New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | September 27, 2005

Gay marriage proponents are often accused of trying to redefine traditional marriage; I go hunting for the traditional definition.

Comments

|9.27.05 @ 7:18PM|#

Such self promotion is unbecoming!
You couldn't have IMed this post to someone else to ghost post for you? ;P

|9.27.05 @ 7:25PM|#

The best arguement against gay marriage is gay divorce.

Exhibit A: The Liza Minelli/David Gest fiasco.

Sofocleto|9.27.05 @ 7:27PM|#

"The Bush administration renewed its call for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. So I guess they feel the only time that guys should be on top of each other naked is in an Iraqi prison." ?Jay Leno

|9.27.05 @ 8:15PM|#

But without gay divorce we wouldn't have all those other Astaire/Rogers films.

The Wine Commonsewer|9.27.05 @ 8:27PM|#

Although Mr Sanchez writes a compelling and interesting history, libertarians should be working to get the government out of marriage rather than enticing another group of people into the trap where almost all of your private decisions are made by someone other than you.

Of course that isn't going to happen and in that context I understand the pragmatic arguments as well. But shouldn't we be making more noise about it being none of the government's business instead of constantly pointing out that the traditional marriage crowd is paranoid and biased?

The Anti-Puritan|9.27.05 @ 8:40PM|#

Hilarious, Sofocleto.

I wonder what the tyranny-of-the-majority conservatives will say now that most of the people of Massachusetts have turned against them. I've just scoured the archives of NRO's "The Corner" blog, and I haven't found any reference to this fact. But then, why bother posting when all you can say is, "Well, um, er, ah…"?

Wine C., we libertarians will get another chance to advocate privatization of marriage when the polygamists have their day in the sun.

|9.27.05 @ 8:51PM|#

The article is... nice. Maybe too nice, nobody who doesn't already agree with you is going to be persuaded. Take Christian Conservatives- you don't once mention God or the Bible, ergo your arguments are baseless. You then conclude by using evolution. You don't even mention God's plan for His people! Pshaw.

Yer preachin' to the choir.

Now let's all join in on a rousing rendition of "Tradition" from Fiddler on the Roof!

|9.27.05 @ 9:19PM|#

Many Native American groups cared about diversity of gender in marriage rather than of biological sex: A couple had to comprise one person doing "man's work" and one person doing "woman's work," regardless of what their genitals looked like.

Aha! There was a Stone Age tribe like this described in a SF novel by Ken MacLeod (Dark Light.) I'd wondered whether he'd made that up or had based it on something from history.

In the novel, basically a "man" was someone who did outdoor work such as hunting, and a "woman" was someone who did indoor work such as sewing. Genitalia were irrelevant, although "men" and "women" were expected to adopt appropriate gender trappings (clothing, mannerisms). An adolescent child became a "man" when he (or she) went through the ritual of going out in the wilderness, hunting down a man from another tribe and killing him. One character declines to to do this, so he decides to become a woman instead. That's considered fine and a legitimate option by the traditions of the tribe.

(However, the reason behind the character's decision is anti-traditional -- he thinks going out and killing an innocent person of another tribe just to pass the man-test might be immoral -- so the character keeps that to himself.)

The Wine Commonsewer|9.27.05 @ 9:23PM|#

Anti....I'm okay with polygamy. Not sure Mrs TWC would be too keen on that though. :-)

|9.27.05 @ 9:33PM|#

TRADITIOOOOOON! TRADITION! TRADITION!
TRADITIOOOOOOOOOOOON! TRADITION TRADITION!

Who, day and night, must watch Jerry Fawell,
Burn Harry Potter, say his hourly prayers?
And who has the right to bomb and murder gay men,
'Cause the Bible tell us so?

The Christiaaaaaaans! The Christians! TRADITION!
The Christianaaaaaaaaans! The Christians! TRADITION!

[Is is dancing about all Topel]

|9.27.05 @ 9:58PM|#

Of course that isn't going to happen and in that context I understand the pragmatic arguments as well. But shouldn't we be making more noise about it being none of the government's business instead of constantly pointing out that the traditional marriage crowd is paranoid and biased?

You might be surprised at how much support that idea has. On one political forum, I advanced that idea during a debate on gay marriage, and surprisingly (at least to me), both liberals and conservatives thought it was a good idea.

From a pragmatic point of view, government probably isn't going to be getting out of the marriage business any time soon. And realistically, not only are gays a minority, but my purely anecdotal observation is that the population of gays that are actually interested in getting married is an even smaller minority. While there might be some valid principled arguments against gay marriage, the practical effect of allowing it would be pretty much zero. I'd say conservatives ought to give it a pass, and keep their powder dry for a battle that's actually worth fighting. This one isn't.

|9.27.05 @ 9:58PM|#

Of course that isn't going to happen and in that context I understand the pragmatic arguments as well. But shouldn't we be making more noise about it being none of the government's business instead of constantly pointing out that the traditional marriage crowd is paranoid and biased?

You might be surprised at how much support that idea has. On one political forum, I advanced that idea during a debate on gay marriage, and surprisingly (at least to me), both liberals and conservatives thought it was a good idea.

From a pragmatic point of view, government probably isn't going to be getting out of the marriage business any time soon. And realistically, not only are gays a minority, but my purely anecdotal observation is that the population of gays that are actually interested in getting married is an even smaller minority. While there might be some valid principled arguments against gay marriage, the practical effect of allowing it would be pretty much zero. I'd say conservatives ought to give it a pass, and keep their powder dry for a battle that's actually worth fighting. This one isn't.

|9.27.05 @ 10:10PM|#

Whoop-de-fuck. The Wine Commonsewer has it right on. Fuck state-sponsered gay-or-straight marriage.

Oh, and fuck.

|9.27.05 @ 10:17PM|#

That "Concerned Women For America" link was...interesting. I especially like reason #4, that gay people already have all the rights they would get through marriage. Instead of providing some reference to back this up, they just take a swipe at San Francisco and reference a poll saying most people in Massachusetts _think_ it's true.

I also like this under reason #5: "Marriage is not discriminatory. Regardless of their sexual inclinations, men and women have equal rights to bond with an opposite sex spouse in matrimony."
This argument has come up on these threads before, and I don't get it. How is this different from saying that anti-miscegenation laws aren't discriminatory because, regardless of their skin color, every person has an equal right to marry someone else with the same skin color?

|9.27.05 @ 10:31PM|#

This argument has come up on these threads before, and I don't get it. How is this different from saying that anti-miscegenation laws aren't discriminatory because, regardless of their skin color, every person has an equal right to marry someone else with the same skin color?

Well, it isn't discriminatory because, despite the fact that Julian has put forth a heroic effort in digging up a few cultural outliers, marriage in the overwhelming number of cultures has been a tool specifically for managing relations between the sexes. That has, in the main, been it's defining characteristic, even in polygamous or polyandrous societies. Yes, that's "discriminatory" in the same sense that a public restroom "discriminates" by failing to provide oil changes for motorists, but it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that public restrooms were never designed to accommodate automobiles in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to legalizing gay marriage. But I still think the "discrimination" argument is downright silly.

|9.27.05 @ 10:42PM|#

Pig Mannix,

I think you're a little too quick to dismiss Julian's examples of same-sex "cultural outliers," since they show that marriage is not _inherently_ limited to opposite sexes, even if that has been the case in the overwhelming number of cases.

Having said that, I still don't see how that distinguishes it from the anti-miscegenation example. I'm no expert on the history of marriage, but my understanding is that in the overwhelming number of cases marriage has formally been considered to be for members of the same race (even if, in practice, a certain amount of hanky panky took place among races).

|9.27.05 @ 10:42PM|#

" How is this different from saying that anti-miscegenation laws aren't discriminatory because, regardless of their skin color, every person has an equal right to marry someone else with the same skin color?"-J

Because race and sex are not equivalent things. A couple that are of different races are functionally equivalent to a couple of the same race. A couple that is of the same sex is not functionally equivalent to one of opposite sexes. It is perfectly legitimate to treat different circumstances unequally.

Homosexual couples are a biological cul-de-sac, hetereosexual couples create society's next generation. Society has a legitimate interest in fostering stable heterosexual relationships, it has no such interest in homosexuals. The theories by which marriage is discrimitory to gays has no grounding in reality.

|9.27.05 @ 10:46PM|#

make that "unjustly discriminitory"

|9.27.05 @ 11:06PM|#

"Because race and sex are not equivalent things. A couple that are of different races are functionally equivalent to a couple of the same race."

I assume you're talking about the ability of opposite sex couples to produce children. Ignoring the fact that we allow opposite sex couples who have no desire to or can't produce children to marry (which I realize isn't a very strong argument against this position), biomedical advancements have made and are continuing to make this argument less and less tenable.

Or maybe you're arguing that heteroexual couples tend to raise happier, healthier, etc. children. As far as I know, there are no studies that actually show this (if anyone thinks they have a good example, I'd be interested in hearing about it). There are many studies that show correlations, but none I'm aware of adequately control for the large number of other factors that come into play. The same sorts of inadequately controlled studies would likely indicate that children of various minorities are less healthy, happy etc., but we rightly allow them to marry and raise children. Society may have an interest in creating its next generation, but it needs a lot better reason than that for prohibiting same-sex marriage.

More importantly, how in the world does your response have the same time stamp as my original post? You certainly think and type a hell of a lot faster than I do.

|9.27.05 @ 11:12PM|#

"More importantly, how in the world does your response have the same time stamp as my original post?"
Oh, I get it - I'm just a dumbass. I was looking at the wrong two posts.

The Anti-Puritan|9.27.05 @ 11:21PM|#

MJ:
Homosexual couples are a biological cul-de-sac, hetereosexual couples create society's next generation. Society has a legitimate interest in fostering stable heterosexual relationships, it has no such interest in homosexuals. The theories by which marriage is [unjustly] discrimitory to gays has no grounding in reality.

It's not the government's job to advance all of society's interests, no matter how legitimate they may be.

|9.27.05 @ 11:34PM|#

"I assume you're talking about the ability of opposite sex couples to produce children."-J

The very fact that you would phrase your response that way shows how deeply your thinking is lost in abstraction and divorced from reality. Of course that's what I talking about!

"Ignoring the fact that we allow opposite sex couples who have no desire to or can't produce children to marry..."

It's ignorable because it is rather intrusive to figure out who those couples are. Who the same sex couples are and the fact the their relationship is biologically sterile is rather obvious.

A healthy heterosexual couple has to go to some lengths to avoid having child together, a homosexual couple cannot produce a biological child with each other, no matter what technological help is given.

Again, the discrimination angle for justisfying same sex marriage is nonsense on stilts, society has no reason for sanctioning same sex relationships and the further divorcing of marriage from the reproductive realities of species with two complementary sexes weakens marriage as it makes it solely about the wants of the adults and not the children it issues.

p.s. I was responding to your 10:17 post.

The Anti-Puritan|9.27.05 @ 11:43PM|#

MJ:
…society has no reason for sanctioning same sex relationships and the further divorcing of marriage from the reproductive realities of species with two complementary sexes weakens marriage as it makes it solely about the wants of the adults and not the children it issues.

So why is it the government's job at all to preserve the institution of marriage?

"Now that a gay couple has moved in next door, I don't love my children as much as I used to." Huh?

|9.27.05 @ 11:47PM|#

"It?s not the government?s job to advance all of society?s interests, no matter how legitimate they may be."-The Anti-Puritan

Depends on the interest.

"All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly, which can-and must-be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a "perfect society" on any foundation other than "Women and children first!" is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly-and no doubt will keep on trying."-R. Heinlein

|9.27.05 @ 11:53PM|#

Same-sex marriage further fosters the idea that marriage is primarily about the needs and happiness of the adult couple and not providing a stable foundation to raise children on. It is question of what your premises are not that it will change the premises of existing marriages.

|9.27.05 @ 11:57PM|#

First off, let me say that I think gay marriage should be legally recognized.

That said, the article was really weak. Yes, there have been plenty of polygamous cultures throughout history. Yes, there are plenty of polygamous cultures in the world today. But the thing is, none of them contributed significantly to mainstream American culture or tradition. You have to go back thousands of years to find a polygamous society that significantly influenced American culture. You can't call something a societal tradition if nobody in your society, outside of the occasional fringe group or religious minority, has practiced it for thousands of years.

I'm also not sure what the purpose of the whole analysis of the rise of "love marriages" is, since those marriages also have been strictly heterosexual. The article seems to be arguing that the accepted definition of marriage has been broadening. Far from it; it has narrowed. Centuries ago marriage simply required a ritual and Church approval. Today, we expect the couple to love one another, to share their lives and responsibilities, etc, etc. At either time, however, the requirement that one party be male and the other female has been the same. The qualifications for marriage have tightened, not loosened.

It is a bad idea for supporters of gay marriage to try arguing that the traditional definition of marriage isn't "one man, one woman". It is a bad idea because it immediately communicates to the person you're trying to convince that you're either dishonest or utterly clueless about the culture you live in. Concede that tradition favors keeping gay marriage unrecognized, and focus instead on showing the injustice of that tradition. After all, all sorts of nasty traditions have been discarded in recent decades.

|9.28.05 @ 12:02AM|#

"Same-sex marriage further fosters the idea that marriage is primarily about the needs and happiness of the adult couple and not providing a stable foundation to raise children on."

FWIW, part of my point in the piece was precisely that trying to stake out some definition of "what marriage is primarily about" is a mook's game. For most of its history, it was "primarily about" creating in-law bonds. Since the late 18th century, it has primarily been about "the needs and happiness of the adult couple." It has pretty much never *actually* been about "providing a stable foudnation to raise children on."

The Anti-Puritan|9.28.05 @ 12:08AM|#

MJ, your Heinlein quote is about the "rules" of "society," but it says nothing about the legitimate functions of government, which is another matter. For example, pregnant women and children need a steady food supply, but that doesn't mean that the government needs to control the food supply. Yes, government enforces laws against theft, extortion, tampering, and fraud to help protect the food supply. But these laws are analogous to the laws against robbery, assault, or kidnapping of pregnant women and children. What do marriage licenses--as opposed to the institution of marriage per se--have to do with any of this?

|9.28.05 @ 12:17AM|#

"The very fact that you would phrase your response that way shows how deeply your thinking is lost in abstraction and divorced from reality."

And the fact that this was your response to my attempt to clarify an ambiguous statement suggests that you haven't been following the public debate very closely. I considered this to be the most likely interpretation, so I addressed it. Then at the start of the next paragraph I pointed out another reasonable interpretation, based on an argument commonly put forth by opponents of gay marriage - that homosexuals are not functionally equivalent to heterosexuals when it comes to raising children.

"A healthy heterosexual couple has to go to some lengths to avoid having child together, a homosexual couple cannot produce a biological child with each other, no matter what technological help is given."

The fact that a homosexual couple can't produce a child specifically with each other doesn't seem relevant. A healthy gay couple and a healthy lesbian can produce just as many offspring as a two healthy straight couples; so even if you accept the govt's right to advance a societal interest in creating the next generation, this argument against gay marriage doesn't hold water. Unless you're trying to argue that homosexuals are less competent to raise children that heterosexuals, which I addressed above.

|9.28.05 @ 12:33AM|#

MJ,

"Same-sex marriage further fosters the idea that marriage is primarily about the needs and happiness of the adult couple and not providing a stable foundation to raise children on."

Did you even read the article? Marraige is primarily about whatever the society in questions has made it be about, which is (historically) not necessarily about raising children.

|9.28.05 @ 12:40AM|#

The whole gay marriage debate is just two or more factions trying to impose their definition of morality on the general population. Back up for a second from the specific arguments for each side. Is it truly different in principle, if government defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, a white man and white woman, man and animal, or any other possible combination? The government is just (somewhat) arbitrarily defining marriage. If marriage were truly 'privatized', those who so desired would obtain a certificate of marriage from whatever religion or group they belong to. Christians from ministers, muslims from imams, jews from rabbis, and other groups from wherever.

If government must promote marriage for it to form, would the marriages that would not have otherwise formed, be worth promoting? Are these marriages as stable as those entered into without the use of incentives? I do not know. But it is a question worth exploring.

I personally think that gay marriage is also another ploy to obtain validation of their 'lifestyle' from society, to feel proper and normal, despite the fact that homosexuality is hopelessly abnormal. (ab?nor?mal (b-n?)
adj.
Not typical, usual, or regular; not normal; deviant.)

It is disappointing that many people here are more 'contemporary' than 'classical' liberals. American liberals and social conservatives, do not differ much, as both are fundamentally lazy by preferring to impose their morals through government fiat instead of through the power of persuasion.The effect of the latter is demonstrated by the success of the teetotalers' movement before some of them decided to go through government to achieve their aims. I think this is one of the crises of society, today; instead of trying to persuade, many social movements instead aim to modify or enact laws to enshrine their cause.

|9.28.05 @ 12:55AM|#

I personally think that gay marriage is also another ploy to obtain validation of their 'lifestyle' from society, to feel proper and normal, despite the fact that homosexuality is hopelessly abnormal.

Even if true, what damage accrues to society by allowing it? If, as Thomas Jefferson once remarked (although on an entirely different topic), "It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket", what's the problem with letting the abnormal have a warm fuzzy?

|9.28.05 @ 1:38AM|#

MJ-

You had to bring out the big guns, didn't you. You had to quote the highest authority in any intellectual discussion: the science fiction author, Robert L. Heinlein. (I think it's "L.", could be wrong.)

What you quote is a load of dangerous claptrap. Many with an agenda, even a criminal one, will often cite "for the children" as a rationale for all kinds of totalitarian nonsense.

Take Germany just before WWII. They enacted laws called the "Laws Against Crime" to imprison and sterilize innocent Roma/gypsy men. Some of the reasons cited was to "prevent" crime and "protect" women and children. Funny - no one seemed to be concerned about the Roma children that wouldn't be born - but that was part of the point now, wasn't it? Or that state-sponsored and conducted crime also counts as crime.

What's wrong with just saying that every person has a bundle of fundamental rights that are not to be violated by anyone else? Nothing, if you don't have an agenda. But if your agenda is exploiting, controlling, socially engineering, imposing your will on, demeaning, belittling, etc. other people you NEED emotionalist buttons to push like "it's for the children" to impose your agenda.

-CAT_Violations

The Anti-Puritan|9.28.05 @ 1:47AM|#

Pig Mannix:
You might be surprised at how much support that idea [of privatizing marriage] has. On one political forum, I advanced that idea during a debate on gay marriage, and surprisingly (at least to me), both liberals and conservatives thought it was a good idea.

If many lefties and righties are easily convinced of the idea, it probably means that it never even occurred to them before. Otherwise, they would have either proposed it themselves or had handy rebuttals to it. This makes me think that the Wine Commonsewer and ANM are right: In 2005, the idea of limited government has been almost forgotten and needs to be re-introduced.

|9.28.05 @ 1:54AM|#

I think we need to look at the gay marriage debate this way:

1. Marriage is private first and public second.
If you accept that to be true then you accept gay marriages ALREADY EXIST as a private relationship between certain couples, families, churches, corporations, etc.

2. The legitimate purpose of government recognizing marriages is to determine precedence for family law.

3. The reason the judiciary has been so "active" in defining gay marriage is because there is a need to create a precedence for a set of relationships that ALREADY EXIST, but are not recognized by law.

Gay marriage is one of few private social contracts (and a major one to the individuals involved) that has NO recognition in courts of law. I guess you could make the argument that judges should just defer to existing precedents, and ignore the gay relationship as if it doesn�t exist, but is that really justice?

|9.28.05 @ 1:54AM|#

DB-

But the thing is, none of them contributed significantly to mainstream American culture or tradition. You have to go back thousands of years to find a polygamous society that significantly influenced American culture. You can't call something a societal tradition if nobody in your society, outside of the occasional fringe group or religious minority, has practiced it for thousands of years.

Huh?

A number of cultures that are present in the US have practiced de facto polygamy for quite some time in the form of girlfriends and mistresses. It may not meet every person's definition of polygamy (other "spouses" not aware/consensual, illicit nature, etc.) but it can certainly be considered de facto polygamy without much of a stretch. In fact, if you consider the patriarchal and in some ways chauvinistic culture that existed before say the 60's one could argue that a lot of the male establishment were basically supportive, or at least didn't have a problem with, this type of de facto polygamy. Witness the extent to which the media covered up these kind of arrangements for politicians, celebrities, etc. But to say that none of this "contributed significantly to mainstream American culture" is incorrect or at least highly inaccurate, in my opinion.

-CAT_Violations

|9.28.05 @ 2:10AM|#

I agree with MJ's quote from Heinlein, but I also agree with Anti-Puritan that there is a big difference between "the rules of society" and the rules that government should be allowed to set and enforce. At most, the government should concern itself with only a tiny subset of the "rules of society."

For example, I generally believe in chivalry towards chicks, normally expressed in small ways (e.g., trying to open doors for them and letting them go through first). I believe in being extra patient with and protective toward children. I believe if someone does me a favor, I owe him one in return. I believe that these are fundamental rules of a proper society and that they are very important. But I wouldn't want the government enforcing and regulating them. And most likely neither would you.

|9.28.05 @ 2:17AM|#

Robert L. Heinlein

Actually, it's Robert A. Heinlein. A for Anson.

As in RAH.

As in RAH! RAH! RAH!

Which inspired the name of an essay about Heinlein by Spider Robinson.

The Anti-Puritan|9.28.05 @ 2:17AM|#

coarsetad:
2. The legitimate purpose of government recognizing marriages is to determine precedence for family law.

3. The reason the judiciary has been so "active" in defining gay marriage is because there is a need to create a precedence for a set of relationships that ALREADY EXIST, but are not recognized by law.

The simplest solution is often the best. I'm not a lawyer, but I think there are simpler ways of determining precedence than the issuing of marriage licenses and the consequent fights over who legally gets to marry whom. We'll want to keep things as legally simple as possible when the movement for consenting, adult, mutually informed polygamy becomes politically powerful. (More power to them, I say.)

The Anti-Puritan|9.28.05 @ 2:21AM|#

Don't ask me why, but the paragraph in my last comment that starts with "3." isn't italicized. I hope this doesn't confuse anybody.

|9.28.05 @ 2:24AM|#

Society has a legitimate interest in fostering stable heterosexual relationships, it has no such interest in homosexuals.

Ah, so it's a good thing that all of those poor people on welfare breed like rabbits, because it's in society's interest.

Gotcha.

|9.28.05 @ 2:27AM|#

A number of cultures that are present in the US have practiced de facto polygamy for quite some time in the form of girlfriends and mistresses

Sticking your dick in someone doesn't make them your spouse. "Polygamy" is not a synonym for "infidelity". Mistresses have none of the legal or economic rights of wives and are not recognized by our culture as having any legitimate role in society.

Witness the extent to which the media covered up these kind of arrangements for politicians, celebrities, etc.

Exactly. Now ask yourself "if society accepted it, how come it had to be covered up"? You're missing the rather obvious point that the very need to conceal a mistress is, itself, proof that mistresses aren't accepted.

The Anti-Puritan|9.28.05 @ 2:36AM|#

Ah, so it's a good thing that all of those poor people on welfare breed like rabbits, because it's in society's interest.

[Strangelove's plan for post-nuclear war survival involves living underground with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio]

General "Buck" Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

Ambassador de Sadesky: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

Thanks, IMDB.

|9.28.05 @ 2:39AM|#

"Society has a legitimate interest in fostering stable heterosexual relationships, it has no such interest in homosexuals."

Ah, so it's a good thing that all of those poor people on welfare breed like rabbits, because it's in society's interest

Um, the "poor people on welfare" who "breed like rabbits" are the living proof of what happens in the *absence* of stable marriage. Sixty percent of all poor families are headed by a single parent; for those on welfare the percentage is even higher. Simply put, the poor are evidence in favor of MJ's position that the government should promote stable marriage (at least so long as the government is in the welfare business).

|9.28.05 @ 3:42AM|#

Stevo-

I agree with MJ's quote from Heinlein, but I also agree with Anti-Puritan that there is a big difference between "the rules of society" and the rules that government should be allowed to set and enforce. At most, the government should concern itself with only a tiny subset of the "rules of society."

This hairsplitting between who should be able to violate someone's rights - the government or "society" - is coercive collectivist nonsense being dressed up in libertarian drag. No one should be in a position to violate someone else's fundamental rights - whether they represent "government" or "society". Is there a difference between the KKK (subset of "society") castrating someone or some racist government "doctor" sterilizing someone because they believe they
are "lazy", "promiscuous", "crazy", etc.?

A lot of my "neighbors" in "society" are greedy, vicious, dishonest morons that shouldn't be in charge of an ant farm, let alone someone else's life.

So Stevo, what if a bunch of evangelicals decide they represent "society" and are going to run your life? They decide that consensual premarital sex isn't "chivalrous" so they mutilate you for it? No drinking. No porn. Mandatory religious practice. Etc, etc, etc. You'll note, I hope, that this pretty much describes islamic fundamentalism as well.

And I have news for you - some women are criminals, scumbags, and liars. Some women's families are as well. In the name of "chivalry" what should they be allowed to do to you with no repurcussions? Assault you? Steal from you? Libel and slander you?

|9.28.05 @ 4:10AM|#

Sticking your dick in someone doesn't make them your spouse. "Polygamy" is not a synonym for "infidelity". Mistresses have none of the legal or economic rights of wives and are not recognized by our culture as having any legitimate role in society.

They do have many rights. If a mistress or girlfriend has a child there is a claim on support. Sometimes the man in question feels an obligation to support. And define "role" in society - that statement seems pretty judgmental. Working? Voting? Paying taxes? It seems like they have all of the rights of a citizen and some of the rights of a wife, with the exceptions of economic divorce and survivorship claims.

Exactly. Now ask yourself "if society accepted it, how come it had to be covered up"? You're missing the rather obvious point that the very need to conceal a mistress is, itself, proof that mistresses aren't accepted.

It didn't really have to be concealed from peers and members of the "good old boys" network, mainly the mainstream media and their wives/families. So there was no real social sanction for it. There were a lot of rumors about JFK, for instance, and his popularity didn't seem to suffer much for it. So I guess even when the media secrecy understanding was breached there weren't necessarily societal repurcussions. It seems to have depended on the situation.

|9.28.05 @ 5:40AM|#

What, me worry?

|9.28.05 @ 5:42AM|#

Sticking your dick in someone doesn't make them your spouse

No, but unless something's very wrong, it'll at least get their attention.

|9.28.05 @ 7:04AM|#

"And the fact that this was your response to my attempt to clarify an ambiguous..."-J

It is that you thought the statement was ambiguous in first place that's evidence of how you are ignoring the elephant in the room.

"A healthy gay couple and a healthy lesbian can produce just as many offspring as a two healthy straight couples;..."

No they cannot, not with each other, not with considerable outside help. This is not true for the typical heterosexual couple. They have a fundamentally different circumstance yet you presume the couples are equivalent and to treat them differently is unjust. It would be nice you could come up with a supporting argument.

|9.28.05 @ 7:10AM|#

No, but unless something's very wrong, it'll at least get their attention.

And if it's non-consensual you might get some attention you weren't expecting.

|9.28.05 @ 7:28AM|#

"...other people you NEED emotionalist buttons to push like "it's for the children" to impose your agenda."-CAT violations

"For the children" is a horribly and inappropriately used excuse these days for many laws, but it does not alter the fact that there are some institutions that are legitimately about children. Marriage is one of them.

|9.28.05 @ 7:41AM|#

Sanchez confuses the social pressures that dictate why specific couples were put together in marriage at different points in history with why the institution exists in first place. It is a superficial argument that makes for effective propaganda for shallow thinkers.

|9.28.05 @ 7:49AM|#

If a mistress or girlfriend has a child there is a claim on support.

Should clarify that this is if the child in question is his and not part of the "Charlie Chan and the Stolen Sperm Caper". Although the stolen sperm situation would be an interesting legal situation.

|9.28.05 @ 7:55AM|#

"For the children" is a horribly and inappropriately used excuse these days for many laws, but it does not alter the fact that there are some institutions that are legitimately about children. Marriage is one of them.

But marriage, even in the context of "for the children", isn't a valid excuse to violate anyone's rights either.

|9.28.05 @ 7:57AM|#

"I'm not a lawyer, but I think there are simpler ways of determining precedence than the issuing of marriage licenses and the consequent fights over who legally gets to marry whom."-The Anti-Puritan

Don't you think you should work out what you're going to replace it with before scrapping the current system? Otherwise, you may find yourself reinventing the wheel, i.e. maybe the current situation exists because there is no better way of doing it.

There is an odd amount of utopianist thinking at this site.

|9.28.05 @ 8:01AM|#

CAT,

That's my point. No one's rights are being violated. A homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are fundamentally different relationships, (for the reasons I've been stating above). As they are different, treating them differently is just.

|9.28.05 @ 8:52AM|#

MJ-

That's my point. No one's rights are being violated. A homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple are fundamentally different relationships, (for the reasons I've been stating above). As they are different, treating them differently is just.

I was referring the the thread-jacked side discussion we were having about using "for the children" as an emotionalist manipulation for all kinds of totalitarian nonsense, not just gay marriage.

As far as gay marriage is concerned I think their rights are being violated. "Defining" marriage is a presumptuous undertaking, since heterosexual marriage is defined very differently by different groups - religious, cultural, ethnic, lifestyle, etc. Some groups say you can't get divorced, some say you can. Swingers (not one personally) get married knowing they won't be monogamous. Etc, etc, etc. So there is already this huge variation in what numerous groups of people define heterosexual marriage as. Even the "solemnity" of marriage is perceived in dramatically different ways - witness drive-thru weddings with an Elvis impersonator officiating. So the whole business of government being involved in defining marriage is largely a political distractor. People define it in dramatically different ways as it is, and you aren't going to change them. Excluding homosexuals just seems like manipulative political haymaking.

Don't you think you should work out what you're going to replace it with before scrapping the current system? Otherwise, you may find yourself reinventing the wheel, i.e. maybe the current situation exists because there is no better way of doing it.

You weren't addressing me here but I'll throw out a couple thoughts. First, no one's talking about scrapping the "system" of marriage - just getting government out of the business of defining it - which is sort of silly because people's definitions of heterosexual marriage varie so widely already.

Second, about systems in general: Some systems are worse than nothing at all. Namely systems that exploit, disadvantage, or violate the rights of particular groups - slavery, apartheid, Jim Crow, caste systems, etc. Again, not advocating getting rid of marriage, just stating that in some cases nothing is better than a bad or flawed system.

Akira MacKenzie|9.28.05 @ 9:25AM|#

You had to quote the highest authority in any intellectual discussion: the science fiction author, Robert L. Heinlein. (I think it's "L.", could be wrong.)

I'd go as far as to say that MJ has only read Starship Troopers, probably it has all the military trappings that usually give conservatives hard-ons. If he'd read The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, he'd know that Heinlein defended polyamory (e.g. clan marriages, line marriages) as being far more stable arrangement than traditional, monogamous, "Earthworm" relationships.

Akira MacKenzie|9.28.05 @ 9:38AM|#

Don't you think you should work out what you're going to replace it with before scrapping the current system?

I say let humans figure that out on their own without the "help" of government hacks or prudes who let their imaginary friends (e.g. Jehovah, Yahweh, Allah, etc.) tell them what to do.

|9.28.05 @ 9:50AM|#

MJ

"It is that you thought the statement was ambiguous in first place that's evidence of how you are ignoring the elephant in the room."

I'm not sure how to state this any more clearly than I did above, but there are multiple arguments used against gay marriage that are reasonable interpretations of your original statement. If you still honestly don't get this, check out the Concerned Women For America site. I guess you can choose to ignore that all you like, but it makes it a bit ironic that you accuse others of being "divorced from reality."

"No they cannot, not with each other, not with considerable outside help. This is not true for the typical heterosexual couple. They have a fundamentally different circumstance yet you presume the couples are equivalent and to treat them differently is unjust."

Did you read my post? I explicitly acknowledged that homosexual and heterosexual couples are different, but that difference doesn't matter in this case. It is in fact true that "a healthy gay couple and a healthy lesbian can produce just as many offspring as a two healthy straight couples;" if society's interest here is simply in creating the next generation and giving them loving parents, the fact that technologies such as sperm donation and in-vitro fertilization are involved is irrelevant. If you'd like to explicitly make the argument you seem to be implying, that society has an interest in not letting homosexuals raise children, go ahead and do it.

|9.28.05 @ 10:02AM|#

I came across this link over at positiveliberty.com that those of you doing the 'it's for the children' angle may be interested in: http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2826/information_show.htm?doc_id=290831

|9.28.05 @ 11:07AM|#

the poor are evidence in favor...that the government should promote stable marriage

I think the problem with government attempting to enforce marriage among the poor is that it doesn't address the underlying problems that land families on welfare. Marriage isn't a cure-all for poverty, lack of education or unstable families. It's a waste of time and money to encourage a poor, single mother to marry the father (or one of the fathers) of her child(ren) with the expectation that it will improve the situation. In most cases I see those fathers as part of the cause, not the solution.

I thought the belief that unhappy, disfunctional married couples (rich or poor) should "stay together for the kids" had already been discarded by most people.

|9.28.05 @ 11:35AM|#

No they cannot, not with each other, not with considerable outside help. This is not true for the typical heterosexual couple.

So do you find that heterosexual couples that use "considerable outside help" to conceive a child just as contemptible?

Akira MacKenzie|9.28.05 @ 11:53AM|#

"This is not true for the typical heterosexual couple."

What about the un-typical, or rather, infertile hetrosexual couple? I suppose we shouldn't allow them to marry either.

'Taint natural don'cha know, y'all.

|9.28.05 @ 12:19PM|#

Something I wrote about in my gay adoption piece a few months back was that (1) the incidence of gay couples raising kids (either from previous relationships, in vitro, old-fashioned impregnation by a male friend, or adoption) has increased *massively* in the last ten years and (2) surveys have about half of gay respondents who aren't currently raising kids saying they'd like to someday. Even assuming that half is a significant overestimate, that's a significant population of gay couples raising kids. Now, it's true, they'll generally need some sort of "help" and most (many?) heterosexual couples won't. But... uh... so what?

|9.28.05 @ 12:33PM|#

"But... uh... so what?"

Exactly. This is the point MJ seems unwilling or unable to answer. Homosexual couples are as capable of having/raising kids as heterosexual couples - why does it matter that they need "outside help"? I hope he'll respond and do more than just repeat, "but...but...they're different!"

drf|9.28.05 @ 1:18PM|#

Stevo!

people were so busy either frothing in agreement or disagreement with this theme, that they totally glossed over your "chivalrous towards chicks" comments. LOL.

|9.28.05 @ 1:35PM|#

r

|9.28.05 @ 2:15PM|#

j:

The entire point that was madein Julian's article was that there is no "essence" in marriage, no one purpose that it serves in every time and every place. Yet, when MJ talks about hetero & homo relationships being "fundamentally" different, he's trying to say that there IS an "essence".

"Sanchez confuses the social pressures that dictate why specific couples were put together in marriage at different points in history with why the institution exists in first place. It is a superficial argument that makes for effective propaganda for shallow thinkers."

This is absurd; Julian has not confused anything. It is a disagreement of origin & purpose, if you will, but no confusion exists. Julian says that the institution exists for many reasons, reasons which evolve. There is no singular purpose, no "teleology of marriage". Yet, MJ would have us believe that the institution of marriage (in secular society, not just religion) has some kind of unique, unchangeable, and sacred purpose that transcends time and place; and furthermore, that the various "purposes" of marriage throughout different cultures and eras are mere "details" that are simply subsets in the "one true purpose".

You know, the more I think about it, the more MJ sounds like an anti-evolution arguer. No, marriage couldn't have evolved, it had to have been "created" with "one overriding purpose".

No, MJ, marriage is defined to its various & evolving uses and purposes---not the other way around. Julian has not confused a single thing.

|9.28.05 @ 2:17PM|#

er, defined by its various & evolving uses and purposes.

raymond|9.28.05 @ 2:18PM|#

For most of its history, it was "primarily about" creating in-law bonds. Since the late 18th century, it has primarily been about "the needs and happiness of the adult couple."

In India it still (mostly) is about "in-law bonds" - and caste. And property.

In modern Britain, some groups (and not only Indian immigrants) still marry for reasons that have little or nothing to do with "the needs and happiness of the adult couple". We call them the "Windsors".

Mistresses have none of the legal or economic rights of wives and are not recognized by our culture as having any legitimate role in society.

By "our culture" I assume you mean present-day American culture. The world's a big place. History is a big place.

...homosexuality is hopelessly abnormal.

"Normal" is just the mean between all us abnormal individuals.

|9.28.05 @ 2:36PM|#

Evan,

That's part of what MJ is arguing, but he goes further and makes specific claims about the essence of marriage (to provide a foundation for raising children) and claims that essence excludes homosexuals. One could argue that, regardless of how marriage has been used in the past, today it is licensed by gov'ts as a way to provide stable environments for children. But my point is that even if you accept that argument, it still doesn't follow that homosexuals should be excluded.

|9.28.05 @ 2:56PM|#

CAT Violations -- Wow, you completely misunderstand my point. If a bunch of evangelicals decide they represent "society" and want me to stop drinking, using porn, etc. then they can exercise their rights of free speech and free associaton to denounce and shun me. But that's only as effective to the extent that I care about their opinions and those who think likewise. But without the power of the State, they can't violate my rights by siccing the police on me to force me to stop.

That's why social rules are better than government rules. And rules of some sort are necessary for people to live together. And I'm an anarchist.

|9.28.05 @ 3:02PM|#

drf:

I'm just trying to be a fucking gentleman.

You will respect our bitches! That's my motto.

|9.28.05 @ 3:06PM|#

drf:

I'm just trying to be a fucking gentleman.

You will respect our bitches! That's my motto.

|9.28.05 @ 4:19PM|#

"That's part of what MJ is arguing, but he goes further and makes specific claims about the essence of marriage (to provide a foundation for raising children) and claims that essence excludes homosexuals."

That's logically false, for two major reasons: 1) childless marriages are legal and socially accepted, and 2) homosexuals can, quite obviously, provide a foundation for raising children. I have seen it in person.

If what he is saying were true, and "providing a foundation for raising children" was actually essential to the definition of marriage, then, logically, society and government would require that children be a preexisting condition in a relationship prior to getting married. Furthermore, he would have to prove that a homosexual relationship is essentially unable to provide a foundation for raising kids.

"One could argue that, regardless of how marriage has been used in the past, today it is licensed by gov'ts as a way to provide stable environments for children."

Obviously, but by the same token, one could argue that, regardless of how marijuana has been used in the past, today it is banned by gov'ts as a way to stop people from going on crazy rampages. The reasoning itself is invalid, as is the justification for government intervention.

"But my point is that even if you accept that argument, it still doesn't follow that homosexuals should be excluded."

Precisely. As I noted above, if he wants to get into "essences" of definitions, then, he's got to prove that homosexuals are essentially unable to raise children in a stable environment...and good luck on that one.

|9.28.05 @ 4:57PM|#

Evan,

It sounds like we're more or less in agreement. I wish MJ hadn't disappeared, but maybe he's one of those crazies who can't screw around online all day because he has to work....:)

|9.28.05 @ 5:20PM|#

Stevo-

I sort of missed your point, but you still seem to be giving off this "societal coercion is hunky-dory" vibe. As if lunatic fringes ever stopped with: "We don't agree with Stevo's choices so we think he is yucky. Henceforth he is unwelcome at our ice cream socials and bake sales."

But that's only as effective to the extent that I care about their opinions and those who think likewise. But without the power of the State, they can't violate my rights by siccing the police on me to force me to stop.

There's all kinds of things that groups - even relatively small ones - can do to violate your rights without using the power of the State. Some legal, some illegal, some tortious, etc.

That's why social rules are better than government rules. And rules of some sort are necessary for people to live together.

"Social" rules are NOT better than properly enforced government rules. Properly enforced government rules are clear, have to comply with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, have to be enforced using Due Process, etc. Where's the Due Process with a lynch mob? Too often "social" rules are co-opted to enforce prejudices, impose opinions, settle scores, and work out the various neuroses of the enforcers. Who acts as your attorney when the town gossips think you view too much porn and drink too much beer?

[begin channeling Dana Carvey in drag]

Well let's think about this.
I'll tell you who, only one answer - SATAN!
That's right, Mr. Pointy Tail himself. That's who.

[end channeling]

The Anti-Puritan|9.28.05 @ 6:37PM|#

CAT_Violations:
Where's the Due Process with a lynch mob?

This question was not addressed to me, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. A lynch mob can and ought to be deterred by a government enforcing laws against unprovoked aggression. I need not worry if the town gossips think I'm going straight to hell, as long as they know I'll call the cops if they mess with me.

By "social rules," I understand Stevo to mean mostly the finer points of etiquette, courtesy, and interpersonal loyalty that no government should ever be trusted to micromanage. To bring this back to the original topic of the thread, those of us who support privatization of marriage believe that marriage vows--for straights and gays alike--should fall under this category of extralegal rules.

|9.28.05 @ 7:34PM|#

"I explicitly acknowledged that homosexual and heterosexual couples are different, but that difference doesn't matter in this case."-J

I did read it. Now can I trouble you to actually make an argument to support it? I am not buying it as a petulent bald assertion.

My first post to you responded to your belief that same sex relationships are analoguous to mixed race relationships, and because of that restricting marriage to hetero couples was unjust discrimination. I built an argument that unlike mixed race pairings, homosexual couples are by definition infertile with each other and that is a functional difference that makes them unequal to heterosexual pairings. Therefore there is no moral imperative for society or government to treat homsexual relationships equally to heterosexuals.

If you think this is wrong, then build a case, make an argument. However, "...but..but...it doesn't matter!!" doesn't wash.

|9.28.05 @ 7:46PM|#

"Yet, MJ would have us believe that the institution of marriage (in secular society, not just religion) has some kind of unique, unchangeable, and sacred purpose that transcends time and place; and furthermore, that the various "purposes" of marriage throughout different cultures and eras are mere "details" that are simply subsets in the "one true purpose"."-Evan Williams

To analogize: the fact that someone may decide to buy a house because they's like to get a tax break does not alter the fact that the primary purpose of house is to keepyou and yours out of the cold and wet. Sanchez is confusing ancillary effects with primary purpose, and so are you.

So sorry that I just cannot bring myself to goosestep with your groupthink on this issue.

|9.28.05 @ 8:00PM|#

"I'd go as far as to say that MJ has only read Starship Troopers, probably it has all the military trappings that usually give conservatives hard-ons."-Akira Mackenzie

Well if you went that far, you'd be...wrong, but I suppose you should be used to that by now.

I've read at over a half-dozen of Heinlein's books. "Starship Troopers" was the last one I read (when that hack job of a movie came out). "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is my favorite of his works. That being said, the idea that the group marriages he postulates as working better than monogamous couples struck me as somewhere between "wishful thinking" and "utter horseshit".

|9.28.05 @ 8:15PM|#

"Marriage isn't a cure-all for poverty, lack of education or unstable families."-scape

Nobody said it was, but there is a strong correlation between poverty and single parent families, it is definitely part of the feedback loop. Dismissing marriage because it won't be a panacea is making the perfect the enemy of the good.

"I thought the belief that unhappy, disfunctional married couples (rich or poor) should "stay together for the kids" had already been discarded by most people."

Speaking as a child of divorced parents, the belief that divorce does not harm or can even be good for the kids is one of the sadder popular delusions of modern times.

|9.28.05 @ 8:28PM|#

homosexual couples are by definition infertile with each other and that is a functional difference that makes them unequal to heterosexual pairings. Therefore there is no moral imperative for society or government to treat homsexual relationships equally to heterosexuals. If you think this is wrong, then build a case, make an argument.

My relationships (homosexual) are just as valid as yours - but I don't know what "proof" you are going to accept other than my say-so, since your belief in the inferiority of gays seems quite unwavering.

|9.28.05 @ 8:39PM|#

Speaking as a child of divorced parents, the belief that divorce does not harm or can even be good for the kids is one of the sadder popular delusions of modern times.

I can't say that divorce didn't harm me to some extent, primarily by causing me to grow up rather poor while my mother struggled to raise four children on her own - but given that the alternative was to continue watching her get beat by my father, I'd have to say that divorce was the better alternative.

|9.28.05 @ 8:47PM|#

"I did read it. Now can I trouble you to actually make an argument to support it? I am not buying it as a petulent bald assertion."

Apparently you didn't read it that closely or you've got some reading comprehension issues, because I've explicitly and repeatedly said that technological advancements (sperm donation, in vitro fertilization, etc.) have made the fact that same-sex couples are not interfertile irrelevant; there are many other ways by which they can "acquire" children (and in fact they're doing this with increasing frequency, as Julian pointed out above). This is the point that for some reason you insist on ignoring - if, as you claim, the purpose of gov't recognition of marriage is to further society's interest in having a stable foundation for raising children, how is this purpose served any less when homosexual couples raise children through adoption, in vitro, etc.? To claim that society's interests aren't being furthered when homosexuals marry and raise children, you need to claim either that homosexuals are inherently less qualified than heterosexuals to raise children, or that having both members of a marriage be biologically related to the child is inherently better than having one or neither member be biologically related (as are the cases in sperm donation, in vitro, and adoption). You haven't even made these arguments, let alone attempted to support them. This makes it more than a little bit ironic that you accuse me of not supporting my assertions.

Furthermore, it's pretty strange that you consider the burden of proof to be on someone who is claiming there are no differences between two groups (specifically, between the child-raising abilities of homosexual and heterosexual couples, in this case), when, without prior evidence, the null hypothesis is almost always that two groups are equivalent. Then actual positive evidence is required if one wishes to falsify that null hypothesis. So if _you_ would like to actually make an argument about how homosexual couples are less competent to raise children, or how society's interests in having a stable foundation for raising children is in some other way not furthered by having married homosexual couples raise children, I'd be interested in hearing it. If you'd would like to make more pissy, hypocritical, unsubstantiated, and insubstantial comments about "petulant bald assertions," have a nice night.

The Anti-Puritan|9.28.05 @ 10:22PM|#

MJ:
Nobody said it was, but there is a strong correlation between poverty and single parent families, it is definitely part of the feedback loop.

Good social science requires careful attention to the difference between correlation and causation. If researchers find a statistical correlation between overcoat purchases and low temperatures, it doesn't mean that the sale of overcoats causes temperatures to drop. If a correlation is found between overcoat purchases and mitten purchases, it doesn't imply a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the two events at all. Instead, there is a third event that causes both. It takes discipline to figure out exactly what causes what.

Shameless plug: Part of the above paragraph came from a blog post of mine about the same-sex marriage debate and faulty science.

|9.28.05 @ 11:22PM|#

"First, no one's talking about scrapping the "system" of marriage - just getting government out of the business of defining it - which is sort of silly because people's definitions of heterosexual marriage varie so widely already."
That's an implicit acceptance of any objectionable marriage. I guess if marriage is central to the law in some cases, it is somewhat pointless to privatize it, because now you just have the government accepting every single type of marriage. The ramifications of removing marriage from the law are probably too great.

About the poor and marriage: The WSJ did an op-ed about it recently. I think the bottom line is that the poor men are often criminals and unworthy husbands. Call me elitist, but I've started to see intelligence (IQ) as the main cause of various social ills. Look up Steve Sailer to see what I'm referring to.

|9.29.05 @ 12:33AM|#

They do have many rights.

No, they do not.

If a mistress or girlfriend has a child there is a claim on support.

Support for the child, not for the mother. And that's a claim stemming from motherhood, not from sleeping around.

Sometimes the man in question feels an obligation to support.

I feel an obligation to help the victims of hurricane Katrina. That doesn't make them my wives, nor does it mean that they have a legal or economic claim to my money.

And define "role" in society - that statement seems pretty judgmental.

I mean that society does not consider "mistress" to be a legitimate thing for a woman to be.

Working? Voting? Paying taxes? It seems like they have all of the rights of a citizen and some of the rights of a wife

They have all of the rights of a citizen and none of the rights of a wife.

Anyway, your word games bore me. Fucking around isn't the same thing as getting married -- if it was, gays wouldn't need gay marriage to be legally recognized, now would they? They could just sleep with each other and bingo, instant marriage.

|9.29.05 @ 12:44AM|#

I thought the belief that unhappy, disfunctional married couples (rich or poor) should "stay together for the kids" had already been discarded by most people

With few exceptions, married parents are better for children than divorced ones are. You may be correct that this idea has been "discarded", but that's because we live in an era of exceptionally self-centered and irresponsible parents.

|9.29.05 @ 1:27AM|#

Married unhappy parents create better home environments than divorced happy parents? I beg to differ.

|9.29.05 @ 3:33AM|#

Married unhappy parents create better home environments than divorced happy parents? I beg to differ

Well, they do. Children care more about their parents being present than they do about their parents being happy. If your happiness is the most important thing to you, don't have kids.

|9.29.05 @ 4:23AM|#

Anti-Puritan-

A lynch mob can and ought to be deterred by a government enforcing laws against unprovoked aggression. I need not worry if the town gossips think I'm going straight to hell, as long as they know I'll call the cops if they mess with me.

Yes, if things are working properly that should happen. But what if the cops are involved? What if the cops are afraid of them? What if they lie - and have groups members corroborate their lies?

You seem to be saying that Stevo was just referring to etiquette, etc. But he mentioned shunning and other "social" sanctions. And there's all kinds of things that groups can do to destroy someone that are difficult to detect or prove.

In my opinion "social" sanctions are too open to being abused for responsible libertarians to support or recommend, for the reasons mentioned in my post above. In some ways it is worse than State coercion, because there is less control, oversight, and transparency.

|9.29.05 @ 5:01AM|#

ANM-

That's an implicit acceptance of any objectionable marriage. I guess if marriage is central to the law in some cases, it is somewhat pointless to privatize it, because now you just have the government accepting every single type of marriage. The ramifications of removing marriage from the law are probably too great.

Versus the government imposing some kind of definition - that is objectionable to many - on everyone which is likely the result of vocal, well-funded minorities? There are already all kinds of heterosexual marriages occurring that are "objectionable" to many people. I don't have anything against them myself (not my bag), but do you think "swinging" or "open" heterosexual marriages - where the spouses may have sex with several different partners each a month - are really that much worse than a homosexual couple that is monogamous?

About the poor and marriage: The WSJ did an op-ed about it recently. I think the bottom line is that the poor men are often criminals and unworthy husbands. Call me elitist, but I've started to see intelligence (IQ) as the main cause of various social ills. Look up Steve Sailer to see what I'm referring to.

I think your reasoning is dangerous here. Eugenics was sold as a road to utopia - all crime and other social ills were going to be eliminated, etc. - by weeding out the "unfit" by some bureaucrats', academics', ideologues', etc. definitions. The government shouldn't be in that business. No one should be in that business.

And in addition there are plenty of people that aren't poor due to low intelligence or criminality.

|9.29.05 @ 5:35AM|#

DB-

Jeez, what an engaging, meaningful posting style you've got there.

Support for the child, not for the mother. And that's a claim stemming from motherhood, not from sleeping around.

It's still one of the same rights from the bundle of legal rights that a wife has.

I feel an obligation to help the victims of hurricane Katrina. That doesn't make them my wives, nor does it mean that they have a legal or economic claim to my money.

I didn't say the mistress/girlfriend system was actual polygamy, I said it was de facto polygamy. Obviously, there are some differences. I simply forwarded the argument that polygamy, in the form of de facto mistress polygamy, occurred much more often than the "fringe" cases that someone was referring to.

I mean that society does not consider "mistress" to be a legitimate thing for a woman to be.

Says who? You? You speak for society? I don't have a problem with a woman that's someone's mistress. Who cares. If it was someone I was seeing then I'd have a problem - but that is easily solved by dumping them. If the man in question's wife does not know then she has a valid objection, which is easily solved in court. But is a mistress that isn't hurting anyone or committing crimes particularly disagreeable? I don't think so. Is she more disagreeable than that women who worked in purchasing at Boeing, for instance, that bilked US taxpayers out of billions of dollars - hell no. And of course if the man in the situation is cheating on his wife then he is more disagreeable than the mistress, because he is actually breaking the marriage contract.

A woman that is a married man's mistress might have self-worth issues and might be selling herself short, but that is her business, not "society's."

Anyway, your word games bore me. Fucking around isn't the same thing as getting married -- if it was, gays wouldn't need gay marriage to be legally recognized, now would they? They could just sleep with each other and bingo, instant marriage.

Well, it's not my job to entertain you now, is it, smart guy? Maybe you should get a hobby - stamp collecting or antiqueing or something. And I never said "fucking around" was the same as marriage now, did I? I said that the mistress/girlfriend practice in this country could be considered de facto polygamy, so that polygamy in general wasn't as much of a "fringe" phenomenon as someone early in the thread characterized it.

|9.29.05 @ 5:43AM|#

Well, they do. Children care more about their parents being present than they do about their parents being happy. If your happiness is the most important thing to you, don't have kids.

Right, it's either/or. If there's chidren involved you must tolerate being miserable so that you can be a role model for putting up with miserable conditions when you could improve them. Now we've moved from you speaking for all of "society" to you speaking for all children. Is there a limit to your omniscience?

All hail DB!

|9.29.05 @ 10:48AM|#

I wasn't dismissing marriage, only stating that encouraging marriage without examining the reasons for what will make them unstable isn't a smart policy for the government to make. If a welfare mother is pushed to marry the deadbeat, felonious father of her children, that situation won't be good for the mother or the children and simply having a government issued marriage license won't help.

Yes, divorce is usually bad for kids. But as other posts mentioned, so is having children live in a disfunctional home. I think any benefits of staying married for the kids sake are lost. I'm also speaking as a child of parents who finally made the right decision - and got unmarried.

And telling self-centered, irresponsible couples not to have children is great advice.

Larry A|9.29.05 @ 10:53AM|#

MJ: Homosexual couples are a biological cul-de-sac, hetereosexual couples create society's next generation. Society has a legitimate interest in fostering stable heterosexual relationships, it has no such interest in homosexuals.

This argument falls apart on both biological and behavioral grounds.

• Biological: Given our post-agrarian society with its low infant and child mortality rate we no longer need every fertile couple to produce all the children possible. Therefore the government should not be encouraging the production of large numbers of children. There are plenty of volunteers for the task.
• Behaviorable: One problem our government does have today is the thousands of children in foster care who desperately need a stable family to thrive in. Therefore the government should be promoting the formation of intentionally or organically infertile couples who are willing to adopt and raise these children.

Our next generation will be measured by the quality of child-rearing, not the quantity.

The theories by which marriage is discrimitory to gays has no grounding in reality.

In the real world the core opposition to gay marriages is from people who flat hate homosexuals and are willing to pass all kinds of laws to punish them for being different. If that ain't discrimination, what is?