Why don't gays have the right to marry in our Republic?
Posted October 21st, 2009 by think
There is still a battle raging with gays fighting for their right to marry. Why do they have to fight for this right? Isn't this a right they should enjoy in a free country or in a Republic?
After reading several comments (and BTW thanks to everyone who posted), I feel like I should restate my questions,
As long as the government **is** still involved in marriage, why shouldn't gays be legally protected to marry? Similarly why shouldn't discriminatory laws like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" be taken off the books?
These are the real questions I would like addressed. As far as I can tell, there does not seem to be any **rational** argument to why gays should be denied the same freedoms that straight people enjoy.
output
They do. They have the same
They do. They have the same right as I do, to marry someone of the opposite sex.
I'm kidding. I've got no objection to it personally. I just think whatever tax codes, insurance codes there are in place that give preferential treatment or detrimental treatment in regards to marital status need to be eliminated.
Then, no one has a case.
Freedom is
everyone being able to experience losing half their stuff!
Forget who said it, but it is ironically true.
If the truth offends you,
If the truth offends you, then I wouldn't watch this. Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else
Shame on you...
That's the most insulting video I've seen. OK, so it's true. And funny. I think I'll go watch it again...
"If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever." - Woody Allen
That is great
Thanks for sharing.
____________________________________________
The Federal Reserve, Stealing the American Dream since 1913
My News Twitter http://twitter.com/sharps...
My YouTube http://www.youtube.com/us...
Selfishness, mostly
Let's face it, we talk of freedom, but for the most part we only care about our own freedom and don't care that much at all about the freedom of others.
Most of us spend a lot of time complaining about taxes, about the FDA, about this and that, because it affects us personally, and we're totally justified in all those complaints.
But many of us don't care about the freedom to marry someone of the same sex. Why? Because the majority of us don't want to marry someone of the same sex, and so we don't see it as an issue. The government tells us we can't marry our gay lover, and since we don't have a gay lover, we don't see a problem.
No, we instead focus on "more important" issues.
right on, Nothappy
I agree completely. That's the problem with most of our bad laws that need repealing... drug laws for example. Most of us don't do drugs or have a family member that has been incarcerated for harming nobody else, so the drug laws aren't a high priority to them... though these are the folks trumpeting for 'freedom' at every chance they get.
Interesting
how these stupid, divisive, circle jerk threads (that have been answered a million times) come out right around the time that important things are happening. AJ's newest greatest film, Obombya declaring National Emergency,etc. etc.
Notice that "think" just dropped a bee in the DP bonnet, and look at everyone go...
Take the hooks out of your mouths folks, and focus on the important things.
★★★★★★
http://www.documentarywir...
http://freedocumentaries....
I think most of us can multitask...
just because we participate in this thread doesn't mean we ignore the rest. Threads like this aren't totally useless, because:
1) it's a hot topic in society, discussion about it is a good thing
2) it exposes the pseudo-libertarians in the crowd that believe only in the freedoms that they agree with, as long as these freedoms are "moral".
BTW, speaking of gay... does it get any gayer than conjuring up an image of guys in a circle masturbating as you did in your description of this thread? EWWW, that's disgusting! Unless they were women in a circle masturbating... now that would be just fine...
----
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"
--Denis Diderot
Where did you get the idea
that petitioning gov't for "licensing" for ANYTHING comprises a "libertarian" viewpoint?
I absolutely agree
that the government should not be in the marriage business at all, and live by that in action as well as words. Where did you get that idea?
Well,
your statement:
"2) it exposes the pseudo-libertarians in the crowd that believe only in the freedoms that they agree with, as long as these freedoms are "moral"."
implies that gays have less "freedoms" than straights when it comes to marriage, which is clearly not the case.
The only difference is "license", which is gov't intrusion, with some tax benefits given for a helpful coercive effect.
The gays need to appeal to elimination of "license", to be "on board" with the "libertarian movement", and not appeal to getting further into the gov't net of "license" for the purposes of accessing gov't tax benefits(aka handouts).
Appealing for gov't control over their union is anti-libertarian, and basically leftist.
True... but
how long until, and what are even the chances that we COULD get the government out of marriage? Meanwhile, we should treat everybody equally. Assuming that we cannot get the government out of it, can you deny that many here at DP would deny gays the equality in the marriage department that the rest of us could take advantage of, assuming that was our choice? And this is based upon their perception of morality. I'm under the impression that a major tenet of libertarianism is that you *should not legislate morality*. Am I mistaken about that?
Well,
what if I say that I should get welfare, because other people get it?
And that because I don't, I'm not being treated as fairly as those who do get welfare payments?
Are we to take the position that because some people receive "redistributed wealth" from gov't programs, that we should ALL get it, to be fair?
Or should we say that gov't wealth-redistribution programs are Marxist and that gov't needs to get out of the welfare business?
One position puts you at odds with the libertarian movement, and the other position puts you on-board with it.
Do you see my point?
Looking for tax benefits from license is not a libertarian position.
But, trying to eliminate licensing and the concomitant gov't intrusions IS a libertarian position.
And this is a very big point.
One side is the opposite of the other.
One side seeks the pig trough, and the other side seeks to eliminate the pig trough, and the barb-wire fence.
Also, no I don't deny that some/many on the DP(and elsewhere) would seek to deny marriage recognition or tax benefits to gays.
And you know what? That's their right to think that way too.
They aren't making laws that breach any freedoms, and they are free to hold their own opinions, just like anybody else is.
And most of them here on the DP would take the position to get the gov't out of the licensing totally, and not push for another mouth at the gov't pig trough.
You make very good points...
but by that logic you should be rejecting your social security payments once you retire, just because they're part of a big government project. You shouldn't travel on government roads, etc.
I agree that all are entitled to their opinions, but the religious right DOES influence legislation that restrict the freedoms of others based solely on their concept of 'moralitly'.
And so does the left
influence legislation that restricts the freedoms of others, based solely on their own concepts of "morality".
And for the record, I do oppose "Socialist Security", and don't seek any payments from them, beyond what they confiscated from me over my lifetime.
And I'm quite ready for SS to be done away with, ASAP, whether I get anything from it or not.
And I have a right to travel on roads funded by my money.
So are you married?
If the answer is yes, then do you plan to dissolve your government marriage?
No, I"m not married.
And if I was going to get married, I'd get married without any gov't approval, and in a church that wasn't a 501-C3 corporation.
I'm past the age where I have any inclination to have children anyway, so marriage isn't appealing to me at this time of my life.
*
*double post
Your right.
Nothing else should be discussed on these boards but AJs' new doc. All other threads should be discontinued....Please. Maybe this isn't important to you but to others it is. This thread has as much to do with freedom as any other. There are numerous threads discussing Fall, I think there's room for this one as well. And I think you'll find DPers harder fish to "hook" than you believe.
I'm having this same debate
I'm having this same debate at this very moment because my state is about to vote on the issue. Aside from a religious aspect and general hatred for gays and their lifestyle, I haven't been able to get a single rational answer from people that oppose it.
http://www.lp.org/
http://mises.org/
The *have* been giving rational answers...to them
They think saying "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" is a rational answer. They think that God made all of us heterosexuals...and thus, engaging in homosexual acts is a sin. So to allow them to marry is againt their religion.
Believe me, you will NEVER get zealots to budge an inch. I don't think they could if they tried. You either have to kill that culture or just grease enough politicians that they vote your way.
There are other arguments (e.g., gays are psychologically damaged), but all of these arguments are fronts for the Biblical argument. Either destroy the Judeo/Christian/Muslim cultures or go around them by paying off enough politicians. It is as simple as that.
Well, at least
you're honest about it.
Most won't come out and say so boldly that they promote genocide of entire world cultures and religions.
.
I have heard one... and only one...
That allowing gay marriage is forcing the subsidy/approval of the union by people who disapprove and would not want their money spent that way, through the government based marriage perks.
This to me is a valid argument. It however, is also an argument against state based straight marriage or any state marriage of any kind... And most other things that the government does.
It is a valid argument, and hence, I support the abolishing of state based marriage entirely as opposed to the addition of new set of people with their hands out.
However, so long as straight people are allowed to have their hands out, why not gays and whoever else.
Gays can get married today. They can even enjoy all of the same legal rights through proper contracts. The only things that they can't get are government perks.
So let's call it what it is, yet another group of people wants to put their hands in the pot of stolen money. This should be denied to all individuals. However, so long as it is allowed for one set of people, it should be allowed for all individuals.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resou...
I dont think I would vote on
I dont think I would vote on the issue at all.
A Christian View
I believe that God instituted marriage as an earthly picture of Christ’s relationship with the church (Ephesians 5:22–32).
I also believe that He created marriage to be the foundation of a strong church and stable society. It was His intent, as stated in the Bible, that the marriage covenant should be between a man and a woman for a lifetime.
Right
God created marriage as a union between a man and his property. Women were considered property back in the days of the bible, and still are in many quarters. The fact is the definition of marriage has changed and is still changing.
All American humans....
... should enjoy the same rights unequivocally. The problem is that WE DO NOT HAVE A REPUBLIC! Our government is a fascist, socialist, militaristic, police state...... our government is anything and everything except A REPUBLIC!
Don't blame the Republic, blame the leaders who interject their "ideals" into our lives. Gays are in the same boat as recreational drug users. They're being chastised into thinking their way of life is wrong.
All Americans have the same rights, period. If there is any controversy, then you have no one else to blame except your elected (via electronic voting machines) representatives.
Wrap your mind around the concept and purpose of Liberty. Be the change you want to see. Spread the message.
Its a state issue
and should stay that way along with everything else such as healthcare, abortion, etc. If the overwhelming populace of that state wants gay marriage, then they will vote for legislators who might make that happen. If they don't, then they won't. Only an Obamabot would consider this a federal issue.
+...Pray for Your Enemies and Moral Courage for Righteous Leaders, so that Justice Will Be Delivered to the Innocent...+
Well...
You can always look at it like this:
Three "innys" and one "outy" seems a little unfair. Two "innys" and two "outys" is more balanced. And then there's the four innies which is is just something hard to think about.
The mouth can go either way, inny or outy, so it just balances itself out.
God bless gay men...
...more women for me!
Heres the deal
This poster is here to flame but I'll take the bait.
You still think this is a Republic. In a Democracy the mob can and will take away your rights (Not that fudge packing is a right). So you argument is a fallacy and a non-issue.
How else are you supposed to
How else are you supposed to ship and transport fudge if you don't pack it first? Duh.
http://www.lp.org/
http://mises.org/
So you are saying
that fudge packing is a priveledge?
No sense of right and wrong.
I'm not surprised that there are many posts here from those that obviously have no sense of right and wrong.
To those I ask- where do you draw the line? What "enlightened" principles will lead you to think that bestiality is good? No doubt that'll be next.
What you consider "normal" today is largely perversion and not "open mindedness".
You make your claims to allowing some form of acceptability to that which is clearly contrary to nature.
Freedom has nothing to do with doing what you want so long as it doesn't harm someone. Freedom is doing that which is right.
You've lost the sense that there is sin.
All history teaches that a society which has lost its adherence (or at least resemblance) to the eternal truths of virtue are doomed.
And you wonder why America is so messed up?! We can't expect the smiles of Heaven upon such a people that would allow moral decay.
Gee, you're not biased are you?
Man, thank GOD for separation of church and state. I'm already trying to fight off one tyranny, lets not add another okay? We all have one go round on this rock, so being FREE to find your happiness is paramount. AS LONG AS YOU DON'T HARM OTHERS, you should be free to live as you choose. Just because you and your bible don't like their choices does not mean they have to live your way. By the way, if you have to follow the dictates of a book to know how to live your life, you're not truly free.
Think about it.
I think if you want to get married
you should go to Ca or MA. Those 2 states will be favorable to you and your significant other
Normalizing Sodomy
Sodomy has been legal for sometime. Marriage between sodomites is the ultimate step to normalize it.
Many don't want to live in a society that considers sodomy, adultery, etc. normal.
Of course in other parts of the world this is but another reason for countries to want to be like America. Who could possibly want to resist?
The idea
is the freedom to choose. Freedom is not the ability to do everything you want to do it's the ability to choose not do things you do not want to do.
why to we have to attach people to a group
each individuals has equal rights as long as they don't violate another's rights
Gays Can Marry. Where have you been??
Liberty quandary exposed in this article. There is no *denying* queers the right to marry in a Constitutional Republic.
Gay Church News for Marriage Day! If you're gay and you know it clap your hands! Your neighborhood corner church wants to marry you! Christians love gays!
http://www.pyrabang.com/v...
In response to dont ask/dont
In response to dont ask/dont tell part of the OP, I think that the reason why that law should not be overturned is that it is distracting to military operations, same as having women in the military. However, as long as we are going to have women in there, it is not justifiable to prohibit gays/lesbians.
Lots of people here overlooking the legal aspect of marriage
Sure marriage *should* be a private religious affair, but it isn't. In this country, being legally married grants you certain legal rights that no other legal contract can offer. Gay people wish to access those marriage legal rights...but can't (at least not in a gay way).
Technically, straights don't have any more rights than gays. A straight man cannot marry a man anymore than a gay man can marry a man. So people mislead when they say that gays are fighting for rights that straights have.
I think a lot of it (perhaps mostly) has to do with homosexuality being accepted. They have been living like second class citizens, which includes a tremendous amount of chronic and acute emotional suffering.
Also, although gays rarely discuss it, there is just as much (maybe more) abuse amonst gay couples. People get beat into slaves, out of their money, out of their ability to take care of themselves...and they have no legal protection that married people have when they get married...including alimony and such. And the pressure to not come out prevents abused gays from getting help like straight people can.
Let em get married,
let em be miserable like the rest of us ;-)
just kidding,
But no group should have special taxation privelege over another.
As Dr. Paul has said,
people should be allowed to live their lives however they see fit, as long as they are not hurting somebody else.
I must admit, that I am uncomfortable when I see a gay couple cuddling in public, it un-nerves me, because I don't understand.
Gay is not a choice, in my opinion, it is who they are.
Being gay, is natural, if you were born that way.
Having said that, I believe that the government has no right being in the marriage business.
This has complications, because so many laws are written which rely on marrital status.
But to get back to true freedom, these laws should be abolished.
That means no tax breaks for married couples, and no tax breaks for single people.
Only my opinon.
Just one
How about instead of "no tax breaks for single people" we change that to, "no taxes for single people."
The current system punishes single bachelors and bachelorettes and pushes them into relationships for financial reasons. The idea of holding tax breaks out like bait to get people to marry is just sickening. Who, when looking into the loving eyes of their other half says to themselves, "And if I marry her, I'll lower my tax bracket!"
Sick.
Eric Hoffer
The trouble with defining marriage—
is the same trouble with defining anything based on an ideal. It comes from the fact that it exists in both its ideal state and its existential and intimately personal state at the same time. While we hold it up in its ideal state as a sacred covenant where each participant solemnly promises to love and honor the spouse and to demonstrate perfect fidelity to him or her alone, our own experience or the experience of those close to us causes us to cynically remark, "Yeah, it would be nice if that's what marriage really were." Sadly, over time, our societal reasoning abandons the possibility of defining marriage with its ideal.
Marriage, ideally is the reconciliation two otherwise irreconcilable things made to complement one another—things like justice and mercy, the circle and the square, and yes, man and woman. Ideally they enter this bond, as their parents before them, for the purpose of virtuously raising up children who honor them, bring great happiness to their lives, and who prepare to receive the same great joy when they find a spouse of their own.
Marriages rarely develop so successfully these days for of a number of problems, but that doesn't mean that because they fail to live up to the ideal, they should not be defined by the ideal.
So the question as I see it: Does any one group have the right to redefine a word (and to potentially use force of government to make sure all groups recognize its new definition)?
Gays, Straights,
Gays, Straights, Polygamists, ect... all have the same right to contract in a manner generally consistent with what is commonly called marriage.
The mistake people make is seeking permission from the state or boons from the state via such a contract.
It's called the first amendment.
Marriage is and always has been a religious institution. Marriage licenses are bogus and were created to oppress blacks. Just find a priest of some religion that deems gay marriage fine, and then "poof" you're married. Government has no say in this one way or the other.
It's hard to answer
once you don't want the gov't limiting these kinds of contracts. When the question becomes "will we let these people marry?" "How about these people?" it's hard to think in terms where it's up to me to figure out where the line is.