Homosexual Marriage

[oranged]

I still haven't how gays getting married effects anyone else, so I'm for it.

[SteveA]

Quote by: mr.perfecto This is a typical dogma derived Libertarian response that I must admit a large degree of annoyance for hearing voiced yet again. As revealed in the DOGMA of Libertarianism: (No matter what the topic under discussion) It is only a problem as a result of the EVIL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Oh, and Anarcho-Libertarianism dogma: All government is EVIL. Dismantling the government will eliminate the problem. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I could just as easily say people who continually proposing government to solve all of our private issues are dogmatic in their views too. Some people may view it as principled.

The root of this discussion is how to resolve the dispute over hetero/homo sexual marriages and the fact that people assuming it must be resolved one of two possible ways, just because the question comes up is a bit nearsighted, IMO.

Indeed, my good capitalist, why don't we "privatise" parenthood next?

And since when did it become a public affair? Maybe most people have made a mistake in assuming the state makes a good 3rd partner or just signed up without considering thinking over the options.

Why, should the EVIL government INTERFERE the evolution of such an infinitely evolving concept?

The concept never evolved for me and I don't see why a few people claiming to represent me should be making this decision for me. Since when did the Constitution even imply a need for federal oversight of marriages. It was a tool to control marriage and has come back to bite some people in the behind. Seems like a good time to get out the history books and read up that this is neither something novel nor unforeseen.

Why do we even need a legal status of "parent" or "guardian?" Parents exist without the legal status. Leave it to government to come up with a legal status that is totally redundant

Well, consider that we never assumed government would attempt to grant itself the ability to take one persons private property and almost willy nilly hand it to someone else. That's the problems with rely on someone elses top down definition of property rights. So what happens we the courts rule it's ok to change legal "parents" and "guardians" whenever someone else is deemed a better parent? I don't want to be a participant in such a system.

Are you catching onto the absurdity of such arguements? There is nothing about marriage that infringes on anyone's liberty to do anything except be considered married if they don't meet the requirements.

Yes, that's how it should be. So why is government required to create special legal treatment for married couples outside of purely documenting them?

Just the same as there is nothing about the legal status PARENT/GUARDIAN that denies anyone anything except being considered a parent if they don't meet those requirements.

So if a judge legally denies you being a guardian of your children and declares someone else is the guardian, this has no impact?

The point of having different legal statuses is that people in one category are considered to need different treatment that people in another category. Just as citizens are treated differently from aliens, married people are treated differently than single people. A legal status in itself does not encourage or discourage anything.

Then we can remove marriage without harm. Obviously the way in which such a status is treated legally is the issue, which does encourage and discourage actions.

Does having a legal status "murderer" encourage criminal behavior? It is how a particular legal status is treated that determines whether it is being encouraged or discouraged. Whether a particular status needs to be encouraged or discouraged is an entirely different discussion than whether the status itself needs to exist.

Ok, I agree with statement. The status itself isn't a problem.

The issue is whether there is anything sufficent about a same-sex couple that means this particular situation should be moved from the SINGLE column to the MARRIED column.

Well, there's also the remaining legals issues of what justice does it serve to discriminate, for example, ones tax bracket on whether or not they're considered legally married whether or not it's a same sex couple.

Now, your post was considerably longer than my response. I haven't gone through the process of responding to your individuals points because there is but a single response needed. I repeat, "There is nothing about marriage that infringes on anyone's liberty to do anything except be considered married if they don't meet the requirements." And, since no one's liberty is being violated, how can a Libertarian like yourself even hypothetically support taking an institution that has laws that are relatively compact and simple to understand and even consider replacing it with the marriage equivalent of the internal revenue code?

Again you're assuming no injustices are done by laws discriminating upon marriage. As another poster stated, this discriminates on both sex and sexual preferences. I'm not against people having an ability to discriminate on whatever category they want but government needs to remain neutral and representative of all its constituents or it's difficult to claim to represent those people.

Here, what's not injust about a married person gaining citizenship via. marriage but being denied doing so if they are a same sex couple?

If you say it's not unjust because they can always pretend to be married to someone of the opposite sex, then what does that say about how government views marriages and damages them. In many cases it's just become a tool to support immigration.

Or what's not unjust about requiring a hospital to allow visitation rights for one couple but not the other. Remember these laws are backed by police actions and potential fines and jail time so they aren't pure "designations" without legal discrimination attached.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: SteveA I could just as easily say people who continually proposing government to solve all of our private issues are dogmatic in their views too. Some people may view it as principled. The root of this discussion is how to resolve the dispute over hetero/homo sexual marriages and the fact that people assuming it must be resolved one of two possible ways, just because the question comes up is a bit nearsighted, IMO.

Perhaps you could, but you should know that my thread debunking Libertarianism should be appearing within the next week or so. I still have more reading to do.

And since when did it become a public affair? Maybe most people have made a mistake in assuming the state makes a good 3rd partner or just signed up without considering thinking over the options.

It isn't.

The concept never evolved for me and I don't see why a few people claiming to represent me should be making this decision for me. Since when did the Constitution even imply a need for federal oversight of marriages. It was a tool to control marriage and has come back to bite some people in the behind. Seems like a good time to get out the history books and read up that this is neither something novel nor unforeseen.

Well, your opinion is a great starting point for many discussions. Perhaps you should understand that the just powers of government don't come from consent. I have been weeks of reseach on Libertarianism, I may ask you for help understanding some of the more dense portions of the philosophy.

Well, consider that we never assumed government would attempt to grant itself the ability to take one persons private property and almost willy nilly hand it to someone else. That's the problems with rely on someone elses top down definition of property rights. So what happens we the courts rule it's ok to change legal "parents" and "guardians" whenever someone else is deemed a better parent? I don't want to be a participant in such a system.

Perhaps some future generation might suffer under such tyranny, but the issue matters not. Under this line of thinking, shouldn't the possibility of the misapplication of rights suggest that the we would be better off having none? Certainly the antiquated concept of human property had many principled opponents in the past and even to this day. Good sense would dictate that a bad principle should simply be removed or adjusted, all principles should not be abandoned.

Yes, that's how it should be. So why is government required to create special legal treatment for married couples outside of purely documenting them?

Well, lets try this. Why should the government recognize that there is a difference between SteveA and mr.perfecto? Perhaps it would be unjust to treat us both exactly the same--if I run a red light, should you recieve a ticket also? In a world as infinitely complex as our own, the necessity of treating different things differently is basic good sense.

So if a judge legally denies you being a guardian of your children and declares someone else is the guardian, this has no impact?

Of course there is, but the action would not be any less unjust if it were a state government doing it. Or any more just if it were you doing it. If you are taking your child to the dentist and he does not wish to go, would it be unjust to stop you from using reasonable force to get him out of the car and into the dentists office? How would we correctly evaluate other similar situations without a legal concept of PARENT/GUARDIAN?

Then we can remove marriage without harm. Obviously the way in which such a status is treated legally is the issue, which does encourage and discourage actions. Ok, I agree with statement. The status itself isn't a problem.

Can we similarly remove the status PARENT without harm?

Well, there's also the remaining legals issues of what justice does it serve to discriminate, for example, ones tax bracket on whether or not they're considered legally married whether or not it's a same sex couple.

Well, I still have not checked to see what tax benefits marriage confers, but, speaking hypothetically, how could it be unjust?

Again you're assuming no injustices are done by laws discriminating upon marriage. As another poster stated, this discriminates on both sex and sexual preferences. I'm not against people having an ability to discriminate on whatever category they want but government needs to remain neutral and representative of all its constituents or it's difficult to claim to represent those people.

If memory serves, this point has been debated for the last 500+ posts. Marriage does not discriminate on sex or sexual preferences. To suggest otherwise is to take upon yourself the burden of proving it does. And, to date, no one offering that opinion has been able to establish any reasoning supporting it.

Here, what's not injust about a married person gaining citizenship via. marriage but being denied doing so if they are a same sex couple? If you say it's not unjust because they can always pretend to be married to someone of the opposite sex, then what does that say about how government views marriages and damages them. In many cases it's just become a tool to support immigration.

What is not unjust about any person gaining citizenship through marriage when countless people who aren't married are not granted it?

So, should we privatize citizenship next?

Or what's not unjust about requiring a hospital to allow visitation rights for one couple but not the other. Remember these laws are backed by police actions and potential fines and jail time so they aren't pure "designations" without legal discrimination attached.

I will simply say that it evidence of a large degree of, not just individual, but species-wide dishonesty that we frequently attempt to lever a action out of the netural category into the evil category by using another incomparable situation. Why isn't it unjust that anyone who wishes hospital visitation is denied? Again, all legal designations have discrimination attached--or rather every legal designation is a discrimination. The discrimination itself can not be consider just or unjust without exploring why the designation was created. Since this discussion has so frequently stalled over requesting SSM supporters to explain why marriage exists, you might cut me some slack here. It is not as if I have refuse to consider the possibility of injustice, only demanded that the reasoning be stated and supported.

[liberal slayer]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Perhaps you could, but you should know that my thread debunking Libertarianism should be appearing within the next week or so. I still have more reading to do. It isn't. Well, your opinion is a great starting point for many discussions. Perhaps you should understand that the just powers of government don't come from consent. I have been weeks of reseach on Libertarianism, I may ask you for help understanding some of the more dense portions of the philosophy. Perhaps some future generation might suffer under such tyranny, but the issue matters not. Under this line of thinking, shouldn't the possibility of the misapplication of rights suggest that the we would be better off having none? Certainly the antiquated concept of human property had many principled opponents in the past and even to this day. Good sense would dictate that a bad principle should simply be removed or adjusted, all principles should not be abandoned. Well, lets try this. Why should the government recognize that there is a difference between SteveA and mr.perfecto? Perhaps it would be unjust to treat us both exactly the same--if I run a red light, should you recieve a ticket also? In a world as infinitely complex as our own, the necessity of treating different things differently is basic good sense. Of course there is, but the action would not be any less unjust if it were a state government doing it. Or any more just if it were you doing it. If you are taking your child to the dentist and he does not wish to go, would it be unjust to stop you from using reasonable force to get him out of the car and into the dentists office? How would we correctly evaluate other similar situations without a legal concept of PARENT/GUARDIAN? Can we similarly remove the status PARENT without harm? Well, I still have not checked to see what tax benefits marriage confers, but, speaking hypothetically, how could it be unjust? If memory serves, this point has been debated for the last 500+ posts. Marriage does not discriminate on sex or sexual preferences. To suggest otherwise is to take upon yourself the burden of proving it does. And, to date, no one offering that opinion has been able to establish any reasoning supporting it. What is not unjust about any person gaining citizenship through marriage when countless people who aren't married are not granted it? So, should we privatize citizenship next? I will simply say that it evidence of a large degree of, not just individual, but species-wide dishonesty that we frequently attempt to lever a action out of the netural category into the evil category by using another incomparable situation. Why isn't it unjust that anyone who wishes hospital visitation is denied? Again, all legal designations have discrimination attached--or rather every legal designation is a discrimination. The discrimination itself can not be consider just or unjust without exploring why the designation was created. Since this discussion has so frequently stalled over requesting SSM supporters to explain why marriage exists, you might cut me some slack here. It is not as if I have refuse to consider the possibility of injustice, only demanded that the reasoning be stated and supported.

What is with libs pushing gay marrage? It seems libs want to destroy everything that makes America great. In every state where gay marrage has been put before thre people, it has lost by a huge margin. (Even blue states)
It was not Republicans that made gay marrage an isue. It was the Mayor of San Fran Ca who thumbed his nose at the laws of Calf and 3 pinhead judges in Mass that ordered a law be created.
The people fought back and voted this insane liberal idea down and returned Pres Bush back for a second term.
So some good did come from the stupid idea.

[Osborn F Enready]

Liberal slayer said:
What is with libs pushing gay marrage?

I say:
People are fighting for EQUAL RIGHTS, it has nothing to do with what political party they are from.

I am libertarian, I support equal rights, and gays are created equal just like any other man/woman.

[Jack]

If the conservative religious right gains any more power in this country, I see many more groups than just the gays at risk of being labeled "second-class citizens". Liberals, who they see as a real threat to their way of life, could be next. Then perhaps, because the bible doesn't speak too highly of them, women. Then non-believers, and members of non-christian faiths.
Welcome back to the dark ages, everyone.

[italiangm]

Nah. Once the actions of these moralistas compete or interfere with commerce, daddy'll take the keys to the T-Bird away. (read: they'll get knocked on their collective asses) :)

[SteveA]

Liberal slayer said: What is with libs pushing gay marrage? I say: People are fighting for EQUAL RIGHTS, it has nothing to do with what political party they are from. I am libertarian, I support equal rights, and gays are created equal just like any other man/woman.

Yes, in our own personal environments, it's ok to be selective or discriminate and I agree that people have the right to declare whatever they want legal or illegal on their own property or within their own sphere of influece but government doesn't represent a specific individual (monarchy) or any subset of the population. It needs to remain representative and protect everyones liberties. "No taxation without representation" comes to mind. Well if Christians, non-Christians, gays, straights etc. are going to agree to be taxed and commit to follow the laws then the system should be something that accepts their views. If it's going to reject them, isn't it unrealistic to expect a person to pay for their own jail?

[PatrickHenry]

Let's don't rant about the political climate, folks. There's plenty of threads for that. Stay on homosexual marriage, okay?

[belverron]

Quote by: mr.perfecto Perhaps you should understand that the just powers of government don't come from consent.

Whoa! I know the Declaration isn't law, but talk about total disregard ("That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed...").

[Dirty Name]

So you should really argue that marriage should be limited to opposite gender couples who are procreating.

No, I shouldn't. And I've already explained why marriage should simply be limited to two adult opposite sex couples who are not closely related. Because while the legal recognition of marriage certainly centers around procreation and the raising of a family, limiting marriage to "procreating" couples is as silly as expanding the definition. One of the beautiful things about the current definition of marriage is that it makes good sense.

Can you craft a law that effectively limits legal marriage to procreating couples only? How would you do it? What is the definition of procreation? If my wife and I have sexual intercourse without contraception on a regular basis, are we "procreating?"

To deny couples the status of marriage until after they have a child would defeat the purpose. You people just don't seem to have a basic understanding of the concept.

[Dirty Name]

I think single people, religions, gays and parents would likely find the individual freedom granted by such a solution to be more satisfiable all around, it would leave marriage as an institution not cast into stone by the letter of the law but, as originally intended, a means of encouraging families, companionship and long term commitments.

The reason I believe that "equalizing" marriage by stripping it of legal recognition is bad public policy is because such policy ignores the ideas that:

1) Biological parents are, generally speaking, legally, socially and economically best for their children
2) Pregnant women suffer significant hardships and make significant sacrifices to bring a child into the world.
3) Legal benefits offered by the government act as an incentive to encourage stronger marriages and families.

So it's pretty hard to argue that stripping legal recognition of marriage wouldn't weaken the intitution to some degree. Where I believe it would be most harmful is among those couples in future generations who are not religious, but would otherwise still get married and raise children. But once it becomes strictly a religious act, then any form of "long term committment" would suffice - but since it is backed by neither the church or the government, such relationships will be much more susceptible to divorce.

I was encouraged by the fact that folks have at least dropped the gay marriage argument in favor of the "no legal marriage" idea - for the following reasons:

1) The term "gay marriage" is a misnomer. This discussion has little to do with homoseuxality, per se, but more to do with the removal of restrictions on who can be married. What gays are really arguing for is any form of two-person marriage, regardless of sexual intimacy, love or level of committment.

2) Many of you have acknowledged or admitted that you are not (or even cannot be) opposed to polygamy or polyamory, further revealing the true agenda of the liberal marriage movement - the removal of any restriction on marriage.

3) And many of you have taken THAT idea to the next logical extreme - that such legal recognition of any form of marriage would be a rather expensive proposition for both governments and companies to extend benefits to any form of relationship under the sun would certainly be a costly endeavor. Thus, the conclusion is that all legal recognitions of marriage must be stripped.

4) Which of course makes it all the more easier to prove that such action has a negative impact on traditional marriage - removing benefits and stripping legal recognitions would obviously weaken the institution. No matter how you slice it, removing benefits from marriage would not serve to encourage traditional marriage more than the system does now.

Thus, I can only conclude that the concept of "gay marriage" or "liberal marriage" is nothing but a frontal assault on the institution of marriage and the idea of the nuclear family.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Dirty Name Can you craft a law that effectively limits legal marriage to procreating couples only? How would you do it? What is the definition of procreation? If my wife and I have sexual intercourse without contraception on a regular basis, are we "procreating?"

Nope, you're not procreating, nor are you making any sense. The idea that you should deny the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples is as ridiculous as the idea that we should take them away from you because you're not breeding.

Then again, your entire argument is ridiculous, so that's no surprise.

[belverron]

I still pretty much think adoption undermines your entire argument, Dirty Name. We have eleven states with an explicit ban on gay marriage, but only one state with an outright ban on gay adoption--Florida.

[Dirty Name]

I still pretty much think adoption undermines your entire argument, Dirty Name. We have eleven states with an explicit ban on gay marriage, but only one state with an outright ban on gay adoption--Florida.

How does it undermine anything? The real problem with adoption authorities is that they allow single parents to adopt. This is pure stupidity when every statistic in the book proves that children raised in single-parent households fair poorly compared to those raised by both parents.

The fact that homosexuals use this single-parent loophole to backdoor their way into marriage doesn't undermine anything.

However, Belverron, I will grant you that the argument in favor of homosexual adoption by two parents is far more defensible than just homosexual marriage. In my opinion such a debate could be settled by a comprehensive and fair study which focused on the entire lives of two large groups of children - one raised by same sex parents, the other raised by opposite sex parents. The study could be conducted mutually by a bi-partisan board of doctors and researchers from both sides of the debate to ensure impartiality.

Most of the studies currently out there have been conducted by lesbian professors who focused on lesbian parents, and the study ages were limited to age 17 and younger.

Ultimately, I have to agree with you, Belverron, that if we as a society allow homosexual couples to adopt, then we also have to allow them to be married. But that is where we part ways... I don't approve of this "backdoor" approach to the issue. My opinion is that unmarried parents shouldn't be allowed to adopt at all - unless, through the death of a family member, a child's guardianship via a single parent (gay or straight), was pre-arranged by the legal guardians prior to their death. Thus, my exclusion of single parents is NOT discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender, either. It's based on the concept that adoptions should only be granted to stable married couples.

[Jack]

Oh no, Cephus! He's "keeping a list" "for the record". Be afraid...be very afraid...
:)

[italiangm]

Lol :) :)

[Dirty Name]

I see the peanut gallery has weighed in.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name How does it undermine anything? The real problem with adoption authorities is that they allow single parents to adopt. This is pure stupidity when every statistic in the book proves that children raised in single-parent households fair poorly compared to those raised by both parents.

They can't afford to be that picky.

As for the rest, yeah, you have your POV and I have mine.