Jophiel wrote:
But they don't have to, right? They do, in fact, have the exact same ability to just say "Tra-la-la! We're MARRIED!" as they did a couple years ago? And, since they were already being burdened with whatever minor contributions they made towards other people's state benefits, they haven't lost anything there either.
The mere existence of an alternative which provides them benefits which their other choices do not will influence their choice though.
Quote:
Quote:
Your argument is like saying that just because the ball park hands you a free hot dog voucher as part of the price of your ticket doesn't mean you have to eat a hot dog while there. Sure. Technically true, but most people will realize that the cost of the ticket includes that "free" hot dog, right?
A year ago, they paid the same ticket price but got zero hot dog vouchers while the guy in front of them got one for wearing the right color shirt.
He had to wear a specific color shirt though, right? A color that they could have chosen to wear, but they hate that color (let's say red). Now, the ballpark is saying that people who wear green shirts can get the free hot dog to. Of course, "they" previously were free to wear green, or yellow, or orange,or even a whole rainbow of colors if they wanted. But green is a color they are ok with, so they're at least willing to wear it to get a free hot dog. Surely you can see how this will reduce the likelihood of that person wearing any other colors though, which they previously might have worn.
Quote:
So, if anything, they actually have MORE options now? Huh. Fascinating. Tell me more about how this means they're being oppressed by the state...
No. You actually have fewer. You now have to wear a green shirt to get the free hot dog. Previously, since you hated red and would not wear it, the issue of the free hot dog didn't affect your shirt color choice. Now, by expanding the free hot dog to people wearing green shirts, it does. I mean you could still choose not to wear green, but now the opportunity cost is such that you probably will. The value of the free hot dog was not previously sufficient to make you wear the hated color red versus any of a rainbow of other colors you like. But since you like all the other colors equally well, the value of a hot dog for wearing green absolutely will influence your choice.
Ok. Not remotely a prefect analogy, but hopefully sufficient to make the point. A gay person was previously "free" to choose to enter into any of an nearly infinite variety of relationships, with any level of legal contract he/she wanted. Because, assuming that person would never choose to marry someone of the same sex, the issue of marriage benefits didn't affect their choice of relationship type. Now that they've been granted the benefits of marriage, but only if they enter into a specifically defined relationship, with a specific set of contractual obligations, property sharing, power sharing, responsibility sharing, etc, the existence of that status now influences their choices. It will compel them to enter into just that sort of relationship, with that exact contract. Which may or may not be what they want.
Sure. They can choose not to marry, but so could many heterosexuals too (like myself). But just as hetero partnerships, upon reaching a certain level of relationship tend to naturally gravitate towards legally defined marriages as "that next step", so now will gay couples. Because they're going to feel like that's what they're supposed to do. They'll feel pressure to "tie the knot" by their friends. Just as opposite sex couples have for a long time. The difference is that there's no actual social need for them to do so. It's completely artificial. They could have "tied the knot" by entering into whatever social/legal arrangement they wanted before, but now to "tie the knot" means "enter into a legally defined state licensed marriage".
So yeah, that's a reduction of freedom, not a gain.
Edited, Jun 22nd 2016 7:30pm by gbaji