How do i come up with a good reason why governments shouldn't allow same sex marriage?

[MacQ]

There should be two different legal contracts, one for the sake of raising future citizens and one for those who commit to share their lives.
QUOTE]

Sorry.
Two different contracts is not only convoluted, it’s also discriminatory.
It’s also intrusive.
People shouldn’t have to declare to the govt why they’re getting married or what their intentions are.
Why not ALL unions are civil unions in the eyes of the govt?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sorry.
Two different contracts is not only convoluted, it’s also discriminatory.
It’s also intrusive.
People shouldn’t have to declare to the govt why they’re getting married or what their intentions are.
Why not ALL unions are civil unions in the eyes of the govt?

Here is the reason. A civil union that carries with it any government-secured benefits or protections under law is a contract not only between the two people themselves, but also between them and the society at large (as represented by the government). These marriage benefits and protections are provided by society in exchange for something. What that something is may be debated, but it is definitely something. Some say that it is in exchange for the service they perform in raising children. Some say that it is in exchange for the stability and economic efficiency that the couple provides by living together and caring for one another. But it is definitely something. Otherwise there would be no justification for withholding whatever applicable benefits there may be from single people too. So don’t be too quick to dismiss the government’s legitimate interests in what the intention of the couple may be, unless you want to reduce civil unions to a framed certificate you hang on the wall and nothing more.

As for the discriminatory claim, that is not always a bad thing - to discriminate. It is only bad when that discrimination is unjust. Not all discrimination is unjust.

 

[MacQ]

Here is the reason. A civil union that carries with it any government-secured benefits or protections under law is a contract not only between the two people themselves, but also between them and the society at large (as represented by the government). These marriage benefits and protections are provided by society in exchange for something. What that something is may be debated, but it is definitely something. Some say that it is in exchange for the service they perform in raising children. Some say that it is in exchange for the stability and economic efficiency that the couple provides by living together and caring for one another. But it is definitely something. Otherwise there would be no justification for withholding whatever applicable benefits there may be from single people too. So don’t be too quick to dismiss the government’s legitimate interests in what the intention of the couple may be, unless you want to reduce civil unions to a framed certificate you hang on the wall and nothing more.

As for the discriminatory claim, that is not always a bad thing - to discriminate. It is only bad when that discrimination is unjust. Not all discrimination is unjust.

Some would say the government has no business trying to manipulate people’s behavior. It clearly leads to discriminatory laws that are NOT just.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Some would say the government has no business trying to manipulate people’s behavior.

Only people who don’t understand what they’re saying, or people with antisocial personality disorder.

All law manipulates behavior. That’s what laws are for.

 

[MacQ]

Only people who don’t understand what they’re saying, or people with antisocial personality disorder.

All law manipulates behavior. That’s what laws are for.

You would include Libertarians as being non-compis or have personality disorders?

But, OK, I take the point if you want to be literal about it.

By manipulation I meant in the sense of social engineering, government choosing winners and losers (as an example, some of our tax laws are purely to reward certain industries and line some crony’s pockets)
I believe in equal protections under the law (and therefore on this thread’s topic, believe that gay couples should have the same rights and protection for civil unions UNDER THE LAWS as straight couples). And that laws are chiefly to constrain people from harming others.
I am not anti-social, although this site makes me tempted to be at times.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

And that laws are chiefly to constrain people from harming others.

Then defend the assertion that children aren’t harmed by being denied a mom or a dad. I’m listening.

 

[MacQ]

Then defend the assertion that children aren’t harmed by being denied a mom or a dad. I’m listening.

Frankly, I don’t see what that has to do with it.
A law won’t change whether people desert their family.
A law won’t change unwed pregnancies.
A law won’t force a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex.

Who “denies” a child a mom or dad? The mom or dad. Or death. Divorce, Desertion.
None of that has anything to do with being gay.

I know a gay couple who are raising a child for one of their drug addicted (but straight and married) relatives. What was that child denied as a result of laws?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Frankly, I don’t see what that has to do with it.
A law won’t change whether people desert their family.

A law can reduce the incentives to do so.

A law won’t change unwed pregnancies.

A law can make it less likely that these occur.

A law won’t force a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex.

No one is proposing that.

Who “denies” a child a mom or dad? The mom or dad. Or death. Divorce, Desertion.
None of that has anything to do with being gay.

Normalizing gay relationships under the banner of marriage encourages gay adoption or gays having children with outside help. That denies the children involved a family with a mom and a dad. Society has always considered that the most desirable ideal, your example below notwithstanding.

I know a gay couple who are raising a child for one of their drug addicted (but straight and married) relatives. What was that child denied as a result of laws?

One example does not prove a generalization, as compelling as that one example may be.

 

[DrTaffy]

Then defend the assertion that children aren’t harmed by being denied a mom or a dad. I’m listening.

If you are proposing discrimination against homosexual couples, surely you should defend the assertion that being raised by a same sex couple harms a child?

Do you deny that the scientific consensus is currently against that assertion?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you are proposing discrimination against homosexual couples, surely you should defend the assertion that being raised by a same sex couple harms a child?

Do you deny that the scientific consensus is currently against that assertion?

One can reasonably disagree with the criteria for what qualifies as harm used in a scientific study.

 

[MacQ]

A law can reduce the incentives to do so.

A law can make it less likely that these occur.

Normalizing gay relationships under the banner of marriage encourages gay adoption or gays having children with outside help. That denies the children involved a family with a mom and a dad. Society has always considered that the most desirable ideal, your example below notwithstanding.

One example does not prove a generalization, as compelling as that one example may be.

I only offered it as an example to pose the question “Who denied this kid a mom and dad, and what law would have changed his situation”?

On the rest, we’ll just have to disagree. I have seen no evidence that laws make death, desertion, deadbeat parents or divorce less likely. Those are the factors that “DENY” a child a mom and dad. No evidence either that the children gay people manage to have or adopt deprives said child of your ozzie and harriet fantasy home. If they’re up for adoption, they’re already deprived of that, and if they have them through pregnancies, they’d not have otherwise existed.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

(Note: you just got really defensive, when I made a minor suggestion. That is an indication that you probably think this is a weak point in your argument. Just sayin.)

Frankly, I don’t see what that has to do with it.
A law won’t change whether people desert their family.
A law won’t change unwed pregnancies.

Sure, there are laws that would do these things. We repealed them. I want them back on the books.

A law won’t force a gay person marry someone of the opposite sex.

That would be a terribly unjust law. No Catholic supports it.

Who “denies” a child a mom or dad? The mom or dad. Or death. Divorce, Desertion.
None of that has anything to do with being gay.

So are you proposing to discriminate against married gay people, by saying that they are allowed to adopt already existing children, but not have children in any other way?

If not, then you are supporting a system specifically designed to keep children from having both a mom and a dad.

I know a gay couple who are raising a child for one of their drug addicted (but straight and married) relatives. What was that child denied as a result of laws?

Nothing. I think the couple is doing something honorable. But the **ideal **situation for the child is to live with a mom and a dad who are biologically related to him/her.

 

[DrTaffy]

One can reasonably disagree with the criteria for what qualifies as harm used in a scientific study.

Can ‘One’ reasonably, objectively, defend the assertion that being raised by a same sex couple harms a child?

Or not?

 

[MacQ]

(Note: you just got really defensive, when I made a minor suggestion. That is an indication that you probably think this is a weak point in your argument. Just sayin.).

I’m not sure what ‘minor suggestion’ you’re referring to. What was it?

Sure, there are laws that would do these things. We repealed them. I want them back on the books./QUOTE]

Laws against desertion and divorce? Good luck with that. Is there evidence they worked?

(
That would be a terribly unjust law. No Catholic supports it.

That wasn’t the point. The point was that a law would not change whether a person is gay, and would not result in a mom and dad home.

(
So are you proposing to discriminate against married gay people, by saying that they are allowed to adopt already existing children, but not have children in any other way?

Not at all. I can’t fathom where you came up with that from my having said that gay people have nothing to do with denying kids a mom and dad.
If a gay couple adopts a kid they aren’t the ones who denied the kid a mom and dad.
Likewise (as I said) if they undertake a pregnancy to birth a child, that child didn’t have a mom or dad either.
Bottom line: gay people have no effect on whether a kid has opposite sex parents in an ideal home. They are not the cause of a lack of mom and dad. Death, desertion, divorce, unwed pregnancy, and deadbeat parents are.

Seems to me you are the one advocating for laws that discriminate against married gay people.

(
Nothing. I think the couple is doing something honorable. But the **ideal **

situation for the child is to live with a mom and a dad who are biologically related to him/her.

The world is not ideal.

 

[thewanderer]

thewanderer;12104013:

There should be two different legal contracts, one for the sake of raising future citizens and one for those who commit to share their lives.
QUOTE]

Sorry.
Two different contracts is not only convoluted, it’s also discriminatory.
It’s also intrusive.
People shouldn’t have to declare to the govt why they’re getting married or what their intentions are.
Why not ALL unions are civil unions in the eyes of the govt?

I’m really confused… Its discriminatory to have two completely different legal contracts for two completely different purposes? I’m not talking about two different contracts for the same purpose, but one for the sake of ensuring the good of future generations of citizens and a separate one for dealing with all the issues that come up when people commit to share their lives together. The government also has legal contracts called pre-nups to protect people’s property when people split up, is it discriminatory to have pre-nups as well as marriage contracts? Of course not, they are two separate contracts each with its own completely different governmental purpose.

As for why not all unions being civil unions, iny proposed suggestion all people who commit themselves to eat h other would enter a civil union. Then, those that are going to bear and raise children together can also enter another contract for that purpose. There is nothing discriminatory in this at all.

I also do not understand why you claim this is intrusive…

 

[DrTaffy]

That would be a terribly unjust law. No Catholic supports it.

Sadly not true. Unless you mean some variety of True Catholic™.

There are Catholics, even ordained priests, who support burning homosexuals at the stake or the corrective rape of lesbians.

Not that I am accusing Catholicism as a whole of these sorts of extremism.

 

[CaliLobo]

So you agree that there are valid arguments against it. I’m glad we agree on that. However, you have still misunderstood my argument. I still believe there should be two different government contracts, one that is geared towards future citizens and one that is geared towards committed people.

Well, the Ron Paul solution isn’t an argument against it, it’s more like removing the issue entirely.

Two different contracts–that’s still discriminatory because gays are just as capable of raising children. Adoption is just fine; it’s even encouraged as noble by the Catholic Church. There is no premium placed on natural births, especially in this overpopulated world.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Laws against desertion and divorce? Good luck with that. Is there evidence they worked?

Yes. For hundreds of years, out of wedlock births were quite rare and abortions were rare, since abortion and contraception were illegal, and there were strong cultural taboos that kept people from transgressing. (Sure, such births still happened sometimes, but they were rare.) Moreover, people were not allowed to legally divorce their spouse without cause.

These laws were instituted by the Christians, against the Romans, who supported abandoning children on the roadside whenever convenient. The further we get from these laws, the closer we get to legalizing child abandonment – not to mention the teenage children we are abandoning to their “uncontrollable” sexual desires.

Not at all. I can’t fathom where you came up with that from my having said that gay people have nothing to do with denying kids a mom and dad.
If a gay couple adopts a kid they aren’t the ones who denied the kid a mom and dad.
Likewise (as I said) if they undertake a pregnancy to birth a child, that child didn’t have a mom or dad either.

Are you really claiming that an unborn child cannot be harmed? Are you sure you want to say that?

So a woman who is addicted to crack and alcohol, and gets pregnant – you’re saying that this woman ISN’T harming her child? Say it ain’t so!

I agree, of course, with your comment on adoption. But your comment about intentionally creating a life with the intention of denying the person created a mother (or a father) – I have no idea how that does not violate a person’s right to a mom and a dad.

Bottom line: gay people have no effect on whether a kid has opposite sex parents in an ideal home. They are not the cause of a lack of mom and dad. Death, desertion, divorce, unwed pregnancy, and deadbeat parents are.

And I’m guessing you support the laws that make desertion, divorce and unwed pregnancy possible – although I’d be happy to learn otherwise.

Seems to me you are the one advocating for laws that discriminate against married gay people.

Well yes, I am – not harmful discrimination, but discrimination. (As it happens, I’m discriminating against myself, by the way, since I’m the type of person who would enjoy marrying another man.) But you’re the one advocating for laws that deny children moms and dads.

The world is not ideal.

But it is the law’s role to set forward an ideal. Otherwise, each generation will move further and further away from the ideal.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Sadly not true. Unless you mean some variety of True Catholic™.

There are Catholics, even ordained priests, who support burning homosexuals at the stake or the corrective rape of lesbians.

Not that I am accusing Catholicism as a whole of these sorts of extremism.

Yeah, well, you’re right that I would call these people not Catholic, on a technicality, as it were. But point taken.

For both of us – if we look too long at our bedfellows, we will find that some of them are pretty ugly and strange. Almost makes you want to join the other side. But they have ugly bedfellows too!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If you are proposing discrimination against homosexual couples, surely you should defend the assertion that being raised by a same sex couple harms a child?

Do you deny that the scientific consensus is currently against that assertion?

What measurables does the “scientific consensus” use to estimate harm?

I propose that the mere fact of lacking a mother, or lacking a father, is a form of harm. For thousands of years, people who lacked one or the other parent have experienced this lack as traumatic. I myself grew up without a dad. This was traumatic.

I do not think laws against gay marriage are the cornerstone in solving this problem. No-fault divorce is a more central problem, and a culture of irresponsible men. But legalizing gay marriage will allow more people to grow up without a mom (or a dad), and that is a bad thing.