Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Gay Marriage...The govt should stay out of it

twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 11:32:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have heard people say that they are not for gay marriage (not because they are against gays) but because they think the government should stay out of all marriage (or the marriage is a religious institution).

WTF? This has never made sense to me at all. The government definitely is in straight marriage, with laws, taxes divorce laws ect. Why aren't these people fighting to get government out of straight marriage. I never hear an argument as see these (usually libertarian) people campaigning to eliminate straight marriage,.

And, this is not even a reason to oppose gay marriage. While the government is in marriage, it is only fair if gays and straights can get married.

It seems this is just a weak nonsensical excuse to pander to homophobes and avoid taking a position.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 1:20:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 11:32:12 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard people say that they are not for gay marriage (not because they are against gays) but because they think the government should stay out of all marriage (or the marriage is a religious institution).

WTF? This has never made sense to me at all. The government definitely is in straight marriage, with laws, taxes divorce laws ect. Why aren't these people fighting to get government out of straight marriage. I never hear an argument as see these (usually libertarian) people campaigning to eliminate straight marriage,.

And, this is not even a reason to oppose gay marriage. While the government is in marriage, it is only fair if gays and straights can get married.

It seems this is just a weak nonsensical excuse to pander to homophobes and avoid taking a position.

Heh, yeah. 'The government should stay out of it' doesn't mean that the system authorised by the government should be changed so that the government has no authority over it, but rather that the system authorised by the government should remain in place and not be subject to any change.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 1:37:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What the above said.
Was confused by your argument. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is
equivalent to heterosexuality?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 1:38:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 1:20:52 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:32:12 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard people say that they are not for gay marriage (not because they are against gays) but because they think the government should stay out of all marriage (or the marriage is a religious institution).

WTF? This has never made sense to me at all. The government definitely is in straight marriage, with laws, taxes divorce laws ect. Why aren't these people fighting to get government out of straight marriage. I never hear an argument as see these (usually libertarian) people campaigning to eliminate straight marriage,.

And, this is not even a reason to oppose gay marriage. While the government is in marriage, it is only fair if gays and straights can get married.

It seems this is just a weak nonsensical excuse to pander to homophobes and avoid taking a position.

Heh, yeah. 'The government should stay out of it' doesn't mean that the system authorised by the government should be changed so that the government has no authority over it, but rather that the system authorised by the government should remain in place and not be subject to any change.

I'm not sure I'm following.

Every law is authorized by the government. How is "the government should stay out of it" a reason not to allow gay marriage?The same can be said about every law and issue. Should no law ever be changed and we should keep the status quo forever because "the government should stay out of it"?
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 1:40:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 1:37:18 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
What the above said.
Was confused by your argument. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is
equivalent to heterosexuality?

I'm saying that "the government should stay out of it" is a stupid argument against gay marriage.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 1:57:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 1:40:01 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 9/13/2014 1:37:18 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
What the above said.
Was confused by your argument. Are you saying that you think homosexuality is
equivalent to heterosexuality?

I'm saying that "the government should stay out of it" is a stupid argument against gay marriage.

You said:
it is only fair if gays and straights can get married.

"The government should stay out of it" is not an argument, or at least it is an incomplete argument.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:09:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

"The government should stay out of it" is not an argument, or at least it is an incomplete argument.

I think even if someone completes this argument, it is a stupid one/not one at all.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:12:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 11:32:12 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard people say that they are not for gay marriage (not because they are against gays) but because they think the government should stay out of all marriage (or the marriage is a religious institution).

WTF? This has never made sense to me at all. The government definitely is in straight marriage, with laws, taxes divorce laws ect. Why aren't these people fighting to get government out of straight marriage. I never hear an argument as see these (usually libertarian) people campaigning to eliminate straight marriage,.

And, this is not even a reason to oppose gay marriage. While the government is in marriage, it is only fair if gays and straights can get married.

It seems this is just a weak nonsensical excuse to pander to homophobes and avoid taking a position.

The argument is:
instead of amending marriage laws to granting rights and priviledges to some, let's instead use this opportunity to eliminate marriage completely from the government.

It isn't brought up outside of this because, as I am sure you know, most people don't want to just give up their goodies. So, when it is topical, it is mentioned, and gains traction, maybe. (and maybe for the wrong reasons, too, but that is politics)
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:14:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 2:12:51 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:32:12 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard people say that they are not for gay marriage (not because they are against gays) but because they think the government should stay out of all marriage (or the marriage is a religious institution).

WTF? This has never made sense to me at all. The government definitely is in straight marriage, with laws, taxes divorce laws ect. Why aren't these people fighting to get government out of straight marriage. I never hear an argument as see these (usually libertarian) people campaigning to eliminate straight marriage,.

And, this is not even a reason to oppose gay marriage. While the government is in marriage, it is only fair if gays and straights can get married.

It seems this is just a weak nonsensical excuse to pander to homophobes and avoid taking a position.

The argument is:
instead of amending marriage laws to granting rights and priviledges to some, let's instead use this opportunity to eliminate marriage completely from the government.

It isn't brought up outside of this because, as I am sure you know, most people don't want to just give up their goodies. So, when it is topical, it is mentioned, and gains traction, maybe. (and maybe for the wrong reasons, too, but that is politics)

Yeah, but whether you are for the government being involved in marriage or not, you should agree it is not fair to have the government in one but not the other.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:14:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 2:09:22 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

"The government should stay out of it" is not an argument, or at least it is an incomplete argument.

I think even if someone completes this argument, it is a stupid one/not one at all.

As Wocambs said, it is more along the lines of: "The government should keep marriage as it is"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:18:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 2:14:30 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Yeah, but whether you are for the government being involved in marriage or not, you should agree it is not fair to have the government in one but not the other.

True; however, a libertarian's stance is weakened a bit when you say, "Well, this should not be, but since it is, let's expand it".
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:18:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 2:14:43 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:09:22 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

"The government should stay out of it" is not an argument, or at least it is an incomplete argument.

I think even if someone completes this argument, it is a stupid one/not one at all.

As Wocambs said, it is more along the lines of: "The government should keep marriage as it is"

Yeah, which boils down to "Gays gross me out and I'm not cool with that".

I am more referring to people using being against government involvement, as an excuse to be against gay marriage. It is not one.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:21:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 2:18:00 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:14:30 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Yeah, but whether you are for the government being involved in marriage or not, you should agree it is not fair to have the government in one but not the other.

True; however, a libertarian's stance is weakened a bit when you say, "Well, this should not be, but since it is, let's expand it".

Yeah, well a libertarian should fight to remove straight marriage. But, be find with gay marriage as it is only fair to gays since straights have marriage.

I think it is rare to see someone campaigning against straight marriage, yet I have heard this excuse all the time about gay marriage.

.I think people who are against gay marriage because "the govt should stay out" are against gay marriage for the same reason the vocal anti-gay are (they are too grossed out by it to consider them). But these "libertarians" take this view to avoid being against gay marriage and being a bigot.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 8:43:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 2:21:58 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:18:00 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:14:30 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

Yeah, but whether you are for the government being involved in marriage or not, you should agree it is not fair to have the government in one but not the other.

True; however, a libertarian's stance is weakened a bit when you say, "Well, this should not be, but since it is, let's expand it".

Yeah, well a libertarian should fight to remove straight marriage. But, be find with gay marriage as it is only fair to gays since straights have marriage.
By that logic, people opposed to welfare should increase its funding, because while it shouldn't exist, it does, and it's not enough.

Also, by that logic, they should be fighting that ANY two adults should be married, right? (expand it even further than what others want, for MAXIMUM equality)
Do you see the problem with compromising the stance?

I think it is rare to see someone campaigning against straight marriage, yet I have heard this excuse all the time about gay marriage.

Who would campaign on that? It is a losing issue. Voters will be turned off, and it's not going to happen. It's like a single politician running and saying he will make X religion official. It's not going to happen.

If the vote were to come up, and they didn't vote, then they are frauds, but libertarians are in the vast minority. Hell, they might split from the Republicans soon, given all the in-fighting that divides that party.

I have seen laws introduced banning marriage and/or calling all marriages civil unions in my state, but they were shot down.
There are only a handful of benefits that, by law, you have to be married to receive; however, being married is like an automatic panacea of these forms (PoA, will, etc.).

.I think people who are against gay marriage because "the govt should stay out" are against gay marriage for the same reason the vocal anti-gay are (they are too grossed out by it to consider them). But these "libertarians" take this view to avoid being against gay marriage and being a bigot.

This is probably true for some, but pragmatism and politics also warrant for this view.
If you don't believe in a law, you don't try to expand it. If you do, you compromise your integrity.
My work here is, finally, done.
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 9:16:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
By that logic, people opposed to welfare should increase its funding, because while it shouldn't exist, it does, and it's not enough.

No. The difference is straights get marriage and gays do not for no other reason but their sexual preference.

If straights get welfare and gays do not, even if you oppose welfare, you should be in support of gays getting it while it exists.

Also, by that logic, they should be fighting that ANY two adults should be married, right? (expand it even further than what others want, for MAXIMUM equality)
Do you see the problem with compromising the stance?

No I see no problem (I am not sure I understand what you are saying). I am pretty sure all adults can get married already (except gays).


Who would campaign on that? It is a losing issue. Voters will be turned off, and it's not going to happen. It's like a single politician running and saying he will make X religion official. It's not going to happen.

idk? I have heard libertarians say it, so maybe they would like it. I agree that it is stupid. But it is stupid to say that you are against the gay marriage because you do not want government involvement, and try to keep straight marriage.

If the vote were to come up, and they didn't vote, then they are frauds, but libertarians are in the vast minority. Hell, they might split from the Republicans soon, given all the in-fighting that divides that party.

I have seen laws introduced banning marriage and/or calling all marriages civil unions in my state, but they were shot down.
There are only a handful of benefits that, by law, you have to be married to receive; however, being married is like an automatic panacea of these forms (PoA, will, etc.).



This is probably true for some, but pragmatism and politics also warrant for this view.
If you don't believe in a law, you don't try to expand it. If you do, you compromise your integrity.

I think i it is important to believe in fairness.

For example, if blacks did not receive welfare, even if you are against welfare, you should support them getting it while it exists.

If blacks did not receive obamacare $, even if you are against it you should support them getting it as well for equality.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2014 9:43:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/14/2014 9:16:11 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
By that logic, people opposed to welfare should increase its funding, because while it shouldn't exist, it does, and it's not enough.

No. The difference is straights get marriage and gays do not for no other reason but their sexual preference.

First, that is not true. Gays can get married, it is just not recognized by law. It is not illegal to do so.
Second, they can enter into marriages, but it is of no consequence, since they do not want to marry a woman.
Third, the issue is, why expand a law, if the law shouldn't exist.

If straights get welfare and gays do not, even if you oppose welfare, you should be in support of gays getting it while it exists.
True, but marriage is far less detrimental to withhold.
In fact, some come out ahead because they are not married.

Again, there are only a handful of legal issues that marriage is required for, everything else is either private or legal equivalent, and the issue is it not being honored.

Also, by that logic, they should be fighting that ANY two adults should be married, right? (expand it even further than what others want, for MAXIMUM equality)
Do you see the problem with compromising the stance?

No I see no problem (I am not sure I understand what you are saying). I am pretty sure all adults can get married already (except gays).

Yeah, unless the parties involved are retarded, married, related, not of age, senile, or a few other exception, yes.



Who would campaign on that? It is a losing issue. Voters will be turned off, and it's not going to happen. It's like a single politician running and saying he will make X religion official. It's not going to happen.

idk? I have heard libertarians say it, so maybe they would like it. I agree that it is stupid. But it is stupid to say that you are against the gay marriage because you do not want government involvement, and try to keep straight marriage.
Not changing the status quo =/= tying to keep straight marriage
Ever consider that gays who want equality might actually support a law (or politician) that runs on getting rid of marriage? If gays have those benefits, they are not apt to will them away.


If the vote were to come up, and they didn't vote, then they are frauds, but libertarians are in the vast minority. Hell, they might split from the Republicans soon, given all the in-fighting that divides that party.

I have seen laws introduced banning marriage and/or calling all marriages civil unions in my state, but they were shot down.
There are only a handful of benefits that, by law, you have to be married to receive; however, being married is like an automatic panacea of these forms (PoA, will, etc.).



This is probably true for some, but pragmatism and politics also warrant for this view.
If you don't believe in a law, you don't try to expand it. If you do, you compromise your integrity.

I think i it is important to believe in fairness.
Fairness? To whom?
Remember our other discussion about right to service?
I can discriminate against the only black man in town because I don't like him, as long as that reason isn't because he is black.
How is that fair? Either, I have to serve him or I don't. The reason is irrelevant.
Either he has a right to be served, or he doesn't.

Mind you, a patron can refuse to patron a place of business for any reason, including the owner's race. How is that fair?
Is it fair that a wedding photographer has to photograph a black wedding, even though he is a racist, but a racist town refuses to shop at a black man's store? It seems the black man's store suffers much more damages than the black groom.

For example, if blacks did not receive welfare, even if you are against welfare, you should support them getting it while it exists.

If blacks did not receive obamacare $, even if you are against it you should support them getting it as well for equality.

So, a 16 year old can marry, but not a 17 year old? Is that fair? Or, is it only as fair as the state in which they live allows? Hmmm, maybe there shouldn't be a federal marriage issue.
A first cousin can marry in NC, but not in WI?
If you want to take about fairness, then you must talk about fairness, and not pander to the only "acceptable" groups asking for fair treatment. Or leave it to the individual states to decide.

----
Yes, agree that if there are benefits to marriage, that gays should have access to them. I also agree that ANYONE should have access to them. Do you?

Again, outside of tax filing and social security, what benefits does being married offer that government controls?
And, if you want to talk about fairness......why should a married couple have a different tax bracket? How is that fair?
Why can a spouse receive SS benefits, but not a child or other beneficiary?
My work here is, finally, done.
DebatorJack
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2014 9:19:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 11:32:12 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard people say that they are not for gay marriage (not because they are against gays) but because they think the government should stay out of all marriage (or the marriage is a religious institution).

WTF? This has never made sense to me at all. The government definitely is in straight marriage, with laws, taxes divorce laws ect. Why aren't these people fighting to get government out of straight marriage. I never hear an argument as see these (usually libertarian) people campaigning to eliminate straight marriage,.

And, this is not even a reason to oppose gay marriage. While the government is in marriage, it is only fair if gays and straights can get married.

It seems this is just a weak nonsensical excuse to pander to homophobes and avoid taking a position.

As a Libertarian, I think I can clear up confusion. I am guessing what those libertarians meant was that the federal government needed to stay out of gay marriage and leave it up to the individual states to decide for themselves. If this was not what they meant, than some libertarians would oppose gay marriage because they feel that if the government mandated gay marriage, then government would expand in the fact that it would force religious institutions to marry Gay people against their will.
Personally, I think Gay Marriage should be legal nationwide but with a religious exemption
Material_Girl
Posts: 264
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 6:35:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Isn't the government involved in marriage by definition? Without being a legal institution, marriage is just two people in a monogamous relationship who say they're going to be in this relationship for life. And a religious institution is just as much a coercive authority as the state, so any actual libertarian wouldn't support a religious institution taking the place of the government.

What I (I'm a libertarian socialist) mean by "the government should stay out of it," is that marriage should be replaced by voluntary association, but if it must exist, homosexuals have as much of a right to marry as heterosexuals. I've never seen this phrase used in an anti-gay way.
http://commissaress.wordpress.com...

Political Compass
Economic Left: -10.00
Social Libertarian: -7.13

Yes, I am an evil godless commie.
YYW
Posts: 36,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 6:32:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 11:32:12 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard people say that they are not for gay marriage (not because they are against gays) but because they think the government should stay out of all marriage (or the marriage is a religious institution).

WTF? This has never made sense to me at all. The government definitely is in straight marriage, with laws, taxes divorce laws ect. Why aren't these people fighting to get government out of straight marriage. I never hear an argument as see these (usually libertarian) people campaigning to eliminate straight marriage,.

And, this is not even a reason to oppose gay marriage. While the government is in marriage, it is only fair if gays and straights can get married.

It seems this is just a weak nonsensical excuse to pander to homophobes and avoid taking a position.

I agree.

There are a lot of people now who, principally for philosophical reasons, embrace the view that government has no place in the institution of marriage. In some ways, there is merit to that argument. The reason that as a society we still place the legal status on marriage that we do has more to do with the notion that the family is the fundamental unit of society, whereas now our society has come to place an increasing premium on individualism. It would seem, then, that marriage's status before the law is outdated -and that may be. That does not mean, however, that there are not benefits to the government recognizing the institution of marriage in a legal way.

For example, the law enables wealth to transfer between spouses at the point of death almost seamlessly and with very little burden, whether the person had a will and the property is transferred in accordance with that will or the property passes through intestate succession. In that way, the law protects the value that individuals create and amass in their lifetime in such a way that it is not substantially diminished -especially by taxation- when passed from spouse to spouse.

Likewise, the law provides certain privileges and immunities to spouses that are unique to it as a legal arrangement. First and perhaps most encompassing among them is the right to privileged communication, such that anything one spouse says to another may not be extracted by an officer of the court during legal proceeding. There are other legal relationships that have similar protections, like attorney client privilege and doctor patient confidentiality, but none are so encompassing as the protection afforded to spouses. Other fringe benefits of marriage include tax breaks to married couples of various kinds, and the like.

The reason the law affords those protections has principally to do with the government's interest in promoting social stability, by encouraging people to settle down and start families. It would be hard to argue that that's a bad thing, either. Marriage to another person is a serious commitment, and its one that has enormous social value when successful. There are problems with the institution of marriage, though, which go far beyond the government's ability to remediate. First among them is the frivolity with which people regard marriage, and the apparent recklessness that -especially people my age- bring to their decision to get hitched.

That does not mean that the government should not be in marriage or that government's involvement in marriage caused marriage's present state. Quite the opposite, really. It means that somewhere along the way the way we think about marriage changed, and not for the better. The government's view, alternatively, has been starkly consistent: marriage is about commitment to another, and it's a the legal prerequisite to starting a family. That is as much the case for gay people as it is for straight people.
Tsar of DDO
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2014 7:16:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 11:32:12 AM, twocupcakes wrote:
I have heard people say that they are not for gay marriage (not because they are against gays) but because they think the government should stay out of all marriage (or the marriage is a religious institution).

WTF? This has never made sense to me at all. The government definitely is in straight marriage, with laws, taxes divorce laws ect. Why aren't these people fighting to get government out of straight marriage. I never hear an argument as see these (usually libertarian) people campaigning to eliminate straight marriage,.

And, this is not even a reason to oppose gay marriage. While the government is in marriage, it is only fair if gays and straights can get married.

It seems this is just a weak nonsensical excuse to pander to homophobes and avoid taking a position.

I agree, it's like when somewhat liberal people in the South during 19th century used to say about slavery, "yeah, it's bad, but we are not going to do anything about it, and the government should definitely not do anything about it." It's a cheap trick from small minds.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.