Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[eion]

Alyrium, that was beautiful, I just had a little sociologyasm there, especially the part about crime being partially motivated by desire to mate. That's definitely a hypothesis worth exploring.

As for Lionel's argument that homosexual parents are inferior to heterosexual parents, I noticed nobody shoved the US National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study in his face.

Not only are lesbian couples fit to raise their own children, they may actually be MORE capable than heterosexual parents.

There are no rational arguments against the recognition that marriage is a fundamental right couples regardless of their sexual orientation. And while Alyrium has laid out a great case against polygyny, I think more study needs to be done of the effectiveness of group marriages (multiple coupling partners living together as a family) before we decide to draw a line at monogamy only marriage.

In fact, if the full rights of marriage were extended to all partners in a polygynous marriage I'm hopeful we would see a decline in abuse; I would imagine a great deal of the abuse occurs because the secondary wives often have no legal right to divorce.

[Lief]

ok i already have my title, so no worries about posting here i spose. I have not read the last four pages.

The way I figure it, and the way general logic should follow.

No other animal in the world, on the whole, persues same sex relationships. In the mammal world you do see some same sex relationships, but these are usually for recreation rather than a life long commitment.

People shoving studies, and the like, in people faces are fairly stupid, basically because of the numbers involved, and the relativly recent acceptance of same sex parentage.

More hetero people will be bad, cos there are more hetro people...simples.

The natural, no emotions attached way is man - woman, male - female, it seems fairly redundant to argue about this.

The issue is, should a same sex couple be allowed to bring up a child, well again, this is a fairly stupid argument, as usually these days, most children are brought up by a matriachy of females anyway, being brought up by a patriacahlly orientated family is quite rare, although not unheard of.

So really, it doesnt make that much difference to a child, how they are brought up, I think, as long as they have decent exposure to both sexes, and have role models from both. It's a kind of non-argument, in my eyes.

I fully expect that excerpts from my post will be taken out of context, well, have funs ;p

And I already know I can't spell.

The question of arguments about same sex marriage, should pretty much just be, arguments against marriage.

Or to be more clear.

Arguments against procreation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No other animal in the world, on the whole, persues same sex relationships. In the mammal world you do see some same sex relationships, but these are usually for recreation rather than a life long commitment.

That is not actually true. Persistent homosexuality has been found among many animals in low numbers. Sheep are an example, yes there are gay sheep. Black Swans as well, Giraffes. Dolphins even go through a period of their lives in packs where they engage in homosexuality to facilitate group bonding.

The natural, no emotions attached way is man - woman, male - female, it seems fairly redundant to argue about this.

If something is naturally occurring it is by definition natural. What you mean to say is "most common" but "less common" is not in any way, shape, or form to be construed as "wrong".

[Lief]

"On the whole"

"Low Numbers"

"Usually"

Enough said. Don't construe low input as low knowledge, I am not ignorant in everything I speak about Lazy yes, stupid, probably

And I never said it was wrong.

[madd0ct0r]

The question of arguments about same sex marriage, should pretty much just be, arguments against marriage.

Or to be more clear.

Arguments against procreation.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but I think you've come down in favour of allowing same-sex marriages?



There is one 'sort of' argument against same-sex marriages.

The role of government is not to rule on religious institutions. The status quo in the UK is you can get a civil marriage or a civil partnership. The argument falls down here, because a civil marriage is a legal, not religious institution.

Basically, it would be wrong to deny the same legal rights to a same sex couple, so civil partnerships have to be allowed. However, the moral imperative for it to be labelled marriage is weaker. Equal, but different, I know I know. hear me out.

In their first incarnation, civil partnerships were intended to be much broader in scope. One example given were two elderly sisters who had lived together till their eighties might use it to ensure the other can inherit the house (tax free). As such, marriage would be a smaller subset of the larger class of civil partnerships. It wasn't coached in quite such terms however.

That's about as close as I can get to an argument and it's an unhappy compromise at best.

[Alyrium Denryle]

"On the whole"

"Low Numbers"

"Usually"

Enough said. Don't construe low input as low knowledge, I am not ignorant in everything I speak about Lazy yes, stupid, probably

And I never said it was wrong.

With you, my assuming you have low knowledge does not construe much. Do not make claims on this board you fail to back up. 5% of male giraffes are gay, 25% of male black swans, virtually ALL bottlenose dolphins go through that homosexual period. Chimpanzees among other primates use homosexual activity to cement male-male and female-female social bonds and alliances. That is not transient recreational homosexuality. Most animals which have homosexuality do not in general have recreational sex. That particular activity is relegated to some social mammals.

[Broomstick]

In fact, if the full rights of marriage were extended to all partners in a polygynous marriage I'm hopeful we would see a decline in abuse; I would imagine a great deal of the abuse occurs because the secondary wives often have no legal right to divorce.

The abuse we see in a lot of polygynous marriage in the US is because of religious bullshit from the Fundamentalist Mormons - such as marrying off women when they're really still girls, and denying the women educations beyond how to make and raise babies. In societies where it is multiple women who get married to the same man there tends to be less abuse, and some cases societal custom and even religion guards against abuse (though not always). For instance, the Mormons insist that everyone must live under one roof - almost all other societies that practice plural marriage either mandate or strongly encourage separate quarters for each wife and her children. Islam, despite many faults, not only limits a man to four wives, but mandates that he treats them all equally. (Which is not to say abuse is unknown - it certainly does occur - but that we don't see some of the excesses of the Fundy Mormons.)

Among the polyamorous that aren't Mormons you see a lot less abuse and horseshit, usually because the women who marry into those arrangements are fully adult when they do so, and yes, have the option of leaving. Religion also tends to be much less a factor, so you don't get the "man is god of the family and his word is absolute law" bullshit going on. Quite a bit of the abuse and horror that goes on in the Fundy Mormon families is rooted in that, and not in the fact the men have multiple wives.

[Twoyboy]

"On the whole"

"Low Numbers"

"Usually"

Enough said. Don't construe low input as low knowledge, I am not ignorant in everything I speak about Lazy yes, stupid, probably

And I never said it was wrong.

With you, my assuming you have low knowledge does not construe much. Do not make claims on this board you fail to back up. 5% of male giraffes are gay, 25% of male black swans, virtually ALL bottlenose dolphins go through that homosexual period. Chimpanzees among other primates use homosexual activity to cement male-male and female-female social bonds and alliances. That is not transient recreational homosexuality. Most animals which have homosexuality do not in general have recreational sex. That particular activity is relegated to some social mammals.

Ok, I'm not sure if anyone else has mentioned this, but as fucking retarded as Leif is for taking on Alyrium at his specialty subject, it's all just a giant tangent to the actual issue.

As incredible as it might sound Leif... Marriage is not natural either. So if you want to make this argument, lets ban ALL marriage. Else you can admit that marriage is a human social construct and as such follows human social laws. Thus, you can't support the right of someone to be homosexual and in the same breath denounce same-sex marriage without being a giant fucking hypocrite.

Which of course you are.

[Lusankya]

Guys, I think that Lief's saying that he personally has no issue with same-sex marriage. It's just that he's only barely literate, and thus said it

Basically, what he seems to be saying is:

1) Homosexual relationships are more common in humans than in other animals.

2) Shoving studies in the faces of homophobes doesn't really accomplish anything.

3) Having homosexual parents is not really an issue to a child's emotional well-being, since most children are brought up mainly by females anyway*. While it is rarer for children to be brought up in a predominantly male environment, it's not unheard of, but there's no reason that should be emotionally harmful either.

4) Any arguments against homosexual marriage can also be used against heterosexual marriage.


Now, I know that he's an idiot, and I know that everybody here hates him, but apart from his posts being almost completely incomprehensible and lacking in anything resembling a coherent thought structure, he's not actually saying anything untoward, so Alyrium and Twoyboy, please back off of him.


fathers are often largely absent due to work commitments, so plenty of children are raised in an environment that mostly consists of their stay at home mother + mother's friends who are often also stay at home mothers).

[Starman7]

So really, it doesnt make that much difference to a child, how they are brought up, I think, as long as they have decent exposure to both sexes, and have role models from both. It's a kind of non-argument, in my eyes.

I'm pretty sure it has been stated either here or in your infamous transphobic thread that your gender identity is generally formed via interaction with your peers, so unless a kid gets locked in a room for their entire childhood, it is a non-issue. I'm glad we agree on this.

I fully expect that excerpts from my post will be taken out of context, well, have funs ;p

If any excerpts are taken out of context, it is because they were incomprehensible to begin with. Do try to write arguments with grammar and style good enough to be actually understood.

[Serafina]

So really, it doesnt make that much difference to a child, how they are brought up, I think, as long as they have decent exposure to both sexes, and have role models from both. It's a kind of non-argument, in my eyes.

I'm pretty sure it has been stated either here or in your infamous transphobic thread that your gender identity is generally formed via interaction with your peers, so unless a kid gets locked in a room for their entire childhood, it is a non-issue. I'm glad we agree on this.

Actually, no, that's wrong.
The expression of your gender identity is formed that way, but your gender identity (and sexual orientation) are pretty much given at birth.
That's an important difference. For example, a lesbian is a lesbian and her peers won't change that (tough they may force her to hide it). But whether she is a butch lesbian or anything else is influenced by her peers.
Likewise, a heterosexual male is born that way - but whether he becomes a macho or not is a matter of nurture.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm pretty sure it has been stated either here or in your infamous transphobic thread that your gender identity is generally formed via interaction with your peers, so unless a kid gets locked in a room for their entire childhood, it is a non-issue. I'm glad we agree on this.

Actually, no, that's wrong.
The expression of your gender identity is formed that way, but your gender identity (and sexual orientation) are pretty much given at birth.
That's an important difference. For example, a lesbian is a lesbian and her peers won't change that (tough they may force her to hide it). But whether she is a butch lesbian or anything else is influenced by her peers.
Likewise, a heterosexual male is born that way - but whether he becomes a macho or not is a matter of nurture.

I suspect that there's a genetic component on some level: some men having a stronger built-in predisposition for the kind of aggressive dominance games that make them "macho," some women having a predisposition for the sort of... for lack of a better name, giggly nest-building behavior that makes them "feminine." That said, yeah, huge influence by the social construction of gender identity. There have been eras when the most macho of manly men, guys who would not hesitate to stab someone to death over an insult or such, wore their hair long and cultivated elaborate fashion customs, things that today we would consider feminine. Because that was what men did in that society, at least among the aristocracy.

[Serafina]

I think we have a disagreement on the usage of the word "gender identity" here.
To take your example, those men clearly had a male gender identity. The fact that they did something that we might consider feminine does not change that. Nor would it change that when a man does that today. It doesn't for, say, gay men who do this today (stereotype, i know, but just as an example). They still have a male gender identity.

I'll admit that this difference is somewhat fuzzy - gender is a complicated construct. As a rule of thumb, the expression of the identity is a matter of nurture while the identity itself is a matter of nature.
We see that the expression changes depending on culture, era and so on - yours is a good example. But we do not see new identities arise.

So change that sentence

That said, yeah, huge influence by the social construction of gender identity.

into this:

That said, yeah, huge influence by the social construction on the expression of gender identity.

and it's definately more accurate.

[Shroom Man 777]

I wouldn't say it's from birth, since newborn humans are still underdeveloped in quite a lot of areas, but yeah, physiologically, a lot of things on how the kid is going to turn out has already been determined. Sexual orientation may be one of them, as sexuality is partly physiological. But that doesn't mean sexuality is solely caused by physiological stuff. Human development not only depends on the physical aspect, but also the social, sociocultural, psychosexual and whatever whatsits there is. Freud, Erikson, Piaget, etc. and their stages of development and such. This is also very important determiners on what kind of person a person's gonna be. I wouldn't be too quick to say that something, like sexuality, is already determined immediately at birth. Are there studies to back this? Human development isn't cut and dry like that, at least I don't think psychosexual stuff is. If we're talking about congenital conditions, then sure, there are things predetermined at birth.

BTW, speaking of congenital conditions, one way to influence human sexuality may be to manipulate or alter the person in his earlier stages of development. Physiologically manipulate, perhaps with hormones? Or surgery, hah. Of course this stuff is very ambiguous ethically. I wonder what those cases of intersexed individuals, wherein they were surgically corrected and then raised as one sex from birth but later on discover themselves to be trending towards the other side, says about this.

[Mayabird]

Short, crude version of what Serafina is saying: macho men decide what's macho and what's not. If a guy who kills for a living declares that flower arrangement, calligraphy, and elegant tea ceremonies are manly, then they're manly if you don't want him cutting off your face with his sword.


For intersexed people, the generally promoted practice now is to leave them be until they get old enough that they can decide what they want done or not done. Though I have little doubt that there are still doctors who are 'correcting' infants either on their own initiative or on the orders of the parents.

[Serafina]

BTW, speaking of congenital conditions, one way to influence human sexuality may be to manipulate or alter the person in his earlier stages of development. Physiologically manipulate, perhaps with hormones? Or surgery, hah. Of course this stuff is very ambiguous ethically. I wonder what those cases of intersexed individuals, wherein they were surgically corrected and then raised as one sex from birth but later on discover themselves to be trending towards the other side, says about this.

Exactly that has been tried - and not only on intersexed individuals.
David Reimer is the most know example, but there have been many others. Heck, it's a general observation with intersexed individuals - those who are assigned a role at birth are often not happy with it. Which is why it is thankfully not done any more.

Basically, scientists have not found any way to artificially alter a persons gender identity. I have not done much research into sexual orientation on this issue, but apparently it's the same thing. We just can't identity social influences that definetly change/influence it, no matter how far you go back into a childs history. I might be wrong, and we might yet find something - but it appears that social influence does not change these basic things. Hence, they must be determined without it.

[Shroom Man 777]

Short, crude version of what Serafina is saying: macho men decide what's macho and what's not. If a guy who kills for a living declares that flower arrangement, calligraphy, and elegant tea ceremonies are manly, then they're manly if you don't want him cutting off your face with his sword.

Ah. I was talking about sexual orientation. Sorry.

Serafina, well, I guess this means we just have to learn more. Problem is, things are very politicized, which makes getting something objective very difficult if the findings aren't politically correct or some shit.

[Mayabird]

Yeah, I was talking about gender expression. Samurai are a really good example and I've been wanting to use that line for years.

For a little add-on, I know for at least some of the sexual reassignment cases it wasn't just surgery that was done but also hormone injections while they were growing up, and that didn't change gender identity either.

[Starman7]

Sorry about my comment, I did use the wrong terminology without thinking. I'm not sure whether to leave it as is or edit it, though.

Short, crude version of what Serafina is saying: macho men decide what's macho and what's not. If a guy who kills for a living declares that flower arrangement, calligraphy, and elegant tea ceremonies are manly, then they're manly if you don't want him cutting off your face with his sword.

I'm probably going to lean towards Mayabird here; since the expression of gender identity does vary so widely between cultures, gender expression probably develops via social cues, while the identity itself is probably set at birth.

[eion]

In fact, if the full rights of marriage were extended to all partners in a polygynous marriage I'm hopeful we would see a decline in abuse; I would imagine a great deal of the abuse occurs because the secondary wives often have no legal right to divorce.

The abuse we see in a lot of polygynous marriage in the US is because of religious bullshit from the Fundamentalist Mormons - such as marrying off women when they're really still girls, and denying the women educations beyond how to make and raise babies. In societies where it is multiple women who get married to the same man there tends to be less abuse, and some cases societal custom and even religion guards against abuse (though not always). For instance, the Mormons insist that everyone must live under one roof - almost all other societies that practice plural marriage either mandate or strongly encourage separate quarters for each wife and her children. Islam, despite many faults, not only limits a man to four wives, but mandates that he treats them all equally. (Which is not to say abuse is unknown - it certainly does occur - but that we don't see some of the excesses of the Fundy Mormons.)

Among the polyamorous that aren't Mormons you see a lot less abuse and horseshit, usually because the women who marry into those arrangements are fully adult when they do so, and yes, have the option of leaving. Religion also tends to be much less a factor, so you don't get the "man is god of the family and his word is absolute law" bullshit going on. Quite a bit of the abuse and horror that goes on in the Fundy Mormon families is rooted in that, and not in the fact the men have multiple wives.

I don't want to derail a thread about marriage equality for monogamous couples into one about the reform of group marriage, but if multiple partner marriage were legal, some of the issues of the FLDS child abuse marriages could be ameliorated.

For instance. Joe Smith marries Mary legally as his first wife. He subsequently marries two other women (Jill and Jane) in a solely religious ceremony. Now, if either of the auxiliary wives wanted to leave the marriage they are legally entitled to nothing from the community property, and are therefore compelled to stay.

If group marriage were legal, even if Joe Smith didn't legally marry his two auxiliary wives, the courts could treat them as legally married for the purposes of divorce. And before you know it, the estate is reduced by 50% and Joe Smith learns a valuable lesson about the downside of having 3 women to do his laundry.

Your statements about the suppression of the women's (if we're going to call 14 year old girls women) education and very existence are still quite right, but divorce is an empowering ability.

Of course that still leaves us with the issue of the Lost Boys, the male children of the FLDS groups who are expelled to ensure there are enough wives for all the elder males. It is an abhorrent practice and something needs to be done about it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Of course that still leaves us with the issue of the Lost Boys, the male children of the FLDS groups who are expelled to ensure there are enough wives for all the elder males. It is an abhorrent practice and something needs to be done about it.

It is an elegant solution to the problem of biased operational sex ratios. Have you ever noticed that polygynous societies tend to also be expansionist? Go somewhere, kill the men and marry the women via rape. You also get rid of those pesky unmarried young men before they can cause trouble. Hell war "booty" gets them mates...

he's not actually saying anything untoward, so Alyrium and Twoyboy, please back off of him.

You will note that I only went at him for what he said about homosexuality in animals.

[HMS Conqueror]

Did you miss his point? Its a 'matter of opinion' with legal ramifications. Yeah, by all means let's all use our own definition... but how does that affect the tax code, or medical insurance?

Agree, what I'm saying is it shouldn't affect those things or have any legal significance at all. [How does it affect medical insurance, btw? I'm from the UK so no one really has that here.]

[Broomstick]

Traditional, medical insurance in the US is offered only to employees or the employee's immediate family living with them. So, for example, you can put a spouse or child on your medical insurance, but not an unrelated roommate or foster child. Without legal means to marry, single-sex couples must have separate policies. Once they are allowed to marry, however, then insurance companies will have to include them as covered spouses - which means they'll use it as an excuse to increase costs and they will, of course, pass this on to employers.

That's the simple version - there are a few more details, but I don't want to get bogged down.

Some companies have been offering "domestic partner" insurance policies to employees, but it's certainly not required and the premiums are usually pretty steep.

[HMS Conqueror]

Traditional, medical insurance in the US is offered only to employees or the employee's immediate family living with them. So, for example, you can put a spouse or child on your medical insurance, but not an unrelated roommate or foster child. Without legal means to marry, single-sex couples must have separate policies. Once they are allowed to marry, however, then insurance companies will have to include them as covered spouses - which means they'll use it as an excuse to increase costs and they will, of course, pass this on to employers.

That's the simple version - there are a few more details, but I don't want to get bogged down.

Some companies have been offering "domestic partner" insurance policies to employees, but it's certainly not required and the premiums are usually pretty steep.

Ah, well, the whole thing of tax-breaks for employer health insurance is a problem, for more reasons than just this. If a company wants to offer different terms to straight/gay couples, though, that is not within the remit of legal recognition: they could still restrict it to a man and a woman even if same-sex marriage existed, or charge higher premiums, or whatever, if the risks were greater.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Traditional, medical insurance in the US is offered only to employees or the employee's immediate family living with them. So, for example, you can put a spouse or child on your medical insurance, but not an unrelated roommate or foster child. Without legal means to marry, single-sex couples must have separate policies. Once they are allowed to marry, however, then insurance companies will have to include them as covered spouses - which means they'll use it as an excuse to increase costs and they will, of course, pass this on to employers.

That's the simple version - there are a few more details, but I don't want to get bogged down.

Some companies have been offering "domestic partner" insurance policies to employees, but it's certainly not required and the premiums are usually pretty steep.

Ah, well, the whole thing of tax-breaks for employer health insurance is a problem, for more reasons than just this. If a company wants to offer different terms to straight/gay couples, though, that is not within the remit of legal recognition: they could still restrict it to a man and a woman even if same-sex marriage existed, or charge higher premiums, or whatever, if the risks were greater.

Nope. That would be in violation of a metric shit ton of laws. Your argument, namely that government should not be involved in marriage is like arguing that circles should be squares. It is not going to happen. Ever.