When all is said and done...

[effervesce]

There are many organizations now that advocate for acceptance of gay marriage just like there were many organization in the 60s who advocate for racial equality.  It is one thing to lobby to make the government completely neutral with respect to race.  It is something wholly different to lobby to use government force to punish individuals who in private dealings wish to discriminate.  You can debate the merits all you like, whether that is good or bad is not my point.

Just so we're clear:

 

No one is trying to force the Latter Day Saints, the Roman Catholics, or the Southern Bapists to conduct same sex marriages. No one is suggesting that the government punish the LDS because they want to discriminate...

 

People are arguing the following: If the act of marriage conveys special legal advantages, then some avenue for marriage needs to be granted to all citizen. This could take the form of a civil ceremony. Alternatively, it might be a religious ceremony via some church that has chosen to sanction same sex marriages.

 

I certainly don't like this solution. I've been arguing for years that religious sacrements like marriage shouldn't be granted special status under the legal code. However, if you're going grant special privledges to married folk then you shouldn't deny anyone the right to marry.

To play the Devil's (Angel's?) advocate -

 

If, as many suggest, that marriage (evolved and is) is beneficial to society to keep stability and keep a family together to raise children, then perhaps it is correct to keep the special privileges as you mention for straight couples rather than gays.

 

The tax benefits (and other benefits) may be in a sense considered a incentive for people to be straight and therefore have children - for society's benefit to keep the population replenished and stop an aging workforce. Gays, who cannot reproduce and have children therefore should not have these special privileges-as there is no societal/evolutionary benefit for such relationships.

 

This may be considered a form of epigenetics (well, I can't remember the correct word so I'll use epigenetics here even though epigenetics means something quite different). Traits that are passed on to offspring via genes are due to genetics. Keeping people straight is an obvious evolutionary advantage. Being straight/gay is likely to be partly genetic. However, straight/gay may also have environmental factors - ie society promoting the usual 'straight' relationships. Therefore, society favoring straight relationships vs gay relationships may be considered as epigenetics- traits passed on to offspring due to other factors, NOT due to genetics. Cultural/religious views passed on to offspring about straight/gay relationships can therefore be viewed as epigenetic.

[akhare]

The pharmacy question is easy for me because I consider personal freedom the ultimate good and therefore a private business should not be required to do anything. 

IMO, the pharmacy question is much more complicated than that. The personal freedoms enjoyed individuals are (and must be) different from those granted to the corporation.

 

For example, in a state where the all pharamacies are owned by a single chain, should all people be denied the access to contraception because of the whims of its owner? What if the owner of such a pharmacy took a shine to the idea that some life saving medication was against a religious belief?

 

The government has no right to challenge the owner's belief, but it has every right to insist that the pharmacy carry a certain brand of drugs in the interests of public and health and well being.

[akhare]

Gays, who cannot reproduce and have children therefore should not have these special privileges-as there is no societal/evolutionary benefit for such relationships.

 

I guess by that you mean that two men in a relationship can't reproduce. However, how different is that from saying that men can't reproduce on their own? Does the relationship suddenly develop a societal/evolutionary benefit if they hire a female surrogate for that purpose?

 

What are the societal/evolutionary benefits from hetrosexual couples that can't reproduce? What about those hetrosexual couples that don't want to reproduce?

[effervesce]

Gays, who cannot reproduce and have children therefore should not have these special privileges-as there is no societal/evolutionary benefit for such relationships.

 

I guess by that you mean that two men in a relationship can't reproduce. However, how different is that from saying that men can't reproduce on their own? Does the relationship suddenly develop a societal/evolutionary benefit if they hire a female surrogate for that purpose?

 

What are the societal/evolutionary benefits from hetrosexual couples that can't reproduce? What about those hetrosexual couples that don't want to reproduce?

To extend that further, what about individuals? Individuals cant reproduce. However, how different is that from saying individuals can't reproduce on their own? Why cant individuals hire a surrogate for that purpose?

 

What you're arguing is about where to draw the line. You have a point-perhaps such tax breaks should then be for couples with children. You could set it up such that all couples, straight or gay, have a tax break only if they raise children.

[blackshoe]

Charles Murray wrote a book (What It Means To Be A Libertarian) in which he said that he would like to call himself a liberal (in the classical sense) but that he cannot because the Left has stolen that good name. So he calls himself a Libertarian, that being as close (in the US) as he can get to how he really thinks of himself. Interesting book.

 

I'm not fond of terms like "pro-gay marriage" (or pro-life, or pro-abortion, or whatever) because the terms obscure the real issue. In the "gay marriage" case, I will say that I'm not "pro-gay marriage". I am pro the government (and everybody else) not sticking its (their) nose into how two (or more, for that matter) consenting adults choose to live their lives.

[effervesce]

I am pro the government (and everybody else) not sticking its (their) nose into how two (or more, for that matter) consenting adults choose to live their lives.

How about what society votes to consent to do with its taxpayer money? The government isn't sticking their nose into what two adults do with their lives - rather, the government is sticking its nose into what the goverment is concerned with - its own taxpayer money. If the government decides to subsidise straight couples but not gays, then it can choose to do so. If gays want to be gay, sure-they are free to do so-but why should gays tell society what society wants to do with taxpayer money?

[akhare]

If the government decides to subsidise straight couples but not gays, then it can choose to do so. If gays want to be gay, sure-they are free to do so-but why should gays tell society what society wants to do with taxpayer money?

Perhaps you meant to say "majority" instead of society because gays are very much part of the society. Secondly, as tax paying citizens, they have every right to voice their opinions in the matter.

 

BTW, substituting "left handed" (or some other minority trait) instead of gay in your argument makes for a very interesting read...

[matmat]

If gays want to be gay,

hmmm

some do, some don't, but from what I gather they don't really have a choice in the matter.

[effervesce]

If the government decides to subsidise straight couples but not gays, then it can choose to do so. If gays want to be gay, sure-they are free to do so-but why should gays tell society what society wants to do with taxpayer money?

Perhaps you meant to say "majority" instead of society because gays are very much part of the society. Secondly, as tax paying citizens, they have every right to voice their opinions in the matter.

 

BTW, substituting "left handed" (or some other minority trait) instead of gay in your argument makes for a very interesting read...

Apparently society wants to help some groups more than others. Why does that surprise you?

 

In Australia, there are numerous scholarships/subsidies for Aborigine/Torres Straight Islander minorities. Why did they choose them in particular over, say, Afghans or Iranians?

 

Society feels that lower-income earners should be taxed less than higher-income earners.

 

Society feels that seniors should have pensioner benefits, and students have student benefits.

 

Society similarly feels that straight couples should have couple benefits.

 

Does any of the above surprise you?

 

As for the left-right handed comment... In fact, I was initially left handed (or shall I say, sinister :unsure:) when very young, and wrote left-handed. One of primary school teacher persuaded me to write right-handed, and thus I did. I, in fact, now am right handed when writing, even though for everything else (eg sports) I'm left-handed.

 

Society's influence does play a role. Evolutionarily, there is nothing wrong with marriage per se. Gay genetics will be disadvantaged. However, some characteristics are passed from generation to generation not by genetics, but from culture/society. Thus, there may be an evolutionary disadvantage for a society that includes gay marriages.

 

I'm not arguing that such a position is correct. I'm just stating that cultural/societal aspects/values may be just as important as genetics in whether a person becomes gay in future generations - and thus from an evolutionary standpoint, being against gay marriages may be beneficial to society as a whole.

[jikl]

Is this last post a troll? Or is it actually for real?

 

Sean

[matmat]

As for the left-right handed comment... In fact, I was initially left handed when very young, and wrote left-handed. One of primary school teacher persuaded me to write right-handed, and thus I did. I, in fact, now am right handed, even though for everything else (eg sports) I'm left-handed.

I type left-handed, but I am right handed for everything else.

[TimG]

Dominos is a place of public accomodation. I don't believe that they should be able to refuse me service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. If they had another reason... That's a different kettle of fish.

What if the local pizza joint wants to run itself as a private club with something like a 25 cent annual membership for those approved individuals? I'm sure there must be some reason this cannot be done as simply as it would seem. But, I've long wondered.

[akhare]

Society's influence does play a role. Evolutionarily, there is nothing wrong with marriage per se. Gay genetics will be disadvantaged. However, some characteristics are passed from generation to generation not by genetics, but from culture/society. Thus, there may be an evolutionary disadvantage for a society that includes gay marriages.

Interesting -- can you please give some specific examples (historical or anecdotal) on the societal, genetic and evolutionary disadvantages that you have mentioned?

[awm]

I don't think there are a lot of gay people who, when they find out that they will not get any of the legal benefits associated with marriage with their gay partner, decide to turn straight. Regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental or some combination of the two, it's not just a choice you make. And even if it were a choice, what religion people follow is certainly a choice and yet the government guarantees protection even for people belonging to "deviant" religions.

 

It's worth mentioning that churches have long held the right to refuse to marry people. Catholic churches will not marry a couple if one of them is non-catholic, or if either has had a previous catholic marriage (non-annulled). Orthodox Jewish temples will not marry a couple unless they are both jewish. There have been few, if any, lawsuits associated with this and certainly no successful ones. Separation of church and state more or less guarantees that religions can marry (or refuse to marry) whomever they please. The legality of gay marriage has nothing to do with requiring churches to marry gays.

 

Marriage also has little to do with having children. People who are unable to have children (for a wide variety of reasons) are still allowed to marry. People who just don't want to have children are allowed to marry. There is no law requiring married couples who are able to have children to do so. And there is also nothing preventing unmarried women from having children. The fact that two people of the same gender are unable to conceive a child together really has no relevance.

 

The major issue with pharmacies is that basic medical care really should be a universal right. If I decide that I want to purchase an Apple computer and walk into my local electronics store and they don't carry Apple products, I'm out of luck. In fact, even if they do carry Apple products but decide not to sell one to me, even if this decision is based on my age or race or gender, it's not clear that I should be able to sue a private company for this. But medical care is different -- a hospital can't refuse to give me medical care because of my age or race or even ability to pay. There's a difference between "necessities of life" which should be always available, versus luxury items.

 

Abortion can easily be argued either way -- it hinges on whether you believe a fetus should have the same rights as a person. There is not an "obvious" answer to this really. But what does seem obvious, is that virtually no one is pro-abortion (being "pro-choice" is not the same as being pro-abortion). Rather than trying to criminalize abortion, shouldn't the goal be to make sure that no one wants an abortion in the first place? And what easier way to do this than to make birth control (and education about how to use birth control) easily available to everyone? The government doesn't have to fund it -- there are non-government non-profit organizations like planned parenthood which are happy to do so. Government just has to allow it. It seems unbelievably stupid that in some cases they won't.

[blackshoe]

a hospital can't refuse to give me medical care because of my age or race or even ability to pay.

 

Heh. There was an article in the NY Times today about several cases of hospitals in the SW US "deporting" patients to Mexico because they didn't have insurance. One was a legal immigrant, the teenage son of legal immigrants. Another was a baby, born with Down's syndrome in the US (making him a US citizen). His parents, however, were Mexican nationals. They fact they were and had been living (legally) in the US didn't matter to the hospital, though. And this is the same hospital where the kid was born.

 

In the first case, the kid was in a coma, so he didn't get to express an opinion. His parents, however, went to considerable effort to find another US hospital that would take their son as a patient. They did - in Riverside, California.

 

Somebody ought to make those hospital administrators go read what's engraved on the Statue of Liberty. And then write it out, in longhand, one thousand times.

[cherdano]

Society's influence does play a role. Evolutionarily, there is nothing wrong with marriage per se. Gay genetics will be disadvantaged. However, some characteristics are passed from generation to generation not by genetics, but from culture/society. Thus, there may be an evolutionary disadvantage for a society that includes gay marriages.

 

I'm not arguing that such a position is correct. I'm just stating that cultural/societal aspects/values may be just as important as genetics in whether a person becomes gay in future generations - and thus from an evolutionary standpoint, being against gay marriages may be beneficial to society as a whole.

This is one of the most offensive posts I have read on BBF and that is really quite a standard.

 

You don't discriminate against a minority just because you have a weird theory that it might beneficial for the society in the long run. If you don't think that is a good standard then I have some theories developed in the 1930s in my home country to sell you.

[DrTodd13]

The pharmacy question is easy for me because I consider personal freedom the ultimate good and therefore a private business should not be required to do anything. 

IMO, the pharmacy question is much more complicated than that. The personal freedoms enjoyed individuals are (and must be) different from those granted to the corporation.

 

For example, in a state where the all pharmacies are owned by a single chain, should all people be denied the access to contraception because of the whims of its owner? What if the owner of such a pharmacy took a shine to the idea that some life saving medication was against a religious belief?

 

The government has no right to challenge the owner's belief, but it has every right to insist that the pharmacy carry a certain brand of drugs in the interests of public and health and well being.

I don't believe in corporations either. Those are fictional pseudo-persons created by the state so that owners can shirk responsibility. Ultimately, however, businesses are owned by people and those people don't lose their rights just by selling something. Show me where in the constitution I lose my rights to choose with whom I will associate just because I open a store front. Laws can say I can't do it but that doesn't make it right. If all the pharmacies in the world were owned by one person who was against birth control then it would still be wrong to force that person to sell it. Of course, anybody who would make such a rule then surely competitors would spring up who would sell contraception or whatever life saving medication the first person found objectionable. But I think I'll stop with this argument now because it just does come down to unsubstantiatable opinions of what the ultimate good is. Just don't kid yourself and think of yourself as a freedom and peace loving because in the end if the majority public good (as defined by the public themselves) is your mantra then that is only achievable via control of the populace through the use or threat of violence.

[akhare]

Show me where in the constitution I lose my rights to choose with whom I will associate just because I open a store front. 

.

 

No one said that personal constitutional rights are abridged by virtue of opening a storefront. However, the the constitutional rights of the owner don't extend to the storefront by phantasmic projection.

 

To that end, *it* is subject to arbitrary policy and licensing restrictions, and ensuing freedoms may be a small subset of your own personal freedoms.

 

If all the pharmacies in the world were owned by one person who was against birth control then it would still be wrong to force that person to sell it.  Of course, anybody who would make such a rule then surely competitors would spring up who would sell contraception or whatever life saving medication the first person found objectionable. 

.

 

Will free markets eventually regulate themselves? Maybe they will, but I still don't understand why it isn't right to force the business to do something. For instance, government certainly can't force a restaurant owner to bathe, but the restaurant must adhere to the proscribed code of hygiene (I am being facetious here just in case someone is wondering).

[Impact]

I don't think there are a lot of gay people who, when they find out that they will not get any of the legal benefits associated with marriage with their gay partner, decide to turn straight. Regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental or some combination of the two, it's not just a choice you make. And even if it were a choice, what religion people follow is certainly a choice and yet the government guarantees protection even for people belonging to "deviant" religions.

 

It's worth mentioning that churches have long held the right to refuse to marry people. Catholic churches will not marry a couple if one of them is non-catholic, or if either has had a previous catholic marriage (non-annulled). Orthodox Jewish temples will not marry a couple unless they are both jewish. There have been few, if any, lawsuits associated with this and certainly no successful ones. Separation of church and state more or less guarantees that religions can marry (or refuse to marry) whomever they please. The legality of gay marriage has nothing to do with requiring churches to marry gays.

 

Marriage also has little to do with having children. People who are unable to have children (for a wide variety of reasons) are still allowed to marry. People who just don't want to have children are allowed to marry. There is no law requiring married couples who are able to have children to do so. And there is also nothing preventing unmarried women from having children. The fact that two people of the same gender are unable to conceive a child together really has no relevance.

 

The major issue with pharmacies is that basic medical care really should be a universal right. If I decide that I want to purchase an Apple computer and walk into my local electronics store and they don't carry Apple products, I'm out of luck. In fact, even if they do carry Apple products but decide not to sell one to me, even if this decision is based on my age or race or gender, it's not clear that I should be able to sue a private company for this. But medical care is different -- a hospital can't refuse to give me medical care because of my age or race or even ability to pay. There's a difference between "necessities of life" which should be always available, versus luxury items.

 

Abortion can easily be argued either way -- it hinges on whether you believe a fetus should have the same rights as a person. There is not an "obvious" answer to this really. But what does seem obvious, is that virtually no one is pro-abortion (being "pro-choice" is not the same as being pro-abortion). Rather than trying to criminalize abortion, shouldn't the goal be to make sure that no one wants an abortion in the first place? And what easier way to do this than to make birth control (and education about how to use birth control) easily available to everyone? The government doesn't have to fund it -- there are non-government non-profit organizations like planned parenthood which are happy to do so. Government just has to allow it. It seems unbelievably stupid that in some cases they won't.

I don't disagree with most of your conclusion Adam, but I think your medical/pharmaceutical example is poorly chosen.

 

The point that Ming was trying to make (I think) was that society makes certain choices eg as between the beneficial recipients of organ donations based on "discrimination" other than life-threatening bases

eg expected longevity of recipient if successful (contrast the needs of an 85 year old and a 15 year old for the same organ to take an extreme example)

- ability to pay (at least in USA as I understand it if the 85 year old has sufficient money the organ will be found....)

 

Just because it is a matter of life and death ("necessity") does not obviate the need to make choices and allocate resources between people who compete for them.

 

Ming (effervesce) was not stipulating that the options taken in his examples are "correct" - merely that such decisions which effectively involve discrimination/subsidy/tax ARE taken as a matter of course - and are a necessary part of government (to gauge this, one only need observe that the failure to make a positive decision is a decision , a position that everyone involved with gametheory positions is familiar).

 

Which decisions, and to what extent they are made to regulate and/or intervene in what might otherwise occur is precisely the role of government.

 

Anyone may legitimately argue about any single decision's merit, but I thought Ming meant that decisions in general were the business of government in its role in society (and in a democracy the unpopular decisions will have the effect of determining a government's fate).

 

It is unfortunate that popularity which comes into sway at fairly regular intervals marked by elections (as opposed to longterm good decisionmaking) is the arbiter of the system. That of course is the problem with democracy: it lets the people vote B)

 

In fact to paraphrase Churchill, democracy is an awful system - it is just that all the others are worse (unless you accept ME as your benevolent tyrant - but perhaps my benevolence may not last based on historical precedent :D

 

Disclaimer: To the extent that I have misrepresented anyone's views or words I apologise.

 

Please note prior to the flamethrowers' actions that heretofore I have not actually specified a single policy - just a process and perhaps clarification of others' words.

 

 

Oh yes incidentally I happen to be in favour of equal rights (to the extent that "marriage" confers benefits) for gays - and just about any other group too!

 

 

 

OTOH I am sufficiently "out there" that I believe that humans' desire to reproduce has not slackened overall, but that the resources of the planet are such that there is no need to subsidise additional reproduction: the one thing we have too many of in this world is people!

Hence, I would not subsidise "baby bonus" schemes which have become prevalent (as opposed to safety nets and welfare for the children who did not possess an option as opposed to the parents who did!).

 

You see it is possible to be logically opposed to anything: even a "motherhood" proposition! :unsure:

regards

[helene_t]

Todd: It may be true that some gay (or black, or Jewish, or left-handed) activists want to criminalize discrimination against gays (or whatever). But that was not what prop. 8 was about. It was about the government denying an arbitrary group of couples the right to have their marriage legally recognized.

 

Jimmy: Prop 8 was not about which level of government should regulate marriage. The level of government was California, and it was a Californian poll. The central government had nothing to do with it. Some wanted to discriminate between gays and straights in the Californian constitution. It's as simple as that.

 

I don't know why you two guys keep avoiding the issue. It does look like either you don't like to admit that you are bigotic, or you don't like to admit that sometimes it's the right-wings who take the anti-liberty position. (The latter seems unlikely since you have both in other threads argued against the anti-liberty policies of the Bush administration).

 

effervesce: It is called "eugenics". I find your theory quite amusing but I'm afraid it's wrong. If you want to eliminate the "gay gene", you might as well support gay marriage in order to avoid gays feeling forced to marry someone of the opposite sex and spread his/her nasty gay genes to the next generation! However, all this is ridiculous for a number of reasons which I assume are obvious to everyone ....

 

Impact: Proposition 8 was not about relocating scarce resources. It's not like there are a limited number of marriage certificate forms and the government has to decide which couples don't get one. So the comparison with discrimination in the management of donor organs is not good.

[hrothgar]

BTW:

 

There have been some interesting studies in evolutionary biology surrounding what's known as sexually antagonistic selection. Sexually antagonistic selection involves genes that convey an evolutionary advantage in one sex, however, are a disadvatange in the the other.

 

For example, some biologiests have argued that the genes responsible for homosexuality in males are also associated with increase fecundity in females.

[effervesce]

Society's influence does play a role. Evolutionarily, there is nothing wrong with marriage per se. Gay genetics will be disadvantaged. However, some characteristics are passed from generation to generation not by genetics, but from culture/society. Thus, there may be an evolutionary disadvantage for a society that includes gay marriages.

 

I'm not arguing that such a position is correct. I'm just stating that cultural/societal aspects/values may be just as important as genetics in whether a person becomes gay in future generations - and thus from an evolutionary standpoint, being against gay marriages may be beneficial to society as a whole.

This is one of the most offensive posts I have read on BBF and that is really quite a standard.

 

You don't discriminate against a minority just because you have a weird theory that it might beneficial for the society in the long run. If you don't think that is a good standard then I have some theories developed in the 1930s in my home country to sell you.

And one doesn't discriminate against the rich with taxes, or subsidise those with no job by having welfare either, on the theory that such would be beneficial to society in the long run.

 

In Australia, we have what we call the 'baby bonus', whereby mothers who give birth are given $4000. Such a bonus was given as an incentive to produce children in an aging population. Such a bonus seems to be universally ok by society as a whole. Why, then, are so many people taking offense at straight couples being given certain tax breaks while individuals do not? Doesn't such a bonus discriminate against gay couples as well, since it is impossible for them to have a baby, but must instead rely on a surrogate or adopt a child?

 

A very obvious case where your point is proved wrong is in immigration, both in Australia and America. If you're from Canada, Australia, England, it's easy to immigrate to America. But if you're a refugee, you're automatically detained. Indefinitely. 90% of the thousands of so called 'boat people' who have arrived in Australia are legitimate refugees and under Australian law eligible for asylum- however, the majority are refused entry and detained indefinitely at a mandatory detention centre (at taxpayer's expense and more expensive than to simply allow them to immigrate-in fact it costs Australia $100 per day per person-a large amount of money considering that 20% stay in detention for a year or longer) until they are deported to their country of origin.

[TimG]

There's a difference between "necessities of life" which should be always available, versus luxury items.

Birth control pills are a "necessity of life"?

[luke warm]

Jimmy: Prop 8 was not about which level of government should regulate marriage. The level of government was California, and it was a Californian poll. The central government had nothing to do with it. Some wanted to discriminate between gays and straights in the Californian constitution. It's as simple as that.

i know that, helene... what in my posts leads you to believe that i don't understand that? i was just trying to answer something i thought you had asked... re-read what i said about prop 8 and try to synopsize what i believe about it, you might find i'm not as far from your thoughts as you supposed

[helene_t]

Thanks, Jimmy (and sorry if I have wrongly accused you of being anti-gay). You said that you would prefer no laws regulating marriage, not sure what that means. Some people here have phrased it as two (or more) consenting adults can sign whatever contract they want and the government shouldn't interfere with it. Not sure if that is you POV. FWIW I think it sounds very idealistic but practically speaking, Californians are stuck with certain laws that give a special status to married couples, and the question was if two people have to be of opposite sex to get that special legal status.