Why Government Involvement In Marriage?

[wenglund]

To claim the reason for marriage stems all the way back to the romans means we are admitting it was tradition. Something handed down from one generation to another without much thought.

Whether there was much thought or not (if you read through the 1888 case I mentioned in post #167, you will see indication that there was considerable thought), as indicated earlier in the thread, the "tradition" not only establishes a series of legal precedences (our legal system today is built on the shoulders of the legal systems in the past), but it also is part of the basis for marriage being a "civil right".

If we go back to the begning of the USA it appears that in 1776 marriage was more of a property contract then anything. There is no hint that it was in order to promote procreation.

http://www.gilderleh...women-1776–1830

Again, read through the SCOTUS ruling in the case I linked to in post #167. While it is a property case, it counters the claim that marriage, under in U.S. law, is more a contract, let alone a property contract, than anything. Quite the contrary.

Perhaps the reason that there allegedly isn't a hint that marriage was intended to promote responsible procreation was because it was so obvious as to go without saying. The overwhelming reason, if not the only reason, most people got married back then, had little to do with romance, nor was it much about property (property only really became a marital issue when couples split up), Rather, people got married because they wanted to have kids, and to do so legitimately/legally. It was all about responsible procreation.

In support of this, keep in mind that, going back as far as 1785, laws have been enacted in the U.S. to discourage fornication (17 states and the District of Columbia and the federal government still have fornication laws on the books) and adultery (27 states currently have adultery laws on the books). And, moreso back then than today, there have also been strong moral stigmas against illegitimacy, and even "******* laws" (I couldn't find any history of such laws in the U.S., but I did find some in England and Wales as late as 1926).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Okay, I read the Maynard case all the way through. There is nothing in that case which at all suggests that the regulation of marriage has anything to do with incentivizing procreation. To the contrary, that case is a very strong case for exactly what the opponents have been arguing that the government interest is in the stabilization of a relationship between two adults. The case cannot be understood as settling the State versus Federal right to regulate marriage since it is a territorial case. I would argue, however, that marriage clearly falls within the scope of the general welfare so it would seem to me that Congress could regulate it if it so chose. The conservative wing of the SCOTUS has been trying to breath more life into the 10th Amendment than Madison said it had since he considered it a mere tautology which by its language neither conferred or withdrew power, so no one knows for sure what might happen. So far I have seen nothing in these cases which links marriage to incentivizing procreation. What I do see is the Court suggesting that the married relationship is the most important relationship which two people can form. Which suggests to me that it is very likely that DOMA and Prop 8 will both fall.

Here is what I said regarding Maynard: "Here is a SCOTUS ruling (Maynard v Hill), cited in Loving v Virginia, that talks somewhat about the basis of marital law in the U.S., whether states (and, by extension, the federal government) can be involved in marriage, and that marriage is more than a contract between husband and wife."

Any reasonable person can see that your response in no way engages what I actually said, and merely takes flailing swipes at straw men.

Again, this is why it is pointless to try and engage you in a reasoned discussion on this issue. You don't discuss. You bloviate. Bye.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[tyler90az]

Whether there was much thought or not (if you read through the 1888 case I mentioned in post #167, you will see indication that there was considerable thought), as indicated earlier in the thread, the "tradition" not only establishes a series of legal precedences (our legal system today is built on the shoulders of the legal systems in the past), but it also is part of the basis for marriage being a "civil right".

Again, read through the SCOTUS ruling in the case I linked to in post #167. While it is a property case, it counters the claim that marriage, under in U.S. law, is more a contract, let alone a property contract, than anything. Quite the contrary.

Perhaps the reason that there allegedly isn't a hint that marriage was intended to promote responsible procreation was because it was so obvious as to go without saying. The overwhelming reason, if not the only reason, most people got married back then, had little to do with romance, nor was it much about property (property only really became a marital issue when couples split up), Rather, people got married because they wanted to have kids, and to do so legitimately/legally. It was all about responsible procreation.

In support of this, keep in mind that, going back as far as 1785, laws have been enacted in the U.S. to discourage fornication (17 states and the District of Columbia and the federal government still have fornication laws on the books) and adultery (27 states currently have adultery laws on the books). And, moreso back then than today, there have also been strong moral stigmas against illegitimacy, and even "******* laws" (I couldn't find any history of such laws in the U.S., but I did find some in England and Wales as late as 1926).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I will have to go through and read all of that. Thank you for providing all the links and info! Thank you, thank you!

The property I was speaking of was Women, they were treated like property. That is what the marriage contract seemed to be about in 1776 designating a woman as property to a man.

[rockpond]

That is a nice sentiment that I also share. It just isn't relevant to the context of government involvement in marriage--which, in case you may have forgotten, is the topic of this thread. Regardless of how much stock one may or may not put in the government, I was rightly, and in context, speaking of "legitimacy" in the eye of the law, and not in the eyes of God. Please, try a little harder to follow the line of discussion, in context.

There is no other form of human procreation than heterosexual. Did no one take you aside to teach you about "the birds and the bees"?

Again, homosexual couples CAN NOT PROCREATE. What part of that statement do you not understand?

No. It fails in several respect. Please use, instead, the summary I gave in my own words. Keep in mind the important distinctions I drew between the government's interest, itself, and the government promoting that interest; as well as the distinction between the general and certain exceptional specifics.

Only superficially at this point.

Not exactly. My argument thus far regarding state interest in marriage, has been about "responsible procreation," which, among other things that I posited, but touches on the stability of environment for children, though it doesn't directly address that issue. It might help you in following the line of discussion to realize that, up to this point, I have been talking about procreation and marriage, and not yet about marriage and raising children. Does that compute?

From the outset I have viewed them as separate interests--and rightly so--though I may not have said as much since it didn't need to be said until now.

I have been making points all along. It has taken 9 pages to make some of the points because I have been dealing with respondents who seem quite challenged in grasping even some of the most obvious and uncontroversial points--i.e I am working against the cementing of years of inane pop cultural indoctrination.

Once you correctly grasp my points, then we can finally move forward. Until then, I will try my best to be patient. It may help now that I will no longer attempt to converse with respondents, like california boy and Stone holm, who clearly are unwilling or able to have a rational, intelligent, and meaningful exchange on this issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

California Boy and Stone Holm have respectfully engaged with you in a meaningful exchange and they have tried to do it on the terms you set within this thread. They both strike me as rational and intelligent. Your dismissal of them as well as your abrasiveness is not winning you any points (in my book). The obnoxious "smileys" you have started inserting is also beginning to make me question the use of my time in continuing on this thread.

I've been working hard to understand your case. You might consider returning some of the respect that has been offered you thus far on this thread.

Edited May 2, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

A. Governments, including modern U.S., have an interest in population growth through procreation (in addition to, and perhaps even preferential to, immigration).

If the interest is in population growth, why restrict it to only natural conception? Infertile couples can increase the population as well and they pay for the medical aid, not the government. Gay male couples increase the population through surrogacy - and they pay for the procedure, not the government. Lesbian couples increase the population through childbirth and they pay for the artificial insemination, not the government. This is where your case breaks down -- either the government is interested in population growth or it is not. How can it only be interested in population growth that stems from fertile heterosexual couples?

In short, the government has an interest in responsible procreation, which is best done through marriage.

Is the interest in normative heterosexual procreation without medical aid or is the interest in population growth?

I have made no such argument. Rather, I have intimated that, in regards to marriage:

1) the government has no procreative interest in, and no reason to promote responsible procreation, within homosexual relationships because they can't procreate,

Two men who are partnered and donate sperm to a surrogate mother is procreation. You may not agree with them doing it, but it is procreation.

2) As for infertile couples, I have said "yes," the government does have an interest in them responsibly procreating, though the government may not have a reason to, or a need to, promote medically assisted procreation. Because of the sizable disparity in costs between natural conception and medically facilitated conception, and that the overwhelming predominate form of conception is natural, the government may have a greater, if not only, interest in PROMOTING natural conception than medically facilitated conception, Since infertile couples who are willing to incur the sizable cost of medical fertilization have already demonstrated more than sufficient desire to procreate, then the government's general interest in population growth will be met by these couples without the government needing to PROMOTE procreation or medically assisted procreation.

This doesn't make sense... you are saying that the increased costs incurred by infertile couples is a reason for the government to NOT encourage such procreation. Whereas fertile couples with no such additional costs DO need the government's incentives.

(Do you see the important distinction I made between the government interest, itself, and their PROMOTING that interest? Do you also see the important distinction regarding government interest that I drew between homosexual couples and infertile couples?)

No, I don't. While, I see your rational behind the government interest in population growth. I don't see how the government can have an interest in restricting that population growth to only children conceived through heterosexual intercourse.

[wenglund]

I will have to go through and read all of that. Thank you for providing all the links and info! Thank you, thank you!

The property I was speaking of was Women, they were treated like property. That is what the marriage contract seemed to be about in 1776 designating a woman as property to a man.

That may be how women were viewed in marriage back then, but it isn't the reason people got married (I can't see women getting married so they could be the property of men), nor is it a reason that governments had an interest in marriage.

Happy reading.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

California Boy and Stone Holm have respectfully engaged with you in a meaningful exchange and they have tried to do it on the terms you set within this thread. They both strike me as rational and intelligent. Your dismissal of them as well as your abrasiveness is not winning you any points (in my book). The obnoxious "smileys" you have started inserting is also beginning to make me question the use of my time in continuing on this thread.

You clearly have a different understanding of "meaningfully and rationally and intelligently engaging" than I do.

To me, it means reasonably examining the soundness and validity of each of the opposing premises, substantiations, and conclusions, and offering a sound and valid and well researched and substantiated argument in return.

Evidently, to you it means whimsically proffering sweeping and baseless dismissals out of hand, pontificating, and repeating bald assertions and popular slogans.

If you doubt this, pick any one of california boys and Stone holm's posts and we can walk through it step by step to see if it actually engaged what I had said or not.

To each their own.

I've been working hard to understand your case. You might consider returning some of the respect that has been offered you thus far on this thread.

Out of respect for you, I have carefully and thoughtfully considered each and every one of your questions and comments, and I have taken great pains to engage them down to individual points, and I have done extensive research to back up my comments. I have mostly done the same for every respondent--at no small sacrifice in time and effort. If I am sarcastic at times, it is intended as a piercing sound needed to penetrate what appears to be a rather dense fog of comprehension. It isn't intended to harm, but to wake people up and help them better to see. If I didn't care about and respect you, I wouldn't bother.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 2, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

That may be how women were viewed in marriage back then, but it isn't the reason people got married (I can't see women getting married so they could be the property of men), nor is it a reason that governments had an interest in marriage.

Happy reading.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree on this limited issue with Wade Englund. This case, Maynard, is a little peculiar since it involves private special legislation rather than legislation that we normally deal with today which is general legislation. In the Maynard case one of the big issues was whether the territorial legislature had the power to pass special legislation granting a divorce to a specific person. That is very unusual since today we have divorce codes which provide the terms under which the Courts grant divorces. Leaving that issue aside, the Court was talking about the distinction between a regular contract and a marriage contract. The marriage contract differs since a regular contract can always be rescinded by agreement of both parties to the contract. With regards to marriage contracts, it is different because the husband and wife on their own cannot simply agree to rescind the marriage -- they have to involve the government in the recission, in most instances the Court. The question in Maynard was whether the special legislation divorce was valid since there was no notice to the wife, the Court decided that the legislature could do that since it was not bound by due process -- a very questionable decision. But the wife was not treated as property by the Court -- it is agreed that in many cultures the wife was considered property, but that was not ever the case in the United States to my knowledge. The Court is saying that these binding relationships between parties to a marriage are much more binding than any other relationship between two adults. Where I part company with Wade in this regard is his assertion of the importance of procreation to the contract -- if that were the case obviously barrenness or infertility would have been recognized as some type of automatic out from the relationship, which has never in modern times been true. Procreation, or rather guiltless sex, was just a "with benefits" type of connection to the relationship -- it was the relation between the two adults and the stability of that relationship which mattered to the government at all times.

[go_utes01]

I agree on this limited issue with Wade Englund. This case, Maynard, is a little peculiar since it involves private special legislation rather than legislation that we normally deal with today which is general legislation. In the Maynard case one of the big issues was whether the territorial legislature had the power to pass special legislation granting a divorce to a specific person. That is very unusual since today we have divorce codes which provide the terms under which the Courts grant divorces. Leaving that issue aside, the Court was talking about the distinction between a regular contract and a marriage contract. The marriage contract differs since a regular contract can always be rescinded by agreement of both parties to the contract. With regards to marriage contracts, it is different because the husband and wife on their own cannot simply agree to rescind the marriage -- they have to involve the government in the recission, in most instances the Court. The question in Maynard was whether the special legislation divorce was valid since there was no notice to the wife, the Court decided that the legislature could do that since it was not bound by due process -- a very questionable decision. But the wife was not treated as property by the Court -- it is agreed that in many cultures the wife was considered property, but that was not ever the case in the United States to my knowledge. The Court is saying that these binding relationships between parties to a marriage are much more binding than any other relationship between two adults. Where I part company with Wade in this regard is his assertion of the importance of procreation to the contract -- if that were the case obviously barrenness or infertility would have been recognized as some type of automatic out from the relationship, which has never in modern times been true. Procreation, or rather guiltless sex, was just a "with benefits" type of connection to the relationship -- it was the relation between the two adults and the stability of that relationship which mattered to the government at all times.

What do you believe is so special about the relationship between a husband and wife that the government takes an interest in it (hint: responsible procreation and the sustaining of our society - family being the central unit of society for the continuing of society)? Why hasn't the government put the same emphasis on other important relationships, e.g. friendships, business partnerships, etc.?

[rockpond]

What do you believe is so special about the relationship between a husband and wife that the government takes an interest in it (hint: responsible procreation and the sustaining of our society - family being the central unit of society for the continuing of society)? Why hasn't the government put the same emphasis on other important relationships, e.g. friendships, business partnerships, etc.?

Dependency.

Children & spouses... families... by necessity have a level of dependency that seems to benefit from some societal/governmental regulation.

Edited May 2, 2013 by rockpond

[wenglund]

If the interest is in population growth, why restrict it to only natural conception?

I don't. I am focusing on conception (natural and artificial) because it is directly relevant to the issue of marriage, whereas immigration isn't.

And, I am not just focusing on the government's interest in population growth. I am also considering whether it makes sense for the government to PROMOTE, through marriage, population growth to various kinds of relationships.

Infertile couples can increase the population as well and they pay for the medical aid, not the government.

Right. They increase the population, which may be in the governments interest (as I have consistently said), without the government needing to PROMOTE that increase through marriage, though it may legally occur within marriage.

Gay male couples increase the population through surrogacy - and they pay for the procedure, not the government. Lesbian couples increase the population through childbirth and they pay for the artificial insemination, not the government.

Without getting into the relatively nominal statistics for same-sex relationships that are involved in surrogate or artificially inseminated procreation (most gay couples with children got those children through breaking up heterosexual homes--contrary to the interest of the government), the same-sex couples, themselves, aren't procreating and increasing the population. In your scenarios, at least one member of a same-sex couple has to go outside the same-sex relationship and pair up with the opposite sex, whether artificially or otherwise. Thus, it is people of the opposite sex, regardless of sexual orientation, who are increasing the population in those relatively few situations, and not the same-sex couples, themselves. This is biology 101. What will it take for you to get this?

Granted, same-sex couples may pay for opposite-sex procreation, but paying for something, and doing that something, is not the same thing. As indicated earlier in the thread, certain governments are now paying opposite-sex couples to procreate. Should we then legally designate those countries as "married" because they pay for population growth through procreation? No, the thought makes reason stare. Same goes for same-sex couples.

More to the point, does it make sense for the government to PROMOTE, through marriage, relatively few same-sex couples going outside their relationship in order to procreate? Not only does this enter a gray area, but there is no need to since the relatively few same-sex couples that would get children through extra-relationship means, will and have done so out of their own desire, without government PROMOTING it through marriage.

And, while it is true that a relatively few opposite-sex couples are, for various reasons, incapable of procreating, themselves, artificially or otherwise, and thus require going outside the relationship for a sperm or egg donor, I don't know that procreating and increasing the population in this way is in the governments interest (it's a gray area). However, it isn't something that the government need PROMOTE through marriage, though it may legally occur within marriage.

This is where your case breaks down -- either the government is interested in population growth or it is not.

As you can see above, it is your misunderstanding of basic biology that is the breakdown. In terms of marriage, the government is interested in population growth through procreation, which can only occur via opposite-sex couples. Since same-sex couples, themselves, can't procreate, they fall outside of the governments interest in population growth through procreation.

Then there is also the matter of whether it makes sense for the government to PROMOTE, through marriage, extra-relationship and opposite-sex procreation for homosexuals? To me, the answer is obviously no.

How can it only be interested in population growth that stems from fertile heterosexual couples? Is the interest in normative heterosexual procreation without medical aid or is the interest in population growth?

Again, I am not limiting the governments interest to fertile heterosexual couples. I open to all couples who are capable, themselves, of procreating, whether artificially or naturally--which, according to the principles of basic biology, only included couples of the opposite sex.

However, it only makes sense for the government to PROMOTE, through marriage, "normative heterosexual procreation," though other non-normative kinds of heterosexual procreation may legally occur within marriages. (see below)

Two men who are partnered and donate sperm to a surrogate mother is procreation. You may not agree with them doing it, but it is procreation.

Nope, the one man who donates the sperm, and the surrogate mother, are the one's procreating, not the two men. Again, Biology 101.

This doesn't make sense... you are saying that the increased costs incurred by infertile couples is a reason for the government to NOT encourage such procreation. Whereas fertile couples with no such additional costs DO need the government's incentives.

It makes sense when you understand that the incentive isn't just to procreate, but to procreate responsibly--i.e. to procreate under the bonds of matrimony. If you doubt that such incentives are needed with fertile couples, consider current declines in marriages and births rates and the rise in illegitimate births, even given the incentive. Imagine where we would be without the incentives.

And, infertile couples who want children so bad that they are willing to incur the added cost of artificial procreation, already and inherently demonstrate a strong inclination towards responsible procreation. So, it isn't needed.

Besides, it also makes sense when you look in terms of shear volume, and where the government may best direct it's limited and strained promotional resources--i.e. where it will get the most bang for the buck (pun not intended). The huge disparity in size of the fertile market compared with the infertile market, gives reason to target the fertile market for incentives, particularly since the infertile market tends not to need targeted incentives, and to some degree are covered under the incentives to the fertile market.

Are you starting to see my point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Since some people are still struggling to grasp my points thus far in the thread, then perhaps it might help to ask the question this way:

When we, as a people, through the auspices of the government, shell out and incur hundreds of millions, if not billions, in costs to cover the 1000+ benefits and privileges to married couples, particularly during a down economy when money is tight and we are borrowing to the hilt, what are we getting in return for our "investment"?

As I see it, with opposite-sex relationships, we get the priceless return of children.

Whereas, with same-sex relationships, we get a big NOTHING, if not a negative return on our hard-earned money and the unnecessary mangling of a perfectly useful word. Not smart.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 2, 2013 by wenglund

[rockpond]

I don't. I am focusing on conception (natural and artificial) because it is directly relevant to the issue of marriage, whereas immigration isn't.

And, I am not just focusing on the government's interest in population growth. I am also considering whether it makes sense for the government to PROMOTE, through marriage, population growth to various kinds of relationships.

Right. They increase the population, which may be in the governments interest (as I have consistently said), without the government needing to PROMOTE that increase through marriage, though it may legally occur within marriage.

Without getting into the relatively nominal statistics for same-sex relationships that are involved in surrogate or artificially inseminated procreation (most gay couples with children got those children through breaking up heterosexual homes--contrary to the interest of the government), the same-sex couples, themselves, aren't procreating and increasing the population. In your scenarios, at least one member of a same-sex couple has to go outside the same-sex relationship and pair up with the opposite sex, whether artificially or otherwise. Thus, it is people of the opposite sex, regardless of sexual orientation, who are increasing the population in those relatively few situations, and not the same-sex couples, themselves. This is biology 101. What will it take for you to get this?

Granted, same-sex couples may pay for opposite-sex procreation, but paying for something, and doing that something, is not the same thing. As indicated earlier in the thread, certain governments are now paying opposite-sex couples to procreate. Should we then legally designate those countries as "married" because they pay for population growth through procreation? No, the thought makes reason stare. Same goes for same-sex couples.

More to the point, does it make sense for the government to PROMOTE, through marriage, relatively few same-sex couples going outside their relationship in order to procreate? Not only does this enter a gray area, but there is no need to since the relatively few same-sex couples that would get children through extra-relationship means, will and have done so out of their own desire, without government PROMOTING it through marriage.

And, while it is true that a relatively few opposite-sex couples are, for various reasons, incapable of procreating, themselves, artificially or otherwise, and thus require going outside the relationship for a sperm or egg donor, I don't know that procreating and increasing the population in this way is in the governments interest (it's a gray area). However, it isn't something that the government need PROMOTE through marriage, though it may legally occur within marriage.

As you can see above, it is your misunderstanding of basic biology that is the breakdown. In terms of marriage, the government is interested in population growth through procreation, which can only occur via opposite-sex couples. Since same-sex couples, themselves, can't procreate, they fall outside of the governments interest in population growth through procreation.

Then there is also the matter of whether it makes sense for the government to PROMOTE, through marriage, extra-relationship and opposite-sex procreation for homosexuals? To me, the answer is obviously no.

Again, I am not limiting the governments interest to fertile heterosexual couples. I open to all couples who are capable, themselves, of procreating, whether artificially or naturally--which, according to the principles of basic biology, only included couples of the opposite sex.

However, it only makes sense for the government to PROMOTE, through marriage, "normative heterosexual procreation," though other non-normative kinds of heterosexual procreation may legally occur within marriages. (see below)

Nope, the one man who donates the sperm, and the surrogate mother, are the one's procreating, not the two men. Again, Biology 101.

It makes sense when you understand that the incentive isn't just to procreate, but to procreate responsibly--i.e. to procreate under the bonds of matrimony. If you doubt that such incentives are needed with fertile couples, consider current declines in marriages and births rates and the rise in illegitimate births, even given the incentive. Imagine where we would be without the incentives.

And, infertile couples who want children so bad that they are willing to incur the added cost of artificial procreation, already and inherently demonstrate a strong inclination towards responsible procreation. So, it isn't needed.

Besides, it also makes sense when you look in terms of shear volume, and where the government may best direct it's limited and strained promotional resources--i.e. where it will get the most bang for the buck (pun not intended). The huge disparity in size of the fertile market compared with the infertile market, gives reason to target the fertile market for incentives, particularly since the infertile market tends not to need targeted incentives, and to some degree are covered under the incentives to the fertile market.

Are you starting to see my point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, I don't see your point.

Heterosexual fertile couples will have children with or without government promotion. So will infertile couples. Gay couples will also use the means available to them to bring children into their unions and raise those children. All of these provide your end desired result of population growth and it can also be done within the bonds of matrimony if the government would allow gay couples to marry. So I am not seeing your point here.

Your next point seems to be that the government should use it's limited resources to promote the most efficient way of producing births (normative heterosexual conception). This strikes me as approaching eugenics or an Agenda 21 type mindset. Definitely something I consider outside of the scope of government.

But let's suppose you disagree with my view of government and feel that the U.S. Gov't should be using its resources to promote childbirth through fertile heterosexual couples. What is the government currently doing to promote that interest or what are you suggesting that it should do?

Edited May 2, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

Since some people are still struggling to grasp my points thus far in the thread, then perhaps it might help to ask the question this way:

When we, as a people, through the auspices of the government, shell out and incur hundreds of millions, if not billions, in costs to cover the 1000+ benefits and privileges to married couples, particularly during a down economy when money is tight and we are borrowing to the hilt, what are we getting in return for our "investment"?

As I see it, with opposite-sex relationships, we get the priceless return of children.

Whereas, with same-sex relationships, we get a big NOTHING, if not a negative return on our hard-earned money. Not smart.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Which benefits are we, as a people, paying for that provide the priceless return of children?

[wenglund]

No, I don't see your point.

Heterosexual fertile couples will have children with or without government promotion. So will infertile couples. Gay couples will also use the means available to them to bring children into their unions and raise those children. All of these provide your end desired result of population growth and it can also be done within the bonds of matrimony if the government would allow gay couples to marry. So I am not seeing your point here.

You evidently didn't give my comments much thought since there is much of importance that I said which is not correctly understood and missing from your comments above. At least I tried.

Your next point seems to be that the government should use it's limited resources to promote the most efficient way of producing births (normative heterosexual conception). This strikes me as approaching eugenics or an Agenda 21 type mindset. Definitely something I consider outside of the scope of government.

Not even close. But, oh well.

But let's suppose you disagree with my view of government and feel that the U.S. Gov't should be using its resources to promote childbirth through fertile heterosexual couples. What is the government currently doing to promote that interest or what are you suggesting that it should do?

It has been, and currently is promoting its interest in responsible procreation through MARRIAGE laws. Obviously. That is what I believe it should do--though I would prefer tighter restrictions these days on divorce, and reduction of and/or increased regulation of counter-incentives that inadvertently encourage things like out-of wedlock births.

I don't know if the government can encourage this, but I would also like to see the culture step up and reduce the various attacks on marriage and the traditional family, including not profaning that the fundamental institution of society through mangling the legal definition of marriage.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 2, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Which benefits are we, as a people, paying for that provide the priceless return of children?

See HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Since some people are still struggling to grasp my points thus far in the thread, then perhaps it might help to ask the question this way:

When we, as a people, through the auspices of the government, shell out and incur hundreds of millions, if not billions, in costs to cover the 1000+ benefits and privileges to married couples, particularly during a down economy when money is tight and we are borrowing to the hilt, what are we getting in return for our "investment"?

As I see it, with opposite-sex relationships, we get the priceless return of children.

Whereas, with same-sex relationships, we get a big NOTHING, if not a negative return on our hard-earned money and the unnecessary mangling of a perfectly useful word. Not smart.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is not necessarily true. Stable couples who are obligated to take care of each other actually reduce the overall costs associated with maintaining them at a decent level, stable couples (if they are faithful to each other) reduce the health risks associated with promiscuous unstable relations, stable couples provide a stable environment for the rearing of children. etc. same-sex couples provide all these benefits the same as heterosexual couples. The only things that the same sex couples do not provide is naturally born children. But anyone at all familiar with our current foster care system should be aware of the fact that we are not in particularly short supply of children right now, what we are in short supply of is stable committed pairs of adults that can provide safe homes for those children. Right now the studies are showing that the same sex parentage do as good, if not better, on average of rearing children than do different sex parentage. That is probably due to the fact that any moronic pair of heterosexuals can produce a child basically in the backseat of a car -- but same sex couples either have to have the money for artificial insemination, a surrogate mother, or be able to succeed in going through the gauntlet of the adoption process something that two moronic teenagers cannot either afford to do or have the capacity to do.

[WmLaw]

I don't. I am focusing on conception (natural and artificial) because it is directly relevant to the issue of marriage, whereas immigration isn't.

And, I am not just focusing on the government's interest in population growth. I am also considering whether it makes sense for the government to PROMOTE, through marriage, population growth to various kinds of relationships.

Right. They increase the population, which may be in the governments interest (as I have consistently said), without the government needing to PROMOTE that increase through marriage, though it may legally occur within marriage.

Without getting into the relatively nominal statistics for same-sex relationships that are involved in surrogate or artificially inseminated procreation (most gay couples with children got those children through breaking up heterosexual homes--contrary to the interest of the government), the same-sex couples, themselves, aren't procreating and increasing the population. In your scenarios, at least one member of a same-sex couple has to go outside the same-sex relationship and pair up with the opposite sex, whether artificially or otherwise. Thus, it is people of the opposite sex, regardless of sexual orientation, who are increasing the population in those relatively few situations, and not the same-sex couples, themselves. This is biology 101. What will it take for you to get this?

Granted, same-sex couples may pay for opposite-sex procreation, but paying for something, and doing that something, is not the same thing. As indicated earlier in the thread, certain governments are now paying opposite-sex couples to procreate. Should we then legally designate those countries as "married" because they pay for population growth through procreation? No, the thought makes reason stare. Same goes for same-sex couples.

More to the point, does it make sense for the government to PROMOTE, through marriage, relatively few same-sex couples going outside their relationship in order to procreate? Not only does this enter a gray area, but there is no need to since the relatively few same-sex couples that would get children through extra-relationship means, will and have done so out of their own desire, without government PROMOTING it through marriage.

And, while it is true that a relatively few opposite-sex couples are, for various reasons, incapable of procreating, themselves, artificially or otherwise, and thus require going outside the relationship for a sperm or egg donor, I don't know that procreating and increasing the population in this way is in the governments interest (it's a gray area). However, it isn't something that the government need PROMOTE through marriage, though it may legally occur within marriage.

As you can see above, it is your misunderstanding of basic biology that is the breakdown. In terms of marriage, the government is interested in population growth through procreation, which can only occur via opposite-sex couples. Since same-sex couples, themselves, can't procreate, they fall outside of the governments interest in population growth through procreation.

Then there is also the matter of whether it makes sense for the government to PROMOTE, through marriage, extra-relationship and opposite-sex procreation for homosexuals? To me, the answer is obviously no.

Again, I am not limiting the governments interest to fertile heterosexual couples. I open to all couples who are capable, themselves, of procreating, whether artificially or naturally--which, according to the principles of basic biology, only included couples of the opposite sex.

However, it only makes sense for the government to PROMOTE, through marriage, "normative heterosexual procreation," though other non-normative kinds of heterosexual procreation may legally occur within marriages. (see below)

Nope, the one man who donates the sperm, and the surrogate mother, are the one's procreating, not the two men. Again, Biology 101.

It makes sense when you understand that the incentive isn't just to procreate, but to procreate responsibly--i.e. to procreate under the bonds of matrimony. If you doubt that such incentives are needed with fertile couples, consider current declines in marriages and births rates and the rise in illegitimate births, even given the incentive. Imagine where we would be without the incentives.

And, infertile couples who want children so bad that they are willing to incur the added cost of artificial procreation, already and inherently demonstrate a strong inclination towards responsible procreation. So, it isn't needed.

Besides, it also makes sense when you look in terms of shear volume, and where the government may best direct it's limited and strained promotional resources--i.e. where it will get the most bang for the buck (pun not intended). The huge disparity in size of the fertile market compared with the infertile market, gives reason to target the fertile market for incentives, particularly since the infertile market tends not to need targeted incentives, and to some degree are covered under the incentives to the fertile market.

Are you starting to see my point?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[WmLaw]

(Previous msg was posted prematurely...)

Wade,

Would you summarize why a homosexual married couple should be treated any differently by the government than a heterosexual infertile couple, in the context of procreation as the purpose for marriage?

[wenglund]

Wade,

Would you summarize why a homosexual married couple should be treated any differently by the government than a heterosexual infertile couple, in the context of procreation as the purpose for marriage?

My arguments works against irrationally mangling the legal definition of marriage by extending it to homosexual couples, and doesn't address treatment of homosexual couples if or when they are legally married. If homosexuals are allowed to legally marry, then legally they shouldn't be treated any different than heterosexuals who are married, even though it doesn't make sense. The same would hold true if marriage was extended to platonic friends, or platonic parent and child relationships, or any other kind on non-procreative relationships. But, this begs the question of why extend marriage to non-procreative relationships. It doesn't make sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[WmLaw]

My arguments works against irrationally mangling the legal definition of marriage by extending it to homosexual couples, and doesn't address treatment of homosexual couples if or when they are legally married. If homosexuals are allowed to legally marry, then legally they shouldn't be treated any different than heterosexuals who are married, even though it doesn't make sense. The same would hold true if marriage was extended to platonic friends, or platonic parent and child relationships, or any other kind on non-procreative relationships. But, this begs the question of why extend marriage to non-procreative relationships. It doesn't make sense.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But despite the premise of your topic, I presume that you are personally supportive of marriage for reasons beyond just procreation, correct?

[wenglund]

That is not necessarily true. Stable couples who are obligated to take care of each other actually reduce the overall costs associated with maintaining them at a decent level.

But, does the alleged reduction in maintenance costs to the government exceed the costs to the government of promoting and regulating marriage? I doubt it.

Besides, if that reduction in maintenance costs to the government occurs without the government incurring the cost of promoting and regulating marriage, then would it make sense to unnecessarily incur the promotional costs? Again, I don't think so.

In other words, if by mangling the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, the benefit of reduced maintenance costs is dwarfed by the cost of extending marriage to same-sex couple, then it wouldn't make sense to extend marriage to same-sex couples because we the people as a government would be getting a negative return on our investment.

And, if the benefit of reduced maintenance costs occur with same-sex couples even if they are not married, then it wouldn't make sense for we the people to unnecessarily incur the sizable cost of extending marriage to same-sex couples.

In this case, two wrongs don't make a right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

See HERE.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yep, I'm aware of that list cited specifically there (in your link) on the HRC website to show the benefits currently being denied gay couples.

But, to my question, which of those benefits that is paid for by we, the people, provides the "return" of children? Not responsible raising of children because, as you've noted, that is out of scope here. But which of the benefits paid for by us provides births?

[rockpond]

But, does the alleged reduction in maintenance costs to the government exceed the costs to the government of promoting and regulating marriage? I doubt it.

Besides, if that reduction in maintenance costs to the government occurs without the government incurring the cost of promoting and regulating marriage, then would it make sense to unnecessarily incur the promotional costs? Again, I don't think so.

In other words, if by mangling the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, the benefit of reduced maintenance costs is dwarfed by the cost of extending marriage to same-sex couple, then it wouldn't make sense to extend marriage to same-sex couples because we the people as a government would be getting a negative return on our investment.

And, if the benefit of reduced maintenance costs occur with same-sex couples even if they are not married, then it wouldn't make sense for we the people to unnecessarily incur the sizable cost of extending marriage to same-sex couples.

In this case, two wrongs don't make a right.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So it's just a cost-benefit analysis for you? Not a matter of constitutionally based rights? Not a matter of the government supporting the creation of committed parents and stable homes for children to be raised in?

[wenglund]

But despite the premise of your topic, I presume that you are personally supportive of marriage for reasons beyond just procreation, correct?

Yes. I also support marriage as the best means for raising the procreated children, though I see this as a secondary or indirect governmental interest in regards to marriage, and one I hope to get into as the discussion continues. There may be other reasons, but they may be too nominal to warrant much consideration.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-