Marriage and Divorce Entitlements

Political Philosophy
161

I have written him off too, M. Your thread is not about the traditional view of marriage - which even today includes polygamous marriage with multiple husbands in some places. Rather, the question of your thread is about the radical view of marriage - what role should marriage play in a capitalist society? This is an appropriate question to ask because, as the history of marriage tells us, the form marriage takes depends on the society’s needs. Capitalist societies are built to conform to the requirements of human life, so marriage law in a capitalist society needs to serve some relevant role in protecting individual rights. Every time Devil’s Advocate is asked for concrete examples to support his claim that polluting the concept with traditional gender-bias serves such a purpose, he ignores or evades. Recently he did this by insinuating that his opposition is being intellectually dishonest for asking. In other words, he’s out of ideas.

Sex organs are as unessential to marriage as melanin prevalence. That statement doesn’t rely on a proof that heterosexual relationships are discriminatory (I don’t think anyone said they were discriminatory, in fact). That statement does, however, imply that any legal discrimination in marriage contracts on the basis of sex organs violates rights in a way similar to miscegenation laws. I’m not talking about calling the two things by different names - that’s not discriminatory. You can keep marriage as between a man and a woman while calling the other thing something deragatory like homo-pretendagomy for all I care. It’s a stupid distinction because it’s based on nonessentials, but if the use of separate words satisfies some sort of tradition-fetish while leaving the legal outcomes identical, then fine. So long as the two types of contracts don’t have different effects, then I have no qualms (A is A, after all).

The problem is, today’s society does have separate legal outcomes for civil unions and marriages, leading to violations of the rights of homosexuals. This could be fixed by amending DOMA to exclude language about marriage being between a man and a woman. In other words, by calling A, “A,” no matter who is involved. It’s not like we’d be redefining a part of nature; we’re redefining the man-made, and that’s ok. In fact, redefinitions are ubiquitous throughout history.

162

I can’t believe you’re lumping the legal recognition of this as marriage: “And that homosexual couple lives together, and they adopt a child and raise it, and they grow old in love, and etc., and share their household till they die, at which point they bequeath their estate to the child that they have raised” in with segregation, slavery, and prohibition. I have just lost all respect for your views on the matter.

If your respect depends on my agreeing that heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are interchangeable according to the meaning of the words and context used to describe the concept of marriage, then it wasn’t really there to begin with, was it? My reference to “segregation, slavery, and prohibition” was an obvious attempt to demonstrate how legal ambiguity results from regulating concepts beyond the scope of what they refer to. Look, I’ve followed this thread down to the bitter end on the presumption that words have meaning and context determines their appropriate use. If this is a simple referendum on whether same sex couples ought to be allowed to marry, then fine, but the title ‘marriage’ hardly applies according to it’s actual meaning. If Objectivists want to pretend that all words have meaning except the word marriage, then language is simply a tool to be hijacked for political gain, and good luck with that…

163

I have written him off too, M… Every time Devil’s Advocate is asked for concrete examples to support his claim that polluting the concept with traditional gender-bias serves such a purpose, he ignores or evades. Recently he did this by insinuating that his opposition is being intellectually dishonest for asking. In other words, he’s out of ideas.

The concretes you keep asking for have been repeatedly provided by pointing to the biological consequence of males and females having sexual relations, as opposed to same sex couples. That you choose to jump over this fact as being irrelevant to the concept of marriage, which depends on words which specifically identify the gender of male to marriage and female to matrimony when being used to describe the concept of marriage, demonstrates whose intellectual honesty risks a loss of credibility on this issue.

It’s not for me to disprove your claim that homosexual “marriages” are the same as heterosexual marriages. The onus remains on you to prove it.. and that has yet to be even attempted other than by calling your opponent a bigot.

164

Sex organs are as unessential to marriage as melanin prevalence. That statement doesn’t rely on a proof that heterosexual relationships are discriminatory (I don’t think anyone said they were discriminatory, in fact). That statement does, however, imply that any legal discrimination in marriage contracts on the basis of sex organs violates rights in a way similar to miscegenation laws. I’m not talking about calling the two things by different names - that’s not discriminatory. You can keep marriage as between a man and a woman while calling the other thing something deragatory like homo-pretendagomy for all I care. It’s a stupid distinction because it’s based on nonessentials, but if the use of separate words satisfies some sort of tradition-fetish while leaving the legal outcomes identical, then fine. So long as the two types of contracts don’t have different effects, then I have no qualms (A is A, after all).

The problem is, today’s society does have separate legal outcomes for civil unions and marriages, leading to violations of the rights of homosexuals. This could be fixed by amending DOMA to exclude language about marriage being between a man and a woman. In other words, by calling A, “A,” no matter who is involved. It’s not like we’d be redefining a part of nature; we’re redefining the man-made, and that’s ok. In fact, redefinitions are ubiquitous throughout history.

I think D.A is saying the same thing you are in terms of legal rights (correct me if I’m wrong?).

I do, however, take issue with naming them two separate names. Historically black and whites were not allowed to marry. Would you have been okay with law recognizing their relationship as interracial civil union, to satisfy those who claim because it’s not traditional, it’s not marriage? I oppose government categorizing based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. because it is frivolous and I’d consider discriminatory.

I think the best option would be just to have government categorize every union as civil union because it will avoid these discussions and claims.

165

Thank you Matt for at least trying to understand my argument as something other than homophobic.

No, I wouldn’t have been OK with interracial civil unions in lieu of interracial marriages. Why? Because the words that describe marriage imply specific gender rolls, but say nothing about race. Are the words used to describe sorority, fraternity, boy scouts, girl scouts, men’s rooms and women’s rooms frivolous or discriminatory? Should we call girls “boy scouts” if they feel discriminated against because they can’t join the same club their brothers are in?? Marriage is gender specific because it is; Civil unions aren’t. And the language used to describe these two kinds of relationships reflects that.

My solution (like yours) would be to limit all government entitlements that address long term monogamous relationships to civil unions, which would at least be consistent with what that name implies, while guaranteeing legal equity among all long term monogamous relationships. Let heterosexual bigots who opt for the traditional marriage ceremony obtain the same license civil unions provide :stuck_out_tongue:

166

So now you’re for civil unions for all relationships, and you want to do away with the whole concept of legal marriage altogether. I don’t see that happening at all, but okay, we’re on the same page. However, the primary reason you want to do away with the concept of legal marriage is still discriminatory. It’s not because you think homosexual and heterosexual couples are entitled to the same benefits; it’s because you believe “Marriage is gender specific because it is” and you can’t get past that. In other words, you would rather see marriage completely dissolved rather than allow gay marriage.. And that is something I can’t comprehend.

167

I’m not talking about calling the two things by different names - that’s not discriminatory. You can keep marriage as between a man and a woman while calling the other thing something deragatory like homo-pretendagomy for all I care.

I don’t agree with this, and I find that it reflects a “separate but equal” stance. You don’t believe that keeping them nominally separate would not convey some meaning of itself? If it did not, why would some folks be so insistent on legally enforcing these distinctions, up to and including amending state and federal constitutions? A concern for clarity in conceptualizing? No, not that, for as you immediately note:

It’s a stupid distinction because it’s based on nonessentials…

If we maintain two water fountains, alike in all ways, but one is for “whites” and the other is for “coloreds,” because we wish to preserve the purity of the one fountain for the whites (just as some cast this as a battle to “defend” marriage), would you not find that discriminatory?

Would there be any good non-discriminatory reason to distinguish these fountains in this manner, do you suppose?

, but if the use of separate words satisfies some sort of tradition-fetish while leaving the legal outcomes identical, then fine. So long as the two types of contracts don’t have different effects, then I have no qualms (A is A, after all).

I find it questionable that two types of contracts under different terms will not therefore have different outcomes, even if they are otherwise worded alike.

Beyond that, consider that civil unions (as you subsequently mention) are not currently equivalent to marriages. If we hold them as two separate things, they likely never will be (and will always be susceptible to further discriminatory efforts). Anyways, as to whether Devil’s Advocate wishes them to be equivalent, or actually believes them to be, consider that he said this earlier:

The goal of civil unions as an alternative for alternative lifestyles is worth pursuing, but the expectation that civil unions are the same thing as marriages needs to be checked; A=A.

So… at least we’re all agreed that A is A! :slight_smile:

I think D.A is saying the same thing you are in terms of legal rights (correct me if I’m wrong?).

I do, however, take issue with naming them two separate names. Historically black and whites were not allowed to marry. Would you have been okay with law recognizing their relationship as interracial civil union, to satisfy those who claim because it’s not traditional, it’s not marriage? I oppose government categorizing based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. because it is frivolous and I’d consider discriminatory.

I think the best option would be just to have government categorize every union as civil union because it will avoid these discussions and claims.

Consider that Devil’s Advocate (for I assume it is *that* D.A. that you mean! :slight_smile: ) is speaking to the “concept” of marriage, and not simply its legal status.

Were marriage stricken from governance, he would still not recognize a homosexual couple married by their church, living together forever, raising children, etc., and so forth, as actually married – and he would argue that you shouldn’t either.

Whether the government should be marrying people at all, I consider a separate topic. My stance has been, and continues to be, that *if* the government marries people, it should do so in a non-discriminatory fashion with respect to same-sex couples. And of course Devil’s Advocate disagrees.

But his disagreement goes beyond that government ought not call a homosexual civil union a “marriage,” or that the government ought not marry. He believes gender to be essential to the concept of marriage, and he believes that there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage.

It’s not for me to disprove your claim that homosexual “marriages” are the same as heterosexual marriages. The onus remains on you to prove it.. and that has yet to be even attempted other than by calling your opponent a bigot.

Thank you Matt for at least trying to understand my argument as something other than homophobic.

All right. So, I have little interest in scouring the thread for this personally, but if you would be so kind?

Point out the instances where anyone has called you a “bigot” or described your arguments as “homophobic.”

Please do.

Please.

168

Most of the first 3 paragraphs are directed at Spiral (but not exclusively him), I just didn’t want to go fancy it up with quotes right now.

I’ve tried many times to point out that the issue going on here is that you can’t refer to love when we’re talking about marriage. The purpose of marriage isn’t a symbol of love, and whether it is a symbol of love for you is true only metaphorically. The very reason that you can be married without love is enough evidence to say that love is not the essential part of what marriage is. You’re arguing against those who accept the premise that marriage is about love, which is not a premise I or Devil accept. I may plausibly be incorrect, but you won’t demonstrate me to be wrong unless you restrict yourself to legal concepts. There is no argument from tradition going on, just argument from historical evidence, the referents.

My question wasn’t rhetorical. I really do not know how you can reconcile the idea that marriage is about love without also saying love is ultimately about marriage, which is not a conclusion you intended. I guess you would say all marriage has love, but not all love has marriage. But it’s false to say all marriage has love because you don’t need to check a box “in love” when filling out a marriage license, nor does anyone seem to think that is necessary. You’d have to conclude at most that some marriage has love, proving my point that love is not an essential to marriage. Just to clarify, by essential, I mean an aspect of a concept that if missing, the entity in question (whether abstract like marriage or concrete like a tree) does not fall under that concept. I would say it helps and is important to have love if you *want* a stable marriage (leaving aside my beliefs of how stable marriage actually is), but that’s different than saying the very concept of marriage requires love.

The possibilities I see that may make gay marriage a sensible concept are if you remove the goal of biological family building, which is by nature different from heterosexual relationships. Why, yes, people can adopt or use surrogate mothers. That is the only way non-heterosexual people can have kids. The legal conundrum here (implied by the monogamous aspect of marriage) is that you can’t go on Maury to determine who the legal father is, even if Maury can tell you who fathered the child. Different legal considerations must be applied so a surrogate mother can’t claim her child was kidnapped. Same with adoption. My thinking is that marriage as a concept is useful for these legal considerations that primarily crop up due to differences of one’s sex, but it’s not a negative judgment.

In other words, you would rather see marriage completely dissolved rather than allow gay marriage.. And that is something I can’t comprehend.

Well, I’ll try to make it comprehensible because you’ve summed up at least my position quite well. Say there was no more special entitlements. Suppose also there was no gay marriage. What would be the discrimination? If you ask me, there probably would still be flak for that with an argument that it would be denying someone a symbolic type of love. And since love isn’t about gender, therefore, denying marriage is discrimination. The disagreement seems to be more resistance to the idea of denying that marriage is a symbol of love. If someone were arguing that marriage is a symbol of love *therefore* there should be no gay marriage, that would be different. Personally I’d rather have marriage dissolved (or extremely diluted) than just start saying marriage is whatever you want it to be as long as it’s a romantic relationship. I’d rather have people say marriage is whatever you want it to be than for marriage entitlements to exist.

Hmm, DonAthos, I think you’re being overly harsh on Devil, if for no other reason I’m than I’m getting a lot less flak for saying similar things.

169

Devil’s Advocate, the concretes you gave don’t address my question. I want you to help me understand your point about sanctioning the creation of children. Because I don’t understand what legal “sanction” you believe is conferred when a government enforces a marriage contract, I want you to give concretes only for heterosexual relationships. I want to know the difference between how you think the state should treat unmarried hetero parents and married hetero parents. I sincerely hope this helps us move forward without any misplaced feelings of intellectual dishonesty on either of our parts.

DonAthos, I think you’re right that two separate names would eventually lead to separate legalities. The legal realities are likely to change through divergent court precedent alone. I’d prefer we use the term we’ve been using for thousands of years for the contract, regardless of the sex of the participants. Marriage is the term we’d use to describe the suite of contract provisions that allow two people to fully integrate their families via power of attourney, inheritence, hospital visitation, immigration, etc.

170

Eiuol- remember the position I stated at the beginning of this thread, that the government should not give any entitlements to couples who have ‘formalized their relationships’ by getting married? That still holds.

Say there was no more special entitlements. Suppose also there was no gay marriage. What would be the discrimination? If you ask me, there probably would still be flak for that with an argument that it would be denying someone a symbolic type of love.

Yes, that would most likely be true.

“The disagreement seems to be more resistance to the idea of denying that marriage is a symbol of love. If someone were arguing that marriage is a symbol of love *therefore* there should be no gay marriage, that would be different.”

Right, I understand your position on marriage. But do you understand DA’s? If you look on the first page of the thread, you can see all his sentiments about marriage: “What is so special about marriage, is the integration of 2 individuals into a durable living partnership founded on faith and commitment.” “If your position is that marriage is a quaint custom that’s no longer relevant in today’s society, as is the prevailing position being promoted these days (and I suspect for the last several generations), then I say pfui!!” “That being said, you should only get married when you can’t talk yourself out of it… and then hang on for the ride of a lifetime. The best defense of the practice is a golden anniversary,” etc.

Imo, this shows he believes marriage to be a symbol of love. I don’t think he’s saying that marriage is a symbol of love *therefore* there should be no gay marriage, but he is saying that marriage is a symbol of love for only heterosexual people, *therefore* there should be no gay marriage. That is discriminatory.

171

Personally I’d rather have marriage dissolved (or extremely diluted) than just start saying marriage is whatever you want it to be as long as it’s a romantic relationship. I’d rather have people say marriage is whatever you want it to be than for marriage entitlements to exist.

Marriage is whatever you want it to be, as long as you and your partner are straight, consenting adults. There’s no law that says you have to be monogamous, or married forever (that is rare anyways), or even romantic (yes- some married couples choose not to be sexually active at all, horrible as that sounds). All of these details are left up to couples to decide, as it should be. I’m against government-funded marriage entitlements as well. But as long as legal marriages exist, it should be inclusive of same-sex couples.

172

Hmm, DonAthos, I think you’re being overly harsh on Devil, if for no other reason I’m than I’m getting a lot less flak for saying similar things.

I could give you more flak, if you’d like? :slight_smile:

But seriously, my manner towards Devil isn’t due to the content of his arguments, but due to his apparent intellectual dishonesty, and to the number of jerky comments he has smuggled into his replies, and his unwillingness to defend or explain those things he says.

If you acted in like fashion, I would treat you the same. That said, I rely on you to remain as you always have been: unfailingly polite and willing to honestly engage. Even when you’re wrong. :wink:

173

Eiuol:

I understand the quotes thing!

Of course people can get married without being in love. The tragedy of most of human history is that people do lots of things for unselfish reasons. You can also work without being in “love” with it (i.e. passionate about your work). That does not mean that it is a good thing.

Love =/= marriage. You’re right on this. However, if someone is in love, they will find ways to delve deeper into their relationship. It could be marriage. It could be something else (like the annual trip I mentioned in an earlier post). All I am saying is that:

  1. Marriage is a fine option to advance one’s relationship since
  2. Marriage can be a natural extension of a loving relationship based on reason, not tradition/mysticism/social duty.

Now, most importantly:

Marriage should be about love. It has not been an essential characteristic historically but then again most relationships (from family to government) have been the exact opposite of what it should be historically. I’m telling you that being in love is a prerequisite for any intimate long term relationship. I’m not saying that you should get married, it’s your relationship so both people need to do what’s best for them, but I am saying that if you do choose to get married you should be in love. Or why bother?

I can quantify that with an involved statement on the virtues of romantic love and long term relationships, but honestly I hope it is understandable that the idea of spending a looooooong time with someone in an up-close and intimate level should always be the product of an intimate appreciation of the values that precondition all relationships.

174

The birds and the bees are about reproduction.

Which has nothing to do with marriage or relationships. I did not marry my wife to reproduce. It is a non-issue.

Please refer back to post #134, which I think responds to your remaining comments as clearly as I can repeat here.

I did not delve into that post since I really didn’t want to open up the can-o-worms that was that posts collectivist identification of relationships by physical appearance. But since you brought it up, there you go. I don’t think you actually think that way, but that is the result of looking at people and identifying them in groups.

The only bases for group think of people’s relationships is the tradition/mystic/social duty approach since that is how it has always been argued. If you strip the group think you end up going back to essentials rebuilt the concept based on reason, and there is no reason to look at random body parts when identifying the status of a relationship.

175

" … and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were married…" ~ Milton, Office Space

Apparently Milton, et al, are more enlightened than myself on this issue…

My position has been, and remains, that the words used to describe marriage imply specific gender rolls (refer to post #149); those same words say nothing about interracial relationships. Likewise, the language used to describe sororities and fraternities imply gender and ignore race. Long term, monogamous heterosexual relationships aren’t inherently discriminatory towards long term, monogamous homosexual relationships any more than sororities are inherently discriminatory towards fraternities.

My position isn’t that civil marriages, as the legal recognition of matrimonial ceremonies, aren’t discriminatory towards same sex couples who want equal legal recognition for their long term, monogamous relationships; they are, but the fault lies with the regulation, not the concept. My preference would be to limit regulation to civil unions, which would be the appropriate venue to secure individual rights according to the language used to describe civil unions, while allowing a continuing diversity of ceremonial recognition for two individuals choosing to spend the rest of their lives together. The notion that assignment of the title “marriage” is essential to securing individual rights is pragmatic at best, and at worst will lead to legal ambiguity, thus further discrimination in my view.

Therefore, my view of the legal efficacy of trying to subsume homosexual relationships within marriage, according to the meaning of the words and context used to describe marriage, can be summed up with the following:

“If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.” ~ Tweedledee, Through the Looking Glass

–

As I was preparing to post this, I happened to notice this forum’s daily quote…

“The biggest enemy of real equality is make-believe equality” ~ Thomas Sowell

I agree, (edit follows) and I have no issue with the following ceremonial recognitions of same sex couples, other than the meaning of the word marriage (as previously explained numerous times):

“Same-sex marriages can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting. Various religious groups around the world perform same-sex marriages, including Christians (such as Quakers and Episcopalians), Jews (such as Reformists and Reconstructionists), Wiccans, Druids, Unitarian Universalists and several Native American religions.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Unless something new comes up to address, I’m done responding to paraphrased insinuations of my position on this issue.

176

Devil’s Advocate, the concretes you gave don’t address my question. I want you to help me understand your point about sanctioning the creation of children. Because I don’t understand what legal “sanction” you believe is conferred when a government enforces a marriage contract, I want you to give concretes only for heterosexual relationships. I want to know the difference between how you think the state should treat unmarried hetero parents and married hetero parents. I sincerely hope this helps us move forward without any misplaced feelings of intellectual dishonesty on either of our parts.

I appreciate your attempt to move forward with honest debate on this issue, and will attempt to respond to your question to the best of my ability…

Unmarried hetero parents haven’t formally agreed to equal custodianship of their biological children, and until they do, the law correctly prefers the wishes of biological mothers in parental disputes; that’s justified unless the fitness of the mother is an issue. Equal custodianship of biological children is conferred by civil marriage, and then only legitimately challenged by divorce, legal separation, or infidelity. Adoption and infidelity introduce third partners into marital relationships that fall outside the scope marriage contracts, thus the legal identities of marriage and cohabitation are necessarily different and confer custodianship of biological children differently. The issue of third partners is why I believe civil marriage, by definition, sanctions the creation of children over the acquisition of children which requires adoption.

177

Point out the instances where anyone has called you a “bigot” or described your arguments as “homophobic.”

“He’s (DonAthos) not saying you did. He’s drawing a comparison between the ‘sexual preference’ card and the race card. I think its a valid comparison… because it does sound like the last rationalization a bigot could stick to.” ~ FeatherFall, post #129

“There is a sexual preference element in the concept of marriage (heterosexual); where is the racial element which makes your comparison valid?” ~ My response, post #133, to which there hasn’t been any explanation offered from either Moderator…

"Paraphrased: ‘You’re against homosexual marriage.’ ‘No I’m not!’ ‘You’re for it, then?’ ‘No! But I’m not against homosexual marriage; I’m for heterosexual-only marriage!’ ~ DonAthos, post 152, in which you return to characterizing my position as evasive, which along with the race card you keep playing, implies bigoted and homophobic.

So explain to me, Mr Moderator, how my reluctance to claim I’m against homosexual marriage, because the meaning of the word marriage identifies a husband/wife relationship that doesn’t apply to same sex couples (and which you have yet to refute), is evasive? I’m arguing from the position of how the word marriage is defined, and you from what you think its legal recognition ought to include. So forgive me if I avoid the hoop you keep inviting me to jump through. After all, we both know what accepting your generous offer implies, even if you try to pretend otherwise :wink:

178

“He’s (DonAthos) not saying you did. He’s drawing a comparison between the ‘sexual preference’ card and the race card. I think its a valid comparison… because it does sound like the last rationalization a bigot could stick to.” ~ FeatherFall, post #129

“There is a sexual preference element in the concept of marriage (heterosexual); where is the racial element which makes your comparison valid?” ~ My response, post #133, to which there hasn’t been any explanation offered from either Moderator…

"Paraphrased: ‘You’re against homosexual marriage.’ ‘No I’m not!’ ‘You’re for it, then?’ ‘No! But I’m not against homosexual marriage; I’m for heterosexual-only marriage!’ ~ DonAthos, post 152, in which you return to characterizing my position as evasive, which along with the race card you keep playing, implies bigoted and homophobic.

So explain to me, Mr Moderator, how my reluctance to claim I’m against homosexual marriage, because the meaning of the word marriage identifies a husband/wife relationship that doesn’t apply to same sex couples (and which you have yet to refute), is evasive? I’m arguing from the position of how the word marriage is defined, and you from what you think its legal recognition ought to include. So forgive me if I avoid the hoop you keep inviting me to jump through. After all, we both know what accepting your generous offer implies, even if you try to pretend otherwise :wink:

Do you mean that putting your arguments in a straightforward manner makes you sound like a bigot or a homophobe?

That’s not a claim I ever made, and I’m not responsible for it if it were true. If you are against homosexual marriage, be courageous enough to say so.

And no, I won’t forgive you for your evasive and obnoxious manner, though I am comprising another post to address your… “position.”

179

Do you mean that putting your arguments in a straightforward manner makes you sound like a bigot or a homophobe?

No, I mean that your paraphrasing of my arguments is anything but straightforward.

That’s not a claim I ever made, and I’m not responsible for it if it were true. If you are against homosexual marriage, be courageous enough to say so.

Courageous enough to accept your definition of what marriage ought to be, and then oppose it?! LOL

And no, I won’t forgive you for your evasive and obnoxious manner, though I am comprising another post to address your… “position.”

I’m sure that will be an equally entertaining fictional account of it. At this point you don’t really require any further responses from me to keep writing your own script. Enjoy your creative efforts, and if you’re ever interested or able to refute my position, I might just respond again…

180

Unless something new comes up to address, I’m done responding to paraphrased insinuations of my position on this issue.

Since nobody wants “paraphrased insinuations of [Devil’s Advocate’s] position” which apparently misconstrue his actual position, and since this is such a long thread, I went back to the first few pages, prior to my foolishly entering into the discourse, so that we can review a bit and clear this all up. While I have selected these quotes, and possibly according to a bias, the full context is of course available for the sufficiently masochistic.

…it’s pretty hard to defend something [marriage] that society is trying so hard to kick down. Marriage IS a contract, yes indeedy, but those who focus on the fine print too often miss out on what’s written between the lines. Remaining happily married is a work in progress; and one, quite frankly, most people today aren’t suited for… and that’s a genuine shame for those who never will experience one.

It is a shame for those who will never experience marriage, especially through discriminatory laws. But what’s that about society “trying so hard to kick down” marriage? I wonder what that’s all about!

What is so special about marriage, is the integration of 2 individuals into a durable living partnership founded on faith and commitment.

Hmm. So it’s interesting to note, at this early stage of the discussion, Devil’s Advocate’s description here… and his gender-neutral descriptor of “2 individuals.”

Interesting to me alone, perhaps? Perhaps!

Marriage is more an argument for monogamy and dedicating yourself to maintaining a life long relationship that may, or may not, include raising children, than a personal financial investment.

Marriage – “the integration of 2 individuals into a durable living partnership” – is, here, “more an argument for monogamy and dedicating yourself to… a life long relationship.” Are children essential to this view of marriage as presented, a person might ask himself?

Well. It’s more about that life long relationship, you see. It may, or may not, include raising children. (“Raising” children? Does that possibly include adoption or surrogacy or children from previous relationships?)

What marriage offers, is a chance to have faith in something tangible; another person. Contracts are fine, but contracts basically presume distrust. Personally, I don’t think a marriage ceremony requires much more than jumping over a broom together.

Ah, okay. So marriage is really less about the legal contract (i.e. a “civil union”) – which “basically [presumes] distrust” – and more about the spiritual unity between “2 individuals.” Doesn’t require “much more than jumping over a broom,” gotcha. (Can homosexuals jump over a broom, I find myself wondering…?)

So far as legalities go, why shouldn’t government regulation taint marriage, just like it does every other aspect of human relationships. Committed couples ought to be allowed the same legal protection married couples get.

Can this be more clear? Committed couples (irrespective of gender? just “2 individuals”?) ought to be allowed the same legal protection married couples get.

The key term is commitment, Eiuol, and that is the primary focus of the two individuals choosing to share the rest of their lives together; the rest is so much red tape. Marriage only becomes necessary as a recognition of commitment.

Marriage is only necessary as a recognition of the commitment of “2 individuals” choosing to share the rest of their lives together. This recognition oughtn’t provide any more “legal protection” apart from that of any other “committed couple,” of course.

The legal arrangement called marriage, and the voluntary commitment called marriage, are two separate issues; the latter isn’t dependent on the former, and the latter definitely belongs exclusively to the individuals choosing the commitment. In terms of the former, I agree (if this is your position) that marriage ought to be deregulated.

Marriage is a voluntary commitment (the “legal arrangement” presumably being the “recognition of the commitment” referenced above, though a “separate issue”), and it “belongs exclusively to the [2] individuals choosing the commitment.” Who doesn’t it belong to? Anyone else apart from those 2 individuals.

It’s only desirable when two individuals choose to spend the rest of their lives together and want to formalize their commitment to each other in a manner that makes it evident to their community; it creates a legal and spiritual unity. Civil unions work fine to accomplish the former, and jumping over a broom works fine for the latter, but marriage accomplishes both.

Okay. We have two (2) individuals who choose to spend their lives together, and commit to one another by jumping over a broom. Broom? Boom! They’re married, these two 2 individuals, in a way that “belongs exclusively” to them. You know, spiritually.

Now if they want to “formalize” that commitment, in, uh, “the legal arrangement called marriage” – to have a contract (which “basically presume distrust”) and “[make] it evident to their community,” they can have a “civil union” or they can “marry” (presumably being a different civil ceremony, then? but a legal one, not merely a broom hopping). “Marriage” (i.e. a legal marriage) accomplishes these two things: the spiritual joining of the broom, and the legal joining of the civil union.

Is… uh… everyone still with us?

Marriage (legal marriage) = a “civil union” + “the [spiritual] integration of 2 individuals into a durable living partnership.”

Civil unions are a good example of the efficacy and consistency of government regulation; marriages are a good example of the efficacy and consistency of two individuals being allowed to set their own terms.

This use of marriage seemingly applies to the “broom-hopping” variety, and not the legal marriage (which, remember, incorporates the legal features of the civil unions), though I’m not 100% certain.

What’s great though, is the reaffirmation of the clear nature he’s staked out for the spiritual/non-legal side of “marriage”: 2 “individuals being allowed to set their own terms.”

So a legal marriage, in this view, being itself a marriage between “civil union” and “broom marriage,” is a consistent application of government regulation, for all those groups of “2 individuals” who have committed themselves to that spiritual, “durable living partnership” and wish that partnership recognized. The spiritual aspect to such a marriage, while present, belongs only to the 2 individuals involved.

Devil’s Advocate’s views could not be more clear.

Or… could they…?

Essentially your argument is that contracts which favor one kind of relationship over another should not exist in a fms (free moral society?)… is this correct? If so, why?

If a man and woman choose to marry, and local regulation of marriage awards them greater legal benefits than two men (or two women) who choose a civil union, or two individuals choosing to live together, what standard of liberty or morality is being violated? Why specifically should a contractual arrangement between a man and woman that is unique to other combinations of gender or commitment, not exist in a fms??

Er, come again?

If a “man and woman choose to marry” – apart from “2 individuals,” you mean? Now you’re wondering whether this marriage shouldn’t be entitled to “greater legal benefits”?

But didn’t you say, “Committed couples ought to be allowed the same legal protection married couples get”?

And this marriage can award “greater legal benefits” than a same-sex couple “who choose a civil union?” But I thought that the legal aspect of marriage *was* as a civil union! Remember? Legal marriage “[formalizes] their commitment to each other in a manner that makes it evident to their community; it creates a legal and spiritual unity. Civil unions work fine to accomplish the former…” yeah, and brooms for the latter. RIght?

But now a legal marriage accomplishes more, legally, than formalizing/making evident this commitment in the manner of a civil union? This sudden import of gender is curious. One wonders (well, I wonder), if a heterosexual couple decided to forego jumping over a broom and just have a civil union, would they not have as many legal benefits as a married couple?

What once seemed so clear… is arguably less so, now.

But we have agreed to eliminate government, i.e. civil rights… My question to you is, what specific ethical/moral standard (other than one imposed by government in the form of civil rights) are you using to support the premise that a contract between two genders who agree to live together till death do they part, must carry the same legal weight as a contract between the same gender, or no contract at all?

Here… uh… I don’t know, but Devil’s Advocate seems to misunderstand how a proper government might uphold contracts. Or he’s questioning whether a same-sex couple has the ability to construct a (marriage) contract with “the same legal weight” as such a contract “between two genders.”

I don’t know.

While I agree in principle that government shouldn’t act as an interloper in consensual relationships, I’m not convinced that legal recognition of historically task specific marital roles (breadwinner, homemaker) isn’t justified. Until recently marital tasks were gender specific, according to biological and financial (albeit culturally biased) necessity. The introduction of surrogate mothers combined with today’s financial necessity for double incomes has altered the historical dynamic in many cases, but not all cases; specifically those pairings who choose to marry according to the historical model. The legal needs of DINKs are objectively different than those of biological parents relying on a single income (SIWKs?), and I believe the law ought to reflect those differences for the security of pregnant spouses who remain unemployed to bear, deliver and raise children by agreement. Civil unions are better suited for DINKs, and marriage for SIWKs, and there remain legitimate differences of entitlement for these two forms of contract.

So here, Devil’s Advocate is flirting with the idea that there might only be “marriage” for those who “choose to marry according to the historical model” of marriage, meaning a “breadwinner” and a “homemaker”? (Same-sex couples who fulfill these roles included? Er, probably not, all things considered, right?) Because “[t]he legal needs of DINKs [Double Income, No Kids] are objectively different than those of biological parents relying on a single income (SIWKs?)…the law ought to reflect those differences…”

So, “Civil unions…for DINKs, and marriage for SIWKs, and there remain legitimate differences of entitlement for these two forms of contract.”

We have come a long way from “Committed couples ought to be allowed the same legal protection married couples get,” haven’t we?

Anyways, here is Devil’s Advocate’s rationale for why marriage needs to be “heterosexual-only” (which he further will not agree simultaneously means “anti-homosexual”). Conspicuous by its absence is an investigation into the etymology of the word “matrimony”…

Legalities aside, for me personally, marriage celebrates a man and woman being able to overcome gender biases in order to work together towards long term, mutually shared goals, in a way that two men, or two women, never address. Maintaining an intimate relationship with the opposite sex is no small feat I can assure you. Whatever personality differences gay couples may have to overcome, they understand how their own gender works. I love my spouse, but it took me years to understand the perspective of my spouse’s gender. Heterosexual marriage will remain distinct from gay marriage because of gender, and to marginalize historical custom and physical reality for legal expedience, as opposed to promoting civil unions on the merits of legal rights, is a tactical blunder that creates adversaries who otherwise would be allies.

But, specious psychologizing on the difficulty of relating to the opposite sex versus one’s own gender aside, why should arguing for gay marriage be a “tactical blunder that creates adversaries”? Why should anyone be adverse to it?

The rights of those who marry according to the legal recognition of traditional marriage, are violated by those who attempt to alter the identity of marriage, essentially diminishing the value of their marriage earned by their effort to maintain it. In terms of property value, redefining marriage can be viewed legally as trespassing or vandalism.

Ah. A gay couple that “jumps the broom” – or (worse?) convinces a state authority to recognize the fact of their commitment to each other – is as a vandal. They have violated the rights of good folk like Devil’s Advocate, who believe that marriage is for breadwinners and homemakers alone, and who are thus possibly entitled to “greater legal benefits” than other kinds of couples.

So there we have it. Or the first three or so pages of the thread, at least, and I cannot bear continuing to document this and try to make sense of it (and presumably you cannot bear continuing to read it).

Perhaps Devil’s Advocate would maintain that he has held one consistent position throughout? That this is all a matter of “obfuscation,” and that I haven’t proven my “intellectual prowess,” and I’m “backpedaling,” and that “the clock continues to tick!” I don’t know, and past this point I really don’t care. The issues have been clearly laid out to at least my satisfaction, though not thanks to him, and I suspect that an honest reader will be able to draw his own conclusions.

I do finally wish to address Devil’s Advocate’s cries about being labelled a bigot or whatever-it-is.

As the twists and turns of his argument have continued, and increasingly as he began to base his arguments in history and tradition, comparisons have been made between Devil’s Advocate’s opinions re: marriage, and other similar-seeming opinions about miscegenation and etc. So far as I can tell, the first instance of this is on the 2nd page of the thread, before my participation:

As to your other point, are you asking ‘what’s so wrong with having marriage be only between men and women?’ Well, it’s a civil rights issue. In the 60’s, people asked a similar question, ‘what’s so wrong with having marriage be only between same-race couples?’

Drawing these seemingly sensible parallels is not calling him a bigot, and neither is stating clearly that his stance is anti-homosexual marriage. It may serve him as a distraction to describe this as “playing the race card,” or “accusing him of homophobia,” but of course it is neither.

While it adds little-to-nothing to the content of the debate, it does provide a lot of evidence regarding Devil’s Advocate’s fundamental intellectual honesty as regards this topic. I will say that while I have not called him either a bigot or a homophobe, I’ve also not ruled either of those out as possibilities. I would prefer either of those, in fact, to my current evaluation of “intellectually dishonest,” which precludes anything more fruitful coming from continuing to converse with him. I believe this is a game for him and nothing more.