Redstate

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

"Marriage and the family is not something that is constructed by the state"

This isn't really true, though. I mean, "family" can be construed to have a purely biological origin, but ultimately the state *does* decide/define what constitutes a family *for the sake of law.* Likewise for "marriage," which many want to construe as a strictly religious construct -- but which is historically about a contract and property, making it a legal construct. And that's really what we're talking about here: what constitutes a "marriage" and a "family" *in the eyes of the law.*

"it is a pre-existing societal institution that has been the building block of civilization for thousands of years"

Again, this isn't really true. Pre-existing to what, exactly? Before there was a context within which to discuss contracts/agreements, ownership, etc (i.e., a "society"), what meaning could "marriage" possibly have? What is a "societal institution" divorced from the law (of whatever primitive form)? Also please realize that "one man, one woman" marriage is a relatively recent development in the history of civilization. To call it a "building block" of civilization without recognizing that this "building block" was initially (and for the majority of its existence) a case of men owning women as property -- and having many, many wives, all at once -- is being disingenuous.

"I feel like marriage is a societal institution that needs to be protected."

OK, fair enough, but could you tell us what, exactly, marriage needs to be protected from? How is it in danger? What are the root causes of this endangerment? What would be the negative consequences of the disappearance of marriage as an "institution" in society? What are the odds that these negative consequences will necessarily follow from same-sex marriage? What benefits (if any) of allowing same-sex marriage may arise to offset any negative repercussions of same?

This isn't a simple or straight forward issue, and hence knee-jerk reactions are not adequate in addressing it (not that your reaction is knee-jerk, but many opposers, unfortunately, can't be bothered to formulate a more thoughtful and complete answer).

The implication of your comment seems to be that the only reason homosexuals want to get married is so they can have "legal sex" (or something like that -- I'm not exactly clear about what point you're trying to make here).

Also, please realize that "cruising for sex" in public is *not* illegal, for homosexuals or heterosexuals (or bisexuals, etc). And further, heterosexuals participate in "anonymous couplings" every bit as much as homosexuals (by the numbers, quite a bit more frequently, in fact, since there are so many more heterosexual people that there are homosexual people). This seems to be a universal *human* phenomenon, and as such it has nothing to do with the ability to get married, whether to same-sex or not ...

1) No, that's not what I said. I was responding to the original poster, who implied a direct link between marriage and legal sex. In fact, I said that there is NO link between that...homosexuals can have sex with one another with or without marriage. He said that legalizing homosexual marriage would somehow reduce illegal public cruising/sex acts, and my response is "there's NO reason to do it ILLEGALLY because it can readily be done LEGALLY." All they have to do is keep their pants up in public.

2) If you read my comment, you will note that I already alluded to that: "As is demonstrated by the plentiful examples of sex out of wedlock between heterosexuals,". "Cruising FOR sex" is not illegal, as witnessed by the amount of activity that takes place in bars, etc. BUT engaging in public sex acts IS illegal, and that particular situation seems to be much more common in homosexual circles than hetero.

Homosexuals don't cruise AND engage in public sex acts because they can't get married. They apparently do it because that's part of "gay culture" and because a high percentage (of homosexual men, at least) are sex addicts. And by the way, the term "cruising" apparently means a different thing in homosexual circles than you are implying - "cruising" includes the public sex act, not just "hitting on" one another. I've seldom heard of a guy hitting on a girl in a bar, followed by them both stripping and engaging in "the act" right there in front of everyone...or even retreating to a bathroom. They generally find some suitable, mutual location that's NOT in public (not universal, of course...there are heterosexual couples arrested for lewd acts in public).

Um, yes. I agree with your statement #1. That's what I was getting at, myself ...

"engaging in public sex acts IS illegal"

Yes, as it should be. I don't know about you, but I've only ever seen something like this once, and that was in New Orleans during Mardi Gras (and therefore not exactly representative of "mainstream" or "common" practices. So it's not like it's going on all over the place.

"They apparently do it because that's part of 'gay culture'"

I'm not sure about the prevalence of this myself, but assuming it's relatively accurate, it's worth asking "why" it is a part of gay culture. Is it simply that whatever makes people homosexual has, as a "side effect," the tendency to also make those people have public sex (or want to "cruise" or whatever)? Or is this a result of a history of hiding one's sexuality? Or the result of a history of being socially rejected, abused, ostracized, etc? Or maybe it's a result of extremely low self-esteem, brought on by all of the above? Whatever the case, I don't think it's safe to make these sorts of assumptions about people (not safe in the sense that these assumptions will be, more often than not, wrong).

"a high percentage (of homosexual men, at least) are sex addicts" and "the term 'cruising' apparently means a different thing in homosexual circles than you are implying" and "followed by them both stripping and engaging in 'the act' right there in front of everyone"

That may be your perception (and the perception of many, if not most, others), but it doesn't appear to be the reality. To know how many (%) of *all* people are sex addicts, those people would need to honestly report them selves, and that doesn't happen. I'd love to see some peer-reviewed research indicating otherwise. But it seems safer to assume that the percentages are equal in the two populations (home- and heterosexual). And even if this proves to be true, again, we need ask "why" this is the case. Similar reasons as above could apply here, too.

I'm not trying to say that you are wrong. But I am a skeptic, and think that further questioning could prove to be useful on this issue. In general, greater understanding is *never* a bad thing.

I'm not sure about the prevalence of this myself, but assuming it's relatively accurate, it's worth asking "why" it is a part of gay culture. Is it simply that whatever makes people homosexual has, as a "side effect," the tendency to also make those people have public sex (or want to "cruise" or whatever)? Or is this a result of a history of hiding one's sexuality? Or the result of a history of being socially rejected, abused, ostracized, etc? Or maybe it's a result of extremely low self-esteem, brought on by all of the above?

That's because two men are involved. If heterosexual men could score anonymous sex anywhere at any time with minimal effort, there would be a line around the block, too. Most women aren't so accommodating, though.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"That's because two men are involved. If heterosexual men could score anonymous sex anywhere at any time with minimal effort, there would be a line around the block, too."

Homosexuals come in both flavors: male and female. Same-sex marriages are desired by both flavors.

While this sounds plausible, reflecting as it does our cultural assumption that "Men are dogs," I doubt seriously if this is the case for all gay men, or even for most gay men. And as noted above, even that only accounts for roughly half of all homosexuals anyway.

So, this is sort of "funny," in a way, and anecdotally plausible; but isn't, ultimately, satisfying as "The Answer." I think many (most?) gay men would disagree with you on this, insofar as they would claim that they, too, want committed, monogamous, and loving relationships, even without the "pressure" towards this applied by women in straight relationships. I.e., all gay men are *not* "sex addicts" or "dogs" etc.

The police don't have to conduct sting operations in women's restrooms because of all the women cruising for sex there, do they? This is a male vs female thing, not a homosexual vs heterosexual thing.

In any case, this has absolutely nothing to do with SSM, so I'm not sure why you'd want to connect the two. As if the alternative to government recognized marriage is to hang out in a public restroom looking for a good time. The real alternative to government recognized marriage is living together as a couple, which those homosexuals who are so inclined are doing right now.

I think many (most?) gay men would disagree with you on this, insofar as they would claim that they, too, want committed, monogamous, and loving relationships

And what would it matter anyway? They are free to participate in committed, monogamous, and loving relationships if they wish. Most choose not to. Men aren't exactly wired from birth towards committed relationships. Men and women are different.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"This is a male vs female thing, not a homosexual vs heterosexual thing."

You may be right. Or not. I would not assume this to be the case without proof, obviously. But the immediate question that then comes to mind is, how does this bear on the concept/institution of marriage? It could be taken as a reason to abandon it altogether ...

"Most choose not to. Men aren't exactly wired from birth towards committed relationships."

I guess this is where we disagree. I would say most gay men would choose this if they perceived it as a legitimate option. Lots of straight men choose it, too, although I suspect that you have a theory about that as well :)

As for men being wired to avoid committed relationships, I would say that *maybe* this is true for some portion of men generally, but that it certainly isn't true for all men, or all gay men, or all straight men. And I've known a few women that act like this, too, so it's not even an exclusively male behavior. Maybe a larger point I'm trying to make here is that we shouldn't base public policy (marriage restrictions, etc) on shaky generalizations or on characterizations of groups of people that almost certainly are not 100% true for even a small portion of the group at large, and which are almost certainly 100% *un*true for at least a small portion of the same group (and for potentially a *not* small portion of same).

You may be right. Or not. I would not assume this to be the case without proof, obviously.

Public restroom stings and other enforcement activity are commonplace in mens restrooms. They are unheard of in women's restrooms. Or you can just go to Craigslist and see how many M-M sex ads there are versus F-F sex ads. I bet you the ratio is at least 25:1. In fact, I'd bet the M-M ads even outnumber the M-F ads.

But the immediate question that then comes to mind is, how does this bear on the concept/institution of marriage?

It doesn't. You are the one claiming there's a connection between illegal public sex and SSM, not me. Maybe you should ask yourself that question.

I would say most gay men would choose this if they perceived it as a legitimate option.

Oh really, based on what? Where's the proof of this? How is this not a "shaky generalization or characterization of groups of people?" This statement also doesn't jive with the real world, where it is a perfectly legitimate option to have a marriage-like relationship with someone without having the piece of paper. You can live together, commingle assets, and have a private commitment or marriage ceremony. The only thing you can't do is get government recognition and the benefits that go along with that.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"You are the one claiming there's a connection between illegal public sex and SSM, not me."

No, no, no! I am saying exactly the opposite! Where did I claim this? I think maybe you misunderstood me, or thought someone else's comments were mine ...

"Oh really, based on what?"

Knowing a few and listening to their thoughts on the matter. Personal experience. A job that requires me to interact with people on this issue, and discuss it with a variety of people with varied backgrounds and attitudes towards the issue.

"How is this not a "shaky generalization or characterization of groups of people?""

Because it recognizes the reality that there are many, many reasons/combinations of reasons why people couple up, stay single, have sex, develop relationships, etc, etc. I said, "I would say ..." not "This is how it is." I make no claim to have irrefutable proof or evidence of any of this, merely pointing out that *no one does,* *no matter where they stand* on the issue, and that without such evidence it is unwise to make assumptions and base public policy on those assumptions. It is also presumptuous to assume that such "simple" explanations are "true" and "explain it all." Flat, blanket generalizations like "all men are wired to avoid committed relationships" and "women don't act this way" fail to capture the complexity of the "real world" and, further, encourage people who would want to think that "reality" is based on other, similar generalizations (like "Gay people don't *want* to get married" or "Homosexuals are incapable of commitment" or even more generally, "All poor people are lazy" or "All Democrats are Communists"), which does us all a disservice by failing to adequately explain and help to understand the underlying issues and *the people involved and affected* in all of their variety.

I said more than once, "You may be right." And you may be -- I'm not trying to "prove you wrong." I agree with 90% of what you've said so far, although I see now that you weren't reading me that way. But I also said that I thought it was too easy to just write all of this off as, "That's just the way men are" etc. This is an important issue that deserves a deeper conversation, IMHO.

"'Anonymous couplings' of homosexuals has nothing to do with the fact that they can't get married."

It's one thing to say, "The inability to get married causes anonymous couplings." I don't believe this is accurate anymore than you do. But another possibility (among many) is that, maybe, they are both effects with a common cause, i.e., some single set of factors leads to both: 1. a higher incidence of "anonymous couplings," and 2. prohibitions against (their kind of) marriage ... The coincidence of phenomena does not necessitate or require a causal connection between the phenomena; nor does it require a common cause for the phenomena. Both are possibilities, but neither appears logically to be more likely.

Some people argue that same-sex marriage is unnecessary because "gays don't want to get married anyway -- they just want to screw around." Other people argue that the incidence of "undesirable" or "immoral" sexual behavior (screwing around) would be decreased if same-sex marriages were allowed. I guess I'm trying to fit this conversation into that larger context ...

Zuiko, you write:

"It costs more because you are expanding the pool. Seems pretty obvious to me. For example, if you were to expand Medicare eligibility to anyone aged 50 and older, it will cost more... even though you would be providing the same benefits as you are to current users. That money comes from somewhere. Why should single people be forced to subsidize gay relationships? If a homosexual couple wants to live together, fine. Just don't ask me to pick up the tab."

It may seem obvious, but it's not true.

In 2004 the Congressional Budget Office produced a study that showed that the approval of same-sex marriage in all 50 states "would *improve* [emphasis mine] the budget’s bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years (CBO’s usual estimating period). (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/55xx/doc5559/06-21-SameSexMarriage.pdf)

They took into account both increase and decreases in tax revenues and increases and decreases in expenditures.

Given your citation of Medicaid, you might pay special attention to the report's description of eligibility requirements, with attendant likelihood that same-sex marriage will make fewer people eligible.

If you actually read the document instead of cutting and pasting the link from dkos, you will see that this analysis is based on the marriage penalty coming back. That isn't going to happen. Not even the Democrats want to bring the marriage penalty back. As a result, this document and the conclusions contained within are completely meaningless.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

"Completely meaningless", no. Subject to adjustment, yes.

More to the point, how is your original comment about eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid affected by this change?

The CBO letter estimates that married same-sex couples will be less likely to be eligible for some programs because their combined incomes will exceed the minimum. (Granted, there will also be deceases in revenue because some couples may be able to shield assets should one member be in a nursing home.)

According to what I see here, the aggregate change will likely be a wash.

I'd welcome a new CBO opinion. At the very least, I'm still of the opinion that your certainty about increased costs is unwarranted.

(And the link didn't come from Daily Kos. I've had it in my favorites since it was released.)

It costs more because you are expanding the pool.

The pool of what? If being married costs the taxpayer, we should have gone bankrupt long ago.
______________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

The major source of cost is through the income and inheritance taxes... though there are other sources. If everybody filed using the married tables, we would be talking about across the board tax hikes right now to make up the difference. Single people subsidize married couples under the current tax code.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I'm certainly not opposed to seeing the government collect less revenue. You scenario is observant, but taken as just one (small) element of the overall revenue/tax picture there's really no reason that SSM would necessitate a tax hike.

Particularly if the next group of (R)'s that manage to take over Congress grow themselves some fiscal discipline and focus on actually cutting spending on their turn in the lead.

But expanding the group that gets unfair advantages to include another group does not do a thing to make the system any more fair.

I'm for the government confiscating less revenue, but any cuts need to be fair and across the board... not "targeted tax cuts" for government approved behavior like the Democrats approve of. SSM recognized at the Federal level would be a tax cut targeted to gay couples only. I have a problem with that.

The right way to fix this is to have everybody pay the single rate on their own income... which could then be cut.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The right way to fix this is to have everybody pay the single rate on their own income... which could then be cut.

No disagreement. I'd be willing to consider alternatives to basing it income of course, but let's apply taxation in the same manner to all persons.

You can't be serious. This is the most "homophobic" argument for gay marriage I've ever heard. Without marriage homosexuals will have no alternative but have sex in public places? Funny, but I can think of plenty of alternatives besides these two types of "relationships."

I realize that putting two words together on this subject makes you a homophobe, but I find it hard to beleive that suggesting that gay marriage would lead to less cruising is a homophobic statement.
_________________________________-
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

I have gay friends and I would never, in a million years, suggest that they must have to cruise public restrooms because they don't have government recognized marriage. Some of them are in committed relationships, some are not. Some are interested in that kind of thing (mostly the women), some are not. The ones who are in committed relationships don't hang out in public restrooms. I got no idea about the others, but it's none of my business, either. There's no connection between the two activities.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman