Gay Marriages

[SexyAries]

Anon, very good point, although there is an invisible line as to what is reasonable and what is not. The reasonable person, by law, is not suppost to kill someone because as much as it is morally wrong it is legaly wrong. However it is not illegal for a man and a man to fall in love, that is free will. Therefore if it is not illegal for them to fall in love then why should it be illegal for them to get married, again it is their free will. YES killing someone else is also a persons free will, however it is against the law and accepted by all to be morally and legally wrong!

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by SexyAries Anon, very good point, although there is an invisible line as to what is reasonable and what is not. The reasonable person, by law, is not suppost to kill someone because as much as it is morally wrong it is legaly wrong. However it is not illegal for a man and a man to fall in love, that is free will. Therefore if it is not illegal for them to fall in love then why should it be illegal for them to get married, again it is their free will. YES killing someone else is also a persons free will, however it is against the law and accepted by all to be morally and legally wrong!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not harping on your right to be gay. I may disagree with it, I am not limiting you. However, I am against the State telling us what are "rights" and what are not, thus from that perspective I'm even against the State granting hetersexuals marriage.

[SexyAries]

Anon, they are your beliefs and choices and I accept your beliefs and choices and I respect you as a person. But I disagree with your choice about homosexual marriages, I don't think we should interfere with other peoples lives, unless it is hurting our country as a whole. How is it hurting us if two men or two women get married?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Don't get me wrong. I'm not harping on your right to be gay. I may disagree with it, I am not limiting you. However, I am against the State telling us what are "rights" and what are not, thus from that perspective I'm even against the State granting hetersexuals marriage.

Then you either do away with marriage altogether, which is a completely separate thread, or you recpgnize both party's marriage rights without discrimination. Discrimination based on sexual preference is illegal and immoral. Way to completely ignore my above arguments, by the way.

[Anonymouse]

A bit dated, but really delivers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abolish Marriage
Let's really get the government out of our bedrooms.
By Michael Kinsley
Posted Wednesday, July 2, 2003

Critics and enthusiasts of Lawrence v. Texas, last week's Supreme Court decision invalidating state anti-sodomy laws, agree on one thing: The next argument is going to be about gay marriage. As Justice Scalia noted in his tart dissent, it follows from the logic of Lawrence. Mutually consenting sex with the person of your choice in the privacy of your own home is now a basic right of American citizenship under the Constitution. This does not mean that the government must supply it or guarantee it. But the government cannot forbid it, and the government also should not discriminate against you for choosing to exercise a basic right of citizenship. Offering an institution as important as marriage to male-female couples only is exactly this kind of discrimination. Or so the gay rights movement will now argue. Persuasively, I think.

Opponents of gay rights will resist mightily, although they have been in retreat for a couple of decades. General anti-gay sentiments are now considered a serious breach of civic etiquette, even in anti-gay circles. The current line of defense, which probably won't hold either, is between social toleration of homosexuals and social approval of homosexuality. Or between accepting the reality that people are gay, even accepting that gays are people, and endorsing something called "the gay agenda." Gay marriage, the opponents will argue, would cross this line. It would make homosexuality respectable and, worse, normal. Gays are welcome to exist all they want, and to do their inexplicable thing if they must, but they shouldn't expect a government stamp of approval.

It's going to get ugly. And then it's going to get boring. So, we have two options here. We can add gay marriage to the short list of controversies—abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty—that are so frozen and ritualistic that debates about them are more like Kabuki performances than intellectual exercises. Or we can think outside the box. There is a solution that ought to satisfy both camps and may not be a bad idea even apart from the gay-marriage controversy.

That solution is to end the institution of marriage. Or rather (he hastens to clarify, Dear) the solution is to end the institution of government-sanctioned marriage. Or, framed to appeal to conservatives: End the government monopoly on marriage. Wait, I've got it: Privatize marriage. These slogans all mean the same thing. Let churches and other religious institutions continue to offer marriage ceremonies. Let department stores and casinos get into the act if they want. Let each organization decide for itself what kinds of couples it wants to offer marriage to. Let couples celebrate their union in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever they want. Let others be free to consider them not married, under rules these others may prefer. And, yes, if three people want to get married, or one person wants to marry herself, and someone else wants to conduct a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government aren't implicated, what do you care?

In fact, there is nothing to stop any of this from happening now. And a lot of it does happen. But only certain marriages get certified by the government. So, in the United States we are about to find ourselves in a strange situation where the principal demand of a liberation movement is to be included in the red tape of a government bureaucracy. Having just gotten state governments out of their bedrooms, gays now want these governments back in. Meanwhile, social-conservative anti-gays, many of them Southerners, are calling on the government in Washington to xxxxxle states' rights and nationalize the rules of marriage, if necessary, to prevent gays from getting what they want. The Senate Majority Leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, responded to the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision by endorsing a constitutional amendment, no less, against gay marriage.

If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriage would become irrelevant. Gay marriage would not have the official sanction of government, but neither would straight marriage. There would be official equality between the two, which is the essence of what gays want and are entitled to. And if the other side is sincere in saying that its concern is not what people do in private, but government endorsement of a gay "lifestyle" or "agenda," that problem goes away, too.

Yes, yes, marriage is about more than sleeping arrangements. There are children, there are finances, there are spousal job benefits like health insurance and pensions. In all these areas, marriage is used as a substitute for other factors that are harder to measure, such as financial dependence or devotion to offspring. It would be possible to write rules that measure the real factors at stake and leave marriage out of the matter. Regarding children and finances, people can set their own rules, as many already do. None of this would be easy. Marriage functions as what lawyers call a "bright line," which saves the trouble of trying to measure a lot of amorphous factors. You're either married or you're not. Once marriage itself becomes amorphous, who-gets-the-kids and who-gets-health-care become trickier questions.

So, sure, there are some legitimate objections to the idea of privatizing marriage. But they don't add up to a fatal objection. Especially when you consider that the alternative is arguing about gay marriage until death do us part.

[dusken]

I agree with the stance of the article. I think that is a fine idea. It is much better than having your own government discriminate against you. And it has always seemed as though the governments adoption of a religious institution was in someway unconstitutional. Unfortunate nobody will ever be bold enough to propose it in a serious political environment, and in the small chance that it is proposed, nobody will pass it.

With regards to the finances, at least in terms of insurance or the like, it is the private institutions' problem and not that of the government.

For the record and just for fun, I disagree with this statement:

Having just gotten state governments out of their bedrooms, gays now want these governments back in.

Sodomy laws are not specific to homosexuals and legal marriage is not the bedroom.

[Deviance]

than please explain this neutral stance of yours.

Then explain the difference between Then and Than.

[Deviance]

If being "gay" was to be morally correct (not politically) then why would there be present institutions to "straighten" them out? Homosexuality is a genetic alteration and should be fixed. Anyone for it should be fixed, but then I guess it will not be very "fair" if we were to suspend such a notion and enforce some civility amongst our society. Certain people will not get a chance to marry and or get a taste of the sensation fornication has to offer, which in this case is favorable for Adam not Eve.

[loseyourname]

There used to be an institution aimed at keeping African-Americans from being compensated for their toil in the fields. Does this mean it was morally wrong for them to be paid?

[Deviance]

There used to be an institution aimed at keeping African-Americans from being compensated for their toil in the fields. Does this mean it was morally wrong for them to be paid?

It no longer exists, that should clue you into as to whether or not it was right or wrong. But that has no relevance to this topic at hand because they were not taking a drastic action towards African Americans. It is not as if they were trying to establish institutions for them to make them "White." See, now that would be immoral.