Gay Marriage

[JK/SEA]

Well, there are anti-sodomy laws in several states IIRC.

proving anything between consenting adults would require a drone the size of a dragon fly.

 

[MelissaWV]

I'm sure these have already been brought up, but here you go:

1. Get Government out of marriage entirely. Yes, this means not giving a shit whether you're married or not for tax purposes. This means that people might actually have to put some thought into designing wills or contracts of other sorts that allow the people close to them (gay spouse, random family member, person on the street) to make decisions in case the worst happens.

2. Stop trying to legislate sexual morality. If no harm is done between consenting parties, mind your own business.

3. Stop trying to scare people into thinking that, if incest laws were lifted tomorrow, everyone would go out and bang a family member. Dear God I can't think of anyone in my family I'd even remotely want a go at. I don't think most people would. I also think that someone who found out you married your sister and got her pregnant WOULD THINK LESS OF YOU, which is entirely legal, and a definite consideration.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I don't see a problem with multiple marriages. Incest causes genetic problems.

But marriage isn't about having children anymore.

Even if it was, they could adopt.

Who are you to tell two consenting adults that they can not love each other and get married?

 

[Anti Federalist]

proving anything between consenting adults would require a drone the size of a dragon fly.

Got 'em already, citizen.

Would you like a visit from one?

 

[MelissaWV]

Got 'em already, citizen.

Would you like a visit from one?

pshhh they have smaller than that. The housefly ones have been discussed, and that's just what's out in the open.

 

[nobody's_hero]

How bout some onion to lighten the gay debate:

http://www.theonion.com/video/small-town-throws-pride-parade-for-only-gay-reside,19431/

 

[69360]

But marriage isn't about having children anymore.

Even if it was, they could adopt.

Who are you to tell two consenting adults that they can not love each other and get married?

Not me, I'm accepting but I'm not a pure anything goes libertarian, our society is telling them that. Laws are based on the average moral norms of the society that creates them. Society in the US is not accepting of incest. Social norms do progress as we've seen in the widespread acceptance of gay marriage. Will US society progress to accept incest, I would guess not.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Not me, I'm accepting but I'm not a pure anything goes libertarian, our society is telling them that. Laws are based on the average moral norms of the society that creates them. Society in the US is not accepting of incest. Social norms do progress as we've seen in the widespread acceptance of gay marriage. Will US society progress to accept incest, I would guess not.

I hear what you're saying but that does not negate the fact that there is no valid legal reason to prohibit it any longer.

Elvis has left the building on this issue.

Which, by the time all the dust settles, is a good thing, because it will finally get government's big fat snoot out of the whole business anyways.

 

[Anti Federalist]

pshhh they have smaller than that. The housefly ones have been discussed, and that's just what's out in the open.

Nothing says freedom like forced blood drawing, bug sized drones and 24/7 surveillance.

'MeriKa!

*belch*

 

[Anti Federalist]

Not me, I'm accepting but I'm not a pure anything goes libertarian, our society is telling them that. Laws are based on the average moral norms of the society that creates them. Society in the US is not accepting of incest. Social norms do progress as we've seen in the widespread acceptance of gay marriage. Will US society progress to accept incest, I would guess not.

If I had told you, thirty years ago, that smoking Marlboros would be socially shunned...and...well, I've said it before. LOL

 

[69360]

I hear what you're saying but that does not negate the fact that there is no valid legal reason to prohibit it any longer.

Elvis has left the building on this issue.

Which, by the time all the dust settles, is a good thing, because it will finally get government's big fat snoot out of the whole business anyways.

I've come to realize we will never get the government out of marriage as long as there are taxes because of the accompanying entitlements and breaks that come with marriage.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I've come to realize we will never get the government out of marriage as long as there are taxes because of the accompanying entitlements and breaks that come with marriage.

Precisely so. And for the very same reason, government will not be kept out of "gay" marriage, either (nor is it likely to be removed once it is there).

The "gay" community has a sufficient degree of socio-cultural presence & influence that politicians will pander to it by extending to it the same special priveleges that they (the politicians) already grant to heterosexual marrieds. The same is NOT true of the "polygamy" community, the "incest" community, the "NAMBLA" community, the "I want to marry a goat" community, etc.

Hence, any objections (to government recognition of gay marriages) that are based on polygamy, incest, pedophilia, or beastiality reductios are simply irrelevant and completely miss the point - regardless of any logical merit they may have.

Granting special priveleges to influential & politically useful special interests is what "the game of thrones" is all about. Logic, reason, and consistent application of the law have got nothing to do with it. They never have, and they never will.

 

[GovBotDotNet]

'Marriage' can be seen to have two distinct definitions. One is the ultimately indefinable and ever-evolving agreement between two consenting adults, generally based on love of each other and desire to live fully together. Another would be whatever the law currently states. Marriage needn't be approved by a governing body outside of the individuals involved, whether that be a church or state. In our world, however, certain benefits are withheld from those who are not deemed to be involved in a sanctioned union.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Leaving the "mob is right" argument aside for minute, what valid legal reason can you come up with that would prohibit mulitiple marriages or incestual marriages, but not homosexual ones?

I don't see a problem with multiple marriages. Incest causes genetic problems.

I agree. Inbreeding is not a victimless crime because innocent children can be born with birth defects from the consummation of incestuous relationships. Don't see the laws on that one changing any time soon.

Polygamy, on the other hand, I don't see any problem with it. As long as all are consenting adults, and there isn't any weird Warren Jeffs raping 12 year old little girls stuff going on, and as long as the family is self sufficient and not relying on government entitlements to support their large family. (Of course ending the entitlements is the real issue there, but still.)

You know, forget incest and polygamy for a moment. There are serious ramifications of all this gay marriage stuff. Marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. I just made a video ranting about it. You might like it. (Or you might not, depending on your views.) It's a few minutes but I think it goes by pretty quick.

 

[James Madison]

I don't see a problem with multiple marriages. Incest causes genetic problems.

Incest can lead to genetic problems, just as any pregnancy. While some danger exists, those claims are often exaggerated and mostly the result of anti-Southern biases in popular culture. For example, a woman 35 years of age is just as likely to produce a child with severe developmental abnormalities as would be an incestuous couple. At 40, the likelihood is greater. Would you be willing to ban all pregnancy for those 35 and up?

 

[Nobexliberty]

I agree. Inbreeding is not a victimless crime because innocent children can be born with birth defects from the consummation of incestuous relationships.

Would you rather have birth defects or never being born?

 

[WhistlinDave]

Would you rather have birth defects or never being born?

I don't know if I can answer that, because while I think I would say I'd rather take the birth defects than not exist, on the other hand, if I was never born, I would never know it, and so I literally wouldn't mind it. Personally I believe in reincarnation so the question of "never being born" isn't quite as simple. If you exist, then you're going to be born over and over again, and probably will have all kinds of different birth circumstances including various genetic disorders and/or deformities somewhere along the way. I don't mean to go off on a tangent though.

Actually I wouldn't care if someone married their sibling if both parties were consenting adults. As to whether they should be allowed to procreate, that's a more dicey question and I will admit I don't know what the morally correct answer is. I would lean toward strongly discouraging them from having children, if not outright banning it. But I hate the idea of telling anyone what they can and can't do.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

1. Get Government out of marriage entirely. Yes, this means not giving a shit whether you're married or not for tax purposes. This means that people might actually have to put some thought into designing wills or contracts of other sorts that allow the people close to them (gay spouse, random family member, person on the street) to make decisions in case the worst happens.

You win the internet.

What this is really about, is that government provides the most simple and easy legal framework possible for so many legal questions. How hard and expensive is it to create wills, and various legal permissions and powers, versus the simple and easy process of getting married? The government has under-priced and simplified a vast array of legal services, and wrapped that in "marriage". Why pay a lawyer to create a will when you can go to a marriage Chapel and have an Elvis impersonator provide an even better legal service for $40, in ten minutes, while you're drunk?

 

[WhistlinDave]

I should probably add, I have a younger sister who was born with an extra chromosome (Down Syndrome). She has stated a couple times over the years that she wishes she had never been born. She's a really wonderful person, and I know she didn't really mean it, but it's sad that she ever felt that sad to say such a thing, just because she was born differently from everyone else and is reminded of it every moment of every day. Life can be very difficult for those who were born "not normal."

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I agree. Inbreeding is not a victimless crime because innocent children can be born with birth defects from the consummation of incestuous relationships. Don't see the laws on that one changing any time soon.

Polygamy, on the other hand, I don't see any problem with it. As long as all are consenting adults, and there isn't any weird Warren Jeffs raping 12 year old little girls stuff going on, and as long as the family is self sufficient and not relying on government entitlements to support their large family. (Of course ending the entitlements is the real issue there, but still.)

You know, forget incest and polygamy for a moment. There are serious ramifications of all this gay marriage stuff. Marriage is just the tip of the iceberg. I just made a video ranting about it. You might like it. (Or you might not, depending on your views.) It's a few minutes but I think it goes by pretty quick.

lolz