A question to supporters of Gay Marriage

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The following is a question to supporters of gay marriage, but first some context. In recent discussions about gay marriage, one phrase often used by the supporters has been "love is love". The idea being that marriage is (to supporters of gay marriage) primarily a decoration of love between two people, and the legal recognition of that fact.

My question therefore, in light of that fact, is as following:

If the only criteria for legal recognition of marriage is to do with romantic love, upon what basis would the state be able to prohibit legal recognition of polygamy or incestuous marriage?

In either of those two cases, I am sure that the participants involved would state that they have genuine romantic feelings. Is there any basis for preventing these people from also having their marriage recognised?

[Hutch Hogan]

It can be made to function in a pragmatic fashion. It will be difficult, but not impossible to engineer.

All right, so in that case, let's turn this discussion on its head. 

Given your practical outline for the purpose of marriage, should it be the case that:

a. sterile couples should be barred from marriage, having to prove the capacity to produce children before getting their marriage licence?

b. should marriage vows include the promise to produce children (as opposed to models like the Catholic vows in which the married couple promises to be open to children)?

c. after the children have been raised and have moved out, should the marriage be dissolved as the production and rearing of children is no longer based in a parental home?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

sterile couples should be barred from marriage, having to prove the capacity to produce children before getting their marriage licence?

No, the economic costs are overly problematic and the overly utilitarian posture is discouraging.

should marriage vows include the promise to produce children (as opposed to models like the Catholic vows in which the married couple promises to be open to children)?

 

Marriage vows arn't legal documents.

after the children have been raised and have moved out, should the marriage be dissolved as the production and rearing of children is no longer based in a parental home?

No, because rearing may be over, but caring is not. Furthermore, although marriage may be primarily about children from the state POV, it is primarily from the couples POV about love, and the couples can continue in that in the later stages of their life.

[Hutch Hogan]

No, the economic costs are overly problematic and the overly utilitarian posture is discouraging.

There are alternatives, such as legislation along the regard that married couples must make reparation payments equivalent to their government benefits each year that they are without pregnancy/childrearing. If after 7 years they have produced offspring, their marriage is dissolved. 

Marriage vows arn't legal documents.

The point was to make marriage vows legal documents.  As marriage is a legal contract, and you posit that the point of marriage is the production and rearing of offspring, then the contract should include that clause. 

No, because rearing may be over, but caring is not.

Though the caring no longer requires government aide. 

Furthermore, although marriage may be primarily about children from the state my POV, it is primarily from the couples POV about love, and the couples can continue in that in the later stages of their life.

If in the later years it changes from childrearing as the children have become their own caretakers, should the couples cease to receive government benefits of marriage or not?  Why shouldn't their marriage be dissolved after they have completed the rearing of children?  If love is a factor why does this not open up the can of worms you have proposed?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

There are alternatives, such as legislation along the regard that married couples must make reparation payments equivalent to their government benefits each year that they are without pregnancy/childrearing. If after 7 years they have produced offspring, their marriage is dissolved.

The cost of implimenting and enforcing such a system would be prohibitive, and as I have said, be an overly utilitarian stance from the POV of the individuals.

The point was to make marriage vows legal documents. As marriage is a legal contract, and you posit that the point of marriage is the production and rearing of offspring, then the contract should include that clause.

If you were to do this, it would make divorce effectively impossible. Promising to be with someone forever makes leaving them rather difficult. Furthermore, as I have pointed out, marriage is not the kind of tool that would function in this way. It is not a legal knife with which to cut at those who do not practice what is encouraged by it, but rather a sanding stone to direct and curb people to particular behaviours. It is designed to encourage, rather than force, procreation.

Though the caring no longer requires government aide.

Debatable. Many of the aids the govenment provides relative to child care stop when the child reaches certian ages anyway.

If in the later years it changes from childrearing as the children have become their own caretakers, should the couples cease to receive government benefits of marriage or not? Why shouldn't their marriage be dissolved after they have completed the rearing of children?

They should cease recieving benefits relevent to children. The family unit, even if not a primary care giver, still provides important social functions.

If love is a factor why does this not open up the can of worms you have proposed?

Love is a secondary factor, and only really to be considered from the POV of the individual.

[Hutch Hogan]

The cost of implimenting and enforcing such a system would be prohibitive, and as I have said, be an overly utilitarian stance from the POV of the individuals.

It could be done fairly easily through income tax procedures as the current system. 

If you were to do this, it would make divorce effectively impossible. Promising to be with someone forever makes leaving them rather difficult. Furthermore, as I have pointed out, marriage is not the kind of tool that would function in this way. It is not a legal knife with which to cut at those who do not practice what is encouraged by it, but rather a sanding stone to direct and curb people to particular behaviours. It is designed to encourage, rather than force, procreation.

You also wanted to put restrictions on divorce as well so this should be more towards the path that you desire.  If we want the government to be consistent in its "utility" of marriage there are certain freedoms that will have to be lost if the production of children is the only benefit that the state wishes to draw the line there.  Otherwise it may become inconsistent discriminating against same sex marriage. 

 

They should cease recieving benefits relevent to children. The family unit, even if not a primary care giver, still provides important social functions.

Do these roles necessitate binary gender?

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

It could be done fairly easily through income tax procedures as the current system.

You would need to dedicate a squad to investigating whether or not people definitely have children that are their own, opening up all new kinds of fraud and nessecary other systems to make it work.

You also wanted to put restrictions on divorce as well so this should be more towards the path that you desire.

No fault divorce, yes.

If we want the government to be consistent in its "utility" of marriage there are certain freedoms that will have to be lost if the production of children is the only benefit that the state wishes to draw the line there.  Otherwise it may become inconsistent discriminating against same sex marriage.

 

If it is a "nudging" unit, and not a right, there is no need for it to be consistent in the manner that rights require. As you recall, it is only the pro-gay marriage side who are arguing that this is a civil rights issue. I rather would argue that it is a privilege.

 

Do these roles necessitate binary gender?

 

There are substantial amounts of studies suggesting that such an arrangement would be optimum.

[Hutch Hogan]

You would need to dedicate a squad to investigating whether or not people definitely have children that are their own, opening up all new kinds of fraud and nessecary other systems to make it work.

No more than other tax breaks, like purchasing a hybrid car or business purchases. 

No fault divorce, yes.

Why wouldn't this be the case?

If it is a "nudging" unit, and not a right, there is no need for it to be consistent in the manner that rights require. As you recall, it is only the pro-gay marriage side who are arguing that this is a civil rights issue. I rather would argue that it is a privilege.

You are also arguing that it should be productive in the government's perspective. 

 

There are substantial amounts of studies suggesting that such an arrangement would be optimum.

Do these roles necessitate binary gender?

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

You are also arguing that it should be productive in the government's perspective.

I am arguing that a balance should exist, and that the best way to secure the governments interests in the long term is the status quo.

 

No more than other tax breaks, like purchasing a hybrid car or business purchases.

 

The complications around a child are far greater than those of a car or business purchases. Besides, as I have pointed out, to move towards too much of a utilitarian model towards marriage would cause problems for the government in the long term with regard to public perceptions. If the public percieve marriage as an entirely utilitarian institution, it may no longer function with the same effectiveness. We already see this in the other direction with no fault divorce (IE the public viewing marriage too much as something for their own indulgence).

[Hutch Hogan]

I am arguing that a balance should exist, and that the best way to secure the governments interests in the long term is the status quo.

Could you elaborate on the status quo some more? I'm interested to hear your thoughts. 

The complications around a child are far greater than those of a car or business purchases. Besides, as I have pointed out, to move towards too much of a utilitarian model towards marriage would cause problems for the government in the long term with regard to public perceptions. If the public percieve marriage as an entirely utilitarian institution, it may no longer function with the same effectiveness. We already see this in the other direction with no fault divorce (IE the public viewing marriage too much as something for their own indulgence).

Somewhat, but the paper trail is still there, birth certificates are issued, as are social security numbers.  

As for people's perception.  If there are benefits, people will likely try.  Let alone religious institutions will likely to add addition meanings on to marriage and parenting. 

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Somewhat, but the paper trail is still there, birth certificates are issued, as are social security numbers.

It is, but my point is that increasing the costs of marriage 'enfocement' of that form for the government, coupled with the damaging issue of an over-utilitarian model of marriage, will I suspect do the government's long term prospects more harm than good.

As for people's perception.  If there are benefits, people will likely try.  Let alone religious institutions will likely to add addition meanings on to marriage and parenting.

I think very few people go into marriage with benefits in mind in a significant amount, and the religious aspect of marriage is more often scorned as outdated etc than embraced.

Could you elaborate on the status quo some more? I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

 

I should perhaps be a little more accurate here. I don't mean the status quo now, but rather the status quo with some modifications.

 

The status quo now is in danger of upsetting the balance of marriage. Marriage has two functions, one for the state and society more broadly and one for the people at an individual level. The problem is that gay marriage and no-fault divorce are tipping the balance towards the individual too much, damaging state and social interest (procreation and the social basis of marriage as part of the social order, rather than the damage caused by such things as broken homes etc). Marriage should exist as a function to benefit the state and society through encouraging but not enforcing procreation and the individual as an expression of romantic love supported by the government. If you favour one above the other, you damage the institution and society more broadly.

[David E]

Marriage is a religious construct that has been adopted by society.  The problem with this is that religion is exclusive in nature where as society should be, although it does a mostly poor job, inclusive.

How it should really work: 

Two people who are of legal consenting age should be allowed to enter into contract that allows there property to be delivered to the surviving party upon the death of the other.  The contract should only be allowed to be severed if both parties consent or if one party can give reasonable cause in the eyes of the court that the other party was unwilling to uphold their part of the contract.  Each state should be able to draft what is considered a "standard partnership contract" to which consenting parties would be able to make amendments to upon entering the contract.  On the subject of children born under said contract both parties gain automatic equal visitation rights unless otherwise agreed upon by both parties in the contract or where by one party can prove the other party is unfit in the eyes of the court.

As for polygamy and incest since they were mentioned directly. 

Polygamy: "Marriage" should be viewed as a contract between two legal adults in the eyes of the state and therefore the only contract that can be legally entered into in the eyes of the state.  However if your religion allows you to wed more than one person then great.  However only your "marriage" to your first wife or husband would be recognized in the eyes of the state.

Incest: If two people who are of the legal age of consent want to get married then they should be allowed to in the eyes of the state.  Right now most societal mores cause this to happen rarely but the state should have no cause to stop it.

This type of argument is the problem with a lot of things right now.  As a society we are trying to find a way to define changes by continuing to use the old rules.  As society changes and adapts we have to change with it.  This is why the Constitution was written in such a way that it could be modified.  I don't agree with redefining the Constitution of the USA just because congress or the supreme court decide to but if there is something in it that no longer fits with society then it needs to be changed. So by using the Constitution as our guide we need to be able to adopt and change it with our society.

I hope my thoughts have translated to the page

~David

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Marriage" should be viewed as a contract between two legal adults in the eyes of the state and therefore the only contract that can be legally entered into in the eyes of the state.

Why?