Gay Marriage

[///M-Spec]

Danoff, when a government is the sole possible provider of a benefit and fails to provide it to a segment of the population, it is for all intents and purposes, on a moralistic level, the same as making it illegal, even if it is not technically on the books.


M

 

[Duke]

^^^^^^
What he said.

Originally posted by milefile
But there is no benefit in legal ownership of a car other than not brealing the law.

But that benefit - being able to actually use the car - is the crux of the biscuit.

With marriage it is different. The only legal aspect is one of various institutional benefits. There is nothing illegal about being gay and saying "I'm in a homosexual marriage". The state's only response can be, "no you're not". But they can't impound your spouse or write a ticket.

What's the point of owning a car you can't drive?

What's the point of being married if you don't derive the legally-defined benefits of marriage?

I didn't say they made homosexuality illegal (though it is, in point of fact, in numerous states). They made homosexual marriage effectively illegal by refusing to grant it legal status.

 

[Danoff]

I get it and I have gotten it since the beginning. I just disagre.

By your rationale, the infinite number of services that the government does not currently offer are illegal. And there is no difference between having a law against a benefit being offered and not having the benefit.

Neither of which makes any sense.

 

[Duke]

No, you're missing my point. My point is not that it is illegal to be gay. It is not that everything NOT supplied by the government is illegal.

My point is that ACCESS to certain benefits - not the provision of those benefits themselves - is restricted by law, based upon sexual orientation. Gay people are restricted in their pursuit of happiness, because the govenrment does not grant them legal status with which they can pursue their own benefits. That effectively makes gay marriage illegal - because without that legal sanction the act of marriage is meaningless for any real purpose.

Look at it this way: forget the car analogy. Let's take the "benefit not offered" analogy one step further.

Lets say that the Government does not grant citizenship to homosexuals. It's just a benefit not offered, right? There's nothing illegal about being homosexual, you're just not a citizen if you're gay. It's a benefit not offered by the government.

How is that different from not acknowledging gay marriage?

 

[ebo#1]

america is going to hell...gay marriage should be and will stay illegal

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by ebo#1
america is going to hell...gay marriage should be and will stay illegal

Care to explain why?

 

[Danoff]

Lets say that the Government does not grant citizenship to homosexuals. It's just a benefit not offered, right? There's nothing illegal about being homosexual, you're just not a citizen if you're gay. It's a benefit not offered by the government.

How is that different from not acknowledging gay marriage?

Citizenship is not really a benefit, it's more of a category... like homosexual. It's a question of nationality... more of a status than a service. Granting citizenship doesn't really qualify as a service either - it's an acknowledgment of status. That's what you're arguing though, that marriage is an acknowledgment of status rather than a benefit.

I would rephrase the hypothetical to say "Let's say that government does not grant social security to homosexuals..."

But let me address my own interpretation of your argument for a second. Is marriage a category, like citizenship, that human beings are entitled to, that the government must recognize?

I'm not sure I've ever asked myself that question before.

By the way, when I claim that human beings are entitled to citizenship I am assuming that they fit the criteria required for citizenship of a country. In order for a government structure to function it has to have citizens to govern.

So... the question is, is marriage a fundamental right that should be recognized by the government? Up until now, I have been assuming that it has not, which gives way to my whole line of reasoning about gay marriage being a benefit that the government does not offer. However, if I were to say that marriage is a fundamental right that the government must acknowledge, I would say that it is the case because of our basic human genetic structure telling us to bond with a person of the opposite sex. Which would leave me opposed to gay marriage altogether.

This is a tough one – lots at stake.

Is marriage a fundamental right that the government should acknowledge?

Can I conceive of a just and good government structure that does not recognize marriage?

Yes, but it requires the existence of co-owned property (perhaps that already exists?). The ability for two people to agree that certain property is legally owned by both of them in equal share. I think that ability exists in our government structure now - if not, somebody please say so. With that ability, and the existence of wills, I would say that I can conceive of a just and good government structure that does not acknowledge marriage.

Which leaves me considering it a benefit, which leaves me considering homosexual marriage to be a benefit that is not currently offered by our government. That being said, I came surprisingly close to being opposed to gay marriage there.

 

[Duke]

But denying the benefit of marriage to homosexual couples is completely different from not providing it to them. How can you fail to acknowledge that?

 

[Klostrophobic]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Care to explain why?

Do you expect a logical explanation from someone with the name ebo#1? I mean, seriously.

His explanation will probably be something like:

"it isnt natural.....there gay and thats not right....a man should be with a woman....eww gross.....homos offend me............fags"

But more stupid.

 

[Danoff]

But denying the benefit of marriage to homosexual couples is completely different from not providing it to them. How can you fail to acknowledge that?

My argument depends on that very distinction.

If there were no difference, my argument would fall apart.

 

[Duke]

...and since homosexual couples are denied legal marriage licenses, it follows that homosexual marriage is illegal.

 

[Danoff]

...and since homosexual couples are denied legal marriage licenses, it follows that homosexual marriage is illegal.

Since I am denied a free helicopter by the government every time I ask, it follows that getting free helicopters from the government is illegal.

Edit: This is a restatement of your own statement, it is not something that I believe.

 

[Duke]

But the homosexual couples are not asking for free marriage licenses. They are asking for the ability to purchase one from the government. The government is not in the business of distributing helicopters of any kind... but they are in the business of selling marriage licenses.

I asked for a free marriage license for my heterosexual marriage, and the clerk charged me $20. That means heterosexual marriages must be illegal, by your assertion.

 

[milefile]

Someone should ask to buy a helicopter from the government, then. See what they say.

 

[Danoff]

I asked for a free marriage license for my heterosexual marriage, and the clerk charged me $20. That means heterosexual marriages must be illegal, by your assertion.

No, it means that free heterosexual marriage licenses are illegal by your assertion.

The benefit that is offered is that for a 20 dollar fee, you can be granted married status and recieve the associated benefits - the proof of which is the marriage license.

A benefit that is not offered is a homosexual marriage for a 20 dollar fee.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by danoff
Since I am denied a free helicopter by the government every time I ask, it follows that getting free helicopters from the government is illegal.

Let's complete this analogy. The government gives free helicopters to everyone except gay people who are domestic partners. NO ONE ELSE can build or distrubute helicopters. There is no other way to obtain a helicopter, free or otherwise, from any entity other than the government. Therefore, gay people who are domestic partners are prevented from owning helicopters by de facto government regulation of the helicopter industry.

Whether or not this is illegal is just hairsplitting that has no bearing on the moralistic aspect of the argument.

Why is this so hard for you to see?


M

 

[milefile]

I want to be examined by a OBGYN. In my opinion this particular doctor is the best doctor I know and I only trust that doctor because preceding her specialty she is a superior internist. But the insurance company won't pay because I am a man. I sue and the courts uphold the insurer's decision.

It is illegal to be a man.


Perhaps the best solution is to remove all the governmental benefits of marriage for everyone.

 

[milefile]

How can something that is never commited be a crime? This is the only instance I can think of where something can be illegal, and yet nobody has yet broken the law, nor do they even have an opportunity to.

If gay marriage is illegal, how can the law be broken? What is the penalty for breaking the law?

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by milefile
I want to be examined by a OBGYN ...<SNIP>.... It is illegal to be a man.

Sorry mile, you're going to have to connect the dots for me. Your counter analogy doesn't add up.

Originally posted by milefile
Perhaps the best solution is to remove all the governmental benefits of marriage for everyone.

Or maybe we should just keep it simple and let gay people get married.


M

 

[Danoff]

Let's complete this analogy. The government gives free helicopters to everyone except gay people who are domestic partners. NO ONE ELSE can build or distrubute helicopters. There is no other way to obtain a helicopter, free or otherwise, from any entity other than the government. Therefore, gay people who are domestic partners are prevented from owning helicopters by de facto government regulation of the helicopter industry.

Whether or not this is illegal is just hairsplitting that has no bearing on the moralistic aspect of the argument.

Why is this so hard for you to see?

This hypothetical misses what I'm talking about very slightly... and I don't think this is hairsplitting, as I wrote earlier, this seemingly small idea has the potential to sway me to the other side of the argument.

Now... to your hypothetical.

This hypothetical relies on the fact that helicopters can currently be obtained without the government. When you say that it is regulation of the helicopter industry, you assume there is an industry there to be regulated.

We could replace helicopters with marriage licenses to see what I'm talking about. You would argue that homosexuals are prevented from owning marriage licenses - which is not actually true (I don't think). Homosexuals can own marriage licenses (as far as I know) they just can't obtain marriage licenses for themselves nor can they receive the benefits that come with obtaining one. So the ownership of the marriage license is moot.

That is why the helicopter analogy doesn't work, because ownership of it is not moot.

Maybe I missed something in your post, but it doesn't add up to the same circumstance to me.

 

[Danoff]

How can something that is never commited be a crime? This is the only instance I can think of where something can be illegal, and yet nobody has yet broken the law, nor do they even have an opportunity to.

Excellent point mile. Thanks for your help, I'm having trouble communicating this particular concept.

Or maybe we should just keep it simple and let gay people get married.

Of course that's an option. We can increase government benefits so that gays can marry.

 

[milefile]

Sorry mile, you're going to have to connect the dots for me. Your counter analogy doesn't add up.

Just because you want something that someone else has and you can't have doesn't mean it's illegal.

No try to answer my questions. Or maybe neon_duke wants to take a crack at them.

"If gay marriage is illegal, how can the law be broken? What is the penalty for breaking the law?"

Why does there need to be any incentive from the government to get married? It seems to me that they are in a business they ought to stay out of.

Western Civilization is based on the rule of law and historical precident. There is no historical precident for gay marriage.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by danoff
This hypothetical misses what I'm talking about very slightly... and I don't think this is hairsplitting, as I wrote earlier, this seemingly small idea has the potential to sway me to the other side of the argument.

Now... to your hypothetical.

This hypothetical relies on the fact that helicopters can currently be obtained without the government. When you say that it is regulation of the helicopter industry, you assume there is an industry there to be regulated.

We could replace helicopters with marriage licenses to see what I'm talking about. You would argue that homosexuals are prevented from owning marriage licenses - which is not actually true (I don't think). Homosexuals can own marriage licenses (as far as I know) they just can't obtain marriage licenses for themselves nor can they receive the benefits that come with obtaining one. So the ownership of the marriage license is moot.

That is why the helicopter analogy doesn't work, because ownership of it is not moot.

Maybe I missed something in your post, but it doesn't add up to the same circumstance to me.

You seem unwilling or unable to separate the physical from the legal.

I brought up this exact same idea with the car title analogy. You are not physically prevented from owning a car with no title. A gay couple is not physically prevented from owning a piece of paper with the words "Marriage Certificate" printed on it..

But that's stretching the point beyond all reason, in the name of some brand of logic.

Ownership of the car, the helicopter, or the gay spouse is not physically illegal, but by the denial of legal status and subsequent ability to USE any of the above, the ownership IS rendered moot by the law itself.

And if you don't think citizenship is more than a simple benefit, then you should try living without it.

 

[milefile]

Ownership of the car, the helicopter, or the gay spouse is not physically illegal, but by the denial of legal status and subsequent ability to USE any of the above, the ownership IS rendered moot by the law itself.

Use a spouse?

Own a spouse?

 

[milefile]

More and more I like my idea of removing all governmental benefit from marriage.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
Use a spouse?

Own a spouse?

Correct. Posess? Parter with? Contract? Whichever term you prefer, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Correct. Posess? Parter with? Contract? Whichever term you prefer, it's irrleveant to the topic at hand.

I disagree. You can use a person in all the ways you can use a spouse, except to get a benefit from the government, which, the more I think about it, nobody deserves. It smacks of a moralistic socialism. I think this debate is focused the wrong way. I think that rather than giving more away we should be discussing keeping more for ourselves and minimizing government. The whole issue is for liberals and they are the only ones who even care. Everybody is an individual. If they choose to marry, fine. Why should the government be involved at all?

I do not "posses" my wife; she is not property. I suppose we have "contracted", but only because to get married you are forced to by the government. We "partner" all the time in many ways, and would whether or not the government called it as such.

In fact, when it comes to financial things, marriage is more of a hinderance than anything else (barring two incomes, which many do not even get out of it), in my opinion.

 

[Duke]

Well, fine; I'm all for less regulation. But as it stands now, I firmly believe that homosexual marriage is rendered effectively illegal by the government marriage license monopoly's refusal to grant licenses to gay couples. The legal status denied by this refusal renders the informal agreement between the spouses totally moot.

 

[///M-Spec]

Well, I knew that by the time I typed a coherant response, the content of the thread will have moved forward enough that it would be nearly irrelevant. Oh well.

Just because you want something that someone else has and you can't have doesn't mean it's illegal.

No, it is not illegal. However, but it amounts to the same thing if the government says I can't have it and you can, when there is no justifible reason to deny it to me.

There is no practical medical reason any man would want to see an OGBYN, but there are many practical, legal and financial reasons why gay people want to get married. I don't think you can realistically frame gay marriage and a man making an appointment for a poke with a septum together.

No try to answer my questions... "If gay marriage is illegal, how can the law be broken? What is the penalty for breaking the law?"

It can't by the very definition of the exclusion. You are giving an action a property that it cannot defy by definition of the property. Its like saying "If a black man isn't allowed to vote, how can it be illegal? Its not illegal, we just don't give him the benefit of a vote."

Don't want to call it illegal? Fine, but the disagreement over terminology is just a verbal divertion to mask a truth. Some people get a benefit, some people don't. Shouldn't we all get the same benefits, or denied them to the same degree?

Of course that's an option. We can increase government benefits so that gays can marry.

Blar!! Begging the question. Sneaky danoff.

I think this debate is focused the wrong way. I think that rather than giving more away we should be discussing keeping more for ourselves and minimizing government.

I think I agree... except that since govenment derives all income through taxation, "giving more away" simply means "taxing less" and I am always for that.


M

 

[Danoff]

It can't by the very definition of the exclusion. You are giving an action a property that it cannot defy by definition of the property. Its like saying "If a black man isn't allowed to vote, how can it be illegal? Its not illegal, we just don't give him the benefit of a vote."

I totally agree that it is exclusionary and probably even unconstitutional to prevent gays from marrying while allowing heterosexual couples.

With your voting analogy I would say that it's not so much a benefit as it is a right.

My purpose for pointing out the subtleties in this argument is to phrase the problem in a way that suggests exactly what milefile is bringing up... why have the government deal with marriage at all. Simply allow joint property ownership and let people decide how they want to do it? Incidentally, this would allow people to have multiple spouses.

I hold to the concept that there is a difference between not offering a benefit and making that benefit illegal. But I can agree to disagree on that one as long as the whole point of what I was trying to say gets across...

the government never made any legislation that says gays couldn't marry, only that heterosexual people could marry. There is no law that would need to be repealed before the government could offer marriage benefits to homosexual couples.