Gay Marriage

Miscellaneous General
,
1

This will be a controversial discussion, but the other threads I’ve read on here didn’t discuss certain topics regarding gay marriage and civil unions.

Emma Goldman stated, “Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.”

I noticed that a lot of people on here don’t like the ‘influence of the church’ in society. I don’t really think that churches have a real influence. The way I see churches is that they are a way for people of similar ideals to come together and form a happier society. While you can certain tolerate people with opposing beliefs, most people are more comfortable when they are surrounded by those who are like themselves. As far as gay marriage goes (assuming there are no borders), people would still form artificial borders with the groups they create based on common morals/ideals. What is the problem with limiting the definition of marriage to ‘between one man and one woman’ when it comes to state rights, or even smaller, city rights?

2

What right do you have to do that?

3

What right do I have to form groups and friendships with people with similar ideals and morals?

4

People can and will define marriage however they want. The state can certainly protect contemporary social conventions (those against redefining marriage can appeal to the state’s definition to support their case), but it is ultimately up to society. If people want to define marriage as one man and one woman, and unions between one man and another man something else, I don’t think there’s anything objectionable about that. I do think, so as to avoid constructing the aforementioned barrier to social change, the state (if it must exist) should stay mum on the issue.

I do object to any state claiming responsibility for marriage and then providing benefits to those that they allow to get married. It’s just more redistribution, and it’s completely understandable that those not allowed to get in on the action will complain and cry oppression. Separation of marriage and state!

5

From the legal point of view, I don’t think marriage (i.e. the ‘legal’ ‘union’ of two people) will survive this century. It had a meaning when the capital stock was so meager as to make humans being tradable goods, and allowed feuding clans to settle their disputes by a mutual exchange of hostages. Nowadays it’s meaningless and, as such, the debate over gay marriages is too.

6

get the state out of marriage!

I find it hilarious when the anti-gay marriage folks talk about how ‘the definition of marriage has ALWAYS been one man, one woman’ Its also funny when they talk about ‘protecting the sanctity of marriage’ when divorce rates are so high

7

I feel like w/o all the government intervention of the 20th century, we would be at a point, at least in America, where someone of a middle class background could EASILY raise a child on their own from an economic point of view. Hard to tell exactly how that would effect things

8

Marriage has always been between one man and one woman in this country. And throughout most of history with the exception of the Romans and a few other cultures. It’s not fair to act as if people who don’t support gay marriage are the ones who are getting divorced. Most people who are against gay marriage tend to be against divorce as well, only to a lesser extent.

Do you seriously think that a parent working full-time can take as good care of a child as a mother can while her husband is working? There needs to be stability.

I’m personally against gay marriage. And many of the people I know who are also against it aren’t against it because they think it’s gross or something like that. Marriage has everything to do with the traditional family form. One mother, one father, and children. That’s how it’s been for a very, very, very long time, and it’s proven to be a very good structure. People argue a lot, “Well, if the parents are bad parents, then they’re better off with gay parents who are nice!” or something like that. However, you have to realize that not all gay parents will be good parents. It’s not an easy substitution.

I didn’t even want to talk about the morals/ideals of gay marriage, but I felt I had to defend the beliefs of people who are against it after those previous comments made assumptions. The subject dealt with whether states/cities should be able to define marriage since people will form voluntary groups in the first place.

9

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that time has come for single parenthood. I think very, very few children raised by a single parent grow up to have any self-confidence at all. Any society having a significant minority of single-parent families would quickly be taken over and fail within a couple of generations (oops, sorry ).

What I find baffling is ‘legalistic marriage’, i.e. the ‘legal’ union of two people. Why not convive and raise children and that’s it? In many young couples are living like that for years, and only marry to please their parents. And even than, not everyone proceeds to have a Civil Marriage, only a traditional one (i.e. null and void legally). But if legally marriage makes no sense (I can’t see any ‘contract’ feature in marriage), than gay marriage is nothing big. Is anyone advocating preventing gays form living together?

10

tell that to the mormons

do you think a rich person can take as good care of a child as a poor person?

Children are at school for most of the day anyway, I am not sure what all working parents are missing out on. A couple hours of day care. Also, you seem to be talking about a 1950s sort of world where the mom stays home, thats not how most marriages work today anyway.

what does that even mean? your ‘against’ it. What do you suggest gay people do with themselves? Are you talking about using the force of the state to back up your opinions? Or would you plan on not associating with any gay couples, and only associating with other like minded folks? Do you not eat in restaurants that served gay couples?

appeal to tradition. Also, I don’t think this structure is all that traditional anyway when you look at the course of human history. ‘it takes a village to raise a child.’ I think thats probably more appropriate to how it used to be waaay back in the day. It would have been impossible to know for sure who the father was of any child.

so what if there will be some not so good parents? That wasn’t the argument. You couldn’t possibly say that the worst set of straight parents is still better then the best set of gay parents, could you?

11

I agree.

However, it has not proven to be better than an unconventional family structure. Perhaps two fathers and children is superior, or two mothers and children. Or one father and five mothers. Or one father and a dog.

Or perhaps the structure has little to do with it, and patience, love, genes, economic support, community support and old-fashioned luck have more to do with a child’s development. Or not. I don’t know, and neither do you.

If people will form voluntary groups, then why bother having the state codify the preferences of those voluntary groups? What do you say in response to my argument that the state codifying a social convention today can obstruct the development of a new, possibly more beneficial social convention tomorrow?

12

What right do I have to form groups and friendships with people with similar ideals and morals?

All the rights in the world. But I though we were talking about marriage?

13

Doesn’t that support my argument? Polygamy has never been beneficial to children.

I’m going to ignore this question because it’s straying away from my point about family form. Marriage doesn’t have anything to do with economics.

Not true. The majority of people I’ve known work their marriages that way.

Finally a question I can work with. With the state codifying the social convention, I don’t really see it as something binding. Rather, I feel as if it would act as some kind of label (for lack of better words) for the community. Not as if to say, “No gays allowed!” or anything like that, but just so that people can find out where the people are who they have more in common with. If a family is moving from one state to another, and they have to choose a city, they’re most likely going to pick the city that has the most in common with the ideals they prefer (i.e. schooling, parks, playgrounds, demographics). It wouldn’t be so much of a definition for legal matters, but more of a vote to tell other people who lives where. Does that make sense? It’s kind of confusing to type out when explaining.

We are talking about marriage. I don’t understand what right you were asking me that I think I have.

14

Here is my take on it… For me personally, I don’t care that what people choose to do with other people, as long as they aren’t infringing on the rights of that other person. So, in that sense, I support “gay marriage”, simply meaning, I don’t deny anyone the right to have that relationship and do what they want with that other person. I don’t condone it, and I think it’s wrong, but I wont deny someone that freedom.

With me the issue is simply a matter of definition. I believe that there is a special relationship that can occur only between a man and a woman. It doesn’t mean I deny someone the right to have that relationship with someone of the same sex, I’m saying I believe that their relationship is simply different. That being said, marriage has traditional been the word used to refer to that special relationship between a man and a woman. In a free world, as long as there are people like me who believe there is a difference between a traditional marriage and those relationships between people of the same sex, they’ll find a way to refer to those relationships differently. If ‘gay marriage’ is ‘legalized’, then people will find a new word to refer to that special relationship between a man and a woman. I can’t force people to exclusively use the word to refer to a relationship between a man and a woman, but that’s sort of beside the point.

The problems arise when it becomes a matter of legalization and benefits and so forth. So.. Get rid of the law, get rid of the problem? I don’t care what people call it, I believe that the relationships are different and I’ll use different words to refer to each. I’m free to do that. And they’re free to call the relationship what they want, too…

So I guess in summary.. I think the relationships are different and I’ll use different words to refer to them. But as far as legaliztion goes.. Well, I’m an anarchist, so, I don’t really care what the government thinks about it. I’m not really sure if that’s on par with you’re guy’s views, but that’s the conclusion I came to, the best I can put it in words at 3:00 am. :slight_smile:

Edit: From my unprofessional observation, a stable family with a single mother and a single father is important for a child’s development, generally, in this culture. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t or shouldn’t ever be different… But in most cases, now, in our culture, that’s what the children I see need. It tears my girlfriend apart, the lack of a stable relationship with her mother and the lack of a present father figure, amounting to a stable family with a mother and father figure. And it only makes it worse seeing my family with that. That’s what she feels is right and so that’s what she wants and needs. Could be different for different folks in different cultures, I suppose. But I think ultimately, there is a reason that became tradition. If we abandon the tradition simply because it’s tradition, we may find ourselves re-realizing the reasons it became that way. But I suppose I’d be a hypocrite if I denied someone the right to try it a different way.

15

your argument that I was quoting was your point about how in America, marriage had only been between one man and one woman. I was showing how that is simply not the facts Jack.

the statement about having never been beneficial to children is quite the bold one, I don’t see how anyone could possibly make that claim.

You were talking about what is the best way to raise a child. I assumed you meant something along the lines of only the people in the best position to raise a child, should (be allowed to?) raise a child. I was pointing out that, well if that is the case, ‘being in a better position to raise a child’ could apply to a whole boatload of situations, one being money.

Should religious people be able to have children? they typically raise their children to adopt their own religion. What about statists? They could raise dangerous statist kids. What about people with less than ideal genes?

nice piece of anecdotal evidence

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/362567_optin10.html

“These new work-family tools reflect that 65 percent of mothers with preschoolers worked in 2006, up from 30 percent in 1970, according to a Stanford University study. Buried deeper in the data is that 71 percent of all moms were in the labor force that year, according to Labor Department data”

16

@ thepaintballer45:

That was truly one of the best pieces of writing I’ve seen on the subject of gay marriage. I couldn’t express my same feelings any better than you just did.

17

What is hilarious is that the Bible-belt, the cradle of the anti-gay religious right, has one of the higest divorce rates out of the entire nation.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=10961

Personally, I find gays and their behavior abhorring. But as long as I’m not forced to accept their lifestyle as normal, I really don’t care.

18

Personally I find heterosexual lisfestyle abnormal and disgusting. But as long as they do not force me to do anything, I am “ok” with their disgusting tricks.

I am against gay marriage. “Regular” marriage too. It’s statist religious invention. In free world there would probably be partnership contracts. If blacks can make contracts, gays/lesbians can too. Simple as that. To be against partnership contracts you have to be a looney. It’s free association. Marriage is not a real contract, it’s state granted privilege.

Some people probably would like to keep this word “marriage” to define such contracts between two or more people. I don’t care. It’s like using a word “soul” to define my inner self, even though I don’t believe in magical mumbo jumbo.

19

Well, since I see marriage as a contract, Im totally ok with people of the same sex making a contract. The only real problematic scenario I see would be marriage between close relatives, since it would a legal mess.

20

So if you agree with him, then you’re not against gay marriage (as you’ve previously stated) but simply against the State monopoly on social institutions, marriage being one of them.

End of story.