A libertarian should oppose any kind of state recognized marriage.
“why the hell should i pay for your government subsidized orgasms ?”
or something along those lines.
[/quote]
Aye. State recognized gay-marriage is a progressive cause. [/quote]
The Libertarian Party’s stance on Gay Marriage favors liberty generally and opposes “bans” on gay marriage or any attempts by the government to either promote or condemn any one sexual preference over another.
State recognized marriage is nothing if it is not the active promotion of a specific sexuality : long-term heterosexual monogamy
state recognized gay-marriage transform the institution of marriage into the active promotion of two specific sexualities : long-term heterosexual monogamy and long-term homosexual monogamy…
… while the majority of our relationships are actually short-term heterosexual semi-monogamous relationships.
[/quote]
I personally wouldn’t oppose removing state-recognized marriage altogether. Although I do think there needs to be some “default” rules for splitting things up after a long-term relationship ends in the absence of an agreed contract establishing the rules for splitting things up.
A libertarian should oppose any kind of state recognized marriage.
“why the hell should i pay for your government subsidized orgasms ?”
or something along those lines.
[/quote]
Aye. State recognized gay-marriage is a progressive cause. [/quote]
The Libertarian Party’s stance on Gay Marriage favors liberty generally and opposes “bans” on gay marriage or any attempts by the government to either promote or condemn any one sexual preference over another.
The anarchist–Doing away with state recognition completely.
The minarchist–government only acts where there is a critical issue affecting the general welfare of the people as a whole. Defense, courts, etc…Heterosexual reality can easily be argued to rise to this level. Orderly bearing and rearing of children that will inherently be conceived within heterosexual couplings. Huge political and social impact. Homosexual couplings? No.
State-recognized gay marriage is a progressive cause.
Anybody prove ‘gay marriage’ is the same as a marriage between man and woman? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming it deserves the same status, you should first prove it’s the same thing. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.
[quote]pat wrote:
Anybody prove ‘gay marriage’ is the same as a marriage between man and woman? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming it deserves the same status, you should first prove it’s the same thing. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.[/quote]
If homosexual couples are allowed to marry they will have:
(1) the same rights and duties with respect to each other that straight couples have;
(2) the same rights and duties with respect to their children that straight couples have;
(3) the same rights and duties with respect to the outside world that straight couples have.
I don’t see your point or how you think a gay marriage will be legally any different from a straight marriage in any material way.
[quote]pat wrote:
Anybody prove ‘gay marriage’ is the same as a marriage between man and woman? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming it deserves the same status, you should first prove it’s the same thing. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.[/quote]
If homosexual couples are allowed to marry they will have:
(1) the same rights and duties with respect to each other that straight couples have;
(2) the same rights and duties with respect to their children that straight couples have;
(3) the same rights and duties with respect to the outside world that straight couples have.
I don’t see your point or how you think a gay marriage will be legally any different from a straight marriage in any material way.
[/quote]
why do straight couples have such rights and duties in the first place ?
also, my relationship is neither a gay relationship nor a straight relationship.
I’m in an open-but-comitted, polyamorous relationship with 1+ bisexual girl(s).
Why can’t i have the same rights and duties ?
[quote]pat wrote:
Anybody prove ‘gay marriage’ is the same as a marriage between man and woman? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming it deserves the same status, you should first prove it’s the same thing. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.[/quote]
Anybody prove black people are the same as white people? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming they deserve the same status, you should first prove they’re the same. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.
The changes I’ve made illustrate the faulty logic at the heart of your argument. Two things don’t need to be literally identical in order to enjoy the same legal privileges.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anybody prove black people are the same as white people? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming they deserve the same status, you should first prove they’re the same. [/quote]
White guy and black girl, or vice versa, it’s still a heterosexual marriage. See, this couple is made up of a member of each reproductive sex, male and female. Black and white members of the opposite sexes are capable of bearing viable offspring.
[quote]pat wrote:
Anybody prove ‘gay marriage’ is the same as a marriage between man and woman? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming it deserves the same status, you should first prove it’s the same thing. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.[/quote]
Anybody prove black people are the same as white people? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming they deserve the same status, you should first prove they’re the same. Otherwise you don’t really have an argument.
The changes I’ve made illustrate the faulty logic at the heart of your argument. Two things don’t need to be literally identical in order to enjoy the same legal privileges.
[/quote]
Two things don’t need to be literally identical to enjoy the same legal privileges. But if the basis for a particular set of legal privileges is a certain set of characteristics, societal benefits, etc. derived from thing A: then it would logically follow that thing B should be shown as likely to have those same characteristics. societal benefits, etc. One might phrase that more succinctly as “show that thing B is the same as thing A”, thinking that it should be understood that “same thing” in this context does not mean “literally identical”.
But in any case: the crux of the matter is that people apparently do not agree whether or not heterosexual marriage has characteristics or societal benefits distinct from homosexual marriage that merit legal privileges for the former not given to the latter. And the arguments on either side seem to stem from premises that are apparently not agreed upon, either.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anybody prove black people are the same as white people? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming they deserve the same status, you should first prove they’re the same. [/quote]
White guy and black girl, or vice versa, it’s still a heterosexual marriage. See, this couple is made up of a member of each reproductive sex, male and female. Black and white members of the opposite sexes are capable of bearing viable offspring.[/quote]
Not if they are sterile. And fertility is not a legal or essential requirement of marriage.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anybody prove black people are the same as white people? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming they deserve the same status, you should first prove they’re the same. [/quote]
White guy and black girl, or vice versa, it’s still a heterosexual marriage. See, this couple is made up of a member of each reproductive sex, male and female. Black and white members of the opposite sexes are capable of bearing viable offspring.[/quote]
Look at the definition of the word “same”. No where does it mention ability to produce offspring.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anybody prove black people are the same as white people? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming they deserve the same status, you should first prove they’re the same. [/quote]
White guy and black girl, or vice versa, it’s still a heterosexual marriage. See, this couple is made up of a member of each reproductive sex, male and female. Black and white members of the opposite sexes are capable of bearing viable offspring.[/quote]
Not if they are sterile. And fertility is not a legal or essential requirement of marriage. [/quote]
Sterility has nothing to do with being male and female, individual members of their opposite and reproductive sex.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anybody prove black people are the same as white people? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming they deserve the same status, you should first prove they’re the same. [/quote]
White guy and black girl, or vice versa, it’s still a heterosexual marriage. See, this couple is made up of a member of each reproductive sex, male and female. Black and white members of the opposite sexes are capable of bearing viable offspring.[/quote]
Not if they are sterile. And fertility is not a legal or essential requirement of marriage. [/quote]
Your response doesn’t really follow, anyways. What does it have to do with black and white? Whites and blacks both can be sterile/infertile.
If you can look a gay son or daughter in the eye and tell them that they are “abhorrent” or deviant because of they way they were born, then I guess that’s your business.[/quote]
I never said gay people are “abhorrent.” I said the act of sodomy is “abhorrent.” And yes, I can look anyone in the eye - gay, straight or otherwise - and tell them that I think sodomy is abhorrent.[/quote]
well really who cares what you think, are you the only person in the world ?
[/quote]
Read what I was responding to pity. I already said previously it doesn’t matter what I think and that what matters is the original intent of the Constitution. However, jjackkrash asked me if I could look a gay son or daughter in the eye etc. That’s what I was responding to.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Anybody prove black people are the same as white people? I haven’t seen it. If you are claiming they deserve the same status, you should first prove they’re the same. [/quote]
White guy and black girl, or vice versa, it’s still a heterosexual marriage. See, this couple is made up of a member of each reproductive sex, male and female. Black and white members of the opposite sexes are capable of bearing viable offspring.[/quote]
Not if they are sterile. And fertility is not a legal or essential requirement of marriage. [/quote]
Your response doesn’t really follow, anyways. What does it have to do with black and white? Whites and blacks both can be sterile/infertile.
[/quote]
Sloth–go back and read Pat’s post and my response, you missed what I was getting at. I was using an analogy to address the notion of sameness, and I think you took it a lot more broadly and mixed them together into a miscegenation thing.
I’ll let Sloth answer for himself, but I think he was effectively agreeing that that there is no material distinction between same-race and inter-racial marriage, and, therefore, it must be allowed, but that both same race and inter-racial marriage are both different from homosexuality because they can both produce offspring.
My point was that the difference he points to–fertility–is immaterial because the ability to reproduce–i.e. fertility–is not an essential trait that is required for heterosexual couples to marry and, in fact, there are many infertile married heterosexual couples.
And I agree with you, smh, that the analogy is a fair one and banning same-sex couples from marrying is like banning interracial couples from marrying. Also, I would add, there are more than just “emotional” reasons to allow inter-racial couples to marry and allowing interracial couples to marry is sound policy.
It isn’t immaterial. Infertility/sterility of specific couple does not change the desired male/female coupling, within the confines of marriage, taking place. Exceptions do not change reproductive reality. A male and female is the natural reproductive unit. And we want those couplings seen within marriage.
And it isn’t a fair analogy. Banning same sex couples from state recognized marriage is not like banning interracial couples at all. Society as a whole has a vested interest in how the coupling of heterosexuals takes place, period. No such interest with homosexuals.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
It isn’t immaterial. Infertility/sterility of specific couple does not change the desired male/female coupling, within the confines of marriage, taking place. Exceptions do not change reproductive reality. A male and female is the natural reproductive unit. And we want those couplings seen within marriage.
And it isn’t a fair analogy. Banning same sex couples from state recognized marriage is not like banning interracial couples at all. Society as a whole has a vested interest in how the coupling of heterosexuals takes place, period. No such interest with homosexuals. [/quote]
We disagree on this. And I doubt anything can be said to get either of us to change our minds so I’ll leave it at that. But its been a good, spirited discussion, thank you for that.