The Daily Harold - Latest Comments in Gay Marriage

Re: Gay Marriage

Harold Martin — Fri, 15 May 2009 11:16:54 -0000

@Byron & @Joshua
I want to thank both of you for your comments on this post. You've kept this post alive and kicking and have made it my most popular post to date and the most commented. I'm closing the comments on this post as it has indeed run it's course. Thanks again.

Re: Gay Marriage

Byron — Fri, 15 May 2009 11:07:19 -0000

By the way, I think we've probably pretty much wrapped it up. What say we each maybe make a closing statement and shut it down (or, have we already?). :)

<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Defining Decency Down</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Byron — Fri, 15 May 2009 11:06:35 -0000

Answer to your first question is real simple: it's "what you did" to get married. Because in 1982, nobody was seriously considering redefining the meaning of marriage, it was nothing more or less than getting a driver's license or anything else like that: it's what you did, and because it didn't involve any compromise of religious belief to do so, there was no compelling reason not to. 25 years ago, nobody thought about such issues as we are today; "we're getting married, so let's go get the marriage license."

Now, as to the rights (and no, nothing you said sounds harsh at all), I readily concur that I am part of a "privileged class", in that regard, and I'm not eager to give up those rights, THOUGH I'M WILLING TO IF MY STATE REDEFINES MARRIAGE. But my point isn't about having those rights, but rather that I couldn't have enumerated a single one of them to you when I applied for the marriage license, because they simply weren't in the equation; I didn't get married for the purpose of gaining any particular right, "rights" weren't on my mind at all, and I daresay that's the case for the majority of folks. It's nice that I got some, but I'm not hoggish about them, and I can easily support making sure that people have the same (before the law, not assuring anything with regard to an employer's providing of health insurance, etc.) regardless of whom they choose to love.

It's about one's motives for getting married, one's understanding of marriage's benefits, etc. For marriage to become an institution that is focused significantly on the gaining of rights is to cheapen it from the outset; that's what I'm saying.

And it's disheartening to me that you find our conversation "surprisingly civil", not because what you said was wrong, but because it's just a stinking shame that people who disagree can't have such civil conversations as a matter of course. "Civil discourse" is a rare commodity these days, but I hope our exchange can serve as a good example of it for anyone else wading through our comments.

<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Defining Decency Down</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Joshua — Thu, 14 May 2009 23:24:32 -0000

@Byron
I agree with a lot of what you say in that first paragraph. My perspective is this: marriage has never been about rights. ... I’m sure there were people who entered it for all sorts of reasons, but generally speaking, you get what I’m saying).

I do get what you're saying, but here's my question in response: if marriage is not about rights, then why did you personally get legally married? After all, your spiritual union was (I assume) recognized by a religious official before God and your community. So in every meaningful way, you were married to your wife. So why did you bother to file the paperwork?

And when you did file the paperwork, you became a member of a privileged class, granted those privileges by the government. With all due respect (and I do respect you and your viewpoint based on the interactions we've had here, so please pardon me if this sounds a little harsh), as a member of the privileged class, it's easy for you to say, "Oh, well, it's not about the rights," while you continue to enjoy the benefit of those rights if you ever decide you want them. If you are ever, god forbid, charged with a crime, your wife cannot be compelled to testify against you, and you can even go so far as to prevent her from testifying if she wanted to, under the marital confidentiality privilege. If you were in that situation, would you deny yourself that opportunity, because, "It's not about the rights"?

if we want to create other arrangements whereby we secure rights for people who don’t choose to live in that kind of relationship, so be it, but let’s not call it “marriage”.

Ultimately, you and I agree on what I think is a workable solution, which you present there. But I think that some meaningful questions can be raised to a person who chose to get legally married and who then says, "It's not about the rights." I mean, lots of people get legally married because it's just what you do, without thinking about the benefits they get from legal marriage. But that doesn't mean they don't get them, even if they remain totally ignorant of them for the rest of their life.

But at any rate, our differing worldviews are bound to produce differing policy ideas.

Indeed! I do appreciate the surprisingly civil and fruitful conversation we've had on the topic.

<abbr>Joshua’s last blog post..Wal-Mart hasn’t heard that “free is not a business model”</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Byron — Thu, 14 May 2009 17:27:59 -0000

I agree with a lot of what you say in that first paragraph. My perspective is this: marriage has never been about rights. No one in their right mind 20 years ago went into marriage even thinking of such things; marriage was entered into for love (well, I'm sure there were people who entered it for all sorts of reasons, but generally speaking, you get what I'm saying). The extra rights were fine, but not even a consideration in most people's eyes, I feel quite certain. While I agree that there are undoubtedly some gay couples who feel that rights are secondary, the continual argument centers on the rights that homosexuals are currently being denied, and how "gay marriage" would fix that. It's just a shame to me that for most people you talk to, it comes down to rights. That's not "marriage" worthy of the name.

As to your second point, perhaps "cynical" isn't the best word to describe it, but you've articulated well the vast difference between your understanding of the origin and nature of marriage, and my own. I believe that God instituted it, that though there were people who monkeyed with it along the way, His design for it is expressed early on in the Bible, and that if we want to create other arrangements whereby we secure rights for people who don't choose to live in that kind of relationship, so be it, but let's not call it "marriage". But at any rate, our differing worldviews are bound to produce differing policy ideas.

<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Defining Decency Down</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Joshua — Thu, 14 May 2009 14:11:01 -0000

@Byron
Though I don’t share your rather cynical view of the origins of marriage, I’d suggest that your argument centers, as I’ve suggested, on primarily those ancillary issues (not unimportant, I’d add, but ancillary) of securing rights. I just don’t think that people who go into marriage are terribly concerned with additional rights that accrue to themselves;

I'm sure that some gay-marriage proponents share your values, and consider rights to be ancillary. My perspective is that I can spiritually marry anybody I care to, using whatever ceremony myself and my spouse and the community we live in recognize. I don't need the government to tell me that so-and-so is my spiritual partner! State recognition of the marriage only becomes relevant when I desire to partake of the privileges that the state grants exclusively to married couples. And that's why I think that rights are inherent to the gay-marriage argument, because the gay-marriage argument always includes getting government to recognize gay marriage, and the only reason I can see to care about that is because you want the government to grant you those rights.

Though I don’t share your rather cynical view of the origins of marriage,

It stems from my view that people are, first and foremost, animals who are undergoing biological evolution. So I tend to see human behavior through the lens of, "How does this enhance or decrease the probability that a person's genes will be passed on to offspring?" From that perspective (which I don't see as cynical, although I understand how others might see it that way) marriage looks like a way of solving the problem of paternity. Females always know that a baby is theirs, because the baby came out of their body. Males have historically not been able to be sure. So marriage was a way of a male institutionalizing his exclusive right to fertilize a given female or females, thereby increasing the probability that her offspring were genetically his. To my eyes, all the other things people say about marriage--about it sanctifying the spiritual bond between a man and a woman, and such--that's all true, but it's all secondary to the basic biological urge to support one's own genetic offspring and not those of another.

<abbr>Joshua’s last blog post..Wal-Mart hasn’t heard that “free is not a business model”</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Byron — Thu, 14 May 2009 08:15:41 -0000

Though I don't share your rather cynical view of the origins of marriage, I'd suggest that your argument centers, as I've suggested, on primarily those ancillary issues (not unimportant, I'd add, but ancillary) of securing rights. I just don't think that people who go into marriage are terribly concerned with additional rights that accrue to themselves; I can only tell you that in my case, the only "right" I considered as a Christian was the "right" to have sex! :)

Marriage cannot be reduced to a "rights-grab" and retain any significant meaning whatsoever, and that strikes me as a further reason for holding the line where it is--though you're probably right with regard to the gay activists' line of reasoning.

<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Defining Decency Down</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Byron — Wed, 13 May 2009 23:38:13 -0000

Thanks!

<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Defining Decency Down</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Joshua — Wed, 13 May 2009 17:21:25 -0000

@Byron
Yes, Joshua, your eye is keener than mine

Actually, it's just "CTRL-F". ;-) I thought to myself, "I'm sure I wasn't the one who first mentioned tolerance," and then I searched.

“why was the fence put there in the first place” question; there seems to be almost no discussion of that issue.

I think that this is a valid question. The typical response might be, "Because people in ye olde tymes were bigoted assholes," but that's too flippant and doesn't really address the depth of the question.
My answer would be that the institution of marriage exists primarily to institutionalize male ownership over female wombs, so as to increase the probability that a man's familial "sons" actually carry his genes. Marriage says, "this/these is/are my women, and they shall bear only my children." From that perspective, you're right that gays really have nothing to do with it. But the institution of marriage has been extended to include a whole other set of rights that I think that gay partners should have access to. This includes next-of-kin, protection against testimony in court cases, and so on. If we could separate those rights from the institution of marriage, that would be a fine solution for me, but I think that gay marriage activists see that as a lower-probability solution than simply extending marriage to include them.

By the way, does Islam in its current form back polygamy?

My research suggests that actual practice is in the single-digit percents, partially due to the financial burden of supporting up to four separate families, but that the religious texts clearly and explicitly allow it. It doesn't seem to be similar to, say, Mormon polygamy, where the official policy is to not allow it, but it's still practiced.

<abbr>Joshua’s last blog post..Coke Zero: Break Up</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Harold Martin — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:59:38 -0000

Byron :
By the way, does Islam in its current form back polygamy? I’m not sure, but you could be right; it certainly doesn’t back “gay marriage”, of course, but I’m not sure on the polygamy thing.

Just thought I'd chime in with some links to answer your question Byron. :)

http://muslimvoices.org/isl...
http://www.answering-christ...
http://www.al-islamforall.o...
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/W...

Re: Gay Marriage

Byron — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:48:02 -0000

Yes, Joshua, your eye is keener than mine; you went back further than did I, to a conversation I'd forgotten, but you're right, I did mention tolerance. Now, it hadn't come up in our discussion, but at any rate, you are correct on that point. On to others:

Yes, I would agree that simple historical precedent, of course, doesn't argue for perpetuation, and your slavery example is well-taken. That said, I'm not sure that those who are arguing for "gay marriage" are even addressing the "why was the fence put there in the first place" question; there seems to be almost no discussion of that issue. What pressing concerns on the part of homosexuals--that could not be remedied otherwise--justify the tearing down of the fence (and as I've argued, the most frequent arguments we hear for its tearing down center on the peripheral issues of "rights" which I believe could be addressed otherwise)?

By the way, does Islam in its current form back polygamy? I'm not sure, but you could be right; it certainly doesn't back "gay marriage", of course, but I'm not sure on the polygamy thing.

Why could a law not be written to safeguard court testimony against one's...other? I'm not at all sure that we have to redefine marriage to accomplish this. And in fact your answer that you'd be "fine" with the assuring of equal rights through other mechanisms leads me to believe that that's your key issue, and not "gay marriage" at all--which again is one of the key bases of my stance.

As to the redefining, I have to call you on that one: it may not be a "redefinition" from your personal standpoint, but it certainly is when it comes to the law of the land. You or I can define anything at all anyway we please, I guess, but as a matter of the law of the land, my point stands: we're redefining marriage. And it's on that basis that I'd argue legally for the non-divorce "annulment" of my own marriage, from the standpoint of the state: when my wife and I were married, both "religiously" and "civilly", there was no difference in the very definition of marriage between the two; 27 (almost!) years ago, "gay marriage" hadn't crossed anyone's mind (well, I'm sure somebody somewhere had thought of it, but I'd never heard the term or considered the possibility as recently as 15 years ago). If the state redefines the very definition, against my will, then I believe I have reasonable cause for action.

But enough of that.

Thanks again for reasoned discussion.

<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Defining Decency Down</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Joshua — Wed, 13 May 2009 11:00:15 -0000

@Byron

Somehow, I missed responding to this one. So now my responses are out of order too ;-)

And for what it’s worth, a word of clarification: I used “jollies” more for color than anything else, not to be inflammatory, per se.

It's the association of polygamy with sex that I object to, not the term specifically. Like I said, polygamists get married for the sex the same as monogamists do, which is to say that sex is a component of marriage, but there are many other components as well.

If they agreed to those terms, though, I’d happily counsel them. I think you’d agree that’s reasonable.

I do.

Joshua, your last post is the first that I pick up on that introduces the concept of “intolerant” into the discussion;

The first mention of "tolerance" is in post #23, from you, and I think with all the confusion of respond to multiple posts at a time, that's how the word slipped into my post. But I'm happy to drop it, as I agree with you that arguing about someone being or not being tolerant distracts from the discussion on the actual merits and detriments of gay marriage.

<abbr>Joshua’s last blog post..“The war on drugs” - More than just a metaphor</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Joshua — Wed, 13 May 2009 02:58:05 -0000

@Byron
Thanks for your comments as well, Byron. I'm enjoying the conversation.

Though the historical record is not without a bit of inconsistency, one-man/one-woman has the lion’s share of historical precedent, and the backing of each of the world’s major faiths.

This hearkens back to your comment (I think it was yours) about tearing down fences. I agree that, if we've done something for a long time, we ought to have good reasons for changing it, but I submit that just because we've done something for a long time doesn't mean it's a good idea. Slavery has vast historical precedent, but we believe that we have progressed as a society to a point where we reject it. I submit that it may be time to do a similar thing with prohibitions against gay marriage.

Incidentally, as I'm sure you know, Islam, the second largest religion in the world, allows for polygamy, violating the "one man / one woman" backing that you claim.

hen in fact, there’s no “denial” going on, except in the sense of a “denial” on the part of government to be willing to redefine the institution of marriage.

What's being denied is the benefits of marriage, some of which cannot be conveyed via any other mechanism. For example, one of these is the right not to be forced to testify against your spouse.

I have no doubt that other things can be done–and I’d support them, by the way.

I would be fine with that. I don't care if you call it marriage or whatever, as long as everyone has equal access to the benefits and requirements of marriage, regardless of whether they have the same gender or not. Although not wanting to marry another male, I'm not sure my opinion matters for much.

think you conceded my “marriage loses its meaning” point, basically (arguing, of course, that it doesn’t lose its meaning if it’s redefined–but isn’t that my point?).

Actually, what I meant to say is that, to me, you don't have to redefine marriage at all to include gay people, because already I use the latter definition. So, whether it's a redefinition or not depends on where you started from.

I’d assume you’d support my ability to do that (even if you didn’t understand it), on the grounds that I ought to be able, as a free American, to enter into legally-binding contracts (marriage) that cannot be altered without my consent. Right?

Naturally. Although, to be fair, I would argue that from a torts standpoint, the contract between you, your wife, and the state has not been altered, and neither party is in default. The state still provides you with all of the benefits it promised you when you entered into the contract. As far as I know, the marriage contract between the state and the spouses never said, "And never shall we allow anyone but a man and a woman to be married," so I don't think that including gays could be interpreted as a default.

But I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong.

<abbr>Joshua’s last blog post..“Semiautomatic rifles a ‘hazard’; seizures are up”</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Byron — Tue, 12 May 2009 20:42:25 -0000

Now, for a few more thoughts. I hear your argument about my "having it both ways", but I simply disagree: I don't think that one's choice of sexual partner is "intertwined" with marriage in such a way that we ought to write our marriage laws to reflect all possible combinations. I just don't think it follows. Rather, while the libertarian in me does agree that the government shouldn't regulate sexual partners, I believe that it has no fundamental obligation to amend its laws to reflect each and every such arrangement. Though the historical record is not without a bit of inconsistency, one-man/one-woman has the lion's share of historical precedent, and the backing of each of the world's major faiths. Further, there is certainly a sexual dynamic to it, a propagation-of-the-species dynamic as well which has no function in the homosexual relationship (indeed, it argues for polygamy ahead of "gay marriage").

By the way, let me mention that while I disagree with your conclusion, I appreciate your consistency, recognizing that "gay marriage" necessarily leads to polygamy and group marriage; all that's lacking is societal acceptance of the latter, because the rational groundwork is being laid if we subscribe to "gay marriage". I think you phrase it wrongly, though; you speak of the government "denying people group marriage", when in fact, there's no "denial" going on, except in the sense of a "denial" on the part of government to be willing to redefine the institution of marriage. My original argument--unrefuted--is that all Americans have always had equal rights when it comes to marriage: any unmarried man can legally marry any unmarried woman not related by blood. This is not about equal rights to marry (remember, H, I am talking about 'equal rights to marry', not suggesting that all rights are equal in all/other ways). To secure those rights, I think other means can be undertaken short of radically redefining this institution; I have no doubt that other things can be done--and I'd support them, by the way.

I think you conceded my "marriage loses its meaning" point, basically (arguing, of course, that it doesn't lose its meaning if it's redefined--but isn't that my point?). My point would be this: I didn't sign up for this diminished definition of marriage, and in the event some loony court in the state I live redefines it thusly, I will seek legal remedy to have that state remove its legal recognition of my marriage; I've actually contacted a legal society about that very thing. I'd assume you'd support my ability to do that (even if you didn't understand it), on the grounds that I ought to be able, as a free American, to enter into legally-binding contracts (marriage) that cannot be altered without my consent. Right?

Once again, great discussion, and I appreciate your spirit.

<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Who’s Responsible for Freddie and Fannie Failing?</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Byron — Tue, 12 May 2009 11:06:28 -0000

Joshua,

First, thanks for a good discussion that seeks to understand and be understood, rather than flamethrow--which is what altogether too many of these things turn into. And for what it's worth, a word of clarification: I used "jollies" more for color than anything else, not to be inflammatory, per se. Further dealing with another side point, I think that the ethical thing to do would be at least similar to what you suggest--and this, by the way, is the approach I take with every counselee: I let folks know right up front where I come from, that I attempt to take the Bible as my guide for counsel rather than psychological theories and the like (not that I always get it right, I'm sure), but it's on that basis that I counsel anyone, and I'd be sure to be doubly clear about that fact before I counseled a homosexual couple. If they agreed to those terms, though, I'd happily counsel them. I think you'd agree that's reasonable.

OK, my time is limited, so this'll have to be a couple of posts to address the issues you raise. Joshua, your last post is the first that I pick up on that introduces the concept of "intolerant" into the discussion; I didn't use that word (one way or the other) in my response (and I read it twice to make sure). This opens, of course, a whole can of worms, but I just say that to make it clear that you've introduced a new value into the discussion, the value of "tolerance", which shifts the discussion at least a little bit. But I'm happy to address it (though a treatise worthy of the topic is way too long for a little blog post here!). :)

Several thoughts about "tolerance":
1. It is overrated as a virtue. I'd argue that while it's a virtue, it's only as good as its "object" and its definition. There are many things in life we ought to rightly be quite intolerant of; the $64,000 question is, which ones? But to elevate tolerance to the level of virtue it has been is, I think, to value it too much, at least in its "naked" form.

2. Its very meaning has been subtly redefined over the course of the last generation. "Tolerance" used to mean, "live and let live", effectively; I think that my words about the government not having a place in overseeing the sexual decisions of its citizens, for instance, is a perfect example of the real meaning of the word. That's different, though, from the definition of many today (don't know if it's yours or not), which suggests that it's "intolerant" to make value judgments. For instance, I believe the government should not prevent you from living with whomever you choose. I also believe that some of the choices you could make would be immoral--while others would be moral (at least potentially). The new definition of "tolerance" would in the eyes of some preclude my second statement, suggesting that I'm "intolerant" if I reject some lifestyle choices, some values, as being immoral or what-have-you. I utterly reject that definition.

Now, with those caveats, I suppose that one could argue that my attitude is one of "intolerance" (or that, more specifically, I'd defend that type of "intolerance" on the part of a business). If you want to define it that way, I suppose I'd plead "guilty", and believe that this is one of those issues upon which a company ought to have the prerogative to make those choices, to be "intolerant". I think there are good reasons to uphold marriage, to not alter its definition, to prefer "traditional marriage" to any other arrangement, to write such preference into a company's policies. If that's "intolerant", I say, so be it, but it seems to me that that falls under one of the appropriate senses of being "intolerant"

I'd ask you, would it be "intolerant" for a company to deny insurance benefits to polyamorous people? I honestly don't know what you'd say to that; I'm curious. And if four men and seven women wanted to solemnify their orgy (sorry, I WILL call that "jollies") as a "group marriage", would a company be intolerant to refuse insurance benefits?

At some point, there's also an economic factor...but that's beyond the scope of "gay marriage" benefits discussions, I appreciate.

More later.

<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Who’s Responsible for Freddie and Fannie Failing?</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Joshua — Mon, 11 May 2009 23:26:56 -0000

@Byron

I agree that companies can decide who they do and don't want to cover with their health insurance programs. Individual liberty and all. I just disagree with you as to whether denying coverage solely based on genitals is intolerant. You said that it's not intolerant; I think it is. If a company is going to grant coverage to heterosexual spouses, I don't see why they would deny it to homosexual partners, except for an intolerant attitude towards homosexuality.

As to the "Bosom Buddies" scenario: when I looked into getting "domestic partnership" coverage for my heterosexual-but-not-married partner, the paperwork that I filled out made no distinction based on whether we were in love, having sex, or any of the other markers of spouse-hood. It defined "domestic partner" as, "Living together for at least X years, sharing finances," and so forth. By the insurance company's own rules, if the "Bosom Buddies" decided to file for domestic partnership coverage, it wouldn't matter whether they were actually lovers or not. So it turns out that situation is already covered, and is not a problem.

Perhaps I miss what you’re saying, but it seems like you’ve made a both-ways argument. You suggest that there is a reason why the government does involve itself in matters of who can marry who (incest), and then suggest that it ought not involve itself. Right? Am I missing something? Correct me if I’m wrong.

I'll go back to my closing statement, which was, "If you agree with me that the government should not be involved in a person’s sexual preferences, then it seems inconsistent for you to say that the government should be involved who a person can and can’t marry." You seemed to agree that the government should stay "out of the bedroom" when you said, "it’s not the government’s business who my sexual partner is." Then you say that the government SHOULD define who my marital partner is. I'm saying that, as the law stands today, those two things are intertwined, and you can't have it both ways. The government's decisions about who can marry are tied up with who the government thinks should be having sex with each other. If you agree that the government has the right to tell you who not to have sex with, then that's fine. But if you think the government should stay "out of the bedroom," then you have to either get the government out of the institution of marriage or separate marriage and sex. Either way, the gays get marriage if they want it.

Further, by your logic, polygamy and group marriage are easily justified, right? Because if it’s not the government’s business who a person can and cannot marry, and if there exists a subset of people who are polygamous, then what’s to deny them legally-sanctioned marriage, if that’s how they get their sexual jollies? I’ve never heard a “gay marriage” advocate give a reasoned response to that question, and I’ve asked it on several occasions

I don't think that the government has any right to deny people group marriage if that's what they want. I agree with you that people who support gay marriage must also logically support polygamous marriage. That's my reasoned response. I think that people who are pro-gay but anti-polygamy are probably not thinking their reasoning through fully.

And before you ask (if you were going to ask, and no offense, but people have asked this) yes, I draw the line at marriage to animals, because I don't think that animals can give meaningful consent.

Oh, and a side note: monogamous people don't get married for "sexual jollies," so please don't accuse polygamous people of getting married for that reason. Polygamous people get married for the same reasons you did, they just didn't stop at one. Yes, sex is in there. No, it's not about "jollies".

to which I say, at what point does marriage lose its meaning?

If you define marriage as between a single man and a woman, then it loses its meaning immediately. But if you define marriage as "between two or more people who love each other and want to commit their lives mutually to each other," then none of this threatens it at all.

I would always counsel immediate divorce for a homosexual couple. That’s not real germane to the discussion, but I just found it odd when I thought about it…

I suspect that, given your opinions on the matter, the ethical thing would be to recuse yourself from counseling a homosexual couple.

<abbr>Joshua’s last blog post..Law Enforcement: (not) The most dangerous occupation</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Byron — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:50:28 -0000

Now to your first (I really have no answer as to why I'm answering them backwards...): :)

Perhaps I miss what you're saying, but it seems like you've made a both-ways argument. You suggest that there is a reason why the government does involve itself in matters of who can marry who (incest), and then suggest that it ought not involve itself. Right? Am I missing something? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Further, by your logic, polygamy and group marriage are easily justified, right? Because if it's not the government's business who a person can and cannot marry, and if there exists a subset of people who are polygamous, then what's to deny them legally-sanctioned marriage, if that's how they get their sexual jollies? I've never heard a "gay marriage" advocate give a reasoned response to that question, and I've asked it on several occasions. Of course, someone (was it you? I didn't read all the back comments.) came out in favor of polygamy, etc., to which I say, at what point does marriage lose its meaning? I'd argue that it does so when it varies from the one-man/one-woman concept that, with some exceptions I grant, has generally been the standard for millennia.

I've come to the belief that we'd all be better off if the government got out of the marriage business altogether; that's the way it was for the majority of America's history, by the way. I think we could live with doing it again that way, and then I'd not have to worry that the power of the state was being used--as it already has been--to attempt to coerce children, for instance, into conforming to a particular view of marriage.

Finally, and this is related, but a side point: I've been a pastor for over 20 years now, performing about 60 weddings and doing marital counseling. It dawned on me a few weeks ago that, if "gay marriage" were to become the law of the land, my counsel to any counselees would differ regarding the marriage question depending on their particular situation. I never counsel divorce for heterosexual couples (I have on occasion reluctantly counseled separation); I would always counsel immediate divorce for a homosexual couple. That's not real germane to the discussion, but I just found it odd when I thought about it...

<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Who’s Responsible for Freddie and Fannie Failing?</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Byron — Mon, 11 May 2009 21:38:22 -0000

Joshua,

Good responses, and I'll try to answer as best I can. Last question first: I wouldn't phrase it the way you chose. Rather, I'd say that, first off, it's up to individual companies to determine what benefits they extend to their employees...and the word "benefits" is crucial; there's no obligation for a company to extend any particular benefit. Of course, companies then live with the consequences of their decisions, but point is, it's their choice. On that basis, then, I'd argue that's it's really none of my business what a company decides to do. If that company wants to limit benefits to those related by marriage or birth, I think that's fine--and if they want to deny the extension of benefits to people who don't fit that description, I'm fine with that as well, regardless of who happens to live in the house with the employee. If they're "live-ins" of the opposite sex, I'm cool with a company determining that they believe that type of living arrangement runs counter to the company's moral stance, and thus would not extend benefits; same argument would cause me to, I suppose, argue that the company is free to "deny health insurance" in the manner you describe above, because I believe a company ought to be free to determine which benefits it extends to its employees. If I were running the company, I'd not extend healthcare benefits to "domestic partners" of any stripe--and I believe that companies ought to be free to make that decision and follow the dictates of company policy, just as Chick-fil-A, for instance, refuses to open on Sundays; they ought to be free to make those calls.

One other question I'd have, by which I don't mean to cheapen the debate and thus won't dwell on, but which I do think is worth at least mentioning, is this: why would not two (healthily heterosexual) guys who choose to live together and share expenses not themselves clamor for coverage under such a scenario (I guess sort of a "Bosom Buddies" situation). You KNOW that this will happen, already is happening undoubtedly. All sorts of cans of worms are opened, it seems to me, but the bottom line is that I believe a private company ought to be free to insure whomever it pleases, and to deny coverage to whomever it pleases.

<abbr>Byron’s last blog post..Who’s Responsible for Freddie and Fannie Failing?</abbr>

Re: Gay Marriage

Joshua — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:37:17 -0000

@Byron
But refusing to radically redefine marriage just so somebody can have the possibility of health insurance is not being “intolerant” in the least.

Gay marriage is about more than just health insurance, but even if it was just about health insurance... Is what you're saying here that you agree with denying health insurance to a person who fits the criteria for having health insurance in every way except that they have the same genitals as their life-partner?

Re: Gay Marriage

Joshua — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:31:26 -0000

@Harold Martin
As for those who want to tout the whole “marriage is for procreation” angle

If marriage were for procreation, then infertile people would not be allowed to marry. This argument doesn't even begin to hold water, and it's easy to point out the inconsistency to anybody who throws it up.

Re: Gay Marriage

Joshua — Mon, 11 May 2009 12:28:46 -0000

@Byron
Finally, I agree with Joshua on one thing in his final point: it’s not the government’s business who my sexual partner is. But again, that’s a totally different issue from the redefinition of the institution of marriage itself.

What you seem to be saying is that a person's sex life is none of the government's business, but the government can define the parameters of the institution of marriage. But sex and marriage are legally intertwined. The government doesn't allow siblings to get married--how come? Because siblings produce inbred kids when they have sex.

In the context of a discussion between you and me, we could agree to separate sex from the institution of marriage and discuss them separately, but speaking about the government and the institution that exists in America right now, sex and marriage are explicitly intertwined.

If you agree with me that the government should not be involved in a person's sexual preferences, then it seems inconsistent for you to say that the government should be involved who a person can and can't marry.

Re: Gay Marriage

Harold Martin — Tue, 05 May 2009 21:11:57 -0000

@Byron
I'm trying to get him to come here and respond to you as I really can't speak for him.

Re: Gay Marriage

Byron — Tue, 05 May 2009 20:57:54 -0000

Picking apart Alpha Phoenix's "argument":

1. Yes, I agree; it's not the government's business what two or eleven people do behind closed doors.

2. That has utterly nothing to do with people "getting hitched". He's certainly entitled to his opinion, but the fact that people should be free to act as they please sexually is an utterly and completely different, unrelated question to "how shall the government define marriage?"

3. His argument hinges on rights and protections, believing they ought to be equal; I concur, but argue that how we achieve that equality matters a great deal, and that there are means short of the radical redefinition of marriage to accomplish this. Remember the argument about "before you tear down a fence..."? He has no interest in asking that question--and it's dangerous not to ask it in every circumstance.

4. The country was not "founded on tolerance"; he'd have to produce a document substantiating that to prove his point; the preamble and the Declaration do no such thing. They guarantee equal rights; I believe in those things; there are ways to achieve them. Now, should we be tolerant? You bet; I certainly am. But refusing to radically redefine marriage just so somebody can have the possibility of health insurance is not being "intolerant" in the least.

5. Redefining marriage does infringe on my rights, though he's probably never once considered that fact.

6. His argument is built upon an evolutionary understanding of human beings (see Section 1; one doesn't have to read far to grasp this). Ironically, an evolutionary understanding of origins denies the specialness of man--and thus cuts the ground right out from under any rational defense of "respect, tolerance, and equality"--the very things he says are so critical (and I agree with that, of course).

7. Do you really believe that "with all religions it's a numbers game"? Unsubstantiated silliness.

8. Finally, in his last rambling paragraph, he only respects views that have come about through "personal reflection", uninfluenced by others. That's bogus and silly on its face: every person's views have been influenced by others, yours, mine, and his included, and to suggest otherwise is the epitome of naivete. Yes, we ought to think; as I said above, one of the saddest things about this whole argument is the lack of rational, logical thinking that is going into it. But nobody with a straight face and sincere honesty would ever say that his/her viewpoints aren't influenced to one degree or another by the thoughts of other people--and his including that at the end seriously undermines whatever credibility he wishes to maintain.

Back soon with more thoughts...

Re: Gay Marriage

Byron — Mon, 04 May 2009 22:09:45 -0000

I plan to comment later on some of Alpha Phoenix's words, but what discourages me about people in general these days is the lack of logical, rational thinking that takes place. Do you not see the logical leaps, shoddy reasoning, and point-missing that Alpha Phoenix employs? The question becomes, is he not capable of carrying out a rational, logic-based argument, or is he able, but lazy or unwilling to do so? Because his reasoning is quite poor, frankly; I'm betting that if you look at it a little longer, you can poke some holes in it, because I sure can...

Re: Gay Marriage

Harold Martin — Mon, 04 May 2009 09:27:44 -0000

@Byron
A friend of mine wrote this on a forum I'm on in response to a post I wrote asking the forums thoughts on gay marriage and I wanted to post it here.
---------------

From Alpha Phoenix:

I'll say this, I really don't give a damn what two people do in the privacy of their relationship or home, so long as it isn't harming, or infringing on the rights and happiness of others. That said, if same-sex couples want to get hitched, more power to them. I don't give a rat's ass what the nomenclature used for it is, so long as they are afforded all the rights, privileges, protections, and benefits of heterosexual couples. This country was supposed to have been founded on tolerance and respect, but unfortunately that has not been the case in practice. Is it not okay to discriminate against one group, and shout that their civil liberties and right to happiness are being infringed, but then turn around and discriminate or bar others from having equal rights/benefits/protections? That to me in-of-itself is the epitome of the practice hypocrisy.

From The Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And lest we forget,

From the Preamble of The Constitution of the United States of America:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You see, these are the principles of respect, tolerance, and equality for all that our great nation was to have been founded on. It pains me to see that so many people have lost sight of that and are so narrow-minded about so many things, even though those are neither infringing upon their rights or their happiness.

Section 1.
As for those who want to tout the whole "marriage is for procreation" angle and that's why same-sex couples ought not to be able to marry, they are incorrect. Marriage is not for couples to be able to propagate the species, nor is it a natural occurrence. "Marriage" is actually a social construct. I am not against marriage at all, I just know what the truth of it really is and am attempting to enlighten those of you whom I can. The natural order of things is for a male and a female to propagate the species. The natural order of things does not dictate monogamy, only to protect ones offspring in order to ensure the survival of ones genetic line. Without the social construct, monogamy was simply a matter of choice, not natural law. That's the hard simple truth of it. Monogamy, and marriage came later and were constructed by certain groups and cultures and later came to be their way of life, by choice. In those societies, that became a "social construct". Enter The Church a few millennia later.

Section 2.
The Church, or whatever the name of the religious body you want to use to refer to it as in each specific religion (but you all basically know what I'm referring to) deemed "Marriage" to be only acceptable between a man and a woman and thereby turned that into Canonical Law (most likely due to the rampant promiscuity, and also that those who were of same-sex couples did not have children and The Church would not be able to increase their numbers through them (let's face facts, with all religions it's a numbers game)). This was then drilled into the heads of subsequent generations with such fervor that it was believed to be a divine truth that "marriage" can only occur between man and woman and anything other than that was an abomination. Eventually this made its way into the minds of even the non-religious because of the Church's widespread reach in society and their unbelievable influence (hence the separation of Church and State being needed). Ergo, today so many people are either ignorant and think that "Marriage" should only be a union between man and woman because that is the natural order of things in order to propagate the species (see Section 1 for the fallacy in that argument), or brainwashed into thinking that it is God's law that only a man and a woman should be together and that it is an abomination (see Section 2).

Now if you believe what you believe about same-sex marriage, and have come to that conclusion based on personal reflection, not influenced or defined by others, then I can respect that. The only thing is that I have noticed many vehemently purport that their views are theirs and theirs alone and are not shaped by outside forces, but I would suggest really taking a look at that to see if that is true, or merely what you believe (or want to believe) to be true.