A rational argument against free sexuality, anybody?

[Stella_Omega]

Okay, thanks.

I am not sure what any of that means to me or the millions of others who would prefer to just get marrried in the way that everyone else does. But I appreciate the sentiment.

 

[warl0ck1]

I mean to say simply that your being screwed by closed minded homophobes that have a tendency to end up being closet homosexuals.

the constitution already provides for your equal rights.

if you remove the government form a problem more often then not it is found that they were the problem.

marriage licenses are only a local tax.

 

[warl0ck1]

and I guess you could say I am a tea bagger if you want. I seem to agree with their limited federal government stand. I believe in lower taxes smaller federal government and I started providing for my retirement when i got my first job some 25 years ago and figured out shortly after that that SS would most likely be dead long before I retire.

 

[Safe_Bet]

and I guess you could say I am a tea bagger if you want. I seem to agree with their limited federal government stand. I believe in lower taxes smaller federal government and I started providing for my retirement when i got my first job some 25 years ago and figured out shortly after that that SS would most likely be dead long before I retire.

I want.

BTW, I'm glad that you also don't use the interstate, fly, eat, use any medicines and are planning on refusing all of your social security & Medicare opportunities. Otherwise you are just talking nonsense...

Oh, wait. we already knew that after you said, "marriage licenses are only a local tax" and completely neglected the fact that MANY people would GLADLY pay the fees so as to be treated equally.

In other words, if you don't want to you don't have to, but that doesn't mean that you should have the CHOICE and I don't.

 

[warl0ck1]

funny because i want a smaller federal government I have an issue. I prepared for my retirement long before there was a 401k. I pay m Federal state and local taxes. I believe for the most part the federal government fails at everything they take over to make it better. Are you happy with the fraud and waist that is the federal government? are you happy that at your state and local levels. there is rampant corruption and nepotism. everything that is Marriage does not need a government entity to verify does it? hell until only a short time ago it was actually detrimental to be married and pay taxes.

the constitution dictates what the Federal government can and can't do and everything the federal government is not supposed to do is to reside at the state and local levels. the federal government is supposed to raise and control the army. Okay that done. it is supposed to regulate interstate commerce. Okay that's done (interstate highways). I do not believe in most of the social programs. Welfare used to be a state and locally run program in the day and you had to go to town hall to get it. Fraud was lessened because of it. Social security sounds great except it was never run correctly. if the funds were held in an annuity of sorts instead of in general funds and te government was not allowed to take from it it had a chance to survive instead it well become insolvent sooner rather then later.
One thing it is not supposed to do is infringe on life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. wouldn't you say that getting married is tied to the pursuit of happiness? then why the hell does the government get in the way of it? I am for smaller government as all libertarians are I am fiscally conservative but in most cases socially liberal as most libertarians are. I do not associate with the Tea Party movement because while some of its goals mirror mine most do not. but I understand why i get lumped in with them.

I live in a state that allows gay marriages. and everything that goes with it. but I voted for the failed bid to lower our state taxes to 0% knowing that in doing so my local taxes would rise. I did it because I believe that most of the power should reside with the smallest groups we are "We the people" are we not?

Yes I know I ramble when typing sorry for that but I hope that at least some of what I am trying to say actually is understood.

 

[Safe_Bet]

funny because i want a smaller federal government I have an issue. I prepared for my retirement long before there was a 401k. I pay m Federal state and local taxes. I believe for the most part the federal government fails at everything they take over to make it better. Are you happy with the fraud and waist that is the federal government? are you happy that at your state and local levels. there is rampant corruption and nepotism. everything that is Marriage does not need a government entity to verify does it? hell until only a short time ago it was actually detrimental to be married and pay taxes.

the constitution dictates what the Federal government can and can't do and everything the federal government is not supposed to do is to reside at the state and local levels. the federal government is supposed to raise and control the army. Okay that done. it is supposed to regulate interstate commerce. Okay that's done (interstate highways). I do not believe in most of the social programs. Welfare used to be a state and locally run program in the day and you had to go to town hall to get it. Fraud was lessened because of it. Social security sounds great except it was never run correctly. if the funds were held in an annuity of sorts instead of in general funds and te government was not allowed to take from it it had a chance to survive instead it well become insolvent sooner rather then later.
One thing it is not supposed to do is infringe on life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. wouldn't you say that getting married is tied to the pursuit of happiness? then why the hell does the government get in the way of it? I am for smaller government as all libertarians are I am fiscally conservative but in most cases socially liberal as most libertarians are. I do not associate with the Tea Party movement because while some of its goals mirror mine most do not. but I understand why i get lumped in with them.

I live in a state that allows gay marriages. and everything that goes with it. but I voted for the failed bid to lower our state taxes to 0% knowing that in doing so my local taxes would rise. I did it because I believe that most of the power should reside with the smallest groups we are "We the people" are we not?

Yes I know I ramble when typing sorry for that but I hope that at least some of what I am trying to say actually is understood.

Why do you assume that we don't get what the Constitution can/can not, should/should not do? Just so you know, I think you'll find that a MUCH larger percentage of the LGBT community understands than the straight community. After all the misinterpretation affects our lives more negatively then it does theirs. That kind of gets your attention, ya know?

Also please don't assume that anyone who's not a libertarian isn't fiscally conservative. This isn't the proper thread or forum to be discussing this kind of thing, but there are a BUNCH of fiscally conservative flaming pinko queers like myself who believe that we need to properly fund government mandates and programs. Being against tax increases doesn't mean you are fiscally conservative, it means you are against tax increases.

 

[warl0ck1]

what I assumed was you questioned what i said and why. what I attempted to do is give you my background so you would understand my stance and why.

I also said you and others have been screwed and yet the fact that me and my state did address this albeit kicking and screaming seamed to mean nothing only the fact that I use highways and might some day take social security and medicare was important.

 

[lustatopia]

It's a moot point about whether government should regulation marriage. It does. And it must do so in order to impose a single legal code before which everyone stands as an equal.

If you allow any group to freely practice their marriage rituals then we would have to allow forced marriages which are very common in Africa and on the Indian sub-continent and might be practiced by new immigrants who bring these traditions with them to our shores.

We, as Americans, don't honor the tradition of selling our young girls into pre-arranged wedding agreements with older men. So as a democracy we have outlawed that form of wedding arrangement. Likewise, Legal polygamy is not allowed in the US.

So too with Sharia Law and the Sharia court system which in many Arab nations decide all civil matters, such as divorce settlements. No Sharia can not be allowed to exist in the US for constitutional reasons. Americans don't have any cultural tradition of allowing religious groups to set up their own legal systems.

The Jews have Halakha, but in the US it doesn't have enforceable legal standing.

It's fine for traditional people to practice their rituals and honor their cultural values, but the marriage license MUST issued by the state and the state regulates the process according the rule of law before which we are all assumed equal.

 

[warl0ck1]

point taken and conceded as I have no counter argument for it.

So then I guess in the case of Marriage I have not issue with state/city licenses. as apposed to no government involvement for the purpose of regulations. so then the next question is when will the other states get on board and allow same sex marriages. you know that damn pesky 14th amendment.

 

[Stella_Omega]

point taken and conceded as I have no counter argument for it.

So then I guess in the case of Marriage I have not issue with state/city licenses. as apposed to no government involvement for the purpose of regulations. so then the next question is when will the other states get on board and allow same sex marriages. you know that damn pesky 14th amendment.

Well, that is a problem.

Other things that states might or might not decide differently: legal age of consent (12? 18?), how long a child should stay in school, how young a child must be before it's sent off to work, whether or not people should be jailed for being in debt, whether or not women should be able to decide their reproductive strategy for themselves, whether or not a woman can be considered chattel.

When individual states held the right to decide on interracial marriages, many of them decided against them. It took federal action to bring basic human rights to bear.

If West Virginia decides that kids don't really need to go to school, while North Carolina keeps kids in school through 12th grade, you will find a pretty hefty imbalance in the workforce between those two states. Plus you won't find many scientists or mathematicians or jet pilots coming out of North Carolina.

If a woman in Arizona has access to birth control and her sister in new Mexico has to go through with every pregnancy no matter what, you will see a big difference in those two women's ability to "pursue happiness."

And some states are more full of religion than others.

States rights... are pretty problematic, IMO. States should not have a say-so in areas that impact our entire nation. Marriage is a nationwide issue, not a state by state one.

 

[lustatopia]

In 1997, libertarian David Boaz wrote an article for Slate titled “Privatize Marriage: A Simple Solution to the Gay-Marriage Debate." In the article, Boaz suggests privatizing marriage in a way that models the nature of standard business contracts. Boaz's idea is to allow two (possibly more) individuals to set the terms of their own private marital contract in a way that is best for the individuals involved. "When children or large sums of money are involved, an enforceable contract spelling out the parties' respective rights and obligations is probably advisable. But the existence and details of such an agreement should be up to the parties."[2] According to Boaz the government could be called upon to enforce the contract but may have no other role in developing the contract and setting the terms.

In 2002, anarchist Wendy McElroy echoed Boaz's business contract model in an essay for Ifeminists titled "It's Time to Privatize Marriage."

Marriage should be privatized. Let people make their own marriage contracts according to their conscience, religion and common sense. Those contracts could be registered with the state, recognized as legal and arbitrated by the courts, but the terms would be determined by those involved.[3]

In 2003, political columnist Ryan McMaken, writing on LewRockwell.com, raised the issue of marriage privatization arguing that the rise of state-sanctioned marriage coincides historically with the expansion of government. In his article titled "Married to the State," McMaken wrote:

The question we are then left with today is one of whether the churches and individuals should be looking to privatize marriage yet again and to begin making a distinction between secular contracts between private citizens and religious unions that should be kept beyond the power of the State. Such a move, of course, would bring with it new assumptions about the role of the State in divorce, children, and a variety of other aspects of family life. The State will not give up control over these things easily, for the assertion that the importance of marriage makes it a legitimate interest of the State is only true from the point of view of the State itself, for as the foundation of society, marriage and family cannot be entrusted to governments just to be blown about by the winds of democratic opinion, for the same government that has the power to protect can just as easily destroy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_privatization

I think something like a standard commitment contract is the way it will all end up. Although I doubt that the government can ever get out of regulating and licensing marriage any more than it can step back from regulating and licensing business. Both activities have complex tax and entitlement relationship with government. But by creating a private contract devise for marriage would make it easier for state governments to legislate into law since it wouldn't primarily be a "Gay Marriage" law.

So it's all a matter of strategic advocacy for the gay community which would be wise to ditch the polarizing language around "gay marriage" argument for something less confrontational, but which achieves the same goal. After all many here have said it's all about the benefits not the tradition. Turning the issue into a civil rights long march against the ignorant masses of christian bigots might feel empowering, but it's not how to win friends and influence enemies. Nor is it an entirely accurate assessment of the lay of the land.

The "gay marriage" meme creates an exclusive narrative rather than an inclusive one. Gay marriage only interests one minority group. Something like a standard commitment contract invites others to join in the advocacy. For instance, more and more retired people are single but for care-giving and companionship reasons end up in communal commitments. They might be able to benefit from a commitment contract in situations where they wouldn't have considered a marriage appropriate. Also a commitment contract might be easier to expand to groups larger than couples more easily than marriage. Thus a commitment contract could unite so many more interest groups than just same-sex couples, including groups (like retired older people) who might be normally considered opposed to gay marriage.

The end game should not be about changing mainstream het culture or the traditional institutions of Christian, Muslims and Jews but developing a new legal devise to accommodate ALL emerging kinds of lifestyles beyond the traditional.

 

[scriptordelecto]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_privatization
The end game should not be about changing mainstream het culture or the traditional institutions of Christian, Muslims and Jews but developing a new legal devise to accommodate ALL emerging kinds of lifestyles beyond the traditional.

Is it me or has this argument become cyclical? Forgive my lack of eloquence. I'll probably muddle what I'm trying to say, but here goes.

One of the main points reiterated throughout this thread is this, at least in my mind.

It is not possible to pass a new legal avenue to accommodate ALL lifestyles without changing mainstream or religious cultural views. Would that be ideal? Positively Utopian. But the reality that we live in is that laws must be passed by a majority vote. When people go to the polls, every vote cast is colored by religious and mainstream cultural influences and personal beliefs.

Many more make decisions based on fear bread from ignorance. (perpetuated by these cultural traditions)

In most cases, logic is absent in this process. Logic is what would be required to accomplish it and people don't hear a sound argument when their heads are buried in the sand of their fanaticism or zealotism of choice.

I'm not saying that I'd want to live in a world where people only made decisions based on logic, but on the flip side, I wish more people would at least partially engage the rational portions of their gray matter.

Both sides of the argument are passionate about their beliefs. I for one, tend to listen to someone who can catch my attention with their passion and then hold it with the soundness of their argument.


(OK....sorry that rambled and never seemed to come to the clear point that was in my head. Insomnia does not a good debater make)

 

[scriptordelecto]

I have hope put in all of you, have invested in your issue, when it shouldn't matter to me. But it does.

Nothing personal M2, just using this to illustrate a point.

I kind of see this as a large part of the reason we're still having to fight as well. Not only do we have to fight the opposing mainstream opinion, but the overwhelming apathy of modern culture. The tendency for people to look away from a problem that doesn't directly relate to them, rather than doing the human and decent thing.


One would think that people who are passionate about nothing would be the ones to engage logic, but it seems to be too much trouble.

 

[Safe_Bet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_privatization

I think something like a standard commitment contract is the way it will all end up. Although I doubt that the government can ever get out of regulating and licensing marriage any more than it can step back from regulating and licensing business. Both activities have complex tax and entitlement relationship with government. But by creating a private contract devise for marriage would make it easier for state governments to legislate into law since it wouldn't primarily be a "Gay Marriage" law.

So it's all a matter of strategic advocacy for the gay community which would be wise to ditch the polarizing language around "gay marriage" argument for something less confrontational, but which achieves the same goal. After all many here have said it's all about the benefits not the tradition. Turning the issue into a civil rights long march against the ignorant masses of christian bigots might feel empowering, but it's not how to win friends and influence enemies. Nor is it an entirely accurate assessment of the lay of the land.

The "gay marriage" meme creates an exclusive narrative rather than an inclusive one. Gay marriage only interests one minority group. Something like a standard commitment contract invites others to join in the advocacy. For instance, more and more retired people are single but for care-giving and companionship reasons end up in communal commitments. They might be able to benefit from a commitment contract in situations where they wouldn't have considered a marriage appropriate. Also a commitment contract might be easier to expand to groups larger than couples more easily than marriage. Thus a commitment contract could unite so many more interest groups than just same-sex couples, including groups (like retired older people) who might be normally considered opposed to gay marriage.

The end game should not be about changing mainstream het culture or the traditional institutions of Christian, Muslims and Jews but developing a new legal devise to accommodate ALL emerging kinds of lifestyles beyond the traditional.

Who said that???? All Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships do is raise us to the level of second class citizens.

I want the EXACT same rights and privileges that straight people receive, not some watered downed "almost the same" thing. I've been there, done that. I HAD a domestic partnership with all the required powers of attorney and they STILL gave us shit when my wife and kids tried to visit me in the hospital. There are NOT equal, dude.

In fact, if str8 people refuse to allow me to be married JUST LIKE THEM, then I advocate that THEY shouldn't be allowed marriage either. After all, if Civil Unions are "just as good", they EVERYBODY should have them, right?

BTW, this has nothing to do with religion, IMO. If some bunch of fundies believe that a marriage can only be performed when it involves a pasty white str8 male and a Tammy Fae Wannabe then more power to them. I'll go someplace else and get my EQUAL marriage.

But what ISN'T acceptable is Mr. Pastry White Str8 Guy and Mrs. Tammy Fae Wannabe saying I can't have it anyplace.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The tradition is one of the benefits.

The status of marriage is pretty important to a couple's well-being. Why else do you think Xtians and straights fight so hard to keep marriage their exclusive property?

 

[Louise_Loves]

funny because i want a smaller federal government I have an issue. I prepared for my retirement long before there was a 401k. I pay m Federal state and local taxes. I believe for the most part the federal government fails at everything they take over to make it better. Are you happy with the fraud and waist that is the federal government? are you happy that at your state and local levels. there is rampant corruption and nepotism. everything that is Marriage does not need a government entity to verify does it? hell until only a short time ago it was actually detrimental to be married and pay taxes.

Actually, it has never been detrimental to be married and pay taxes. The false labeled "marriage penalty" could not have possibly overweighted the literally thousands of tax breaks that married couples could get and two single gay people living together could not.

And let's not confuse waste, fraud, and abuse - which exist in every single organization and should always be targeted for detection and punishment - with actual effectiveness. An outbreak of salmonella today usually has a source identified and eliminated in a week to ten days. Yes, we still have outbreaks of salmonella, so if the standard for judging federal food inspectors is perfection, they fail. But when was the last time you felt it necessary to test your own food for safety before eating it?

the constitution dictates what the Federal government can and can't do and everything the federal government is not supposed to do is to reside at the state and local levels. the federal government is supposed to raise and control the army. Okay that done. it is supposed to regulate interstate commerce. Okay that's done (interstate highways). I do not believe in most of the social programs. Welfare used to be a state and locally run program in the day and you had to go to town hall to get it. Fraud was lessened because of it. Social security sounds great except it was never run correctly. if the funds were held in an annuity of sorts instead of in general funds and te government was not allowed to take from it it had a chance to survive instead it well become insolvent sooner rather then later.

Actually, the Tenth Amendment says that powers not granted to the federal government, nor refused to the states, are held by the states AND THE PEOPLE. No mention of lower governments is made whatsoever.

It is a severely flawed reading to say that there was less fraud involved when power was concentrated at the state and local levels. Ever hear of Tammany Hall in NYC? Frank Hague in Jersey City? Knucky Johnson in Atlantic City? Ed Crump in Memphis? James Michael Curly in Boston? Gene Talmadge in Georgia? Richard Daley in Chicago? Arthur Samish? Theodore Bilbo? Tom Pendergast?

I could go on. The fact is that the creation of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (which is not actually authorized in the Constitution) helped bust some very violent and usurous local and state level political machines.

As far as social security goes, it works exactly like it was designed. Until the 1980s it was banned by law from running a surplus. At that point, taxes were raised to generate a surplus, but opposition to "socialism" (i.e. government buying stocks in the open market) meant that the money was invested in special US Treasury Bonds, whose ownership cannot legally be transferred outside of the Social Security Trust Fund. Social Security taxes are fed directly into the Social Security Trust Fund. They never go into the general fund. Nor is it possible for the federal government to withdraw those surplus funds. Social Security does exactly what it was meant to do - keep old people from living in abject poverty.

One thing it is not supposed to do is infringe on life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. wouldn't you say that getting married is tied to the pursuit of happiness? then why the hell does the government get in the way of it? I am for smaller government as all libertarians are I am fiscally conservative but in most cases socially liberal as most libertarians are. I do not associate with the Tea Party movement because while some of its goals mirror mine most do not. but I understand why i get lumped in with them.

You are mixing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. There is no "pursuit of happiness" in the Constitution. To say that the government could never interfere with someone's "pursuit of happiness" is pretty naive. In fact, I WANT the government to interfere in all sorts of people's pursuit of happiness.

You see, I investigate child abuse for a living. If you can't imagine some things that are fun for people that you really don't want to tolerate; then you aren't thinking.

I live in a state that allows gay marriages. and everything that goes with it. but I voted for the failed bid to lower our state taxes to 0% knowing that in doing so my local taxes would rise. I did it because I believe that most of the power should reside with the smallest groups we are "We the people" are we not?

There is no such a thing as zero taxes. When taxes are cut, "fees" are raised. The result is that money still flows from the pockets of citizens into the pockets of government. It's simply a rhetorical fetish that sees this as any sort of improvement.

Small groups are just as corrupt as large ones, and more likely to escape the oversight of the public. I have a friend who teaches government in New Jersey - where they have some of the highest taxes in the country because municipalities of as little as 54 refuse to consolidate government and there are literally more school districts than municipalities.

How many people do you know that turn out for a city council meeting? How many can name their city councilperson? Their school district rep? One member of the local fire authority, land commission, economic development authority, or environmental council?

Are we less "we, the people" at the federal level?

Yes I know I ramble when typing sorry for that but I hope that at least some of what I am trying to say actually is understood.

I understand what you are saying. And I don't mind rambling. But I think you are wrong on almost every point you raise.

Except that I do agree government MUST be limited. I don't mind government regulating marriage - it is, after all, a form of contract law. What I mind is that government equates the Rite of Holy Matrimony with marriage. I don't mind fighting for legal equality. I hate fighting for religious equality.

 

[Louise_Loves]

It actually IS possible to grant people both religious freedom and marriage equality for minorities. European countries have been doing it for quite a while. Belgium, France, and the Netherlands require that a civil union (civil marriage) be completed for all couples who are married. Whether or not they then decide to go to church for the Rite of Holy Matrimony is entirely up to them. A few years ago, when the Princess of the Netherlands was getting married, they stopped at City Hall to get married and then went to the church for Holy Matrimony.

Adopting that model here would allow same sex couples to have all the legal protections and rights of civil marriage, but individual churches could determine for themselves whether or not they are eligible for Holy Matrimony. I could care less if the Church of Christ down the street won't let me walk down the aisle (or watch the woman I love do it). But I do want to say, in no uncertain terms, that I am MARRIED. Periodendofstory.

I'll accept a Civil Union if it's the same title and status conferred for all marriages. Otherwise, it's the old "separate, but equal" argument all over again.

 

[RedheadedHaze]

There are SO many posts in this thread that I'd LIKE LIKE LIKE if we were on a Facebook format.

Thanks for the read; it was compelling and wonderful intellectual acrobatics and I thoroughly enjoyed everyone's willingness to discuss this so thoroughly w/o too much hate and discontent.

I may be back to join in when I've more time.

Cheers,

~Red

 

[bottomsatx]

Gay marriage

I'm pretty much what Richard Jenni describes as a "hard core right wing conservative fucker"...in most aspects except gay marriage.

While I think that there might be some validity to the "slippery slope" argument (if the standard of "man-and-woman" is removed, what will it lead to next? Can a woman marry her dog? Will fundamentalist LDS cults become more prevelant? Will there be an outcry for the age of consent to be lowered?), I honestly don't find any logical reason that gay marriage should be prohibited.

My sister is gay, and her and her partner are quite happy. My brother-in-law is gay, and he and his partner -- a great guy, in truth -- are quite happy. Neither couples are a menace to society...in fact, their friends, neighbors and most co-workers know that they're gay and in a relationship. They've never related any stories involving torch-burning, pitchfork wielding mobs coming to their house.

Just legalize it, already.

 

[zarngash]

This thread's too long. Didn't read. This has probably been stated.

The reason why same sex marriage should be illegal, or more rightly stated not legal, is the same reason heterosexual marriage should be illegal or not legal.

Marriage has been an institution of religion. The state, our federal and state governments, got involved with marriage back around when people of color and whiteys were getting on with the horizontal mambo and tying knots. So marriages legalized (endorsed) by the government became a way to discriminate, or control unwanted behavior.

Well that is one way I've heard it . . . Point being, why is the state involved in marriage in the first place because it is a religious tradition? However, it really is about making a personal contract with another consenting adult, based on personal beliefs. Can you exchange your free-will with another person legally? Sounds like slavery and satins working . The government should ban all marriages, tax shelters and financial markets that can't be explained in 25 words or less .

Done and Done. Marriage is a non-legal contractual obligation endorsed by the state used to control behaviors of citizens.

My heart goes out to those who have been negatively impacted by this nonsense.

Free as a transitive verb, meaning, to set at liberty, and to relieve of burden, obligation or restraint.

FREE Speech & FREE Marriage

I was trying to win a prize. Did I win a prize? I don't post to threads unless there is a prize, so if there isn't a prize, this post didn't happen and you're not actually reading this.

I STILL haven't found a single person who can rationally argue that gay marriage should be illegal. Anybody wanna try to play devil's advocate, or to give me a single reason why homosexual people or lesbian people shouldn't be allowed all of the benefits of marriage. You can argue for or against, I honestly don't care. I'll start.

"Honestly, it makes no difference to me what sexuality people have. My opinion on sexuality is the same one I have on religion. Do whatever the hell ya' want, just don't drag me into it."