I'm not against gay marriage, but after pattern-matching the particular story of your friend I don't see why he needs to marry. It's like getting a government-sponsored car that you don't want to drive.
Is it for the tax breaks? Think of it like this: they're a way to lure the provider into marriage. If you don't buy the traditional view of marriage, you'll have a hard time justifying tax breaks. I don't believe you can build a logical line of argument from romantic love to tax breaks :-)
The argument is that a certain class of people ought to have the same rights as all others do unless there is a just reason to deny those rights. Surely you can think up an argument to support that notion. The exercise of those rights isn't important, i.e. I should not be denied the right to a fair trial simply because I don't intend to commit any crimes and thus don't "need" the right.
Moreover, while the institution of marriage may serve a societal purpose, the denial of marriage rights is itself a mechanism of social control independent of that purpose. Hence, "gay marriage" is the subject of debate, while "marriage" is not.
It's like the science fiction cliche where humans puzzle over artifacts of ancient alien technology. A mind brought up on modern politics is bound to be often baffled by strange and archaic things seemingly created by nonhuman beings. What's common law? What's religion? What's marriage? Our only framework for understanding is the idea of democracy and human rights, but this stuff predates human rights by hundreds or thousands of years, and the shoehorning fails.
Slightly exaggerating, if you call marriage a "human right" today, you must also believe that free speech mandates taxpayer-sponsored newspapers to publish everyone's words :-) First make marriage totally non-binding on both partners and the government. Make divorce as easy as signing a paper. Abolish alimony and child support. Drop the tax breaks. Make hospital visitation rights, etc., a matter of civil contract. Those measures will change marriage from a state-sponsored targeted subsidy into a proper "human right".
At no point did I suggest that state-sponsored marriage must exist. Nor did I use the term "human right". In fact I don't think I'd be opposed to its abolition, as you've described. But that's like "helping" someone fix a flat tire by telling them to buy a new car. It's a solution, yes, but not a practical one in a democracy where the vast majority of the voting populace, regardless of their stance on gay marriage, does not oppose marriage in general.
I'm sorry if that isn't broad-minded enough for you, but I can't help but view a modern political issue through the lens of modern politics. Arguing in the abstract strikes me as a convenient way of avoiding the problem entirely.
Marriage is a convenient shorthand for a sort of contract that is useful and common. Like LLC or NDA, it's one of those things that might have little differences from case to case, but in general, it's handy to talk about as one sort of thing.
A marriage is actually two contracts. It is a contract between the spouses, where they agree to grant one another certain rights (inheritance, medical decision power, financial support, etc.) It is also a contract with the two spouses on one side, and the society at large on the other, whereby society agrees to recognize the contract between the couple and treat them as one "unit" for purposes of taxes and such, and the couple agrees to be clear and explicit if they ever terminate the marriage.
The tax breaks are absolutely NOT "just a way to lure the provider into marriage." Generally, the thing that lures the provider is the comfort and security of long-term romantic companionship, and the desire to provide for someone they love.
There is nothing stopping a gay couple from formulating a contract between the two of them, signing it, getting it notarized, and even changing their names. But the other part of that contract, between society and the couple, that is allowed only for hetero couples in most states, and not for gay couples.
This is gender-based discrimination. There's just no other way to look at it. You can make the case that the discrimination is sensible, as some sorts of discrimination indeed are. (I.e., the ageism in prohibiting children from buying firearms.) However, legal discrimination based on gender is a VERY hard thing to justify rationally.
I'm not saying that tax breaks ought to exist or that they ought to be abolished. But, the fact is, they DO exist, and they're not going to be abolished any time soon. The qualification to receive this treatment from the government is that you enter into a specific sort of contract with a spouse. However, gays who enter into this sort of contract do not receive the same treatment by the government; their union is not recognized.
I don't see why he needs to marry.
Well, personally, I don't really see why ANYONE needs to marry, but my own situation has left me understandably cynical ;) The point is that, in my opinion, the law should be gender-blind. If marriages are worth special treatment apart from other sorts of committed relationships—and I think you could make a strong case that they are—then fine. But the gender of the partners should be immaterial in the eyes of the law.
legal discrimination based on gender is a VERY hard thing to justify rationally
No, it's actually very easy to justify rationally: for example, sending young men to war lets you replenish the population faster than if you'd sent everyone equally. Nature discriminates on gender, making it useful for us to do the same. It's only hard to justify if you subscribe to a certain system of irrational axioms, one of which says discrimination is generally bad.
You conceptualize marriage as a universally available contract to "legalize" romantic love, unfortunately tainted with gender discrimination by backwards people. I have nothing against this idea, but invent a new word for it, it's not marriage. ("Civil union" would be fine.) I can imagine elephants inventing marriage, but I can't imagine them accepting gay marriage on the same terms as straight. This is the elephant in the room: your concept ignores the both the purpose and the practical workings of marriage all through human history, long before anyone thought of contracts, romance or discrimination.
For example, I have explained how tax breaks for married couples benefit society: they give the provider an extra incentive to get and stay married, thus encouraging good offspring. I have similarly cynical explanations for other aspects of the institution of marriage which are IMO utterly unexplainable from the human rights perspective. Let's focus on the tax breaks. Isaac, by what mechanism do they benefit society in your opinion?
(Necessary disclaimer: this is not an ad against gay marriage. But if your opinion on gay marriage is based on ideology instead of analysis, you're wrong, even if the opinion itself is right. It's like having an incorrect proof of a true theorem.)
No, it's actually very easy to justify rationally: for example, sending young men to war lets you replenish the population faster than if you'd sent everyone equally.
I said it's difficult, not impossible. In times of tribal crisis, yes, men must die first. As The Senior said so eloquently, All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children and anything else is automatically genocidal. A lot of our biology has been geared towards this because it had to in order for our species to survive.
I'm not saying that sexism is automatically and always bad. I am saying that, in times of relative peace and plenty, when survival is not an issue, the justification for sexism in the eyes of the law is just not there.
We don't lose enough soldiers in war that we really need to worry overmuch about replenishing the population. Even the losses in the Civil War or WWII were a pretty insignificant piece of the population compared with the genocidal battles that were common in antiquity, and still go on today. The government in America has no reason to be sexist.
your concept ignores the both the purpose and the practical workings of marriage all through human history
Sorry, gotta call bullshit on that one. Exclusively heterosexual monogamy is a relatively new concept, as far as human history goes. You don't have to look very far to find polyamory (along with polygyny and polyandry), bisexuality/homosexuality, and non-binary gender roles accepted as norms. Look at feudal Japan, or classical Greece and Rome, or ancient Egypt, or the various native American cultures. Throughout most of human history, the rich have traditionally kept multiple lovers, often of varying genders; by historical standards, we're all pretty damn rich today.
Each of those cultures had their own hang-ups, to be sure. My point is, there's a wide enough spectrum that we should be skeptical of any statement that tries to abstract directly from the mores of the West of the last few centuries to a general statement about "all of human history".
I can imagine elephants inventing marriage, but I can't imagine them accepting gay marriage on the same terms as straight.
I suspect a failure of your imagination, rather than a failure of elephants. Giraffes, dogs, chimps, lions, flamingos, sheep, and rams have all been observed engaging in homosexual behavior. Same-sex penguin couples have been observed pairing for life. I don't know if this has ever been seen in elephants, but as they are a very social and playful species, I'd be surprised if they were any different from other pack mammals and birds in this regard.
Of course, there are a lot of "natural" things that we nonetheless don't allow. Rape and murder, for instance, are pretty common among primates, and humans have been doing this forever. And lots of cultures have had their own weird sexual mores that we've thankfully abandoned. As humans, we get to sort out what makes sense for us, on the basis of individual freedom.
My point is that, if you're going to take the position that committed homosexual pairing is somehow "unnatural", or if you think there's no evolutionary benefit to homosexuality, then You're Doing It Wrong. Evolution is pretty smart. It knows what it's doing.
If you're a kid and you have a gay uncle, and that uncle is in a committed relationship, then that's one set of cousins you don't have to compete with for food and attention. You've basically got an extra set of parents to provide for you.
For example, I have explained how tax breaks for married couples benefit society: they give the provider an extra incentive to get and stay married, thus encouraging good offspring.
Gay couples encourage good offspring as well. Just not their own biological offspring. They're quite likely to adopt, and are additional caretakers for their family's kids. By being married, they're better at this.
Homosexual marriage also benefits society for several of the same reasons that heterosexual marriage does. Married couples are generally more careful with their spending, take better care of their homes, and tend to have a greater investment in their neighborhoods and communities. We ought to encourage that with our communal acceptance and respect, since it benefits us all.
Let's focus on the tax breaks.
Barking up the wrong tree, buddy. I'm against the taxes that marriage provides breaks from. If the government can't get enough by asking for the money, it doesn't have the right to take it by force. The IRS makes less from income tax than we spend on our military empire—one injustice to pay for another.
Just as I would encourage a slave who breaks the law to escape his slavery, I support anyone getting out of whatever taxes they can dodge by any loopholes they can find. More power to ’em.
Good arguments. I was wrong about homosexuality in animals, thanks.
that's one set of cousins you don't have to compete with for food and attention
In all situations except extreme crisis, having cousins is good for your inclusive genetic fitness because your cousins share a lot of your genes. That's why instinct generally tells us to help cousins, not compete with them. So having a gay uncle is bad for you, sorry :-)
I'm against the taxes that marriage provides breaks from.
Of course I'd agree to allow gay marriage if we abolish taxes at the same time - no argument here.
In all situations except extreme crisis, having cousins is good
Ah, but genes are selected in times of extreme crisis! We have all sorts of genes that only make sense in times of extreme crisis, but which we nevertheless carry with us through times of prosperity when they are often a liability.
That's why instinct generally tells us to help cousins, not compete with them. So having a gay uncle is bad for you, sorry :-)
It also tells us to help nephews and nieces. So, no, having a gay uncle is actually GREAT for me. The question is whether being gay is great for the proliferation of gay genes.
I started writing a model to play with some probabilities, then realized that I'm just procrastinating and have real work to do. :) Maybe I'll come back to it some day, or maybe it'll just rot on the back burner with so many other bits of nerdery...
Anyway, even if you could show that being gay is definitely bad for any hypothetical gay-causing genes, it wouldn't rule out evolutionary causes. It could be an emergent property of a collection of individually beneficial genes. Or it could be the result of hormonal features of the mother that are otherwise beneficial.
(I mean "beneficial" here in the evolutionary sense, as in "likely to cause a certain gene to be passed on", not in any kind of normative sense.)
Of course I'd agree to allow gay marriage if we abolish taxes at the same time
Would you agree to allow gay marriage if the taxes are left as they are?
Why should a gay couple be any different, from a society's point of view, from a heterosexual couple that adopts or doesn't have children at all? Hell, many gay couples DO raise their own biological offspring (or at least, the biological offspring of one of the partners.)
Seriously, what's the justification argument against gay marriage that doesn't come down to: "Yeah, but like, who's tha wife, then? Ew." I mean, here you are arguing for analysis over ideology, and it's pretty obvious that gay coupling is ethically and legally fair, it's a natural thing primates do, and it's economically beneficial for society.
So, no, having a gay uncle is actually GREAT for me.
In the hedonic sense yeah, in the genetic sense no (like obesity), because you could have cousins with extra copies of your genes. But that was just a digression - I wasn't trying to argue that homosexuality should eradicate itself genetically, I don't even believe that.
Why should a gay couple be any different, from a society's point of view, from a heterosexual couple that adopts or doesn't have children at all?
It's different because it has no chance of having biological offspring, while for hetero couples society can't know it in advance.
On your other points - I'm going into a corner to think. You made many correct statements.
Is it for the tax breaks? Think of it like this: they're a way to lure the provider into marriage. If you don't buy the traditional view of marriage, you'll have a hard time justifying tax breaks. I don't believe you can build a logical line of argument from romantic love to tax breaks :-)