Get government out of the marriage business.
"Equality," as usual, is completely and entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Government sanctioning particular groups of persons as "married" is merely a form of subsidization-- in this case, entitlements for the wedded couple.
If we recognize, as the sensible tend to do, that subsidization in its many forms is merely a reflection of democracy's failures, we can reject it as the appropriate answer. It's pandering to a particular group at the expense of others, and, more importantly, costing wasted resources in the form of government bureaucrats and managers to get an unneeded job accomplished.
While I reject government sanctioning opposite-sex marriages, I would loathe the situation yet further should government *also* sanction same-sex marriages. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Everyone comparing this to the torments of slavery needs to seriously re-think how they approach this issue.
No, I don't think this because the bible told me so.
No, I'm not a homophobe.
It's just not that hard, people.
The problem is that the current debate isn't whether or not we shouldn't allow marriage to be "subsidized" as you referred to it. What is being debated is much more symbolic. Extending the rights of marriage to gay couples isn't going to increase the amount of people who are able to get married, at all. Gay people can already marry people of the opposite sex, it's merely extending that right to people of the same sex. Your argument would be right if in the foreseeable future the debate on whether or not marriage should be subsidized would take place but that is very unlikely to happen in this country anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteAnon, I'm in agreement that people aren't making my argument, or even having "my debate." Hence "unpopular" in the title. The fact that the vast majority of people who quibble about same-sex marriage rage on about largely irrelevant points does *not*, however, change the *real* nature of policy that they do or do not support.
Delete"Gay rights" activists make perfectly valid allegations such as "gays should be treated like anyone else"- an obviously true statement. But when they follow up with "therefore, government should subsidize a union between them," objective reasoning breaks down, despite their intentions.
Wait what's the flaw in the argument?
Delete1. Gays should be treated like anyone else.
2. Anyone else can engage in a government subsidized union between them and who they "love".
3. Therefore gays should be able to engage in a government subsidized union between them and who they "love".
P.s. Your argument is actually very elegant and is the first that I've read on the issue that I didn't immediately dismiss. I'm actually very interested in your reasoning, I'm not attacking you in any way.
The flaw in your 3-step argument is in how you frame the idea of marriage-- "engaging in a government subsidized union", as though this is exercising a right.
DeleteReceiving government subsidy necessarily implies that the government gives things to you. Being a non-productive agent, government can only get things by coercively taking them from other people. Thus, "engaging in a government subsidized union" is more accurately stated as "demand that people give you an arbitrary number of things for an arbitrary reason"-- and that's something that no one should be able to do.
Obviously in a perfect world gays and straights would have exactly the same list of options available to them- and in that sense, they should be treated the same. But the fact that some members of society currently hold privileges that they shouldn't is not solved by granting those same, unjust privileges to yet more people.
But it wouldn't be extending the privileges to any more people. The exact same number of people would be able to get married before and after legalizing gay marriage.
DeleteRight now a gay couple can go find a lesbian couple and marry each other and you would end up with 4 married people. Legalizing gay marriage would still leave you with 4 married people just that each person would be able to marry who they wanted.
It wouldn't be extending the ability to demand things, but it would result in more people demanding things. The injustice is a direct product of people receiving the government benefits of legally-recognized marriage. While it's true that anyone can get such a marriage either today, or if gay marriage was legal, we can almost certainly expect more people to *be* married if we classify a gay union as a legal marriage.
DeleteWait so if gay guys and lesbians all got married right now then would you be ok with allowing gay marriage? If that is the case then your argument isn't very strong.
DeleteIf your question is "if it wouldn't make any difference, would you still be against it?" my answer is of course no. I fail to see how this makes my argument "not very strong." Nothing is inherently wrong, in my eyes, with gay couples calling their union whatever they want to call it-- I'm solely concerned with the government entitlements that accompany a legally-recognized marriage.
DeleteIt weakens it for a few reasons. First you have no proof that allowing gays to marry will actually increase the number of marriages that will happen. You are taking it as a given while there is actually 0 data on the subject. Gays make up a very small percentage of the population and only a fraction of those would actually get married if they had the ability to. That would cause an increase in marriage yes, but there is no data on how many straight couples, that otherwise would've gotten married, wouldn't get married if gay marriage was legal. There will certainly be at least a small percentage of straight couples that won't get married if gay marriage was legal (for stupid reasons like sanctity of marriage or other things). Whether or not that would result in a net increase or a net decrease in marriage isn't clear whilst you're basing off the assumption that it is certain that it will increase.
DeleteSecond, you want to reduce the number of marriages but by allowing gays and lesbians to marry each other only if they were already married then you would definitely see a demonstration in which gays and lesbians would start getting married even if they didn't want to get married in the first place. Your argument isn't very mainstream so it probably won't happen soon but if the argument did become mainstream then it would definitely happen.
Finally, would you be ok with a law that said "Gays can only get married if both members of the marriage are already married."? It seems like you wouldn't but what you're arguing seems to support this sort of law.
Though I won't say I'm "certain" that the number of marriages will increase, as very few things are truly certain in this world, I think it is by far the most likely outcome. Gays do not, in fact, make up a "very small" percentage of the population-- experts estimate they are 10% of the nation, and others guess much higher*. That is decidedly a substantial minority. It seems plain that the hassle of marriage with someone that one is not really affectionate for is too often too much to occur often, and further that by legalizing same-sex marriage a large part of gays would take that option. I've not done specific research to confirm this, but it seems to be a rather obvious result.
DeleteYour predicted scenario "if my opinion were mainstream" should, in theory, be occurring right now- as while most opposers of same-sex marriage do not argue against it on reasonable grounds, they oppose it all the same- and the vast majority of the United States remains with laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. While it is possible that this is indeed going on, i.e., gays and lesbians marry members of the same sex anyway, it seems plain that those gays and lesbians who are not married in this fashion would likely become married- at least in large part- were same-sex marriage legal.
"Gays can only get married if both members of the marriage are already married"-- would only encourage gays to marry temporarily with an opposite-sex partner for the purpose of transitioning to a same-sex partner. So no, I would not support such a law.
Remember that I too oppose the status quo on this issue. Were it my way, government would not recognize any of these marriages, and the disparaging inequality that so many people go on about would not exist- all unions would be equally non-governmental under the eyes of the law. I think such an alternative as this is much preferable to involving the government in all unions, and only has a chance to manifest if people quit advocating for same-sex marriage in the sense they currently do.
*Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx
Your quote of saying 10% and other guess much higher is completely out of context. From the same report, The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes. The higher estimates are from normal people merely guessing how many people are gay, which means nothing. The facts are that it's 10% or less with many studies showing it's less. Also not all of those would immediately get married. In straight couples it's about 50% and that's with marriage being the "norm" for straight couples. Also see interesting article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/marriage-rates-in-america_n_1147290.html marriage rates have been dropping. (This is a Huffington Post article I know but I've come across the same data many times now, while gays are fighting for their right to marry, straights aren't marrying as much, especially in Europe). Anyways I'm not saying it's likely that it would decrease but it's definitely a possibility.
DeleteIt wouldn't be occurring now because I don't think the agenda gays have behind getting married is to "steal" from the government by getting entitlements but rather to do it as a symbol of equality. The main arguments that are popular now are religious and "moral" based arguments. Getting married to each other wouldn't do anything for those arguments. If the major opponent did become your argument, then that would easily be fixed through demonstrations like I mentioned.
I think the biggest problem I have with your argument is that it's so libertarian and I don't understand libertarianism at all. Like I read Ayn Rand and I understand the fundamentals of it (she's very persuasive in her novels) but I don't understand how you could functionally be a libertarian in our society. Like do you hate driving on streets because taxes paid for them or going to public school? Also I can't remember which famous guy (Locke?) said that in any society we necessarily give up freedoms to ensure the well being of the society? That's a separate issue that we don't have to discuss here.
Also I appreciate how professional you're responding. Not many people on the internet, or in real life really, can have debates in this manner and it's refreshing to see it.
Estimations on what percentage of gays make up the population are certainly not out of context- especially when made by experts- because there is no "good" way to determine how many gays there really are. Most modern surveys are done by asking the question "are you gay?", with the obvious problem that many gays will not reveal their true sexual preference for a variety of different reasons. The percentages in your surveys, then, are likely under reported, and 10% is the best figure anyone can guess. Regardless, if we give that it could be something a little under 10, it's unequivocally a substantial portion of people, which was my only point.
DeleteMy case that marriages will increase as a result of gay marriage follows a straightforward reasoning based on things we know of human nature to be true. It's abundantly clear that there are currently gays who are not married, but would become married if gay marriage were legal. You suggesting that perhaps another group of heterosexuals who would become married and now for whatever reason chooses not to- not only exists, but could be *larger than* this heterosexual group seems entirely unfounded. How do you know there isn't a group of heterosexuals who wouldn't become married because they won't support what they perceive as an institution of inequality, but once same-sex marriage is legalized they too will marry? If anything, this seems a more likely response for a wider group of heterosexuals. Anyway, random guessing at obscure human behavior aside, I never said your outcome wasn't a possible- just highly improbable.
That marriage rates have been dropping is irrelevant-- if you look at the listed reasons why, in your own source, they are all unrelated to any distinction between same- and opposite-sex marriage. Thus, we have no reason to assume that whatever decrease proceeds in the future will be affected by a legalization of same-sex marriage. I'm fully willing to accept the possibility that *either way*- should same-sex marriage be legalized or no- we still have less marriages for a variety of other reasons, but it remains the case that any future outcome with same-sex marriage legalized will have more marriages than a future where it isn't, ceteris paribus.
If the major opponent to same-sex marriage was my argument, but the only thing gays really cared for was equality, than the outcome would actually be *my* desired outcome. That is, no marriage would be recognized by government, and everybody wins.
One purpose of this blog is to educate readers on the principles of libertarianism, as I see them. Though, to be fair, I should note that libertarian people are divided on the issue we are currently discussing. To quickly remove one question from your mind, libertarians do not believe in perfect freedom for precisely the reason you posed- to ensure the well-being of society. That said, there's a rigorous debate on what, exactly, "freedom" means- but there is a unifying belief in a society of law and order for the purpose of protection.
"What is a libertarian?" Is a good title for my next post.
I, too, appreciate the professional nature of our conversation. You are always invited to comment here with your opinions.
Had to type fast this morning- looked back and noticed that some of my sentences didn't actually make sense. Hate it when that happens.
Delete"You suggesting that perhaps another group of heterosexuals who would become married and now for whatever reason chooses not to- not only exists, but could be *larger than* this heterosexual group*** seems entirely unfounded."
***- this *homosexual* group, i.e., the homosexual group who would become married should the definition of marriage be expanded.
"How do you know there isn't a group of heterosexuals who wouldn't become married because they won't support what they perceive as an institution of inequality, but once same-sex marriage is legalized they too will marry?"
Change to:
"How do you know there isn't a group of heterosexuals who *aren't* married because they don't support what they perceive as an institution of inequality *(marriage where only opposite-sex relations are recognized)(, but *who*, once same-sex marriage is legalized, *will then*, too, marry?"
Really wishing my blog had an edit function.
That last point of yours is really good.
DeleteThe figures I got about the percentage of gays in America were from the source you posted. When I said it was out of context it's because it was actually out of context. They say "others guess much higher" in reference to the survey of random people around America *guessing* the percentage of gays in America. Random people with no basis for their guesses besides the media and their personal experiences (which are unreliable, obviously).
Also the article I posted doesn't give a definitive answer as to why marriage rates are dropping but rather educated guesses as to why. It's interesting because there's no clear explanation as to why and it could be (could) because religion isn't as popular as it once was. The shift away from religion could be causing the decrease in marriage which would be an indicator of the expected marriage rates in homosexuals if gay marriage was legal (as being very low, since gays aren't known for their religious tendencies) (although there are plenty of religious gay people).
"If the major opponent to same-sex marriage was my argument, but the only thing gays really cared for was equality, than the outcome would actually be *my* desired outcome. That is, no marriage would be recognized by government, and everybody wins." You win this argument.
Ok the last thing you said about libertarianism gives me something to work with. I don't know the different schools of thought in libertarianism, but from what you said "libertarians do not believe in perfect freedom for precisely the reason you posed- to ensure the well-being of society." it seems to me like it's so little to give up by allowing gay marriage (less than a 5% increase in marriages) that the positives outweigh it. Actually I guess the only positive I can think of is the precedence of siding with gay legislation but I doubt you'll take that as a good enough reason.
I guess it seems like if your view is that marriage shouldn't be government endorsed then there isn't really a good argument that I can make. I concede. Well done.
Personally I don't see the point in marriage whatsoever. But I understand that some people need marriage and use it as a symbolic cultural thing to stay together. Them staying together doesn't matter much unless they have kids in which I think it's of like utmost importance that kids have 2 parents (gender is unimportant) which is why I personally don't mind that marriage is subsidized by the government. But if you feel otherwise than that is your opinion.
Thanks for the discussion. It was pleasant.
I'm impressed by your philosophical consistency, but I've gotta say, at some point it's really gotta intersect with reality to make any policy issue anything but an abstract intellectual game. Stuff like this affects real people. Which is not to say that you must take a position on the current debate, but I don't see much value in taking the implicit position that it's beneath you!
ReplyDeleteThe back-and-forth about whether God accepts gays/what gays do/what gays could do. . .- as if any of that actually mattered with regard to policy- is most certainly beneath me. It's beneath anyone who prefers ratiocination to idiocy. That said, whether or not gay unions are legally recognized as marriage does have legitimate effects on real people, which is precisely why I weigh in my opinion: society is better off if it doesn't happen.
DeleteI am as sick of the religious arguments as anyone, but when it comes to public policy I'd rather try to deal with the system we've got rather than lamenting the one we'll never have (not that my opinion really matters anyway, but whatever, I can blog with the best of 'em.) Incidentally, you refer to yourself as a consequentialist below, but given your fairly absolutist take on natural and negative rights I'd have pegged you as a hardcore deontologist.
DeleteI meant to write a follow-up post on this, as I've since abandoned my position on natural rights. You would be exactly right had I not, though.
DeleteAs for "lamenting a society we'll never have"- it's hard to say what the future brings. Further, I've made it clear that given a society where opposite-sex marriages will continue to be recognized by government, I do not believe same-sex marriages should follow suit.
DeleteAlthough I agree with you that it is troubling to have so much expense go towards the financial benefits of marriage, and that the bureaucracy and entitlements should go away in total; There is something to say that gays have equal rights to anyone else. Although it would be economically efficient to not allow them to marry due the increased cost to every american, you still have to understand that it is a right protected under the United States to do so. I mean, it would be much more beneficial to not give well off families tax exceptions for having a kid because they can afford it, but we don't. We don't because if the government is giving someone money for something they should be giving another money for the same exact thing. As long as our government is giving tax benefits for marriage (which I don't think they should) gay couples should get it as well.
ReplyDeleteLike I've said many times, the easiest and most simple solution (they tend to be one in the same) is get rid of benefits for all marriages and leave the gay-marrying preference up to the religious group in question. The United States government should not able to force these groups to swing either way, it violates their basic rights. Personally, this is really the argument that turned me on to libertarianism; because both sides want to force something upon us, which is bullshit.
You're clearly better at articulating things than I am. I think this is what I was trying to say. Well the first paragraph at least.
DeleteYou favor "equal rights" even when it's an undesirable right? How about the right to directly steal other people's money-- if the IRS can do it, why not demand "equality" for the rest of us?
DeleteYou can't really compare marriage to stealing, one is done with the intent of getting money and nothing else. The other is done with the intent of being married and the side effect is 'stealing'. (Technically the government is doing it for them) I mean, not long ago interracial marriage was illegal, and it was more costly to allow that, but we did because there was absolutely no reason not to.
DeleteConsequentialists like me don't differentiate between "intent" and outcome in such instances as these. Stealing is stealing, and the negative effect on society is clear in both cases.
DeleteIt's clear that you and I both would prefer the same ultimate outcome, i.e., no government-recognized marriages whatsoever, and I fail to see how pushing for further government involvement is preferable to advocating less.
Yes, we both advocate for more freedom, as everyone should. However, anything prohibiting gay couples to marriage actually limits there freedom. We would be taking it away, not advocating for it.
DeleteThe true libertarian stance is to let them form a union of "whatever they want to call it" outside of government- but it isn't "freedom" to let them demand entitlement that's obtained in a coercive fashion. My position preserves the freedom of everyone who would otherwise be burdened by further taxation, while yours lends the "freedom" to pursue that taxation.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete