Gay Marriage


equality72521

Recommended Posts

Another post inspired me to bring this up as I have not seen it talked about here yet.

I have a serious problem with the term "gay marriage" and the reason is the motivation behind such a term. The proponents of "gay marriage" do not simply want equal standing under the law, if they did Civil Unions would satisfy (Which from an Objective stand point should be all the Government should do anyway). When I first began the gay marriage debate several years ago I did not come down on one side or the other but examined both sides of the argument, as I did this I began to notice a trend. When I suggested Civil Unions as a compromise it would send the gay marriage proponent off the deep end, when I would point out that it would do exactly what they wanted to do legally they fought even harder. I began to ask myself why.

The answer came in the form of cracks in the proponents arguments, it wasn't any real ah'ha it was that they would not or could not explain why it was so important to call it gay marriage rather than civil union. As the cracks developed I realized that it was not a matter of equality under the law but rather an assault on culture. If you want to destroy Right's introduce Civil Rights. Marriage is a specific concept which transcends the legal system. Throughout recorded history the practice of marriage has altered only slightly, the number of husbands, the number of wives, acceptance of or exclusion of divorce. Marriage itself has always implied the possibility of reproduction, this is not to say that in order for marriage to occur there must be offspring, only that there be a possibility given modern science we now know that some couples cannot conceive naturally however there is still a possibility by other means to have children. The point which is being made is marriage implies a specific family structure. We here know the left is communist/socialist, we also know they are masters of deconstruction.

"gay marriage" is nothing more than an anti-concept which is being applied to destroy American Culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Another post inspired me to bring this up as I have not seen it talked about here yet.

There was a thread on this in August by Christopher, think it was entitled Prop 7. Can we continue on that one instead of starting a new thread? I am on my way out the door or I would look it up myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alan:

Correct. Marriage essentially was, and still is, an economic device to pool resources in order to create and raise children in a civil social structure which is recognized by the state and invested with certain civil rights.

Although not the same, "gay marriage," is as contradictory conceptually as "hate crime." The absurdity of the taking of any individual's life, liberty or property as being worse because of some "intent" which a politically correct statute is attempting to punish is insane.

However, your excellent point as to the devolution of our culture and the progressive, marxist, statist roots of the actors is dead nuts on point.

My favorite example is the John Dewey quote that the purpose of progressivism, particularly compulsive public education was to separate the child from:

1) their family;

2) their religion; and

3) their country [patriotism]

which would thereby create the "common child" which could then be molded for the progressives concept of their best interests.

And look where we have arrived at today!

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted

I looked for prop 7 and couldnt find it

Alan:

Correct. Marriage essentially was, and still is, an economic device to pool resources in order to create and raise children in a civil social structure which is recognized by the state and invested with certain civil rights.

Although not the same, "gay marriage," is as contradictory conceptually as "hate crime." The absurdity of the taking of any individual's life, liberty or property as being worse because of some "intent" which a politically correct statute is attempting to punish is insane.

However, your excellent point as to the devolution of our culture and the progressive, marxist, statist roots of the actors is dead nuts on point.

My favorite example is the John Dewey quote that the purpose of progressivism, particularly compulsive public education was to separate the child from:

1) their family;

2) their religion; and

3) their country [patriotism]

which would thereby create the "common child" which could then be molded for the progressives concept of their best interests.

And look where we have arrived at today!

Adam

Adam,

I have hated communism and communists since i was in High School and have been warning people they are here. it wasnt until the election of Heir commrad leader that people started believing me. At this point I am opposed to same sex marriage because I believe that it is force. They are trying to force people to accept culturally what they do not accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I have hated communism and communists since i was in High School and have been warning people they are here. it wasn't until the election of Heir comrade leader that people started believing me. At this point I am opposed to same sex marriage because I believe that it is force. They are trying to force people to accept culturally what they do not accept.

It is force. That is sufficient reason for a believer in Ayn's philosophy, which I also follow, to oppose it.

Additionally, as both Brant, Ted, Tony and others have pointed out eloquently, there are substantial private and religious contracts that accomplish the protection of all the rights that are allegedly being sought by the "gay marriage" lobby.

I prepare ante-nuptial [pre-nups] agreements, as well as ante domestic union contracts where domestic union contracts are statutorily enacted. Finally, where the statutes are silent, I prepare contracts between two co-cohabitants which, when registered with the county clerks office, will generally stand up to judicial review.

Therefore, the entire "gay marriage" agenda, when enacted into law, Connecticut courts just validated "gay marriage" last week, can only be enforced by the state gun.

Very, very wrong.

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I have hated communism and communists since i was in High School and have been warning people they are here. it wasn't until the election of Heir comrade leader that people started believing me. At this point I am opposed to same sex marriage because I believe that it is force. They are trying to force people to accept culturally what they do not accept.

It is force. That is sufficient reason for a believer in Ayn's philosophy, which I also follow, to oppose it.

Additionally, as both Brant, Ted, Tony and others have pointed out eloquently, there are substantial private and religious contracts that accomplish the protection of all the rights that are allegedly being sought by the "gay marriage" lobby.

I prepare ante-nuptial [pre-nups] agreements, as well as ante domestic union contracts where domestic union contracts are statutorily enacted. Finally, where the statutes are silent, I prepare contracts between two co-cohabitants which, when registered with the county clerks office, will generally stand up to judicial review.

Therefore, the entire "gay marriage" agenda, when enacted into law, Connecticut courts just validated "gay marriage" last week, can only be enforced by the state gun.

Very, very wrong.

Adam

In exactly what way is gay marriage enforced by the state gun, but straight marriage is not?

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I have hated communism and communists since i was in High School and have been warning people they are here. it wasn't until the election of Heir comrade leader that people started believing me. At this point I am opposed to same sex marriage because I believe that it is force. They are trying to force people to accept culturally what they do not accept.

It is force. That is sufficient reason for a believer in Ayn's philosophy, which I also follow, to oppose it.

Additionally, as both Brant, Ted, Tony and others have pointed out eloquently, there are substantial private and religious contracts that accomplish the protection of all the rights that are allegedly being sought by the "gay marriage" lobby.

I prepare ante-nuptial [pre-nups] agreements, as well as ante domestic union contracts where domestic union contracts are statutorily enacted. Finally, where the statutes are silent, I prepare contracts between two co-cohabitants which, when registered with the county clerks office, will generally stand up to judicial review.

Therefore, the entire "gay marriage" agenda, when enacted into law, Connecticut courts just validated "gay marriage" last week, can only be enforced by the state gun.

Very, very wrong.

Adam

In exactly what way is gay marriage enforced by the state gun, but straight marriage is not?

Martin

The state has an interest in protecting children, who are born of man and woman. All else is show.

When they come to collect the fine assessed a landlord who refuses to obey the anti-discrimination laws, that is where the force comes into play.

The state has no business participating in make believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I have hated communism and communists since i was in High School and have been warning people they are here. it wasn't until the election of Heir comrade leader that people started believing me. At this point I am opposed to same sex marriage because I believe that it is force. They are trying to force people to accept culturally what they do not accept.

It is force. That is sufficient reason for a believer in Ayn's philosophy, which I also follow, to oppose it.

Additionally, as both Brant, Ted, Tony and others have pointed out eloquently, there are substantial private and religious contracts that accomplish the protection of all the rights that are allegedly being sought by the "gay marriage" lobby.

I prepare ante-nuptial [pre-nups] agreements, as well as ante domestic union contracts where domestic union contracts are statutorily enacted. Finally, where the statutes are silent, I prepare contracts between two co-cohabitants which, when registered with the county clerks office, will generally stand up to judicial review.

Therefore, the entire "gay marriage" agenda, when enacted into law, Connecticut courts just validated "gay marriage" last week, can only be enforced by the state gun.

Very, very wrong.

Adam

In exactly what way is gay marriage enforced by the state gun, but straight marriage is not?

Martin

Martin:

You are absolutely correct.

The state gun is also used in enforcing straight marriages also. The difference is that they have a scheme that utilizes the doctrine of In loco parentis in the place of the parent. I am personally opposed to this doctrine, but the way the power agenda is structured presently, it is a losing position.

The state overreaches completely in interfering with child rearing. The building of the child protective statism and the savage enforcement of agenda driven cases which do not protect children at all, but divide and destroy families is despicable.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radwin's question was asked and answered on prior threads.

Here is a post of mine in response to Christopher's approval that Proposition 8 (not 7) was struck down:

Proposition 8 was not a law, it was an amendment to the CA constitution. One apellate judge declared the constitution of CA unconstitutional.

It is simply a lie to say the proposition prevented gays from marrying. Consenting adults can hold any religious ceremony they wish.

The purpose of gay "marriage" is not to protect the rights of homosexuals. It is to force at gunpoint private parties such as insurers and landlords to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples. It is also to use the force of the law to treat homosexual couples as if they were childless couples through no fault of their own. Rather than a fashion accessory, children will become the legal right of gay male couples, whose infertility is no fault of their own.

It is beyond absurd and ignorant to act as if using the force of the law to make gay male couples into the legal equivalent of biological parents is in any way consonant with Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism does not support state marriage and family law. Everyone should have to negotiate their own private contracts.

Re-read essays such as "Man's Rights", and "The Nature Of Government". Anyone tell me where they get state marriage and family law as a legitimate function of government, out of Objectivist principles. Objectivist principles say that the government has no legitimate role in the moral (that is ethical) or economic lives of the citizens. All of our relationships are profoundly moral choices. Family life is a profoundly moral choice.

Marriage and family law is promoted as altruism !!!, i.e.; something the state does to "do good". Objectivism makes it clear that this is wrong. In realty, the true purpose of state marriage and family law through the ages has mostly been to give one sex, or the other, a "leg up".

Historically state marriage is something that a woman would never have entered, but for financial need, and a man, today, but if not for relationship and sexual deprivation. This is why prostitution must stay illegal, why women hate erotica (porn), and why they are so jealous.

Family law has all but destroyed the family. Family courts are places where broken people go to get MORE broken.

I have the old tape of Peikoff; where someone in the audience puts this question to him. Peikoff paused, then slowly, and guiltily proceeded to give the standard and completely statist, collectivist justification for (state) marriage. He knew on what ground he was treading, but he had to go there, or loose his following.

I am surprised that almost no Objectivists and a few Libertarians get this.

Someone in this list previously told me, privately, that he fights for justice in the area of family law. This is your challenge. Think this over. What say you? Will you champion fairness and Objectivism with me by agreeing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the proper Objectivist analysis of the issue

How does the law now force landlords respecting heterosexual couples? Insurers? Why should heterosexual couples have legal rights qua couples? If A wants to marry B why not private contracts? Why Sacramento? Why Washington? Are you sure you're not chewing the wrong end of the stick?

and its solution:

It will be illegal to discriminate against "married" couples, just as it is now illegal to discriminate against, say, mixed race marriages.

If there were no legal ramifications, there would be no reason to create the pretense of legal gay marriage. The whole point is to get the men with the guns on your side, against whomever, the the church, the employer, the neighbours, the insurer - or even the biological parents.

Civil unions allow any consenting adults, heterosexual, homosexual, or even just platonic to name each other next of kin. This is exactly proper - but the model for this should properly be adult adoption - not a bizarre form of marriage.

Julius Caesar named Octavius Caesar next of kin through adult adoption - not marriage.

Common law marriage has one justification, the protection of minor children and, secondarily, their guardian parents. It is the existence of children - biological offspring - that makes the concept rational.

What will happen now if a minor child of lesbians wants the legal right to visitation or support from her biological father? What rights will the father have?

This whole thing is about making children into fashion accessories for gay couples, at gunpoint.

Gay couples can play at make house all they like, and no one can stop them.

Why do they need men with guns to help them do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher then complained:

This statement:

The purpose of gay "marriage" is not to protect the rights of homosexuals. It is to force at gunpoint private parties such as insurers and landlords to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples.
is overly emotional against gays. Already those insurance companies spoken of have "a gun pointed at them" by straight couples. It is Objectively inaccurate to say that it's ok for some people to receive benefits and not others, and I think we see that. So equality is not "gun pointing" by the group requesting equality; there is a bias when presented as such.

Addendum: An analogy to marriage benefits would be like this - if union workers received government-subsidized unemployment payments, but no one else received such benefits, Ted would prefer to have the union workers continue to receive benefits than "equalize" benefits across the population. I don't agree with this perspective. However, we both agree that no benefits should be given in the first place.

Regarding the cultural issue, which is truly what proponents of prop 8 are fighting for, that is the topic I addressed in my post.

to which I replied:

I suggest that the emotionality here is on the side of those who will corrupt the legal system to achieve a dubious cultural goal.

Again, marriage as a legal state, rather than as a religious ceremony, or a state of mind, has a rationale only when children are produced. Cohabiting adults without children are simply roommates, whether or not they have homosex or heterosex or just split the bills. Nothing in Prop 8 prevented people from performing whatever private ceremonies or taking whatever vows they wished or declaring themselves roommates or next of kin - just from declaring themselves as state sponsored childless parents. There is no third party interest justifying state interference in such an arrangement. It is only when children come into existence that the state has an obligation to ensure that the rights of the nonconsenting are protected. The state should no more be involved in the sacramental vows of marriage than it is in the sacramental vows of priesthood. The state of commonlaw marriage is a recognition of the fact that relationships which actually produce children are unique. Licensed marriage is simply an orderly way to establish commonlaw marriage before the fact without the need to go to court to sue. Childless marriages are mere fictions which can simply be dissolved with a division of property - and without the abomination of alimony to support a childless spouse. That's another corruption of the legal system caused by an irrational view of marriage, the fact that the state enslaves one adult to another through alimony when no child's support is involved. The "state" of California is an armed camp where sanity, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law have been abandoned and the mechanism of government has been perverted to serve the ends of those who would initiate force against others.

There is nothing more contemptible that a desire to corrupt the legal system in an attempt to establish one's self esteem, as if that were possible, by the use of armed force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I have hated communism and communists since i was in High School and have been warning people they are here. it wasn't until the election of Heir comrade leader that people started believing me. At this point I am opposed to same sex marriage because I believe that it is force. They are trying to force people to accept culturally what they do not accept.

It is force. That is sufficient reason for a believer in Ayn's philosophy, which I also follow, to oppose it.

Additionally, as both Brant, Ted, Tony and others have pointed out eloquently, there are substantial private and religious contracts that accomplish the protection of all the rights that are allegedly being sought by the "gay marriage" lobby.

I prepare ante-nuptial [pre-nups] agreements, as well as ante domestic union contracts where domestic union contracts are statutorily enacted. Finally, where the statutes are silent, I prepare contracts between two co-cohabitants which, when registered with the county clerks office, will generally stand up to judicial review.

Therefore, the entire "gay marriage" agenda, when enacted into law, Connecticut courts just validated "gay marriage" last week, can only be enforced by the state gun.

Very, very wrong.

Adam

In exactly what way is gay marriage enforced by the state gun, but straight marriage is not?

Martin

The state has an interest in protecting children, who are born of man and woman. All else is show.

When they come to collect the fine assessed a landlord who refuses to obey the anti-discrimination laws, that is where the force comes into play.

The state has no business participating in make believe.

For an objectivist to talk about the interests of the state is rather sad. This is the language of fascism, not of objectivism or libertarianism. I don't recall Rand ever saying anything about the interests of the state.

Insofar as the state has any business protecting children, this protection should only extend to protecting them against severe physical or psychological abuse. Unless you can demonstrate that children being raised by a gay couple constitutes severe abuse by itself, the state should have absolutely no right to interfere in the parental rights of a gay couple raising children.

Regarding your point about anti-discrimination laws, this is a freedom of association issue having nothing directly to do with marriage, gay or straight. Since the laws as presently written forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, these laws would also forbid a gay landlord from discriminating against a straight couple on the basis of their sexual orientation. So the force employed by the state is applied equally against both homosexuals and hetersexuals. It is therefore ridiculous to use this as an argument against gay marriage, unless you also wish to use it as an argument against heterosexual marriage. But in doesn't follow in either case, since your objection is specifically to the anti-discrimination laws, not against the institution of marriage.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivism does not support state marriage and family law. Everyone should have to negotiate their own private contracts.

There is an advantage in the state offering a standard minimal contract for couples intending cohabitation, people wishing to have themselves declared next of kin, and a contract for intending parents. The first is civil union, the second adult adoption and the third is to cover what has, after the fact, been considered common law marriage. That advantage is in having a standard form, easy to interpret, which will stand up in court, and avoid unnecessary litigation. A marriage contract would benefit the man and the woman by stating the man's rights as a guardian and duties of support prior to having a child. Gay couples simply don't produce children, although, for example, one lesbian might be an egg donor and the other a surrogate mother. But the pretense of lesbian marriage doesn't impair the child's right to paternal support and visitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I have hated communism and communists since i was in High School and have been warning people they are here. it wasn't until the election of Heir comrade leader that people started believing me. At this point I am opposed to same sex marriage because I believe that it is force. They are trying to force people to accept culturally what they do not accept.

It is force. That is sufficient reason for a believer in Ayn's philosophy, which I also follow, to oppose it.

Additionally, as both Brant, Ted, Tony and others have pointed out eloquently, there are substantial private and religious contracts that accomplish the protection of all the rights that are allegedly being sought by the "gay marriage" lobby.

I prepare ante-nuptial [pre-nups] agreements, as well as ante domestic union contracts where domestic union contracts are statutorily enacted. Finally, where the statutes are silent, I prepare contracts between two co-cohabitants which, when registered with the county clerks office, will generally stand up to judicial review.

Therefore, the entire "gay marriage" agenda, when enacted into law, Connecticut courts just validated "gay marriage" last week, can only be enforced by the state gun.

Very, very wrong.

Adam

In exactly what way is gay marriage enforced by the state gun, but straight marriage is not?

Martin

Martin:

You are absolutely correct.

The state gun is also used in enforcing straight marriages also. The difference is that they have a scheme that utilizes the doctrine of In loco parentis in the place of the parent. I am personally opposed to this doctrine, but the way the power agenda is structured presently, it is a losing position.

The state overreaches completely in interfering with child rearing. The building of the child protective statism and the savage enforcement of agenda driven cases which do not protect children at all, but divide and destroy families is despicable.

Adam

Adam,

I agree. The state's influence in family life and child rearing has been horribly destructive; its main benecifiaries have been the bureaucrats and social workers who administer the system. That's why objectivists and libertarians should be fighting to dismantle this system, not to argue against gay marriage while simultaneously defending heterosexual marriage.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I have hated communism and communists since i was in High School and have been warning people they are here. it wasn't until the election of Heir comrade leader that people started believing me. At this point I am opposed to same sex marriage because I believe that it is force. They are trying to force people to accept culturally what they do not accept.

It is force. That is sufficient reason for a believer in Ayn's philosophy, which I also follow, to oppose it.

Additionally, as both Brant, Ted, Tony and others have pointed out eloquently, there are substantial private and religious contracts that accomplish the protection of all the rights that are allegedly being sought by the "gay marriage" lobby.

I prepare ante-nuptial [pre-nups] agreements, as well as ante domestic union contracts where domestic union contracts are statutorily enacted. Finally, where the statutes are silent, I prepare contracts between two co-cohabitants which, when registered with the county clerks office, will generally stand up to judicial review.

Therefore, the entire "gay marriage" agenda, when enacted into law, Connecticut courts just validated "gay marriage" last week, can only be enforced by the state gun.

Very, very wrong.

Adam

In exactly what way is gay marriage enforced by the state gun, but straight marriage is not?

Martin

The state has an interest in protecting children, who are born of man and woman. All else is show.

When they come to collect the fine assessed a landlord who refuses to obey the anti-discrimination laws, that is where the force comes into play.

The state has no business participating in make believe.

For an objectivist to talk about the interests of the state is rather sad.

Oh, please. In a minimalist republic, the state is simply people. The state is taxpayers and volunteers and people who put their lives on the line to enforce laws for your benefit. Your fantasies of what the state should do do not place a burden on real people to waste their time over issues of self esteem. There are all sorts of things that the police and the courts and taxpayers should not be expected to do because it would be irrational of us to expect it of them and altruistic of them to do it for us.

Do whatever you like in a private chapel, hold whatever ceremony, and make whatever contract. Don't expect the state - real people with real lives - to involve itself in your fantasies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

I have hated communism and communists since i was in High School and have been warning people they are here. it wasn't until the election of Heir comrade leader that people started believing me. At this point I am opposed to same sex marriage because I believe that it is force. They are trying to force people to accept culturally what they do not accept.

It is force. That is sufficient reason for a believer in Ayn's philosophy, which I also follow, to oppose it.

Additionally, as both Brant, Ted, Tony and others have pointed out eloquently, there are substantial private and religious contracts that accomplish the protection of all the rights that are allegedly being sought by the "gay marriage" lobby.

I prepare ante-nuptial [pre-nups] agreements, as well as ante domestic union contracts where domestic union contracts are statutorily enacted. Finally, where the statutes are silent, I prepare contracts between two co-cohabitants which, when registered with the county clerks office, will generally stand up to judicial review.

Therefore, the entire "gay marriage" agenda, when enacted into law, Connecticut courts just validated "gay marriage" last week, can only be enforced by the state gun.

Very, very wrong.

Adam

In exactly what way is gay marriage enforced by the state gun, but straight marriage is not?

Martin

The state has an interest in protecting children, who are born of man and woman. All else is show.

When they come to collect the fine assessed a landlord who refuses to obey the anti-discrimination laws, that is where the force comes into play.

The state has no business participating in make believe.

For an objectivist to talk about the interests of the state is rather sad.

Oh, please. In a minimalist republic, the state is simply people.

You know, you really are sounding more and more like a statist. First, you talk about state interests in certain types of relationships among people, as though it's any of the state's business what kinds of voluntary relationships exist between people. Now, you bring up the old collectivist canard that the state and the subjects that it rules over are one and the same. This nonsensical equation is used by advocates of big, intrusive government to justify all types of governmental intrusions into people's lives. "How can you object to the government dictating what kind of medical insurance or medical care you receive? After all, the government is simply the people, including you." And by the way, please let us know when we're actually living in a minimalist republic.

The state is taxpayers and volunteers and people who put their lives on the line to enforce laws for your benefit. Your fantasies of what the state should do do not place a burden on real people to waste their time over issues of self esteem.

My fantasies? You're the one who seems to be fantasizing that we live in a minimalist republic, and that the state is risking its life for me and enforcing laws for my benefit, as opposed to the reality that we are actually living in a disintegrating empire ruled by a criminal class of predatory sociopaths.

I don't know which people you think would be burdened by the existence of gay marriage, but you apparently don't think that heterosexual marriage imposes equivalent burdens on anyone. Somehow, heterosexual marriage is not about heterosexual self-esteem, but homosexual marriage is all about homosexual self-esteem.

There are all sorts of things that the police and the courts and taxpayers should not be expected to do because it would be irrational of us to expect it of them and altruistic of them to do it for us.

Do whatever you like in a private chapel, hold whatever ceremony, and make whatever contract. Don't expect the state - real people with real lives - to involve itself in your fantasies.

I happen to be a heterosexual, married man. It is not and never has been my fantasy to marry another man. Nor do I think that the state should be involved in marriage in any way. I would be perfectly willing to support gender neutral civil partnerships with default contracts for those who choose them. What I vehemently object to is the state offering marriage to heterosexuals and some alternative, lesser arrangement for homosexuals. This violates the fundamental principle of equality under the law. Homosexuals have been putting up with this bullshit of being treated as second class citizens by government for years now. I find it really bizarre that you, as an objectivist and, presumably, a supporter of equal individual rights for all, would support this kind of second class citizenship, especially in view of the fact that you have a male partner.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another post inspired me to bring this up as I have not seen it talked about here yet.

I have a serious problem with the term "gay marriage" and the reason is the motivation behind such a term. The proponents of "gay marriage" do not simply want equal standing under the law, if they did Civil Unions would satisfy (Which from an Objective stand point should be all the Government should do anyway). When I first began the gay marriage debate several years ago I did not come down on one side or the other but examined both sides of the argument, as I did this I began to notice a trend. When I suggested Civil Unions as a compromise it would send the gay marriage proponent off the deep end, when I would point out that it would do exactly what they wanted to do legally they fought even harder. I began to ask myself why.

The answer came in the form of cracks in the proponents arguments, it wasn't any real ah'ha it was that they would not or could not explain why it was so important to call it gay marriage rather than civil union. As the cracks developed I realized that it was not a matter of equality under the law but rather an assault on culture. If you want to destroy Right's introduce Civil Rights. Marriage is a specific concept which transcends the legal system. Throughout recorded history the practice of marriage has altered only slightly, the number of husbands, the number of wives, acceptance of or exclusion of divorce. Marriage itself has always implied the possibility of reproduction, this is not to say that in order for marriage to occur there must be offspring, only that there be a possibility given modern science we now know that some couples cannot conceive naturally however there is still a possibility by other means to have children. The point which is being made is marriage implies a specific family structure. We here know the left is communist/socialist, we also know they are masters of deconstruction.

"gay marriage" is nothing more than an anti-concept which is being applied to destroy American Culture.

I object to Social Security. Nevertheless, if I receive it at the age of 65, I would object to my 65-year-old neighbor -- who similarly has paid into it all his working life -- arbitrarily being denied it. Similarly, although i believe that in a free society the state would have nothing to do with marriage, which would involve only private contracts and private ceremonies, nevertheless in our society I see no reason why homosexual couples should not he allowed state marriage if such is their choice. Like the rest us, their taxes go to pay for it.

Nor do I see any reason why homosexual couples who wish to be married by the state should -- in my view preposterously -- be accused of "an assault on culture," and of wanting to"destroy Rights." Nor do I see that "gay marriage is nothing more than an anti-concept which is being applied to destroy American Culture." Despite the views of what I call "the Fundamentalist Objectivists." not everything we don't like is A Conspiracy Against The Good, and not everyone who disagrees with us is Evil.

If homosexuals who want to he married by the state are conspiring against the rest of us -- were we who are married heterosexuals not also Evil Conspirators against America when we were married by the State? When blacks protested the laws that made it impossible for them to marry whites, were they Evil Conspirators hurling around deadly anti-concepts?

Yes, there are people in this world-- many people -- who are engaged in destructive conspiracies; there are people who are evil, and there are people who wish to destroy America. But they are not likely to be found in the line-ups of gay and lesbian couples hopefully waiting outside government marriage bureaus, eager to receive the same cultural recognition and sanction for their loving unions that heterosexual couples receive.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A wedding is a private act. Anyone who wants to engage in one can do so.

Marriage is a public act by which a woman pledges to bear a man's children and a man pledges to support her and those children.

If a man and a woman cohabitate and produce children, the law considers that a common law marriage, and the parties involved have rights even if they did not engage in a political ceremony ahead of time.

In order to avoid the sloppiness of common law marriage, the state allows couples who intend to enter such a state to pledge their loyalty ahead of time, rather than ex post facto.

That is a practical matter.

People can also designate their own next of kin and adopt heirs and become roommates.

Want to name your next of kin? Adopt.

But we do not pretend that people who cannot drive have a "right" to a driver's license, or that women in burkas can pose for photo IDs, or that children can marry or men can marry animals or themselves or toasters.

But feel free to kiss a toaster all you like.

Not granting a man a certificate of his right to be a mother does not violate his rights. There is no right to a government form simply because you want it.

Everything the government does it at some cost. The government is a bare bones practical matter, not some wish fulfilling device.

And the one who thinks the government has no limits calls the one who says it is finite a fascist?

Gay people are quite free to have civil unions which protect every right they have and they are free to participate in every sort of private ceremony they like.

They are not free to demand that they be recognized at gunpoint as existing in the same relation to each other as the biological parents of an actual child.

The state is not a means of social engineering or the means by which cavemen print for themselves vanity license plates for cars which they do not have.

The state which I support with my time and effort is not here to serve your vanity.

Nor is it here to deny the children of one gay parent access to their other biological parent.

Is the power of the state to be used to impair the rights of the children of "married" gay people to their own biological parents?

Is there some legal difference between the rights of the parents of the children of gays and straights?

Or if children are not the issue, then why is the state involved at all?

And you want to say that those who oppose the state being made a mechanism of the fantasies of people playing pretend - those who want the state not to do what it has no business doing - are statists?

While you make common cause with the purveyors of identity politics?

In the name of 'fairness,' you want the state to give to gay couples the same privileges which straight couples shouldn't have either?

I don't need guns to help me play make believe and to violate the rights of children and objectors in the name of identity politics equality.

Yes you have gay friends and you care for their feelings. Bravo! But I care for reason and right You need to explain to them their statist mistakes, not to foist it on the rest of us in the name of fairness..

The choice in a mixed economy is more regulation or less.

I chose less.

Edited by Ted Keer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted wrote:

"Marriage is a public act by which a woman pledges to bear a man's children and a man pledges to support her and those children. "

Have you attended any marriage ceremonies lately? During my own marriage ceremony, and during the ceremonies of many friends and the children of friends I have attended,-- many of them much more recent than my own -- at no time did the woman pledge to bear the man's children, nor did the man pledge to support her. Perhaps you are thinking of the marriage ceremonies of a particular religion , but not of the state and not of many religions.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A wedding is a private act. Anyone who wants to engage in one can do so.

Marriage is a public act by which a woman pledges to bear a man's children and a man pledges to support her and those children.

How quaint. What about marriages where no offspring are intended between the man and the women and what about marriages between persons of the same gender? Marriages, complete with ceremony is a public declaration of connection between the persons. Think of them as declaration and exhibition of partnership.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I object to Social Security. Nevertheless, if I receive it at the age of 65, I would object to my 65-year-old neighbor -- who similarly has paid into it all his working life -- arbitrarily being denied it. Similarly, although i believe that in a free society the state would have nothing to do with marriage, which would involve only private contracts and private ceremonies, nevertheless in our society I see no reason why homosexual couples should not he allowed state marriage if such is their choice. Like the rest us, their taxes go to pay for it.

Nor do I see any reason why homosexual couples who wish to be married by the state should -- in my view preposterously -- be accused of "an assault on culture," and of wanting to"destroy Rights." Nor do I see that "gay marriage is nothing more than an anti-concept which is being applied to destroy American Culture." Despite the views of what I call "the Fundamentalist Objectivists." not everything we don't like is A Conspiracy Against The Good, and not everyone who disagrees with us is Evil.

If homosexuals who want to he married by the state are conspiring against the rest of us -- were we who are married heterosexuals not also Evil Conspirators against America when we were married by the State? When blacks protested the laws that made it impossible for them to marry whites, were they Evil Conspirators hurling around deadly anti-concepts?

Yes, there are people in this world-- many people -- who are engaged in destructive conspiracies; there are people who are evil, and there are people who wish to destroy America. But they are not likely to be found in the line-ups of gay and lesbian couples hopefully waiting outside government marriage bureaus, eager to receive the same cultural recognition and sanction for their loving unions that heterosexual couples receive.

Thank you Barbara. I fully agree.

Both of my siblings are gay and in long-term loving relationships. My sister and her partner are both grandparents now and so the little ones have an extra grandma to spoil them rotten. I can't possibly see how the existence of gay marriage would be an attack on the culture. I certainly don't feel threatened by it and I believe same sex couples should have the same legal rights as opposite sex couples.

Kat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now