Is Gay Marriage Immoral?

holmes writes:

quote:

---

And why couldn't two hetero guys get "married" for the same tax reasons, though not being gay at all?

---

I realize you were making a larger point, holmes, and I'm in general agreement with you, but I want to address this absurd notion that two heterosexual men might want to marry each other for tax purposes. It's usually presented as an anti-gay-marriage argument, not in the context by which you've brought it up here, but still...I have a very difficult time believing that anything could ever be put into the tax code that would make two straight guys want to marry each other. Does anyone really believe that two straight guys are going to be comfortable signing up for conjugal rights to each other? That they wouldn't have the slightest worry about what might happen in the likely event of an eventual divorce?I doubt you're going to disagree with me about this, and I only picked your post to respond to because you're the latest to present the idea. You were talking about something else, though, so please continue.

You and I have had a number of discussions related to gay marriage and plural marriage. A friend of mine has recently been advocating a nihilistic point of view I hadn't heard before - or at least hadn't seriously considered - and I'm wondering what you think of it (if you've ever mentioned it before I apologize for missing it).The argument goes a major step beyond another one we've both heard and discussed before: that government should recognize only civil unions and leave the term 'marriage' exclusively to the use of churches. The nihilistic view would be to remove all legal recognition of marriage or marriage-like unions entirely and offer tax benefits only for financially supporting minor children. Any couple - or for that matter any group - who wants to hold any type of ceremony to solemnize any type of union would be perfectly free to do it, and they would likewise be able to enter into whatever type of legal contract they wish to assign survivorship rights, power-of-attorney, etc. with whomever they wish. I suppose it might still be necessary to limit the legal designation of next-of-kin to just one person so that the state isn't overburdoned with notiification duties in case of death or accident.My friend and I got bogged down in an argument over conjugal rights. Should there still be a way to enter into some sort of conjugal rights contract?I don't think there's any real possibility that the institution of marriage might be abolished in law, at least not in our lifetimes. To tell the truth I don't really like the idea. But it's an interesting concept, and when it came up I almost immediately thought of you and wondered what you'd think.

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

I completely apologize for having missed this post earlier. I hope its not too late for you to catch.

---

Not at all too late, I wasn't expecting a quick reply. We're suddenly having beautiful weather here in Mississippi and I'm not sitting around the computer much myself. I've wanted to post here at evc more often, but my time is more limited lately, and I feel compelled to try and make sure no one has already made the comment I want to make. By the time I do that sometimes I find I don't have time to make my points adequately so I don't post anything.

quote:

---

I'm not sure what you mean by conjugal rights. Do you mean for exclusivity to a certain partner?

---

Yes, some sort of legal contract by which one can exchange conjugal rights with another person or persons and which can provide for damages to be awarded in the event of a renege.

quote:

---

Since you said you didn't like the idea, what do you find troubling about it?

---

I'm not quite sure, it's just that I've always suspected that nihilistic arguments are a little bit too seductive. When I hear one, for some reason I can never satisfy myself that I've completely grasped the logic. So I'm like you, I suppose, in that I think I prefer the all-civil-unions option.

quote:

---

It'll be interesting to see how the case goes. The judge said she'll have to consider the argument that my being American creates a difference where there is none considered in their own laws. Not sure if my case will end up being precedent setting, or there is some obscure case the judge will follow.

---

I'm sure that the very little most of us Americans know about Dutch law is what we learned from watching the Natalie Holloway case on television, so if your judge indeed cites a case it's certain to be an obscure one to us. It does sound like an interesting case you've got there. Please keep us informed about it.

holmes writes:

quote:

---

This restriction comes from DOMA, and if DOMA is repealed my guess is the US would have to allow gay marriages and partnerships.

---

Well that's the essential fact behind the push for a constitutional amendment, and I think you're right. Further, I think gay marriage is almost fait accompli in America. The only questions are when and how it will come about. My feeling is that it will come to us - probably in a decade or so - from other nations. I believe that Spain, Canada, et. al. will, at some point, begin putting pressure on the US to recognize their marriages, since our refusal to do so will eventually be seen by them as the slap in the face that it clearly is. In the same way that us gays don't like having self-rightous morons passing moral judgement on us, other nations who consider America to be a friend will begin to feel offended by our collective moral judgement against them.I'm sorry to hear that things aren't working out for you very well right now. I hope it gets better.

holmes writes me:

quote:

---

It'll be interesting to see if the gay community will accept that solution. And I guess I should ask if you would?

---

If it seems to be a step in the direction of full equality then yeah, I'll accept it, at least for a time. If it seems that we're being asked to accept partnerships or relationships or whatever permanently in the stead of marriage then no, I most certainly will not accept it. I don't think many gay people would.