… you are happy with three institutions: Marriage, Civil Union, and Joint Guardianship. They have to offer effectively the same rights to partners as a marriage (otherwise, civil unions and joint guardianships are just names without any meaning). But then why not be modern and call it all Marriage?

Non sequitur. They would definitely not have to offer the same rights to partners as marriage.

Joe Fitzsimons,

Do you really believe that AIDS is specific to homosexuals? There are many mechanisms for the transmission of HIV and of AIDS, none of which are specific to homosexuals.

Whether it is specific is irrelevant. AIDS transmission is a huge risk in homosexual sex and a relatively small risk in heterosexual sex. An AIDS cure would disproportionately help homosexuals. Hence money spent on such a cure can fairly be said to support homosexual sex, despite being of marginal benefit to heterosexuals. [Only 12% of AIDS cases claim to have gotten the disease from heterosexual transmission. Given the stigma of homosexuality, it’s safe to assume that this number exaggerates the true fraction.]

We live on a planet with finite resources. The more people there are, the quicker we deplete natural resources.

You’re thinking about resources like a 19th-century Malthusian. Available resources are not in the long run limited by the quantity of any physical commodity, but by the quantity of human brain power that identifies them as such. If we were monkeys, it’s true that our energy supply would be limited to wild foods and the direct absorption of sunshine. As humans, we’ve used our brains to exploit wood, then coal, then oil, then uranium, and fusion power is likely within a century. The more brain power we apply to the problem, the sooner we’ll be on fusion or some other alternative.

Jacques Distler,

Throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries, in every industrialized country (US, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan), economic growth has been accompanied by falling, not rising birth rates.

So all we need to do to accelerate economic growth is to reduce the population. No doubt maximal economic growth will occur when the population is zero. Obviously, falling birthrates was not a cause of economic growth (otherwise any country could become wealthy by killing off its population, which hasn’t worked too well in North Korea).

First off, birth rates did not decline in the first part of the industrial revolution; they increased. Secondly, subsequent declines in birth rates were always exceeded by declines in the death rate, with the result that the annual supply of people increased throughout most of these centuries, as evidenced by the huge rise in the populations of these countries. The stagnation of Western European economies of the late 20th century is largely due to falling birth rates. This has required them to import huge quantities of immigrants to keep their economies afloat. In short, more people, more wealth. [I think that your intuition on this and that of Joe F are probably off, because you’re confusing “total wealth” with “median standard of living”.]

bittergradstudent,

You have no idea what you are talking about. Talk to the thousands to millions of AIDS victims in Africa, and ask them if their condition is due to homosexual sex. Perpetuating this sterotype spreads disease and stigmatizes thousands. I could go on on this point, but the AIDS in Africa issue more than dispells this ignorant, ignorant claim.

No more than about 33% of AIDS in Africa is transmitted by sex of any sort. Because it has long been known that African tribesmen are commonly bisexual, and because heterosexual transmission rates in the U.S. are low, sexual transmission of AIDS in Africa is likely due to anal sex. By contrast, the bulk of AIDS cases in Africa are due to syringe sharing – either through iatrogenic transmission or in African homes, the vast majority of which contain a syringe kit that is shared among family members. The numerous cases of young children with AIDS whose mothers are AIDS-free support this. Perpetuating the idiotic and willfully ignorant claim that AIDS in Africa is largely due to heterosexual sex, has probably cost millions of lives.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12665438

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9823041

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1886189

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15034989

http://semgai.free.fr/doc_et_pdf/africa_A4.pdf

…you are just a vicious human being enjoying your pretty straight white male privelige.

What’s with all the name calling? What is this, elementary school? Geesh. [FYI. I happen to be a black guy, who grew up poor. But why in the name of Sappho would that matter in what’s supposed to an intellectual discussion?]

The government also supports homosexual sex with tens of millions of dollars in AIDS research.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Talk to the thousands to millions of AIDS victims in Africa, and ask them if their condition is due to homosexual sex. Perpetuating this sterotype spreads disease and stigmatizes thousands. I could go on on this point, but the AIDS in Africa issue more than dispells this ignorant, ignorant claim.

At best, you are intellectually lazy. More likely, you are just a vicious human being enjoying your pretty straight white male privelige. Enjoy your life. I’m done with this thread.

Unless you’re some sort of antiquated Marxist, it’s pretty clear. In economically free societies, higher birthrates mean more wealth-creating brain power, which means more wealth.

Throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries, in every industrialized country (US, Western Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan), economic growth has been accompanied by falling, not rising birth rates.

Your “theory” is not just logical nonsense, it is empirical nonsense as well.

Homosexual sex — like novel reading, piano playing, and masturbation — is also legal. Where sodomy laws still exist, they are not enforced. There is a great deal of difference between the legality of homosexual sex and that of same-sex marriage.

Well, yes. Same-sex marriage is what the original post is about.

Thus, the analogies to novel reading etc. are not on the mark.

The government also supports homosexual sex with tens of millions of dollars in AIDS research.

Oh dear.

Do you really believe that AIDS is specific to homosexuals? There are many mechanisms for the transmission of HIV and of AIDS, none of which are specific to homosexuals.

Unless you’re some sort of antiquated Marxist, it’s pretty clear. In economically free societies, higher birthrates mean more wealth-creating brain power, which means more wealth.

We live on a planet with finite resources. The more people there are, the quicker we deplete natural resources. The planet cannot support an unlimited number of people, and many countries (including many ‘economically free’ countries) are over populates.

In the vast majority of countries, substantially higher birth rates would lead to disaster.

My example’s purpose was to show that a rational morality exists in which homosexual sex, in contrast to heterosexual sex, is in general immoral.

You are cherry picking the consequences and interpretation of your model. That a higher birth rate is necessary beneficial to mankind is in no way clear, and many of the consequences which are clear you choose to ignore.

Why don’t you pick X to be the total birth rate, or something similar and equally as ridiculous? Why not just say let X be inversely proportional to the number of homosexual marriages, and wear your biggotry on your sleave?

So for you the defining function of marriage is to have children? That is a very narrow view of the institution indeed…

It’s the traditional view. In ancient Greece and Rome, for example, where open homosexuality was more common than in our society, it was understood that your homosexual affair was for personal gratification, while your marriage was part of your civic duty – the creation of new citizens.

bittergradstudent,

Why are we instutionalizing the marriage of sterile heterosexual couples, then? Should we ban the marriage of women with tied tubes or men with vasectomies? What about men marrying post-menopausal women?

Marriage as it is currently instituted contains obsolete provisions reflecting pre-scientific ideas about conception. These were fostered in our society by Biblical accounts of aged postmenopausal women giving birth. I believe that the institution of marriage should be updated to reflect our current knowledge about conception. Accordingly, I believe that marriage licenses should not be granted to any couple, when current medical knowledge rules out the possibility of conception through sex between members of the couple.

To spell my views out:

The cases for which I believe that a marriage license should not be granted include: 1) an impotent heterosexual man and fertile heterosexual woman, and 2) a potent heterosexual man and a sterile heterosexual woman.

Once granted, a marriage licenses should automatically expire after 10 years, if the sexual union did not produce a child.

This means that two 80-years-old cannot marry each other. But a couple of 80-year-olds that succeeded (when they were still fertile) in producing children (before the end of the 10-year expiration period of their license) do possess a valid marriage license.

This means that a man who did not impregnate his wife, before he was rendered impotent in an accident, will only remain married to her until the couple’s marriage license expires due to lack of children.

Couples (heterosexual or homosexual) that intend to remain childless may be granted the status of “civil union”. Couples (heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual) that intend to raise children created through some means other than sex between members of the couple may be granted the status of “joint guardianship”. Only couples that are capable of producing a child through sex (between member of the couple) may be granted the status of “marriage”. Private parties may choose to honor or discriminate on the basis of these categories however they wish.

In short, I believe that the institution of marriage should be more exclusive, not less.

Joel Grant,

Novel reading et. al. are legal and there’s the rub.

Homosexual sex — like novel reading, piano playing, and masturbation — is also legal. Where sodomy laws still exist, they are not enforced. There is a great deal of difference between the legality of homosexual sex and that of same-sex marriage.

Joe Fitzsimons,

[The wealth maximization ethic does]…suggest that slavery is highly moral, as you get a lot of work out of people in exchange for very little.

Okay, so if the United States enslaves the entire population of California, you think that that will increase the total quantity of American wealth? Dude, where did you learn your economics?

The fact that it is not clear at all that a higher birth rate would increase the net wealth of humanity seems to have completely alluded you.

Unless you’re some sort of antiquated Marxist, it’s pretty clear. In economically free societies, higher birthrates mean more wealth-creating brain power, which means more wealth. If your point is that having children in Stalinist North Korean, or in an African kleptocracy, or on the surface of the sun is not necessarily conducive to wealth creation, well Duuhhh! That’s as if I had asserted that lifting weights builds muscle, and you brilliantly pointed out that this isn’t true if one’s diet is restricted to 400 calories per day.

…your model is ridiculously flawed to begin with, as human moral codes can be far more complicated than the toy model you are using…

It’s true that human moral codes are confused. But that’s irrelevant. My example’s purpose was to show that a rational morality exists in which homosexual sex, in contrast to heterosexual sex, is in general immoral. If your position is that any morality formulated as a maximization principle is irrational, your position is simply untenable. Your distaste for any particular maximization principle is hardly proof of the irrationality of all maximization principles or even of the one in question.

Actually encouraging literature is essentially the same as encouraging novel reading. Not only is ther a Nobel Prize for literature, but there are countless (government sponsored) programs aimed at encouraging creative writing etc.
The same is essentially true of piano playing (music). There are many orchestras etc. which recieve government funding. Also virtually every developed country has some kind of national academy of music.

The government also supports homosexual sex with tens of millions of dollars in AIDS research. So by your reasoning there already exists a governmental institution supporting homosexual sex. This favors my assertion that there is as much official disapprobation of homosexual sex as there is of novel reading, piano playing, and masturbation.

Humans are not 100% rational and our irrational prejudices will slow down the progress of our society. I’m saying that this is unavoidable for anthropic reasons. A typical intelligent being in the universe will find him/her/itself living in a “backward” society.

The fact that it is not clear at all that a higher birth rate would increase the net wealth of humanity seems to have completely alluded you.

That said, your model is ridiculously flawed to begin with, as human moral codes can be far more complicated than the toy model you are using, as Jacques and others have said more elloquently.

Your position is neither logical/rational nor in any way defensible. You are clearly seeking a justification for your prejudice, and are failing miserably to justify any of the claims you make.

But to reply to one of you previous comments

Failure to institutionalize a practice is not disapprobation. There are no governmental institutions supporting novel reading, piano playing, or masturbation either.

Actually encouraging literature is essentially the same as encouraging novel reading. Not only is ther a Nobel Prize for literature, but there are countless (government sponsored) programs aimed at encouraging creative writing etc.

The same is essentially true of piano playing (music). There are many orchestras etc. which recieve government funding. Also virtually every developed country has some kind of national academy of music.

Failure to institutionalize a practice is not disapprobation. There are no governmental institutions supporting novel reading, piano playing, or masturbation either.

Novel reading et. al. are legal and there’s the rub.

Besides, marriage limited to non-procreative sex, or no sex, is and will continue to be a legal and governmentally-supported institution for at least as long as senior citizens have healthy libidos.

If you don’t wnat ot ban all of these things as well, then this argument is patently rediculous.

And striving for a Spartan society maximizes nothing but suffering.

I have no problem with the idea of special approbation for good behavior but I do have a problem with disapprobation for behavior that does not “… uniquely contribute to that good…”

Failure to institutionalize a practice is not disapprobation. There are no governmental institutions supporting novel reading, piano playing, or masturbation either.

Joe Fitzsimons,

This is clearly absurd, and I don’t see what there is to be gained by pointing out the flaws in your claims.

When your response to an exceedingly logical position with which you disagree is simply that it is “clearly absurd”, you are conceding your irrationality in the matter.

bittergradstudent,

your idealization is rediculous.

If you think it absurd to strive for perfection knowing that you will not achieve it, you are at odds with a long (and I believe uniquely Western) tradition that began with the ancient Greek worship of excellence.

If you teach, try this experiment. Prepare an extremely difficult exam. Segregate your class into two groups. Tell one group that they must strive to get 100%. Tell the other group that achieving 100% is impossible, so it’s okay if they get 40%. Compare the scores of the two groups.

PK,

Belizean, I admire your moral contortionism to keep gays from legally marrying each other at all cost.

Not quite at all cost. There is a condition under which I would favor the legalization of same-sex marriage. I would favor it after the development of technology that makes homosexual sex procreative. [This will surely be possible within the next 100 years.]

[And just to be clear, it is currently legal for gays to marry in all 50 states. What is illegal in the great majority of states is same-sex marriage.]

I think at this point it has become clear that you oppose gay marraige, and are trying to construct a system of morals under which it is immoral to be gay (or at least to act on it). This is clearly absurd, and I don’t see what there is to be gained by pointing out the flaws in your claims. I realise that you are likely to argue with any counter point, no matter how strong, to put across an opinion you had decided on long before commenting on this post. Is there anything to be gained by continued arguement?

Setting up a moral equation is the right way to proceed. The first step is to determine what your society means by “good”. The second step is to identify those behaviors that uniquely contribute to that good in that they are essential to the society’s survival. The third set is to restrict special societal approbation to those behaviors identified in the second step. >/blockquote>

I have no problem with the idea of special approbation for good behavior but I do have a problem with disapprobation for behavior that does not “… uniquely contribute to that good…”

your idealization is rediculous. If we replaced humans with robots able to build more robots, then we outstrip all of this. And the way you describe an ‘ideal’ human, it might as well be a robot.

One’s moral ideals are distinct from one’s actions. The latter normally falls well short of the former.

PK,

Please carefully reread my last post for the condition that justifies the institutionalization of a practice.

If it is actually the case that your capacity for moral action depends on periodically having homosexual sex, then you are morally obliged to have homosexual sex.

OK, that’s it then, when gays and lesbians gain greater capacity for doing good by getting married, then you’re fine with it? Because by insititutionalising we do not mean that everybody must venture into a gay marriage!

Belizean, I admire your moral contortionism to keep gays from legally marrying each other at all cost.