marriages is exactly the same as the ban interracial marriage because of one key factor: It's denying rights for no valid reason whatsoever.

Jan

I don't think you're trolling. Nor am I. I didn't address your comment that a difference that makes no difference isn't a difference because I think this difference makes a difference. It's not a moral difference, but a real-world difference. An interracial marriage is the same as any marriage. The term "interracial" barely even makes sense in the first place. So banning it is illogical on a level completely different from banning gay marriage (reasons already outlined in other posts).

And I only mention that it should be acknowledged in the context of this debate. Because what you call "no valid reason" is still a "reason", and in order to refute that reason and convince people it's invalid, I don't think you can appeal to an inaccurate analogy. It's a logical fallacy. Take something that's different but universally accepted as bad and then say "it's the same thing, you racist!!"

Everything you don't agree with is not exactly the same. I would argue that banning gambling is a denial of rights that has no valid reason whatsoever, particularly when we have state-sponsored lotteries and a retirement system based on the stock market. But it's not the same as banning interracial marriage. Banning prostitution has no valid reason whatsoever, because it creates a system of underage human trafficking and propagates slavery and disease and organized crime not dissimilar to the days of prohibition of alcohol, but far, far worse. Yet, that's not the same as banning interracial marriage either. All of these things deny rights for what I believe to be no valid reason whatsoever, but each is its own unique issue with its own unique reasoning. Joe's post is the logical equivalent of saying, "Banning gay marriage is just like cannibalism!" It draws an inaccurate correlation between two disparate things and then points out how one of them is horrible, so the other must be as well!

[phazedout]

<snip>Everything you don't agree with is not exactly the same. I would argue that banning gambling is a denial of rights that has no valid reason whatsoever, particularly when we have state-sponsored lotteries and a retirement system based on the stock market. But it's not the same as banning interracial marriage. Banning prostitution has no valid reason whatsoever, because it creates a system of underage human trafficking and propagates slavery and disease and organized crime not dissimilar to the days of prohibition of alcohol, but far, far worse. Yet, that's not the same as banning interracial marriage either. All of these things deny rights for what I believe to be no valid reason whatsoever, but each is its own unique issue with its own unique reasoning. Joe's post is the logical equivalent of saying, "Banning gay marriage is just like cannibalism!" It draws an inaccurate correlation between two disparate things and then points out how one of them is horrible, so the other must be as well!

Intersting that you should call out a logical fallacy then proceed to make an innacurate analogy to refute the logical fallacy, thus commitng the very action you are defining.
Marriage brings with it a set of rgiths and entitlemen ts (relating to estate, medical treatment inheritance and a lot of other things which I won't go in to heere). Bringing in entirely unrelated items (gambling, prostitution, I note you didn't say drug use) is a false assertion. We are talking, fundamentally about the commitment of two sentient, consenting beings to commit their lvies to each other, surely all others issues are non relevant? It is the same as bannign interracial marriage and only makes a difference if you define the purpose of marriage as having a child concived from a zygote of both parents (not currently possible with same gendered parents using exisitng technology).

Also, you assert the "majroity" of marriages are seeking to have children in this way. I am not trying to troll either but can you please back up your assertions? Provide links to surveys, studies and peer reviwed aspects to propr up your arguments.

Again not trollign (or not trying to) I simply do not see a difference, for my definition, marriage si about two sentient beings who love each other commiting to each other for a period and gaining a lot of legal protections which society has set up for this institution. To deny these rights to particular groups becuase of a quirk of biology is a denial of rights and is, to me, wrong.

Alan

[sarthaz]

Intersting that you should call out a logical fallacy then proceed to make an innacurate analogy to refute the logical fallacy, thus commitng the very action you are defining.

You are correct. I thought that when I typed it and then decided if everyone's so quick to defend JMS's logical fallacy, I should be able to do it too! Now everyone defend me!

Bringing in entirely unrelated items (gambling, prostitution, I note you didn't say drug use) is a false assertion. We are talking, fundamentally about the commitment of two sentient, consenting beings to commit their lvies to each other, surely all others issues are non relevant?

Since you don't like the gambling and prostitution analogies, how about polygamy or marriage between children or marriage between siblings or marrying your own offspring. All of these can be perceived as a denial of rights between sentient beings who love each other, but none of them is the same issue as interracial marriage. Neither is gay marriage. You may be in favor of some of those things and against others, or maybe you're super liberal and cool with ALL of them. I'm not taking a stance on any, simply asserting that each issue is different. Just because two issues involve marriage does not make them the same issue. To argue otherwise actually validates the contrary slippery slope hate-filled "argument" made by the other side. You've heard this one: "If we allow the gays to marry, then people are going to start marrying their pets and it will be anarchy!!" It's absurd -- two separate things being treated as the same to form an argument. But that's basically what JMS has done (in the reverse) and why I opened this discussion.

Also, you assert the "majroity" of marriages are seeking to have children in this way. I am not trying to troll either but can you please back up your assertions? Provide links to surveys, studies and peer reviwed aspects to propr up your arguments.

Come on, now. I don't think it's trolling to disagree with me, but asking for peer-reviewed research to "back up" something that's self-evident is a little much. If you really believe this isn't true, here's a link to the CDC's birth database where you can look it ALL up: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data_access/...ats_Births.htm Here you'll see that from the range of 2006-2010, only 6% of American women age 40-44 who have been married did not have children. While this is an increase from the 80s where it was closer to 4%, it does not support a belief that we're living in some new world order where people don't marry and have kids. Instead it shows that 94% of women who get married are going to have children by the time they're 44. I call 94% a "vast majority".

marriage si about two sentient beings who love each other commiting to each other for a period and gaining a lot of legal protections which society has set up for this institution. To deny these rights to particular groups becuase of a quirk of biology is a denial of rights and is, to me, wrong.

I do not disagree with this. I simply disagree with JMS's argument that it's the same as banning interracial marriage. It's similar, in that it's a denial of rights, and many people who support such denial do so out of hate; but it's still a different issue, and those who are for/against one would not necessarily be for/against the other. You recognize this yourself by labeling one as a "quirk of biology". Interracial marriage does not revolve around any such quirk, because it's a different issue.

Now, I've stated that I don't believe Jesus ever said anything against homosexuality, so anyone who calls himself a Christian should not be judging against it himself, but that doesn't mean The Bible as a whole doesn't mention it. There are many places in the Old Testament that claim homosexuality is wrong. The Old Testament says all kinds of crazy nonsense that I don't agree with, and the whole point of Jesus coming to Earth is to form a new covenant of Love, but the fact remains that The Bible doesn't talk about interracial sex being bad, only homosexual sex. The point here isn't that anyone should pay attention to what the Old Testament says on this issue. The point here is that it's two different issues -- evidenced by my many posts on this subject and evidenced by the fact that The Bible, likely the most widely published book in the history of mankind, mentions one specifically but not the other. And since a great number of people believe in The Bible as a holy book, their perspective on this issue is different than their perspective on interracial marriage, because it's two different things. And if you want to convince them that their belief is wrong, you cannot make some lazy appeal to racism and expect it to be effective. You have to actually address the specific issue of gay marriage for what it is.

[Dr Maturin]

I know very few persons of African descent (especially those who are old enough to have lived through some of the challenges faced by blacks in the early part of the 20th century) who find value in gay people trying to equate their dilemma with that of true injustice and inequality.

Openness of homosexuality is as accepted, on average across the Western world and even the U.S., as anything else. Whining about obtaining a legal status and in doing so comparing your supposed plight to that of the truly oppressed from days of yore is quite remarkable.

[Marsden]

I'm curious as to why marriage "equality" only seems concerned with the rights of homosexuals and not others that have their rights banned by law.

[phazedout]

I'm curious as to why marriage "equality" only seems concerned with the rights of homosexuals and not others that have their rights banned by law.

Can you gie more detail pleaase Mrsden, which others, which rights?

[Jan]

I'd like to know why Marsden chose to put equality in quotes. Is there some reason you doesn't think that allowing same sex couples to marry exactly like straight couples should be described using a different term, Marsden?

And Dr. Maturin, saying that homosexuals haven't been oppressed is disingenuous. Have gays been enslaved? Neither have any black people alive now so that's not a comparison and nobody's made it. But the pattern of discrimination and a large amount of the senseless violence is very comparable though with varying numbers, of course. The fact that there are fewer (uncloseted) gay people being discriminated against doesn't make that discrimination any less valid.

Even leaving aside more subtle aspects such as housing and job discrimination, in some places bigots going out to find somebody to beat up pretty much always list 'queers' right alongside black people with the occasional Jew and/or homeless person added for spice is common 'entertainment' on a drunken weekend. During one period when I lived in Houston, a gang was going out and setting gay men on fire just for kicks. Can you imagine having to fear for your life - even being burned alive - for no other reason than some asshole thinks you might be gay? That's just one instance that I'm personally aware of.

Jan

[sarthaz]

I'd like to know why Marsden chose to put equality in quotes. Is there some reason you doesn't think that allowing same sex couples to marry exactly like straight couples should be described using a different term, Marsden?

I cannot speak to the specifics of that post, but when I read it, I assumed "equality" was put in quotes because he believes the gay marriage movement is fighting for their specific rights to same-sex marriage, not marriage equality for all people. He'll have to clarify what he means by that and just who he thinks is being excluded, but I think he's equating it to Blacks marching for racial "equality" and then not including Hispanics.

And Dr. Maturin, saying that homosexuals haven't been oppressed is disingenuous. Have gays been enslaved? Neither have any black people alive now so that's not a comparison and nobody's made it. But the pattern of discrimination and a large amount of the senseless violence is very comparable though with varying numbers, of course. The fact that there are fewer (uncloseted) gay people being discriminated against doesn't make that discrimination any less valid.

I guess I see both sides of this. Dr. Maturin has a point in that pretty much every level of oppression that gays have faced in this country was not only perpetrated against Blacks, but it was completely legal. While hate crimes against gays like you've described are horrible, it's never been legal, and most people would find it abhorrent. But there was a long period in American history where Blacks weren't even considered human, and researching the "laws" on when it was legal to murder them (y'know, looking their master in the eye, learning to read, singing) will make you laugh while you cry. And while there aren't any former slaves living today, there are countless Blacks who lived through Jim Crow America. I think it's valid to suggest that not getting to marry is slightly less oppressive than "Colored" signs everywhere legally telling Blacks which water fountains they could use, which back entrance to the building they had to take, and where they were allowed to sit on the bus.

With all that said, though, you cannot ignore the unique psychological discrimination that gays face. You don't hear stories of Black people in the 60s killing themselves because they are Black. While treated as second-class citizens, Blacks didn't grow up being told that not only are they second class, but also it is their fault. That's something gays face that cannot be compared to our embarrassing racial history. In a much more subversive way than open slavery or "separate but equal", gays are taught that there's something deeply wrong with them, something they need to change to be right with God and to be welcomed in society. What a horrible thing to face. And if you somehow make it through that phase without a massive amount of guilt and self-hatred, then all you have to do to succeed in life is hide who you really are from the world, don't let anyone see your true feelings of love, and live your life as one massive lie.

The point here isn't that marriage is closer to the "perk" scale of social equality than, say, not being legally beaten in public for learning to read. It's that denying that perk is further enforcement of a mentality that tells human beings that they're not really human, and if they could only change the fundamental core of who they are, then maybe we wouldn't treat them with disgust. I originally got into this discussion to criticize JMS for equating interracial marriage with gay marriage, and for those same reasons, I don't think it's fair to try to equate Black oppression with that of gays. They're just so fundamentally different, and uniquely terrible.

Posting in this thread is making me deeply sad about humanity. I may need to go "ostrich" for a while and pretend the world and its people aren't as terrible as they continually show themselves to be.