My thoughts on the gay marriage thing

[Good man]

OLD

[Renaissance Man]

I love this! I've been saying the same thing. When the announcement was made, and everyone was jumping for joy, I found myself very irritated. Why? Because there's no acknowledgement from the media this wouldn't have been an issue if not for the government.

 

There's also a lack of questioning, why now? Do you think it's bizarre the government has decided to sell marriage licenses to same-sex couples now that marriage in the US is at an all time low?

[WasatchMan]

I have used the analogy that the gay movement fighting for their inclusion in the marriage privilege would have been like the blacks fighting only for equal treatment of blacks during the civil rights era.

 

However, given the current climate, I think that this is a good thing - at least we are no longer being blatantly discriminatory to gay people.

[percentient]

To the extent that I am in touch with the local gay community, their primary goal is to be recognized by society, which in their mind means the government. Any accompanying legal rights are secondary, and to list any of them has demanded a full memory scan when asked

 

This makes the issue off-putting and distracting. It's people fighting with each other over a definition, in the case of my gay activist acquaintances at least, who are slightly too fond of the idea of social progressivism to see the actual human rights violation, the monopoly on law intervening in private contracts. Too off-putting to join them in the pursuit, which is a shame because the gay rights movement has made some impressive leaps in penetrating culture and law.

 

From what I've seen the biggest issue remaining is the relentless and unavoidable bullying in school, and the efforts to tackle that are rightly dismissed, because they are fundamentally ineffective in a prison environment. So that's difficult compared to protesting ideological minorities.

[J. D. Stembal]

To the extent that I am in touch with the local gay community, their primary goal is to be recognized by society, which in their mind means the government. Any accompanying legal rights are secondary, and to list any of them has demanded a full memory scan when asked

 

This makes the issue off-putting and distracting. It's people fighting with each other over a definition, in the case of my gay activist acquaintances at least, who are slightly too fond of the idea of social progressivism to see the actual human rights violation, the monopoly on law intervening in private contracts. Too off-putting to join them in the pursuit, which is a shame because the gay rights movement has made some impressive leaps in penetrating culture and law.

 

From what I've seen the biggest issue remaining is the relentless and unavoidable bullying in school, and the efforts to tackle that are rightly dismissed, because they are fundamentally ineffective in a prison environment. So that's difficult compared to protesting ideological minorities.

 

The only reason gays want the right to marry is because of our current socialized health care system, and the perks being marrying confers.

[AccuTron]

The thing that struck me was the co-opting of the word.  Conservative couples, or just anyone, might be understandably irritated that a word with a solid definition...absolutely meaning a man and woman...was suddenly changed. (Not concerned with good or bad behaviors under that name.)  Like somebody built a Ford, but called it a Chevy.  It ain't!  Give it another name.

 

(My dictionary shows the word marry, from Middle English, was linked to a word which would in English be husband, and originally comes from Mary, mother of Jesus.  Didn't know that.  Now that opens a can of worms!)

[Spaceballs]

Milo Yannopoulos on gay marriage and psychology.

 

[regevdl]

I have a few gay 'friends' or rather acquaintances I've known since childhood (one is a complete man-whore) but is this 'marriage equality zealot'... so..not exactly the poster-child for his cause...but, I digress.

 

I had this debate with these friends several time over the years and the bottom-line 'case' they make (albeit a weak one) is: "I see what you mean and I agree gvt should stay out of it but we just need to 'win' this and then we can work on getting the gvt out. "

 

Well...they got their 'win' and do you think they are now carrying on their activism to get the gvt out?  hell to the no.  So, people give just as much lip service as the politicians they complain about.  It's so tiring and weak.

 

 It's so ridiculous and of course I had to point out how many times the gvt creeps in further and further and is impossible to kick out of things it already regulates.  Then they become aware and shut down and go into defensive mode.  

 

I typically use the approach of informing people why the gvt started regulating in the first place.  Oh the Left LOVE this...lol  they totally sit silent in cognitive dissonance shock, but the original motive was to further enforce segregation, including marriage of blacks and whites!  So..... not a good start.

That typically catches people's attention and curiosity.  I also give practical solutions because with anything...we cannot take away the baby's pacifier without giving them something soothing as a replacement, so it's good to think of some practical solutions or current examples to keep their thinking juices flowing.  Some people don't think this is important to do.  they make the non-empathetic argument that...well....if they feel uncomfortable, that'll teach them to wake up...or whatever.  I say.... showiong compassion only makes the case of ethical philosophy that much more.  Showing understanding that change is hard and feels weird and the unknown is scary sometimes but we are intelligent enough to think of solutions that is a win-win for everyone....etc..

 

I  point out that either gays can be more active in the politics of gvt that they want to give them freedom or equality OR....become an officiator.  With gvt regulation or not in marriage, if they are afraid that religions won't marry them (which even some Catholic priests do perform gay marriages) but gays can be non-religious officiators to marry gay people.  But...where's the fun in that if they can't jam a gun in someone's ribs, eh?

[regevdl]

I love this! I've been saying the same thing. When the announcement was made, and everyone was jumping for joy, I found myself very irritated. Why? Because there's no acknowledgement from the media this wouldn't have been an issue if not for the government.

 

There's also a lack of questioning, why now? Do you think it's bizarre the government has decided to sell marriage licenses to same-sex couples now that marriage in the US is at an all time low?

 

I think timing is always interesting in gvt policy.  I think it might be a mixture of this image the left is trying to project in comparison towards Putin.... they have to demonize him on all levels.  so it's like a dick-measuring contest of sorts since Putin is known for his anti-gay measures.  He's complete alpha and the obama admin needs to compensate. 

 

Also, this plus the Caitlyn Jenner thing...they are trying to bombard the narrative of gay/trans, etc into society.  My friend has a lot of theories on this and I personally don't understand them all or the motives of why they would want this (typically gays/trans have less children  or there are less of them as couples versus hetero couples, and the rate we are going..they need to promote reproduction to produce more tax slaves...so I'm a bit of a loss on that).  I'm mentioning it just in case anyone else might have thoughts on it.

 

Elections....  they are hitting the masses on every corner.  Safety (gun control and black lives matter etc), equality, Caitlyn Jenner, gay marriage, etc so I'm sure the left understands  Congress, as usual has low approval....Obama has sold his soul about 450x since I lost count and need to stir up some good old fashioned social activists for the party before/during elections.

 

Obama was a master at this in his time in office.  'ending' the Iraq war 'as promised' when in fact it was already agreed in terms Bush established.  Being in office while the gay marraige ruling occurred.  So yes, the timing is simply all theatrics.

[laowai]

Never heard of Milo Yannopoulos before but come away thinking he is a genius. 

[AccuTron]

".they need to promote reproduction to produce more tax slaves...so I'm a bit of a loss on that)."

 

 

The number of not-born tax slaves is minor compared to the number of already-born sympathetic/manipulated voters.

[Spaceballs]

Never heard of Milo Yannopoulos before but come away thinking he is a genius. 

I agree, Milo seems to have a good potential.  With the right books/informations, he might become one.

Gavin McInnis is also very good at vulgarizing the gay marriage.

 

I agree in part with Gavin.  I think Gay Marriage is to destroy the basis of the society(Proudhon's unfinished Pornocracy), therefore society itself.

[RyanBaxter]

VALID ARGUMENT FROM THE RIGHT:

Traditional marriage- an institution that has always been about procreation and strongly and subtly suggesting children will result due to the marriage, is being attacked for not allowing gays to be a part of that tradition as well. If we were to change our traditions as a result of contemporary conditions- then what is the point of ensuring traditions are upheld if they are going to be continually undermined? Therefore, traditional marriage should be preserved.

 

VALID ARGUMENT FROM THE LEFT:

What is the role of government in ensuring who does or does not get to be married? Marriage has always been about two people and love is a central element to marriage. Are a gay couple going to have to settle for civil unions, rather then what they really want... which is to say "I'm married". Are heterosexual couples allowed to have the ability to say that, whilst the LGBT community miss out? Therefore, marriage should be allowed for same-sex couples.

 

SOLUTION:

You can't undermine traditional marriage as the Left has done in the US already (thankfully in Australia, it is still a heterosexual institution), because then there is no point in traditions, if you keep creating exceptions. However, that doesn't mean gays can't say "I'm married". The worst thing ever created about civil unions was calling it 'civil unions'. They allow for a formalized relationship between same-sex couples to be recognized and states can decide if they wanted it so a California could have it, but Alabama probably would not, as well as churches deciding if they wanted it as it could go against their faith, but others can embrace it and secular marriages can occur. I would call them 'specialized marriages'- that is between a non-heterosexual, law-willing couple that are formally recognized as being married and can have the ability to say "I'm married".

[5eriously]

First of all. If there was no state, gay marriage should be allowed. Two men/women getting married doesn't initiate the use of force against anyone so go for it.

 

So what about in the current state of affairs? Well it raises some interesting questions. If the state recognizes does it force people who are citizens of the country to recognize it? For example in America, are devout Christians forced to recognize gay couples as being married? If you work in a job that requires you to grant benefits or make decisions based on martial status (For example welfare or a priest) then it would. But are you forced to work in that job? 

What is the roles of the state in marriage? Obviously currently the state has one in most countries (if not all). Why does the state currently (not historically) track marriage? If the point is to allow two people to get married with "legal protection" then gay marriage should be allowed. If the purpose of it is make sure marriage reflects the will of the people, then it's debatable. Maybe there is another purpose?

 

The great thing about gay marriage, is i think the divorces would be a lot fairer. When two men get divorced they can simply exchange their testicles, kind of like a really sad Christmas. I don't think two women would get divorced, what's the point of divorce if you can't get a shiny pair of balls out of it? Obviously this part is in jest. 

 

Ryan Baxter, your post was really interesting. Just a few questions. 

 

 

 

You can't undermine traditional marriage as the Left has done in the US already (thankfully in Australia, it is still a heterosexual institution), because then there is no point in traditions, if you keep creating exceptions.

 

I wouldn't call gay marriage an exception, more of a rule change. If marriage is the union between 1 man and 1 woman it's changes to the union between 2 people. 

 

If we are going to talk about traditions. What is the point of traditions? I'm not saying they have no purpose but i think traditions and culture in general should be justified. So why should marriage only be between a man and a woman? Why is changing traditions bad? 

[J. D. Stembal]

Never heard of Milo Yannopoulos before but come away thinking he is a genius. 

 

He's pro-genital mutilation, so I find him vile and disgusting, personally.

[J. D. Stembal]

First of all. If there was no state, gay marriage should be allowed.

 

If there was no state, no one would get married.

[AccuTron]

He's pro-genital mutilation, so I find him vile and disgusting, personally.

 

Link?

[5eriously]

 

 

If there was no state, no one would get married.

 

I don't know about that. Certainly marriage (obviously) wouldn't need to be state approved nor would it be backed up by the state. 

 

Marriage is a formal commitment to someone that you intend to be together forever. I think that's important, it creates stable environments for children, it strengthens pair bonding and it formalizes your relationship. The formalization part would be by declaring your love in front of those most important to you.

 

So i at least would get married without a state. That said all of those things can be achieved without marriage. 

 

I think a lot of people would, marriage is a very old social construct, possibly pre-dating the state.

[J. D. Stembal]

Link?

 

He says uncircumcised men get shamed with not getting blowjobs from him. It's a disgusting statement. It would be like me saying I'll only eat vulvas that have been infibulated.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGL5eRw7rXUt=14:00

[J. D. Stembal]

I don't know about that. Certainly marriage (obviously) wouldn't need to be state approved nor would it be backed up by the state. 

 

Marriage is a formal commitment to someone that you intend to be together forever. I think that's important, it creates stable environments for children, it strengthens pair bonding and it formalizes your relationship. The formalization part would be by declaring your love in front of those most important to you.

 

So i at least would get married without a state. That said all of those things can be achieved without marriage. 

 

I think a lot of people would, marriage is a very old social construct, possibly pre-dating the state.

 

No, the concept of modern marriage is a barbaric religious practice, like genital mutilation, and has its origins back where there was no separation between church and the state. Arranged marriage is often used to solidify a political alliance or business contract. You can love and honor a mate and family by simply practicing voluntarism, which is defined as seeking voluntary human relationships.

[dsayers]

I too think that if the world were rid of the State and religion, people would still choose to get married. It promises and celebrates their commitment and provides a more ensured and stable environment for their children. In other words, people who would raise children peacefully would have an established support network and would want to make that commitment openly and ceremonially for the sake of their children.

 

That said, there's no question that both State manipulations and religious dogma are the reason why gay marriage is a political topic at all. Sort of like how immigration is only a political topic when there's State theft that the immigrants could effortlessly become benefactors of.

[J. D. Stembal]

I too think that if the world were rid of the State and religion, people would still choose to get married. It promises and celebrates their commitment and provides a more ensured and stable environment for their children. In other words, people who would raise children peacefully would have an established support network and would want to make that commitment openly and ceremonially for the sake of their children.

 

That said, there's no question that both State manipulations and religious dogma are the reason why gay marriage is a political topic at all. Sort of like how immigration is only a political topic when there's State theft that the immigrants could effortlessly become benefactors of.

 

I would not define the above union as marriage, as that implies a legal document on file with a state bureaucrat.

[dsayers]

I would not define the above union as marriage, as that implies a legal document on file with a state bureaucrat.

And if you asked a religious person, they'd say it's in the eyes of God. Thus, we establish that it is both a subjective interpretation, and something people do for different reasons. Which would include for the sake of their friends, family, and children.

[J. D. Stembal]

And if you asked a religious person, they'd say it's in the eyes of God. Thus, we establish that it is both a subjective interpretation, and something people do for different reasons. Which would include for the sake of their friends, family, and children.

 

If it is done for religious reasons, it is not in the interest of the children. You have often argued that indoctrinating children in an irrational belief system is aggression. Correct me if I am incorrect.

 

If you aren't signing a state document, and you aren't celebrating God, what is the purpose of the ritual of marriage?

[dsayers]

If it is done for religious reasons, it is not in the interest of the children. You have often argued that indoctrinating children in an irrational belief system is aggression. Correct me if I am incorrect.

I wasn't conflating the two. There appears to be a communications breakdown, so I'll try to recap and you can let me know where I've gone astray.

 

I referenced the possibility that people could have a ceremonial commitment in front of friends and family. You said you didn't define that as marriage. I pointed out that others might not define a union without God as marriage. Thus, we established that "marriage" is subjective both in terms of definition and motivation. If this is true, then having a godless, stateless union for reason X can be considered a marriage even if you don't consider it to be.

 

In other words, I reject your claim that "marriage" implies State involvement. However, knowing that that is how you define it, then I understand what you meant by there would be no marriage in a stateless society.

[J. D. Stembal]

I wasn't conflating the two. There appears to be a communications breakdown, so I'll try to recap and you can let me know where I've gone astray.

 

I referenced the possibility that people could have a ceremonial commitment in front of friends and family. You said you didn't define that as marriage. I pointed out that others might not define a union without God as marriage. Thus, we established that "marriage" is subjective both in terms of definition and motivation. If this is true, then having a godless, stateless union for reason X can be considered a marriage even if you don't consider it to be.

 

In other words, I reject your claim that "marriage" implies State involvement. However, knowing that that is how you define it, then I understand what you meant by there would be no marriage in a stateless society.

 

Our definitions differ, indeed.

 

If I write up a living together contract with a woman, pledge my loyalty to her and a commitment to raising children peacefully and voluntarily, and then throw a party afterwards, you would call it a marriage. I would not. Marriage, throughout history, has been a ceremony blessed by some form of authoritarian oversight whether it be spiritual, political, or bureaucratic. If I call it a voluntary and free association between two adults for reasons of virtuous procreation, it would not fit the historical definition of marriage because a voluntary family union does not require an authority to lend it credibility. I don't need a blessing from the mayor to buy a carton of eggs, do I?

[J. D. Stembal]

I wasn't conflating the two. There appears to be a communications breakdown, so I'll try to recap and you can let me know where I've gone astray.

 

I referenced the possibility that people could have a ceremonial commitment in front of friends and family. You said you didn't define that as marriage. I pointed out that others might not define a union without God as marriage. Thus, we established that "marriage" is subjective both in terms of definition and motivation. If this is true, then having a godless, stateless union for reason X can be considered a marriage even if you don't consider it to be.

 

In other words, I reject your claim that "marriage" implies State involvement. However, knowing that that is how you define it, then I understand what you meant by there would be no marriage in a stateless society.

 

Addendum to my last post in moderation:

 

I may have mentioned this already, but the reason gays are fighting so hard for civil unions isn't to achieve a political or cultural victory. They want a piece of the state benefits conferred to married couples since the post-WW2 era (health care coverage, tax breaks, etc.).

[dsayers]

Addendum to my last post in moderation:

 

I may have mentioned this already, but the reason gays are fighting so hard for civil unions isn't to achieve a political or cultural victory. They want a piece of the state benefits conferred to married couples since the post-WW2 era (health care coverage, tax breaks, etc.).

Yeah, I acknowledged this when I pointed out that this is why it's a political topic at all, just as immigration is only a political topic because there's State handouts to be had there also.

 

As for your first post, I'm not sure why it's important to undermine a stateless, godless union. I'm not the one getting married or getting fake married, so what my opinion is doesn't matter. If you're in that process, then whatever suits you and yours is nobody else's business.

 

Really though, I can't think of a better way to celebrate freedom than by celebrating pair-bonding and procreation despite all the archaic State and religion barriers of our ancestors. If that sort of commitment improves a child's life, then I would hardly look down my nose at it just because it's mechanically identical to a vestige of the State.

[Mister Mister]

And if you asked a religious person, they'd say it's in the eyes of God. Thus, we establish that it is both a subjective interpretation, and something people do for different reasons. Which would include for the sake of their friends, family, and children.

Yes, and there's also Common Law Marriage, where if a man and a woman live together for a certain number of years, they are considered married.

[rosencrantz]

Marriage, throughout history, has been a ceremony blessed by some form of authoritarian oversight whether it be spiritual, political, or bureaucratic.

 

I think for the longest time and in most cultures marriages were arranged between the heads of families. Marriage because of romantic interests is a European invention of the early 19th century. 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I think of marriage in a free society as a contract that is ensured by one, or separate companies, which ensures the stability of the marriage. The two or more parties in the marriage would be bound by this contract, and would be penalized to the extent they violated the contract. The only way I imagine people qualifying for this insurance is if they were planning to have a child. If they go into marriage without a contract, then they are probably low IQ, R selected, and they will run themselves into the ground financially over the long run unless they accept the incentives to become reasonably good at maintaining a relationship with another human being. 

 

Honestly, I would not say marriage exists anymore. It has nothing to do with what is best for the child. Do I really even need to make the case for this? 70% illegitimacy among blacks, extremely loose alimony for women, high divorce rate among low IQs. I mean, am I correct that a woman can marry a man, not have kids with him, and still receive a portion of the man's assets he accumulated while he was with her? That would be just.. holy shit. Not to mention if she has kids, what she will get...

 

 I think the entrepreneurial models that would develop in a free market would be unimaginably optimized to increase the standards of relationships and the morality of raising children. I think even the worst and most abusive parents could be ostracized via this mechanism, by forcing them via ostracism into a marriage if they have children, and intervening as necessary, with steps to make them better parents. If the abuse was just so extreme for the child that it would be less traumatic to take them from their parents and raise them with peaceful adopters, then the insurance company could do this as a last resort; if they could not manage to put enough pressure on the couple to change via other methods, or if they are defiant.

 

I imagine the road to peaceful parenting as so rapid via this model of the market. I tell you if I were on a true free market, I know what my life's occupation would be: to work in one of these companies! If we could just somehow manage to get there... What do you guys think? I came up with this just now, and find the topic fascinating!

[J. D. Stembal]

Yeah, I acknowledged this when I pointed out that this is why it's a political topic at all, just as immigration is only a political topic because there's State handouts to be had there also.

 

As for your first post, I'm not sure why it's important to undermine a stateless, godless union. I'm not the one getting married or getting fake married, so what my opinion is doesn't matter. If you're in that process, then whatever suits you and yours is nobody else's business.

 

Really though, I can't think of a better way to celebrate freedom than by celebrating pair-bonding and procreation despite all the archaic State and religion barriers of our ancestors. If that sort of commitment improves a child's life, then I would hardly look down my nose at it just because it's mechanically identical to a vestige of the State.

 

I'm glad that we agree that state handouts are poisonous. See also Obamacare.

 

My goal is to bring voluntarism to the family in order for it to thrive in the future generations of my family. Allowing the state or religion to gain a foothold in my life through marriage is counterproductive because I would reveal myself as a hypocrite to my children. I would not be practicing what I preach.

 

Part of the problem with the language and definitions in this thread is that marriage and serial polyamory are being conflated. Marriage is supposed to last until death. How many marriages make it that far? See the link below, which shows how many divorces there are occurring each year in the United State.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/marriage_divorce_tables.htm

 

Functionally, a large proportion of marriages, once dissolved, are no different than non-monogamous relationships. You aren't going to continue mating after divorce. Typically, you are going to get another mate. Divorces are often not planned (my parents' divorce was planned), hence the squads of family lawyers wielding ungreased dildos. A virtuous woman won't want me to sign a legal document with the state, and aim a gun at my balls. Marriage is not for the kids; it's for the woman so she can have piece of mind and legal leverage.

 

[dsayers]

I don't think divorce rates of irrational societies have any bearing on the potentiality of marriage in a free society. If two people have self-knowledge, think rationally, get to know one another, and have agreed upon methods for conflict resolution, there's literally no reason to suspect their union could falter. Certainly not based on the track record of people who lack those components. It's like looking at cars that don't have transmissions to determine the performance of those that do; They're not comparable.

[J. D. Stembal]

I don't think divorce rates of irrational societies have any bearing on the potentiality of marriage in a free society. If two people have self-knowledge, think rationally, get to know one another, and have agreed upon methods for conflict resolution, there's literally no reason to suspect their union could falter. Certainly not based on the track record of people who lack those components. It's like looking at cars that don't have transmissions to determine the performance of those that do; They're not comparable.

 

Who is marrying in a free society? Which authority deems the union legitimate?

[dsayers]

Which authority deems the union legitimate?

Those in the union. Their friends and family. Everybody who was raised peacefully and/or accepts property rights, the decision made by those in the union, the benefit of stability in the raising of a peaceful child to groom them to NOT be a danger to society.

 

If I was entering into such a union, why would I care if you thought it was illegitimate? As long as you're not initiation the use of force against us for doing so, you can hold whatever opinion you like for whatever reason you like.