Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarians Against Gay Marriage

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:13:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Marriage can be considered one or both of these things:

1) The spiritual (religious or otherwise) commitment between two people
2) The legal commitment binding two people in the eyes of the law

Libertarians on this site claim to be CON gay marriage. I understand that to be that they are against the second description of gay marriage - the legal binding between two people. However, if they're not against the spiritual commitment between two people, then why do they choose to say that they're Con gay marriage even though they're Pro according to one of the definitions?

Similarly, another reason that libertarians claim to be Con gay marriage is because they're against all legal marriage in general. However, since heterosexual marriage exists - and stands to give tax breaks and other benefits to straight Americans - then shouldn't they also favor gay marriage? You might immediately assume not; however, upon further instigation see that to not be in favor of gay marriage when straight marriage exists is blatantly discriminatory, and further a form of theft (since the government takes taxes from gays but doesn't use those taxes to give back to gays the way they give back to straights).

Therefore, it seems that being Pro gay marriage is the lesser of the two evils. Libertarians may feel that taxation is wrong in the first place, but this isn't about actually paying taxes and instead the government essentially giving gays BACK their taxes via tax breaks, the same way they give straights tax breaks for being in essentially the same type of commitment (romantic relationship).

In conclusion, it seems non-sensical for Libertarians to be against gay marriage. There's no reason to be against the spiritual commitment since you can't stop it -- gay people are going to continue having sex and being in emotional relationships whether anyone likes it or not. And as far as legal marriage goes, it's blatantly discriminatory to give some people rights and not afford those same rights to others based on something like sexuality (especially since the government takes their taxes). So, the government not giving gays their tax breaks is essentially an even worse form of theft than the taxes themselves. Thus, I don't think a Libertarian should defend being Con gay marriage.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:17:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Good post Lwerd! I've been wondering the same thing for awhile.

I wonder, however, how many of the libertarians on this website are rather against same-sex marriage (or possibly homosexuality) on personal and 'spiritual' grounds as well, rather than just the bland legal reasons why they aren't.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:17:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also, the answer "Straight legal marriage shouldn't exist either, thus not leading to discrimination" is not a sufficient answer to my question... because even if that type of marriage doesn't exist, then there's no reason to be Con against the spiritual marriage of homosexuals just because you might be against all types of legal marriage.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:18:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:17:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
Good post Lwerd! I've been wondering the same thing for awhile.

I wonder, however, how many of the libertarians on this website are rather against same-sex marriage (or possibly homosexuality) on personal and 'spiritual' grounds as well, rather than just the bland legal reasons why they aren't.

Then they'd have to defend violating a Separation of Church and State.
President of DDO
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:25:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think all of those issues should be taken in vacuums. In today's society, with everything working the way it is, would you favor gay marriage? I think most libertarians would. It doesn't make sense to say "oh, well if this happened, and this, and all these things were different, then I wouldn't." Maybe you can clarify that a bit in the comment portion but there's usually not enough space to get all of that out.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:27:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The reason libertarians are against gay marriage is because they find it icky.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Opponents of gay marriage have done a very good job of rationalizing their beliefs, and libertarians have had to do a little extra rationalization, but at the end of the day they're just bothered by watching two dudes kiss, and they don't want to legitimize it. As far as lesbians; every time two women get married, these guys see it as one less woman for them.

It's an obsessive-compulsive egocentric complex that has decided that gay marriage is wrong, and there's no amount of logical reasoning to dissuade them.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:28:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:27:16 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
The reason libertarians are against gay marriage is because they find it icky.


Let's not kid ourselves here. Opponents of gay marriage have done a very good job of rationalizing their beliefs, and libertarians have had to do a little extra rationalization, but at the end of the day they're just bothered by watching two dudes kiss, and they don't want to legitimize it. As far as lesbians; every time two women get married, these guys see it as one less woman for them.

It's an obsessive-compulsive egocentric complex that has decided that gay marriage is wrong, and there's no amount of logical reasoning to dissuade them.

Lol, you're now my favourite Dipper.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:31:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:28:03 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/16/2009 3:27:16 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
The reason libertarians are against gay marriage is because they find it icky.


Let's not kid ourselves here. Opponents of gay marriage have done a very good job of rationalizing their beliefs, and libertarians have had to do a little extra rationalization, but at the end of the day they're just bothered by watching two dudes kiss, and they don't want to legitimize it. As far as lesbians; every time two women get married, these guys see it as one less woman for them.

It's an obsessive-compulsive egocentric complex that has decided that gay marriage is wrong, and there's no amount of logical reasoning to dissuade them.

Lol, you're now my favourite Dipper.

You're my favourite Dipper too, you just don't know it yet ;)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 3:37:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:31:02 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
You're my favourite Dipper too, you just don't know it yet ;)

That sounds so very bad.

Anyways, I've read up a bit on the "official" Libertarian position on same-sex marriage, and while the Libertarian Party apparently doesn't like the idea of having any benefits for any married couples, there are other libertarian associations that distributed pamphlets in the 80s saying that there should be equal rights, though no dismantling of any marriage benefits. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Just for some extra information. Not all libertarians think its icky.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 4:15:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:13:44 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Marriage can be considered one or both of these things:

1) The spiritual (religious or otherwise) commitment between two people
2) The legal commitment binding two people in the eyes of the law

Libertarians on this site claim to be CON gay marriage. I understand that to be that they are against the second description of gay marriage - the legal binding between two people. However, if they're not against the spiritual commitment between two people, then why do they choose to say that they're Con gay marriage even though they're Pro according to one of the definitions?
Because that's the primary issue people are debating, whether to legally recognize such things? If they had two boxes, one for gay legal marriage, one for gay marriage considered nonlegally, I'd check them differently. They don't have two boxes, so I go with what's important.


Similarly, another reason that libertarians claim to be Con gay marriage is because they're against all legal marriage in general. However, since heterosexual marriage exists - and stands to give tax breaks and other benefits to straight Americans - then shouldn't they also favor gay marriage?
Medicare exists. I don't therefore support single payer UHC.

Therefore, it seems that being Pro gay marriage is the lesser of the two evils. Libertarians may feel that taxation is wrong in the first place, but this isn't about actually paying taxes and instead the government essentially giving gays BACK their taxes via tax breaks
And taking even more from unmarried people as a result. I find it ideal in annoying the state to make it very hard for us to agree on these things. If the gays with a committed relationship surrender and allow themselves to not pursue the benefits the straights get, the government wins. If the singles surrender and allow even more to be stolen in favor of gays with a committed relationship, the government wins. It's only when interest group warfare that results from the type of government you have is shown for what it is that the libertarian cause has its best chance :).

The reason libertarians are against gay marriage is because they find it icky.
Don't be f***ing stupid, Lwerd is hot, Vi_veri is hot, hot x hot = hotter, libertarians want to see more of that, near universally, especially the desperate nerd libertarians of DDO. (Ouch, self burn).

As far as lesbians; every time two women get married, these guys see it as one less woman for them.
In America, someone being married makes them not much less likely to sleep with you-- especially if they are lesbian, in which case there wasn't a whole lot of chance to begin with. (The only exception is the extreme drop in likelihood to sleep with the one they actually married-- kidding).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 5:05:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 3:13:44 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Marriage can be considered one or both of these things:

1) The spiritual (religious or otherwise) commitment between two people
2) The legal commitment binding two people in the eyes of the law
That's nice.

Libertarians on this site claim to be CON gay marriage. I understand that to be that they are against the second description of gay marriage - the legal binding between two people. However, if they're not against the spiritual commitment between two people, then why do they choose to say that they're Con gay marriage even though they're Pro according to one of the definitions?
After the politics comes the church, and I don't want the church recognizing gay marriage.

Similarly, another reason that libertarians claim to be Con gay marriage is because they're against all legal marriage in general. However, since heterosexual marriage exists - and stands to give tax breaks and other benefits to straight Americans - then shouldn't they also favor gay marriage?
I'd rather be against both. Just because the system is flawed one way, doesn't mean I should favor it being flawed in two ways.
You might immediately assume not; however, upon further instigation see that to not be in favor of gay marriage when straight marriage exists is blatantly discriminatory, and further a form of theft (since the government takes taxes from gays but doesn't use those taxes to give back to gays the way they give back to straights).
And I am against such theft.

Therefore, it seems that being Pro gay marriage is the lesser of the two evils. Libertarians may feel that taxation is wrong in the first place, but this isn't about actually paying taxes and instead the government essentially giving gays BACK their taxes via tax breaks, the same way they give straights tax breaks for being in essentially the same type of commitment (romantic relationship).
There shouldn't be any tax cuts.
In conclusion, it seems non-sensical for Libertarians to be against gay marriage. There's no reason to be against the spiritual commitment since you can't stop it -- gay people are going to continue having sex and being in emotional relationships whether anyone likes it or not.
There's still the church.
And as far as legal marriage goes, it's blatantly discriminatory to give some people rights and not afford those same rights to others based on something like sexuality (especially since the government takes their taxes).
Thus, why we're opposed to government intervention entirely. Don't you listen to yourself?
So, the government not giving gays their tax breaks is essentially an even worse form of theft than the taxes themselves. Thus, I don't think a Libertarian should defend being Con gay marriage.
Too late. Besides, my position still isn't discriminatory, so why do you care?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 5:35:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I almost clicked "con gay marriage" because I'm con state recognition of any "marriage", I think that the more fitting, and less loaded, term "civil union" ought to be used for any legally recognized "union".
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 6:20:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Perhaps someone could clear this up for me. What is the legal difference between a marriage and a civil union?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 6:30:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 6:20:39 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Perhaps someone could clear this up for me. What is the legal difference between a marriage and a civil union?

I don't know what places actually recognize "civil unions", but really there is no difference, except that no one is going to claim it's religious.

I can understand that people get all sentimental about the word "marriage", for many it holds vast religious significance and is the joining of a man and woman.

The state recognizes no such religious significance, the state recognizes "unions" only for legal/Civil purposes. Things would be a lot more straightforward if the state just said it doesn't recognize religious relationships, but only "civil" relations, It doesn't recognize "marriages" but "civil unions".
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 6:40:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 6:30:39 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I don't know what places actually recognize "civil unions", but really there is no difference, except that no one is going to claim it's religious.

If there is no legal difference between civil unions and marriage than all it really comes down to is a culture war. There would be no definitive libertarian position.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 6:46:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just want to put my two cents in regarding women with women and men with men.

As a guy, that is, a heterosexual guy, it is quite interesting and pleasing for me to find women making out with each other. That's just how my brain reacts to the sight. However, seeing guys doing the same repulses me. Obviously, that would be because I'm highly heterosexual and feel attracted to many girls my age, several years older, and even some hot cougars.

However, what I find odd is that a lot of my friends who are girls would be more horrified seeing men make-out than women doing the same. All of these mentioned girls are heterosexual, and yet they do not think in the same way that heterosexual men do. Is this because guys are first attracted to a woman's attractiveness, yet women usually look for personality at the beginning?

By the way, I was watching this series with Jennifer Love Hewitt today. She is smoking hot! Cougars all the way ;)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 6:47:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ragnar:

What you're saying is that because you don't believe in any legalized marriage, gay people should not be allowed to marry. So we'll operate under the basis that legal straight marriage exists (because it does). In that case, you can't justify not allowing gay marriage to exist. But, even if legal straight marriage didn't exist, (meaning there was NO legal marriage) than the spiritual marriage would STILL exist... in which case, it's not your business whether gay people get married or not, so either way, you should be for it.
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 6:47:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 6:40:06 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/16/2009 6:30:39 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I don't know what places actually recognize "civil unions", but really there is no difference, except that no one is going to claim it's religious.

If there is no legal difference between civil unions and marriage than all it really comes down to is a culture war. There would be no definitive libertarian position.

The culture war is there, I'd like to avoid it, and I'd like the state to avoid it such that it could best protect, and respect, peoples "rights"/liberties.

Being more precise in the phrasing of the state recognition would avoid the whole cultural majority unjustly denying equal civil rights to minorities thing.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:00:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 5:05:22 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 12/16/2009 3:13:44 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Marriage can be considered one or both of these things:

1) The spiritual (religious or otherwise) commitment between two people
2) The legal commitment binding two people in the eyes of the law
That's nice.

Way to go. You made absolutely no point as usual.

Libertarians on this site claim to be CON gay marriage. I understand that to be that they are against the second description of gay marriage - the legal binding between two people. However, if they're not against the spiritual commitment between two people, then why do they choose to say that they're Con gay marriage even though they're Pro according to one of the definitions?
After the politics comes the church, and I don't want the church recognizing gay marriage.

I don't really care what you want or don't want. Also, phuck your church. Who said gays want to get married in YOUR church? There are plenty of churches that do recognize same sex couples. Plus, I said spiritual marriage - not religious marriage. Fail.


Similarly, another reason that libertarians claim to be Con gay marriage is because they're against all legal marriage in general. However, since heterosexual marriage exists - and stands to give tax breaks and other benefits to straight Americans - then shouldn't they also favor gay marriage?
I'd rather be against both. Just because the system is flawed one way, doesn't mean I should favor it being flawed in two ways.

This misses the entire point. It being flawed in one way results in discrimination. That's like saying if the government decided to mail everyone a $10,000 check, you'd say "No thank you" because you don't believe the government should be doing that. In other words, you might not like it, but you're damn sure not going to deny the benefit of it - let's be realistic. Are you going to get married? Probably. I'd be surprised if all the libertarians here didn't get married even though they're supposedly so against it... and surely claim their tax benefits.

Further, just because the government is wrong in one way (legalized marriage) doesn't mean it has to be wrong in two ways (legalized marriage AND discrimination REGARDING that marriage - it's like a double fail) ... So there exists a double standard. If you're going to take taxes from gay people, then gay people deserve the same tax breaks. That's like saying the government will take your tax dollars for roads but not let you drive on those roads. You might not agree with the current set up (taxes paying for roads) but while everyone else gets to use them, then you expect to use them too since you pay for them.

You might immediately assume not; however, upon further instigation see that to not be in favor of gay marriage when straight marriage exists is blatantly discriminatory, and further a form of theft (since the government takes taxes from gays but doesn't use those taxes to give back to gays the way they give back to straights).
And I am against such theft.

Lol. Again, you saying absolutely nothing of merit or use to the conversation.

Therefore, it seems that being Pro gay marriage is the lesser of the two evils. Libertarians may feel that taxation is wrong in the first place, but this isn't about actually paying taxes and instead the government essentially giving gays BACK their taxes via tax breaks, the same way they give straights tax breaks for being in essentially the same type of commitment (romantic relationship).
There shouldn't be any tax cuts.

Wow. That's really insightful. Did you come up with that on your own, or...?

In conclusion, it seems non-sensical for Libertarians to be against gay marriage. There's no reason to be against the spiritual commitment since you can't stop it -- gay people are going to continue having sex and being in emotional relationships whether anyone likes it or not.
There's still the church.

WHO CARES ABOUT THE CHURCH? The Church has nothing to do with this. Spiritual commitments can exist without the church, and again, there ARE priests and rabbis who already do perform commitment services. There's more than one church. Try not to be ignorant.

And as far as legal marriage goes, it's blatantly discriminatory to give some people rights and not afford those same rights to others based on something like sexuality (especially since the government takes their taxes).
Thus, why we're opposed to government intervention entirely. Don't you listen to yourself?

I'm sorry - did you say something?
So, the government not giving gays their tax breaks is essentially an even worse form of theft than the taxes themselves. Thus, I don't think a Libertarian should defend being Con gay marriage.
Too late. Besides, my position still isn't discriminatory, so why do you care?

Congratulations. You've succeeded at providing absolutely nothing of any relevance to t conversation. And while we're on the subject of you being a fool, you still haven't responded in the other thread (and I bet I know why) how one can be both typing and not typing as you claimed is possible... I'd also like to debate you on objective reality since you're a libertarian who claims that objective reality and morality doesn't exist lulz.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:03:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also - mattrodstrom is incorrect. There is a huge difference between marriage and civil unions. Civil unions only grant about HALF the protections (marriage rights) and grant about half the legal benefits (tax breaks) that marriage does. They're only legal at the state level - not the federal level - so you don't get any federal support or federal tax cuts.

But yes, those who say "I'm okay with civil unions but not marriage" are retarded. Do you think I'm going to get on one knee and say to some woman, "Will you civil unionize me?" No. I'm going to ask, "Will you MARRY me?" and our relationship will be exactly the same as that of a straight couple. People can be bigoted all they want but that's not going to stop gay sex or gay love, so to deny us the legal protections is blatant discrimination and I'm appalled that it's acceptable in 2009.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:15:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The libertarians on this site once again did not satisfy me with a decent answer. Obviously their response is simple: No legal marriage should exist. However, marriage isn't only about the legalities and tax breaks. Marriage is also a spiritual and cultural thing. As such, gays still get "married" all the time and there's nothing you can do about it. So, even if you're against the legal benefits of marriage, there's no reason to be against spiritual marriage.

Not to mention that marriage benefits are not all about taxes -- there are legal protections too, such as property and compensation rights. So, so long as the government offers these certain protections to some people, it's appalling to say "Well you don't get that same protection" to others based on who they have sex with. Another thing is that sometimes marriage alone settles legal disputes when it comes to child custody; even contracts and other legal documents can't fix that in some cases.

Which brings me to another thing: Even if the next libertarian answer is "Well contracts can settle those protections..." then that's also an insufficient answer. First of all, you can't get legal contracts for all of the things marriage covers; for instance, gays cannot adopt a child in every state (but if you were married to the other person, that individual would automatically be considered the child's parent, for instance). In addition, these contracts cost A LOT of money because you need a whole crap ton of them to come anywhere close to getting the protection that the word "marriage" alone offers...

So what you're doing is making some people pay for things that others don't have to. Again, eliminating straight legal marriage would solve that, in which case that still leave spiritual marriage and there's no reasonable argument against that. Sooo I'm still not satisfied with an answer.
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:18:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 7:03:49 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Also - mattrodstrom is incorrect. There is a huge difference between marriage and civil unions. Civil unions only grant about HALF the protections (marriage rights) and grant about half the legal benefits (tax breaks) that marriage does. They're only legal at the state level - not the federal level - so you don't get any federal support or federal tax cuts.

I am for legalizing tax cuts whenever and wherever I can. Do you have any sources that can back up that civil unions and marriages are different?

But yes, those who say "I'm okay with civil unions but not marriage" are retarded. Do you think I'm going to get on one knee and say to some woman, "Will you civil unionize me?" No. I'm going to ask, "Will you MARRY me?" and our relationship will be exactly the same as that of a straight couple. People can be bigoted all they want but that's not going to stop gay sex or gay love, so to deny us the legal protections is blatant discrimination and I'm appalled that it's acceptable in 2009.

Why do we associate the state's contract with the act of marriage? Why do we seek the state's permission to get married? I can understand it if one wants the tax benefits and such, but what is it that one can't do if the state doesn't recognize your marriage? One can still live together, one is still married whether the state recognizes it or not.

Just my thoughts. http://anarchyinyourhead.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:18:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 7:03:49 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Also - mattrodstrom is incorrect. There is a huge difference between marriage and civil unions. Civil unions only grant about HALF the protections (marriage rights) and grant about half the legal benefits (tax breaks) that marriage does. They're only legal at the state level - not the federal level - so you don't get any federal support or federal tax cuts.

Ok civil unions as they stand today.

But yes, those who say "I'm okay with civil unions but not marriage" are retarded. Do you think I'm going to get on one knee and say to some woman, "Will you civil unionize me?" No. I'm going to ask, "Will you MARRY me?"

Lol. That's fine (and quite expected) by me, I don't care how anyone phrases questions to their beloved. It's really none of my business.

But don't you think that if all "marriages" can only really be recognized as "civil unions" in the eyes of the state. What else can they be considered by a state which isn't able to pass any law respecting religion.

I understand that there is righteous outrage in the "gay community" that it looks like they're going to get stuck with "civil unions" as opposed to being treated equally before the state in name, as well as practice, As they should be but I think equal rights in this regard would be much more achievable if the state just dropped the Name, and delivered on the Equality, rather than wait for conservatives to change their tune.

I would be for "gay marriage" if I thought it the best way to get gays equal rights quickest, as I see a "Marriage" as no diff. than a "civil union".

and our relationship will be exactly the same as that of a straight couple. People can be bigoted all they want but that's not going to stop gay sex or gay love, so to deny us the legal protections is blatant discrimination and I'm appalled that it's acceptable in 2009.
agreed.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:24:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 7:15:35 PM, theLwerd wrote:
The libertarians on this site once again did not satisfy me with a decent answer. Obviously their response is simple: No legal marriage should exist. However, marriage isn't only about the legalities and tax breaks. Marriage is also a spiritual and cultural thing. As such, gays still get "married" all the time and there's nothing you can do about it. So, even if you're against the legal benefits of marriage, there's no reason to be against spiritual marriage.

I think that the word "marriage" turns many cultural conservatives off, who would accept civil unions. I think that a better strategy would be to make a civil union the equivalent to a "marriage".

Thoughts?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:25:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 7:18:39 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I would be for "gay marriage" if I thought that terminology the best way to get gays equal rights quickest, as I see a "Marriage" as no diff. than a "civil union".
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:31:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 7:24:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/16/2009 7:15:35 PM, theLwerd wrote:
The libertarians on this site once again did not satisfy me with a decent answer. Obviously their response is simple: No legal marriage should exist. However, marriage isn't only about the legalities and tax breaks. Marriage is also a spiritual and cultural thing. As such, gays still get "married" all the time and there's nothing you can do about it. So, even if you're against the legal benefits of marriage, there's no reason to be against spiritual marriage.

I think that the word "marriage" turns many cultural conservatives off, who would accept civil unions. I think that a better strategy would be to make a civil union the equivalent to a "marriage".

Thoughts?

They can call it whatever they want to call it, so long as the rights, benefits and breaks were all equal. The point is that they're just retarded if they think it matters... If the legal protections are the same and only the WORD is different, then they're ignorant to think that gays are going to use the word "civil union" to replace "marriage" in a social context. Gays are still going to call themselves married and still call their partner husband and wife.

Also, matt, what I meant was simply that civil unions and marriage are not the same because marriages offer a lot more protections. It's incorrect to assume that they mean the same thing and just have different names. Again, if they DID mean the same thing, then I wouldn't care... it's just that calling it something different for the hell of it is really friggin stupid. That's like saying "Well instead of allowing blacks to sit on the front of the bus, we're just going to call it the 'beginning' of the bus because we don't want to stoop to the level where we say they can sit at the front." It's THAT stupid lol.
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:31:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 7:24:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/16/2009 7:15:35 PM, theLwerd wrote:
The libertarians on this site once again did not satisfy me with a decent answer. Obviously their response is simple: No legal marriage should exist. However, marriage isn't only about the legalities and tax breaks. Marriage is also a spiritual and cultural thing. As such, gays still get "married" all the time and there's nothing you can do about it. So, even if you're against the legal benefits of marriage, there's no reason to be against spiritual marriage.

I think that the word "marriage" turns many cultural conservatives off, who would accept civil unions.
Yep.
I think that a better strategy would be to make a civil union the equivalent to a "marriage".
Nope. Why the difference in terms? No reason...? or no reason beyond state discrimination of sexual preferences? lol

The state ought not call whites "people", and blacks "persons" they ought not discriminate in practice or in name.

I don't care what the state calls it, but it's got to be the same in name and practice.
It just so happens that calling such things ACROSS THE BOARD "civil unions" is the best way to get that done.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:35:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 7:31:21 PM, theLwerd wrote:

Also, matt, what I meant was simply that civil unions and marriage are not the same because marriages offer a lot more protections. It's incorrect to assume that they mean the same thing and just have different names. Again, if they DID mean the same thing, then I wouldn't care... it's just that calling it something different for the hell of it is really friggin stupid. That's like saying "Well instead of allowing blacks to sit on the front of the bus, we're just going to call it the 'beginning' of the bus because we don't want to stoop to the level where we say they can sit at the front." It's THAT stupid lol.

Agreed, I think you misunderstood my position on the matter.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:36:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/16/2009 7:31:49 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I think that a better strategy would be to make a civil union the equivalent to a "marriage".
Nope. Why the difference in terms? No reason...? or no reason beyond state discrimination of sexual preferences? lol

The difference in terms would be because many would not accept the state "abolishing marriage". Therefore, from a tactical standpoint, if you wish to receive the legal status of marriage than it would seem to be the best step.

The state ought not call whites "people", and blacks "persons" they ought not discriminate in practice or in name.

The state ought not exist, so it is rather silly to be arguing about semantics.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/16/2009 7:36:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yep. If they want to have non legal marriage but legalized civil unions for all people (with EQUAL protections), then fine. But that's still kind of retarded because gays will still get "married" in their own way (with an open-minded church or with a judge or whatever). So basically, the attempt to make gays feel ostracized is really futile and just making them look like backwards bigots. Gays are still having lots of sex and dating whether people like it or not; they need to get off their high horse already and accept it. It's 2009 and getting really old. Srsly.
President of DDO