Gays should be allowed to marry

Bitz: I affirm that from a strictly legal/libertarian perspective, popular sovereignty makes the most sense. I am well aware that the people of each state have the right to vote on which types of marriages they wish to subsidize. The statement that "I don't have the right to go to someone else and force them to accept the fact that I'm married, regardless of weather or not I consider myself married. If they want to accept that I am married, that's fine. But if they don't want to consider me married, I have no right to force them to accept that" doesn't even apply to the point I'm trying to make. You're over complicating the issue. I'm not debating the legalities surrounding the issue of gay marriage, all I'm saying is that those opposed don't really have any good reason to be.

JasonMC,

Actually, both the pro gay marriage AND the anti gay marriage approaches are both wrong from a legal/libertarian perspective. From a strictly legal/libertarian perspective, popular sovereignty makes the most sense.

Here's the thing. A legal marriage contract involves the consent of 3 parties all 3 of which must consent to the subsidation of the marriage for it to be legally valid.

2 of those parties are the people who wish to have a subsidized marriage. The third party is the one providing the subsidation of their marriage, which is the State. And since the will state comes from the will of the people in that state, essentially the 3rd party is the people of the state.

If the 3rd party (the people of the state) does not consent to a particular subsidation of marriage for any reason they have the right not to subsidize the marriage.

So the people of each state have the right to vote on which types of marriages they wish to subsidize.

Legal marriage stats is not a fundamental right. The right to life is a fundamental right, freedom is a fundamental right. The right of other people to accept you as "married" is not a fundamental right.

I don't have the right to go to someone else and force them to accept the fact that I'm married, regardless of weather or not I consider myself married. If they want to accept that I am married, that's fine. But if they don't want to consider me married, I have no right to force them to accept that.

Heterosexual marriage is legally subsidized because the people of each state voted to subsidize it. If the people of a state vote not to subsidize Gay and Incest marriages, they have the right to do so as well. And if that is the case, incest couples and Gay couples have no right going to the people and forcing them to subsidize their marriage if the people of that state don't want to.

In conclusion, when it comes to subsidizing marriage, we should use popular sovereignty.

I agree with moondragon. I'm not a gay-rights activist, but I just don't see how two gay people getting married really effects anyone opposed in any way. The claim that civil unions are provided by the government and marriages are provided by the church is not true. My wife and I were married last month by a county clerk, and never was god, religion, etc mentioned in the ceremony, paperwork, etc. We were married by the state, and not by the church.

Also, not that I support them, but incest marriages are allowed in some states. You are allowed to marry your second cousin in Indiana, and I could be wrong on this one, but I believe that you can marry your first cousin in Kentucky and some other states.

Who cares who other people marry? Sure I think it would be repulsive if a man married his son, a brother married his sister, or one guy married another, but what right does any person have to impose their will upon another person especially based on one's religious / ethical views? As it states in the bible: "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out."

Just copy and paste my last comment every time you have a debate against gay marriage you will win every time I bet.

Hey Bitz, I don't know how to thank you for that last comment!! My wife was born and raised in Sweden and we have gone round and round on this subject, she being for and me being against gay marriage, but when I told her what you said about two siblings being able to get married that share one parent she imeadiately came to my side of the argument, not to mention the fact that are children fit that particular scenario of sharing one parent. I told her that in Sweden my son could marry her daughter and boy oh boy you should have seen the look on her face it was absolutely priceless. Again I just don't know how to thank you for that piece of information!!!!

MoonDragon,

The arguments have already been used and will continue to be until their support gradually continues to slowly build up.

Murth v. Frank would be one example of how incest couples wanted equal rights as homosexuals. They used the same arguments and were denied for silly reasons...for now.

In Sweden Incest couples have fought for the right to get married with some success: Sweden now allowes marriages between siblings that share 1 parent.

You seem so confident that this will never happen, yet so long as the potential logic in in play, the potential political support is in play as well. It may not happen now, but unless you are going to argue that you are some prophet or something, you can't know what the future will bring.

No no Bitz, You're missing the point.

I did not say that the arguments cannot be cross applied. I said they won't be cross applied. When interracial marriage was legalized, the arguments could have been cross applied but that doesn't mean they were. Employment protection for Gays and Lesbians could easily be cross applied to transgenders, but for political reasons, transgenders were specifically omitted from the ENDA bill.

Our legislature does not work on logic. It works on popularity. Cross applicability of arguments is irrelevant unless there exist enough people committed to cross apply them.

MoonDragon,

Sadolite is right on this one. You are missing the point.

The point is, logically, if same sex marriage is allowed, why should incest marriages not be allowed? Just because they are few in numbers and dont have political support is NOT grounds to ban all their marriages.

You must realize that just about every logical argument made by two men in favor of homosexual marriage can also be used for homosexual-incestuous marriages as well. ((IE father and son(son is over 18))

I don't see why giving gay people the right to marry opens the door for incestuous couples. Incestuous couples, unlike gay men and women, are relatively even fewer in number and by and large have little to no political support or influence. Furthermore, there has been no movement nationally whatsoever to change how incestuous people are perceived. It's like saying opening the door to increase the number of British people that can immigrate into the United States would somehow equate to letting Mexicans into the United States.

Furthermore, anyone who claims to be gay that has had sex with somone of the oppesite sex isn't gay, they are bisexual. I seriosly doubt that there are more than 1or2 thousnd truely gay people in the United States. I would be all for those people to get married but not bisexuals their preferences can change on a wim.