Thoughts on Gay Marriage

[bedstuy]

I'm for legalising it, albeit significantly less enthusiastically than I was when I first joined the forum. I am mildly disappointed that gays want to sell out by endorsing a concept like marriage, and irritated that it's literally the only issue that anyone seems to care about despite it being such a minor little thing that affects very few people.

This exactly.

Because discrimination is okay, as long as the group getting discriminated against is small.

Two points:

Gay marriage affects all gay people whether they choose to get married or not.  It's a matter of having the full compliment of civil rights.

Gay marriage is not hurting the progressive agenda.  What great program would have been passed if not for the prominence of gay marriage?  This isn't a zero sum game, we're not only able to advance one issue at a time.  If anything, gay marriage is helping the entire progressive agenda.  Gay marriage serves as a wedge issue, isolating Republicans into a niche party catering to fundamentalists and old people.  Once Republicans start to waiver on gay marriage it might also become a source of intra-party strife.  If we can splinter the religious right from Republicans and alienate an entire generation from Republicans with gay marriage, it will be worth any annoyance you feel now.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I am in therapy, thank you very much.

That's not something to joke about, you asshole.

My mistake. I'll leave you to handle your own mental health.

I don't think you realize what an incredibly arrogant and horrible poster you are.

[MATTROSE94]

I support it strongly, but do not know what would be the most effective way to implement in every state.

[ElectionsGuy]

It should be legalized nationally, no questions. But all in all its not a very important issue and hopefully will be resolved within the next decade.

[Consciously Unconscious]

It should be legalized nationally.  I think it's not going to be an issue for too long though.  Almost all youth support it.  By 2020, I doubt there'll be mainstream candidates opposed to it. 

[MurrayBannerman]

It should be legalized nationally, no questions. But all in all its not a very important issue and hopefully will be resolved within the next decade.

This is where I stand. There's no good reason to refuse it in a governing sense.

[Tieteobserver]

So far no one was able to present me with a satisfactory definition of marriage between two people of the same sex.

Therefore, I'm against gay "marriage" on logical grounds. If we admit the possibility of marriage between two people of the same sex, then we ought to accept that we can have a square circle. Or an intelligent Kardashian sister.

Thats partly the reason I'm against gay "marriage". But thats only part of the whole picture. More than that, I think that the government should simply NOT recognise marriages. In other words, civil marriage should not exist. Civil marriage should be ended. It should be an entirely private matter. In this regard, government should be restricted to recognising contracts concerning property ownership between spouses.

Privatising the whole thing makes it a lot easier. If gay and lesbians decide to get "married", they can do that, and we're free as to whether deem it a marriage.

Independently of this, however, pragmatically speaking, its an issue I'd be willing to compromise. Thats because the very institution of civil marriage de facto became nothing more than a contract regulating the property ownership between spouses. Its anything but marriage today. Its destroyed. So, if a politician had decent purposes for reducing dramatically the Federal Government, reinforcing the 2nd amendment and cutting off spending, I'd vote for him even if he was a supporter of gay "marriage".

[afleitch]

That's one of the w@nkiest things I've ever read on the matter.

[Tieteobserver]

That's one of the w@nkiest things I've ever read on the matter.

Please, share your very smart thoughts with us! I'm quite sure I'd be very delighted to read to them.

[afleitch]

That's one of the w@nkiest things I've ever read on the matter.

Please, share your very smart thoughts with us! I'm quite sure I'd be very delighted to read to them.

Search them. I've been on here ten years.

[Cassius]

That's one of the w@nkiest things I've ever read on the matter.

Please, share your very smart thoughts with us! I'm quite sure I'd be very delighted to read to them.

Um, just some advice; talking about this type of thing is going to open up a whole can of worms. Best that it be left undisturbed.

[Del Tachi]

A message for all of those who subscribe to the "get the gummit out of marriage crowd" -

Marriage works because divorces are messy.

Marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, is not some sort of divine plan for intimate relationships, it was invented by tribal chieftans thousands of years ago because it makes it difficult for people to disassociate themselves from one another.  It encourages people to stick together, to take collective risks and to pool their resources. 

Importantly, marriage is, more or less, permanent.  Even today, with divorces running rampant, the end of a marriage does not signify the cessation of a relationship between two people, only the beginning of a new kind of legalistic limbo that seeks to mimic and maintain the benefits associated with marriage while trying to get rid of its costs. 

[Tieteobserver]

A message for all of those who subscribe to the "get the gummit out of marriage crowd" -

Marriage works because divorces are messy.

Marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, is not some sort of divine plan for intimate relationships, it was invented by tribal chieftans thousands of years ago because it makes it difficult for people to disassociate themselves from one another.  It encourages people to stick together, to take collective risks and to pool their resources. 

Importantly, marriage is, more or less, permanent.  Even today, with divorces running rampant, the end of a marriage does not signify the cessation of a relationship between two people, only the beginning of a new kind of legalistic limbo that seeks to mimic and maintain the benefits associated with marriage while trying to get rid of its costs. 

Marriage works when both parties are willing so.

And you only proved my point: there's no need for gummit to regulare or recognise marriage. This should be vested entirely upon society and the couple.

Its not hard to understand: if John and James want to "marry", they can get married and call it marriage. They can make the party, they can go to a church where the "marriage" would be celebrated, and its all done! They are married.

The gummit would only enforce property ownership agreements, which is the only function gummit should have.

[Del Tachi]

A message for all of those who subscribe to the "get the gummit out of marriage crowd" -

Marriage works because divorces are messy.

Marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, is not some sort of divine plan for intimate relationships, it was invented by tribal chieftans thousands of years ago because it makes it difficult for people to disassociate themselves from one another.  It encourages people to stick together, to take collective risks and to pool their resources. 

Importantly, marriage is, more or less, permanent.  Even today, with divorces running rampant, the end of a marriage does not signify the cessation of a relationship between two people, only the beginning of a new kind of legalistic limbo that seeks to mimic and maintain the benefits associated with marriage while trying to get rid of its costs. 

Marriage works when both parties are willing so.

And you only proved my point: there's no need for gummit to regulare or recognise marriage. This should be vested entirely upon society and the couple.

Its not hard to understand: if John and James want to "marry", they can get married and call it marriage. They can make the party, they can go to a church where the "marriage" would be celebrated, and its all done! They are married.

The gummit would only enforce property ownership agreements, which is the only function gummit should have.

No, you missed my point.

The government has a vested interest in promoting marriage because its existance encourages a stable, growth-oriented society.  Without it we'd still be living in the stone ages. 

[Tieteobserver]

A message for all of those who subscribe to the "get the gummit out of marriage crowd" -

Marriage works because divorces are messy.

Marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, is not some sort of divine plan for intimate relationships, it was invented by tribal chieftans thousands of years ago because it makes it difficult for people to disassociate themselves from one another.  It encourages people to stick together, to take collective risks and to pool their resources. 

Importantly, marriage is, more or less, permanent.  Even today, with divorces running rampant, the end of a marriage does not signify the cessation of a relationship between two people, only the beginning of a new kind of legalistic limbo that seeks to mimic and maintain the benefits associated with marriage while trying to get rid of its costs. 

Marriage works when both parties are willing so.

And you only proved my point: there's no need for gummit to regulare or recognise marriage. This should be vested entirely upon society and the couple.

Its not hard to understand: if John and James want to "marry", they can get married and call it marriage. They can make the party, they can go to a church where the "marriage" would be celebrated, and its all done! They are married.

The gummit would only enforce property ownership agreements, which is the only function gummit should have.

No, you missed my point.

The government has a vested interest in promoting marriage because its existance encourages a stable, growth-oriented society.  Without it we'd still be living in the stone ages. 

You're entirely right about the part in bold. But why does the government have to promote behaviours of any sort? That is up to individuals and the organised society at large to do, not the state. And why does it have to have a gummit finger on it? That is what I really can't understand.

[Del Tachi]

A message for all of those who subscribe to the "get the gummit out of marriage crowd" -

Marriage works because divorces are messy.

Marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, is not some sort of divine plan for intimate relationships, it was invented by tribal chieftans thousands of years ago because it makes it difficult for people to disassociate themselves from one another.  It encourages people to stick together, to take collective risks and to pool their resources. 

Importantly, marriage is, more or less, permanent.  Even today, with divorces running rampant, the end of a marriage does not signify the cessation of a relationship between two people, only the beginning of a new kind of legalistic limbo that seeks to mimic and maintain the benefits associated with marriage while trying to get rid of its costs. 

Marriage works when both parties are willing so.

And you only proved my point: there's no need for gummit to regulare or recognise marriage. This should be vested entirely upon society and the couple.

Its not hard to understand: if John and James want to "marry", they can get married and call it marriage. They can make the party, they can go to a church where the "marriage" would be celebrated, and its all done! They are married.

The gummit would only enforce property ownership agreements, which is the only function gummit should have.

No, you missed my point.

The government has a vested interest in promoting marriage because its existance encourages a stable, growth-oriented society.  Without it we'd still be living in the stone ages.

You're entirely right about the part in bold. But why does the government have to promote behaviours of any sort? That is up to individuals and the organised society at large to do, not the state. And why does it have to have a gummit finger on it? That is what I really can't understand.

The state likes marriage for the same reason that it likes prison time for violent criminals or for the same reason that it uses its legal system to enforce contracts.

Not because these things protect "people's rights" or whatever libertarian mumbo-jumbo you're  trying to get at, but because institutions like marriage, contract law, or even public education perpetuate the state's relevance.

And you better be damned glad that it does too!  All the luxuries you enjoy today were brought to you because you live in a relatively stable state where the government encourages people to pool resources and take collective risks in a way that benefits society as a whole. 

Marriage is a weapon in the state's arsenal for promoting continued economic growth and societal advancement; why would we want to get rid of that? 

 

[Torie]

Nice cop out.

If you notice, I'm not saying this to posters like TJinWisco and DC who are at least honest enough to admit that they have a moral problem with gay marriage.  You, however, seem content and adamant to hide behind the usual tax code bullsh*t card that many conservatives use now days to find a moderate hero way out of a debate that they don't like.  You think you are doing some revolutionary new argument, but really you're not as we've seen this kind of argument more than a few times on here (and the people who use it are promptly laughed out the building).

That you are now devolving into strawman hyperbole is just further proof of the legitimacy of your faux libertarian persona.

The only reservations I have about gay marriage pertain to the possible negative consequences of imposing heterosexual laws on homosexuals. Kinship restriction, for instance, would make same-sex marriage between cousins a crime in the state of Texas, even if one of them is adopted. In Arizona, gay cousins could marry as long as they could prove that one of them is sterile. Sure, that's relevant exception for same-sex marriage. Maybe a lesbian woman or gay man would not be given visitation rights after a divorce because they are not the biological parent, though they consented to raising a child with their partner.

Homosexuals should have options, particularly if they live in a state with Draconian marital regulations or fundamentalist marriage courts. You're willing to give them options, as long as it's marriage.

Your progressivism is commendable. Really.

Your concern for not bogging down gays in having to deal with stupid incest laws if they get married is most touching and commendable, but is it at all possible that gays can work all of that out for themselves, as they weigh the costs and benefits of getting legal married or not, given their own particular situation, rather than have some one size fits all government law do it for them? You know what?  What you wrote sounds like the mindset of a liberal, is what comes to my mind. Your sure your avatar is the right color?

[CountryClassSF]

Homosexual marriage to me appears like something Alinskyites would bring upon a nation to try to oppress the religious freedom of others.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Homosexual marriage to me appears like something Alinskyites would bring upon a nation to try to oppress the religious freedom of others.

Explain in detail the ways in which civil recognition of same-sex marriages oppresses religious freedom, or, alternatively, what makes it specifically 'Alinskyite', whatever that means, rather than some other or some unspecified variety of liberal or leftist.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Homosexual marriage to me appears like something Alinskyites would bring upon a nation to try to oppress the religious freedom of others.

is this satire

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Homosexual marriage to me appears like something Alinskyites would bring upon a nation to try to oppress the religious freedom of others.

is this satire

This is the real life.  He has just fantasy.
Caught in a landslide.  Seeks escape from reality.
Open your eyes.  Look up to the skies and see.
He's just a phobic.  He needs no sympathy.

[°Leprechaun]

It should be legalized nationally.  I think it's not going to be an issue for too long though.  Almost all youth support it.  By 2020, I doubt there'll be mainstream candidates opposed to it. 

Yes, I think it is inevitable. I look forward to the day that it will not be an issue. Other things, will continue to  be reasons to vote one way or another: the economy, defense spending, guns, and of course abortion. Economic issues have always been bigger than other issues for many people, although other issues can influence close elections.

[IceSpear]

Homosexual marriage to me appears like something Alinskyites would bring upon a nation to try to oppress the religious freedom of others.

is this satire

The troll's gimmick is supposedly being a gay man that is a single issue voter against gay marriage. It's best to ignore it.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Homosexual marriage to me appears like something Alinskyites would bring upon a nation to try to oppress the religious freedom of others.

is this satire

The troll's gimmick is supposedly being a gay man that is a single issue voter against gay marriage. It's best to ignore it.

I do know a gay true leftist who despises gay marriage and is voting Republican to avoid "the compromise" and to "speed up the need for reform."

[Repub242]

I'm strongly opposed to gay marriage.