Fantastic Article Opposing Same Sex "marriage'

[Annie12]

[quote][color=#000000][font='Times New Roman'][size=1]THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE[/size][/font][/color][indent][indent]

Adam Kolasinksi
[indent][indent][indent]
[b]Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.[/b][/indent][/indent][/indent]

[i]The Tech, Volume 124, Number 5
Tuesday, February 17, 2004[/i]

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse's social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse's health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reaching technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian's sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe's [i]Life Without Father[/i]) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child's development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a scoial policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state's interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. 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. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

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. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

[i]Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.[/i][/indent][/indent]


[/quote]

I never though of this. WHY!?!?

[Basilisa Marie]

Derp.

Nevermind.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1343571837' post='2459931']
Derp.

Nevermind.
[/quote]

Nope. Give us your thoughts. Now.

thx

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1343580059' post='2459954']
Nope. Give us your thoughts. Now.

thx
[/quote]

Well if you insist...

1. This is the kind of article that only serves to reinforce the opinions of those who already agree with the author's original statement.
2. It's full of logical fallacies.

But if the article gets a discussion going, then by all means, it can be useful.

[beatitude]

I agree with Basilia Marie. In addition to being full of logical holes, it also has a very chilling tone, stemming from its basic premise that something has to be in the interests of the state in order for the state to permit it. There are many beautiful things in life that don't have a clear utilitarian purpose - cloistered religious life is the first thing that springs to mind - and we start going down a dangerous road if we decide that legal recognition should be conferred on something only if it's 'useful' to the state as a whole. That almost sets the state up as a god. Marriage in the Catholic view is first and foremost a sacrament between a man and a woman that mirrors the creative love of the Trinity. It doesn't matter whether the state is 'interested' in the marriage or not, as marriage existed long before there were any states - it's not the state that confers legitimacy in the eyes of God.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1343598661' post='2460037']
Well if you insist...

1. This is the kind of article that only serves to reinforce the opinions of those who already agree with the author's original statement.
2. It's full of logical fallacies.

But if the article gets a discussion going, then by all means, it can be useful.
[/quote]

From what I've seen lately on facebook and what not, Catholics regrettably have been posting stuff that basically fulfills #1 and #2.

And it doesn't help anyone except deepen the lines drawn....

[Winchester]

I don't want the government defining marriage.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='beatitude' timestamp='1343604326' post='2460077']
I agree with Basilia Marie. In addition to being full of logical holes, it also has a very chilling tone, stemming from its basic premise that something has to be in the interests of the state in order for the state to permit it. There are many beautiful things in life that don't have a clear utilitarian purpose - cloistered religious life is the first thing that springs to mind - [b]and we start going down a dangerous road if we decide that legal recognition should be conferred on something only if it's 'useful' to the state as a whole[/b]. That almost sets the state up as a god. Marriage in the Catholic view is first and foremost a sacrament between a man and a woman that mirrors the creative love of the Trinity. It doesn't matter whether the state is 'interested' in the marriage or not, as marriage existed long before there were any states - it's not the state that confers legitimacy in the eyes of God.
[/quote]

It seems the issue is not whether or not the state "permits" it, but whether or not the state should [i]pay[/i] for it. If that's what you mean by "legal recognition" then I don't think that's at all dangerous. And while I agree it doesn't matter whether marriage serves the state's interest, it is the state who confers tax-deductions etc.

With that said I wouldn't mind the state butting the hell out, but that's super unrealistic. And since people of liberal-leanings tend to see the government as the primary vehicle for social change, they sort of give the government power to define our social relationships. So while I disagree with many of the premises of this article, I think it's useful to "play by their [typical proponents of gay marriage] rules" at least to engage them.

[Ice_nine]

and what logical fallacies specifically? I mean lots of it's premises are whacky, ok. And I ain't fact-checked all of his claims, so I can't declare that they're all troo, but if you accept the premises and assume his facts (e.g. all studies on homosexual parents are methodologically flawed) it seems his logic is consistent.

I basically parse his argument like so:

Premise: The state confers subsidies to heterosexual couples because they are likely to produce children, which forms the basic unit of society, and therefore it's in the state interest to help said unions economically in the interest of a stable society.

1)marriage is not a civil right because there are many other unions that are not legally recognized as marriage. (I agree here the logic is kinda faulty. These things don't prove that marriage is or isn't a civil right really. Circular reasoning?).

2) In the cost-benefit analysis it doesn't make sense that the state should provide subsidies to unions that cannot produce children.
--however it would be too costly to exclude ALL unions unable/unwilling to produce children. These are exceptions to the rule.



A closer read I'm starting to see a lot of places where he gets illogical, but I think the very core of his argument makes sense with the given premise.

Iunno, I don't think it's as irredeemable as y'all think.

[Papist]

Yes. His point is true and is why married couples have been given benefits/allowances historically. But I do not believe it is an argument against gay marriage. X gives society more benefits than Y. Therefore, Y should not be allowed. Bad logic...and unjust.

[Vincent Vega]

Dumb article. By that logic, it should be illegal for post-menopausal women and any one else with any sort of physical deficiency (traumatic, genetic, surgical, or otherwise) which compromises their ability to reproduce to be married, and polygamy/adultery should be encouraged so that as many children as possible can be created.

[Amory]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1343664788' post='2460247']
Dumb article. By that logic, it should be illegal for post-menopausal women and any one else with any sort of physical deficiency (traumatic, genetic, surgical, or otherwise) which compromises their ability to reproduce to be married, and polygamy/adultery should be encouraged so that as many children as possible can be created.
[/quote]

There are two responses with your first point.

One is practical: It would be difficult, intrusive, and burdensome to have to figure out whether a woman has gone through menopause as different women go through it at different times. Even though there are maximum recorded ages, it's always possible that a particular woman could exceed that age. There would also be similar difficulties in determining whether a each member of a couple is fertile. Often one doesn't find out he's infertile till after he's tried to have children, and those thought to be infertile sometimes end up being able to have children after all.

The second is philosophical: Marriage is allowed where the procreative act is possible, as it is between a man and a woman. Even if children don't necessarily ensure from a particular marriage, presumably the husband and wife will still engage in the act that would cause procreation. Where mating is impossible, marriage is irrelevant.


Moving onto your second point, I would point out that adultery would still not be encouraged because--even while producing children--it would not create a stable environment for them to live in, at least generally speaking. With adultery, the parents presumably would not be living together as one or both would still be living with their respective spouses; thus, they likely wouldn't be raising the children together. An adulterous couple also presumably wouldn't share finances--and their entire life.

The prohibition of polygamy is an interesting point, because I'd say it's a holdover from the United States' Christian heritage. In raising marriage to a sacrament, Christ prohibited polygamy for the baptized--something that had previously been tolerated for pre-Christians and that (as suggests canon law) is to some degree acceptable for the unbaptized today. Although various cultures have practiced monogamy, its universal presence in Western Europe was a result of Christian theology of marriage. I'm thus not certain that monogamy's necessity can be insisted upon without recourse to divine revelation.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Amory

[Basilisa Marie]

Formal fallacies?

Appeal to probability. Denying the antecedent. Illicit Major.

Informal Fallacies?

Begging the Question. Argument from ignorance. Paradox (my favorite: "empirically verified common wisdom,"). Argument from Silence. Slippery Slope. Onus Probandi. False Cause. Ad hominem.

I haven't even gotten to the problems with his utilitarian mindset or his erroneous implied definition of the purpose of marriage. Not to mention the typos and the fact that this is a doctoral student in economics, which hurts his stance as a credible authority on an issue of morality or social policy.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343605990' post='2460084']
I don't want the government defining marriage.
[/quote]

Fantastic. I don't want it redefining marriage either.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1343605990' post='2460084']
I don't want the government defining marriage.
[/quote]

hippie