For my Libertarian friends

Marriage is a symbolic personal commitment. A church is only involved by convention. A marriage is just as meaningful with or without a church involved, but if it makes one feel warm and fuzzy inside to make the word "marriage" church only-related, then fine but the personal commitment is what matters.

It infuriates me to see the situation we're in now. A majority of Christians (re: every poll on the topic ever) think gays marrying is an affront to God, but gay couples are denied legal rights because of their diminished status (inheritance, hospital visitation, adoption, etc.).

The solution is simple: If a government is going to hand out any benefits to couples for making their relationship official, it should be done equally for gay couples. Any private institution that would normally be punished for refusing to offer equal services based on race, for example, would also be punished for refusing services based on gay civil union status. "Marriage" would be a non-legal, religious, private, supplemental institution that would mean nothing--officially--outside of the religion.

These religious types often forget to apply their Golden Rule to the situation. It wouldn't feel good to be denied benefits, status, and respect, now would it?

Epignosis wrote: "Free to follow their life choices."  A toker is also not free to follow his life choices.  The freedom to follow all your life choices with full protection of the law isn't what "equal rights" means. Also Dean, if you'd read carefully my full position (and what I wanted to discuss in the first place), I advocate getting the government out of the institution of marriage effectively by changing the way revenue is acquired.  Other arrangements and benefits could be attained by an attorney or notary public (things like "who can visit me if I am in the hospital"). This means that married couples do not get special treatment from the government for marital status.  Did you catch that?

Dean wrote: Epignosis wrote: Padraic wrote: Epignosis wrote:   From what I've read and seen, most gay activists are fighting for more rights (not equal rights mind you- I can't marry a man anymore than a gay man could),  But by that logic, they are simply arguing for more rights for everyone.  They want to be free to marry a man, and you could too if you want.   I understand what you're trying to say, but say we're in a dessert shop.  You love cake and detest ice cream, I am the exact opposite.  The store owner says, "sorry boys, I'm all out of ice cream today - but I've got plenty of delicious cake"  So while I sit there frustrated and dejected, you munch away on your slice of cake and tell me, "Hey Pat, look, I can't get any ice cream either!" While technically true it just sort of sucks, doesn't it? Yes, but you could (presumably) get ice cream the next day.  Or somewhere else.  What you won't do is start a political campaign (I would hope). Breaking the analogy only proves the analogy only worked for the boundary conditions it was set for. It does not prove anything else. Epignosis wrote: A polygamist cannot marry two women. A monogamist cannot marry two women (almost wrote misogynist there ). They have equal rights. A homosexual man cannot marry a man. A heterosexual man cannot marry a man. They have equal rights. I would think this is very simple.  classic A heterosexual and a monogamist are free to follow their life choices with the full protection of the law and receive tax benefits in doing so. A polygamist and a homosexual do not have that, hence they are not equal. If you lived in a polygamist/homosexual society you would be campaigning for equal rights. Epignosis wrote: Now, I'm not saying gays shouldn't work towards getting what they want (because there isn't anything wrong with pleading for more rights), but I find it naive and distasteful to liken their cause to the those of the civil rights era- blacks did not have the same rights as whites. That's all I meant by that comment. Until recently homosexuality was illegal and punishable by imprisonment and institutionalised torture (chemical castration etc.), in that respect homosexuals had less rights than any other section of the community.

"Free to follow their life choices."  A toker is also not free to follow his life choices.  The freedom to follow all your life choices with full protection of the law isn't what "equal rights" means.

Also Dean, if you'd read carefully my full position (and what I wanted to discuss in the first place), I advocate getting the government out of the institution of marriage effectively by changing the way revenue is acquired.  Other arrangements and benefits could be attained by an attorney or notary public (things like "who can visit me if I am in the hospital").

This means that married couples do not get special treatment from the government for marital status.  Did you catch that?

I don't think we're disagreeing, really - some people want the definition of marriage to be extended.

Padraic wrote: Epignosis wrote:   A homosexual man cannot marry a man. A heterosexual man cannot marry a man. They have equal rights. I would think this is very simple. C'mon, a homosexual would like to marry a man, whereas a heterosexual has no interest in doing so. You shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, sucks to be you."

A person who smokes marijuana would like to buy it legally.
A person like me has no interest in doing so.

However, the toker doesn't cry out, "We want our equal rights, man!"  If he organized parades and campaigns, he would be striving for more rights (for everyone) but not equal rights (because he already has that).

I really considered deleting my comment about equal vs more rights because I feared my main point about the government mostly staying out of the institution of marriage and how that could work with a comprehensive consumption tax might get overlooked.

Epignosis wrote: I understand what you're trying to say, but say we're in a dessert shop.  You love cake and detest ice cream, I am the exact opposite.  The store owner says, "sorry boys, I'm all out of ice cream today - but I've got plenty of delicious cake"  So while I sit there frustrated and dejected, you munch away on your slice of cake and tell me, "Hey Pat, look, I can't get any ice cream either!"

How about Fudgie The Whale?

horsewithteeth11 wrote: thellama73 wrote: Holy smokes, Batman! Slarti and I actually agree on something. That's what I was about to say. The only aspect I disagree with is that I think the government should get out of the institution of marriage altogether. But otherwise, I agree that gay couples should get the same legal and economic benefits that married couples do.

Well I can't but help disagree with what you said as I think the government should get out of the institution of marriage altogether.

thellama73 wrote: Holy smokes, Batman! Slarti and I actually agree on something.

Oh God, noooooo!!!!


Edited by Slartibartfast - June 30 2010 at 11:39

Holy smokes, Batman! Slarti and I actually agree on something.

I think as long as the government is passing out benefits to heterosexual couples, it should do the same for gay couples, but I really don't think it should do either and let marriage remain the province of the church, since that's where it originated. I also agree with Slarti that what goes on between consenting adults is no one's business, even if it is polygamy.

JJLehto wrote: So Rob, marriage should not be left up to the states. It is between a man and woman, period. I was just wondering which would win, your personal or libertarian belief.

It's actually more complex than that.  Sure I have a biblical conviction about the matter, but my political opinion has more to do with marriage itself in the US.

I'll give you an example: There are a lot of perks available to married couples that would go away if a consumption tax were instituted in place of the current system.

From what I've read and seen, most gay activists are fighting for more rights (not equal rights mind you- I can't marry a man anymore than a gay man could), specifically governmental protection of their union and the ability to receive the benefits of a married status.  However, many of the other benefits available by default to married couples, I think, ought to be able to be established outside of a marital commitment by a visit to an attorney or perhaps notary public.  Again, this is a matter of the government being involved in an institution where it doesn't belong.

So as you see, my libertarian view and my personal view go hand in hand. 

On a related note, gay activists annoy me probably more than any other group (why is your sexual preference such a defining aspect of your life?) and I think the word "homophobic" is really stupid.