5 ms·

When people start talking about gay marriage, all of this gets instantly forgotten. What a strange sentiment. You know, I and my wife aren't together romantic

When people start talking about gay marriage, all of this gets instantly forgotten. What a strange sentiment. You know, I and my wife aren't together romantically, don't live together, don't share money, and don't have any offspring. Since we're amicably separated, and that amicability is protected by a post-nuptial agreement, and we have no intention of marrying anyone else, we haven't seen the point of going through a divorce. A friend of mine has lived with his partner for 15 years. They're happy, share money, live together, and love each other in a very romantic way. I wouldn't be surprised if they adopted a kid. So, who's REALLY destroying the so-called "institution of marriage"?

cousin_it 18y ago
I'm not against gay marriage, but after pattern-matching the particular story of your friend I don't see why he needs to marry. It's like getting a government-sponsored car that you don't want to drive. Is it for the tax breaks? Think of it like this: they're a way to lure the provider into marriage. If you don't buy the traditional view of marriage, you'll have a hard time justifying tax breaks. I don't believe you can build a logical line of argument from romantic love to tax breaks :-)
- GHFigs 18y ago
  The argument is that a certain class of people ought to have the same rights as all others do unless there is a just reason to deny those rights. Surely you can think up an argument to support that notion. The exercise of those rights isn't important, i.e. I should not be denied the right to a fair trial simply because I don't intend to commit any crimes and thus don't "need" the right. Moreover, while the institution of marriage may serve a societal purpose, the denial of marriage rights is itself a mechanism of social control independent of that purpose. Hence, "gay marriage" is the subject of debate, while "marriage" is not.
  - cousin_it 18y ago
    It's like the science fiction cliche where humans puzzle over artifacts of ancient alien technology. A mind brought up on modern politics is bound to be often baffled by strange and archaic things seemingly created by nonhuman beings. What's common law? What's religion? What's marriage? Our only framework for understanding is the idea of democracy and human rights, but this stuff predates human rights by hundreds or thousands of years, and the shoehorning fails. Slightly exaggerating, if you call marriage a "human right" today, you must also believe that free speech mandates taxpayer-sponsored newspapers to publish everyone's words :-) First make marriage totally non-binding on both partners and the government. Make divorce as easy as signing a paper. Abolish alimony and child support. Drop the tax breaks. Make hospital visitation rights, etc., a matter of civil contract. Those measures will change marriage from a state-sponsored targeted subsidy into a proper "human right".
    - kajecounterhack 18y ago
      a.k.a abolish institutionalized marriage. all in favor say aye. aye.
    - GHFigs 18y ago
      At no point did I suggest that state-sponsored marriage must exist. Nor did I use the term "human right". In fact I don't think I'd be opposed to its abolition, as you've described. But that's like "helping" someone fix a flat tire by telling them to buy a new car. It's a solution, yes, but not a practical one in a democracy where the vast majority of the voting populace, regardless of their stance on gay marriage, does not oppose marriage in general. I'm sorry if that isn't broad-minded enough for you, but I can't help but view a modern political issue through the lens of modern politics. Arguing in the abstract strikes me as a convenient way of avoiding the problem entirely.
- IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
  Marriage is a convenient shorthand for a sort of contract that is useful and common. Like LLC or NDA, it's one of those things that might have little differences from case to case, but in general, it's handy to talk about as one sort of thing. A marriage is actually two contracts. It is a contract between the spouses, where they agree to grant one another certain rights (inheritance, medical decision power, financial support, etc.) It is also a contract with the two spouses on one side, and the society at large on the other, whereby society agrees to recognize the contract between the couple and treat them as one "unit" for purposes of taxes and such, and the couple agrees to be clear and explicit if they ever terminate the marriage. The tax breaks are absolutely NOT "just a way to lure the provider into marriage." Generally, the thing that lures the provider is the comfort and security of long-term romantic companionship, and the desire to provide for someone they love. There is nothing stopping a gay couple from formulating a contract between the two of them, signing it, getting it notarized, and even changing their names. But the other part of that contract, between society and the couple, that is allowed only for hetero couples in most states, and not for gay couples. This is gender-based discrimination. There's just no other way to look at it. You can make the case that the discrimination is sensible, as some sorts of discrimination indeed are. (I.e., the ageism in prohibiting children from buying firearms.) However, legal discrimination based on gender is a VERY hard thing to justify rationally. I'm not saying that tax breaks ought to exist or that they ought to be abolished. But, the fact is, they DO exist, and they're not going to be abolished any time soon. The qualification to receive this treatment from the government is that you enter into a specific sort of contract with a spouse. However, gays who enter into this sort of contract do not receive the same treatment by the government; their union is not recognized. I don't see why he needs to marry. Well, personally, I don't really see why ANYONE needs to marry, but my own situation has left me understandably cynical ;) The point is that, in my opinion, the law should be gender-blind. If marriages are worth special treatment apart from other sorts of committed relationships—and I think you could make a strong case that they are—then fine. But the gender of the partners should be immaterial in the eyes of the law.
  - cousin_it 18y ago
    legal discrimination based on gender is a VERY hard thing to justify rationally No, it's actually very easy to justify rationally: for example, sending young men to war lets you replenish the population faster than if you'd sent everyone equally. Nature discriminates on gender, making it useful for us to do the same. It's only hard to justify if you subscribe to a certain system of irrational axioms, one of which says discrimination is generally bad. You conceptualize marriage as a universally available contract to "legalize" romantic love, unfortunately tainted with gender discrimination by backwards people. I have nothing against this idea, but invent a new word for it, it's not marriage. ("Civil union" would be fine.) I can imagine elephants inventing marriage, but I can't imagine them accepting gay marriage on the same terms as straight. This is the elephant in the room: your concept ignores the both the purpose and the practical workings of marriage all through human history, long before anyone thought of contracts, romance or discrimination. For example, I have explained how tax breaks for married couples benefit society: they give the provider an extra incentive to get and stay married, thus encouraging good offspring. I have similarly cynical explanations for other aspects of the institution of marriage which are IMO utterly unexplainable from the human rights perspective. Let's focus on the tax breaks. Isaac, by what mechanism do they benefit society in your opinion? (Necessary disclaimer: this is not an ad against gay marriage. But if your opinion on gay marriage is based on ideology instead of analysis, you're wrong, even if the opinion itself is right. It's like having an incorrect proof of a true theorem.)
- Psyonic 18y ago
  hospital visitation rights? Legal right to make decisions for him if he is incapable?

cousin_it 18y ago

I'm not against gay marriage, but after pattern-matching the particular story of your friend I don't see why he needs to marry. It's like getting a government-sponsored car that you don't want to drive. Is it for the tax breaks? Think of it like this: they're a way to lure the provider into marriage. If you don't buy the traditional view of marriage, you'll have a hard time justifying tax breaks. I don't believe you can build a logical line of argument from romantic love to tax breaks :-)

GHFigs 18y ago
The argument is that a certain class of people ought to have the same rights as all others do unless there is a just reason to deny those rights. Surely you can think up an argument to support that notion. The exercise of those rights isn't important, i.e. I should not be denied the right to a fair trial simply because I don't intend to commit any crimes and thus don't "need" the right. Moreover, while the institution of marriage may serve a societal purpose, the denial of marriage rights is itself a mechanism of social control independent of that purpose. Hence, "gay marriage" is the subject of debate, while "marriage" is not.
- cousin_it 18y ago
  It's like the science fiction cliche where humans puzzle over artifacts of ancient alien technology. A mind brought up on modern politics is bound to be often baffled by strange and archaic things seemingly created by nonhuman beings. What's common law? What's religion? What's marriage? Our only framework for understanding is the idea of democracy and human rights, but this stuff predates human rights by hundreds or thousands of years, and the shoehorning fails. Slightly exaggerating, if you call marriage a "human right" today, you must also believe that free speech mandates taxpayer-sponsored newspapers to publish everyone's words :-) First make marriage totally non-binding on both partners and the government. Make divorce as easy as signing a paper. Abolish alimony and child support. Drop the tax breaks. Make hospital visitation rights, etc., a matter of civil contract. Those measures will change marriage from a state-sponsored targeted subsidy into a proper "human right".
  - kajecounterhack 18y ago
    a.k.a abolish institutionalized marriage. all in favor say aye. aye.
  - GHFigs 18y ago
    At no point did I suggest that state-sponsored marriage must exist. Nor did I use the term "human right". In fact I don't think I'd be opposed to its abolition, as you've described. But that's like "helping" someone fix a flat tire by telling them to buy a new car. It's a solution, yes, but not a practical one in a democracy where the vast majority of the voting populace, regardless of their stance on gay marriage, does not oppose marriage in general. I'm sorry if that isn't broad-minded enough for you, but I can't help but view a modern political issue through the lens of modern politics. Arguing in the abstract strikes me as a convenient way of avoiding the problem entirely.
IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
Marriage is a convenient shorthand for a sort of contract that is useful and common. Like LLC or NDA, it's one of those things that might have little differences from case to case, but in general, it's handy to talk about as one sort of thing. A marriage is actually two contracts. It is a contract between the spouses, where they agree to grant one another certain rights (inheritance, medical decision power, financial support, etc.) It is also a contract with the two spouses on one side, and the society at large on the other, whereby society agrees to recognize the contract between the couple and treat them as one "unit" for purposes of taxes and such, and the couple agrees to be clear and explicit if they ever terminate the marriage. The tax breaks are absolutely NOT "just a way to lure the provider into marriage." Generally, the thing that lures the provider is the comfort and security of long-term romantic companionship, and the desire to provide for someone they love. There is nothing stopping a gay couple from formulating a contract between the two of them, signing it, getting it notarized, and even changing their names. But the other part of that contract, between society and the couple, that is allowed only for hetero couples in most states, and not for gay couples. This is gender-based discrimination. There's just no other way to look at it. You can make the case that the discrimination is sensible, as some sorts of discrimination indeed are. (I.e., the ageism in prohibiting children from buying firearms.) However, legal discrimination based on gender is a VERY hard thing to justify rationally. I'm not saying that tax breaks ought to exist or that they ought to be abolished. But, the fact is, they DO exist, and they're not going to be abolished any time soon. The qualification to receive this treatment from the government is that you enter into a specific sort of contract with a spouse. However, gays who enter into this sort of contract do not receive the same treatment by the government; their union is not recognized. I don't see why he needs to marry. Well, personally, I don't really see why ANYONE needs to marry, but my own situation has left me understandably cynical ;) The point is that, in my opinion, the law should be gender-blind. If marriages are worth special treatment apart from other sorts of committed relationships—and I think you could make a strong case that they are—then fine. But the gender of the partners should be immaterial in the eyes of the law.
- cousin_it 18y ago
  legal discrimination based on gender is a VERY hard thing to justify rationally No, it's actually very easy to justify rationally: for example, sending young men to war lets you replenish the population faster than if you'd sent everyone equally. Nature discriminates on gender, making it useful for us to do the same. It's only hard to justify if you subscribe to a certain system of irrational axioms, one of which says discrimination is generally bad. You conceptualize marriage as a universally available contract to "legalize" romantic love, unfortunately tainted with gender discrimination by backwards people. I have nothing against this idea, but invent a new word for it, it's not marriage. ("Civil union" would be fine.) I can imagine elephants inventing marriage, but I can't imagine them accepting gay marriage on the same terms as straight. This is the elephant in the room: your concept ignores the both the purpose and the practical workings of marriage all through human history, long before anyone thought of contracts, romance or discrimination. For example, I have explained how tax breaks for married couples benefit society: they give the provider an extra incentive to get and stay married, thus encouraging good offspring. I have similarly cynical explanations for other aspects of the institution of marriage which are IMO utterly unexplainable from the human rights perspective. Let's focus on the tax breaks. Isaac, by what mechanism do they benefit society in your opinion? (Necessary disclaimer: this is not an ad against gay marriage. But if your opinion on gay marriage is based on ideology instead of analysis, you're wrong, even if the opinion itself is right. It's like having an incorrect proof of a true theorem.)
Psyonic 18y ago
hospital visitation rights? Legal right to make decisions for him if he is incapable?