Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Steven Champeon <schampeo AT hesketh.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Interesting SWF on the gay marriage thing.
  • Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:21:19 -0500

on Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 04:28:22PM -0500, Lee Haslup wrote:
> >David replied...
> >If "marriage" has such a religious/moral implication that the government
> >should not be able to legislate the definition, then it should not have any
> >involvement, in my opinion. Why not call any union sanctioned by the
> >government to be a Civil Union (be it heterosexual or same-sex). Those that
> >want to be "Married" can have a religious ceremony.
>
> Interesting idea but it fails in a couple of respects. First, if you
> look at what is going on in Mass. you will see that it is not what the
> proponents of same-sex marriages want. Mass. had a roughly comparable
> "civil union" law which was struck down by the courts using "separate
> but equal is not equal" reasoning. Second, there are good,
> purely-secular reasons for granting special status to marriage as the
> union of a man and a woman. From a secular point of view, marriage is a
> social institution designed to encourage a stable environment for the
> rearing of children -- a provision for the reproductive potential of the
> union. Its trivial benefits may be granted, in some part, to the
> current generation but the intended beneficiaries are the next. Given
> that the institution looks to the next generation, in order to claim
> exclusion, someone would have to claim that his or her parents were not
> one man and one woman.

That's a fairly limited view of marriage as an institution; for one
thing, marriage was first and foremost used to secure social and
financial ties between families and as a result was often arranged
without the consent of the participants, such as is the case in India
and other regions to this day.

Sure, you can argue that the children of such a union were an obvious
and desirable by-product, and secured said relationships across
generations, but to argue that child-rearing is the sole reason is a
pretty simplistic summary that ignores the many other factors involved.

In the past few decades, romantic love has become the primary reason for
marriage in the West, but for a long time many cultures recognized the
legal aspects and the "protection of the children" aspect while allowing
romances on the side (for the man, anyway). And there are certainly many
hetero couples that have no intention of having children, yet we are
accorded the same "benefits" if we get married, including the rights
denied to same-sex couples in similar straits.

> >I may be wrong, but I believe that most same-sex couples fighting for the
> >right to "marry" are looking for the rights that accompany such a union,
> >rather than attempting to co-opt the "sanctity" of "marriage."

<snip>

> Yes of course, you are correct that they are seeking equal "rights" in
> the sense that they seek to compel other people and the community at
> large to treat them as if they were "married." The special benefits
> granted to married people are not free; we pay for them with higher
> taxes, increased insurance premiums, etc.

As do the married people themselves pay for them with higher taxes. Last
I checked, married people (especially childless ones) pay a lot more
taxes than single ones. I believe the term is "marriage penalty". And to
assume that gay married people would necessarily invoke higher insurance
premiums seems suspect to me. If you really want to see insurance
premiums go down, why don't we start by denying insurance to /women/?
(No, I am not advocating that, just using it as a counterpoint
illustration ad absurdum.)

As for the other rights - such as the ability to visit in hospitals,
to take care of business, etc. How do these cost you?

> The presumption here is that, when the majority of the people decided
> to put these benefits in place they had a group of recipients in mind
> (arguably committed man/woman couples and their anticipated
> offspring.) The gay marriage types are seeking their "fair" share of
> benefits intended for someone else.

No, they are seeking benefits intended for - as you put it - people in a
stable environment designed for the rearing of children, but also
available to people who, like me, don't want kids. If I wanted to enjoy
higher taxes and a certain few legal rights, all of which (I think) I
could get with the right sort of legal help, I could get married. Whee.

I don't deny that those who considered a "marriage" the basis for a
family and so forth obviously laid the structure that favored them on
many counts, and that such a structure was and is good for the country.

But it doesn't seem fair that those who don't share the desire or need
to have children should subsidize this in others, pay taxes for their
education and incarceration and healthcare, does it? By your argument,
any practice or right granted to a certain group is unfair as it forces
these costs onto the other groups whether they want anything to do with
child-rearing. I couldn't agree more. So, let's go ahead and abolish
child credits, the marriage penalty, and other discriminatory
regulations on that basis.

> For the social institution of marriage to be most useful it needs to
> have fairly simple rules.

Why? Name other "useful" social contexts in which the simplest is more
useful than others that are more complex. Racism and segregation come
to mind as counter-examples; simpler, but inevitably much more damaging
than the more complex recognition that race should matter less as a
factor in judging a person's worth than whether they are responsible,
hard-working, etc.

> Most people know what a "man" and a "woman" are and infertile couples,
> childless couples, elderly couples, etc. can still support the
> institution by observing its customs.

Absolutely - which is what those who want civil unions seem to be
willing to do. Heck, it's like the gays in the military argument. I
remember being surprised that /anyone/ would /want/ to be in such an
institution if they didn't have to be; and being surprised that the
military would refuse those who had demonstrated their desire to serve
their country, provide service, and so forth despite such an
expectation of opprobrium.

Similarly, I was originally surprised that gay couples want to be
recognized in the eyes of the state, not only for the legal rights
therein granted, but to help them demonstrate that they, too, can be
good responsible members of society. I've realized it was silly to
react that way, but at first I was surprised. Go figure.

> Check back with me in ten or fifteen years and we'll talk about your
> kids' friends, especially the boys who are growing up without an engaged
> male role-model. It is in the socialization of males that societal
> problems with the integrity of families shows most strongly.

Oh, I dunno. I grew up without an "engaged male role model", my best
friend's (hetero and "engaged") dad was manic-depressive (and eventually
divorced his wife and blew the family apart), many of my other friends
had violent, drunken, abusive fathers, etc. and many of them turned out
all right. If anything, I grew up with a respect for women that many
so-called "normal" sons of stable families lacked. It may have something
to do with the more-or-less matriarchical nature of my Maine seacoast
family, I'm sure, but I'm often shocked by what pigs some guys can be
when women aren't around. So, having a guy in the house doesn't
necessarily correspond to a well-balanced or likeable son.

> It makes you not a member of the Religious Right. Most people aren't.
> The "Religious Right," to the extent that they exist at all, are the
> useful idiots used by the secular left to delegitimize protest against
> their attacks on common sense, common understanding, and at times,
> common decency.

Lee, you could read this two ways:

- the RR are the useful idiots used by the SL to delegitimize the
protest against the RR's attacks on common sense, etc.

- the RR are the useful idiots used by the SL to delegitimize the
protest against the SL's attacks on common sense, etc.

Which did you mean? I find it easier to believe #1, given that we're
in the presence of a self-proclaimed member of said "non-existent"
identity group, and that most of the RR I've seen have been far more
offensive to any ideas of truth, justice or decency.

Steve,
in a moment of weakness but trying to avoid this trollfest...

--
hesketh.com/inc. v: (919) 834-2552 f: (919) 834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
Book publishing is second only to furniture delivery in slowness. -b. schneier




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page