Another Same-Sex Marriage Thread?

1. 60

   Specificityposted 15 years ago

   I know we already have a same-sex marriage thread in Politics, but that one has already grown so large that I thought I would start something different here. 
   
   Generally, my political leanings are Libertarian, which means that I think government should work to maximize liberty for all people by staying out of their way and out of their lives.  From that perspective I wonder why ANYONE should be seeking to have their personal relationships sanctioned by a government entity.  Marriage, it seems to me, is the job of the Church, not the State.  For instance, as a Catholic I am concerned that the Church recognizes my marriage, but why should the State have an interest in that as well?
   
   The only reason I oppose same-sex marriage is because it further entrenches government in a business I don’t think it should be in at all.  Removing government from the matter of marriage is the only way to ensure that all people (including those that choose to remain single) have the same rights under the Constitution. 
   
   What do you think?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Ana Louisposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I agree.  But the law is so entwined with marital status that it affects some very basic rights.  There are some legal perks to being married, as well as some drawbacks. Personal beliefs aside - the whole thing makes me crazy. A lot of stuff makes me crazy these days.

      replyreport
   2. 63

      lawrettaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Nice!!! I totally agree with you.

      replyreport
   3. 67

      Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I totally agree Specificity.  Governments should get out of the practice of issuing marriage certificates.  It's discrimination against single people.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      Pete Maidaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I agree.  The government has enough to do.  It doesn't need to get into the business of law abinding citizens.  If people of faith refuse to allow it in their church or organization; that is just fine, but the government has no business telling people who they can marry.

      replyreport
2. 86

   Everyday Miraclesposted 15 years ago

   I agree entirely, Specificity. A fellow libertarian here

   replyreport
3. 77

   Uninvited Writerposted 15 years ago

   Hasn't it been debated to death on here? You'll just get that OP from the other thread posting his hate here.

   replyreport
4. 61

   Colebabieposted 15 years ago

   "Marriage, it seems to me, is the job of the Church, not the State."
   
   I don't have a religion. I should still be able to get married. What then? Then there would be discrimination against non-believers.
   
   "There are some legal perks to being married"
   
   There are more than just SOME. There are 1138 I believe, federal benefits to being married.

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I don't have a religion either. But I still require the legal rights attached to being married. I certainly don't care if some christian cult recognizes the marriage or not. But let's face it - it seems to be the religionists who oppose gay marriage.
      
      @OP - opposing same sex marriage because it further entrenches Gov Inc in a business it should not be involved in is a very poor argument.
      
      I would be more worried about the fact that your government is involved in the business of building cars and lending you the money to buy them and insure them before I got worried about this.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Specificityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         I don't oppose gay marriage on a religious basis; I oppose government recognition of ALL marriages.  I don't know what you gain by calling my faith a cult; does it advance your argument in some way that I can't see?
         
         
         
         Other than tax treatment and the ability of spouses to benefit from each other's social security, what benefits do you require that cannot be obtained through power of attorney or other legal documents?  Why should those rights be denied people who choose not to marry?
         
         The other issues you mentioned (automakers, etc) are of great concern to me, but they are practically fait accompli and I want to talk about something else.  I intended this to be a debate about a concept that I think ensures liberty for all, not just whomever the government recognizes.

         replyreport
         1. 57

            Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            So why have you bought up this argument as a reason to oppose gay marriages?
            
            You religion = a cult as far as I am concerned. Not sure what else to call a group of people who sit down and symbolically eat the flesh of a dead person  - and you were the one who mentioned it.
            
            
            
            I am English and my wife is American. This give me the right to live and work in the USA if I choose to do so (and have done in the past).
            
            
            Lost me with this one. If you are arguing that the state should not be allowed to dictate who should be allowed to marry - I agree.
            
            Do not see how giving this power to a church is any better. I can barely tell the difference between a church and a government - and your government was formed to get away from that.
            
            I still would like to know why you started this thread as a reason gays should not be allowed to marry if your real argument is that governments should be less intrusive and not have the power to dictate to anyone whether they should marry or not.
            
            Which I absolutely agree with. Personally I think things have gotten so bad lately that we will be forced to do something about this - and not just in the US.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Specificityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               My reason for opposing more marriage rules and regs is to keep gov't from becoming further entrenched somewhere it doesn't belong.  Gov't sponsored marriage of any kind discriminates against someone.
               
               
               
               Call it "your religion" as you did when starting your sentence.  No need to be insulting or mis-representative of someone else's beliefs.
               
               
               Good point.  I hadn't thought of this.  If the US gov't didn't recognize marriage anymore, then this would have to be addressed, but it probably wouldn't require anymore paperwork than it does now.
               
               
               
               Close: I think the state should not marry anyone.  That's the only way the state cannot discriminate.  It's the only solution that treats everyone exactly the same. 
               
               
               
               Churches are voluntary organizations (the colonists fled state mandated religion).  The Catholic Church has the power to sanction my marriage because I believe in its tenets and voluntarily belong.  Government sanctions my marriage by force.  When I file my taxes, they demand to know my marital status.  If i want quit the Church today, I may do so without moving away from my family or losing any property.  I'm not giving the Church any power over anyone else.
               
               I think I should have merely started a thread calling for an end to civil marriage, but I doubt that would have engendered the response that same-sex marriage does; I believe that the more regulations we place on marriage, the less likely we will ever get gov't discrimination out of it. 
               
               
               
               I think I should have merely started a thread calling for an end to civil marriage,; I believe that the more regulations we place on marriage, the less likely we will ever get gov't discrimination out of it.  I don't oppose gay marriage; I oppose more regulations.
               
               If I had focused on civil marriage (gov't fiat) without including Sacramental marriage (voluntary) I think you and I would find ourselves in closer agreement, your insulting comments about my religion aside.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL
                  
                  Your religion is just another cult as far as I am concerned. And if you are not aware how you have been coerced I certainly will not be able to enlighten you. It is not so long ago that membership of your cult of choice was not at all voluntary. Wars were and will be fought over it. 
                  
                  But I think we agree on the principle of less government. And until such times as NO marriages are government controlled, I think it is only fair that the option of marriage should be available to all people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     THE SOUR MANposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Marriage is not only a contract between two people but also towards the entire community.Once we understand this we should agree that this is a matter of the law and thus the state.Trying to make this a religeous issue only, is in my eyes another attempt to give more power to the cults and to let them decide what other people should do.With the inevitable sanctions of course when not obeid.
                     What concerns the "less government" issue i'd say that's preferable to have a democratic system as we know it in most western countries, than theocraties like in Iran,for example.

                     replyreport
                     1. 57

                        Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Well, personally I think marriage is an outdated concept - judging from the divorce rates. We would be far better off having a breakable legal contract.
                        
                        But I would take issue with a few points. The US is a republic, not a democracy. You get to choose between 2 parties - and I can't say I can tell the difference except for that abominable Sarah Palin woman

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           THE SOUR MANposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                           replyreport
                           1. 57

                              Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                              No - the US is a republic. The same as France - where I live.
                              
                              Didn't realize the Belgian political situation was as bad as the Dutch. Same issue though - too much government.

                              replyreport
                           2. 61

                              THE SOUR MANposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Specificityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                 Mark is correct.  The USA is a representative republic, not a democracy.  It's a common mistake, even here in the USA where people often refer to their own gov't as a democracy.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    THE SOUR MANposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                    I'm not schooled enough to get in these technicalities,but I thought that your constitution opened with: "We the people..." So forgive my mistake.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Specificityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                                       That's the Constitution.  The constituancy is the people represented by the representative republic. 
                                       
                                       The Constitution goes on to discuss the branches of gov't and how the people elect their representatives.  Election of representatives is the main feature separating a democracy from a republic.

                                       report
                  2. 60

                     tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     Didn't you already say that before? Do you intend to keep on repeating the same thing over and over?

                     replyreport
                     1. 57

                        Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                        Only every time I am told to be more respectful of some one's irrational beliefs.
                        
                        Is that your sole contribution to the discussion or did you have something worth saying?

                        replyreport
                  3. 60

                     Capable Womanposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                     That is the summary of both sides right there...yes government should stay out of marriage, but since they currently don't, government sanctioned marriage should be available to all citizens.
                     
                     The institution of marriage started as a way to create the building blocks of society. To join families and wealth and to create more people within a framework of stability. And because it was all done under the auspice of religion, it was also a way to dictate to and control the masses.
                     
                     So whatever it started as, it's evolved or devolved into something else in today's society. The unromantic fact is that married people gain benefits that unmarried people have no access to...that's not fair if everyone can't have the choice to get married (choose to partake of these benefits).
                     
                     Otherwise we would all just keep on with our "commitment ceremonies" which are usually very beautiful and romantic, but are not recognized by the state or legally worth anything.

                     replyreport
5. 61

   Colebabieposted 15 years ago

   You say liberty for all... but if you don't have a religion, then what? No marriage for you? The government recognizes marriage because of the federal benefits given to those who are married. Power of attorney allows someone to act on the behalf of someone. Power of attorney is something totally different. Married couples shouldn't need to apply for power of attorney to gain benefits because it is used to be in place of someone else, not conjoining powers while both parties are able.
   
   You can't say that marriage should only be recognized by the church because there are many people who do not have a religion who deserve to be "married." Not "have a form filled out." Yes marriage is a certificate. But it is also a word and a process with great meaning and those who desire to be married shouldn't have to have a religion or love someone of the opposite sex.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Specificityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      So gov't recognizes marriage because gov't gives benefits to married people?  That's a bit circular. 
      
      I don't think there should be any gov't benefits to getting married.  I really hated it when I was single and that's what i mean by liberty for all.  No matter how many types of marriage are recognized by the state, they will always be discriminating against someone.
      
      If you have no religion, then find some other private organization of like-minded people (which is really what a church is in the United States) to register your vows to each other.  Why the attachment to government?

      replyreport
6. 60

   tksenseiposted 15 years ago

   Marriage is a public contract, and as such is subject to government regulation like other contracts.

   replyreport
7. 61

   Colebabieposted 15 years ago

   Of course being married discriminates against single people. Thats a given discrimination, if you want to look at it that way. But it should be seen as an equal right and not discriminate against, race, sexual orientation, economic background, etc.
   
   Civil marriage or legal marriage and religious marriage are two separate things. But religious marriages must be approved (marriage certificate) in order to be "legal." If you don't want marriage to be seen by the government or your marriage to be legal, that's up to the individual.
   
   Telling someone to find a private organization if they have no religion is like telling them to find a religion. Sorry, I don't want to. I live in the US and I want to get married for myself and my partner as well as to be recognized by my government. Because I don't have a religion being recognized by the church obviously doesn't matter to me. Government has the right to award rights, but not to limit the equal rights of marriage based on what I stated above.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Specificityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      So if you believe in same-sex marriage, do you see any other classes of people who are denied the benefits of marriage but should receive them? 
      
      You're fine with the gov't discriminating against single people who can't will their social security benefits to a life partner or need a medical power of attorney to be visited in the ICU.  That's basically saying, I'm for gov't discrimination as long as it is not against me, which is the same position currently held by many religious opponents of gay marriage. 
      
      I don't understand the desire to have the gov't recognize, and provide benefits, personal relationships.
      
      I do appreciate the discussion, though!

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Why do you think they started doing so in the first place?
         
         I don't know - but I would like to bet it was pressure from religious groups.

         replyreport
      2. 61

         Colebabieposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Well as far as a single person goes, obviously someone who is single is not married, should their life partner be able to access them in an ICU, of course. It is difficult to draw the line. Some couples decide not to get married, that is their choice and I fully support it. But if a couple wants ALL of the benefits of marriage, then I guess they should get married. The point is that gay couples don't have this as even an option.
         
         I'm not saying that I am for government discrimination as long as it is not against me... AT ALL, and I'm not sure where you got that from. I'm not gay, but I support equal rights for gay couples. As of right now I can't think of another group that is being left out. Interracial marriage was legalized in 1967. A little too late in my opinion, but we as a country were pretty slow moving in allowing civil rights because our history.  The point is that marriage be an option to all loving (human, consenting adult) couples

         replyreport
8. 61

   Colebabieposted 15 years ago

   My boyfriend is Puerto Rican. Race is socially constructed, so race wise... he is different than me. If we weren't allowed to get married... you bet I would be raising some hell !! Imagine that a part of you, something that you cannot change, prevented you from having the same rights as everyone else. Even thinking of that is ridiculous.

   replyreport
9. 61

   Colebabieposted 15 years ago

   You're saying that civil marriage always discriminates against "someone". But religious marriage discriminates against those without a religion; which is a big group of people.
   
   "It's the only solution that treats everyone exactly the same. "
   
   Uh not true!

   replyreport
10. 60

    calebdposted 15 years ago

    Why cede the word "marriage" to the religious? I refuse to want a civil union. Marriage has never been a primarily religious institution and it shouldn't be. To say that the government should take itself out of the marriage business and cede it to the churches is immoral because it is the government's duty to regulate social contracts. Like Sour Man said, it is also a societal contract. Discrimination and arbitration are all functions. If you want government out of marriage because of those functions, you'll want to get it out of many more things than just this.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Specificityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       I do want gov't out of many more things.  Many more indeed.
       
       Societal contract?  Just what is the nature of the contract my wife and I have made with society?  Since a contract must benefit both parties, what are the benefits and responsibilities of each party?

       replyreport
       1. 60

          calebdposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Well, in that case, your thread's title is misleading. Invoking an opposition to same-sex marriage on libertarian grounds is a self-serving half-assed libertarianism.
          
          Society recognizes you as a unit, with all or many of its attendant benefits and responsibilities, a sort of limited-liability corporation if you will. Obligations towards a family unit and so forth.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             Specificityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             I see your point.  My effort was to re-frame the debate and show that even if we accept same-sex marriage, people will still be discriminated against.  That's why I think the only way for gov't to treat everyone equally is for gov't to recognize no one's marriage.  Let individuals make marriage whatever they want it to be; don't let gov't define it.
             
             
             
             I'm not sure what you're saying here.

             replyreport
11. 67

    its_the_skittle_eposted 15 years ago

    I'm with same-sex marraige. Gender shouldn't chose who you love, you should love who you want to love.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       Specificityposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       You think marriage is about love???  You must be single. Or newlywed.
       
       Disclaimer: The above is a joke, not meant to be taken up as a cause by the married 40+ years and still holding hands crowd.

       replyreport
12. 0

    pgrundyposted 15 years ago

    "Well, personally I think marriage is an outdated concept - judging from the divorce rates. We would be far better off having a breakable legal contract."
    
    This is the simplest, most straightforward way I've seen it expressed.
    
    I think families would be better served if everyone had equal access to necessary services like health care, food, and basic shelter, every single individual. Then if people want to marry for religious reasons, or if temporary legal contracts seem useful for reasons of protecting one's assets or distributing them according to one's wishes after death or providing for the custody of children or whatever, couples could have such contracts drawn up. A renewable standard contract for legal purposes would work, and then leave the marriage part to personal or religious ceremony.
    
    I think it is discriminatory to make a man/woman marital union the foundation of the family by granting preferential rights. There are lots of perfectly functional families that are not well-described by marriage, and there's no reason a crappy marriage should get the people in it preferential treatment over a functional living arrangement that doesn't fit this outdated model.
    
    Marriage has its origins in a religious institution in which women were originally property. That's not salvageable.

    replyreport
13. 60

    Specificityposted 15 years ago

    Well it looks like this thread has fizzled out.  Thanks for the discussion!

    replyreport
14. 60

    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    You realize that you are essentially the same as that bigot on the other same-sex marriage thread who keeps going on and on about homosexuality making God angry and all that, right? Just a mirror image.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       LOL
       
       What an odd mirror you have.

       replyreport
15. 60

    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    Same intolerance, bigotry, and certitude based on block-headed simplicity. It's right there in black and white. You are two peas in a pod.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Ah - so me saying that people who join a cult that makes them believe gays = sin is silly is the same as joining that cult and speaking out against gays, abortion etc?
       
       Interesting.
       
       But yes - I am bigoted and intolerant of those people.
       
       Sorry if that offends whatever morals your particular flavor cult holds dear.

       replyreport
16. 60

    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    As I said...

    replyreport
    1. 57

       Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       ...dias I sA

       replyreport
       1. 67

          Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          I finally get it.  That's a picture of your grand father in your avatar, isn't it Mark.

          replyreport
17. 59

    bettylafeaposted 15 years ago

    I don't see how same sex marriage become threat to the nation, government and even to marriage institution...that's just my opinion...

    replyreport
18. 60

    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    So the government has no business telling a father and daughter they cannot legally marry?

    replyreport
    1. 65

       Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, you are correct

       replyreport
       1. 60

          tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Really? You would want such a union to be legally recognized?

          replyreport
19. 65

    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    I won't go into much detail, suffice it to say I think it is none of government business

    replyreport
20. 60

    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    Off topic I know, but do you support gun control?

    replyreport
    1. 75

       Eaglekiwiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Be a lively thread to post tk?

       replyreport
21. 65

    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    no

    replyreport
22. 60

    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    Do you think private citizens should be allowed to keep plutonium at home?

    replyreport
23. 65

    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    I am not really sure how exactly private citizen (or illegal alien for that matter) can get hold of plutonium in pure form, but again it is none of the government business

    replyreport
    1. 60

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       I see. Well, you're consistent if nothing else.

       replyreport
       1. 65

          Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          LOL Yes I am.

          replyreport
24. 75

    Eaglekiwiposted 15 years ago

    ok what about this
    
    Marriage for the Christian
    Civil Union for the non-religious
    
    Is everybody happy
    You bet ya life we are
    ( lil childrens ditty)

    replyreport
25. 61

    HealthCare Basicsposted 15 years ago

    I believe this country was born on freedom. Therefore, it becomes the people to decide what is right or wrong. Majority can not decide on a minority group. This is discrimination and injustice. Listen to your hearts without the influence of religion. People love one another despite what sex they may be. Gay children have been born from "straight" relationships. It happens, and there is no one to blame. What attracts the same-sex person to the same sex is just as similar to straight persaons. I will not go further....Give it up!!!

    replyreport
    1. 60

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Sure they can. Happens all the time.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          HealthCare Basicsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

          Rest the case here. We have in this country a belief in equality. If you do not believe in equality, then you should move to Russia as far as I am concerned. My folks were able to immigrate to this country from a Soviet controlled State. My family had the ability to pay to "get on the boat" and leave when the ports were opened between Europe and the U.S. I feel so fortunate knowing that my history was born to finding freedom to express.

          replyreport
          1. 65

             Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             LOL Let's leave Russia alone. Currently it is much more "free" than USA
             
             And I agree to TKS here - what is proclaimed is one thing, what is actually practiced is another.

             replyreport
             1. 60

                tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                How do you figure?

                replyreport
          2. 60

             tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             Russia is no longer a Communist state. In any case, when did I say I didn't believe in equality? But as long as you brought it up, do you believe in total, unconditional equality?

             replyreport
26. 65

    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    I live in USA. And have a plenty of relatives back in Russia, and travel there at least once a year.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Nice. I have met and worked with many, many Russians. Good, 'real' people. Respect.

       replyreport
27. 60

    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    But, uh, how is it "much more free than the US"?

    replyreport
28. 65

    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    Russia is moving away from socialism, and people are moving away from dependence on government to self-dependence. New generation that grew up after USSR is amazingly self-reliant. There are a plenty of problems, there is a rampant corruption - but people work on their own prosperity and happiness in general without expecting government to provide it.
    
    USA is moving towards socialism fast, and almost everybody is ready to trade the very few bits of freedom and self-reliance for government support and enslavement. The new generation expects the government to serve them everything, from jobs to cars to healthcare. Granted there are bright spots, but in general - just look around
    
    Disclaimer: All of the above is just my personal opinion, believed to be true to the best of my knowledge at the time of publication

    replyreport
    1. 60

       tksenseiposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       And isn't Russia moving toward Totalitarianism?

       replyreport
29. 65

    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    For exact answer you have to define your understanding of totalitarianism first, but generally no, it is moving from being a completely totalitarian country to much less totalitarian one. The mere fact that being a Russian citizen I live in the US was just totally impossible 20 years ago

    replyreport
30. 60

    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    This leads to details that make statements like 'the US is moving toward Socialism' unprovable as well. Perhaps best to say both countries could be doing things better.

    replyreport
31. 65

    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    Oh, I specifically put a disclaimer over there for this exactly matter
    
    I am not going to prove anything on that topic, I grew tired of presenting evidence that just got ignored or at best twisted. We'll talk in a few years, if we are still alive and not in some concentration camp. Actually we still can talk even in a concentration camp, if they put us into the same cell

    replyreport
32. 60

    tksenseiposted 15 years ago

    We won't be in a camp, don't worry.

    replyreport