Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

These issues don't get decided directly by the majority. It's like a lot of things: people may have an opinion, but they've opinions on other things too, and often those other things are more important. However, minorities like gays and ethnic minorities shout very loud, and so politicians listen. Often all political parties will take the same policy position on a minority issue for those reasons. In that way things are changed in favour of the minority without the rest of us getting a say e.g gay marriage and endless immigration.

Anyway, like I've previously said, I really don't care too much whether gays can marry or not. However, if they can then whatever benefits the state deems they get in the way of tax breaks should be available to all people living together, whether they're in a sexual relationship or not. That's the only reasonable step you can take. However, once you've followed things to that reasonable conclusion you're a million miles away from what marriage still means to the majority in this country, IMO.

In specifically limited conditions, which you yourself admitted. For you to bring this up then ignore it as irrelevent is just being disingenuous. Minors aren't able to sign contracts to lease an apartment, for instance. They can't sign a contract to purchase an automobile. Now, why is that? And why would whatever is the basis for these limitations also not apply to marriage?



Irrelevant. Marriage is a contract formalizing a pair bond. Pair = two. Group marriages are another matter entirely.



Really? I've never, ever, seen all political parties take the same policy position on a controversial issue. Ever.

Oh, right. A pair bond, eh? Sounds very PC! But you are partly correct in that marriage formalises an arrangement between two people: a man and a woman. You see, you automatically assume that marriage involves two people. That's quite reasonable, just as I take it that it involves a man and a woman. But if you can change the sex of the parties involved and still call it marriage, why shouldn't you be able to do the same with the number of people involved?

Evidently certain people have no problem with this:



How about four, Sopho?

On to this:


But they can sometimes get married. As I've showed, being a minor and being married are not mutually exclusive. If you can't use the fact someone's a minor to prevent this hypothetical union, then what principle are you going to call-on, instead, in the case of the 8 year olds?


I'll re-word that: "often the mainstream political parties will take the same policy position on a minority issue for those reasons". Take immigration and the preferential treatment ethnic minorities get, as a UK example.

But entering into a homosexual partnership is a choice, whereas being sterile is not. Furthermore, most heterosexual, sterile couples don’t realise they’re unable to procreate until they try to do so.

Heterosexual, sterile couples will often enter into a partnership hoping to produce children, and they will often be quite devastated to find that they’re unable to do so. Homosexual couples have chosen to enter into partnerships that they know can never produce children. It is not in the interests of society to treat these two arrangements as equivalent.

To be more concise: a society that treats homosexual partnerships the same as heterosexual partnerships is demonstrating to the world that it is not serious about its own survival.

With this nitpicking about sterile couples, you’re just clinging on to an equivalence that just doesn’t exist.

Xenon and sigholdaccountlost, I’m curious to know, if gay marriage is not legalised, what would be the next best thing in your eyes? Should couples be forced to annul their marriage after their nth failed attempt to conceive? Or after x years of childlessness? Would this go some way towards satisfying your egalitarianism?

You see, I’ll say it for the umpteenth time, society has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman because it takes a man and a woman to conceive a child. IMHO, there are fair arguments for the state providing incentives for couples to have children (especially in times of falling birthrates), but once the state has sanctioned a marriage between a man and a woman, the actual status of the marriage itself from then on should be none of their business.

Now, onto the polygamy question …



This is really no sort of answer at all. Maybe someone else could try. Why should marriage be between two people? Why not three? Why not five men and four women?

Just consider (an admiteddly hypothetical scenario) where A and B, one of them knows they're sterile, decide to get married. As a demo. of their love.

Balderdash. People are going to have sex and have children no matter what the marriage laws are.




You are really missing the point here. Using "gay couples can't procreate" as a reason to disallow gay marriages is irrelevant because many straight couples don't have children. Some can't have them. Some choose not to. If not procreating is a reason to disallow it, then we'd have to disallow non-productive straight marriages as well. And that idea is patently ludicrous.

BTW, Canada (along with Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, and South Africa) have legalized gay marriage. Israel, Aruba, and the Netherlands Antilles will recognize foreign gay marriages as valid. Many other countries allow "civil unions" between same-sex partners, which is the next best thing.

Welcome to the 21st century, Coderac.



Actually, society has defined marriage as between a man and a woman because until marriage, a woman was considered to the the property of her father. At the time of marriage, said ownership was transferred from the woman's father to the woman's husband. As women are no longer considered property, the original social reason for marriage is no longer relevant.




And in what way is allowing same-sex couples to have the same benefits not warranted?

Yes, they can sometimes get married... "Sometimes" meaning they have to be at least 16. An eight year old is not 16, so your argument about 8-year-olds is beside the point. Generally speaking, minors are not allowed to enter into contracts. The fact that a specific exception is made to allow 16-year-olds to get married applies only to those of age 16 and 17. The UK, for some reason, has decided that 16- and 17-year-olds can get married, as a specific exception to the general rule of minors not having full rights of adulthood. I am sure a case can be made to justify that exception. I very much doubt a similar case can be made for those under 16. But the fact that there is a specific and well-defined exception does not invalidate the general rules.

(Come to think of it, why *do* they allow 16-year-olds to get married?)



Really? I have never, ever, seen all mainstream political parties take the same policy position on a controversial issue. I'm not familiar enough with UK politics to comment, but I don't see it happening in Canada or the USA. On such issues, here in Canada you will find the Liberals on one side and the Conservatives on the other. And in the rare case that the Liberals and Conservatives agree on something, the New Democratic Party will disagree with them. Meanwhile, in the USA, if the Republicans are on one side of an issue, you can bet the Democrats are on the other side.

Last edited by Xenon on 20 May 2007, 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I said (amended as discussed):

If you look I'm sure you can find examples in your country. It's a commonsense strategy: don't alienate minority groups pushing one issue, if that issue's not rated as too important by the rest of the population. You see, a lot of people think marriage is something for a man and woman; they might not object to this civil partnership stuff, but like to call a spade a spade, as it were. However, if they're still under the illusion that it's worth voting, then it's not an issue that's going to figure in their decision when they do. Trouble is, this kind of crazy leftist rubbish accumulates until you wake up one morning and wonder what country you're in. Do you see my point?

Oh, I'd be very interested if you'd address my other comments regarding multiple-partner unions. Isn't that kind of stuff well ingrained in muslim culture? So, it's not without precedent, is it? Why let your Western Christian prejudices cloud your judgment?

As for the minors getting married, the point is that your response regarding entering into contracts is not valid, as I've demonstrated. The age at which people are allowed is more a cultural thing that's developed over the years. For example one hundred years ago it was something like 12. In some countries it still is, I think. It has little to do with contracts, more religous, cultural and reproductive reasons

No, actually, I don't. Part of it is that I am having trouble making sense of what you just wrote. If an issue is of sufficient importance to enough people, then they will find support in one or another of the mainstream parties.



I consider the issue of multiple-partner unions to be irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage, and will not address them. It's a spurious argument, and you have yet to demonstrate its relevance to the topic at hand.



You have demonstrated nothing of the kind. All you've done is point out a specific exception that applies to those who are within 2 years of reaching adulthood. The fact that a 16-year-old in the UK can get married in no way contradicts the fact that an 8-year-old is unable to enter into a legal contract. I suppose I could amend my original argument to say "8-year olds" instead of "minors", but if so then we're reduced to the level of playing word games.



And our current social-cultural milieu (western Civilization) frowns on the idea of 8-year-olds getting married. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Giving legal sanction to same-sex marriages is not going to have any effect on laws designed to protect children. Nor will it have an effect on opposite-sex unions. All it will do is extend a civil right to a small portion of the population that has been unable to claim it.

The sanction of same-sex unions has come about because most people in the jurisdictions in which they have become legal support the idea. In our society, there has been a groundswell of support for gay rights over the last few generations, and allowing same-sex marriage is a byproduct of this. I don't see any groundswell of support for the idea of allowing children to get married, or of giving legal sanction to civil unions involving more than two people -- in both cases, most people are against the idea. And so there is unlikely to be any legislation in support of these anytime soon -- the public support just isn't there.

(There, I addressed your comments on multiple-partner unions. Happy now?)

Last edited by Xenon on 20 May 2007, 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

And I have no problem with that idea.




So what?

There's been a groundswell of support from a vociferous politically-active minority, you mean. Then, it's a bandwagon that politicians jump on because it's a position they can't really lose from. As I tried to unsuccessfully explain, just because people don't let it influence their vote, doesn't mean they agree with it. Gay marriage doesn't affect most people, until one day they come to use the word "marriage" in the context they're used to, and find the definition of the words been changed. Yes, the useage and meaning of words change, but a political group changing the definition of something that has been so central to our society for hundreds of years, in the way described, is not something that a free and democratic country should be too proud of. As I tried to explain, this happens more and more; the impact is cumulative and minorities end up dictating to the majority. Politicians pander to one-issue minority groups because they can get their votes without risking the vote of the majority who couldn't care less until it's too late. Is the mechanism a little clearer, even if you don't agree with its impact?

As for the multi-partner thing, it is relevant as an analogy to what you are doing with the male and female issue. I contend marriage is between a man and woman over 16. You contend it's between two people of any sex over 16. Marriage has been, up to recently, as I described. A minority who argue this discriminates against their lifestyle seek to change the definition to the one you support. Certain people think that's fine and dandy, and posit that two people in a loving relationship should not be discriminated against in our great liberal utopia by not being allowed to marry. So, I'm drawing a comparison between that and allowing three people in a loving relationship to marry in order to highlight the dubious nature of the reasoning used. Using analogy in that way does not constitute spurious argument, as you say.

I'm trying to find out the reasons why you think it's so important. I don't think there's any great support for it, to be honest. Most people I know would say marriage is something for a man and woman. So, we're left with the "discrimination" argument, I suppose, and that's the argument that takes us down the path to absurdity. Therefore, we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and that is, IMO, with marriage being as it's always been for hundreds of years.

That's awfully cynical of you. Social change does not happen because of government action, it happens in spite of it. If enough people support an idea, or at least have no problem with it (ie, are not against the idea), then sooner or later the change will happen. In many Western countries, there is enough support (or insufficient opposition) to gay marriage that it's become reality. The USA is a noteable exception, since in the USA the majority is still opposed to the idea. Americans, by and large, don't like the idea of gay marriage, so in the USA it's not going to happen in the near future, except in a few states whose populations are more progressive than the average American.

And your comment about changing the definition of marriage as being something central to our society for "hundreds of years" is invalid. The definition of marriage 50 years ago is different than it is now. The definition 100 years ago was different than it was 50 years ago. The definition has changed substantially over time, and this is just one more change. In many places, marriages weren't legal unless they were done in a church. Divorce used to be illegal. Wives were considered to be their husband's property, and could not own property themselves. This idea of "marriage" being the same for the past few hundred years is a myth.



The problem with that line of reasoning is that there is effectively no public support for the idea of allowing multiple-partner marriages. There is a sizeable portion of the population who support gay marriage. There is also a large segment of the population who are indifferent enough to the idea that they won't oppose it. Those two groups outweigh the opposition. So the balance is tilting towards acceptance.

However, this is not the case when it comes to polygamy. The portion of the population who supports it is small enough to be effectively ignored. And since they're so few in number, there is nothing happening towards it becoming legal, so the indifferent masses in this case are irrelevant. And I would say those opposed to the idea are much more numerous than those opposed to gay marriage.

We haven't even taken the first few steps towards legal polygamy; the first steps towards same-sex marriage were taken a long time ago, when companies began to offer benefits to same-sex domestic partners and governments recognized that same-sex partnerships constituted a household. This is not happening with group arrangements. There isn't even anything to hint that this may even be a remote possibility in the foreseeable future. It is for this reason that I deemed the issue of polygamy irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage.

Now, if over the next five to ten years there was to be public acceptance of the idea of group conjugal arrangements (there is none now), and companies started recognizing it and offering benefits to accommodate it, then maybe in thirty or forty years we could be having a debate on the legalization of polygamy. But not until then. (And that's a very big "if".)



Then you aren't paying attention. Or maybe you are living in a place where the support isn't as great as it is elsewhere. More Canadians support it than oppose it. That's why we have it.



See above. Marriage today, even without same-sex marriage, is nothing like it was a century ago. Marriage, like the rest of society, is changing. You may not like the change, but over time your viewpoint will increasingly be the minority view. Live with it.

You need the support of politicians to change things; politicians will estimate the likely net gain in votes for backing a minority issue before making a decision. That's a flaw of our democratic system. It wouldn't be so much of a problem if politicians had integrity, but few do. I accept that allowing gay marriage isn't the end of the world, so to speak, but these kind of things are cumulative. Also, even in liberal Canada there is not overwhelming support, despite the state indoctrination that undoubtedly occurs in schools, and the oppressive discrimination laws you have that affect free speech. Do you really think it's ethically acceptable that a minority force their view on everyone else? They win by default because in cahoots with the politicians they manipulate the system to their advantage: most people know they have to accept certain party policies they don't agree with, and for example they may accept gay marriage if the party in question is going to reduce their taxes. It's all carefully calculated and has little to do with what's fair, ethical or free. Of course, in the UK it's not much better, and minorities ride roughshod over the rest of us, as politicians bend to their almost every whim. And there's more: political correctness is then used to prevent debate, and to silence dissent. So, even if people did feel strongly against gay marriage they daren't speak-out as they'd risk losing their job, or being arrested for a "hate" crime. So much for freedom and deomocracy!


Like I said, I accept things change, but some things are central to a definition. Marriage, historically, is within a context of a man and woman raising kids as a family. You can change the laws regarding how that partnership works with regard divorce etc., but you're still left with what is obviously marriage. To use an example: you can develop an aircraft from a biplane to a swept-wing jet, yet it's still basically an aircraft. If you cut the wings off and make it float it's no longer an aircraft; it's a boat. That's what you're doing with marriage. Call it a civil partnership if you want; but not marriage. It's very clearly not.


Not yet, though I'm sure someone could drum-up support from the Mormons and Muslims. Politicians need to maximise capital from the gay marriage thing first! But you've accepted the principle, just stated you believe that the current conditions aren't conducive to change. So, I'd like to know: where would you draw that line in the sand? Are you happy to let minority groups get what they want ad infinitum? You yourself have stated that marriage is for two people. Why do you believe that?

I don't see why you think the sex of the people involved is so important? How is me marrying a woman any differet than me marrying a man? I am not defined by whether or not I have a penis. What about people who are transgendered?

the drive to find a partner goes beyond sex so I don't see why not.

It doesn't even have to be about sex at all; people can get married without wanting to have sex.