CA says same-sex marriage is OK (kind of)

Haha. I guess when alcohol became legal again, after the prohibition, the government was saying "Children have a new role model - drunks, aspire to it."?

I couldn't agree more. I've got a bunch of examples I could rattle off the top of my head, showing why homosexual marriage isn't a bad thing; but honestly, the stubborn people that refuse to open their minds aren't going to give equality a chance, so I'm not going to waste my finger-power.

Agreed; 100%. But I do have a problem with the way some women are "bred" to be 15-year-old housewives in that circumstance (as seen recently)...

LOL @ thinking so little of gays... Ever talk to a 60-year old man from georgia that still hates blacks? That's what these gay-haters are going to seem like in a few decades...

 

Ok, but I was wondering where you stood on the fact that marriage shouldn't be a state control issue anyway. That the relationship between two people can be defined by themselves, not by regulation and documentation.

Although I feel I have made myself clear on this many times, I would like to reiterate, that relationships must be consensual. No one has a right to coerce or force anyone else to do anything.

And likewise, in the case of gay sex, gay marriage, polygamy etc., no one should tell someone they cannot do something they are consenting to.

 

Precisely so, as do I. In that thread, though the charge of "political agenda" has been leveled at those of us supporting intervention in the case, it isn't polygamy, but child abuse, that is at the heart of the issue.

 

The problem is, whether it's children raised in a brutally authoritarian regime (as vigorously illustrated in the polygamy thread, or the issue of children "consenting" to engage in child pornography, there is no "consent" involved. There is simply no "victimlessness" in children indoctrinated in a belief that they either accept the notion they are essentially breeding chattel, or face hell in the afterlife and brutal punishment in this life - all by the hand of those in authority over those children; and there is no "victimlessness" in children engaging in porn. To argue such, I would say, is to extend relativism out to an infinity of ridiculousness.

 

California is ahead in a lot of stuff. Go California!!!

 

This is how I feel about it...

• If marriage is a religious event and a person's respective church believes in a man and a woman, fine. Marriage should then be between a man and a woman (until a renegade church starts up that allows gay-weddings)... No benefits should be granted by the government...
• If marriage is a bond between people that want to spend eternity with each other, and that bond is viewed favorably upon by our government, and those that get married are entitled to benefits, then marriage should be open to any two (or more?) people (regardless of sexual orientation)...
• If marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, celebrated by the government for population reasons, and rewarded with government benefits, then only male-female couples that are of proper age (18-40-ish) and have been tested and can produce offspring should be allowed to get married.

Well said. I'll admit, the media has done a good job of affiliating polygamy with child abuse, even to the extent that it has me believing the two are joined... I haven't read enough on the topic to know how deeply rooted the abuse issue is in the culture though...

 

Having lived with the polygamy thread now for some time, I can only speak to this sect. It is clear as day, to me. These kids don't stand a chance of an informed choice; what was being done to them was a criminal abomination, in my opinion.

And I categorically reject the notion that kids "consent" to doing porn, or that the girls of the Fundamentalist LDS sect (cult, in my opinion) "consent" to impregnation and "spiritual" marriage to much older adult males, by any reasonable standard of "consent," which includes full knowledge, freely arrived at, and mutual agreement - i.e., from an equal "bargaining" position in terms of power and authority.

 

The issue with consent will always be, "who can consent" and if they cannot, "who can give consent for them". I've mentioned numerous times that this is a tricky situation. Someone may be 30 and having sex with a 29 year old, but the 30 year old is mentally handicapped. Can a mentally handicapped person give consent? If not, who can give consent for them?

Difficult questions. I have been following a thread on this at the Mises forums, where some of the most radical anarchist thinkers are, and it has degenerated into the same nonsense and arguing that happens here. No one can seem to find a principled position on consent that stands up to different tests of rationality and morality.

TK, as far as what you replied to me with...

It really doesn't get to what I was asking. It's sort of, if A is the answer, then B is the question. If C is the answer, then D is the question.

I'm just curious to know if you think the government is responsible for promoting marriage or population growth. Because in a matchmaker role, I don't see a tremendous difference between polygamist religious sects and the role of government. It's encouraging something that may not occur naturally, through incentive or coercion.

I think it's important to the discussion, because single people can have babies too. By granting marriage benefits or advantages to gay couples, we're elevating them above single parents.

Which brings us even further back to my root point. The government starts handing out benefits to, or suppressing equality for, various groups, and it becomes an endless game of definitions and laws to get back to the original situation, which is equality for everyone, without preference.

I guess I just wanted to know where you stand on intervention by law.

 

That isn't true. I've provided one such definition, in this very thread:

This is really nothing more than informed consent, and it is the cornerstone of society respecting "consensual relationships" between people.

Respecting children, it is obvious - if there is an unequal distribution of power - such as exists in an authoritarian cult, with a codified system of indoctrination of children, or children doing porn, where adults are in charge of enticing the act, organizing the act, and executing the act - there can be no informed consent.

What's the objection, on tests of "morality and rationality, to:

Again, it should be obvious - but no, a 29 year old adult cannot presume a 30 year old with the mental capacity of a three year old has given "consent."

(Wiki, for the quotes - adequate for discussion. This is so commonsensical, to me, that it shouldn't require too much thought).

 

I was talking about the Mises forum.

I didn't read the rest of your post. Get used to that happening often.

 

1. Sorry to burst your bubble, sunshine, but I couldn't care less whether you read my posts or not - in my experience, I have long been made aware of your pattern of inconsistency, avoidance, name calling, or distortion whenever a credible point is raised that refutes your point. As such, it's a waste of time to attempt a good faith discussion with you, in my experience. You're not my audience, and I posted a statement of fact, for others to read. For an example of why I couldn't care less, see no. 2, below.

2. The reason I couldn't care less. Regularly playing out of both sides of one's mouth doesn't lead me to think there is much use in a good faith discussion. Or,

3. An admission there was a principled position on consent on this thread, in which case,

isn't true.

Either way, see no. 2.

4. People do read, and see for themselves, what is on the forum. I speak to them.

Now, to all others, the poster keeps returning to the notion of "consent" in evaluating things such as the 14 year old girls impregnated by older men on the Texas FLDS compound, or doing child porn. What are your opinions? Is this to be considered "consent," and such things should therefore be evaluated as any other act between two "consenting" people?

 

This is going to lead to a constitutional showdown.

Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon have constitutional amendments defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

 

CA ruling has shown rightly that:- Live and let other's live the way they want to live......

GaysCulture.com

 

I don't want to get off topic debating homosexuality. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

The reason the state provides benefits to the union of a man and a women is to provide for children that the state requires to keep the system going. European countries are in crisis because the can't maintain their populations.

California is a case that will have to be decided on a National level. 11 States now ban gay marriage and 2 States are allow it.

Either the US supreme court needs to make a ruling or we are going to have chaos.

 

Why does it matter to you anyway? Because you are worried about the population size? Do you think you have a right to dictate relations between two consenting adults? If so, by what authority?

 

What does gay marriage have to do with "relations between two consenting adults"? This is going to open up a can of worms for pologamy, gay adoption, and marriage fraud.

At this time 9 States have constitutional amendments defining a marriage as between a man and a woman.

 

I feel like we've been in this discussion before...

Ok bogart, would I be correct in stating that you believe a marriage is...
a union between a man and a woman

and you believe married people should get benefits because they reproduce, right?

 

If two male or female adults choose to cohabitate and have sex, is that a problem for you? Do you have any business telling them how they should live their lives? And if so, by what authority?

What's wrong with polygamy? There are some cultures and people who don't think polygamy is a big deal. If everyone is a consenting adult, and it's a situation where people have the free will to leave or not be involved in the first place, what business is it of yours?

Marriage fraud is a joke. If we didn't make married couples legally special, them no one would care what they called it. And anyone could cohabitate and/or have sex and that would be entirely their business.

That's fine, but it doesn't address the issue that marriage couples, straight or gay, should not have more privileges or rights under law than unmarried couples straight or gay.

As usual, the state seeks to correct an "equality" by intervention, and in the process, creates inequality. It's a good scam if you can get in on it. You make the problems, then you ask for more power, more money and more bureaucracy to fix them.

 

My opinions on the subject really don't matter. The issue on the table is two states allow gay marriage and nine states ban it. This could turn gay marriage into an election year isssue.

Polygamy would be an issue that the man couldn't support 30-40 children without resorting to welfare.

Marriage fraud can in fact become a big issue. A lot of people that are hetrosexual may decide to take marry a room mate to get medical benefits or tax savings. In addition, gay marriage fraud will be a lot harder to prove. The US already has an illegal immigration problem and gay marriage with add to it.

 

Your opinion does matter. If it's an election issue, you're a voter. On this forum, you've been very active in the homosexual threads, so obviously this is a personal issue for you.

The problem in that case is welfare, not polygamy. As long as the polygamy is consensual, it's really none of your f**king business.

Married couples shouldn't get medical benefits or tax savings up and above what two singles would get. Problem solved.

Illegal immigration? Thanks for the laugh old man.