On this site I have tried to explain in detail my views on same-sex marriage. Among other reasons I have given for my support, and upon which I have elaborated over the course of countless posts, are that I find the use of gender classifications unwarranted and problematic, I think that marriage would greatly benefit children of same-sex couples, and it would help society and the families involved by promoting and protecting stable and secure relationships. Here and elsewhere I have heard these arguments brushed aside by the remark that they are "just as applicable to other family arrangements that are also denied a right to marriage". This is a strange sidestep. For it says nothing about the arguments themselves, for example whether allowing same-sex couples to marry would indeed promote stable and secure relationships or whether that would be a good thing. Instead it merely asserts that the arguments could also be used in favor of allowing other couples to marry who are now currently prohibited. If this were true, then we would have arguments in favor of allowing those couples to marry. Presumably those making this claim, though, find something problematic in allowing these other couples to marry. So even though there are arguments in favor of allowing them to marry, there must also be arguments against allowing them to marry which outweigh these. Now perhaps there are also arguments against allowing same-sex couples to marry that would outweigh these as well. But then those arguments should be presented and weighed against these arguments in favor. Simply saying these arguments could be used elsewhere does nothing to deny that they are arguments in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry.
That being said, are these arguments really "just as applicable" to other couples? Well let's examine each in turn.
No other couple is being denied the ability to marry based on gender classifications. So that argument can't be directly applied to other couples. The claim must be that a different equal protection argument could be made. What is the classification involved in those cases? Preexisting familial relationships. Now it seems strange to argue that we should be just as skeptical of this type of classification as we are of gender classifications. Hence many state constitutions have provisions like Massachusetts:
Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.
It would be especially strange here, though, when those making this claim (that the state should be skeptical of classifying based on familial relationships) would then turn around and ask the court to recognize their familial relationships.
What about children? We are reminded that a parent and grandparent might also be raising a child together. Is that comparable to the case of two parents who adopted a child together? Of course not. In the former case there is one parent and the other person already has a formal relation to the child, grandparent. It is the parent who has primary and ultimate responsibility for the child. This is not the case with the child with two parents who have an equal responsibility to the child and must decide together what is best for their family. But I have also argued the benefit marriage would provide for a child in the situation of a parent and stepparent. Is the grandparent at least comparable to a stepparent? While this comparison is certainly more apt than the comparison to a parent, there are still some differences that are quite relevant here. Consider the case of a single parent who finds someone with whom he she becomes seriously involved to the point of them living together. That relationship could certainly impact the child, and I would venture it would be better for the child for the newly formed family to be stable and permanent. They should all be able to live with the expectation that the relationship will last and that the stepparent is not just a temporary visitor in the child's life. This would be better for the child than a steady stream of boyfriends or girlfriends moving in and moving out. Do we have the same situation with a grandparent? No. For one thing there won't be a steady stream of grandparents moving in and moving out. Secondly the relationship between the parent and grandparent (his or her parent) is already a well established and secure relationship. Even if they reach a point where the grandparent no longer lives with the family, he or she is still likely to be a part of the child's life. I would say that it would be a very bad idea if we made the relationship between grandparent and child dependent on the the parent and grandparent forming a new exclusive bond.
What about the notion of stable and secure relationships? Do we want relationships between family member to be stable and secure? Of course, but we don't need marriage for that and the idea it is necessary could make other family relationships less stable and secure. The key difference is that marriage makes new family. Close family members already have relationships with legal and cultural implications that are formed generally from birth. When a couple marries it is part of the process of two people who came to know, love, and trust each other making a commitment to become a family and take on these new obligations to care for each other. The key to this is the promise of permanence. As Maggie Gallagher and Linda Waite write in their book, The Case for Marriage, write:
The promise of permanence is key to marriage's transformative power. People who expect to be part of a couple for their entire lives--unless something awful happens--organize their lives differently from people who are less certain their relationship will last. The marriage contract, because it is long-term, encourages husbands and wives to make decisions jointly and to function as part of a team. Each spouse expects to be able to count on the other to be there and to fulfill his or her responsibilities. This expectation of a long-term working relationship between husband and wife leads to substantial changes in their behavior, of which the most important is, perhaps, what economists call specialization.
But relationships with other family members (parent-child or sibling) are already expected to be permanent. They know from day one that it is expected to be permanent and don't need to undergo this transformation at some later point. (And the idea that they do, could weaken the security of existing relationships). Nor are such relationships based on the same emotional connection as marriage. Again as Gallagher and Waite write:
To be successful, marriage needs to meet some of the emotional needs of the partners. Individuals may have many emotionally fulfilling relationships--with children, with parents, with their siblings, or with friends. But the emotional relationship that underlies marriage is fundamentally different from these because of the couple's exclusive sexual bond.
So I don't buy the claim that these arguments apply just as well to other couples who cannot marry, and even if they did that does not make the arguments any less valid. The more this issue is debated, the more it seems that the promise of permanence is going to be key to the discussions. Those who support marriage (or at least civil unions) believe that it is also important for many reasons for gay and lesbian relationships to undergo this transformation. It is the one of the key differences between marriage and cohabitation. Those that oppose even civil unions generally don't want gay and lesbian relationships to ever take on this promise of permanence. They view heterosexuality as the ideal that all should strive towards, and for such relationships to undergo this transformation would be to acknowledge their permanent rejection of heterosexual relationships. To people with such views there is not much that I could say to change things. They may come to see things differently someday, but it won't be because of what I write, rather it will be because of who they know.
Here and elsewhere I have heard these arguments brushed aside by the remark that they are "just as applicable to other family arrangements that are also denied a right to marriage". [emphasis mine]
Sounds like they are being applied, not brushed aside. I'm not sure where you feel brushed aside when people are using your reasoning to see how it applies to similar situations. After all the "conservative case" is nothing more than an attempt to apply the reasoning for marriage to a what they consider a similar kind of coupling.
For now we'll file this shoe away on the other foot and move on.
This is a strange sidestep. For it says nothing about the arguments themselves
Again, your accusation of side-stepping and brushing aside is not accurate.
The ability to draw premises out to find contradictions is a critical reasoning skill. Formally it is called reductio ad absurdum and seems to be the tack you are describing being applied to your argument.
If this were true, then we would have arguments in favor of allowing those couples to marry. Presumably those making this claim, though, find something problematic in allowing these other couples to marry.
One should note that by your own addition the premise considered here is your own when you say "if this were true". Your own words describe it, "I think that marriage would greatly benefit children of same-sex couples, and it would help society and the families involved by promoting and protecting stable and secure relationships." Only, as you say, applied more liberally than you would like.
It seems that when others conflate relationships with same-sex couples that you find unseemly to be associated so closely with, you are no longer in favor of the action.
Extending the premise says may nothing about the argument itself, then it says much about the person positing the argument. In a reduction ad absurdum argument, you already know, the premise is accepted only for the purpose of argument but not proven true nor expected to be true. That explains why we don't "have arguments in favor of allowing those couples to marry" from the people applying the reduction ad absurdum reasoning.
On the other hand, why such arguments are not found from yourself indicates contradiction. Either in the logic itself or in the hypocrisy of the person originally relying on the reasoning being tested. In other words, the expectation of arguments in favor of allowing those couples to marry, since it is built on the premise you forwarded, is a valid expectation. The fact that we do not find such argument -- especially from the one who posited the premise -- invalidates the premise.
In short, you misstate when you conclude that "these arguments could be used elsewhere does nothing to deny that they are arguments in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry." You are the one precluding them from being used elsewhere which draws the contradiction that invalidates them.
We'll start there. Hopefully you can accept this explanation of the reasoning you are struggling with. Because the real meat comes next when you actually try to denote a difference. If you were to invalidate the reduction-ad-absurdum it would be through providing distinction between the original premise and what it was extended to include. I appreciate that you were thoughtful enough to include your reasoning.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 15, 2005 at 01:17 AM
I'm not sure where you feel brushed aside when people are using your reasoning to see how it applies to similar situations.
One, because no attempt is actually made to apply them. For example, if one actually were to apply the gender discrimination argument to other couples it would immediately fail because they don't classify on gender. So at the very least the arguments would need to be modified first and in that case one has to consider the relevance of those modifications. Secondly, and more importantly, nothing is being done to actually adress the arguments. It's like someone presenting an economic plan as good because it would create more jobs. And then someone else says well you could say the same thing about war. The implication is that we don't want war, but that's not because of the jobs it would create. This sidesteps the argument about the plan creating more jobs. If you're going to argue with the actual claim you should say (1) no, it won't create more jobs because.... (2) it will create more jobs, but that's not a good thing because.... or (3) it may create more jobs, but even if it does it would still be a bad plan because.... Simply noting that such an argument in favor of the plan could also be applied to other things does nothing. It doesn't even imply the person behind the plan is being hypocritical for supporting the plan but opposing war.
Formally it is called reductio ad absurdum and seems to be the tack you are describing being applied to your argument.
This is not a reductio ad absurdum argument. Such an argument would be assume statement A. Statement A implies statement B. Statement B is not true. Therefore statement A is not true. Here statement A is that there are arguments in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry. Even if we assume, for a second, the claim that the arguments are equally applicable to say siblings marrying, all we would conclude is that there are arguments in favor of allowing siblings to marry. So far, no contradiction. To get to a contradiction it seems you make two assumptions. First you must assume that an argument in favor of siblings marrying implies siblings should be allowed to marry, and secondly you assume that siblings should not be allowed to marry. Why do you assume the latter? Presumably because you think there are arguments for why siblings should NOT be allowed to marry. Hence you cannot assume that arguments in favor of a policy imply that policy should be adopted. In the meantime you don't deny that there are arugments in favor of the policy.
One should note that by your own addition the premise considered here is your own when you say "if this were true".
The "if this were true" was referring to the claim that these arguments are "equally" applicable to other families. That premise is not my own and I spent a good deal of the post denying the premise. Still, even if it were true, it would do nothing to deny that these are arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.
Extending the premise says may nothing about the argument itself, then it says much about the person positing the argument.
In that case you are using an ad hominem fallacy. As you say, it says nothing about the argument, only something about the person making the argument. You should try instead to focus on the arguments themselves.
Posted by: Galois | June 15, 2005 at 01:55 AM
#1. “I find the use of gender classifications unwarranted and problematic” This is probably the most heinous and destructive idea inherent in the idea of SSM. Mind body dualism is presented as a given, and the importance of ones biological father or mother being present within a married pair is undermined implicitly. This sends the message (backed by the force of law) that A child’s natural mother or father is not necessarily component of a optimally healthy family & that the government should be (or is advised) in ignoring this simple reality.
The Massachusetts dissent addresses your point.
Paramount among its many important functions, the institution of marriage has systematically provided for the regulation of heterosexual behavior, brought order to the resulting procreation, and ensured a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized. See Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810) (civil marriage "intended to regulate, chasten, and refine, the intercourse between the sexes; and to multiply, preserve, and improve the species"). See also P. Blumstein & P. Schwartz, American Couples: Money, Work, Sex 29 (1983); C.N. Degler, supra at 61; G. Douglas, Marriage, Cohabitation, and Parenthood — From Contract to Status?, in Cross Currents: Family Law and Policy in the United States and England 223 (2000); S.L. Nock, The Social Costs of De-Institutionalizing Marriage, in Revitalizing the Institution of Marriage for the Twenty-First Century: An Agenda for Strengthening Marriage, supra at 7; L. Saxton, supra at 239-240, 242; M.A. Schwartz & B.M. Scott, supra at 4-6; Wardle, supra at 781-796; J.Q. Wilson, supra at 23-32. Admittedly, heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are not necessarily conjoined (particularly in the modern age of widespread effective contraception and supportive social welfare programs), but an orderly society requires some mechanism for coping with the fact that sexual intercourse commonly results in pregnancy and childbirth. The institution of marriage is that mechanism.
The institution of marriage provides the important legal and normative link between heterosexual intercourse and procreation on the one hand and family responsibilities on the other. The partners in a marriage are expected to engage in exclusive sexual relations, with children the probable result and paternity presumed. See G. L. c. 209C, § 6 ("a man is presumed to be the father of a child . . . if he is or has been married to the mother and the child was born during the marriage, or within three hundred days after the marriage was terminated by death, annulment or divorce"). Whereas the relationship between mother and child is demonstratively and predictably created and recognizable through the biological process of pregnancy and childbirth, there is no corresponding process for creating a relationship between father and child.16[60] Similarly, aside from an act of heterosexual intercourse nine months prior to childbirth, there is no process for creating a relationship between a man and a woman as the parents of a particular child. The institution of marriage fills this void by formally binding the husband-father to his wife and child, and imposing on him the responsibilities of fatherhood. See J.Q. Wilson, supra at 23-32. See also P. Blumstein & P. Schwartz, supra at 29; C.N. Degler, supra at 61; G. Douglas, supra at 223; S.L. Nock, supra at 7; L. Saxton, supra at 239-240, 242; M.A. Schwartz & B.M. Scott, supra at 4-6; Wardle, supra at 781-796. The alternative, a society without the institution of marriage, in which heterosexual intercourse, procreation, and child care are largely disconnected processes, would be chaotic.
#2. “marriage would greatly benefit children of same sex couples” – Well Galios, you should first rest your premise in reality if you hope to overcome it. The simple FACT of the matter is that “same-sec couples” cannot have children. The only way to accomplish there possessing children is to necessarily remove said child from either its natural mother, natural father – or both.
Once again the dissent in the Goodridge decision covered this well.
“””Taking all of this available information into account, the Legislature could rationally conclude that a family environment with married opposite-sex parents remains the optimal social structure in which to bear children, and that the raising of children by same-sex couples, who by definition cannot be the two sole biological parents of a child and cannot provide children with a parental authority figure of each gender,29[73] presents an alternative structure for child rearing that has not yet proved itself beyond reasonable scientific dispute to be as optimal as the biologically based marriage norm. See Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 222 (1999) ("conceivable that the Legislature could conclude that opposite-sex partners offer advantages in th[e] area [of child rearing], although . . . experts disagree and the answer is decidedly uncertain"). Cf. Marcoux v. Attorney Gen., 375 Mass. 63, 65 (1978). Working from the assumption that a recognition of same-sex marriages will increase the number of children experiencing this alternative, the Legislature could conceivably conclude that declining to recognize same-sex marriages remains prudent until empirical questions about its impact on the upbringing of children are resolved.30[74]
The fact that the Commonwealth currently allows same-sex couples to adopt, see Adoption of Tammy, 416 Mass. 205 (1993), does not affect the rationality of this conclusion. The eligibility of a child for adoption presupposes that at least one of the child's biological parents is unable or unwilling, for some reason, to participate in raising the child. In that sense, society has "lost" the optimal setting in which to raise that child -- it is simply not available. In these circumstances, the principal and overriding consideration is the "best interests of the child," considering his or her unique circumstances and the options that are available for that child. The objective is an individualized determination of the best environment for a particular child, where the normative social structure -- a home with both the child's biological father and mother -- is not an option. That such a focused determination may lead to the approval of a same-sex couple's adoption of a child does not mean that it would be irrational for a legislator, in fashioning statutory laws that cannot make such individualized determinations, to conclude generally that being raised by a same-sex couple has not yet been shown to be the absolute equivalent of being raised by one's married biological parents.
That the State does not preclude different types of families from raising children does not mean that it must view them all as equally optimal and equally deserving of State endorsement and support.31[75] For example, single persons are allowed to adopt children, but the fact that the Legislature permits single-parent adoption does not mean that it has endorsed single parenthood as an optimal setting in which to raise children or views it as the equivalent of being raised by both of one's biological parents.32[76] The same holds true with respect to same-sex couples -- the fact that they may adopt children means only that the Legislature has concluded that they may provide an acceptable setting in which to raise children who cannot be raised by both of their biological parents. The Legislature may rationally permit adoption by same-sex couples yet harbor reservations as to whether parenthood by same-sex couples should be affirmatively encouraged to the same extent as parenthood by the heterosexual couple whose union produced the child.33[77]
In addition, the Legislature could conclude that redefining the institution of marriage to permit same-sex couples to marry would impair the State's interest in promoting and supporting heterosexual marriage as the social institution that it has determined best normalizes, stabilizes, and links the acts of procreation and child rearing. While the plaintiffs argue that they only want to take part in the same stabilizing institution, the Legislature conceivably could conclude that permitting their participation would have the unintended effect of undermining to some degree marriage's ability to serve its social purpose. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983) (given State's broad concern with institution of marriage, it has "legitimate interest in prohibiting conduct which may threaten that institution").”””
#3 {SSM will} promote stable and secure relationships.
It may do this (among gays) – but the obvious balance is between what net effect it will have in undermining heterosexual marriage VS the gain in stability to homosexuals (who cannot even bare children) We are also dealing with vastly different numbers (at the greatest 5% vs 95% of the population) the risk, and problems are simply not cost benefit effective.
Once again the Massachusetts dissent addresses your point.
“””As long as marriage is limited to opposite-sex couples who can at least theoretically procreate, society is able to communicate a consistent message to its citizens that marriage is a (normatively) necessary part of their procreative endeavor; that if they are to procreate, then society has endorsed the institution of marriage as the environment for it and for the subsequent rearing of their children; and that benefits are available explicitly to create a supportive and conducive atmosphere for those purposes. If society proceeds similarly to recognize marriages between same-sex couples who cannot procreate, it could be perceived as an abandonment of this claim, and might result in the mistaken view that civil marriage has little to do with procreation: just as the potential of procreation would not be necessary for a marriage to be valid, marriage would not be necessary for optimal procreation and child rearing to occur.34[78] In essence, the Legislature could conclude that the consequence of such a policy shift would be a diminution in society's ability to steer the acts of procreation and child rearing into their most optimal setting.35[79] Hall-Omar Baking Co. v. Commissioner of Labor & Indus., 344 Mass. 695, 700 (1962) ("Legislative classification is valid if it is rational and bears some relationship to the object intended to be accomplished" [emphasis added]).
The court recognizes this concern, but brushes it aside with the assumption that permitting same-sex couples to marry "will not diminish the validity or dignity of opposite-sex marriage," ante at , and that "we have no doubt that marriage will continue to be a vibrant and revered institution." Ante at . Whether the court is correct in its assumption is irrelevant. What is relevant is that such predicting is not the business of the courts. A rational Legislature, given the evidence, could conceivably come to a different conclusion, or could at least harbor rational concerns about possible unintended consequences of a dramatic redefinition of marriage.36[80]
There is no question that many same-sex couples are capable of being good parents, and should be (and are) permitted to be so. The policy question that a legislator must resolve is a different one, and turns on an assessment of whether the marriage structure proposed by the plaintiffs will, over time, if endorsed and supported by the State, prove to be as stable and successful a model as the one that has formed a cornerstone of our society since colonial times, or prove to be less than optimal, and result in consequences, perhaps now unforeseen, adverse to the State's legitimate interest in promoting and supporting the best possible social structure in which children should be born and raised. Given the critical importance of civil marriage as an organizing and stabilizing institution of society, it is eminently rational for the Legislature to postpone making fundamental changes to it until such time as there is unanimous scientific evidence, or popular consensus, or both, that such changes can safely be made.37[81]””””
Posted by: Fitz | June 15, 2005 at 11:24 AM
Quite funny that OnLawn (and now I) have to school you on proof by contradiction. Apparently, one need pass little more than advanced mirror fogging to get a PhD from Columbia these days.
For example, if one actually were to apply the gender discrimination argument to other couples it would immediately fail because they don't classify on gender.
Back to spin-doctoring? You again ignore the sexual preference question. That's called evasion.
This is not a reductio ad absurdum argument. Such an argument would be assume statement A. Statement A implies statement B. Statement B is not true.
Though it thwarts your purpose in creating a new thread, let's review how we got here. You argued that Oregon's HB3476 was demeaning because it was too inclusive and provided benefits to more than just "gays and lesbians." You blundered greatly in taking on the Oregon issue not only because it reveals your true agenda is not related to marriage, but also because it exposes the sophistry of your position directly to reductio ad absurdum. That you left out all mention of the Oregon bills shows you recognize your error and want now to simply cover it up.
Here statement A is that there are arguments in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Bzzzzzzt. It always fascinates me that SSM proponents think looking idiotic makes their argument more persuasive. It seems a better tactic would be to show some competence at critical thinking.
"A" is not that there are arguments in favor of same-sex marriage, but rather the arguments themselves. For example, A=children. According to you, children necessitate the same treatment for same-sex and opposite sex couples since children can be in either household. By extension, children necessitate other family groups, groups you disapprove of, must be treated the same as same-sex couples. But you clearly feel this is false since SB1073 contains deliberate language to exclude children of such groups from protection. Your premise A, therefore, drives to conclusion B, which you say is false. To avoid the contradiction you would have had to oppose SB1073, which you do not do because you favor the sort of sexual orientation based discrimination it endorses as you say elsewhere:
...deliberately excluding other family types.
That premise is not my own and I spent a good deal of the post denying the premise.
There is nothing in your premises that says that children being raised by familial groups don't need the same sort of stability as children being raised by same-sex couples, and you don't argue that point above, either. Extended families may continue to have a relationship after they cease cohabitating, but the same is true of homosexuals as well as other couples. Introducing this new premise post hoc focusing on "the one unbridgeable difference" of blood relationships is mean spirited. Extended families raising children are a fact of modern society. These are our neighbors, our co-workers. They are nobel and hard-working and are filled with good intentions.
Posted by: op-ed | June 15, 2005 at 12:06 PM
Quite funny that OnLawn (and now I) have to school you on proof by contradiction. Apparently, one need pass little more than advanced mirror fogging to get a PhD from Columbia these days.
You two are talking out of your hats. Apparently one needs little more than an internet connection to pretend to be an expert on something one clearly knows nothing about.
Back to spin-doctoring? You again ignore the sexual preference question. That's called evasion.
My arguments were not about sexual preference. They were about gender. When people talk about sexual preference in this debate, they generally mean homosexual or heterosexual which is itself inherently a classification based on gender. The current policy classifies directly based on gender, and that is what I find problematic. So your sexual preference comments were non-sequiturs, and there was nothing to respond to.
That you left out all mention of the Oregon bills shows you recognize your error and want now to simply cover it up.
You're still merely engaging in ad hominem and not actually adressing the issue of why same-sex marriage would be good policy. I have given my reasons why I did not think the dissolution in the civil union bill should apply to the relationships intended to be covered by the domestic beneficiary bill. You can either argue that the dissolution requirements of the civil union bill should apply to family members, or you can argue that they should not apply to gay and lesbian couples. Simply saying that there is no difference between the two situations so what goes for one goes for the other does nothing to futher your argument.
Bzzzzzzt. It always fascinates me that SSM proponents think looking idiotic makes their argument more persuasive. It seems a better tactic would be to show some competence at critical thinking.
This is an appeal to ridicule fallacy of which you seem quite fond. It does nothing to rebut another argument or advance one of your own. It simply makes you look like an ass.
According to you, children necessitate the same treatment for same-sex and opposite sex couples since children can be in either household.
I can be fairly certain that when you start a sentence, "according to you" what follows will be at best a distortion of my position. At worst, it will be something made up out of thin air. This is a straw man fallacy and seems to another tactic that you enjoy. In this case I did not say children can be in either household so it necessitates the same treatment. I said same-sex marriage would greatly benefit children who have two parents of the same sex. If you would like to argue with that you should explain how it will not benefit such children, or how we don't want to benefit such children. Distorting the position into a different and then going off on a tangent about your new straw man position does nothing to rebut the original claim.
There is nothing in your premises that says that children being raised by familial groups don't need the same sort of stability as children being raised by same-sex couples, and you don't argue that point above, either.
Because I disagree with said point. I do feel that chidren being rasied by other family groups need the same sort of stability. That is why the parent should be free to enter into marriage with someone. The grandparent relationship between the grandparent and child, and the grandparent and parent (his or her child) relationship is already established by law and custom and is expected to be stable and secure without transforming the relationship.
Extended families may continue to have a relationship after they cease cohabitating, but the same is true of homosexuals as well as other couples.
When a cohabiting couple breaks up it is generally the case that parent's boyfriend or girlfriend no longer does have a relationship with either the parent or child, and unfortunately even when it is cohabiting parents this often happens. I'm beginning to wonder, though, why you feel heterosexual parents should remain married.
. Extended families raising children are a fact of modern society. These are our neighbors, our co-workers. They are nobel and hard-working and are filled with good intentions.
Agreed. And if they requrest certain protections we should give them due consideration and only deny them if there is a good reason to do so. In this case the extended families are not asking for divorce requirements, but same-sex couples are. In Vermont they actually offer RP's almost identical to Oregon's DB bill and nobody has used them. Extended families and gay and lesbian couples are looking for two different things.
Posted by: Galois | June 15, 2005 at 12:53 PM
... no attempt is actually made to apply them. For example, if one actually were to apply the gender discrimination argument to other couples it would immediately fail because they don't classify on gender.
To support the accusation that "no attempt is made" you provide an example where an attempt is made and fails?
at the very least the arguments would need to be modified
Howso?
Here statement A is that there are arguments in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Just curious, is this posited by yourself or myself? I mean does it accurately state your position? Does it accurately state what I think your position is?
This is important to me as you have a habit of misrepresenting arguments. To be mistaken is one thing, but in situations like this you seem more bent on telling me what I'm saying rather than listening to what I'm saying. I needn't have to tell you that is arguing in bad faith. But I won't conclude that here, I'll ask you your opinion on the matter.
So again, you mention premise "A" as "there are arguments in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry." What is fishy about that is it sounds much more broad than what you posited in this article. It seems much more ethereal and vague. It seems like, honestly, you don't want us to recognise that you've made any specific arguments in the matter. One such specific argument was what I quoted earlier,
To put it in your template of reduction ad absurdum (a templet, btw, that is incomplete but we'll deal with that later) seems to be the "A" that infers "B" in your mind where "B" is that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
I'm going to again just rest here and wait for your opinion on the matter. You accuse me of talking out of my hat, but I think you will see that I am honestly trying to reconcile these divergent viewpoints.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 15, 2005 at 02:04 PM
Post was too long to read the whole thing, but I didn't see any mention of WHY those other couples are prohbited from marrying. It is because their procreation, if it were to occur, would be unethical. Those people, more than just being prohibited from legally marrying, are prohibited from having sex, and discouraged from even thinking of each other as potential sex partners. Making a child with one of these people is what is prohibited. Not loving them, not devoting your life to them, not visiting them in the hospital. If you are not allowed to create children together, you are not allowed to marry.
Posted by: Mr. John Howard | June 15, 2005 at 02:46 PM
Howso?
You would have to say that discrimination based on familial relationships needs to be justified and explain why that is so.
Just curious, is this posited by yourself or myself? I mean does it accurately state your position?
This is my position. I'm claiming there are strong arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.
To put it in your template of reduction ad absurdum (a templet, btw, that is incomplete but we'll deal with that later) seems to be the "A" that infers "B" in your mind where "B" is that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.
No. I'm not saying this infers that same-sex copules should be allowed to marry. I'm saying that this is one of the benefits same-sex marriage would provide. If, however, in spite of that same-sex marriage would harm others, then this benefit might not suffice to justify same-sex marriage.
Mr. John Howard at least has reasons why marriage is inappropriate in neither situation. In both cases he wants to discourage such couples from thinking of each others as potential sex partners.
Posted by: Galois | June 15, 2005 at 03:28 PM
Let me just get this straight then...
I'm claiming there are strong arguments in favor of same-sex marriage.
but...
I think that marriage would greatly benefit children of same-sex couples, and it would help society and the families involved by promoting and protecting stable and secure relationships.
is not one of them?
Posted by: On Lawn | June 15, 2005 at 03:43 PM
No, On Lawn it is one of them. If there is a part of that claim you would like to deny, feel free to do so. State your claim clearly, like "Marriage would not benefit children of same-sex couples" or whatever it is you believe. Then try to support that claim.
Posted by: Galois | June 15, 2005 at 03:50 PM
Okay, so then would you accept this representation of your argument...
A - "Marriage would greatly benefit children of couples, and it would help society and the families involved by promoting and protecting stable and secure relationships."
B - Set of all arguments in favor of marriage of that couple.
You are then simply arguing that A exists in B? But correct me if I'm wrong.
Now we can backtrack to something you pointed out when you said this doesn't infer same-sex couples should be called "married". You said "this benefit might not suffice to justify same-sex marriage."
Do you suggest that you don't have an argument that does infer that same-sex couples should be married? If so, what would that be?
Any other suggested edits?
Note: I removed "same-sex" from statement "A" as it would be a trivial excersize to point out that "man-man" and "woman-woman" is a couple, and therefore applies to A if "having children" survives scrutiny.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 15, 2005 at 04:14 PM
BTW, Galois I appreciate your cooperation here. It does have an aspect of being specific and mind-numbingly tedious, but sometimes that is needed to finally be on the same page so we can further constructive discussion.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 15, 2005 at 04:16 PM
How about this: A - It is a great benefit to children if their parents are married. B - The set of all the arguments in favor of allowing the parents to marry. A exists in B.
As for why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry we must weigh both sides. I have presented on this site reasons why allowing them to marry would be good (for them, their children, and for society). I have also countered some arguments for why it would be bad, (mostly I try to put them in this category. Taken together I believe the good far outweighs the bad. Hence I support allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Now what about your argument. You claimed earlier that you or others were making a reductio ad absurdum argument. That implies you wish to make a claim, P. You assume P is not true and then reach a contradiction, hence establishing that P must be true. What is that claim that you wish to make?
Posted by: Galois | June 15, 2005 at 05:54 PM
You two are talking out of your hats.
Come now! It is not beyond reason to be taken aback that someone claiming to be a mathematician has problems understanding proof by contradiction. Who knows? Perhaps Columbia gave you your PhD simply because you made a case that it would benefit you if they did. (That's another reductio ad absurdum, in case you're having trouble keeping up.)
You can either argue that the dissolution requirements of the civil union bill should apply to family members, or you can argue that they should not apply to gay and lesbian couples.
That you still try to separate the two only proves that you accept the contradiction in your own argument. Remember, you are not arguing for a specific treatment of marriage to be applied to same-sex partnerships. You are arguing that they are marriages. Likewise, I am not arguing for a particular treatment for familial couples. If they are not treated to everything "gay and lesbian" couples receive, even if only in name, that is unjust. That is your contradiction, and the more you run from it the more you run smack into it.
To try and pawn off your prejudice and bigotry as tolerance and equality is dishonest and is, quite frankly, disgusting. In defense of the homosexuals I have known, in general they do not share your closed mindedness and they would be appalled that you are attempting to be a spokesman for them. I really feel for them in that every Tom, Dick, Harry, or Galois with a political axe to grind feels like they can just slap a few homosexuals onto their cause and wreak whatever violence they wish.
It does nothing to rebut another argument or advance one of your own.
Au contraire! Requiring you to argue legitimately is the only way to make progress in this debate. In this case, your misinterpretation "statement A is that there are arguments in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry," is so moronic the misinterpretation had to be deliberate. What can you prove just by saying there are arguments in favor of something else? Go ahead. What? No, no. Really. Do elaborate. Instead, and obviously, it depends on what those specific arguments are. Now perhaps I am giving your Columbia PhD more than its due, but you had to have realised this before you wrote the above.
I can be fairly certain that when you start a sentence, "according to you" what follows will be at best a distortion of my position.
Like a dog to his vomit, Galois just can't stay away from deny, deny, deny.
In this case I did not say children can be in either household so it necessitates the same treatment. I said same-sex marriage would greatly benefit children who have two parents of the same sex.
Other than trying to introduce by premise the conclusion you are trying to argue for, that same-sex and familial relationships are different, this is exactly what you denied claiming just two sentences before! Do you really insist that begging the question is an essential part of your argument??
That is why the parent should be free to enter into marriage with someone.
Hold the phone!! Did you just say it's better for the children if their parent goes out and gets married rather than just calling their present relationship a marriage? FINALLY!
When a cohabiting couple breaks up it is generally the case that parent's boyfriend or girlfriend...
So now the other partner is not a parent, but rather a "boyfriend or girlfriend" of the parent? Interesting. What did I miss? When did you switch sides in this debate?
Just so you know, sometimes a cohabiting family member breaks off relations when they move out, too. Still no difference...
And if they requrest certain protections we should give them due consideration...
Again, we are not discussing individual protections. We are mounding up each and every little difference and then throwing the equality blanket over the top of it and insisting that you deal with the whole mountain. Whatever you think is right for gay and lesbian couples, it must be right for related couples, too. Related couples could argue that even if they were given all the same treatments, responsibilities, and protections as gay and lesbian couples it still would not be enough if they weren't called by the same name.
As I said. You blundered badly when you took on the Oregon issue.
Posted by: op-ed | June 15, 2005 at 05:56 PM
How about this:
A - It is a great benefit to children if their parents are married.
B - The set of all the arguments in favor of allowing the parents to marry.
A exists in B.
Very interesting.
So how would you define "parent"?
And if I have it right, this thread seems to have spawned from discussion on the situation in Oregon. As you know, Oregon does not recognize same-sex couples as capable of marriage. How would you then alter this argument to support your views on legislation in Oregon?
Posted by: On Lawn | June 15, 2005 at 06:49 PM
So how would you define "parent"?
There are a number of ways I might use the term parent. In this case I am referring to it in the sense of "legal parent", one recognized by the law as having the rights and obligations that a parent has to a child.
How would you then alter this argument to support your views on legislation in Oregon?
One of the things that makes marriage so beneficial to the children it is promotes what Waite and Gallagher called "the promise of permanence". One of the most important ways this is accomplished is by requiring dissolution proceedings that protect the individual's ability to securely make decision based on that presumption. I would suggest that it is very important that any civil union bill include this provision.
I repeat, though, what is the claim that you hope to demonstrate?
Posted by: Galois | June 15, 2005 at 07:08 PM
one recognized by the law as having the rights and obligations that a parent has to a child.
Unfortunately this definition references itself. Unfortunately a definition is unworkable if it is self-referencing. Could you provide a definition that doesn't reference itself?
One of the things that makes marriage so beneficial to the children
I'm having trouble applying that to your argument, "A exists in B". You did have stability mentioned explicitely, but then removed it. How would you put that back in?
Also I don't see any mention of "Civil Union" in the "A exists in B" argument. I'm not sure how to alter it to cover Civil Unions.
You have often pointed out that others don't relate your points accurately. I hope you do not fail me then in accurately representing your position so we don't misrepresent it.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 15, 2005 at 07:40 PM
Unfortunately this definition references itself. Unfortunately a definition is unworkable if it is self-referencing. Could you provide a definition that doesn't reference itself?
It doesn't reference itself. It references the law.
You did have stability mentioned explicitely [sic], but then removed it. How would you put that back in?
Sure. One of the ways marriage benefits children is the stability it provides and promotes. This is also a benefit to the couple and to society apart from the benefit it affords the children. If you'd like I can explain how marriage provides and promotes this stability as I have elsewhere.
Also I don't see any mention of "Civil Union" in the "A exists in B" argument. I'm not sure how to alter it to cover Civil Unions.
Many of the ways that marriage promotes and provides stability and benefits children is through the laws which govern it. It assigns certain obligations and responsiblilities and enforces them and provides support in meeting them. For a more detailed analysis of how these laws work towards these purposes in Massachusetts see this brief (pdf) by the Boston Bar Assoc'n, et. al. If you'd like I can try to find a similar analysis from Oregon. Civil Union can not do all marriage can in furthering these goals, but it can do a lot and so it should be supported if marriage is not an option.
You have often pointed out that others don't relate your points accurately. I hope you do not fail me then in accurately representing your position so we don't misrepresent it.
I am trying my best. But I'm also still curious as to what claim you were making in your reductio ad absurdum argument. I wouldn't want to misstate your position.
Posted by: Galois | June 15, 2005 at 07:54 PM
As for the "A exists in B" argument, I'll give it a stab and you can suggest edits?
Note: I changed "parent" to "guardian", I hope you do not mind. It seems to me that you described a guardian when you described someone who has "the rights and obligations that a parent has to a child".
That came to mind because in the law it seems that the rights and obligations that a parent has to a child is described as guardianship. I mean, parents act as guardians when they discharge their rights and obligations so if you were looking into the law a "guardian" would be a more direct reference. Again, as I am trying to be accurate to your argument, I appreciate your continued dilligence in expressing your argument.
Posted by: On Lawn | June 15, 2005 at 08:25 PM
I don't mean to interrupt (you guys are doing fine, and i'm not even going to involved in this A,B stuff), but doesn't it seem strange that we're spending so much time talking about children when Galois has already "proved" that Marriage is not about procreation?
Posted by: Marty | June 15, 2005 at 08:34 PM
I'm afraid I don't know too much about the laws regarding guardians, so I woldn't want to state that as my claim, but feel free to state it as your own. To evaluate it I'd need to know more about guardianship. Does a guardian have all the obligations toward a child that a parent has? Is a guardian assigned on a temporary or permanent basis? Did these guardians decide jointly to take on the guardianship of this child? How does the relationship between a guardian and ward differ from the relationship between a parent and child? What are the reasons for the guardian not adopting the child? I would need to know more before I could evaluate such a claim.
Posted by: Galois | June 15, 2005 at 08:38 PM
Marty when did I "prove" anything? I believe procreation is a concern of marriage, just not the sole concern. I think that the marriage continues to be important for the child after he or she is conceived. Do you agree?
Posted by: Galois | June 15, 2005 at 08:40 PM
I think that the marriage continues to be important for the child after he or she is conceived. Do you agree?
Well of course i agree. I also think that marriage is important to how a child is conceived. Do you agree?
Posted by: Marty | June 15, 2005 at 08:59 PM
I did a little reading and it does seem to me that if joint permanent guardians were appointed, it would benefit the child if they were married/ in a civil union.
By the way, On Lawn, you still haven't told me what you to claim and demonstrate by means of reductio ad absurdum.
Posted by: Galois | June 15, 2005 at 09:00 PM
I also think that marriage is important to how a child is conceived. Do you agree?
Yes.
Posted by: Galois | June 15, 2005 at 09:00 PM