Sick of the Gay marriage Rhetoric

Why is this country so obsessed with marriage (USA)? I live in a pretty liberal state and I just can't escape the push for "equal rights". Feh, equal rights indeed. Can't they see they're missing the larger issue? It's not homosexuals that are being discriminated against, it's singles. If singles were treated as well as married people, there wouldn't be such a big issue. Singles pay higher taxes and use fewer benefits, they can't leave their estate to a loved one when they die without paying taxes and they can't bestow their social security benefits at all, yada yada yada. Single people have none of the benefits married people take for granted but for some reason it's OK because all they have to do is get hitched. Why should anyone have to be in any relationship at all? Why the preferential treatment? I know there's another level to this marriage argument concerning the desire to show devotion to others and junk, but I can't sympathize with that; it doesn't mean anything to me and it shouldn't mean anything to the government either. Screw the gays and screw the elitist married class too.

Solitarian wrote:Why is this country so obsessed with marriage (USA)? ... Why should anyone have to be in any relationship at all? Why the preferential treatment?

Two words: family values.

Er...just so you know, a lot of "the gays" that you're proposing screwing (commentary withheld on that one) have exactly the same critique of the legal/economic privileges conferred by marriage that you do. A lot of "the gays" have exactly zero desire to get married, and do not think that should (further?) relegate them to a position of second-class citizenship. Normally I wouldn't enter into a discussion like this on an internet forum, but it sounds like you aren't having this conversation with many people who are not straight (or "straight by default," if asexual), so I just want any straight/default-straight person who stumbles across this thread to understand that "the gays" are not a monolithic entity, any more than "the straights" are, and many of us would not get married even if someone paid us. (Okay, maybe if it was a lot of money and nothing was being required in return. Just speaking for myself on that one though!)

@non-cartesian - Fair enough. For me that kind of stuff goes without saying. I tend to speak all inclusively assuming people are smart enough to assume a more conservative/reasonable scope without me explicitly defining one.

If you're single and heterosexual, you can choose to get married. If you're single and homosexual, you cannot choose to get married (well at least not to the person you probably want to marry). How is that fair?

Solitarian wrote:I live in a pretty liberal state and I just can't escape the push for "equal rights".

Solitarian wrote:Singles pay higher taxes and use fewer benefits, they can't leave their estate to a loved one when they die without paying taxes and they can't bestow their social security benefits at all, yada yada yada. Single people have none of the benefits married people take for granted but for some reason it's OK because all they have to do is get hitched.

Why complain about the push for equal rights if what you want is equal benefits?

Solitarian, I don't know if this fits with your gripe, but the nuclear family was viewed as a highly desirable economic unit in the mid-20th century. A family that was independent of extraneous relatives could easily be relocated to new industrial projects. The men were dependable and motivated to work because they had families to provide for. (Whereas singles, or people in complex families that spanned several generations, were not as useful or reliable as labour.)

These days a lot of work does not require relocation, but can be done with the aid of telecommunication devices. The jobs many of us do are rapidly changing, and often demand our attention outside of working hours as well as a commitment to 'lifelong learning'. There is less use for nuclear families, and perhaps consequently society is producing less nuclear families. I think the number of single people living alone is rising, and the standard of living for single people seems to be rising with it. (Just compare how single women would have been treated fifty years ago.)

However if government and society perceive that couples are more beneficial than singles, then they will reward couples accordingly. They will promote what they want more of. At some level, we are all resources that can be calibrated to fit a particular purpose.

javert wrote:If you're single and heterosexual, you can choose to get married. If you're single and homosexual, you cannot choose to get married (well at least not to the person you probably want to marry). How is that fair?

You could make the case that that is fair because all people have the option to marry a person of the opposite gender not of their immediate family who is not already in a marital relationship who has reached the age of consent, provided you have also reached the age of consent. Everyone is subject to the same criteria. Just because your preferred spouse does not meet that criteria does not constitute an "inequality" of rights. I don't make this argument because I don't believe it is fair merely equal. But besides the esoteric union of marriage itself, singles and gays are in the same boat and to suggest the homosexual's problems can be fixed by allowing them to marry is myopic. The greater injustice is that marriage is necessary to receive equal treatment in the first place.

javert wrote:Why complain about the push for equal rights if what you want is equal benefits?

This is another thing I hate about political movements, the terminology is so misleading.
gay marriage becomes "equal rights"
pro abortion becomes "pro choice"
anti abortion becomes "pro life"
These euphemisms just cloud the issues.

Anyway, I'm pushing for equal treatment, be it in the form of benefits or whatever. The thing is I tend to define marriage in terms of the benefits the government gives married people. I mentioned that I know there is another level to marriage that I don't understand or respect or care about; the relationship part. I figure the government has no business worrying about that either. I also figure that stuff can be fulfilled through cohabitation or whatever, but again I don't care.

javert wrote:However if government and society perceive that couples are more beneficial than singles, then they will reward couples accordingly. They will promote what they want more of. At some level, we are all resources that can be calibrated to fit a particular purpose.

Yeah, that's part of my gripe. I'm an anarchist.

What is this, the asexual's argument against gay marriage? It's pragmatic, I'll give you that. Not at all the offensive forum-shaking piece I was expecting. But then, it's exactly what I should expect from you people.

Solitarian wrote:Anyway, I'm pushing for equal treatment, be it in the form of benefits or whatever. The thing is I tend to define marriage in terms of the benefits the government gives married people. I mentioned that I know there is another level to marriage that I don't understand or respect or care about; the relationship part. I figure the government has no business worrying about that either. I also figure that stuff can be fulfilled through cohabitation or whatever, but again I don't care.

Should the government provide equal benefits to people regardless of their relationship status, when different relationship statuses do not pose equal cost to society/government?
I imagine it would cost more to provide for people if everyone lived as single persons in their own homes. It is economically beneficial to have co-dependent couples. Two people can live more cheaply than one. Less housing would be required. And probably less welfare too, as some people who would qualify for welfare as singles will instead be supported by their partners and will no longer require (or be eligible for) welfare.
That's just the monetary aspect. I assume there are behavioural benefits to having people in couples, but I won't speculate...this is the SPD forum after all.

Solitarian wrote:Yeah, that's part of my gripe. I'm an anarchist.

But even as an anarchist you are still a product of society.
If you are not an optimal product to suit its current needs, then society may well try to remould you. I don't see how you can avoid that.

Mr.Pokeylope wrote:What is this, the asexual's argument against gay marriage? It's pragmatic, I'll give you that. Not at all the offensive forum-shaking piece I was expecting. But then, it's exactly what I should expect from you people.

Who are "you people"? Schizoids? Asexuals? Members of this forum? Looking through your posts it looks like you're all three.

javert wrote:Should the government provide equal benefits to people regardless of their relationship status, when different relationship statuses do not pose equal cost to society/government?

If the benefits were equal, how could the cost be unequal?

javert wrote:I imagine it would cost more to provide for people if everyone lived as single persons in their own homes.

I'm not asking that we be provided for.

javert wrote:It is economically beneficial to have co-dependent couples. Two people can live more cheaply than one. Less housing would be required.

It's economical, I wouldn't say it's economically beneficial. The economy benefits from spending, not saving, so singles boost the economy with their rampant consumerism. Besides, couples can enjoy the savings of cohabitation without marriage, that perk does not come from the government and costs it nothing.

javert wrote:And probably less welfare too, as some people who would qualify for welfare as singles will instead be supported by their partners and will no longer require (or be eligible for) welfare.

That comes down to how welfare eligibility is handled, why should liberty be trodden on because of a programs inability to assess people's needs?

javert wrote:That's just the monetary aspect. I assume there are behavioural benefits to having people in couples, but I won't speculate...this is the SPD forum after all.

The very idea gets my dander up.

javert wrote:But even as an anarchist you are still a product of society.
If you are not an optimal product to suit its current needs, then society may well try to remould you. I don't see how you can avoid that.

I can think of some guano crazy ideas.