Any secular justification for "Defense of Marriage"?

[KitKatMatt]

Or perhaps they can just use what we already have, because no where is it required for married people to have children.

 

[Conscious Z]

I think I have dealt with the infertility argument, since you can't discover you are infertile until you actually try to have children.

Plenty of people try to get married knowing they can't have kids. Maybe it was due to injury, maybe they have tried to have children in the past, or maybe they have already undergone a procedure to produce sterility. Again, why should they be allowed to marry?

As for couples beyond child-bearing age, perhaps this is a historical anomaly that should be ironed out. That said, most people who get married beyond child-bearing age will be getting married for a second time, because a previous partner died or left them, or else would have got married younger but couldn't find the right person. These people still hold to the ideal of marriage.

No they don't. They aren't getting married to have kids. Your own definition of marriage specified that its purpose was to produce and raise children, not merely serve as some reward for people who have the right beliefs.

Regarding people who don't want children, I wonder how many of these actually get married in our modern society. And why they choose to. In places where sex outside marriage is frowned upon, the desire to have children also seems very strong.

It doesn't matter how many there are. If you are committed to claiming that marriage only makes sense in the context of having and raising kids, you must also be committed to claiming that these people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

No, it doesn't suck, it's just that you don't like its conclusion. It's actually a pretty solid argument.

But it does suck. It makes the claim that marriage exists to produce and raise kids, but then it lets all of these other people (mentioned above) in when it is clear that they won't have kids. It keeps all sorts of people out who very well may end up adopting kids or producing kids via surrogacy. It's an arbitrary standard that isn't consistent.

Too many social benefits and rights are bestowed through marriage for it to only be granted to those individuals who will utilize it to have children. Such a system would be rank discrimination against people who do not want to have kids. The government should not be in a position of dangling carrots for child-producing relationships while imposing severe burdens in some cases on other couples because they are incapable of biologically producing children -- whether those couples are gay or straight.

If you took the "conclusions" of your argument seriously, you would support the idea that gay couples who wish to adopt should be allowed to marry, but straight couples who do not want kids should not be allowed to marry. Are you willing to make that concession?

 

[Roonwit]

Actually, I don't think I said that every marriage has to produce children. I said that the reason that marriage exists is for the raising of children. That is what the institution is designed for. By having marriage in our society as a man and a woman for life, it acts as a symbol that we consider that the best way for people to raise children is for the two biological parents to raise the child together. Allowing infertile couples to marry or couples that don't intend to have children doesn't actually damage that symbol, because they are still living in such a way that, if they were to have children, it would be in that context. They are not going to have children with someone else. (And if they do, while it is not actually a crime, it does incur certain legal penalties.)

But changing the law to include homosexual couples within marriage does damage the symbol. The institution that is designed for a couple to raise their own biological children together cannot be used for that purpose, since at most one of the 'parents' can be the biological parent. The symbol that says that we believe the best way for children to be raised is by their two biological parents is now broken.

If society wants to say that we don't consider being raised by our biological parents to be any better than being raised by non-biological parents, then fine, make that change. But let us be explicit that we are changing that understanding, and let's think through the logical implications of that change, which I think most people would reject.

Roonwit

 

[Roonwit]

Or perhaps they can just use what we already have, because no where is it required for married people to have children.

Then the law should also be changed to allow me to marry my sister, or my brother, or both of them, if it is in our economic interests to do so. Otherwise it is discriminatory.

Roonwit

 

[KitKatMatt]

I am down with that. Any consenting adults should be able to enter into any relationship they wish.

 

[Conscious Z]

Actually, I don't think I said that every marriage has to produce children. I said that the reason that marriage exists is for the raising of children. That is what the institution is designed for. By having marriage in our society as a man and a woman for life, it acts as a symbol that we consider that the best way for people to raise children is for the two biological parents to raise the child together. Allowing infertile couples to marry or couples that don't intend to have children doesn't actually damage that symbol, because they are still living in such a way that, if they were to have children, it would be in that context. They are not going to have children with someone else. (And if they do, while it is not actually a crime, it does incur certain legal penalties.)

So, letting infertile couples or elderly couples marry doesn't damage that symbol because, if they were to have children, it would be in the context of two parents raising their biological children? That doesn't make sense, as it is biologically impossible for infertile couples and elderly couples to have children. In fact it's just as impossible for them to have their own biological children as it is for gay couples to have biological children.

And are you seriously claiming that this whole issue of gay marriage is being resisted on the grounds that we should use marriage as a statement about kids being raised with their biological parents? Almost 50% of marriages end in divorce, and there are literally millions of children being raised in a step-parent household, yet that 3-5% of the population that is gay can't get married, otherwise society might get the wrong idea about how kids should be raised. That's beyond silly. Gay couples are just as capable at raising adopted or surrogate kids as sterile straight couples, and they are more capable of having children with a biological connection to them than elderly couples.

But changing the law to include homosexual couples within marriage does damage the symbol. The institution that is designed for a couple to raise their own biological children together cannot be used for that purpose, since at most one of the 'parents' can be the biological parent. The symbol that says that we believe the best way for children to be raised is by their two biological parents is now broken.

Again, that's also true for sterile straight couples. Why doesn't their marriage "damage the symbol?"

If society wants to say that we don't consider being raised by our biological parents to be any better than being raised by non-biological parents, then fine, make that change.

It isn't as though gay couples are stealing children from homes in which the kids would otherwise be raised by their biological parents. If they are adopting, do you really believe that a gay couple adopting a child makes that child worse off than he or she would be in a foster system? Of course not. If they are going the surrogate route, there will be a biological connection, and there's no evidence that children raised in such an environment suffer.

Your entire argument is inconsistent, and the idea that we should withhold marriage from an entire group of people so we can send some signal to society through a symbol is a joke, particularly when heterosexual marriages are no more successful in maintaining the "family unit" than they are.

Just say it: You don't like gay marriage, and you can't provide a single good secular reason to defend that view.

 

[Conscious Z]

Then the law should also be changed to allow me to marry my sister, or my brother, or both of them, if it is in our economic interests to do so. Otherwise it is discriminatory.

Roonwit

If you or your sister or brother were sterile, then absolutely. Three people complicates things because there are a lot of financial incentives that go along with marriage, and letting two people benefit from being married to you is a significant economic change. If you could designate one person to get your social security and all of the financial benefits, but the other people received the more tertiary benefits, I'd be for it. Morally, I don't see a problem with you marrying fifteen people if you see fit.

 

[Roonwit]

Just say it: You don't like gay marriage, and you can't provide a single good secular reason to defend that view.

No, I don't like gay marriage. And I think there are very good reasons not to like it. These include the secular arguments that I limited myself to here, though there are perfectly good non-secular arguments that also deserve to be heard in the public arena. I would recommend that other people not like it either.

My voice is just as valid as yours. My arguments deserve just as much a hearing as yours. They aren't bad arguments or inconsistent arguments just because you disagree with their conclusions.

In the secular arena, the people as a whole need to decide which route to take. It seems pretty likely that they are going to go in the direction you want rather than the direction I want. That's democracy (of a sort). But I think that is the wrong decision to make, and I think most people have not thought through the implications of the decision they are taking. And I think that taking decisions without thinking through the implications is very unwise.

You point to inconsistencies in the current practice of marriage as evidence that SSM should be legalised. I would see them the other way - I think we should take marriage more seriously. I think people who promise to love someone for life should be expected to honour that promise, not to break it if it becomes inconvenient. I think people who promise to be faithful should be expected to be so, and not excused for it. I think we should discourage people from having sex outside marriage. I think we should be doing everything we can to ensure that every child is raised by a married mother and father if at all possible, and by their biological mother and father as far as that is possible. I think there are excellent secular reasons for all of these positions, though my reasons for holding them are not purely secular, and neither do I see any reason why they ought to be.

Sadly, in our Western societies, there seems very little chance of any of these things happening. Our nations will, in all probability, continue to screw themselves up by justifying things that should not be justified, and trying to force-fit new things into old models that won't support them.

If our nations have any interest in making wise decisions, I will be delighted to help them find it. That they don't appear to have any such interest saddens me greatly, but it won't make me give up hoping and working and challenging them to do so.

Roonwit

 

[Roonwit]

If you or your sister or brother were sterile, then absolutely. Three people complicates things because there are a lot of financial incentives that go along with marriage, and letting two people benefit from being married to you is a significant economic change. If you could designate one person to get your social security and all of the financial benefits, but the other people received the more tertiary benefits, I'd be for it. Morally, I don't see a problem with you marrying fifteen people if you see fit.

Why should their sterility be an issue? It's a purely economic arrangement.

Rather than complicate things by letting more and more people get married, why not simplify them by removing the financial instruments altogether. Treat everyone the same. Otherwise it's discriminatory against people who don't want to get married, or who want to be married but can't find anyone to marry.

If this broader view is the view of SSM proponents they should be open and explicit about it, not try to limit discussion only to SSM. Because I suspect there are a lot of people who don't really agree with SSM but don't feel bothered about it enough to make a fuss. But if they realised the implications of what they were tacitly supporting, they might be more vocal in their opposition.

You can't have any objection to people having all the facts in order to make a more informed decision, I assume?

Roonwit

 

[KitKatMatt]

These include the secular arguments that I limited myself to here, though there are perfectly good non-secular arguments

They WOULD be perfectly good if:

1) Heterosexuals were currently denied marriage because they were sterile.

2) Heterosexuals were currently denied marriage if they were above childbearing age.

3) Heterosexuals were currently denied marriage if they did not want to have children.

4) Heterosexuals that were sterile/above childbearing age/did not want to have biological children but wanted to adopt were currently denied marriage because of this weird "biological > non-biological" debate that I still don't understand.

 

[Conscious Z]

My voice is just as valid as yours. My arguments deserve just as much a hearing as yours. They aren't bad arguments or inconsistent arguments just because you disagree with their conclusions.

No, they are bad and inconsistent because they are....well....inconsistent. They posit arbitrary standards and utilize selective enforcement. Your whole argument is a post-hoc attempt at justifying a belief that you hold independent of any argument.

I think people who promise to love someone for life should be expected to honour that promise, not to break it if it becomes inconvenient. I think people who promise to be faithful should be expected to be so, and not excused for it. I think we should discourage people from having sex outside marriage. I think we should be doing everything we can to ensure that every child is raised by a married mother and father if at all possible, and by their biological mother and father as far as that is possible.

I think the government should generally stay out of people's sex lives, and that a biological connection to the parents is of less consequence than the quality of parenting. Divorce can be a great thing for some people, and ending up miserable in a marriage is no happy life for either party.

I would encourage you to see the positive. First, divorce has been on the decline for 35 years. People are far less likely to get divorced today than they were in the past. The world today is one that welcomes a greater variety of people into its arms than ever before. There is less violent crime than in the past. There is greater access to education than in the past. The world is genuinely becoming a better, more moral place to be.

 

[Conscious Z]

Why should their sterility be an issue? It's a purely economic arrangement.

Rather than complicate things by letting more and more people get married, why not simplify them by removing the financial instruments altogether. Treat everyone the same. Otherwise it's discriminatory against people who don't want to get married, or who want to be married but can't find anyone to marry.

If this broader view is the view of SSM proponents they should be open and explicit about it, not try to limit discussion only to SSM. Because I suspect there are a lot of people who don't really agree with SSM but don't feel bothered about it enough to make a fuss. But if they realised the implications of what they were tacitly supporting, they might be more vocal in their opposition.

You can't have any objection to people having all the facts in order to make a more informed decision, I assume?

Roonwit

You keep returning to the question of what further social change proponents of SSM would like to see, but those issues are irrelevant to SSM. It is possible they are right about SSM but wrong about the next thing. Furthermore, there is not some singular group of people who are "SSM proponents." Some agree with plural marriage and some don't. Either way, society should make its decision on SSM based on the merits of SSM alone.

 

[Roonwit]

No, they are bad and inconsistent because they are....well....inconsistent. They posit arbitrary standards and utilize selective enforcement. Your whole argument is a post-hoc attempt at justifying a belief that you hold independent of any argument.

I think the same could be said of your arguments. You are trying to justify SSM without having people think through the implications of the changes. You make your arguments because you want gay marriage to be legalised, and you refuse to see any arguments to the contrary.

I think the government should generally stay out of people's sex lives, and that a biological connection to the parents is of less consequence than the quality of parenting. Divorce can be a great thing for some people, and ending up miserable in a marriage is no happy life for either party.

Sex is a very powerful force and needs to be regulated. the failure to do so is responsible for many problems, including broken homes and the consequences that come from those.

I would encourage you to see the positive. First, divorce has been on the decline for 35 years. People are far less likely to get divorced today than they were in the past. The world today is one that welcomes a greater variety of people into its arms than ever before. There is less violent crime than in the past. There is greater access to education than in the past. The world is genuinely becoming a better, more moral place to be.

The absolute number of divorces may be in decline, if the number of marriages is in decline, but I don't think the divorce rate has been in decline for 35 years. There are also many problems that arise from broken homes, or homes that were never made in the first place, because of attitudes to sex. Of course, there were always problems; I'm not harking back to some golden age when everything was perfect. But I don't think becoming more casual about sex has made things better.

There are some things in the world that are getting better, or at least, in our part of the world, which are mainly due to rising prosperity. I don't think we are particularly becoming more moral, and I think much of our prosperity has come from our exploitation of other parts of the world, to which we export the problems of poverty.

Roonwit

 

[Roonwit]

You keep returning to the question of what further social change proponents of SSM would like to see, but those issues are irrelevant to SSM. It is possible they are right about SSM but wrong about the next thing. Furthermore, there is not some singular group of people who are "SSM proponents." Some agree with plural marriage and some don't. Either way, society should make its decision on SSM based on the merits of SSM alone.

But they're not separate issues; they are interrelated. So they need to be dealt with as a group.

Roonwit

 

[Conscious Z]

I think the same could be said of your arguments. You are trying to justify SSM without having people think through the implications of the changes.

I haven't put forth a single argument to justify SSM. I've merely refuted your arguments against it. I've also never advocated that people not think through the implications of the changes.

You make your arguments because you want gay marriage to be legalised, and you refuse to see any arguments to the contrary.

There simply are no good arguments to the contrary....as evidenced by this thread.

The absolute number of divorces may be in decline, if the number of marriages is in decline, but I don't think the divorce rate has been in decline for 35 years.

No, the actual divorce RATE is in decline: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/u...orce-rate-is-falling.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

There are also many problems that arise from broken homes, or homes that were never made in the first place, because of attitudes to sex. Of course, there were always problems; I'm not harking back to some golden age when everything was perfect. But I don't think becoming more casual about sex has made things better.

I agree that problems arise due to broken homes, but the government does not need to be in the business of legislating who can have sex and when he or she can do it.

 

[Roonwit]

I haven't put forth a single argument to justify SSM. I've merely refuted your arguments against it. I've also never advocated that people not think through the implications of the changes.

Implicitly you have been making arguments, as have others. But in fact, if you haven't been making arguments then that makes your position even weaker. Maybe we should have a thread "Any good arguments for SSM?" and we can sit on the side and snipe at you

[quoteThere simply are no good arguments to the contrary....as evidenced by this thread.[/quote]
I shall leave impartial readers of this thread to judge that for themselves.

No, the actual divorce RATE is in decline: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/u...orce-rate-is-falling.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=1

Interesting. I don't think that has been the case in the UK, though.

I agree that problems arise due to broken homes, but the government does not need to be in the business of legislating who can have sex and when he or she can do it.

I didn't actually say 'legislating', I said 'encouraging'. And the government does that a lot. As it should. Encouraging is better than legislating.

I think we've probably exhausted the things we have to say to each other on this topic. Thanks for the discussion, it's been useful for me to articulate the arguments that had been forming in my head but not made explicit previously. And now I can go and hone them a bit better for the next time they are needed.

Roonwit

 

[trunks2k]

Interesting. I don't think that has been the case in the UK, though.

On a number of divorces per thousand married, it seems to have peaked in 1994 with 14.2, and has had a downward trend to modern day. The most recent data I could find goes to 2012, which had 10.8. The median duration of a marriage has also had a slight upward trend with a low of 8.5 years in 1985 to 11.6 in 2005 and has held steady - fluctuated a tenth either way since then.
Divorce rates data, 1858 to now: how has it changed? | News | theguardian.com

Graph on page 3 of this report http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_351693.pdf

ETA: If I read that report correctly, it's also saying:

- People married in the mid 70s to the mid 90s are more likely to get divorced than people married from 2000 on and there's evidence that the likelihood of divorce falls which each subsequent year a person gets married (i.e. someone married in 2000 is more likely to get divorced than someone married in 2005).
- The accepted divorce rate in 2011 was 42%, based on the data gathered in the report, they expect 60% of marriages to last at least 20 years. That includes marriages ending due to death, and divorce after 20 years of marriage is very unlikely.

 

[Roonwit]

Thanks. Yeah, that matches what I thought in terms of timescale, but how are the numbers working out? I'm pretty sure the divorce rate got close to 50% at one point.

Edit: Ah, those numbers are the number of divorces per 1000 married people in any given year, so the statistic that nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce can still be correct.

Roonwit

 

[Roonwit]

Just a little more to add. I was thinking further about the inconsistency, within my argument, of allowing infertile and older couples to marry. I realised that this issue is a red herring, and I want to try to explain why.

First, that the existence of marriage in the form we have it is primarily to provide a context for reproduction I think can readily be seen from the structure that it has, as well as considering its probable evolutionary history, as I already explored in my post #108, and won't waste space by repeating here.

Second, that there are some relationships currently permitted within the scope of marriage that do not lead to reproduction is not particularly an embarrassment to this case, and certainly does not give ground to expand the scope of marriage to other relationships that also don't lead to reproduction, for the reasons I shall explore below.

1) Traditional Marriage has never been codified, but is handed down to us in common law. This is the case with many ancient traditions that have passed into our modern law, and the English-speaking world operates with a common law system that accepts this (and the discussion in this thread has been primarily about US law). It does not mean that the system that was handed down has to be entirely consistent with the definition that may be implicit from its form. It is only if we are making a change to the system that we need to work through a self-consistent system, within our current jurisdictions. If we decided to change the system to exclude some forms of marriage that were previously permitted, then we need to explain carefully why - so a case could perhaps be made for excluding infertile and elderly couples from marriage on the basis of the implied common law definition of marriage. Alternatively, we could make a case for including other relationships that are currently excluded, by changing the definition of marriage. But maintaining the status quo does not need to be defended within the common law system; it is changes to the law that need to be explained and made self-consistent.

2) The potentially inconsistent relationships that are currently included within marriage differ from the ideal as a matter of degree rather than being different in kind. This is not the case with the relationships that SSM advocates are seeking to bring in.
To a first approximation, what is required to make a baby? Answer: a sexually mature man and woman having sex. Therefore, to a first approximation, the people that should be included within the remit of marriage are any sexually mature man with any sexually mature woman. That is pretty much the boundaries for marriage, with a few exclusions that can be justified in statute law (close relatives, mentally incompetent people, children under the age of 16/18 depending on jurisdiction).
Infertility in most cases is a matter of probability, not of an absolute. It is not so much that it is completely impossible for the couple to have a baby, just that it is very unlikely. In some cases, injury or surgical procedure may make that probability actually zero. However, where should the cut-off point be? The couple fit the basic entry requirement of being a sexually mature man and woman. Should they be excluded if their chance of having a baby is less than 50%? 25%? 10%? 1%? 0.01%? Wherever you draw the line, it is rather arbitrary. Also, medical advances may mean that these probabilities change over time.
Similarly, with elderly couples, where should the cut-off be? Should we set an age limit? Or should we set a time period after the woman's last period? If an age limit, that ignores the fact that the menopause can come at quite different ages in different women. If a time period, that depends on all women keeping a record of this information, and being truthful about it. In both cases, it also ignores the fact that medical technology is pushing back the boundaries of when people can have children. And any cut-off point would again be arbitrary.
Also, with couples who don't intend to have children, this is also a matter of degree. What if a couple is 90% sure they want children - is that good enough? What if they are 50-50? What if they are 90% sure they don't want children? What if they start out 100% sure they want children but later change their minds? What if they start out 100% sure they don't want children but later change their minds? Any cut-off point will be arbitrary.
However, all these couples fulfill the basic eligibility requirements of being a sexually mature man and woman. There could be grounds for amending the law to exclude some of them, but there is no need to do so. The basic definition of marriage is not affected by their inclusion, since we understand that babies come from a sexually mature man and woman having sex. The difference between these couples and those who will actually have babies within their marriages is one of degree not of kind.

However, permitting two men or two women to marry is a difference of kind, not of degree. These couples do not fulfill the most basic eligibility requirement for being able to produce a baby. The definition of marriage will have to be changed if their relationships are to be recognised as marriage. If the definition is to be changed, the form of marriage should also be altered in order to reflect and be consistent with the new definition.

In a secular society, there is no absolute bar to making such a change. However, enacting a change by statute requires the issue to be thought through, and a consistent definition to be used, considering all the relationships that should be included under the new definition, and creating a form of marriage that is consistent with the definition. The current form of marriage is not suited for a definition of marriage that is not primarily about reproduction. In a democracy, the people should also be fully informed about the nature and implication of the changes, which profoundly affect society's structure as well as the way we think about ourselves, and asked to approve those changes.

The exact form in which that approval will be given will vary from country to country and is a constitutional matter. However, in any democracy the people should be made aware of the changes in definition that are occurring. There are at least two major changes in definition that are being made, as I outlined previously. One is that marriage is being defined not about providing a context for the rearing of children but about the love between the two (or more) partners involved. The second is that it is no longer being regarded as normative that a child should be raised by their two biological parents, but can be raised just as well by any two (or other number) of competent adults. These points should be made very clear and careful public consultation should be undertaken to ensure that the public is aware of the nature of the changes and approves of them. As far as I have seen, such an open and frank consultation has not taken place in any of the countries that have been considering introducing SSM. Consequently, the laws that have been passed or are being proposed to be passed are messy and inconsistent and open to future challenge in the courts.

Roonwit

 

[trunks2k]

Thanks. Yeah, that matches what I thought in terms of timescale, but how are the numbers working out? I'm pretty sure the divorce rate got close to 50% at one point.

Edit: Ah, those numbers are the number of divorces per 1000 married people in any given year, so the statistic that nearly 50% of marriages end in divorce can still be correct.

Roonwit

That number is still skewed either way. Even when the divorce rate was roughly 50%, it still didn't mean that any given marriage had a 50% chance of ending in divorce.

People who have divorced before are much more likely to get divorced again. So people who marry multiple times skew the number. Even when the official divorce rate was around 50%, if you were getting married for the first time, your divorce rate was, IIRC, below 40%.

It's a hard number to calculate because it's hard to collect the necessary data. But the data we do have shows that for a while now marriages are lasting longer and are increasingly less likely to end in divorce. It is likely due to the following:

- We've long overcome the social stigma of divorce. So we've overcome the backlog of people who were in bad marriages and holding off divorce because of it. That backlog temporarily spiked the divorce rate.
- Couples are dating longer and much more likely to co-habitate for a good period before marriage. So if they do marry, they are much more certain that the marriage will work.
- Less pressure to marry to begin with. Couples don't feel like they HAVE to marry. If a couple is not opting to marry, it's more likely that they would have divorced if they had married (which they would have been more likely to do in the past).