Het: Against legalized homosexual marriage.
Hom: For/okay with legalized homosexual marriage
If marriage never had anything to do with reproduction, would there be any reason for the government to be involved in regulating or rewarding it?
So, it seems, such a government will only be involved in regulating or rewarding something if there’s a potential return effect on the state (with regards to population).
Note that there’s always the artifical means of in-vitro or surrogacy for married couples that wish to have a family, regardless of their gender.
Everyone abides by the same rules with regards to marriage law to heterosexual marriage, so there’s no discrimination.
And with the same rules applied to all people, marginalizes those with homosexual orientation. Shouldn’t rules be applied relatively rather than absolutely on everyone to support ALL people? LGBT supporters find that the inherent distinction of gender to uniquely identify husband and wife exclusively within a marriage is both arbitrary and discriminatory.
Traditionally, every person, regardless of sexual preference, is legally barred from marrying a child, a person who is already married, a close blood relative, or a person of the same sex. Such a marriage must consist of both husband and wife.
Consider a minimalistic requirement of just monofamilial bonds between 2 individuals, so long as there’s no already pre-existing familial bonds (eg. parental/sibling) relationships between the 2 individuals, the 2 individuals can be married, thus establishing a marital-type familial bond (or choose either one of other the familial bond types, where godparents/godsisters fall under similar notion of “familial” bond).
In short, only 2 individuals can share a single type of familial bond. If you’re married between each other, you can’t be (even non biological god-) sibilings between each other. If you’re siblings between each other, you can’t be parent between each other or married between each other. So, it’s just 1 bond-type between individuals.
Family still operates as a basic unit of civil society with the minimalistic approach.
With this minimalistic definition of what a marriage means, a marital bond doesn’t need to include the gender/biological component as a legal requirement.
As for the case of marrying children, it’s a simple matter of the level of informed consent. That’s why animals/inanimate objects cannot be be married (as well as the species being different), because the level of informed consent is not sufficient in such cases. The age limit is therefore a relative benchmark in gauging the level of informed consent.
In any state that does legalise gay marriage, the pitfalls (to be avoided) are listed below with regards to different groups and their individual freedoms:
Gay marriage will be a problem for those that uphold traditional marriage to the point of dissenting against them in government laws.
Note, however, the definition of husband/wife will hold no relevance in various cases legally. Whether this is a good/bad thing, is something which either Het or Hom could support or rail against in a case by case basis, since many Hets are egalitarian by nature (or adopt various egalitarian principles). In short, this is already apparent regardless of whether Hom marriage is made legal or not, and should (ideally) have no bearing on judicial considerations.
Note, however, that if Hom is supported, various marriage laws will still have to be adjusted (or maybe even discarded in the process) to fit cases where marriages do not have complementary genders. This is obviously an unavoidable consequence.
It would be interesting to see how many percentage of L/G couples are willing to have new children artificially and form such a family, and whether a state is comfortable with letting children be bred as such artificially be considered a norm, rather than an exception, if “significant return effect” is a factor that a state needs to justify legalization of such marriages.
Albeit, highlighting such exceptions is a moot point, considering the general premise/nature of the situation, unless the “brave new world” approach is considered..
Even with artificial means of propagating children, it does complicate the process of having the government legislate such cases, compared to having natural law easily define the legality of various situations. However, this is not a new thing for countries that already have some form of practice/laws-of-exception, with regards to surrogacy and in-vitro.
It would be ironic, if in the future, more percentage of homosexual couples somehow actually have children (though, not naturally) compared to heterosexual couples.
And so, Hom seems to suggest that civil laws should be catered to every type of individual or individual’s liking, or more accruately, civil rules can be applied to support all people, so long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights other people to not only live peacefully and freely, but also be given the same privileges/benefits just like everyone else. In short, laws implemented taking into consideration the individual, rather than imposed arbitrarily from the top down based on “what’s deemed best for all/the majority of people” .
But is this a (sole) obligation of civil law itself?
Het, however, suggests the opposite, where civil law need not cater to the likings of all people, but to the interests of the state itself and the whole society as a collective. The core question for Het is: what does the state find useful and within it’s interests before even considering the benefits a state should provide to different groups of people?
Het’s equality of treatment, rests on the condition of abiding by the rules of the state’s interest first, regardless of whether the “individual” likes the rules or not.
Note that in other matters of policy, both Hom and Het can lean more to this attitude (state-first) or to the other one (individual-first). The attitude to policy preferences (state vs individual) does not necessarily determine the stand on any given issue. Some prefer might prefer state-first for one issue, and individual-first for another.
However, Het may have a point that if Hom does not lobby for their cause, would the state even bother to make changes to the given system?
So, Hom is suggesting that civil marriages take the “minimal” requirement of definition as far as the state is concerned, assuming family is the basic unit of society in such a state. The question is, “as far as the state is concerned”, alludes to the first point with “Why should the state be interested in such a marriage”, if it cannot naturally form new families by natural law?
Should a state take into consideration natural law as part of their policy, disregard it completely, or find a delicate means of balancing both?
Not being able to marry a child, a close blood relative, or a person of the same sex seems to suggest that gender and reproduction are natural potentials factored into such considerations by Het, but these factors are disregarded by Hom, alluding to other factors in his minimal representation of civil marriages and the only types of families (non-naturally propagated families) that might result from them. Also note that non-biological sibling relations are still dependant on the legality of adopting parent relationships, not something that can be arbitrarily chosen at wimp.
“Monofamilarity” of bonds was simply considered here by Hom, but that doesn’t necessarily restrict marital relationships to a single exclusive bond between 2 individuals, since an individual can have similar bonds to other individuals under a plural marriage, rather than monogamous marriages that restricts marriages to only 1 bond per individual. Laws on polygamy/monogamy is probably best discussed elsewhere, but it’s worth noting that a “traditional” family in a historical context often includes polygamy, which, by nature, is often highly procreative indeed.