Homosexuals Say Married Couples Required to Have Children

[urban-hermit]

Marriage isn’t all about the children.

Maybe you’re right. So … what would you say are the aspects of marriage as a legal construct of society that are objectively more important than children?

 

[urban-hermit]

Times have changed, peoples’ needs, abilities, and wants have changed. Who we are now is vastly different from who we were a century ago, let alone millennia in the past. We’ll be different in the future too, and we’ll have different rules for society then.

You’re taking the future for granted. Biology doesn’t change. Looking out for the good and the future of your society, your nation, your city-state … that hasn’t really changed. There are certain things about human existence that really don’t change much. There are certain sacrifices that have to be made to insure that there is in fact a good future for us.

The push for gay ‘marriage’ is one example of an essentially self-indulgent proposal which does not contribute to society now or in the future. It’s thought by its proponents that it will bring individuals more happiness. That’s debatable. It’s even more easily argued that it will not pay any dividends for the future of society collectively.

Maybe the political pranksters who have sparked this discussion have a point. Or at least a point that points to a real point. And that is that demographers have said that no industrialized country is producing enough children to replace its population. And that this trend is very serious for economic reasons (amongst others). We need to be alert to the possibility that the experiments of socially approved homosexual activity, contraception, fornication and all the rest of the things that that silly old Catholic Church says are wrong have lead to the clouding of society’s collective understanding of marriage, and if these practices continue they are, at best, not going to help us correct the demographic trend which threatens our future.

 

[Mirdath]

Now I know you are “stirring the pot”. Why on earth would you say this?

Because it’s true?

You think that aliens are more conceivable than clones?

In a universe this big, to assume Earth is the only planet that ever gave rise to life is the height of arrogance. I think it possible; however, I find serious questions about general situations less risible than attempted sarcasm that reads like a Heinlein story.

If you read the transcript of the decision in this case that I posted 7,000 posts ago, you will see that the government doesn’t either. You are purposely avoiding a direct response to the questions that have been posed.

Actually, I was responding to those questions (including yours, even), not to the government decision. Quite a few of the posters in this thread seem to think making babies is what it’s all about.

Unbelievable arrogance. What other laws and social mores shall we change now that we are so “enlightened”?

Any that need to. It’s how the system works, and how it has always worked. Roe vs Wade, anti-discrimination law, the establishment of Prohibition and its subsequent removal, the emancipation of slaves, the secession of the Confederacy, the drafting of the Constitution – all examples of the law changing to keep up with the times, and that’s just a broad overview of American history.

Not an answer.

I’ll let the person who actually asked the question decide that.

All possible with the proper legal paper work. If the government is here to serve me, then why shouldn’t it just give me whatever I ask for? It’s purpose is to represent the people and provide for the continuation of civilization. If it caves to any request in the name of service, how does that advance civilization?

And it shouldn’t make the paperwork as easy as possible within reason? Do you enjoy filing the long form every year or something?

Representatives. And the people who are interested are a tiny 4% of the population. Indeed, in the recent initiatives in 7 states, 6 states voted against homosexual marriage. What more evidence do you need that the state is respresenting the people?

The majority is not the same thing as the people.

Absurd. Again, way back about 500 posts, I included a link on what the state’s interest is in marriage and it did not include RECORDKEEPING. Are you serious?

Mhm.

 

[Mirdath]

Where on earth (specifically, at law) did you get this idea? I can contract with my brother for any number of things. Is this the “one thing sacred” where I categorically cannot consent? Justify, please.

Pressure from one party (after all, you grew up together); desire to keep money in the family (actually a large part of why many families married cousin-to-cousin for a long time), for a couple examples.

As to it being ‘one thing sacred’ – isn’t it?

Please refresh my memory.

Aliens from outer space show up, intelligent and capable of giving consent. Should humans be allowed to marry them?

Do you really think this is a good idea for the state to buy off on and (in some cases) encourage through tax incentives?

Minus the siblings bit (which we’ve covered), I don’t think it’s a bad idea at least.

You’re confusing culture with nature. Culture changes, human nature does not. To give a less-than-adequate analogy, cars change but internal combustion does not. A Model-T still operates using the same principles as a Chevy S-10. The style has changed, but the automobile has not.

Nature did not give birth to a rite of marriage. Culture did.

Green cards is not a course offered at my university.

Immigration law isn’t?

Actually, you can get a hospital authorization form which gets you visitation rights for non-blood-relatives.

I did not know that. I’d imagine there could still be some red tape problems with the system, though, and I’d much rather see it automatic.

So now you’re down to one. Tax breaks.
So get a packet of forms together and have people sign them. It’s not that hard. I can e-mail you the forms if you’d like.

And now you’re down to tax breaks too. If that’s the only thing, why should the government have any interest in marriage beyond that contract? Why enforce any rules about who can and can’t get a marriage license?

The tax break for married couples has its maximum benefit when one of the partners is not employed.

Care to speculate as to why that is?

If I had to guess, I’d say it has something to do with procreation – which we’ve already established is not the sole, and possibly not even a primary factor.

I’m afraid I didn’t understand your last sentence. Would you please rephrase?

As the state is the peoples’ servant, their interests are its interests.

The state can keep records without providing a tax break. You’re not getting to the heart of why the state recognized marriage in the first place.

Sure, it can. Is it too much to ask that it treat all married people the same, whether straight or gay?

Until you lock in on (3), your answer to (4) is going to be a bit off.

Here’s a hint: any able-bodied man should be able (in principle) to impregnate any able-bodied woman. Why didn’t the state offer tax breaks for promiscuity or simply for childbirth?

Another hint: The answer is not based on theology.

Indulge me.
urban hermit:

So … what would you say are the aspects of marriage as a legal construct of society that are objectively more important than children?

The parties to the marriage, obviously. Even now, marriages don’t always result in children, but they do always result in unions.

 

[RyanL]

Pressure from one party (after all, you grew up together); desire to keep money in the family (actually a large part of why many families married cousin-to-cousin for a long time), for a couple examples.

YOU said that siblings couldn’t get “unionized” because any consent for this singular contract would categorically be defective.

I replied that that’s not the case for any other contract, and asked you to justify why they should be categorically excluded - i.e., in EVERY case. Your reply did not answer the query, but merely gave some (rather poor) reasons as to why the contract may not be binding in some instances.

Again, why can’t two grown brothers get “unionized”? Why are you incest-o-phobic?

As to it being ‘one thing sacred’ – isn’t it?

Nay nay, mon frere. Don’t try to use theology to back your position - you’re the one arguing that it has no place at law.

Aliens from outer space show up, intelligent and capable of giving consent. Should humans be allowed to marry them?

1. It’s extremely unlikely that humans will ever encounter an alien species. If you would like, we could go into the science on another thread. Suffice it to say that the chances are so remote as to make this question absurd.
2. Humans can’t “marry” dogs, humans can’t “marry” horses, humans can’t “marry” plants. Why on earth (or Mars) would trans-species “marriage” be appropriate in this instance and not in the others? As for consent, a dog/cat/mouse/plant/chimp doesn’t consent to our medical testing (unto death) – why should we care about their consent to “marriage”? Further, a colorable argument could be made that a dog consents when it comes when I call, and a cat consents by not scratching me.
3. Please answer my question as to whether or not I could “marry” my clone under your law, and if not why not. This is a far more likely scenario than your aliens one, IMHO.

Nature did not give birth to a rite of marriage. Culture did.

We do not seek monogamous self-giving devoted love by our nature?

That would be news to Romeo and Juliet, and just about every poet I can think of. In fact, I think it would be news to the “gay rights” movement as well. Sorry, folks. You don’t really want marriage - i.e., you don’t seek it by your nature - it’s your culture.

Yeah…it must be culturally dependent. That would definitely explain why every society the world has known has had some form of marriage. Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the way we are designed (i.e., our nature).

Immigration law isn’t?

I’m *considering *taking it as an elective, but frankly I’m not that interested. Maybe next year.

A quick internet search seemed to indicate that a marriage is an automatic green-card-getter, provided it’s actually a marriage (living together, affection, etc.). INS (or some such agency) will check to see if it appears to be so, and if it is then citizenship is granted. A judge doesn’t appear to have anything to do with it.

If you know otherwise please let me know. Again, you claim far more knowledge on this than I have. If what I believe to be the case actually is, the impact of your proposed legislation on the immigration process alone would be justify the state not doing it.

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

I did not know that. I’d imagine there could still be some red tape problems with the system, though, and I’d much rather see it automatic.

I’m glad you have a preference, but it’s not relevant to the simple ability of anyone/everyone to obtain the things you’re asking for. This is not meant to be harsh, simply a truth.

If desired, the state could make a one-stop-shop contract of this nature without providing any state recognition of a so-called “civil union” or “gay marriage”. Personally (and professionally), I don’t think it’s the state’s business to do your legal work for you unless it’s a criminal matter and you absolutely require it for due process.

And now you’re down to tax breaks too. If that’s the only thing, why should the government have any interest in marriage beyond that contract? Why enforce any rules about who can and can’t get a marriage license?

Ahhh…this is getting to the heart of it, isn’t it?

If I had to guess, I’d say it has something to do with procreation – which we’ve already established is not the sole, and possibly not even a primary factor.

You’re going in the right direction, but don’t limit your focus to procreation alone. Remember, anyone (in theory) should be able to procreate. Why not incentivize rampant procreation no matter the method, the more the merrier? Answer this and you’ll get closer to the purpose behind the state’s recognition of marriage.

As the state is the peoples’ servant, their interests are its interests.

Ok. I understand. I will agree in part and disagree in part.

Sure, it can. Is it too much to ask that it treat all married people the same, whether straight or gay?

Begging the question - can gay people be “married”?

Indulge me.

Nope. You need to figure this out. You have the clues, and you have the intellect. Unless you figure this out, you won’t understand the argument as to why “gay marriage” is a wrong-headed step for the state to take, and understanding the other side’s argument is critical for productive discussion.

Known facts:

1. The tax code favors one spouse not working. (The so-called marriage penalty referred to above is an unintended but necessary consequence to provide this benefit - it’s complicated, but take my word for it.) This is meant to incentivize certain conduct.
2. The state only recognizes the marriage of a man and a women.
3. The state chose to give marriage this benefit despite knowing that people can (and would) procreate without it. In fact, the state could have incentivized procreation alone far more efficiently were that its sole aim.
4. It doesn’t have to do with theological concerns.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mirdath]

Again, why can’t two grown brothers get “unionized”? Why are you incest-o-phobic?

It seems I can’t answer that to your satisfaction, and I would rather the government be too inclusive than be exclusive. You win – go right ahead, marry your brother or your mother

1. Humans can’t “marry” dogs, humans can’t “marry” horses, humans can’t “marry” plants. Why on earth (or Mars) would trans-species “marriage” be appropriate in this instance and not in the others?

Okay, shall we modify the alien question to assume chimps or dolphins become obviously sentient and civilized at some point – what then?

Please answer my question as to whether or not I could “marry” my clone under your law, and if not why not. This is a far more likely scenario than your aliens one, IMHO.

Given what I said at the beginning of this post – sure. It’s probably not something I would do (even as vain as I am, and trust me, that’s saying something) but I’m not going to stop others.

We do not seek monogamous self-giving devoted love by our nature?

Very true, actually. Only about 3% of all mammal species are monogamous. Polygamy is quite useful for ensuring the survival and spread of genetic traits (polygyny) and for keeping population size at a level commensurate to the local resources (polyandry). Many, many human cultures have practiced polygamy.

That would be news to Romeo and Juliet, and just about every poet I can think of. In fact, I think it would be news to the “gay rights” movement as well. Sorry, folks. You don’t really want marriage - i.e., you don’t seek it by your nature - it’s your culture.

Pretty much. Truth isn’t always sappy and romantic (but it’s nice when it is).

Yeah…it must be culturally dependent. That would definitely explain why every society the world has known has had some form of marriage. Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the way we are designed (i.e., our nature).

Indeed so. The reasoning behind the institution of marriage (ie, a societal construct) is to control sex – to say who can or can’t have it, what conditions must be met before it is allowed, and what one must do to deal with the results.

If desired, the state could make a one-stop-shop contract of this nature without providing any state recognition of a so-called “civil union” or “gay marriage”.

So what’s the problem with that being the end of state involvement in all such unions and contracts?

Personally (and professionally), I don’t think it’s the state’s business to do your legal work for you unless it’s a criminal matter and you absolutely require it for due process.

This contradicts your earlier statement – marriage licenses are ‘legal work done for you’.

You’re going in the right direction, but don’t limit your focus to procreation alone. Remember, anyone (in theory) should be able to procreate. Why not incentivize rampant procreation no matter the method, the more the merrier?

I never expected to see Malthus brought to bear against my position here, if that’s what you’re implying.

Nope. You need to figure this out. You have the clues, and you have the intellect. Unless you figure this out, you won’t understand the argument as to why “gay marriage” is a wrong-headed step for the state to take, and understanding the other side’s argument is critical for productive discussion.

I really cannot see any other reasons from the list provided that are not either religious holdovers or a vain attachment to the Cleaver-style nuclear family model. Assuming it’s some variation on the latter, we’ve already established that marriage isn’t directly purposed to the birth or raising of children.

 

[fix]

Any that need to. It’s how the system works, and how it has always worked. Roe vs Wade, anti-discrimination law, the establishment of Prohibition and its subsequent removal, the emancipation of slaves, the secession of the Confederacy, the drafting of the Constitution – all examples of the law changing to keep up with the times, and that’s just a broad overview of American history.

And this is basically the foundation of your entire argument. Society determines what is right based on popular opinion that can and does change as society deems it necessary.

Yet, you deny your position is moral relativism?

 

[RyanL]

I’m busy now, so I’ll have more to say in a bit; but for now, let me list the things you’re *explicitly *advocating the Government incentivizing through tax benefits:

1. One man / one woman marriage
2. Gay civil unions
3. Polygamous unions
4. Bestiality based / trans-species unions
5. Incestuous unions
6. Green card “sham marriages”
7. Social marriages (see frat boys, supra)
8. Polyandry
9. Adelphogamy
10. Polyamorous unions

I’m sure I’m missing a few, but perhaps in looking at this list and seeing that all of these are to be considered “equal” under your law you can start to see why married folks feel a wee bit threatened and claim that you’re trying to destroy marriage.

To put it a different way:
Traditional marriage = bestiality = incest = adelphogamy.

Just something to consider. More later.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Libertas]

Oh how nice of them, by saying this they are saying what marriage is for.
Procreating.
Good job at being self-defeating Homosexuals.

 

[thechrismyster]

“Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children.”

“people who have nothing to say should avoid giving wordy testament to the fact”
-chrismyster’s mom.

/the culture of death is grasping for straws with this one.

 

[Pondero]

This is just a mischievous act on the part of those proponents of same-sex marriage. If they can’t have children, then no-one can

 

[urban-hermit]

Originally Posted by urban hermit

Maybe I didn’t state my question right, but I still don’t understand what you mean.
Please let me re-state my question:

What do you see marriage providing from a societal standpoint
which is more important than children?

 

[Polaris]

Maybe I didn’t state my question right, but I still don’t understand what you mean.
Please let me re-state my question:

What do you see marriage providing from a societal standpoint
which is more important than children?

Not to interupt but if children are the primary purpose of marriage in your eyes then you are on the side of the amendment they are proposing, right?
To me it seems that most of you want it both ways. Saying no that is not right to declare a marriage null and void if it does not produce children and at the same time saying that the purpose of marriage in society is children. How can it be both?

 

[Mirdath]

And this is basically the foundation of your entire argument. Society determines what is right based on popular opinion that can and does change as society deems it necessary.

Yet, you deny your position is moral relativism?

I happen to be a moral absolutist, but I believe that laws should not necessarily be based on my moral code. I am legally relativist, not morally – and unless you support a strict Catholic theocracy or an absolute monarchy (etc), you are too.

RyanL:

I’m busy now, so I’ll have more to say in a bit; but for now, let me list the things you’re explicitly advocating the Government incentivizing through tax benefits:

1. One man / one woman marriage
2. Gay civil unions
3. Polygamous unions
4. Bestiality based / trans-species unions
5. Incestuous unions
6. Green card “sham marriages”
7. Social marriages (see frat boys, supra)
8. Polyandry
9. Adelphogamy
10. Polyamorous unions

First off, I dropped the tax benefits; perhaps they could be made dependent on children born or adopted, that makes sense.

Second, I explicitly said bestiality is not permissible due to lack of consent.

Third, I didn’t support incest – you did. I merely dropped my objection in the face of your advocacy for it.

#s 6 and 7 happen already, and I see no real reason to bar them now.

As for the rest – yes, I support them. However, I’m not a contract lawyer, just someone with an idea. The whole thing is going to take many people a lot of time and effort if it ever does happen.

It is needed, though. Marriage law is all over the place in the US, varying from state to state and even different ethnic and religious groups. Even marriage licenses aren’t always required, as shown in common law marriages. However, when one gets married in a church, it can’t be done without first signing a ‘civil union’ contract already. People put all kinds of conditions and riders on those. It’s a mess, and one that needs to be straightened out or at least simplified, streamlined, and made fair to all consenting adults.
urban hermit:

What do you see marriage providing from a societal standpoint
which is more important than children?

Stability and responsibility, both social and financial.

 

[urban-hermit]

Very true, actually. Only about 3% of all mammal species are monogamous. Polygamy is quite useful for ensuring the survival and spread of genetic traits (polygyny) and for keeping population size at a level commensurate to the local resources (polyandry). Many, many human cultures have practiced polygamy.

The question is not what animals are known to do, or what ancient cultures did, or what inhabitants of remote African villages are doing, but what human actions are in accord with our human nature in the here and now. I.e. what is best for us. We do not live in an environment now where polygamy or polyandry are warranted.

Human survival in the world you and I are familiar with is more than just producing many children willy-nilly. Human offspring, and enough of them, are still critically important to society’s survival of course. But unlike stray dogs and cats, the offspring of humans require many years of care and training before they can effectively take their place as adult members of the complex human society we live in.

 

[urban-hermit]

Not to interupt but if children are the primary purpose of marriage in your eyes then you are on the side of the amendment they are proposing, right?

No interruption - chime right in I say.

First of all, the “amendment” that they are proposing is a farce. They themselves are not even serious about it. So I am not on their side, if there is even a side to be on. They are using the legislative process in a prankish way to try and spark interest and, presumably, dialog. I’m just taking the bait.

I am saying that they are pointing toward an important benefit that marriage provides for society**:** children.

It’s so important, I’d say, that we have to actually think about how to best encourage people to have children and give them the resources to raise their children well.

To me it seems that most of you want it both ways. Saying no that is not right to declare a marriage null and void if it does not produce children and at the same time saying that the purpose of marriage in society is children. How can it be both?

Well, I would say that requiring marriage to be only one man & one woman sends a message that this special state of life is valued and one of the reasons that it is so valued is that, it is hoped, it will provide the ideal place for children to be born and thrive and reach a happy productive adulthood. Because that is critical for the survival of our society.

I don’t see it is necessary to try to force married couples to have children by threatening them with a three-year limit. I would even say that childless couples can still be a model of devotion to one another for younger men and women and encourage them to get married. Once they are married, young people usually do want to have children. Mission accomplished. So I would tend to favor offering incentives rather than punishments.

 

[RyanL]

First off, I dropped the tax benefits; perhaps they could be made dependent on children born or adopted, that makes sense.

I guess I missed the part where you dropped this. Just to be explicit - you’re saying you want no more filing married-filing-jointly category, right?

Again, what’s the point of the state recognizing anything involving unions/partnerships/marriages? Everything a marriage achieves (except green cards and legal spousal privilege - which is jurisdictionally dependent anyway) can be done rather simply with various forms - why state recognition of “civil unions” at all? The state can simply provide you with all these forms without “recognizing” a darn thing.

I continue to go back to the fact that you must come to recognize the original intent of the state’s recognition of marriage.

I note in passing that this is not elevating gay unions at all, but rather drawing traditional married couples down. You’re divesting an entire class of people of current benefits. You should be aware that this is what you’re advocating.

Second, I explicitly said bestiality is not permissible due to lack of consent.

True, but then you made your little aliens case and included chimps and dolphins. I can only guess that you would favor “marriage” in these instances…and guess what…that’s bestiality.

Second, I answered the consent deal above when I first addressed the topic. Either (1) they can consent or (2) it doesn’t really matter. I’m hard pressed for another way to see it.

Third, I didn’t support incest – you did. I merely dropped my objection in the face of your advocacy for it.

I don’t support anything of the kind, and I would not advocate any such state recognition. What I was saying is that it is logically insupportable for you to deny incestuous unions while maintaining your other positions.

You didn’t disagree, and rather than providing a distinction you caved.

#s 6 and 7 happen already, and I see no real reason to bar them now.

#7 does not happen now. Plural marriages of all kinds are illegal.
#6 is currently illegal.

Murder also happens now, and is also illegal. Would you legalize it simply because it happens? Of course not. Poor argument.

As for the rest – yes, I support them. However, I’m not a contract lawyer…

You’re not even thinking this through, and that’s the problem. Policy questions don’t require lawyers.

Stability and responsibility, both social and financial.

AHHHHHH…you’re getting somewhere!! You’re still missing the mark, but this is much closer!! I’m **sure **you’re smart enough to figure this out, so I would appreciate if you spent a couple of minutes actually thinking critically about this.

Let’s review.

Known facts:

1. The tax code favors one spouse not working. This is meant to incentivize certain conduct.
2. The state only recognizes the marriage of a man and a woman, or rather two people who (as a blanket rule) have the general biological physical ability to procreate.
3. The state chose to give marriage this benefit despite knowing that people can (and would) procreate without it. In fact, the state could have incentivized procreation alone far more efficiently were that its sole aim. This means that the state’s interest is not “to ensure that *every *couple has children” or that “every sexual act is fruitful”.
4. It doesn’t have to do with theological concerns.
5. It has something to do with stability and responsibility, both social and financial.

I think if you delve into #5 with 1-4 in mind you’ll get to the heart of it. I expanded a bit on #2 & 3 just to be more precise.

Please let me stress once more the importance of you figuring this out on your own. You have to really understand both (1) what we’re saying and (2) why we’re saying it if you would like to engage in fruitful dialog.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

#6 is currently illegal.

Interesting news follow-up, which has to do with immigration, marriage and bigamy: Link.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[fix]

I happen to be a moral absolutist, but I believe that laws should not necessarily be based on my moral code.

That is a contradiction. Either your so-called moral code is absolute and binding objectively, or you actually do not believe those so called absolutes matter. It is akin to saying I think chattel slavery is bad, but if you want to have a slave that is fine. Your absolutes exist yet do not matter and bind only you?

I am legally relativist, not morally – and unless you support a strict Catholic theocracy or an absolute monarchy (etc), you are too.

Nope. The law is a reflection of morality. If absolute truth exists why would we want laws to contradict it? Note not all truth needs to be codified into secular law, but no secular law ought to contradict natural law which is objective truth.