A question for those who support gay marriage

DeMint: Over 90% of Bills Passed Secretly With No Debate, No Vote

www.youtube.com...

I'm pleased to see such a large number of libertarian-leaning posts, even if their posters were not aware of or did not intend this.

Taking the libertarian position to it's logical conclusion, so long as a marriage is between consenting adults, it is no business of the state's which gender any of the parties are, or the number of parties. Just as their height, race, religion, etc. are of no import now, neither would these characteristics/details be. The issue boils down to two factors: religious and social influences in legislation. Inter-marriage used to signify marrying someone of a different faith, now it usually refers to marrying someone of a different race. Then as now, this is because marriage laws reflected the prevalent religious and social sentiments of the legislators by whom they were crafted and in turn of the people over whom they have jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding its historical religious aspects, marriage is simply a civil union - a particular type of contract between two persons of opposite sex. If the state were truly free of undue influences such as religion and mob-like majorities - the libertarian wet-dream - then the terms of the marriage contract would be left to the discretion of the parties involved. If you agree that gays' marrying is no business of the state, you would likely have to agree that neither is polygamy.

As an aside, I would like to point out that the only political benefits of marriage happen to be privileges - or incentives - artificially created and enforced by the state: perks like hospital visitation rights and tax breaks. Without them, marriage couldn't be said to be of any real benefit or advantage to a couple aside from its sentimental/religious value. This is not a criticism of marriage but of the state's interference regarding marriage.

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by fred call

 

I don't know when it became illegal, but Europe's royal families are all related with each other. They almost only married amongst themselves.

Yes, things were very different before Mendelian genetics .

America is a land of contradictions. Gay politicians voting against gay marriage. Separation between church and state, yet we have in god we trust plastered on every form of american currency. Marijuana is in the top 5 for cash crops in this country and it's illegal, not including imports. The American government will never repeal a law that costs them income, i.e. prostitution and marijuana laws. The court costs in Illinois for a marijuana pipe is ~$700 for a pipe sold legally for, on most cases other than bongs, less than $20. It is legal for the police to lie to you but not vice versa. No one other than ignorant religious zealots care about gay marriage, one way or the other. Maybe call homosexual marriage something else other than marriage would back the heat off. Legal Union would be an example of such a name change. Sodium Erythobate (used in hot dogs) is earthworms, but a different name keeps people from caring. Curcumsized foreskin is used in skin cream, the different name eludes me at the time of typing. Multiple marriage is a different subject altogether, legally. How about getting rid of nearly all marriage laws, except for parent/offspring(including grandparents), sibling/sibling(including halves), and human/animal. first cousin pregnancies should be tested for genetic abnormalities. In my opinion, modern pregnancies that have been proven to result in disabilities(both physical and mental) should be terminated. Hate me if you will but modern science can at least detect physical disabilities. How is it the working tax payers financial responsibility to provide for those who can't work or didn't in the past(social security)?

later,
Azrael


[edit on 8-8-2010 by Azrael Falls]

Originally posted by Azrael Falls
America is a land of contradictions. Gay politicians voting against gay marriage.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Azrael Falls]

Which gay politician?

Originally posted by rimshot

Originally posted by Azrael Falls
America is a land of contradictions. Gay politicians voting against gay marriage.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Azrael Falls]

Which gay politician?

Here's one: Roy Ashburn.

wonkette.com...

If a Democrat congressman is a serial killer, is it mandatory he vote to legalize serial killing.

When was it stated that a gay politician is mandated to vote anally? Nobody said that because a politician is gay that he can't think logically.

Now, if he votes against bisexual bigamy, that could be a bad thing.

Being bisexual doubles your chances of getting a date on a Friday night.....Woody Allen

Originally posted by rimshot
If a Democrat congressman is a serial killer, is it mandatory he vote to legalize serial killing.

When was it stated that a gay politician is mandated to vote anally? Nobody said that because a politician is gay that he can't think logically.

Now, if he votes against bisexual bigamy, that could be a bad thing.

I don't think Killing is a reasonable comparison - - to Equal Rights for Gays.

I don't find logic in voting against your own Equal Rights.

But - this particular politician states he votes his constituents.

Originally posted by Annee

I don't think Killing is a reasonable comparison - - to Equal Rights for Gays.

.

Yeah, I'd say a lot of gays have learned their lesson and are using safe sex lechniques more often............excpet that leather bunch in those underground bars in New York. They have a death wish.

Originally posted by rimshot

Originally posted by Annee

I don't think Killing is a reasonable comparison - - to Equal Rights for Gays.

.

Yeah, I'd say a lot of gays have learned their lesson and are using safe sex lechniques more often............excpet that leather bunch in those underground bars in New York. They have a death wish.

Dressing like a freak isn't really a valid reason to kill anyone.

Dressing like freaks merely creates the mood for murder.

The funny thing is gays have equal rights. They just want to define marriage as being between anyone. I dont know one right that gays dont have that I have. Marriage is between one man and one woman. simple if they want to get married then marry someone of the opposite sex.

i think the gay bashers are secretly gay themselves. i am a straight male and gays don't make me the slightest bit uncomfortable. i couldn't care less what someone else does, i stay out of other people's business because i got my own crap to worry about. and the religious argument is just retarded, i mean come on really? god doesn't like homos? if god exists i seriously doubt he would hate homosexuals any more than he would hate intolerant bigots. believe me when i say there are far worse people in the world than gays. so what i say to the hate filled people who are afraid of anything that is different is this, mind your own business and go on with your life. stop giving the homos so much crap.

Originally posted by humbleseeker
The funny thing is gays have equal rights. They just want to define marriage as being between anyone. I dont know one right that gays dont have that I have. Marriage is between one man and one woman. simple if they want to get married then marry someone of the opposite sex.

I am so tired of this rant. Its really getting to be pathetic.

There is no governing of who any adult falls in love with or wishes to join legally in marriage. A marriage license is a legal contract to protect rights and property of two joining together as one unit/household/partnership - whatever.

Therefore defining gender in marriage is not-equal.

Many words are used today for legal matters and such - - even if at one time they were exclusive to something else. Once marriage became a "legal government document" - - it is required by law to be equal to all.

You can legally get married by the government - - - you can not legally get married by god.

Originally posted by humbleseeker
The funny thing is gays have equal rights.

Not when it comes to their significant others they don't. A gay couple is basically penalized for not having that little piece of paper that says they've entered into a marriage contract with each other.

As a married woman I have a lot of rights when it comes to my husband that someone who is gay doesn't have. I make the medical decisions if my husband is incapable of making them himself and have pretty much unlimited access to his hospital room. If (god forbid) something were to happen to him, everything we own transfers directly to me and I don't have to worry about where our children will end up since they'll be left with me. I can be signed up on his insurance plan. If (again, god forbid) we split up, the laws of my state allow me to keep half of what we own jointly so I'm not left with nothing. The same applies to him as well.

A gay couple on the other hand has none of those rights. If two men or two women have been together for 20 years and one of them gets hospitalized and can't make their own medical decisions, why shouldn't the significant other be allowed to make those decisions like I can? If one of them dies, why shouldn't the person they shared their life with be the automatic beneficiary like I am? If they split up, why should one of them be able to just kick the other out and give them nothing out of everything they've accumulated together unless they feel like it?