The Conservative Case for Gay MarriageFollow

The difference in benefit to cost if gay couples marry versus if they don't isn't sufficient to justify the cost.


I've presented this argument before. If human beings appeared magically as adults with full educations and job training, with no need for parenting and no costs associated with raising children, people would still presumably form into couples (and myriad other relationships), but there would be *zero* reason for society to create either punishments for people who didn't, or rewards for those who do.

We don't provide rewards for couples who marry just because the value of their relationship by itself is worth the cost. Your argument is like saying that we should pay the same amount of insurance for a dinghy that we pay for a supertanker. One represents a greater risk of harm than the other, thus it's wroth paying more for insurance. From societies point of view, incentives for marriage are like that insurance. It's only worth paying when conditions are likely to cause a cost high enough to justify the insurance cost.

That is true for heterosexual couples. It's not true for homosexual couples.

Edited, Jan 15th 2010 6:08pm by gbaji

You honestly don't see how someone can feel devalued here? Really? Besides this, you've clearly missed the point, as I said it's not about validating the relationship, it's about not feeling less valid, less valued, etc. Do you seriously not see the difference?

Except that it's about intended permanent relationships that help to stabilize society. Your slippery slope arguments are laughable simply because there is still a very well defined set of criteria. And it does solve problems. It solves an inequality in society that is causing problems. This benefit is far more then the extremely minimal financial cost.

Exactly Gbaji, Exactly. It's about doing the right thing, not the most convenient thing.

Edited, Jan 15th 2010 9:33pm by Xsarus

I wish gbaji would stop saying "We" in his posts. Nobody agrees with him. Even the other anti-gay marriage asshats are at least man enough to admit their homophobia for what it is.

Hey Varus, since you are the one who brought up Levitical laws (you know, the ONLY place in the Bible it mentions Homosexuality)...

I have a few questions.

Do you eat Pork? Have you ever touched a football? Have you ever shaved? How many types of cloth are you wearing right now? Do you eat shellfish?

Do you think it's acceptable to own slaves? Do you think it's acceptable to sell your own daughter into slavery? Are farmers evil if they use a system that lets them plant more than one crop on the same field, so they can actually make a profit?

I LOVE how many fundamentalist Christians have picked ONE SPECIFIC line from the bible, and ignored ALL THE OTHERS AROUND IT, but still think their argument for why it's wrong holds weight.

Oh, and that all comes from the Old Testament anyway. Jesus clearly didn't give a crap about it, or he would have preached about it.

And *many* religious authorities believe that Jesus actually believed in complete abstinence (marriage and the desire to procreate not being acceptable reasons to do the dirty). Kinda interesting how most don't seem to agree with him there...

I'm a gay, adult male. I've always been gay, and I always will be. It may be hard for you to understand, but it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to change this (at least with the current state of science). I've never once, in my entire life, been sexually attracted to a female. I never "chose" to be gay. It just dawned on me one day that, when all the other little boys were starting to like the little girls, I wasn't interested. I was, like, 10. Do you REALLY think I said to myself, "You know, I COULD be straight... but I think I'm gonna be a banana crammer instead." I had long since developed my sexual feelings before I even realized I was different.

I could PRETEND to be something else, but then I'd just be lying to myself. And I can't believe a God, who supposedly created me in his image, would create me to naturally be something that he hated--something that had to be hidden. This is like saying that God hates Blacks. It is just a part of who they are--impossible to change by their own or anyone else's intervention. And why would you WANT to change them, if God created them to be the way they are?

I honestly couldn't imagine being straight. I mean, I could imagine dating or marrying a women (and some of the less clean stuff). But I can't imagine feeling for a lady the same thing I could feel for a man (and I'm talking about love in the spousal sense, btw). They just don't go together for me, and never will. And I can imagine having those feelings and being with a woman. But I can't imaging her being the source of those emotions. I can appreciate feminine beauty as much as the next gay. But there is nothing in their movements, or features, that have the potential to dazzle me. But if I see a guy who has the perfect set of features (Hello Gerard Butler), it's just brilliant.

And please notice how the Old Testament ORDERS you to kill sinners, when Jesus pleads with you to just forgive and love them, unconditionally?

Don't the two books seem even a LITTLE BIT incompatible to you?

But, as many have said, I don't give a crap what your religious views are. They aren't my business, nor my responsibility. I personally don't believe in the existence of a God, or that, should one exist, he/she/it gives a crap about humans. I believe in being a good person, in helping your fellow man (and fellow organism), in protecting the planet, etc.

Belief in God =/= Morality. There have been MANY Christians that have commited horrible attrocities (Spanish Inquisition) and many Atheists that have worked for the greater good (Thomas Jefferson). I never understood why people try to use their religion to show why they are a good person. Just BE a good person, regardless. When two people steal a candy bar, the Christian isn't magically morally superior.

And, honestly, I can't imagine that a God would give a crap if people believed in him. That seems a little bit too vain to me for a deity.

[EDIT]

It is unfair to think of the marriage debate purely in the "what will they get" sense. Because, even if marriage provided no financial benefits, homosexual couples would still enter into it.

The inequality of marriage is simply a social issue. If politicians and voters want to give financial benefits to marrying, that is their perogotive. But it isn't what is central to this debate. Make it nothing more than a certificate with no additional rights or privledges for EITHER side for all I care. If I meet someone I really want to spend my life with someday, I'd probably still want to marry them. It won't give me a tax break or anything, but that isn't why we are doing it.

And human relationships should not just be boiled down to cost vs. benefit. Gays aren't asking the country to shoulder their burden. They are asking for equal rights, which they are entitled to by the constitution. And the whole "just have civil unions with the same rights" argument is bull, because America tried and failed with that years ago with the Jim Crow laws. By making two groups distinct, but giving them "equal rights," all you do is preserve an avenue for abuse for the minority.

And, honestly, it is important to remember that cost-vs-benefit goes both ways. Right now, gays help pay the additional price FOR the heterosexual married couples, without being given legal equality. If gay marriage isn't legal, then gays shouldn't have to pay for the additional rights of the heteros either. It is no different than collecting taxes from Blacks to pay for the huge, advanced White school and then not letting them enroll.

Edited, Jan 16th 2010 1:24am by idiggory

True story:

Back in the early 90s when I was still living in the midwest, someone tried to tell me that every word of the Bible had been analyzed by a computer and found to have been written by the same person, therefore computer analysis confirmed it MUST be the absolute Word of God.

Now, even assuming they had software sophisticated enough to do that sort of analysis with any accuracy in the early 90s, you're dealing with a book that has been translated, and re-translated, and mis-translated, and transcribed (by HAND no less!) and re-transcribed, and MIS-transcribed, and interpreted and re-interpreted and MIS-interpreted by so many people over the ages that the ONLY possible way to do such an analysis and have it mean anything at all would be to do it on the original manuscripts, many of which don't actually exist anymore and therefore wouldn't be available for such an analysis.

People will buy any old explanation to make their invisible friend in the sky more real.

Hello again to those of you who don't know me. New poster to the Asylum here.

I always wondered if the Republicans who are against gay marriage really took a good look at Plato. He covered himself in oil and wrestled with other oily, buff (and presumably hot) men in the Olympics in a highly homoerotic fashion. The Greeks were all about men posing together for art and whatnot, but Jesus didn't like it. A 'waste of seed' it was to Him, and so he passed it on to His disciples. Thus we begin to see the assumption that marriage = procreation, and sex without procreation is the devil.

The world would be a very uptight place indeed if people only had sex when they wanted to procreate.

At any rate, I like Olson's points showing that same-sex marriage is an American value, and not just a right. Getting to the core of what it means to be an American always gets people to listen, especially when money's involved. Hell, if gays can marry, that's more money spent on weddings.

Also in 20 years NO ONE will want to get married anymore, so it will be the end of marriage as we know it.

Speaking of gay couples reproducing, those of you who are so inclined, pray for, well-wish, or send positive vibes to my friend, who is undergoing embryo transfer today for the baby or babies she will be carrying as a surrogate for a gay couple.

Edited, Jan 16th 2010 9:41am by Ambrya

I think Ambrya's claim is a bit exaggerated; there are challenges to the translations of the Bible, especially regarding the terms Paul used for homosexual acts. There is speculation that the original Greek didn't mean homosexual acts of two adults, but more along the lines of men-on-boy acts. It has been a while since I read the challenges to the translation, so I don't remember the exact Greek words used and the implications of both. But you get the point.

There is also speculation around the King James version regarding political aspirations at the time of the translation. But, from what I've read the speculation seems pretty weak.

All and all, however, I think you are pretty spot on that the Bible hasn't been too twisted since it's original writings. Not to completely wander off topic (like that never happens) but I'd challenge more the contents of the Bible as in what was chosen to be canon. There are a lot of documents that never made it into the Bible, and an easy example is the current differences between the Protestant Bible vs the Catholic Bible.

I got that from your post, and tried to nod to it, by saying that the "analysis" was also absurd. I've just heard a lot of people say the rest and mean it in the spirit I responded to, and I wanted to counter that. and yeah, the lost an rewritten bit was hyperbole. I put that there to emphasize the absurdness of the claim that it's been re-translated and interpreted so many times.

This is something that you have to be careful of with any attempt at a translation, and bias and interpretation will sneak in, but the King James is actually surprisingly good in terms of lacking bias. It's just hard to read these days due to the language.

Edited, Jan 16th 2010 5:45pm by Xsarus

I've heard from some scholars that the KJV is actually one of the best translations for getting the meaning of what was written, even if it is not literally accurate.

Conversely, some of the most literal translations lose the nuance of the passages.

Surprisingly the KJV does a much better job of handling women then some of our more recent versions, which sometimes have some interesting translation choices in that regard.

Edited, Jan 17th 2010 1:21am by Xsarus