9 ms·

> Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. How is that even possible? How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority cla

> Being opposed to gay marriage does not imply being against homosexuals. How is that even possible? How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory?

facepalm 12y ago
I am not saying that I am of that opinion, but it seems valid to me to be of the opinion that marriage should be for the protection of families with the potential to have children (for example). It's just an opinion - isn't that what democracies are for? Marriage comes with specific rights and obligations (like, presumably most controversial, adoption and "importing" spouses into the country). Somehow society makes rules for who gets those rights and obligations. Would you say for example everybody should have the right to import people into the country? For example why don't I get the right to bestow citizenship onto people whom I really like - do I need to fuck them to prove I love them? Isn't that discriminatory? Or why stop at gay marriage - what about polyarmory? I am not against polyarmory, but suppose I have 100 lovers all over the world and I want them all to become US citizens? Why can't I just marry them all? Maybe it would be fair if every citizen would get the license to bring n people into the country, no matter if married or not? Again, I am not against gay marriage, I just want to demonstrate that there can be aspects that can be argued about. I don't know enough about adoption to comment. Can everybody adopt children? Or do you have to prove you are a healthy couple, or wealthy enough, or whatever? Personally I think once you argue homosexuals are not fit to adopt, you would have to consider all other sorts of criterions as well (for example surely many heterosexual couples are not fit to have children, or less so than some homosexual couples). Adoption is complex, though.
- marvin 12y ago
  Gay couples do have the possibility of having children, though. Some good friends of mine (lesbian couple + a close gay friend of theirs) have twins together, with the guy donating sperm to one of the women. They have entered a "holy wow" to raise the kids together as three parents, as if they were all biologically involved. So this in itself is not an argument; while I acknowledge that this is something that can be argued about, a lot of the arguing on this subject is extremely bigoted and misinformed. As is illustrated by this trio's harsh encounters with a number of government agencies that stick their heads into this arrangement and meet them with an incredibly hostile skepticism.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    I suspect people worry more about the "two dads" scenario than the "two mothers" scenario. Afaik the large majority of kids of gay couples are kids living with two mothers, one of them their biological one. I wonder how many kids live with two dads, one of them their biological one? I would expect the circumstances leading to that situation to be very rare. Anyway I don't want to argue in favor of the anti-marriage crowd, just point out that some arguments can at least be related to, even if they are misguided. Unfortunately we can not shut misguided people out of politics (or so it seems).
mikeash 12y ago
It is inherently discriminatory. But people will go out of their way to rationalize their position, whatever it takes. If one is convinced that gay marriage is bad and that discrimination against gay people is also bad, one will come up with some way to explain how the two are not in conflict.
wtbob 12y ago
> How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory? That's begging the question: you're assuming that failure to recognise a homosexual relationship is a legal restriction, which really doesn't make sense. I can declare myself King of England, no-one in America will recognise me as such, but that doesn't impose any legal restriction on me. There's the side issue of all the other things which 'marriage' acts as a legal shorthand for, but that is a side issue. You're also assuming that discrimination is an inherently bad thing; it is, of course, not. Discriminating between a green and a red light is a pretty useful survival skill whilst driving, for example. Discriminating between reproductive and non-reproductive relationships is also useful; there's a difference. My own personal view is that marriage is a religious matter, and that the State should no longer recognise it at all. If two men want to say that they're married, that's their right, just as it is mine to declare myself Grand Vizier of the Martian Republic—and no-one should be compelled by violence (which is what the law ultimately is) to heed either them or me.
- lthornberry 12y ago
  I actually agree with your proposal to get the state out of recognizing marriage (from what I suspect is a diametrically opposed political position). But you need to acknowledge that this would mean massive changes in many, many aspects of government policy. In the United States, state recognition of marriage is built into our tax structure, immigration policy, all aspects of social security, the regulation of trusts and estates, health care...the list is pretty much endless. Unless and until we change all of those policies, the failure to recognize same-sex marriages is discriminatory.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  That's a cool view, but not how it works. The 'side issue' you dismiss is really the center of it: the government denies full participation to a class of people based on a questionable moral stance. Anything less that recognition is a 'back of the bus' argument: if the bus goes to the same place, why do you care if you have to sit in the back?
  - facepalm 12y ago
sysk 12y ago
A common libertarian view is that marriage (gay and heterosexual) should not be the domain of government. http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/19/libertarians-gay-marriage-and-freedom http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/19/libertarians-gay-marri...
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  It became a common right-libertarian view about the same time as the heterosexual-only marriage policy throughout the US came under serious threat. Its also kind of interesting as a libertarian view, since marriage is essentially just a convenient prepackaged contractual relationship regarding property rights in the broad sense, and recognizing and enforcing contracts and their impact on property rights is one of the few things that libertarians generally agree is a proper role of government.
  - sysk 12y ago
    > It became a common right-libertarian view about the same time as the heterosexual-only marriage policy throughout the US came under serious threat. What were the right-libertarian views on marriage in the US prior to that? I'd be surprised if there were libertarians with radically different views. > Its also kind of interesting as a libertarian view, since marriage is essentially just a convenient prepackaged contractual relationship regarding property rights in the broad sense, and recognizing and enforcing contracts and their impact on property rights is one of the few things that libertarians generally agree is a proper role of government. I think the general view is that those contracts should not require a "stamp of approval" from the government and should instead be done privately and be enforced like any other contracts. Of course, in practice, a lot of laws would have to be rewritten to get rid of marital status.
- jjones3 12y ago
  Not just libertarians. Some radical queers oppose gay marriage too, seeing it as destructive to our community (more info: http://www.organizingupgrade.com/index.php/modules-menu/beyond-capitalism/item/1002-marriage-will-never-set-us-free http://www.organizingupgrade.com/index.php/modules-menu/beyo...)

facepalm 12y ago

I am not saying that I am of that opinion, but it seems valid to me to be of the opinion that marriage should be for the protection of families with the potential to have children (for example). It's just an opinion - isn't that what democracies are for? Marriage comes with specific rights and obligations (like, presumably most controversial, adoption and "importing" spouses into the country). Somehow society makes rules for who gets those rights and obligations. Would you say for example everybody should have the right to import people into the country? For example why don't I get the right to bestow citizenship onto people whom I really like - do I need to fuck them to prove I love them? Isn't that discriminatory? Or why stop at gay marriage - what about polyarmory? I am not against polyarmory, but suppose I have 100 lovers all over the world and I want them all to become US citizens? Why can't I just marry them all? Maybe it would be fair if every citizen would get the license to bring n people into the country, no matter if married or not? Again, I am not against gay marriage, I just want to demonstrate that there can be aspects that can be argued about. I don't know enough about adoption to comment. Can everybody adopt children? Or do you have to prove you are a healthy couple, or wealthy enough, or whatever? Personally I think once you argue homosexuals are not fit to adopt, you would have to consider all other sorts of criterions as well (for example surely many heterosexual couples are not fit to have children, or less so than some homosexual couples). Adoption is complex, though.

marvin 12y ago
Gay couples do have the possibility of having children, though. Some good friends of mine (lesbian couple + a close gay friend of theirs) have twins together, with the guy donating sperm to one of the women. They have entered a "holy wow" to raise the kids together as three parents, as if they were all biologically involved. So this in itself is not an argument; while I acknowledge that this is something that can be argued about, a lot of the arguing on this subject is extremely bigoted and misinformed. As is illustrated by this trio's harsh encounters with a number of government agencies that stick their heads into this arrangement and meet them with an incredibly hostile skepticism.
- facepalm 12y ago
  I suspect people worry more about the "two dads" scenario than the "two mothers" scenario. Afaik the large majority of kids of gay couples are kids living with two mothers, one of them their biological one. I wonder how many kids live with two dads, one of them their biological one? I would expect the circumstances leading to that situation to be very rare. Anyway I don't want to argue in favor of the anti-marriage crowd, just point out that some arguments can at least be related to, even if they are misguided. Unfortunately we can not shut misguided people out of politics (or so it seems).

mikeash 12y ago

It is inherently discriminatory. But people will go out of their way to rationalize their position, whatever it takes. If one is convinced that gay marriage is bad and that discrimination against gay people is also bad, one will come up with some way to explain how the two are not in conflict.

wtbob 12y ago

> How is enforcing legal restrictions against a minority class of people not inherently discriminatory? That's begging the question: you're assuming that failure to recognise a homosexual relationship is a legal restriction, which really doesn't make sense. I can declare myself King of England, no-one in America will recognise me as such, but that doesn't impose any legal restriction on me. There's the side issue of all the other things which 'marriage' acts as a legal shorthand for, but that is a side issue. You're also assuming that discrimination is an inherently bad thing; it is, of course, not. Discriminating between a green and a red light is a pretty useful survival skill whilst driving, for example. Discriminating between reproductive and non-reproductive relationships is also useful; there's a difference. My own personal view is that marriage is a religious matter, and that the State should no longer recognise it at all. If two men want to say that they're married, that's their right, just as it is mine to declare myself Grand Vizier of the Martian Republic—and no-one should be compelled by violence (which is what the law ultimately is) to heed either them or me.

lthornberry 12y ago
I actually agree with your proposal to get the state out of recognizing marriage (from what I suspect is a diametrically opposed political position). But you need to acknowledge that this would mean massive changes in many, many aspects of government policy. In the United States, state recognition of marriage is built into our tax structure, immigration policy, all aspects of social security, the regulation of trusts and estates, health care...the list is pretty much endless. Unless and until we change all of those policies, the failure to recognize same-sex marriages is discriminatory.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
That's a cool view, but not how it works. The 'side issue' you dismiss is really the center of it: the government denies full participation to a class of people based on a questionable moral stance. Anything less that recognition is a 'back of the bus' argument: if the bus goes to the same place, why do you care if you have to sit in the back?
- facepalm 12y ago

sysk 12y ago

A common libertarian view is that marriage (gay and heterosexual) should not be the domain of government. http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/19/libertarians-gay-marriage-and-freedom http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/19/libertarians-gay-marri...

dragonwriter 12y ago
It became a common right-libertarian view about the same time as the heterosexual-only marriage policy throughout the US came under serious threat. Its also kind of interesting as a libertarian view, since marriage is essentially just a convenient prepackaged contractual relationship regarding property rights in the broad sense, and recognizing and enforcing contracts and their impact on property rights is one of the few things that libertarians generally agree is a proper role of government.
- sysk 12y ago
  > It became a common right-libertarian view about the same time as the heterosexual-only marriage policy throughout the US came under serious threat. What were the right-libertarian views on marriage in the US prior to that? I'd be surprised if there were libertarians with radically different views. > Its also kind of interesting as a libertarian view, since marriage is essentially just a convenient prepackaged contractual relationship regarding property rights in the broad sense, and recognizing and enforcing contracts and their impact on property rights is one of the few things that libertarians generally agree is a proper role of government. I think the general view is that those contracts should not require a "stamp of approval" from the government and should instead be done privately and be enforced like any other contracts. Of course, in practice, a lot of laws would have to be rewritten to get rid of marital status.
jjones3 12y ago
Not just libertarians. Some radical queers oppose gay marriage too, seeing it as destructive to our community (more info: http://www.organizingupgrade.com/index.php/modules-menu/beyond-capitalism/item/1002-marriage-will-never-set-us-free http://www.organizingupgrade.com/index.php/modules-menu/beyo...)