A response in particular to the TheAtheistAntidote’s video “Gay Marriage NO; Respect YES”, and more generally to all those who make the procreation-centric (or anatomical) argument in favor of the state’s exclusively privileging heterosexual marriage. The procreation-centric (or anatomical) argument destroys rather than strengthens the foundation for the exclusive privileging of heterosexual marriage. How odd that those who identify themselves as defenders of marriage would rely on an argument that destroys it. But, as Jonathan Rauch astutely observes, these folks are so fixated on preventing homosexuals from getting the legal right to marry that if marriage itself is a casualty of their battle, the self-styled defenders seem to say, “So be it!” Links: Jonathan Rauch’s essay “For Better Or Worse? The Case for Gay (and Straight) Marriage” — www.jonathanrauch.com TheAtheistAntidote’s video — www.youtube.com NB: For those who argue that the state should not be in the marriage business — a position with which I am not unsympathetic — please note that *that* is not the subject of this video. Rather, this video is a refutation of a particular argument for the state’s exclusive privileging of heterosexual marriage. Thanks.
It’s all about children (or at least the anatomical possibility thereof).
Previous post: Why aren’t civil unions good enough for YOU?
Next post: Talking Equality
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
My point is these are the reasons that represent how the state and (anybody else who agrees with the state) is indeed consistent in denying same sex couples while allowing infertile couples to get married in regards to procreation and/or marriage. In other words, There is a rational justificaition and its not invidiously arbritrary or a double standard.
(con’t) “However, if the state started to give marriage licenses to same sex couples, this would force the state to change all the existing traditional marriage laws to gender neutral marriage laws where the government would feature both relationships together as if they were the same.”
So what?
@BreakoutLuceal “You might want to look up a U.S. supreme court case called Baker v. Nelson….”
Do you seriously believe I haven’t read Baker v. Nelson? Seriously?!
“The main reason why the state doesn’t disallow the infertile but can with same sex couples ultimately deals with marriage which is separate from procreation because marriage is not for procreation but marriage is for the regulation of responsible procreation.”
I haven’t a clue what you’re struggling to say here.
if the state allowed a man and a woman who can’t procreate to get a marriage license, the state would not have to change the existing marriage laws that promote the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. However, if the state started to give marriage licenses to same sex couples, this would force the state to change all the existing traditional marriage laws to gender neutral marriage laws where the government would feature both relationships together as if they were the same.
You might want to look up a U.S. supreme court case called Baker v. Nelson that rejects your characterization of the fundamental right to marry and why its fundamental in the first place.
Nevertheless, those aren’t the only reasons. The main reason why the state doesn’t disallow the infertile but can with same sex couples ultimately deals with marriage which is separate from procreation because marriage is not for procreation but marriage is for the regulation of responsible procreation.
(con’t) @BreakoutLuceal …because denying sterile heterosexual couples the right to marry would be more complicated than denying same-sex couples the right to marry is, the sterile heterosexual couples get a break but the same-sex couples do not? You might want to look up “administrative convenience” in the context of the exercise of fundamental, constitutionally protected rights to see how poorly that argument has done. But good job parroting NOM and their epigones.
@BreakoutLuceal “There has been state efforts in the past to prohibit them but a law excluding infertile couples is constitutionally unenforceable because traditional marriage is a civil right.”
Marriage is a civil right–a fundamental right, more correctly.
“the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children…By contrast with same sex couples, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish….”
So…
Thus, its costly, impractical, and unconstitutional. The law rightly assumes a presumption of reproductive potential on the part of heterosexual couples.
By contrast with same sex couples, we do not need intrusive fertility tests to establish that same sex couples are barren by biological default. Two people of the same sex can never reproduce with each other. Most importantly, there is no fundamental right to gay marriage or plural marriage for that matter.
Not so fast. There has been state efforts in the past to prohibit them but a law excluding infertile couples is constitutionally unenforceable because traditional marriage is a civil right. Also, the state would have to resort to intrusive fertility tests in order to establish that they are unable to have children and even then therapy and fertility may reverse the prognosis. Since there are so many situations like this, this clearly would take a large amount of resources to achieve as well.
(con’t) “…to adopt with civil unions.”
Yet again, you repeat the same tired old nonsense that you and I have covered, recovered, and recovered yet again. Sterile heterosexual couples can’t “procreate accidentally.” They can’t procreate at all. They are similarly situated to same-sex couples vis-a-vis procreation, i.e., it is not possible for either of them within the couple itself. Deny sterile heterosexuals the right to marry and perhaps you’ll have a case. Until then, you got nothin’.
@BreakoutLuceal I’m reposting your comment that you removed: “You are making my case. since same sex couples cannot procreate accidentally, that would be an important governmental distinction between the two relationships that requires a different name like civil unions to continue to promote responsible procreation in was has been shown to be a better environment than cohabitation for kids to the generation and generation after that to heterosexuals while the state can encourage homosexuals…
this “for the children” argument doesn’t really stand any grounds at all. How often do women get pregnant outside of marriage? pretty damn often
@Ammdar Agreed on all counts.
I’ve always found it interesting you see so many religious people taking the “and that will lead to polygamy etc…” stance. It makes you wonder how many of them actually read their fucking bible, bigamy and polygamy is rampant in the damn thing. Personally I don’t know why any sane person would want to be married to more than one person, but I also don’t see it as being MY or any governing bodies business, as long as all parties involved are consenting adults and no coercion is used.
@bigpchamber No problem. Thanks for the follow-up.
@ProfMTH My apologies, it was your transition out of Jonathan’s quote that I missed, but after watching the video again you are right, it couldn’t be more clear. i don’t know what i was thinking. In any event, this is an excellent video, clear and concise.
I would be nice if everyone were so intellectual honest.
@mdean1215 In the context of the exchange above, the relevant parameter would be that people entering into a marriage do not already have a preexisting relationship with one another that makes them family. Marriage is a family-establishing relationship.
@ProfMTH What should the parameters be?
@bigpchamber “One criticism, its not clear which where part is Rauch and which part is ProMTH.”
In the video I say “the following is an excerpt” from Rauch’s article and then “here goes” as I transition into reading from the article. I’m not sure how it could have been any clearer than that.
Thanks for the comment.
One criticism, its not clear which where part is Rauch and which part is ProMTH.
What is wonderful about Jonathan, is that not only does he not misrepresent his opponent’s position, he often states it better than his opponent can. This vid is in the same spirit. Gentle , calm persuasion is almost always best.
@mdean1215 “so how does the judge define “equals”?”
Did you read the decision?
“should the law have any parameters to be able to recognize that individuals are trully establishing ” a family or household”?”
Sure.
@mdean1215 “I devoted 17 videos to the issue of slavery….”
Perhaps you missed the part about “spend[ing] so much of one’s time declaring that what one’s holy book says isn’t what it means.” One can be fleeing the facts while talking about the issue. In fact, that’s often how the fleeing occurs.
@ProfMTH I devoted 17 videos to the issue of slavery and the Bible and debated you on several of those comments boards, that is hardly “fleeing” the issue.
@ProfMTH Im not fleeing anything, my last comment stiil stands….. so how does the judge define “equals”? … should the law have any parameters to be able to recognize that individuals are trully establishing ” a family or household”?
@mdean1215 I think Judge Walker said it well in the recent decision striking down Prop 8: marriage is a union of equals to establish a family and household.
By the way, I’m intrigued by your fleeing the biblical facts about polygamy.