THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Iceman,

[quote name='The Iceman of the North' post='1744590' date='Apr 4 2009, 09.24']Ormond didn't say that there were no special rights or privileges unrelated to children, just that no ceremony was needed. There are plenty of rights and privileges that ought to be given to couples in a committed relationship, and a marriage license is one way of separating committed from less committed couples.[/quote]

Then he didn't answer my question. I didn't ask whether special rights existed, unrelated to children. I asked what secular reason, unrelated to children, exists for giving married couples special rights?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ormond,

[quote name='Ormond' post='1744598' date='Apr 4 2009, 09.32']Because it provides a simple way for people to designate the "main person" who will have responsibility for them and rights of survivorship without going through a lot of time consuming and expensive rigamarole.

Actually it is possible for same sex couples to get quite a few of the "rights" that married couples have by going to lawyers and drawing up powers of attorney, wills, etc. Marriage is a short hand way to make all those provisions at once, which is more efficient both for the couple and for the government.

Do you really think that things like inheritance and the right to make medical decisions for a comatose loved one are NOT things that government has a rational reason for granting to childless couples? They certainly seem like important issues to me.

Just which of the rights that one gets with marriage do you think are only necessary for couples with children?[/quote]

Getting married is simpler than writting a quick will or a health care power of attorney? [The exclamation point was a thumb slip]

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Inigima' post='1744584' date='Apr 4 2009, 06.12']Are you also opposed to hetero marriage? Because if not I don't see how this makes sense[/quote]

Of course.

Iceman: I find that most dissenting opinions disagree with your assessment of that particular nuance. I am not saying I find your reasoning unsound, just that debating the merits of that particular nuance tends to lead to unnecessary side argument I gave up trying to win in my teens.

[Ashaman]

my only conserne about gay marriage, is that they should not get the same right to share the role of parents for a child. its just that i think a child growing up need both a mother and a father, or at least simmilare rolle moddels.


so my only conserne is the well being of their possible childrens.

[The Iceman of the North]

This would be an issue if all other children actually had both a mother and a father. Since this isn't the case I can't see why two mums, or two dads are worse than one mum or one dad.

[Ormond]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1744607' date='Apr 4 2009, 08.42']Ormond,



Getting married is simpler than writting a quick will or a health care power of attorney? [The exclamation point was a thumb slip][/quote]

Well, gee, yes, because you only have to do it ONCE. You have to do powers of attorney, deeds with rights of survivorship, etc., all separately. If you are married, the legal marriage covers all of that with just one certificate. That makes getting married both less time consuming and much less expensive (remembering that we are talking about the legal rights, not any expense asscociated with a legally unnecessary ceremony or celebration.)

P.S. Not to mention that biological relatives are much more likely to try to challenge these rights if the couple is not married.

[kungtotte]

Not to mention that the two moms or the two dads are almost guaranteed to have [i]wanted[/i] children, something which plays a large part in the welfare of said child(ren).

[Lord of Oop North]

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE IS BASED ON AS MUCH BULLSHIT AS THE RELIGIOUS ONE.

[kiko]

[quote name='Ser Scot A Ellison' post='1744607' date='Apr 4 2009, 15.42']Ormond,



Getting married is simpler than writting a quick will or a health care power of attorney? [The exclamation point was a thumb slip][/quote]

Considering how married partners support each other, I can see how this is in the interest of the whole society, because they do things that would otherwise fall to the community. Single persons who are in no relationship have a much harder time, be it dealing with sickness, economic troubles or other things that are simply related with being alone and without granted support from a spouse.
Society has an interest in promoting stable relationships, and what they give the couples in return is a rather small investment compared with the advantages

[TrackerNeil]

Kolasinski talks out of his ass in many ways, but I'll illustrate two:

[quote]Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation.[/quote]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Stephanie Koontz has already dealt with this myth, and if a doctoral student can't be bothered to read what a stand-up comedian with a 16-year-old car managed to comprehend, he's just an asshole.

[quote]Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates.[/quote]

Also wrong. My partner and I have durable power of attorney - general and healthcare - for each other, but we had to pay an attorney to make it so. And we'll have to pay again for living wills. And again for designation of inheritance. Straight people can take care of all of this with a marriage license, easy as pie. And no attorney can spare one of us the inheritance taxes on the house when the other dies. So it's not so easy, Mr. Kolasinski. Asshole.

Kolasinski also neglects to perform a comparison of the costs of allowing gay marriage to the costs of banning it, which would seem crucial to whatever point he thinks he's making. In truth, this essay is an scholarly cover for anti-gay bigotry, using a lot of words and slathered liberally with a coating of phony intellectualism. Asshole.

[RhaegarTar]

Great article, I enjoyed it. Still think Civil Unions are the way to go though, so we can simply stop talking about this issue. Yes, those who care about the future of *their* society rather then some mythical "humanity" are very unhappy that marriage has been separated from procreation, but that train has already not only left the station, but crashed and burned on the track.

[Artas]

[quote]IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE IS BASED ON AS MUCH BULLSHIT AS THE RELIGIOUS ONE.[/quote]

Of course. That's because most people begin by thinking "eww, gays", and work from there.

At least this thread got all the religious stuff out of the way for once.

[mormont]

[quote name='RhaegarTar' post='1744686' date='Apr 4 2009, 17.29']Great article, I enjoyed it.[/quote]

:o Presumably because it made you laugh so much?

I mean, regardless of the subject matter, you have pretensions to being able to study at postgraduate level, so you must have noticed the utter lack of any evidence of critical thinking in the article, not to mention the repeated construction of fallacies based on assertions unsupported by even a cursory nod towards evidence, which are then treated uncritically as facts. And that's just scratching the surface.

If I saw that article produced as a first year moral philosophy assignment, I'd expect it to fail. Purely in terms of the actual argument and standard of writing, it's feeble. I've read better-written arguments on cereal packets.

[zollo]

[quote name='RhaegarTar' post='1744686' date='Apr 4 2009, 17.29']Great article, I enjoyed it. Still think Civil Unions are the way to go though, so we can simply stop talking about this issue. Yes, those who care about the future of *their* society rather then some mythical "humanity" are very unhappy that marriage has been separated from procreation, but that train has already not only left the station, but crashed and burned on the track.[/quote]


Taking into account that most of your arguments seem to be based on a belief in a mythical society, involving some equally mythical über race, I am not surprised.

[Artas]

Hey, someone spelled über correctly! :P

[Shryke]

Umlauts are the Nazis of written language. Fuck them to Hell!

[RhaegarTar]

Mormont: I disagree, and have stated many times my opinions regarding the importance of civil unions and removing Government's interference in marriage. Anything else said from me to you on this issue is a waste of breath.

Incidentally, I start graduate school at Boston College in September.

[TheKassi]

[quote name='Ashaman' post='1744660' date='Apr 4 2009, 08.24']my only conserne about gay marriage, is that they should not get the same right to share the role of parents for a child. its just that i think a child growing up need both a mother and a father, or at least simmilare rolle moddels.


so my only conserne is the well being of their possible childrens.[/quote]

I can guarantee you that two loving mothers or fathers is better then zero. There are millions of children in the world who have been orphaned or abandoned, and not every one is found a home in a traditional family. Many are raised bouncing around from foster home to foster home, or placed in long term group homes ran by employees, not parents.

A hired caregiver who does things like quit, get transferred, move away, gets fired, or is otherwise replaced by another hired caregiver isn't going to automatically fill the role of parent better then a homosexual willing to take responsibility for a child until they are all grown up.

In fact, I have never seen any argument that a hired caregiver would even fill the role as well as an adopted homosexual parent.

Finally, lots of children born as a result of a previously heterosexual marriage are raised by homosexual parents. I do not see a reasonable argument for taking away a widower's child simply because they marry a man several years down the line. Bisexuals can make babies to.

[kiko]

[quote name='Artas' post='1744701' date='Apr 4 2009, 18.54']Hey, someone spelled über correctly! :P[/quote]

Our Dutch neighbours *can* get the hang of the more complicated letters, apparently. Good work!

[Ser Greguh]

I'm not particularly passionate about state-approved gay marriage, but then again I'm not particularly passionate about state-approved heterosexual marriage either. What kind of stupid, anachronistic idea is it anyway that the best way for a society to thrive and multiply is to promote a single hard-to-break theoretically-monogamous unit? Is it just me, because I've never really understood the appeal, from a state perspective, of "we approve of this arrangement for the purpose of keeping the nookie enclosed between these two people; here's your tax break."