Thoughts on Gay Marriage

[AggregateDemand]

Dubious political initiative, and that's why little progress has been made in the US.

Marriage contract law and relationship law are explicitly biased towards heterosexuality. Marriage precedent confers preferential status upon women, which doesn't particularly make sense in same-sex relationships. Marriage restriction, like kinship restrictions, don't make any sense for same-sex relationships because they can't have biological children.

What justification would a state have for banning same-sex marriage between first cousins or siblings?

Same-sex marriage wouldn't be the end of the world, but it would be a primitive, problematic manifestation of equal rights. Lack of Equal Protection is a problem for all unmarried people.

[AggregateDemand]

There is no rational argument against it.

There is no rational argument for SSM. Marriage is just regulations imposed on people who might seek monogamous sexual reproduction. Couples do not need to be married to express love or to be happy or to be sexually gratified.

Lack of marriage privileges for same-sex couples is a calamity because marriage also grants special socio-economic privileges. If you look at the income data, the only family demographic that earns more than median household income is dual income married couples. The current system screws all unmarried people to protect the sanctity of "traditional" single-income married households.

I'm empathetic to the plight of gay couples, but SSM does not fix the problem nor does it represent civil rights victory. It is a silly politically-indulgent skirmish for small-minded people who are eager to avoid dealing with our real problems.

[AggregateDemand]

Maybe so, but that didn't stop the GOP playing the "defenders of marriage" card throughout the early 2000's. I can't help but feel a bit of Schandenfreude that now the cards are stacked against them, they awkwardly claim that the Democrats are talking about "non-important issues".

True, but how does poetic justice help the American electorate?

If Democrats spent less time trying to give uppity conservative Republicans their comeuppance, our country would be in better condition.

[AggregateDemand]

That's a very cute thing for you to say.  And I mean that with all due respect.  Sure, to you it might not be a "real problem", but to people like TDAS I imagine it's a heck of a "problem".  But I guess that's the thing though, and what is wrong with a lot of people in this country really.  As long as it's not affecting you, who gives a sh*t, am I right?

I'm trying to remain calm here, but I really can't believe I just can't believe that last sentence I read.  I mean really, I actually it's more insulting to the millions of gay Americans and their allies who have been fighting this cause for decades to have their movement demoted down to a "silly politically-indulgent skirmish for small-minded people" more so than people who claim it's a sin.  In the latter case, at least those opponents recognize it's a legitimate issue that has a profound effect on American society.

If you want to say you are against gay marriage because you don't like it, just come right out and say it.  Don't hide behind this legalistic tax code bullsh*t.  I'm not buying it, TDAS is not buying it, and neither is nobody else in this thread.

From your point of view, the problem is that Romeo and Julian are star-crossed lovers who've been damned and disrespected by a bigoted society that will never accept their forbidden love. Oh, the humanity!! When will society learn that a gay rose by any other name still has constitutional rights?! [drop curtain]

It's adorable.

From my point of view, the government doesn't have any real control over love or monogamous human sexuality between consenting adults. The real issue is that these same-sex couples are being denied socio-economic rights that have been conferred upon married couples. Furthermore, CBO income data (by family demographic) indicates that dual-income married people are the only demographic getting ahead in this country. Everyone else is being hammered down, particularly single-women, which explains Democratic Party initiatives like universal birth control.

From your point of view, America has erratic hairloss and skin irritation caused by harassment from bigots. You want access to Rogaine and anti-histamines. I realize we need to start treating lupus. How dare I deny Rogaine from these unfortunate people? If I don't want to help bald people, I should just admit it!!

How much longer before I get murdered by a revolutionary zealot who doesn't think I'm pure enough for the cause? Can't be far away. That's how all of these movies end.

[AggregateDemand]

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.

[AggregateDemand]

Am I the only one here who wants to insult AggregateDemand everytime he makes a post?

Seek therapy. This sort of passive-aggression suggests you are deeply disturbed. Furthermore, if you learn to construct a condescending counter-argument, you won't have to resort to insults.

[AggregateDemand]

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.