4 ms·

I don't get the deal with gay marriage. Marriage is only meaningful because of the function it fulfills: provide a hospitable environment for reproduction. Ta

by yters 18y ago

I don't get the deal with gay marriage. Marriage is only meaningful because of the function it fulfills: provide a hospitable environment for reproduction. Take this away, a la gay marriage, then no one cares about it. For evidence, just look at how many people get married when they think it's just about sticking around with another person. Pretty much zilch, i.e. the number of people co-habitating vs marrying in England. So, if gay people want an official marriage because marriage is special, they are undermining themselves by helping to destroy the institution they value. It's like: because I think the Olympics are special I think they should allow me to compete for the US. If they did this, no one would like the Olympics and they would cease to be special. I don't get it.

rms 18y ago
>Marriage is only meaningful because of the function it fulfills: provide a hospitable environment for reproduction. That's where you are wrong. It's an issue of rights, not of function. Why would it make the slightest bit of difference if anyone cares about anything? It's just a word that you want to take away from people: separate but equal. Lots of straight marriages don't exist for the purposes of reproduction. And no one reputable disputes that gay households raise children just as well (if not better, on average, because of higher incomes and older partners) than straight households. Why would you want the children of gay parents to be raised in unwed homes? At this point, it's completely and entirely an arbitrary decision, made because people like you feel like there is something special about this word marriage that gay people don't deserve. The best solution is to completely eliminate marriage at the federal level: civil unions for all. But that obviously isn't practical. That leaves us with an obvious violation of the Equal Protection Clause in wake of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia. You know you are going to lose this issue in the long run. You can't win. Conservatives never win, because change always wins in the long run. We're about 12 years of voter demographic shift or 2 US supreme court seats from winning this issue that doesn't even deserve to be an issue. Give it up; why make people that love each other wait?
- yters 18y ago
  First, I don't care about some word. I care about the institution, which is both supported by the government and our culture. Second, what does it matter whether I think marriage is special or anything, or who wins or loses on the issue? I expect you are right, and gay marriage will become accepted at the federal level, precisely because so many rich and influential people are behind it. Is that a good reason to throw away my argument? No. So why bring it up? My argument is that insofar as the gay marriage movement thinks marriage is special, they should reconsider what they are doing. Otherwise, why push for this particular right? What makes it a right anyways? As for the function of marriage, gay relationships are naturally non reproductive. You have to use artificial means to do this, which is restricted to the more affluent class. So, unless gay marriages are going to automatically qualify for artificial reproduction, they are inherently not going to have the same capabilities of heterosexual couples. Besides, is artificial reproduction anywhere near as successful? Plus, affluence doesn't create good kids. Look at all the rich kids committing suicide and living horrible lives. Do you have any kind of evidence to support your claim that children from gay households are equally or better mentally, emotionally, and physically formed? If you can provide counter evidence/arguments to these two points, then I'll accept the position that gay marriage should be allowed at the federal level. If not, then it is immoral to force such an unproven and unsupported position on all of America. Keep it at the state level so people can still make choices about what kind of environment they live in in America. Otherwise, I just see this as deeply un American, something of a totalitarianism of the upper middle class. Precisely why we broke off from England in the first place. Finally, yes, it may look like conservativism always loses. But, that's only at the social, cultural level. In the end, these different institutions are only so good as they are at perpetuating themselves. So, if conservativism is always losing, have you wondered why it hasn't gone away by now? It's because it is so much more sustainable than liberalism, so it is always around to "lose" to liberalism; whereas as soon as liberalism wins, it kills itself. Look at Rome. Look at Europe. Look at the USSR. China may be a counter point, but they've been tearing themselves up to get where they are, so I think it is too soon to tell.
  - yters 18y ago
    Side point to define terms: by liberalism I mean the position that we should give people the freedom to do whatever they want. That kind of blind liberalism is unsustainable and helps destroy the institution it is a part of. However, there is a good sort of liberalism that aims to give people as much freedom as possible to fulfill their potential. This is the best counter to strict conservativism, since it is actually sustainable, progressive, and will produce a new culture. Blind liberalism will merely continue to wage an impotent battle against strict conservativism.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
yters 18y ago
The best way you can explain things to me is to anonymously downmod my post. That way I'm not distracted by arguments and evidence, and instead can get in line with the groupthink. Thank you, anonymous downmodders.
- Herring 18y ago
  you're quite welcome
  - yters 18y ago
    You're happy about the anonymous downmodding? If I were merely ranting I'd understand. But, I'm presenting cogent arguments that no one here has refuted, yet they get downmodded and the counters get upmodded. What definition of groupthink does that not fit?
    - Herring 18y ago
      Look, your argument is offensive. The nearest case I could think of is saying blacks & whites shouldn't marry bc it undermines race, or segregation. I'm not going to debate the analogy, I'm just telling you how its increasingly being viewed. I don't think any argument supporting discrimination is worth responding to.
      - yters 18y ago
        Ok, fine. Just tell me I've said one of those things we can't talk about and I'll be done. I was pushing the issue because I had thought HN was more interested in discussing arguments vs worrying about being offended. But if it is mainly concerned with the latter, then it's not so interesting to debate things here. Anyways, my argument is good precisely because it is contrary to racist arguments. Racist arguments are wrong because they are based on appearance when we should be more concerned with how people function. Besides, I don't think you really discriminate against discrimination like you say you do. Don't you want to discriminate against pedophiles being baby sitters? Why? Isn't it because the function of a baby sitter is to protect your children, and a pedophile will do the opposite? Roles and institutions are created primarily to fulfill functions. If you undermine the function, then the role and institution go away. That is what I'm saying in regards to marriage, and is the rational (vs prejudiced) reason why people oppose gay marriage. People value marriage because they care about their children. If the institution is jeopardized, it significantly harms their ability to raise their children well, or even at all. As another commentator pointed out, just look at areas of our society where marriage has disappeared. The coincide with our highest crime rates and violent behavior. So, if you are willing to not even consider this possibility merely to avoid offending people, you worry me. It further irks me that this policy, like a number of others, originates from the very well to do and highly educated sector of America where the negative reprecussions will not be felt. However, these policies have been devastating for the poor. For example, look at the impact of abortion and welfare on black communities. Worrying about offense in these cases isn't really worrying about others. It is worrying about yourself.
ingenium 18y ago
It's not about having a hospitable environment for reproduction (though gay couples would obviously like to get married before adopting), it's about being able to have the other legal rights that straight married people do, such as hospital visitation and decision rights, health insurance, tax benefits, etc. Civil unions only offer about 1/6 of the legal rights that marriage does. As a gay man, I don't really care what it's called, but the reason we push for "marriage" over "civil unions" is because of these legal rights. The laws are written for marriage, not civil unions. It's also about the promise of marriage. Where in the typical marriage vows is reproduction mentioned? "To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part." That is what it's about...that promise. That commitment with the one you love.
- mattmaroon 18y ago
  Civil unions also just sound a little too "separate but equal" to me. Despite not really having a dog in this race (I have one gay couple that I'm friends with, and the one I know best is glad there's no marriage here because otherwise her partner would want to and she doesn't) I just can't be happy with civil unions. It's better than nothing, I suppose, but it's not good enough.
  - unalone 18y ago
    Yeah. I know people who would look at civil unions and say, "Well, at least they can't get MARRIED." It allows for discrimination, regardless of how equal the idea might be.
  - ingenium 18y ago
    Yeah you're right. What I was getting at is that they should be equal, regardless of the name. I was thinking more along the lines of what rms said his comment on here, where he thinks there shouldn't even be marriage but just be civil unions for all. I don't really care what that thing is called, marriage or civil union or some other term, as long as it's the same for gay and straight couples.
- yters 18y ago

by yters 18y ago

rms 18y ago

>Marriage is only meaningful because of the function it fulfills: provide a hospitable environment for reproduction. That's where you are wrong. It's an issue of rights, not of function. Why would it make the slightest bit of difference if anyone cares about anything? It's just a word that you want to take away from people: separate but equal. Lots of straight marriages don't exist for the purposes of reproduction. And no one reputable disputes that gay households raise children just as well (if not better, on average, because of higher incomes and older partners) than straight households. Why would you want the children of gay parents to be raised in unwed homes? At this point, it's completely and entirely an arbitrary decision, made because people like you feel like there is something special about this word marriage that gay people don't deserve. The best solution is to completely eliminate marriage at the federal level: civil unions for all. But that obviously isn't practical. That leaves us with an obvious violation of the Equal Protection Clause in wake of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia. You know you are going to lose this issue in the long run. You can't win. Conservatives never win, because change always wins in the long run. We're about 12 years of voter demographic shift or 2 US supreme court seats from winning this issue that doesn't even deserve to be an issue. Give it up; why make people that love each other wait?

yters 18y ago
First, I don't care about some word. I care about the institution, which is both supported by the government and our culture. Second, what does it matter whether I think marriage is special or anything, or who wins or loses on the issue? I expect you are right, and gay marriage will become accepted at the federal level, precisely because so many rich and influential people are behind it. Is that a good reason to throw away my argument? No. So why bring it up? My argument is that insofar as the gay marriage movement thinks marriage is special, they should reconsider what they are doing. Otherwise, why push for this particular right? What makes it a right anyways? As for the function of marriage, gay relationships are naturally non reproductive. You have to use artificial means to do this, which is restricted to the more affluent class. So, unless gay marriages are going to automatically qualify for artificial reproduction, they are inherently not going to have the same capabilities of heterosexual couples. Besides, is artificial reproduction anywhere near as successful? Plus, affluence doesn't create good kids. Look at all the rich kids committing suicide and living horrible lives. Do you have any kind of evidence to support your claim that children from gay households are equally or better mentally, emotionally, and physically formed? If you can provide counter evidence/arguments to these two points, then I'll accept the position that gay marriage should be allowed at the federal level. If not, then it is immoral to force such an unproven and unsupported position on all of America. Keep it at the state level so people can still make choices about what kind of environment they live in in America. Otherwise, I just see this as deeply un American, something of a totalitarianism of the upper middle class. Precisely why we broke off from England in the first place. Finally, yes, it may look like conservativism always loses. But, that's only at the social, cultural level. In the end, these different institutions are only so good as they are at perpetuating themselves. So, if conservativism is always losing, have you wondered why it hasn't gone away by now? It's because it is so much more sustainable than liberalism, so it is always around to "lose" to liberalism; whereas as soon as liberalism wins, it kills itself. Look at Rome. Look at Europe. Look at the USSR. China may be a counter point, but they've been tearing themselves up to get where they are, so I think it is too soon to tell.
- yters 18y ago
  Side point to define terms: by liberalism I mean the position that we should give people the freedom to do whatever they want. That kind of blind liberalism is unsustainable and helps destroy the institution it is a part of. However, there is a good sort of liberalism that aims to give people as much freedom as possible to fulfill their potential. This is the best counter to strict conservativism, since it is actually sustainable, progressive, and will produce a new culture. Blind liberalism will merely continue to wage an impotent battle against strict conservativism.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

yters 18y ago

The best way you can explain things to me is to anonymously downmod my post. That way I'm not distracted by arguments and evidence, and instead can get in line with the groupthink. Thank you, anonymous downmodders.

Herring 18y ago
you're quite welcome
- yters 18y ago
  You're happy about the anonymous downmodding? If I were merely ranting I'd understand. But, I'm presenting cogent arguments that no one here has refuted, yet they get downmodded and the counters get upmodded. What definition of groupthink does that not fit?
  - Herring 18y ago
    Look, your argument is offensive. The nearest case I could think of is saying blacks & whites shouldn't marry bc it undermines race, or segregation. I'm not going to debate the analogy, I'm just telling you how its increasingly being viewed. I don't think any argument supporting discrimination is worth responding to.
    - yters 18y ago
      Ok, fine. Just tell me I've said one of those things we can't talk about and I'll be done. I was pushing the issue because I had thought HN was more interested in discussing arguments vs worrying about being offended. But if it is mainly concerned with the latter, then it's not so interesting to debate things here. Anyways, my argument is good precisely because it is contrary to racist arguments. Racist arguments are wrong because they are based on appearance when we should be more concerned with how people function. Besides, I don't think you really discriminate against discrimination like you say you do. Don't you want to discriminate against pedophiles being baby sitters? Why? Isn't it because the function of a baby sitter is to protect your children, and a pedophile will do the opposite? Roles and institutions are created primarily to fulfill functions. If you undermine the function, then the role and institution go away. That is what I'm saying in regards to marriage, and is the rational (vs prejudiced) reason why people oppose gay marriage. People value marriage because they care about their children. If the institution is jeopardized, it significantly harms their ability to raise their children well, or even at all. As another commentator pointed out, just look at areas of our society where marriage has disappeared. The coincide with our highest crime rates and violent behavior. So, if you are willing to not even consider this possibility merely to avoid offending people, you worry me. It further irks me that this policy, like a number of others, originates from the very well to do and highly educated sector of America where the negative reprecussions will not be felt. However, these policies have been devastating for the poor. For example, look at the impact of abortion and welfare on black communities. Worrying about offense in these cases isn't really worrying about others. It is worrying about yourself.

ingenium 18y ago

It's not about having a hospitable environment for reproduction (though gay couples would obviously like to get married before adopting), it's about being able to have the other legal rights that straight married people do, such as hospital visitation and decision rights, health insurance, tax benefits, etc. Civil unions only offer about 1/6 of the legal rights that marriage does. As a gay man, I don't really care what it's called, but the reason we push for "marriage" over "civil unions" is because of these legal rights. The laws are written for marriage, not civil unions. It's also about the promise of marriage. Where in the typical marriage vows is reproduction mentioned? "To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part." That is what it's about...that promise. That commitment with the one you love.

mattmaroon 18y ago
Civil unions also just sound a little too "separate but equal" to me. Despite not really having a dog in this race (I have one gay couple that I'm friends with, and the one I know best is glad there's no marriage here because otherwise her partner would want to and she doesn't) I just can't be happy with civil unions. It's better than nothing, I suppose, but it's not good enough.
- unalone 18y ago
  Yeah. I know people who would look at civil unions and say, "Well, at least they can't get MARRIED." It allows for discrimination, regardless of how equal the idea might be.
- ingenium 18y ago
  Yeah you're right. What I was getting at is that they should be equal, regardless of the name. I was thinking more along the lines of what rms said his comment on here, where he thinks there shouldn't even be marriage but just be civil unions for all. I don't really care what that thing is called, marriage or civil union or some other term, as long as it's the same for gay and straight couples.
yters 18y ago