Posted By mulhollandj on 05/23/2007 8:17 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275096,00.html
This is an interesting article about some girls being charged with a hate crime in and of itself without violating any other law. Scary? I think so.
Not really. The purpose of a hate crime isn't to intensify punishment - it is to punish a different class of crime. What a hate crime does is not only seeks to do harm against the person in question, but against specifically the community in question.
I apologize for taking a while to get my evidence on the other argument. I am waiting for some information from a friend.
Alright. While I wait, I'll post a position paper that I have written on the subject (I have more for things like evolution, etc). The purpose of it is to compile arguments against and to allow me to state my responses. Here it is:
Gay Unions
The official position of me on the issue of gay unions is: They
ought be allowed.
His reasoning is as follows, along with other relevant
statements:
- There
is no rational reason to bar gay unions.
- Given
that there is no pressing reason for the state to intervene in this
matter, other considerations ought be given far more weight.
- The
predicted harms of gay marriage have not been observed in any society.
- Very
few people who make these arguments are willing to make them to a gay
person – that is, they will not be willing to say that the specific gay
person in question is not capable of parenting, or is not capable of
being faithful, or any such: This inability exposes the non-categorical
nature of the assertions in question, and indicates a large problem in
statistical validity and intellectual integrity.
- In the
interest of the values of equality and liberty, gay unions ought to be
allowed.
- Allowing
people to live in a manner that they see fit, when it does not harm the
liberty of others, leads to prosperous societies. As well, the state
should only assume the roles necessary to fulfill its obligations.
- Gay
marriage promotes tolerance and reduces hate within society.
- The
promotion of loving relationships is in the interests of society.
- Opposition
to gay unions tends to come from bigotry, rather than reasoned analysis.
This position makes many values assumptions, including (but
not limited to): High emphasis on liberty and equality and tolerance, emphasis
on privacy. Anti-values are placed on religion.
The following are common arguments that have been levied
against this position. I responds accordingly:
1.
“Gay unions
results in the collapse of society. “ - Harms
(1.1.)
This has not been demonstrated. An analysis of
societies today that allow for gay unions indicate that, at minimum, gay unions
has a negligible impact. There does seem to be a strong correlation between gay
unions and social prosperity, and this correlation would seem to destroy any
attempt at demonstrating that gay unions results in collapse.
1.1.1.
“But not
enough time has passed.”
(1.1.1.1.) Gay
unions have been legal in some jurisdictions now for nearly 18 years (as of
2007) and this would seem to be ample time to see some effect.
(1.1.1.2.) No
mechanism has been provided for why there would be any sort of delay in seeing
this.
2.
“Gay unions
will result in more people becoming gay, resulting in fewer children, and thus will
result in the collapse of society.” - Harms
(2.1.)
If sexuality cannot on balance be chosen, then people
will quickly determine that (on average) they are heterosexual and thus will
continue to procreate in the typical manner.
(2.2.)
If sexuality can on balance be chosen, no rational
person would choose to be gay: At worst, they would choose bisexuality for that
enables them to maximize sexual pleasure. Otherwise, they would choose
heterosexuality, for that allows them to integrate most easily with the rest of
society. Furthermore, if sexuality can
be chosen in such a manner, then people will simply choose to have a baby at
such time that they wish to.
(2.3.)
The human race at present is facing no threat of
extinction due to low population. Indeed, the human race is at present
suffering from massive overpopulation, and therefore this argument can be
turned to support gay unions.
4.
“Gays
themselves are harmed by higher incidence of disease that accompany unions.” -
Harms
(4.1.)
The specific rate of disease cannot be determined due
to problems in biased sample sizes.
(4.2.)
Assuming the rate of disease is high, marriage has no
impact on this: There is no mechanism by which marriage would increase risky
behaviours within this group, since it is likely that such a group is partaking
in those activities anyway. Rather, marriage would seem to decrease such risk,
by reducing social pressures against gays and promoting monogamous values.
5.
“Gays have a
higher rate of disease or some other negative trait.”
(5.1.)
A disease test has never been a qualification of
marriage, nor should it be: As long as the two people consent, the government
has no business telling them that their love does or does not have worth.
6.
“Gay unions
allow for polygamy.”
(6.1.)
Unions are a legal contract between two people granting
them certain benefits and responsibilities. These benefits only fit within the
dynamic of a two person relationship and logically break when expanded beyond
this (For instance, deciding succession of power of attorney).
6.1.1.
“But
shouldn’t the government be nondiscriminatory when it comes to love?”
(6.1.1.1.) Indeed,
and if multiple people wish to enter into a relationship that bestows upon them
such legal benefits, they ought be able to. At present, it seems that the legal
relationship best approximating this is that of a corporation.
(6.2.)
The slope is not particularly slippery: Given the
resistence to even gay marriage, polygamy seems very far off.
(6.3.)
It is entirely possible to draw the line somewhere.
(6.4.)
This argument is an argument against marriage in
general: If we allow any union between two people, then there is always the
possibility that we will then allow a union between 3 people. Therefore, by
this argument, all marriage ought be banned.
(6.5.)
This argument ultimately relies on the assumption that
there is nothing wrong with gay marriage itself per se, but rather that it
might lead to something negative. Given a-e, this argument is thus negated
entirely.
7.
“The Bible
says…”
(7.1.)
The Bible is not a reliable source of truth, nor is it
a particularly good source of moral adjudication.
8.
“Gay sexual
interaction is icky.”
(8.1.)
The issue at hand is one of whether they ought be
allowed to enter into a specific legal contract, not whether you ought to be
forced to watch them have sex.
(8.2.)
Your personal distaste for a specific form of conduct,
so long as such conduct does not substantially harm you or anyone else, is not
valid in any debate.
9.
“Homosexuality
is against nature.”
(9.1.)
Homosexuality is observed very frequently in nature.
(9.2.)
Appeals to nature lead to undesirable moral
consequences: It is true that murder is a part of nature. Is it therefore good?
Antibiotics are unnatural: Are they therefore bad?
10. “Might children be turned gay?”
(10.1.)
There is no research to indicate this.
(10.2.)
Please see 2-a and 2-b.
(10.3.)
This appears to be about as equally valid as the
statement “Straight parents will raise only straight children”
11. “If
gays get married, they will face discrimination.”
(11.1.)
Gays ought be allowed whether to take that risk or not.
(11.2.)
It seems highly likely that, by removing continued
discrimination and stigmas against homosexuality, reducing discrimination.
12. “Marriage has traditionally been between a
man and a woman.”
(12.1.)
The logic of this argument relies on traditional things
always being good. Racism has also been a traditional institution, but one that
has been found incompatible with present day beliefs. By this logic, racism
must be accepted since it has traditionally been so.
(12.2.)
Marriage has traditionally been almost a property
relationship with the man as owner and woman as object. For instance, in
Colonial America it was legal for a man to beat his wife, since it was not
generally seen that women had such rights to question their husbands. Since
this is generally not accepted as moral, the argument from tradition must fail.
(12.3.)
In many societies, same-sex relationships were normal
prior to the introduction of Christianity.
13. “Voters have rejected this.”
(13.1.)
Arguments from popularity are not a substitute for
logical argumentation.
(13.2.)
This objection speaks nothing to the morality of gay
unions.
14. “Marriage is about procreation.”
(14.1.)
It is generally not accepted that marriage must form in
order to create children, and many couples often debate whether or not to have
children: Such a debate would not take place if marriage was truly considered
to be about procreation.
(14.2.)
There is no, nor has there ever been, a child-bearing
qualification to marriage.
(14.3.)
The fundamental rationale for marriage, the stability
it lends to society in the formation of stable relationships, is completely
divorced from the issue of procreation.
(14.4.)
Generally proposals to restrict marriage to only those
who are capable of bearing children, to legislate that children must be born or
the union dissolved, or to even define marriage strictly as between two parents
have all generally enjoyed very little support, even among opponents of gay
unions, thus indicating that this objection is not a sufficient motivator to
action. Indeed, if that is the purpose of marriage, then marriage ought begin
the second a baby is born, and end the second a woman is no longer capable of
either raising biological children or bearing more.
14.4.1.
“Because of practical/privacy
limitations, we cannot investigate these straight marriages to see if they have
children. However, a gay marriage by definition cannot provide biological
children, and thus few resources are expended to meet this goal.”
(14.4.1.1.) It
seems like it would be a trivial matter for a government agency to, after 5
years of the creation of a straight union, check if any children have been
registered to the parents.
(14.4.1.2.) Defining
marriage as occurring at the exact moment of birth between the parents avoids
the problem of investigation entirely. The moment the child is born and given a
birth certificate, the parents are also given a marriage certificate.
(14.4.1.3.) The
lack of support for the above measures means the original point stands.
(14.4.1.4.) Cross
apply 14.5 here: Defining an acceptable marriage as only one that has
biological children ignores that non-biological children can also be
raised.
(14.4.1.5.) If,
on balance, marriage is about procreation then privacy limitations ought not
apply: The entire purpose of marriage is procreation, and therefore is the
sanctity of marriage is to be upheld the government must investigate in
accordance with 14.4.1.1 or 14.4.1.2.
(14.5.)
Gays are capable of reproduction, and are more than
capable of adoption, which is desperately needed in a world abundant with
unwanted children. Basically the point seems to be that one has to define the
moral imperative of marriage as raising only biological children, and it seems
difficult to justify a differentiation between biological and non-biological
children in this ethical mathematics.
15. “I love my mother – why shouldn’t I be able
to marry her?”
(15.1.)
I have no opposition to marriage between two consenting
adults.
(15.2.)
One can logically argue that the marriage between two
lovers is the only type of union that contributes to the safety of society, whereas
the love between a mother and child is qualitatively different and serves no
function in recognition.
16. “Gender roles will be confused in children
raised in such households. “
(16.1.)
There is no evidence to indicate this.
(16.2.)
Gender roles are generally negative anyway.
(16.3.)
Teaching gender roles has never been a qualification
for marriage.
17. Gays can get these rights using other means.
(17.1.)
Gays ought not need to resort to other methods to
secure the same rights, incurring additional costs for the same rights.
(17.2.)
By attempting this argument, one automatically concedes
that there is no material harm in allowing gay unions, since the end result of
either using a lawyer to secure these rights individually or using unions to
secure them collectively is the same: If it is harmful only in one situation
but not another, one must demonstrate the substantive difference between the
two.
(17.3.)
Not all rights can be restored in this manner.
18. “Gays make bad parents.”
(18.1.)
There is no evidence to indicate this.
(18.2.)
Parenting skills have never been used as a
qualification for marriage.
(18.3.)
The Child Welfare League of America, the North American
Council on Adoptable Children, the laceName w:st="on">AmericanlaceName>
laceType w:st="on">AcademylaceType> of Pediatrics,
the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association,
and the National Association of Social Workers disagree.
19. “Judges are legislating from the bench.”
(19.1.)
Judges are fulfilling their constitutional role to
adjudicate the law.
(19.2.)
Judges have traditionally ruled in favour of protecting
minority rights, as it has always been known that the majority will likely vote
to discriminate if given the chance. Indeed, fear of the tyranny of the
majority if one reason why the judiciary is kept independent of the other two
branches.
20. “Gays already have equal rights – they can
marriage people of the opposite gender too.”
(20.1.)
If an amendment were passed saying that the only valid
marriages would be same-sex marriages, heterosexuals would justly feel
persecuted.
(20.2.)
This argument plays on semantics: Instead of going for
equality in spirit, the argument attempts to go for equality in syntax.
21. “Gays are not capable of love for each
other.”
(21.1.)
There is no evidence to indicate this.
(21.2.)
Proving ones love has never been a qualification for
marriage.
22. “Gays do not represent a significant enough
portion of the population to merit this.”
(22.1.)
This does not speak to the morality of the issue in
question.
(22.2.)
To say that a minority is too small to be protected
from discrimination is not morally correct.
(22.3.)
Other minorities also exist that are small: Jews make
up 5% of the US
population, however it would be wildly improper to discriminate against them.
23. “Can’t they just have civil unions?”
(23.1.)
This argument admits that marriage poses no threat.
(23.2.)
Civil unions continue to remain discriminatory,
creating a special class of marriage for “the gays” and the regular class for
“the rest of us”. This would not be
considered proper for any other group of people.
24. “Forcing me to accept gay marriage is
against my religious beliefs.”
(24.1.)
Allowing gay marriage only forces the state to
recognize the legal contract – others, including churches, may or may not
recognize this union depending upon their own personal preferences.
(24.2.)
This argument is wildly subjective: If some religion
considers heterosexual marriages to be immoral, should they then be dissolved?
(24.3.)
Your right to practice your religion in private is not
being infringed upon.
25. “People might marry into fraudulent weddings
in order to gain legal benefits, such as health coverage.”
(25.1.)
There is no evidence to suggest that heterosexuals will
rush to have homosexual weddings for any reason.
(25.2.)
Heterosexuals are not prevented from engaging in such
sham-weddings right now with members of the opposite sex.
26. “Gay marriage undermines the health of the
traditional family.”
(26.1.)
The health of the traditional family seems to be
self-destructing (in the United
States) well on its own.
(26.2.)
The “traditional family” is a very nebulous concept.
(26.3.)
The “threat” is fairly vaguely defined – indeed,
typically defined in such a way that it means nothing at all, and is simply a
talking point.
(26.4.)
In the United States,
it has been found that divorce rates in the only state in the Union
to legalise gay marriage were among the lowest in the nation, and continued
their downward trend, whereas states that oppose gay marriage experienced an
increase in divorce rates.
27. “Gay marriage advocates want to destroy the
traditional family and/or society.”
(27.1.)
This is an ad hominem attack.
(27.2.)
This is a conspiracy theory.
(27.3.)
There is no evidence for this.
28. “Gay marriage will lead to man-beast
relationships.”
(28.1.)
An animal is not able to consent, which is required
under common law.
29. “Homosexuals molest children.”
(29.1.)
There is no evidence to indicate this.
(29.2.)
Profiling of this nature is not used in determining
valid marriages.
30. “Homosexuals can be cured of their disease.”
(30.1.)
The science increasingly is demonstrating this to be
unlikely.
(30.2.)
It is not relevant anyway: Absent another reason to bar
gay unions, it comes down to liberty and equality, which necessarily lead to
gay unions.
31. “The Founding Fathers never intended for
this.”
(31.1.)
The intent of the Founding Fathers is not a proper
measure of the validity of a thing, for the Founding fathers lived in a time
where such things as racism and sexism were commonplace. The Founding Fathers
did not intend for the direct election of Senators, for instance, but it would
seem undemocratic to do anything else now.
(31.2.)
The Founding Fathers did not particularly speak on the
issue of marriage, since it wasn’t that large of an issue at the time.
(31.3.)
The feelings of the Founding Fathers are not relevant
to the morality of a thing.
32. “Gay unions could cause civil strife.”
(32.1.)
There is no evidence for this.
(32.2.)
Any problems related to civil strife would be the fault
of those violating the law, not the fault of gay people.
(32.3.)
Other controversial equality measures, such as
interracial marriage, also posed the threat of causing civil strife. The
interests of equality and liberty prevail over this.
33. “Gay unions legitimise
homosexuality.”
(33.1.)
This would not be a negative thing.
(33.2.)
Gay unions only remove discrimination: They do not
“promote” homosexuality.
34. “Marriage is not the domain of the state.”
(34.1.)
As long as the state does sanction marriages, gay
marriage leads to less government intervention in the lives of the people
versus not having it, since the state no longer discriminates and presents
obstacles to people living their own lives in the way that they see fit.
(34.2.)
The formation of stable unions can be said to be in the
interests of securing both the negative and positive liberty of the people.
35. “Gay unions would increase the spread of
disease.”
(35.1.)
There is no evidence for this.
(35.2.)
The spread of disease has never been a factor in
allowing straights to marry.
36. “Gay marriage will cost too much money.”
(36.1.)
For gays, gay marriage would increase the amount of
money they receive from such things as social security by $5,000, pensions, and
other sources, thus increasing their economic power.
(36.2.)
The cost on employers in areas that allow gay marriage
has been extremely marginal, enough so to be insignificant.
(36.3.)
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the
government would take in $1 billion if all 50 states allowed gay marriage.
|