Because "social conservatism" is often just thinly veiled hate and bigotry and intolerance. I have yet to see a sound argument on why two consenting adults shouldn't have the right to marry. I'll eagerly and openly listen to what you have to say on the matter.
Marriage is not a natural right, so first of all, no one has a "right" to marry. From the context of a debate about legalization of marital relationships, it's a privilege and a certification given by the government to a couple because the government feels there is a special social interest served by awarding that privilege and status to certain groups.
Marriage is NOT and has never been a "love certificate". It serves a real function.
Historically, that group has always been heterosexual pairings (and in some cases heterosexual groups). It is not simply a forgone conclusion that the interest of the state in granting marriage privileges to heterosexual couples automatically extends to homosexual couples -- there are important differences between the nature of these pairings, regardless of anyone's opinion on the morality of homosexual activity. The question, then, is "is it in the interest of the community to promote homosexual pairing by providing special privileges to homosexual couples?"
In my opinion, it's not in the community's interest to do so. There are many reasons. One is that homosexuality is considered immoral by large swaths of the population, and that official sanction and promotion of homosexual pairing will anger this significant segment. Most of this segment is, however, at least less opposed to civil unions and the granting of certain default privileges that decent persons believe ought to be granted to persons who live as a couple, regardless of their affiliation or activity.
If the most vital privileges can be granted with a "lesser" legal status, and we can strike a reasonable compromise that promotes peace and civil discourse, isn't that better than choosing the more divisive, incendiary method?
I believe if the debate really were about basic privileges related to emergency medical notification, etc., gay rights activists would wait to push the "marriage" terminology. I think that the debate is actually more about validation; homosexuals demand the government grant them and their relationships equal standing and promotion as it grants heterosexual relationships. Gay rights activists are thereby attempting to use the government as a weapon to cram their concept of the equality of homosexual relationships down the throats of an otherwise skeptical public; over and over again referenda have shown that majorities in most states DO NOT want this to happen.
There are many other implications that flow from state equivocation of hetero and homo pairings. Religious groups may be censured for preaching doctrine that the state has deemed illegal; they may also be censured for exercising that doctrine, i.e. excluding practicing homosexuals from the clergy on grounds of unworthiness. In Massachusetts, we've already seen the complete withdrawal of Catholic Charities, as the courts attempted to force them to adopt to gay couples. This trend will become broader as gay marriages are legalized, recognized, and normalized, and may culminate in the denial of many religious services to the residents of many states.
Whether you think the religious are right or wrong in their assessment of the morality of homosexuality, you should be willing to protect their privilege to exercise and proclaim their beliefs that do not directly result in the termination of life or the loss of right and control of property, just as you expect the same privilege for yourself.
It's worth noting here that the attachment of negative attributes to homosexual practice need not be strictly associated with religion. An independent observer may likewise rule homosexuality irregular, abnormal, or otherwise not something worthy of active state promotion via marriage. Homosexuals cannot bear natural children. Homosexual couplings cannot provide the duality of permanent male-female parental role models, which I believe most of the West now wrongly considers worthless since so many were raised in single-parent homes. You may think this trivial now, but the fact is a huge component of the organization and legal recognition of marriage was the effect of parental partnership on children. Does the community really have an interest in equalizing homosexual and heterosexual couples, when homosexual marriage cannot produce any children in the first place by its very nature, and when any adopted children are automatically disadvantaged without even the prospect of opposite-sex parental role models (a "mommy" and a "daddy")?
I could go on; as I said, there are many angles to take on this, and many sides from which it appears negative. I understand that some people are eager to use the government to enforce their particular vision of equality on everyone else, and probably mean well, but that is not how a free society operates; you must convince people on your own merits, you don't just go and get the government to endorse your beliefs and then attempt to intimidate otherwise unwilling participants with that endorsement.
Homosexuality has existed as long as humans, it's all over our recorded, and spoken, history.
The legal problem is mostly about the word "marriage" and nothing else. Sure, we could fix everything by changing tons of laws (LOTS and LOTS) - or we could federally re-define marriage and be done with it.
Or as a Canadian PM said "Different but equal is not equal".
Marriage started as a religious concept. Eventually, it flowed into non-religious lawmaking with separation of church and state in general, and the churche's waning power over the state. It wasn't a grand plan with tons of subtle concepts.
An adopted child with two loving dads or moms is better than an institutionalized child with the state raising them.
And who says that there is no mommy-type figure in the picture too? You don't know everyone's personal business.
And news fella - homosexual women are physically capable of having children, and homosexual men are physically capable of providing their needed bit to get a woman pregnant.
To your last paragraph - why do we bother to elect lawmakers and have a government if not to make law.
Plenty of heterosexual couples cannot bear children either - should they not be allowed to marry?
>Homosexuality has existed as long as humans, it's all over our recorded, and spoken, history.
OK.
>The legal problem is mostly about the word "marriage" and nothing else. Sure, we could fix everything by changing tons of laws (LOTS and LOTS) - or we could federally re-define marriage and be done with it. Or as a Canadian PM said "Different but equal is not equal".
Indeed. I do not assert that offering civil unions in lieu of marriage represents an equivocation between heterosexual and homosexual coupling. This is precisely why people find the option of civil unions more agreeable -- it doesn't equivocate the relationship.
>An adopted child with two loving dads or moms is better than an institutionalized child with the state raising them.
I'm not sure this is self-evident, but obviously nobody wants children to have to be institutionalized either. If we have the option of adopting a child to a homosexual couple now or a heterosexual couple later, I believe the child will be better off with the heterosexual couple. It is our responsibility to ensure we give wards of the state over to a healthy home environment; in my opinion, same-sex adoptive parentage is an automatic disqualification.
>And who says that there is no mommy-type figure in the picture too? You don't know everyone's personal business.
Mommy-type figures function differently than natural mothers or permanent adoptive live-in mothers. It is possible that a mother figure like the latter would exist, but not likely or common. Do you suggest we allow gay couples to adopt only if there is a committed permanent live-in woman who can function as a mother-type figure? If so, your hypothetical may be relevant.
>And news fella - homosexual women are physically capable of having children, and homosexual men are physically capable of providing their needed bit to get a woman pregnant.
This isn't news to me. I was already aware of it, but I suppose it's good to clarify in case someone thinks that one is automatically sterilized when he or she engages in homosexual activity.
This is basically semantics. The point I intended, which you probably understood, is that homosexual partners cannot procreate together; i.e., the biological material of two same-sex partners cannot combine to produce offspring, automatically depriving the offspring of at least one biological parent (again, assuming a typical relationship where one couple occupies a single home as an independent family unit) of true "parentage" by that parent, even if his/her identity is known and the couple and child remain in contact (which, as I understand it, is not necessarily common). As I said, many do not think this matters anymore because they were similarly deprived or because they know many people who were similarly deprived and "turned out OK". While I agree it's not guaranteed to create problems, it's certainly not ideal, and not a condition the government should take special action to encourage.
>To your last paragraph - why do we bother to elect lawmakers and have a government if not to make law.
They should make law, but not law that serves primarily to impose a certain ideological perspective on an individual. Laws should be made to protect communal life and preserve the communal right and control of property. Anything that does not sufficiently threaten these fundamental principles should be left to individual freedom of conscience. As the function of redefining marriage to include homosexuality is primarily to establish a governmental endorsement on homosexual behavior, it doesn't pass muster.
>Plenty of heterosexual couples cannot bear children either - should they not be allowed to marry?
No, because a) children aren't the entire basis of my opposition. There is also the question of whether the state wants to encourage homosexual coupling and promote the idea as an acceptable life choice. And b) it's a matter of respect and hope. We rarely know when someone is infertile ahead of marriage, and in the cases where we do, we do not know that the infertility will be impossible to cure over the course of the marriage. Furthermore, even if we are assured fertility will be impossible to restore, we allow the dignity of marriage out of respect for the potential and representation of heterosexual union.
Presumably by "all" you mean everyone except the poster who specifically asked for this post?
I agree the post is hardly relevant to the discussion, but for some reason the user posting actual content gets downvoted to oblivion while the user who sidetracks the discussion and adds nothing gets upvotes.
I cannot downvote. This entire conversion is out of line though as far as I am concerned (primarily because it brings out posts like the one I responded to).
It seems like you are objecting to the post based on the alignment of its content. Not the depth of its content, not the relevance of its content to the discussion, but because it offends your sensibilities and you would rather not see it.
THAT is an attitude that has not historically been welcome on HN. At least, when I started coming here and fell in love with the place. I have no interest in reading an echo chamber.
Whether or not the person behind that post is personally bigoted, their post is a valuable contribution to the conversation that was happening* because it represents, with relatively solid reasoning and in uncommon depth, a viewpoint that was otherwise absent. A viewpoint that is absolutely relevant to the wider public conversation on the subject, and one that, even/especially if one happens to be on the other side of the issue, it is very valuable to understand.
It was, frankly, the most cogently I've ever seen that "side" of the issue presented, and (this is the most important heuristic) my understanding of the debate would be impoverished had it been censored or self-censored, as you've suggested. That is why YOURS is the unwelcome attitude to have, and one that, as far as I have noticed, has not been historically cultivated on Hacker News.
I wouldn't care if this was a "stormfront guy". If an argument is well-formed and wrong, and not directly an incitement to harm, it is in the best interests of the truth and the people on its side to have it come to light and be publicly exposed in the discussion forum... which is exactly what's ended up happening here.
More personally: I WOULD dream of entertaining a "stormfront guy" (in fact it's a personal hobby of mine), so I can enjoy, or enjoy others enjoying, the dismantling of an argument I dislike. And if it weren't dismantled, if it held up, then I would have something to think about. But I can't see any reason why someone should tell a civil and reasonable representative of any contentious viewpoint to just shut up and go away, other than either for their own comfort, or for validation for having publicly upheld a taboo.
-----
* I say "the conversation that was happening", because the whole conversation is off-topic, which is a legitimate reason to complain.
> Does the community really have an interest in equalizing homosexual and heterosexual couples, when homosexual marriage cannot produce any children in the first place by its very nature, and when any adopted children are automatically disadvantaged without even the prospect of opposite-sex parental role models (a "mommy" and a "daddy")?
Doesn't it stand to reason, that if the goal of the government recognition on marriage is to provide incentive opposite-sex parental roles, that perhaps marriage is the wrong way to be doing that? We recognize plenty of marriages that will remain childless due to no-desire, or inability to have/raise children, yet they continue to reap the benefits of marriage.
April 2011 is one year, but my "public opinion data" is based on the results of the various referenda on this topic (North Carolina, in May this year, being the most recent). Not a single one of these has had favorable results for same-sex marriage supporters.
I will attempt to keep this as unbiased as possible. I appreciate that you have presented an argument that is significantly more cogent than most that I've heard on the matter.
> Marriage is not a natural right, so first of all, no one has a "right" to marry. From the context of a debate about legalization of marital relationships, it's a privilege and a certification given by the government to a couple because the government feels there is a special social interest served by awarding that privilege and status to certain groups.
I agree with you that marriage is not a "right". I however do not think that there is a "special social interest" to be gained by awarding that privileged to heterosexual pairings and not to homosexual pairings. You address children later, and I will get back to that. However, I didn't see any other argument for what social good heterosexual relationships serve that can't also be said for homosexual ones.
>...there are important differences between the nature of these pairings, regardless of anyone's opinion on the morality of homosexual activity.
Outside of the natural born children question, I don't see any important differences.
> One is that homosexuality is considered immoral by large swaths of the population, and that official sanction and promotion of homosexual pairing will anger this significant segment.
Popular opinion is hardly a reason for whether or not one should or should not support something. Just look back a few decades at the civil rights movement. Interracial marriage. Desegregation of schools and public buildings. These are all things that once angered large swaths of the population. Do you think that the United States was in the wrong for supporting these things, just because it angered some people? Furthermore, popular opinion is shifting towards supporting gay marriage. Would you change your mind and support it if more people stopped supporting it? Do you vote with the majority on every single political decision? (I realize that this is an absurd question. In my opinion though, this is an absurd argument)
>If the most vital privileges can be granted with a "lesser" legal status, and we can strike a reasonable compromise that promotes peace and civil discourse, isn't that better than choosing the more divisive, incendiary method?
No. It isn't. It is spitting in the face of millions of people and telling them that they are lesser beings because of what other happen to think of them.
> I think that the debate is actually more about validation; homosexuals demand the government grant them and their relationships equal standing and promotion as it grants heterosexual relationships.
I think the debate is about equality. I have yet to see an argument on why homosexual relationships do not deserve equal standing.
> There are many other implications that flow from state equivocation of hetero and homo pairings.
Please do not invoke a slippery slope argument. It is weak and it is a logical fallacy. The role of churches is another debate that is not germane to the topic at hand.
> Does the community really have an interest in equalizing homosexual and heterosexual couples, when homosexual marriage cannot produce any children in the first place by its very nature, and when any adopted children are automatically disadvantaged without even the prospect of opposite-sex parental role models (a "mommy" and a "daddy")?
You make a large assumption here (that a lot of people make) that it is advantageous to have a "mommy" and a "daddy". I have yet to see anything but anecdotal evidence to back this claim up (that did not come out of obviously biased studies).
Furthermore, if that is your only "social benefit" that is to be gained by marriage (as I didn't see another one), and you believe that groups must prove that there must be a special social interest in getting this privelige to marry, then lets follow through. Lets take away the right to marry from senior citizens. From couples that are infertile. From couples that simply choose not to have children. I don't see any benefit to them being married.
> I understand that some people are eager to use the government to enforce their particular vision of equality on everyone else, and probably mean well, but that is not how a free society operates; you must convince people on your own merits, you don't just go and get the government to endorse your beliefs and then attempt to intimidate otherwise unwilling participants with that endorsement.
We do not live in an anarchy. We have a government for a reason, and one of the large reasons is to protect minorities. Unless there is a strong reason not to, our government should treat all citizens equally. That has been the stance the United States government has taken over and over again. And this time should be no different.
As far as "unwilling participants" go: What are they participating in? This is a decision that gives gay people a privilege. It doesn't take anything away from the majority of the population, nor does it force anything down their throats.
See my post for a big list of valid reasons. You're taking my comment out of context and trying to make it appear like that was my justification -- it wasn't.
I'm not trying to do anything of the sort, so stop it. Your position is reprehensible enough without you trying to pull a stunt like that.
You have repeatedly asserted that multiple referenda shows your position is supported by the majority of Americans. All I'm doing is equating your assertion with that of the you from 150 years ago - the "social conservative" who doesn't believe a slave should have the same rights as a white man.
We'll say nothing about the fact that the trend of public opinion seems to be inexorably towards more tolerance and less bigotry, as that would just make your reliance on popular opinion even more farcical.
>I'm not trying to do anything of the sort, so stop it. Your position is reprehensible enough without you trying to pull a stunt like that.
But you've done the same thing with this post! "So stop it." Your strawmen and ignorance are reprehensible enough without pulling stunts, etc. etc. etc.
True, my post mentions public opinion mutliple times, mostly to demonstrate that the narrative of gay rights activists that "religious people are forcing" their views upon the gay community is not only false but in fact the opposite of the reality. It is not, however, a fundamental component of most of my reasons for opposing gay marriage. It was mentioned that gay rights activists would have far more success in gaining the same privileges if they were content with civil unions due to public opinion against the equivocation of straight and gay relationships, but that's about it as it pertains to actual involvement in rationale.
So, if this is such a blatantly incorrect position, why don't you address some of the real rationale above. If you find the supply of rationale insufficient due to the necessity to construct a correct context of events for the reader, I can post more.
>We'll say nothing about the fact that the trend of public opinion seems to be inexorably towards more tolerance and less bigotry, as that would just make your reliance on popular opinion even more farcical.
Perhaps you mean towards more permissiveness and less intelligence, fidelity, loyalty, etc. "Bigotry" is not meaningful when its definition is "incomplete moral relativism".
It's instructive how quickly you decide that public opinion is worthless when you don't have it on your side.
The reason I don't address the rest of your points is that fundamentally they boil down to this
"Gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people"
The version of you, 150 years ago. would be saying the same thing about black people.
Having destroyed your arguments regarding popular support for your position, I feel no great compunction to school you morally, or to teach you basic precepts from your own religion. I will say one thing - I am 100% certain that your Jesus Christ would be on my side of this debate - not yours.
I disagree! I established in the OP that marriage is not a right. I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge any difference between "existing with black skin" and "choosing to enter a consensual sexual relationship with a person of the same sex". One of these components requires a much larger degree of energy and initiative than the other. One of these is the result of an individual making a conscious decision to do a thing.
On top of that, I am not advocating any removal of rights from gay people. Marriage is not a right; it's a social program the state undertakes because it believes it has a reason to encourage permanent heterosexual coupling. The question isn't "do you hate gay people and hope they die?", but "do you think the government should encourage permanent homosexual coupling?"
I don't believe sodomy should be criminalized. If two adults want to engage in homosexual activity, it is within their rights to do so. This DOES NOT mean that it is automatically a good idea for the government to grant special rights, privileges, and endorsement to that relationship.
I don't believe it should be legal to own other people, and I'm not sure where my argument implies that I do. You're the only one who has mentioned race or slavery. It seems that it's just your go-to demonization attempt for people with whom you disagree on this matter. Self-direction and autonomy IS a natural right, unlike marriage, and natural rights should be preserved. We can debate slavery more if you really think it's necessary, I guess. I am opposed to slavery. Perhaps you can demonstrate a true, substantive link between not believing the government should give homosexual couples special positive benefits and believing that black people shouldn't be able to self-direct. "I don't like either belief" is not legitimate.
You're correct that the question "Should the state encourage permanent homosexual coupling?" typically boils down to "Do you believe homosexuality is a a socially beneficial behavior that should be encouraged among those inclined to practice it?" For me, the answer is no. Nevertheless, this debate is built upon from pretty seriously false and shallow pretenses by both sides -- I'm hoping to demonstrate that there can be a reasonable mode of disagreement and that someone can't immediately be considered stupid for failing to want to encourage homosexual behavior. Reasonable persons can disagree on the matter.
>Having destroyed your arguments regarding popular support for your position
I would hardly consider any of my arguments "destroyed", and as I've pointed out multiple times, popular support is not a major component in my rationale for opposing gay marriage, or anything else, really. If it were, would I be here on HN getting myself downvoted all the time? I have already explained where public opinion factored into the post I posted. Perhaps you should re-read that explanation until you understand it.
>I feel no great compunction to school you morally, or to teach you basic precepts from your own religion. I will say one thing - I am 100% certain that your Jesus Christ would be on my side of this debate - not yours.
This statement proves that you know very little of my religious inclinations. You may want to stop making presumptions like this soon -- it hasn't served you very well so far.
>I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge any difference between "existing with black skin" and "choosing to enter a consensual sexual relationship with a person of the same sex". One of these components requires a much larger degree of energy and initiative than the other. One of these is the result of an individual making a conscious decision to do a thing.
No. The correct comparison is 'existing with a particular skin colour' and 'existing with a certain sexual orientation'. One does not take more of a conscious effort than the other.
The follow on arguments for whether certain colour mixes or sexual orientations should be allowed to marry are separate.
Homosexuality is a socially beneficial bahaviour is as much as, people exist that are gay. Human nature makes it so. Therefore they should be treated equally.
>Homosexuality is a socially beneficial bahaviour is as much as, people exist that are gay
"People exist that are alcoholic"
"People exist that are pedophiles"
"People exist that are depressed"
"People exist that are kleptomaniacs"
"People exist that are obese"
It seems every group desperately searches for a biological genesis of their ills these days, so that they can divert culpability.
Just because certain people exist doesn't mean the behaviors that would flow from their "natural" inclinations are socially beneficial.
>No. The correct comparison is 'existing with a particular skin colour' and 'existing with a certain sexual orientation'. One does not take more of a conscious effort than the other.
In the context of whether the government should promote gay coupling, one takes far more effort. People are unchangeably and constantly a certain race and discrimination on racial basis occurs regardless of that person's actions. If we accept the narrative that a person is unchangeably and constantly gay from birth to death (which I don't), just as a person is unchangeably and constantly ethnic from birth to death, the gay person still has the option to NOT engage in homosexual action. A black person does not have the option to not engage in blackness.
Publicly homosexual couples seeking marriage first must become a couple, then make their coupling public, and then ask the government to give them special privileges. You assert that this takes an identical level of effort as being black or white?
