Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[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.

Nope. That would be in violation of a metric shit ton of laws.

Denying a policy or not offering it is pretty hard to outlaw, though I don't know if the US 'formally' does.

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.

How about "Your argument, namely that gays should have equal rights is like arguing that circles should be squares. It is not going to happen. Ever."

People probably made this argument not so long ago.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How about "Your argument, namely that gays should have equal rights is like arguing that circles should be squares. It is not going to happen. Ever."

People probably made this argument not so long ago.

God damn you are a moron.

Marriage has been a legal construct for several thousand years. It entails rights and benefits that it would be political suicide to remove. In the US, a state not having marriage on the books is actually unconstitutional because the right to marry and the legal benefits thereof is and has been considered a fundamental right.

[Hamstray]

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. ...

That sort of problem can be done away with universal health insurance.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes. But there are others. Thousands of them. All of them laws that provide benefits and protections to spouses, to say nothing of the cultural importance.

[HMS Conqueror]

How about "Your argument, namely that gays should have equal rights is like arguing that circles should be squares. It is not going to happen. Ever."

People probably made this argument not so long ago.

God damn you are a moron.

Marriage has been a legal construct for several thousand years. It entails rights and benefits that it would be political suicide to remove. In the US, a state not having marriage on the books is actually unconstitutional because the right to marry and the legal benefits thereof is and has been considered a fundamental right.

Like what? The ones you identify (welfare benefits and some sort of medical insurance thing - though how much of this is legal and how much is customary I am unsure) did not exist more than 50-100 years ago. At its heart, a marriage is just an agreement, like a contract. That's why it must be performed publicly, for instance. I do not see anything less meaningful about a man and a woman (or two men) standing in a building of significance to them and pledging to remain together for life because some bureaucrat hasn't stamped it into a book. I realise why gays are unhappy with a system that discriminates against them, but they're charging the wrong way in trying to end the imbalance.

[eion]

Like what?

1138, and counting

I realise why gays are unhappy with a system that discriminates against them, but they're charging the wrong way in trying to end the imbalance.

So instead of demanding to be made members of the club, we should advocate for the club to be burned down so nobody can enjoy it? That would only give the anti-equality crowd support for their argument that gays are seeking to "destroy traditional marriage."

It is far easier to convince people to support something if you can convince them that doing so won't affect them in any way, and that's a lot of what the current pro-equality argument is about.

If we were starting from scratch, it might well make sense to make marriages just like any other contract, but there is so much evolutionary baggage that it would be harder to reinvent marriage than to simply modify it to suit the current needs of society. Laws, like evolution, almost always take the path of least resistance.

15-25 years ago if you had asked the average gay person if they wanted the right to marry, you would have gotten a plurality response along the lines of, “Why would I want to marry? That’s what straight people do, how boring,” but as we have developed as a subculture, we have realized that the benefits of marriage far outweigh whatever costs we might incur in becoming “de-radicalized.”

And besides, there’s no rule that says we have to be monogamous if we’re married.

[HMS Conqueror]

I realise why gays are unhappy with a system that discriminates against them, but they're charging the wrong way in trying to end the imbalance.

So instead of demanding to be made members of the club, we should advocate for the club to be burned down so nobody can enjoy it? That would only give the anti-equality crowd support for their argument that gays are seeking to "destroy traditional marriage."

It's the opposite, "traditional marriage" is standing in a church and receiving the sacrament. Those people can continue to marry as they please, and recognise only people who fit their standards as being married. The problem is that "the club" (really a sort of cartel, because membership ain't voluntary) is a bad thing in and of itself. To return to an analogy I used earlier, it's like saying "Rather than the state recognising that rock is just as good as soul, you want to ruin state-endorsement of music for everybody? You bastard!" No, there's nothing to ruin, the state endorsement entirely purposeless at best, and needlessly divisive in practice.

[Anguirus]

We're not discussing your personal utopia, HMS. It's a given that federal recognition of marriage (and society's appreciation of this) will continue. In that context, I have yet to see a rational argument against extending these benefits to same-sex couples who wish to be married.

Neither has Judge Walker. Reading his opinion should be required for anyone with an interest in this matter.