Thoughts about gay marriage
Gay marriage is an interesting subject for a number of reasons. First of all, the sides are surprisingly polarized. A strong pro-gay marriage stance from gays is expected, but the passion on the anti-gay marriage side is somewhat surprising. Gay marriage is also probably one of the few hot button issues that I don't have a strong opinion on (although I'm sure if someone directly questioned me on a slew of topics I'd find some more).
Here's a collection of disjointed thoughts that perhaps I'll turn into some cohesive posts in the future. Generally I think best in terms of questions and answers. I fervently believe that the key to meaningful discussion on issues of public policy (especially those that are emotionally charged) is starting off the the proper questions. These questions of one of two types, either philosophical or factual. Philosophical arguments are over things like the proper scope of government but factual questions are those with definite answers like "How many lives will be saved by introducing universal healthcare insurance?" (note: this question is likely unanswerable due to the complexity at hand, but it still produces a meaningful hypothesis).
What is the purpose of marriage? (Philosophical)
Should the government preferentially incentivise certain family structures? (Philosophical)
What stakes does the government (or society in general) in the family structures of its members? (Factual)
Are children harmed by being raised by same-sex parents? (Philosophical for def. of harm, Factual otherwise)
Should the religious (or secular ethical) views of the majority be imposed on a minority? (Philosophical)
How should one deal with matters of public policy involving actions that one deems immoral? (Philosophical)
My thought surrounding these questions:
What is the purpose of marriage?
Ostensibly the purpose of marriage is to create and raise children and to provide a stable relationship between two people. I don't think that the purpose of marriage is to ratify a certain emotional bond between two people. I suppose that I should limit this discussion purely to the topic of marriage in a civil sense, since the religious aspect of marriage muddles the discussion. I feel fairly comfortable with saying that the purpose of a marriage (from a purely governmental view) is to provide a stable structure for the raising of children. I specifically stayed away from tossing in a procreation clause because adoption is a socially accepted form of obtaining a child.
Should the government preferentially incentivise certain family structures?
A wealth of research has shown that children generally fair better in two-parent homes than single-parent homes. That fact alone provides a basis for the government to provide incentives two two-parent families. I should note that these incentives need to be properly balanced as to not unduly punish people for whom a two-parent family is suboptimal (as would be the case for a woman married to an abusive husband). Also, the incentives should be strongly related to the interests of the children. For instance, because a husband and wife share health insurance, the wife is able to stay at home and care for the children without having to separately purchase a healthcare plan. In the case of a married couple without children (where both spouses work), the ability of the spouses to choose which insurance plan to use doesn't further any specific government interests. The automatic power of attorney that a spouse has is also in the best interests of the children because it guarantees a simpler transition period in the case that one parent dies. At some point I need to look at the full list of benefits of marriage to make sure that all of them seem justified. The only one that I can't immediately explain is hospital visiting privileges. Do spouses get more access than parents or children? It would make sense that spouses get at least as much access as children because someone would need to bring young children on the visit. Note that none of these interests are based on the sex of the married couple in question.
What stakes does the government (or society in general) in the family structures of its members?
The government wants children that are adequately socialized and prepared to be productive members of society. Thereby the government has a direct stake in procreation. Without procreation the next generation doesn't exist (with the exception of immigration). I'd be interested in seeing a model for a nation with a birth rate of zero that survives purely off of immigration.
Are children harmed by being raised by same-sex parents?
For narrow definitions of "harmed" definitely not. Children growing up in gay households are productive members of society. One could argue that in a lesbian relationship adopted sons would lack a strong male role model to "show them how to be a man" and vice versa for gay male relationships, but I doubt this rationale is strong enough to deny same-sex couples the benefits of marriage (and also is refuting in the academic literature). There is also an argument that same-sex couples by their very existence threaten the "traditional" values of marriage, but I don't know if there is significant government interest in promoting the traditional values of marriage.
Should the religious (or secular ethical) views of the majority be imposed on a minority?
Any law that the government enforces is imposing some kind of code of ethics on its citizens. Let's say that I don't believe that murder is wrong. I could complain that the various laws against me killing whoever I want are imposing some moral code on me. Less extreme examples exist, but the general rule of thumb seems to be that the government should only pass laws that keep society running smoothly. Murder prevents society from running smoothly but eating non-kosher foods or working on the Sabbath does not (in my opinion). Applying this reasoning to gay marriage, the only justification for banning it would be to keep society running smoothly (not any intrinsic moral incorrectness).
How should one deal with matters of public policy involving actions that one deems immoral?
I believe that there are many immoral actions that shouldn't be illegal. One of the most obvious one is adultery. I believe that adultery is gravely wrong, but I wouldn't want to see anyone thrown in jail over it (for instance, I'd say that punching a guy in the face (assault) isn't morally worse than adultery although I'm obviously for assault being illegal). Once again, just because gay marriage is morally objectionable to some people is not a sufficient reason to make it illegal.
Conclusion: I really should be doing my homework right now.
Here's a collection of disjointed thoughts that perhaps I'll turn into some cohesive posts in the future. Generally I think best in terms of questions and answers. I fervently believe that the key to meaningful discussion on issues of public policy (especially those that are emotionally charged) is starting off the the proper questions. These questions of one of two types, either philosophical or factual. Philosophical arguments are over things like the proper scope of government but factual questions are those with definite answers like "How many lives will be saved by introducing universal healthcare insurance?" (note: this question is likely unanswerable due to the complexity at hand, but it still produces a meaningful hypothesis).
What is the purpose of marriage? (Philosophical)
Should the government preferentially incentivise certain family structures? (Philosophical)
What stakes does the government (or society in general) in the family structures of its members? (Factual)
Are children harmed by being raised by same-sex parents? (Philosophical for def. of harm, Factual otherwise)
Should the religious (or secular ethical) views of the majority be imposed on a minority? (Philosophical)
How should one deal with matters of public policy involving actions that one deems immoral? (Philosophical)
My thought surrounding these questions:
What is the purpose of marriage?
Ostensibly the purpose of marriage is to create and raise children and to provide a stable relationship between two people. I don't think that the purpose of marriage is to ratify a certain emotional bond between two people. I suppose that I should limit this discussion purely to the topic of marriage in a civil sense, since the religious aspect of marriage muddles the discussion. I feel fairly comfortable with saying that the purpose of a marriage (from a purely governmental view) is to provide a stable structure for the raising of children. I specifically stayed away from tossing in a procreation clause because adoption is a socially accepted form of obtaining a child.
Should the government preferentially incentivise certain family structures?
A wealth of research has shown that children generally fair better in two-parent homes than single-parent homes. That fact alone provides a basis for the government to provide incentives two two-parent families. I should note that these incentives need to be properly balanced as to not unduly punish people for whom a two-parent family is suboptimal (as would be the case for a woman married to an abusive husband). Also, the incentives should be strongly related to the interests of the children. For instance, because a husband and wife share health insurance, the wife is able to stay at home and care for the children without having to separately purchase a healthcare plan. In the case of a married couple without children (where both spouses work), the ability of the spouses to choose which insurance plan to use doesn't further any specific government interests. The automatic power of attorney that a spouse has is also in the best interests of the children because it guarantees a simpler transition period in the case that one parent dies. At some point I need to look at the full list of benefits of marriage to make sure that all of them seem justified. The only one that I can't immediately explain is hospital visiting privileges. Do spouses get more access than parents or children? It would make sense that spouses get at least as much access as children because someone would need to bring young children on the visit. Note that none of these interests are based on the sex of the married couple in question.
What stakes does the government (or society in general) in the family structures of its members?
The government wants children that are adequately socialized and prepared to be productive members of society. Thereby the government has a direct stake in procreation. Without procreation the next generation doesn't exist (with the exception of immigration). I'd be interested in seeing a model for a nation with a birth rate of zero that survives purely off of immigration.
Are children harmed by being raised by same-sex parents?
For narrow definitions of "harmed" definitely not. Children growing up in gay households are productive members of society. One could argue that in a lesbian relationship adopted sons would lack a strong male role model to "show them how to be a man" and vice versa for gay male relationships, but I doubt this rationale is strong enough to deny same-sex couples the benefits of marriage (and also is refuting in the academic literature). There is also an argument that same-sex couples by their very existence threaten the "traditional" values of marriage, but I don't know if there is significant government interest in promoting the traditional values of marriage.
Should the religious (or secular ethical) views of the majority be imposed on a minority?
Any law that the government enforces is imposing some kind of code of ethics on its citizens. Let's say that I don't believe that murder is wrong. I could complain that the various laws against me killing whoever I want are imposing some moral code on me. Less extreme examples exist, but the general rule of thumb seems to be that the government should only pass laws that keep society running smoothly. Murder prevents society from running smoothly but eating non-kosher foods or working on the Sabbath does not (in my opinion). Applying this reasoning to gay marriage, the only justification for banning it would be to keep society running smoothly (not any intrinsic moral incorrectness).
How should one deal with matters of public policy involving actions that one deems immoral?
I believe that there are many immoral actions that shouldn't be illegal. One of the most obvious one is adultery. I believe that adultery is gravely wrong, but I wouldn't want to see anyone thrown in jail over it (for instance, I'd say that punching a guy in the face (assault) isn't morally worse than adultery although I'm obviously for assault being illegal). Once again, just because gay marriage is morally objectionable to some people is not a sufficient reason to make it illegal.
Conclusion: I really should be doing my homework right now.