Posted: Apr 30, 2012 10:42 am
When I requested that Lion address my arguments more directly, I had expected that this would lead to more of a debate, not less. And yet, what proceeded was a cavalcade of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and irrelevancies. I will comeback to look at some of Lion's problems with my posts, but first I will continue arguing my case.
Aside from removing (unfair) discrimination, allowing gay marriages would also have positive impacts on the economy. Numerous studies have been undertaken to estimate the amount of money that could enter the economy if same-sex marriages were to be legalised. A study conducted in Washington State estimated that up to $57.0 million USD would flow into the state and local economy in the first year if same-sex marriage were made legal (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/w ... -20121.pdf). this figure did not include any money coming in from out-of-state couples travelling to Washington to get married. The impact in Massachussets was estimated to be up to $111.0 million over a three year period (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/w ... e-2008.pdf).The impact in New Jersey was estimated at up to $102.5 million a year (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/w ... c-2006.pdf). Forbes Magazine estimated in 2009 that the windfall from legalising same-sex marriage across the United States could be close to $10.0 billion! (http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/15/same-s ... dfall.html). More money being spent means more jobs. More money being spent means more tax dollars going to the Government and that means that the Government can use this extra money in areas of health, education and welfare. By not allowing same-sex marriage, govermnents worldwide are depriving local economies from much needed funds and themselves from much needed tax dollars.
Thankfully, Lion has been kind enough to do a lot of the work for me in arguing for same-sex marriage to be legalised. The statistical evidence that he has presented, regardless of its extremely dubious source, falls into two categories - irrelevant or supportive of same-sex marriage marriage. The most damning of which being the chart which shows that intimate partner violence reduces in married couples. This is reason to allow same-sex marriage, not deny it. The other charts only serve to present factors which are not legal requirements of marriage.
Despite his obvious adoration of the institution of marriage, Lion appears to display a woeful lack of knowledge of what is required to get married. It's simple, one participant must be a man and the other a woman (aside from in those jurisdictions in which gay marriage is already legal). Even if we were to accept Lion's list of ways in which same-sex relationships are "radically different", none of the are a legal requirement of getting married and are therefore irrelevant.
- relationship duration - not a requirement of getting married.
- monogamy v promiscuity - not a requirement of marriage. It is currently perfectly legal for a person to get married and then go around shagging anyone they please.
- relationship commitment - see above.
- number of children being raised - finally we see Lion playing the children card. This is, of course, irrelevant. Having children is not required of opposite sex couples in order to get married. However many same-sex marriages were to occur, the number of children being raised in opposite sex marriage would not diminish. Much the same way as allowing women to vote hasn't reduced the number of men who can vote. And regardless of whether same-sex couples can get married, in many jurisdictions they are already allowed to adopt.
- health risks - not a requirement of marriage. And in the case of female same-sex relationships, one could argue that there are significantly fewer health risks than opposite sex relationships.For example, the CDC reported in 2005 that there were no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the US database (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/res ... ts/wsw.htm). Based on that, surely it should be lesbians that we should be allowing to get married, and not heterosexuals. However, being irrelevant, it doens't matter what the comparative health risks are.
- rates of intimate partner violence - aside from the aforementioned point that allowing same-sex marriage might reduce such behaviour, this is, of course (say it with me, people)...not a requirement of marriage.
If Lion cares about these factors so much, perhaps he should be arguing some kind of test prior to getting married to vet individuals who fail on any of metrics. However, seeing as no such test exists, and one can get married regardless of any of those factors as long as their fun bits are different, none of the factors should prevent same-sex couples from getting married.
I will now try to clarify some things for Lion which I believe he has misunderstood.
I wasn't arguing for gay marriage with this point. I was arguing against your reasoning. If your argument is that same-sex marriage should not be allowed due to increased legal complexity, then you must also not be in favour of a myriad of other laws which have vastly increased legal complexity, despite having very favourable outcomes. An example of which is workplace safety laws, which depsite increasing legal complexity, has lead to a lot less people dying or getting injured in the workplace.
But I don't want it to be locked in stone to prevent its further dilution. I've been very clear on this. A line in the sand can be drawn and re-drawn wherever it is appropriate to do so. If other minority groups can similarly argue that there is insufficient reason not to allow them to marry, then they should also have marriage extended to them.
I agree with you. which is why I haven't argued for marriage for everyone and anyone, anywhere, anytime etc etc.
What's the problem with this? Are you saying that minority groups should not be allowed to argue their case?
Do you honestly not believe that there is a stigma against homosexuality? The recent spate of suicides in the US by teens who were bullied about their homosexuality would suggest otherwise.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Gets_Better_Project)
No I'm not. People should be able to state their case for their desired definition of marriage, but that's different to allowing them their desired definition of marriage. I don't think people should be able to marry goats and I think that the claim that homosexual marriage will lead to people marrying goats is deeply offensive.
But it doesn't matter. All that matters is the gender of the individuals involved. As it currently stands, a homosexual male and a homosexual female could get married to eachother with no legal barriers to them doing so. What 'gay' is is ireelevant.
And the species will continue to proceed by opposite gender mating regardless of how many same-sex marriage occur.
Then it's a good thing that i haven't argued for marriage equality for all, isn't it?
The rest of Lion's post is a long-winded rant on changing the definition of marriage. Yet definitions are changed all the time in the legal context. If this debate were to be occuring in 1893, i could sit here and argue til I was blue in the face that you have no right to change the definition of a voting citizen. Yet New Zealand changed that definition to include all adult women and the rest of the world has since followed. What harm was caused by that definitional change? Who were the losers? Did it affect the ability of men to continue to vote? Did it diminish the value of a man's vote? No, of course it didn't. Furthermore, it didn't lead to a spate of making it legal for animals to vote, nor was it made legal for babies to vote. Lion says that you can't change the definition of marriage for the same reason that you can't change the definition of 'under-age'. This ignores the fact that the definition of under-age within many contexts has already been changed. The age at which people are allowed to drink, smoke, vote, drive, have sex, hire a car (etc etc) is always changing in different countries and within the different jurisdictions of those countries. These things are not set in stone. Why the heck should marriage be any different?
Lion is yet to provide a good reason for why marriage shouldn't be legalised. Almost everything that he has stated is irrelevant to the proposition, and anything that he's stated that is relevant is trivial or easily disregarded. As I've repeatedly said, that's enough for me to state the same-sex marriage should be legal. But I've also given reasons for why it should be legalised. The last of which I will simply state now. Legalising gay marriage will make a lot of people in a much maligned minority group (along with their families and those who support them) very happy. How often do we get the opportunity to make people happy whilst barely affecting anyone else in the community? Not nearly enough.
Aside from removing (unfair) discrimination, allowing gay marriages would also have positive impacts on the economy. Numerous studies have been undertaken to estimate the amount of money that could enter the economy if same-sex marriages were to be legalised. A study conducted in Washington State estimated that up to $57.0 million USD would flow into the state and local economy in the first year if same-sex marriage were made legal (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/w ... -20121.pdf). this figure did not include any money coming in from out-of-state couples travelling to Washington to get married. The impact in Massachussets was estimated to be up to $111.0 million over a three year period (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/w ... e-2008.pdf).The impact in New Jersey was estimated at up to $102.5 million a year (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/w ... c-2006.pdf). Forbes Magazine estimated in 2009 that the windfall from legalising same-sex marriage across the United States could be close to $10.0 billion! (http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/15/same-s ... dfall.html). More money being spent means more jobs. More money being spent means more tax dollars going to the Government and that means that the Government can use this extra money in areas of health, education and welfare. By not allowing same-sex marriage, govermnents worldwide are depriving local economies from much needed funds and themselves from much needed tax dollars.
Thankfully, Lion has been kind enough to do a lot of the work for me in arguing for same-sex marriage to be legalised. The statistical evidence that he has presented, regardless of its extremely dubious source, falls into two categories - irrelevant or supportive of same-sex marriage marriage. The most damning of which being the chart which shows that intimate partner violence reduces in married couples. This is reason to allow same-sex marriage, not deny it. The other charts only serve to present factors which are not legal requirements of marriage.
Despite his obvious adoration of the institution of marriage, Lion appears to display a woeful lack of knowledge of what is required to get married. It's simple, one participant must be a man and the other a woman (aside from in those jurisdictions in which gay marriage is already legal). Even if we were to accept Lion's list of ways in which same-sex relationships are "radically different", none of the are a legal requirement of getting married and are therefore irrelevant.
- relationship duration - not a requirement of getting married.
- monogamy v promiscuity - not a requirement of marriage. It is currently perfectly legal for a person to get married and then go around shagging anyone they please.
- relationship commitment - see above.
- number of children being raised - finally we see Lion playing the children card. This is, of course, irrelevant. Having children is not required of opposite sex couples in order to get married. However many same-sex marriages were to occur, the number of children being raised in opposite sex marriage would not diminish. Much the same way as allowing women to vote hasn't reduced the number of men who can vote. And regardless of whether same-sex couples can get married, in many jurisdictions they are already allowed to adopt.
- health risks - not a requirement of marriage. And in the case of female same-sex relationships, one could argue that there are significantly fewer health risks than opposite sex relationships.For example, the CDC reported in 2005 that there were no confirmed cases of female-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in the US database (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/women/res ... ts/wsw.htm). Based on that, surely it should be lesbians that we should be allowing to get married, and not heterosexuals. However, being irrelevant, it doens't matter what the comparative health risks are.
- rates of intimate partner violence - aside from the aforementioned point that allowing same-sex marriage might reduce such behaviour, this is, of course (say it with me, people)...not a requirement of marriage.
If Lion cares about these factors so much, perhaps he should be arguing some kind of test prior to getting married to vet individuals who fail on any of metrics. However, seeing as no such test exists, and one can get married regardless of any of those factors as long as their fun bits are different, none of the factors should prevent same-sex couples from getting married.
I will now try to clarify some things for Lion which I believe he has misunderstood.
“…Lion's post seems to be an agrument [sic] from increased workload. It is almost certainly true that legalising gay marriage will increase the overall workload …”
Thanks.
Increased legal complexity increases litigation.…So fucking what? It is necessarliy [sic] true that workplace saftey [sic] laws vastly increase the workload of companies…
This is not an argument for gay marriage...even with expletives.
I wasn't arguing for gay marriage with this point. I was arguing against your reasoning. If your argument is that same-sex marriage should not be allowed due to increased legal complexity, then you must also not be in favour of a myriad of other laws which have vastly increased legal complexity, despite having very favourable outcomes. An example of which is workplace safety laws, which depsite increasing legal complexity, has lead to a lot less people dying or getting injured in the workplace.
I respect and honor the institution of marriage. If I didn’t think there was anything to respect and honor, I wouldn’t be in this debate. It’s the people who want to change the definition of marriage who have, ironically, mastered the double-think necessary to claim that the institution of marriage is so important to gays that its definition has to be watered down sufficiently to permit SSM........then locked in stone to prevent its further dilution.
But I don't want it to be locked in stone to prevent its further dilution. I've been very clear on this. A line in the sand can be drawn and re-drawn wherever it is appropriate to do so. If other minority groups can similarly argue that there is insufficient reason not to allow them to marry, then they should also have marriage extended to them.
What isn’t long-standing is the notion that marriage is for everyone and anyone, anywhere, anytime for any duration or any imaginable combination of participants or species – at will - regardless of what their fellow members of human society (and their children) think.
I agree with you. which is why I haven't argued for marriage for everyone and anyone, anywhere, anytime etc etc.
There's no reason as to why anyone shouldn't be allowed to state their case for their desired definition of marriage, even if it were people wanting to marry goats. The test should be, as it should be in the case of gay marriage, whether there is good reason not to broaden the laws.
You heard it here first.
Give people the opportunity to argue for inter-species marriage. Now THAT’S Marriage Equality
What's the problem with this? Are you saying that minority groups should not be allowed to argue their case?
Stigma? Says who?
Do you honestly not believe that there is a stigma against homosexuality? The recent spate of suicides in the US by teens who were bullied about their homosexuality would suggest otherwise.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Gets_Better_Project)
Particularly when those who argue against same-sex marriage and call homosexuals abnormal are likely to argue that it will open the door to beastiality (something that Lion has hinted at). This is a deeply offensive proposition...
Hang on! You’re contradicting yourself. You said…
There's no reason as to why anyone shouldn't be allowed to state their case for their desired definition of marriage, even if it were people wanting to marry goats.
No I'm not. People should be able to state their case for their desired definition of marriage, but that's different to allowing them their desired definition of marriage. I don't think people should be able to marry goats and I think that the claim that homosexual marriage will lead to people marrying goats is deeply offensive.
Lion investigated what 'gay' and 'hetero' really mean, whether there is a specturm, [sic] and whether we can classify anyone into any category. I merely wonder whether any of that really matters.
This is a formal debate about whether it “matters” ....and you are still wondering what your position is?
But it doesn't matter. All that matters is the gender of the individuals involved. As it currently stands, a homosexual male and a homosexual female could get married to eachother with no legal barriers to them doing so. What 'gay' is is ireelevant.
Dividing the two groups based on nothing other than the gender of the people involved creates the stigma that there is something unusual or abnormal about gay relationships.
Gender isn’t trivial. Nor is it “just” something in the imagination of opponents of SSM. As a species we proceed by opposite gender mating / sexual selection.
And the species will continue to proceed by opposite gender mating regardless of how many same-sex marriage occur.
It's an argument for everyone.
And anyone
Anywhere.
Anytime.
For any duration.
For any imaginable combination of participants
Then it's a good thing that i haven't argued for marriage equality for all, isn't it?
The rest of Lion's post is a long-winded rant on changing the definition of marriage. Yet definitions are changed all the time in the legal context. If this debate were to be occuring in 1893, i could sit here and argue til I was blue in the face that you have no right to change the definition of a voting citizen. Yet New Zealand changed that definition to include all adult women and the rest of the world has since followed. What harm was caused by that definitional change? Who were the losers? Did it affect the ability of men to continue to vote? Did it diminish the value of a man's vote? No, of course it didn't. Furthermore, it didn't lead to a spate of making it legal for animals to vote, nor was it made legal for babies to vote. Lion says that you can't change the definition of marriage for the same reason that you can't change the definition of 'under-age'. This ignores the fact that the definition of under-age within many contexts has already been changed. The age at which people are allowed to drink, smoke, vote, drive, have sex, hire a car (etc etc) is always changing in different countries and within the different jurisdictions of those countries. These things are not set in stone. Why the heck should marriage be any different?
Lion is yet to provide a good reason for why marriage shouldn't be legalised. Almost everything that he has stated is irrelevant to the proposition, and anything that he's stated that is relevant is trivial or easily disregarded. As I've repeatedly said, that's enough for me to state the same-sex marriage should be legal. But I've also given reasons for why it should be legalised. The last of which I will simply state now. Legalising gay marriage will make a lot of people in a much maligned minority group (along with their families and those who support them) very happy. How often do we get the opportunity to make people happy whilst barely affecting anyone else in the community? Not nearly enough.