So, Deck Knight, Colin, AA, and I were talking about this on Shoddy, but I prefer debating on forums to debating on chat clients like that, so here it is!
I would like to remove the government from marriage entirely. However, if that's impossible, then everything I post after this would be my second choice.
This is something I wrote a while ago on homosexual marriage, so here we go:
I am in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. Civil Unions are not enough. There are 1,049 federal rights and provisions specific to marriage and not civil unions, along with (on average) about 400 state rights. One such right is hospital visitation; moreover, medical decision-making powers when his/her partner falls ill are not automatically granted. A 'domestic partner is not entitled to: benefits from worker’s comp upon the injury or death of his/her partner, sundry protections involving being the partner of a crime victim (such as address confidentiality, the right to make a victim impact statement, and even the right to get information involving the case). Homosexual couples lack access to 'family' health and automobile insurance policies. Currently, a person who outlives his / her partner is not entitled to protections such as taking a forced share of the estate, and transition protections related to staying in the family home, receiving allowances from the estate to meet current expenses, and being allowed to drive the family car. Surviving lesbian and gay partners are denied automatic inheritance rights, along with spousal preference for administering the estate and taking care of a loved one’s remains. A same-sex partner of a public employee is not entitled to pension survivor rights and accidental death benefits. In addition, partners of police officers, firefighters, and prosecutors who are killed on the job do not have access to the line of duty benefits. Homosexuals do not have the standing to bring claims of wrongful death or loss of consortium when a loved one’s death results from wrongdoing. Others are the right of attorney, child custody rights, and various things involving taxes / insurance. The list goes on and on. This is absolutely unacceptable. Policies and laws whose goals are to provide separate but equal rights only obtain half of that which they set out for.
"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." (excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment)
To save time, I'm going to refute some of 'the opposition's' argument before they have a chance to make it.
SLIPPERY-SLOPES
"If you allow a man to marry another man, then what's to stop a man from marrying his dog, or his toaster, or a child?"
The problem with this argument is that pets, children, and household objects have no legal standing in court and cannot sign a marriage contract.
SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
"Allowing homosexuals to get married would degrade the value of marriage."
Hate to bring this up, as it is such a cliché nowadays, but when Britney Spears marriages are allowed/when people can get married by an Elvis impersonator, that's not exactly what anyone would define as sanctimonious. The Census Bureau of America estimates >50% divorce rate, yet some still call it sanctimonious.
If anything, allowing homosexual marriage would lower the average divorce rate. The reasoning behind this is simple. Many homosexuals have worked hard to get these rights, and thus would have it as very important. Few would want to throw away what has been worked for so hard.
TRADITION / MARRIAGE IS A CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION / REDIFINING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman under god, and has always been this way. Don't go about trying to redefine words to suit your purpose."
Marriage predates Christianity. So unless whoever first thought up this whole "marriage thing" happened to be a pre-Christ Mesopotamian Nostradamus... I mean, the earliest recorded marriage-like ceremony was somewhere around 2000 BC, if my memory serves me correctly. The earliest recorded ceremony that was much closer to our current definition occurred circa 500 BC in Egypt, and many Egyptologists agree that it had been around long (millennia) before that.
Also, if you'd all really like to go back to the traditional Christian marriage, there would be no divorces. There would be no marriages between people of differing color. There would be no marriage between people with differing socio-economic status. Woman would be property. This, of course, would all be ignoring a little thing I like to refer to as secularity, more commonly known as the separation of church and state (as ruled by Brown v. Board of Education, with roots in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, and various parts of the Constitution addressed in various parts of this post). The First Amendment states
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Never be so deeply rooted in traditions so that your only reason for doing things is that they've always been done that way before.
UNNATURAL
"Homosexuality is unnatural, and thus should be illegal."
Unnatural? This argument is so bad; I’m going to refute it not once, not twice, but three times!!
Let’s just assume for a moment, that if something occurs fairly regularly in nature, it is, in fact, natural. There has been a constant 9-11% rate of homosexuality / bisexuality within the populace throughout recorded history. It is estimated that 90% of all male elephants have engaged in such activities with other bulls. Want some more statistics? Two male penguins had bonded in a zoo, as though a couple, and tried to raise a rock as an egg. The zookeepers switched the rock out one day for a real egg, it hatched, and they raised it as their own child.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG3N4RAV41.DTL
Or if you’d prefer: Much like eyeglasses, synthetic fibers, and marriage itself.
Or how about: Why is it that, just because something is different, people feel it should be illegal? What harm is done to anyone? In fact, I’d say homosexuality is, in fact, better than heterosexuality. You see, hundreds of thousands of children (in the US alone) have no parents. Adoption is a very important option. And seeing as we aren’t close to the risk of being under populated, it lessens the need for more food. (Note: this is partially sarcastic. Calm down)
ALLOWING IT WOULD ENCOURAGE IMMORAL BEHAVIOR
Many scientists are saying that it is genetic. Now, I believe them to be wrong if they stop there. However, there is compelling evidence that there is a large genetic component.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1306894,00.html (Note that this gene is also responsible for increased fertility in females, which would make it a desirable trait roughly 50% of the time in nature, explaining why natural selection had not removed it)
So this argument is akin to saying “Allowing short people to get married would encourage other people to become short.”
(Note: This argument also rests on the fallacious idea that homosexuality is, in fact, immoral. I also do not believe that it is entirely genetic, merely influenced by genetics)
"A million dead people can't be wrong, can they?" ~Terry Pratchett
If I were to say that being Jewish was morally wrong, should that even be given a chance at having legislation furthering that view? Of course not. Even if 99% of the population agreed with me, the reason we have laws is to protect against the tyranny of the majority.
AHHH UNDERPOPULATION!!
"If we allow homosexuality, humanity will die off."
Do we really need more people? Do we want it to get to the point where it is in China, where people abort fetuses that have been determined to be female because there is a law of only one child per couple (I forget if this is national or just certain areas)? Which is better: having another child, increasing the global supply load, or adopting an already existing one? I'm not saying that people who don't adopt are evil, nor am I saying that those who have children are immoral. Some people just claim that since homosexuals can't have kids, and the purpose of marriage is to create a stable environment for raising children, they should not be allowed to marry (completely ignoring infertile couples/those who choose not to have kids for personal reasons). They then will often go on to say that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, citing the claim that they will raise homosexual children (much like heterosexuals only raise heterosexual children).
I would like to remove the government from marriage entirely. However, if that's impossible, then everything I post after this would be my second choice.
This is something I wrote a while ago on homosexual marriage, so here we go:
I am in favor of allowing homosexual marriage. Civil Unions are not enough. There are 1,049 federal rights and provisions specific to marriage and not civil unions, along with (on average) about 400 state rights. One such right is hospital visitation; moreover, medical decision-making powers when his/her partner falls ill are not automatically granted. A 'domestic partner is not entitled to: benefits from worker’s comp upon the injury or death of his/her partner, sundry protections involving being the partner of a crime victim (such as address confidentiality, the right to make a victim impact statement, and even the right to get information involving the case). Homosexual couples lack access to 'family' health and automobile insurance policies. Currently, a person who outlives his / her partner is not entitled to protections such as taking a forced share of the estate, and transition protections related to staying in the family home, receiving allowances from the estate to meet current expenses, and being allowed to drive the family car. Surviving lesbian and gay partners are denied automatic inheritance rights, along with spousal preference for administering the estate and taking care of a loved one’s remains. A same-sex partner of a public employee is not entitled to pension survivor rights and accidental death benefits. In addition, partners of police officers, firefighters, and prosecutors who are killed on the job do not have access to the line of duty benefits. Homosexuals do not have the standing to bring claims of wrongful death or loss of consortium when a loved one’s death results from wrongdoing. Others are the right of attorney, child custody rights, and various things involving taxes / insurance. The list goes on and on. This is absolutely unacceptable. Policies and laws whose goals are to provide separate but equal rights only obtain half of that which they set out for.
"...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..." (excerpt from the Fourteenth Amendment)
To save time, I'm going to refute some of 'the opposition's' argument before they have a chance to make it.
SLIPPERY-SLOPES
"If you allow a man to marry another man, then what's to stop a man from marrying his dog, or his toaster, or a child?"
The problem with this argument is that pets, children, and household objects have no legal standing in court and cannot sign a marriage contract.
SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
"Allowing homosexuals to get married would degrade the value of marriage."
Hate to bring this up, as it is such a cliché nowadays, but when Britney Spears marriages are allowed/when people can get married by an Elvis impersonator, that's not exactly what anyone would define as sanctimonious. The Census Bureau of America estimates >50% divorce rate, yet some still call it sanctimonious.
If anything, allowing homosexual marriage would lower the average divorce rate. The reasoning behind this is simple. Many homosexuals have worked hard to get these rights, and thus would have it as very important. Few would want to throw away what has been worked for so hard.
TRADITION / MARRIAGE IS A CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION / REDIFINING THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
"Marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman under god, and has always been this way. Don't go about trying to redefine words to suit your purpose."
Marriage predates Christianity. So unless whoever first thought up this whole "marriage thing" happened to be a pre-Christ Mesopotamian Nostradamus... I mean, the earliest recorded marriage-like ceremony was somewhere around 2000 BC, if my memory serves me correctly. The earliest recorded ceremony that was much closer to our current definition occurred circa 500 BC in Egypt, and many Egyptologists agree that it had been around long (millennia) before that.
Also, if you'd all really like to go back to the traditional Christian marriage, there would be no divorces. There would be no marriages between people of differing color. There would be no marriage between people with differing socio-economic status. Woman would be property. This, of course, would all be ignoring a little thing I like to refer to as secularity, more commonly known as the separation of church and state (as ruled by Brown v. Board of Education, with roots in a letter from Thomas Jefferson, and various parts of the Constitution addressed in various parts of this post). The First Amendment states
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Never be so deeply rooted in traditions so that your only reason for doing things is that they've always been done that way before.
UNNATURAL
"Homosexuality is unnatural, and thus should be illegal."
Unnatural? This argument is so bad; I’m going to refute it not once, not twice, but three times!!
Let’s just assume for a moment, that if something occurs fairly regularly in nature, it is, in fact, natural. There has been a constant 9-11% rate of homosexuality / bisexuality within the populace throughout recorded history. It is estimated that 90% of all male elephants have engaged in such activities with other bulls. Want some more statistics? Two male penguins had bonded in a zoo, as though a couple, and tried to raise a rock as an egg. The zookeepers switched the rock out one day for a real egg, it hatched, and they raised it as their own child.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG3N4RAV41.DTL
Or if you’d prefer: Much like eyeglasses, synthetic fibers, and marriage itself.
Or how about: Why is it that, just because something is different, people feel it should be illegal? What harm is done to anyone? In fact, I’d say homosexuality is, in fact, better than heterosexuality. You see, hundreds of thousands of children (in the US alone) have no parents. Adoption is a very important option. And seeing as we aren’t close to the risk of being under populated, it lessens the need for more food. (Note: this is partially sarcastic. Calm down)
ALLOWING IT WOULD ENCOURAGE IMMORAL BEHAVIOR
Many scientists are saying that it is genetic. Now, I believe them to be wrong if they stop there. However, there is compelling evidence that there is a large genetic component.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1306894,00.html (Note that this gene is also responsible for increased fertility in females, which would make it a desirable trait roughly 50% of the time in nature, explaining why natural selection had not removed it)
So this argument is akin to saying “Allowing short people to get married would encourage other people to become short.”
(Note: This argument also rests on the fallacious idea that homosexuality is, in fact, immoral. I also do not believe that it is entirely genetic, merely influenced by genetics)
"A million dead people can't be wrong, can they?" ~Terry Pratchett
If I were to say that being Jewish was morally wrong, should that even be given a chance at having legislation furthering that view? Of course not. Even if 99% of the population agreed with me, the reason we have laws is to protect against the tyranny of the majority.
AHHH UNDERPOPULATION!!
"If we allow homosexuality, humanity will die off."
Do we really need more people? Do we want it to get to the point where it is in China, where people abort fetuses that have been determined to be female because there is a law of only one child per couple (I forget if this is national or just certain areas)? Which is better: having another child, increasing the global supply load, or adopting an already existing one? I'm not saying that people who don't adopt are evil, nor am I saying that those who have children are immoral. Some people just claim that since homosexuals can't have kids, and the purpose of marriage is to create a stable environment for raising children, they should not be allowed to marry (completely ignoring infertile couples/those who choose not to have kids for personal reasons). They then will often go on to say that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt, citing the claim that they will raise homosexual children (much like heterosexuals only raise heterosexual children).
