Bullshit. Glad to see you lump people who don't want government in the marriage business at all with homophobics. Believe it or not, these people exist.
That justification is what is bullshit. We're talking about support for Prop 8. If Prop 8 was about getting the government out of all marriage, you would have a point. But Prop 8 was about removing the ability for a specific group of people to marry while still keeping the government in all other marriages.
Their position makes even less sense than the other one, the creation of stable family units, and thus the provision of legal and financial advantages to these units trough official recognition of them is usually considered a social good, and the government "being involved" as the provider of the aforementioned advantages is sensible.
Right because government marriage is really doing a great job at that with its >50% divorce rate. Of course there's also the fact that your position is incredibly unimaginative - you can't imagine there are other systems of social organization, other than government licensed marriage, that might be an even greater public good? As long as we keep promoting the paradigm of government sponsored marriage we'll keep going down the same rabbit hole.
A lot. By giving incentives, both explicit (taxes, pensions, medical benefits) and implicit (encouraging a social construct through government enforcement of licenses and contracts) government encourages people to get married or stay together who possibly wouldn't otherwise. It probably doesn't make up 90% of the decision, but it may be enough to tip the scales one way or the other.
Edit: Or get divorced for that matter - divorce laws enforced by government (which only exist because it licenses marriages in the first place) have a big impact on who gets divorced.
I'm not really buying the argument that government-provided benefits are enough of a "bribe" to be a significant factor for why people are getting married. Indeed, marriage rates (at least in Europe) show a net decline. My guess is that it is primarily an effect of looser social pressure (it is considered normal, even in more conservative areas, to live as a steady couple without being married), which also correlate with a decline of religious attendance.
So the tax-provided incentives are clearly not sufficient to compensate for this decline, and I really doubt they contribute significantly in most cases.
It's well known that government incentives tip the scale in favor of some more marriages. It's the reason the incentives were created in the first place, obviously! But if you can't follow that line of reasoning, you're welcome to read papers that are tangentially related and prove the the point of how strongly influenced by economics/finances marriages are:
It's also what my Public Economics professor said back in the day in college... and he was a smart dude.
Also, you're ignoring most of the argument - it's not just about the tax incentive - it's about all of the incentives that government licensed marriage creates. Re-read my prior comments throughout this whole discussion if you don't know what I mean.
> It's well known that government incentives tip the scale in favor of some more marriages. It's the reason the incentives were created in the first place, obviously!
It is? First off, the fact that a policy has been put in place is no evidence that it actually works (see also "trickle down economics" and "abstinence-based sex programs"). Secondly, it's difficult to argue about the purpose of the incentives outside of a historical context. The best I've been able to find is regarding the tax part of the incentives: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg145?pg=2
It does not appear to be part of a nefarious plot to get more people married.
> you're welcome to read papers that are tangentially related and prove the the point of how strongly influenced by economics/finances marriages are
After skimming the papers, my understanding is that they demonstrate that for a number of women, the social condition of their prospective husband is a huge motivational factor. That is fine and well, but what does it have to do with the state? I'm sure you could find the same studies regarding unmarried couples. I haven't found any mention of government incentives in them, but I may have overlooked something.
> Also, you're ignoring most of the argument - it's not just about the tax incentive - it's about all of the incentives that government licensed marriage creates. Re-read my prior comments throughout this whole discussion if you don't know what I mean.
You are correct that I focused on the tax incentives, as I see that as the most visible of the government-provided incentives. Let's look at the other benefits you list:
> (taxes, pensions, medical benefits) and implicit (encouraging a social construct through government enforcement of licenses and contracts)
I'm not aware of any pension-related advantage of married couples where I live, and there is certainly no medical benefits in a land of socialized healthcare. Is this a US thing? As for the implicit benefits, I'm not entirely clear on what you mean. Are you objecting to the existence of a legal framework formalizing the rights of each party?
Assuming that your position is correct, how is fighting against gay marriage a good for anybody and at all productive? From what I can see, it serves to divert resources from your stated purpose, needlessly antagonises people who might support said purpose and serves to maintain a right-less underclass. And no the latter's not going to fight for your purpose since they're busy fighting for equal rights.
Like I said - I don't oppose gay marriage - but the argument could be made that by establishing government licensed marriage as "something worth fighting for" it further entrenches the notion that government licensed marriage is a positive social construct.
> the argument could be made that by establishing government licensed marriage as "something worth fighting for" it further entrenches the notion that government licensed marriage is a positive social construct.
But that's a completely useless and unproductive argument to make in the context of the fight being underway, let alone making it while fighting on the other side.
