POL: California Prop 8

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

WOW TOTALLY DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING

fag

[Ajaxab]

Fwiw, the whole pro-capitalist/anti-capitalist argument came from a professor I heard talk about how much she didn't want to see Prop 8 pass. She is a lesbian, anti-capitalist so from her point of view she saw Prop 8 as nothing more than an affront to all the values she holds dear. For her, it represents another brick in the capitalist machine designed to further inequality in terms of sexuality and class. So the extreme left wing would appear to perceive this is as a pro-capitalist bill.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Out of curiosity, do you have links to these studies? And do the benefits the studies cite apply equally to both heterosexual and homosexual married couples?

I think the pro-capitalist position would also look at productivity long term rather than short term. In the short term, perhaps the typical married gay couple would be equally good for the economy, but long term, without the ability to reproduce, it seems difficult to further economic growth.

Yeah, but allowing gays to marry doesn't mean that you are all of a sudden banning heterosexuals from getting married. Therefore, the pro-capitalist would be in favor of both.

You get double the short term beneift and you also get some benefit from gay marriages if you assume that married gay couples would make better parents for adopted children than non-married gay couples. There is plenty of evidence to show that a child growing up with parents who have a stable, loving relationship are more likely to be productive members of society, hence, better for future economic growth.

The pro-capitalist wouldn't be opposed to a sterile heterosexual couple from getting married, would he? If so, that's really going beyond reason.

Another pro-capitalist argument for gay marriage would work as follows. One large benefit of marriage is caretaking. This clearly applies to homosexuals. One of the first things many people worry about when coming to terms with their homosexuality is: Who will take care of me when I'm ailing or old? Society needs to care about this, too, as the aids crisis has made horribly clear. If that crisis has shown anything, it is that homosexuals can and will take care of each other, sometimes with breathtaking devotion--and that no institution can begin to match the care of a devoted partner. Legally speaking, marriage creates kin. Surely society's interest in kin-creation is strongest of all for people who are unlikely to be supported by children in old age and who may well be rejected by their own parents in youth. Better to have one's devoted partner, husband, or wife caring for the elderly or sick than leaving it up to medicare or medicaid (aka the goverment aka the tax payer).


Finally, same-sex couples already exist, so do different-sex couples. Americans in these relationships are our firefighters, nurses, police officers, and small business owners. They pay taxes and contribute to our economy and our society. People come in different shapes and sizes; that's what's makes our country great. If two people want to make their relationship more stable, and commit more deeply to each other, that can only be good for the country. That's true whether the couple is gay or straight.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Yeah, but allowing gays to marry doesn't mean that you are all of a sudden banning heterosexuals from getting married. Therefore, the pro-capitalist would be in favor of both.

You get double the short term beneift and you also get some benefit from gay marriages if you assume that married gay couples would make better parents for adopted children than non-married gay couples. There is plenty of evidence to show that a child growing up with parents who have a stable, loving relationship are more likely to be productive members of society, hence, better for future economic growth.

Can you point me to this evidence with respect to heterosexual and homosexual couples?

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

The pro-capitalist wouldn't be opposed to a sterile heterosexual couple from getting married, would he? If so, that's really going beyond reason.

Hence, the qualified argument about normative heterosexual and homosexual marriages. Normative does not refer to those heterosexual couples who cannot or choose not to have children nor to those homosexual couples who decide to adopt. Of course, this claim about normativity could be wrong if it's normal for heterosexual married couples not to have children or it's normal for homosexuals to be adopting (at this point, I haven't seen evidence that either would be the case).

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Another pro-capitalist argument for gay marriage would work as follows. One large benefit of marriage is caretaking. This clearly applies to homosexuals. One of the first things many people worry about when coming to terms with their homosexuality is: Who will take care of me when I'm ailing or old? Society needs to care about this, too, as the aids crisis has made horribly clear. If that crisis has shown anything, it is that homosexuals can and will take care of each other, sometimes with breathtaking devotion--and that no institution can begin to match the care of a devoted partner. Legally speaking, marriage creates kin. Surely society's interest in kin-creation is strongest of all for people who are unlikely to be supported by children in old age and who may well be rejected by their own parents in youth. Better to have one's devoted partner, husband, or wife caring for the elderly or sick than leaving it up to medicare or medicaid (aka the goverment aka the tax payer).

I'm not following how this applies to capitalism as it would seem the economy would function similarly whether a caretaker or medicare would be paying for the sick partner. That aside, these are certainly fair points, but for the sake of argument, as things stand what is preventing caretaking from occurring already? It could just be my lack of knowledge about how the system works, but why do homosexual couples need the marriage label to do these things better than they already are?

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Finally, same-sex couples already exist, so do different-sex couples. Americans in these relationships are our firefighters, nurses, police officers, and small business owners. They pay taxes and contribute to our economy and our society. People come in different shapes and sizes; that's what's makes our country great. If two people want to make their relationship more stable, and commit more deeply to each other, that can only be good for the country. That's true whether the couple is gay or straight.

Your point here gets to the ultimate purpose of marriage and why defining this purpose is so important. Is the normative purpose to further a more stable relationship and a deeper commitment to one another? I don't think anyone could quibble about the value of a normative marriage if this is all there is to it. But it seems there has to be something else involved or we could call a lot of things that further stability and deeper commitments to others marriage. Is the normative purpose to further a more stable relationship and a deeper commitment to one another and to further the perpetuation of society through procreation? It seems the procreative aspect makes marriage in a normative sense different than other stable and committed relationships. This gets back to that capitalist argument. Stable relationships and deeper commitments may grow the economy slightly, but they don't typically add new consumers and new workers to the economy the way procreative couples do. So should these gay couples who normatively do not reproduce be allowed the benefits of those heterosexual couples who do normatively reproduce? As I mentioned before, it's a cold, calculating argument, but I'm finding it hard to get around.

Again, this is qualified by the notion of normativity. We can talk about the exceptions like sterile parents, elderly couples, gay couples who adopt etc., but they are not the norm. Perhaps these exceptions need to be considered, but that would require additional layers of nuance.

[Telle]

Doesn't the capitalist argument only make sense if there was potential for homosexuals to take advantage of the incentives that the government creates for married couples by engaging in heterosexual marriage? Society doesn't lose anything by letting gays marry because they were never going to form heterosexual marriages anyways. So yes while society doesn't benefit from the likelihood of them having children, I also don't see any sort of economic loss. So forbidding gay marriage isn't pro-capitalist, as the economic effect is null.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Telle

Doesn't the capitalist argument only make sense if there was potential for homosexuals to take advantage of the incentives that the government creates for married couples by engaging in heterosexual marriage? Society doesn't lose anything by letting gays marry because they were never going to form heterosexual marriages anyways. So yes while society doesn't benefit from the likelihood of them having children, I also don't see any sort of economic loss. So forbidding gay marriage isn't pro-capitalist, as the economic effect is null.

Maybe I've been completely misguided on this thing, but I thought one of the important benefits of marriage was that one receives certain tax breaks the non-married do not receive. I assumed that was one of the reasons why gays and lesbians wanted to be married--to have these kinds of benefits. Of course, if they do not receive these benefits, then you are right and that part of the argument is moot.

I would also have to ask, isn't not having children a potential economic loss? In failing to reproduce yourself, that is one less person contributing to the economy by working or by buying something so I'm not persuaded that the economic effect is null. We're all going to die at some point. We either replace ourselves in the economy, more than replace ourselves by having more than two kids or we die without replacing ourselves.

I had always assumed that one of the major reasons why some are so reluctant to crack down on illegal immigration is that more people in the country leads to increased economic growth. If these people aren't here, then some jobs aren't being done and some products are not being purchased. The same principle would seem to apply here. If people are not procreating, that is a potential economic loss as the population will not be maintained or increasing. Of course I'm assuming that population growth leads to economic growth and that may not hold in every instance, but it seems like a fair generalization.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Maybe I've been completely misguided on this thing, but I thought one of the important benefits of marriage was that one receives certain tax breaks the non-married do not receive. I assumed that was one of the reasons why gays and lesbians wanted to be married--to have these kinds of benefits. Of course, if they do not receive these benefits, then you are right and that part of the argument is moot.

While I can't speak for anyone other than myself, I really doubt that most people, gay or otherwise, consider "tax breaks" one of the "important benefits of marriage." There are dozens of dozens important benefits of marriage that come well before tax breaks or any other kind of economic benefit.

Once you get into economic benefits of marriage advantages like being covered by your spouse's insurance/joint insurance policies, status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medicak decisions, joint leases, benefits to annuities/pension plans, inheritance of jointly-owned proprty through right of survivorship, and other beneifts. Many of these would, again, come well before any tax breaks (though the right of inheritance does provide a one time tax benefit).

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I would also have to ask, isn't not having children a potential economic loss? In failing to reproduce yourself, that is one less person contributing to the economy by working or by buying something so I'm not persuaded that the economic effect is null. We're all going to die at some point. We either replace ourselves in the economy, more than replace ourselves by having more than two kids or we die without replacing ourselves.

I had always assumed that one of the major reasons why some are so reluctant to crack down on illegal immigration is that more people in the country leads to increased economic growth. If these people aren't here, then some jobs aren't being done and some products are not being purchased. The same principle would seem to apply here. If people are not procreating, that is a potential economic loss as the population will not be maintained or increasing. Of course I'm assuming that population growth leads to economic growth and that may not hold in every instance, but it seems like a fair generalization.

Sure, not having kids is a potential economic loss, assuming that your kid grows up to be a productive member of society. What if they don't? What if they just grow up to be a drain on the system? What if they grow up to be criminals?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Sure, not having kids is a potential economic loss, assuming that your kid grows up to be a productive member of society. What if they don't? What if they just grow up to be a drain on the system? What if they grow up to be criminals?

What if a gay couple adopts a child that was going to be a drain on the system, but turns them into a productive member of society!

It's like the question from the Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop commercial, the world will never know!

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

What if a gay couple adopts a child that was going to be a drain on the system, but turns them into a productive member of society!

It's like the question from the Tootsie Roll Tootsie Pop commercial, the world will never know!

I've been arguing that point too!

The whole notion that some how banning gay mariage is pro-capitalist or that allowing gay marriage is anti-capitalist just strikes me as absurd. There are just too many factors that play into whether a union between two consenting adults will or will not lead to greater a economic benefit for society.

Not only is that question simply impossible to answer it's also far, far down on the list of what folks are and should be concerned about a marriage and what determines whether or not a marriage is successful, not only for the couple in question, but society as a whole.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

What if a gay couple adopts a child that was going to be a drain on the system, but turns them into a productive member of society!

I don't think there will ever be shortage of new humans being born in the United States if gays can/continue to get married. I'm willing to bet there's plenty of unwanted pregnancies that are not terminated to make the argument that allowing gays to marry will not deplete the tax base.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

I find it funny that the conservative religious right-wingers in America have soooooo much in common with the radical extremist terrorists in the middle east. (ideologically, that is.)

We can't just disagree? Really? We have to do this, Neon?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Crim

We can't just disagree? Really? We have to do this, Neon?

On this? No. I'm sorry. I'll say that about JIMGA's stance - on some issues, I don't buy the moral "equivalance" of compromise - there is a right and a wrong. If you're voting for Proposition 8, you're wrong, and I don't care how you try and couch it. Its bigotry, and in time, we'll look back the same way as we do at civil rights and wonder how such idiocy was ever justified in the name of "tradition".

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Mustang

What about McLovin v. Hawaii?

Har!

[SirFozzie]

*wince* Ok, that's a bit too far. neon.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by heybrad

I hope Prop 8 loses. It's wrong. If it wins, what will people want you to conform to next? Life is faced with moral choices, both good and bad. Trying to legislate most of them is a scary thought.

Now we have the slippery slope argument, but in the other direction!

[larrymcg421]

I think we need to ban Crim's disturbing signature. That's prop 8 in 2010.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I think we need to ban Crim's disturbing signature. That's prop 8 in 2010.

[Crim]

Ta-daaa!

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Crim

Ta-daaa!

jesus christ, I've been avoiding your posts for months. Thank god.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

*wince* Ok, that's a bit too far. neon.

Yes, it is. I apologize for being an ass.

[larrymcg421]

Oh crap. What have I done.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by Lathum

jesus christ, I've been avoiding your posts for months. Thank god.

Seriously, though, that line of yours was one of the funniest things I've read on this board. It was so... matter-of-fact. I'm almost sad to see it go.

[Telle]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I don't think there will ever be shortage of new humans being born in the United States if gays can/continue to get married. I'm willing to bet there's plenty of unwanted pregnancies that are not terminated to make the argument that allowing gays to marry will not deplete the tax base.

I've read somewhere that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Crim

Seriously, though, that line of yours was one of the funniest things I've read on this board. It was so... matter-of-fact. I'm almost sad to see it go.

I'll let you know when I say something disturbing about my sister

[Crim]

Okay, so I thought long and hard about it, and I voted NO on Amendment #2, Florida's version of the gay marriage ban.

I really was torn. I am of the opinion that marriage is a one man/one woman institution. But I gave consideration to some of the (non-inflammatory (yes, I'm looking at you, Neon!)) comments here, and some misgivings I always have when a voter initiative basicly mirrors or countermands a law already on the books.

I guess I just decided that a constitutional amendment is not the appropriate mechanism for this issue to be decided. I have a little buyer's remorse, but not a lot.

I actually am struggling more with regret for supporting Ginny Brown-Waite for congress...

[Crim]

Oh, and Lathum, if something disturbing needs to be said about your sister, just ping Karlifornia or Hell Atlantic. No need getting your own hands dirty.

[jeheinz72]

I'll be voting Yes on Prop 8 today.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by Crim

Okay, so I thought long and hard about it, and I voted NO on Amendment #2, Florida's version of the gay marriage ban.

I really was torn. I am of the opinion that marriage is a one man/one woman institution. But I gave consideration to some of the (non-inflammatory (yes, I'm looking at you, Neon!)) comments here, and some misgivings I always have when a voter initiative basicly mirrors or countermands a law already on the books.

I guess I just decided that a constitutional amendment is not the appropriate mechanism for this issue to be decided. I have a little buyer's remorse, but not a lot.

I actually am struggling more with regret for supporting Ginny Brown-Waite for congress...

I apologized!

I'm not going to say what you did was right or wrong, seeing as how people can't seem to agree on that, but you did what was just.

[jeheinz72]

And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, registered domestic partners already have every right awarded to spouses under the California Family Code.

So I'm not denying anyone any rights

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Where exactly was this defined as a right?

The California Supreme Court and the United Nations seems to think it is a right.

"[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people."


Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, registered domestic partners already have every right awarded to spouses under the California Family Code.

So I'm not denying anyone any rights

Originally Posted by fantom1979

The California Supreme Court and the United Nations seems to think it is a right.

"[T]he right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people."


Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

Ah, so then heinz did deny some people a right. Does that mean we can get our panties in a bunch now?

[jeheinz72]

But what right am I denying them if they already possess every right that I do as a Married Californian?

So they can't call it a marriage, good, in my mind, it isn't.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

So they can't call it a marriage, good, in my mind, it isn't.

isn't that then denying them a right?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

But what right am I denying them if they already possess every right that I do as a Married Californian?

So they can't call it a marriage, good, in my mind, it isn't.

You are denying them the right to get married. Being married, in and of itself, is a right. Being married also means a lot more to many people than simply possesing legal rights. It's a very symbolic and and powerful statement for some people. Why deny gay domestic partners that right?

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

isn't that then denying them a right?

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

You are denying them the right to get married. Being married, in and of itself, is a right. Being married also means a lot more to many people than simply possesing legal rights. It's a very symbolic and and powerful statement for some people. Why deny gay domestic partners that right?

No, that's denying them the semantics.

[jeheinz72]

Don't get me wrong though, if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. Surely not the end of the world, but by the same token I'm voting with what I believe.

[Lathum]

I think your way off Heinze.

My marriage means alot more to me for what it represents then the civil rights it grants me.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

No, that's denying them the semantics.

Let's take the gay-marriage hot button issue out of it.

Say there are a group of people who want Border Collies to be called People. Let's imagine these Border Collies already possess every right that a person does. Let's say it's a very big deal to these Border Collies, very symbolic and powerful for them to be called people. Should we call them people then?

(Note: this isn't a perfect analogy of course, but if I had more time I could find an equally silly one that illustrates the point)

WTF are you talking about? These aren't dogs we're talking about here, you know?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

No, that's denying them the semantics.

Let's take the gay-marriage hot button issue out of it.

Say there are a group of people who want Border Collies to be called People. Let's imagine these Border Collies already possess every right that a person does. Let's say it's a very big deal to these Border Collies, very symbolic and powerful for them to be called people. Should we call them people then?

(Note: this isn't a perfect analogy of course, but if I had more time I could find an equally silly one that illustrates the point)

If there was some law that said being called a "person" was a right that all people and Border Collies were entitled to? Yeah, we should. Why not? From a legal/equal rights perspective most definitely.

Even from a non-legal perspective, why not? I mean, would it make you feel like any less a person if Border Collies were called people? Would you feel threatened by it? If it was really, really important to the Border Collies and didn't take any skin off your back or affect you in any negative way, why deny them this important, powerful symbolic right?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think your way off Heinze.

My marriage means alot more to me for what it represents then the civil rights it grants me.

Exactly.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

would it make you feel like any less a person if Border Collies were called people? Would you feel threatened by it? If it was really, really important to the Border Collies and didn't take any skin off your back or affect you in any negative way, why deny them this important, powerful symbolic right?

this to me is the crux of the issue. and it's why it's not about rights or anything, plain and simple it's about fear and bigotry. who the fuck cares what it's called? does it make YOUR marriage any less powerful to you, or any more or less special in the eyes of your chosen diety if somebody else can't call their partnership a marriage?

Because if it does then you have one shallow-minded, bigoted-diety you're worshipping.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Because if it does then you have one shallow-minded, bigoted-diety you're worshipping.

You're just now figuring that out?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Don't get me wrong though, if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. Surely not the end of the world, but by the same token I'm voting with what I believe.

That's perfectly fine. That's what this country is all about. Nobody is criticizing you for that. It's the whole "I'm not denying anyone any rights" claim that we're after. That's a false statement. You are denying people a right. Just accept it and move on.

[Lathum]

dola- I will say Heinze has every right to vote for what he believes is right and I give him credit for stepping up and engaging in a discussion about it.

that being said, border collies? At least use oompa loompa's or something.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- I will say Heinze has every right to vote for what he believes is right and I give him credit for stepping up and engaging in a discussion about it.

Of course he does. I just have a serious problem with any analogy that equates gay people with dogs.

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I don't think there will ever be shortage of new humans being born in the United States if gays can/continue to get married. I'm willing to bet there's plenty of unwanted pregnancies that are not terminated to make the argument that allowing gays to marry will not deplete the tax base.

You're kidding, right?

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Of course he does. I just have a serious problem with any analogy that equates gay people with dogs.

My apologies KWhit, and anyone else I might offended with that example. Horrible choice of analogy on my part.

I wasn't trying to "equate" them, just give an example of another way of looking at it.

Either way, I apologize and will edit the post.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by lordscarlet

You're kidding, right?

Why do you think he's kidding?

Do you think that allowing gays to marry is all of a sudden going to cause everyone to turn guy and not have children?

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

If there was some law that said being called a "person" was a right that all people and Border Collies were entitled to? Yeah, we should. Why not? From a legal/equal rights perspective most definitely.

Even from a non-legal perspective, why not? I mean, would it make you feel like any less a person if Border Collies were called people? Would you feel threatened by it? If it was really, really important to the Border Collies and didn't take any skin off your back or affect you in any negative way, why deny them this important, powerful symbolic right?

No, I wouldn't feel threatened by it, and I don't feel threatened in this case either.

The definition just does not line up with what I believe a marriage is.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think your way off Heinze.

My marriage means alot more to me for what it represents then the civil rights it grants me.

Given that then, why does it have to be called a marriage (as opposed to what it's called now for same sex couples, a domestic partnership) for that to matter?

If it's about how it makes you feel, then why does it matter what it's called?