You’ll be free to try to come up with rational defenses for bigotry then, too. It’ll be great!
Ah yes! If you don’t agree with me, you are a bigot!
If only I had a nickel every time I heard that!
So then by your logic it would be bigoted to prevent a human marrying their horse, an object or a character they created?
I actually know of people this would appeal to.
Perhaps in the process we can tax GLBTQ student groups and gay bars to cover the cost of government recognizing these unions.
And it’s only fair that you kick in a few bucks, too.
After all, you wouldn’t want to be a bigot, right?
People are indeed free to believe what they want.
Glad we agree! Part of that belief is my right not to fund someone else’s immoral sex life.
However, the government exists in part to extend and protect basic rights for all citizens. That’s not playing favorites. That’s the function of government.
Exactly. And freedom of religion is a Constitutional right.
Marriage is not.
Because there are plenty of marriages in which neither religion nor child-raising are involved at all. There are even marriages that don’t involve sex.
As Adam Kolasinksi points out, it would cost the
state extra resources to stop straight marriages on the basis of old age or infertility.
Hence, it would not be in the economic benefit of the state to stop these marriages in the same manner it would not benefit the state to recognize so-called “gay marriage”.
The issue is not whether marriage is society’s mechanism for promoting religious belief or producing kids or knocking boots in a sanctified fashion.
The issue always comes down to state recognition and money. The state makes polices historically regarding marriage laws mostly on economics, not so much religion or making groups like gays feel bad.
The issue is whether or not the government should discriminate between groups of people in allowing them to enter into specific legal partnerships with major financial and personal ramifications,
Laws by their nature discriminate. If I have a policy in my restaurant that says no shirt, no service, that’s discrimination.
Entering into legal partnerships should not always (the less the better frankly) involve government.
especially when no rational basis has been made to date for that discrimination.
Absolutely incorrect and false!
The state invests in marriage for the single, economic purpose of rearing children so the state itself can and the culture(s) within it can survive.
Right now, Western society’s primary reason for marriage as an institution is to allow two people who want to spend their lives together the opportunity to do so in an organized, efficient, legal, and widely-recognized fashion, with a truckload of benefits from taxes to health insurance
That concept goes far beyond Western society.
to proud looks in public.
I don’t know of anyone who marries for pride----at least no one straight.
If religious groups place additional importance on either the ceremony or the partnership, that’s fine, and they’re welcome to do so within the confines of their faith. Likewise, if two people get hitched because they want to have kids together, that’s fine too, but it’s personal and specific to them.
But it’s really not, because reproduction is necessary for the survival of the species and the state. That’s why its invested in.
The government’s job insofar as marriage is concerned is to 1) certify it, 2) keep a record of it, and 3) allocate a variety of other useful functions on its basis. That’s it. Sex, kids, faith, access to the other party’s DVD collection, that’s all personal.
That’s wrong, because as I’ve repeated over and over, the state’s interest isn’t just record keeping or tracking stats, it’s economic in nature.
So if you’re saying that so-called “gay marriage” is that simple, why are there all of these demands for subsidization and public recognition?
I can answer this question, and it has to do with the psychology of the entitlement mentality and the lack of stability in gay relationships.
I don’t want a civil partnership. I want to be married. I want all of the social benefits that go along with marriage, and I don’t want a separate-but-equal arrangement, because it isn’t.
That just codifies the discrimination and ignores the very real significance that we as a society place on marriage.
That’s funny, all I hear from society at large when it comes to straight marriage are jokes about being tied down to one person.
Of course, so-called gay “marriage” is celebrated emphatically. Even by some Catholics who then still think it’s okay to go to Communion!
Seems to me like straight couples have more a claim to discrimination than gays do!
The kids in big hats do not have dibs on the institution, no matter how much they whine about having to share it.
This is why states rights exist. But you’ll find quite quickly that so-called “gay marriage” is not a good investment.
The whole point of marriage is that it doesn’t matter what my definition is. What matters is society’s definition.
Doesn’t matter how you define it, because biological and natural laws are in play. It’s kinda sad you have to change words to feel better about a relationship, but that’s the game that government entitlement-seekers play: “Well, if we really call it X and it’s supposed to be Y, in reality it may still be Y but since it’s X we are right so…yeah! take that!”
