I'm not certain how you have come to the conclusion that I am of the opinion that we should revert back to the 1700's. But if you are going to start saying that the government is responsible for my happiness, then who are you, and what have you done to my Draugnar? Because that's a wholly fucked up statement and you know it.

It's funny how you all conveninetly leave out words when it suits your purpose. The Declaration says every man has a right to PURSUE happiness.

It does NOT say, "Every man has a right to sit on his ass and have happiness provided to him by the government in the manner in which each individual defines happiness", which is what you all are claiming it says.

You are all perverse.

The government isn't responsible for our happiness, but they are responsible for not inflicting harm upon us that prevents us from seeking that happiness. In other words, they shouldn't give us all PS4s and Xbox Ones, but they also shouldn't ban us from having them. Not recognizing the right of two consenting adults to declare each other as their primary decision maker and defacto inheritor/power of attorney denies the opportunity to pursue that happiness.

But, I also agree the government at *all* levels shouldn't be in the marriage business. IT should never have been to begin with. There should be a legal union and, fi the couple wishes to enact that union in the form of a religious ceremony, the couple can call it Goblefestoonery for all the government gives a fuck. It should merely be a union of two people.

And the only reason I restrict it to two people is for logistics purposes. If 8 people are legally unified and one of them is comatose, how do you decide which opinion to follow when the other 7 can't agree?

And note, I said seeking (essentially the same as pursuing). The government has an obligation not to throw up barriers in that pursuit. In taking on the mantel of "definer of marriage", they throw up road blocks in the pursuit of happiness no matter which definition they choose.

"Not recognizing the right of two consenting adults to declare each other as their primary decision maker and defacto inheritor/power of attorney denies the opportunity to pursue that happiness."

Civil Unions accomplish that just fine. It does not need to be called "marriage" to accomplish the exact same thing. Marriage is a label that is sacred to some...to you are inflicting harm on some to grant what is, in all intents and purposes, a simple legal arrangement. So give them their legal arrangement.

The fact that you insist that this equivalent legal arrangement must be called the same thing (with an adjective modifier), means it isn't about the legal arrangement, it's about challenging the existing culture.

The Federal Government should not be involved in making cultural decisions.

Who knows, ten years from now maybe everyone will say, 'NO, I'm not getting married...we're just doing a 'Civil Union'" and that will be the 'in thing', as it grants the exact same legal rights.

"Civil Unions accomplish that just fine. It does not need to be called "marriage" to accomplish the exact same thing."

Actually, no they don't. Because some states don't recognize other state's civil unions and some states make civil unions only have a subset of state sanctioned marriage rights.

Draug - I understand - I'm talking in the hypothetical - I should have clarified that. My point is, many conservatives are willing to not object to Civil Unions, but specifically object to the language of "marriage". The Gay Marriage side says they want equal legal rights of hospital access, inheritence, etc...and then instead of compromising and saying they'll accept Civil Unions, they push for the cultural add-on of calling a gay civil union a marriage, even though throughout human history it has never been so. Marriage is a cultural institution that has existed regardless of government involvement.

You don't think slaves were secretly "married" even though the Master and the Law woudln't allow it? Marriage isn't a government piece of paper. That the gay civil union movement wants their behavior to be equated culturally with something that is has never been is the indication that this isn't about equal rights, it's about attacking the existing majority cultural; it's about cultural change, period.

The gay marriage side doesn't accept the civil unions on practical (and legal) grounds. First, there is plenty of cases where the two are not the same. So that is the first and biggest problem. Second, "separate but equal" has been shown time and again not to be true. Just look to the 50s and 60s and the civil rights movement and desegregation of schools. This is just one more fight in the civil rights movement. Separate can never be equal.

Just for fun, here's one example where allowing gays to marry benefits society.

A lot of children are in need of adoption. Gay couples can't have children on their own (see Bio 100). Gay couples are often more likely to adopt rather than using other means to have children. 2 parents are almost always better than 1 and, legally, an unmarried couple has a very hard time raising a child.

No, Abge, he needs to figure out how gay marriage hurts society before you say how it benefits society.

I'm just saying that even by krellins crazy litmus test, gay marriage still passes.

The only thing I gleaned from krellin's argument for how gay marriage would hurt society concerns the insulted folk who see marriage as the sacred bond between a man and woman, and gay marriage soils that sacred institution. I feel Draug refuted that well by referencing slavery and woman's suffrage.

Quite simply, Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the word "marriage". It existed as a word long before Judaism even adopted the Hebrew word and *way* before the Christians adopted the Roman or Greek words for marriage. That would be like saying the RCC owns the Roman language. I think Augustus and Julius might have something to say about that if they were alive today.

@abge / Bo / y2k : krellin doesn't have a crazy litmus test, and if you had better reading comprehension skills you would know that. Good lord, forgive someone for daring to ask a question and examine a topic from more than some narrow-minded "I said it so it must be true" standpoint.

I've said it before, I've repeated it here, as to what my stance is on marriage. Draugnar is the only one here with the intellectual integrity, apparently, to actually examine the issue on a level deeper than "Wahhh.it's not fair..."and understand WHY it's not fair.

I could honestly not give a flying fuck who you marry, or how many.

But to base the "right" to gay marriage on the misinterpretation of the Declaration of Independance makes you look like a moron. At least abge has the decency to show how it might actually help.

But the question - is there harm - is a legitimate question, whether you like it or not.

Now maybe you attack dogs can actually contribute something more than veiled attacks on krellin.

y2k - I didnt' say ti would or wouldn't harm society - I asked you to try to answer that question. As for Draug's equating gay marriage to slavery and women's suffrage...good Lord, not the same as all. For a lot of people, they think homosexuality is a *choice* people make, or is a result of upbringing - not a genetic state of being like being black, or having a vagina you are born with. A lot of people also think alcohol and drug dependency is a choice, while others think it is a genetic state of being. Maybe we should start making special considerations for alcoholics - not prosecute them for ACTIONS that are a result of their genetic makeup...i.e. alcoholic by genetics, WANTS to drink, therefore DOES drink and commits crime -- not his fault.

Homosexuality is an action as much as it is anything else. You have a "feeling" that you are gay. You don't *have* to act on it.

You can't help being black. You can't help being a woman.

You start getting in to offensive, dirty water when you try to make these arguments that being gay is equal to being black or a woman...while not saying it is equal to being an alcoholic.

"Quite simply, Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on the word "marriage""

Whoever said anything about Christianity? And you make my point for me -- marriage exists *apart* from governments, and *apart* from any one religion. Fine...Pat and Joe can go off and call themselves married - go for it. Just like they have throughout history, regardless of, and apart from government if need be.

Government shouldn't be involved, especially since it is clearly not legal argument, but a cultural one, depite your assertionjs to the contrary, Draug. If a civil union law were written that says Gays in a Civil Union have 100% same rights/benefits of married, then they would be legally equivalent..

Krellin

You asked what benefit gay marriage is to society. I gave you a very simple example. Do you care to comment?

Abge - yes, it's a valid point and a positive benefit. You'll get no argument from me on that point - obviously having more married people adopting children seems a good thing. Others will disagree for various reasons.

My whole point, again, is to have a discussion that is deeper than "gays should get married...ugh...and you are stupid/hateful if you think otherwise or want to talk about it"

By the way, a Civil Union would allow the same thing - a couple to adopt - as described above in the hypothetical.

I’ll actually give you other marginal benefits of gay marriage, if the initial assumption is made that gay marriage means a combined household that otherwise would be two households – lower energy costs, less land use, less waste, all of which frees up more income for economic activity, thus benefiting society.

That just doesn't seem like a question worth asking, tbh. Now, as some have brought up, the concept of legally doing away with marriage for everyone could be a very interesting discussion. As has been mentioned, real Civil Unions are not equivalent to Marriages. If they were isomorphic, it would make absolutely no sense to have both.

Krellin, you think it's disgusting to relate slavery to gay marriage? I think it's disgusting to relate gay marriage to alcoholism. Yes, being gay and being an alcoholic are both temptations that only exhibit themselves when acted upon, unlike being black of female. Alcoholism is pretty unanimously viewed as a detrimental trait to the person with the condition and to those around him/her. I guess there are plenty of people that would view gay behavior similarly, as I gather you do based on comments I recall you making about being disgusted by openly gay behavior in public. Can you really argue that acting on homosexual tendencies is synonymous with acting on alcoholic tendencies?

Of course, a government that truly wants to benefit society to the greatest extent eliminates marriage; controls reproduction (by best genetic match); removes the random element of “parenting” to experts; provides compact, efficient government dwellings; controls diet; assigns jobs to each individual for equal participation; etc So if we are all about maximizing equality and everyone’s happiness, there it is.

"That just doesn't seem like a question worth asking, tbh."

What?

" I guess there are plenty of people that would view gay behavior similarly,"

Yes, just as there are many, many, many functional alcoholics in society, there are many who view homosexuality as a plague on society.

You're trying to spin this into a deep philosophical issue where none exists. Gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples. To think otherwise is ignorant and wrong. There isn't anything of interest to discuss.

And you are missing my point - Gay and Alcoholism are equal if and when they are both genetically linked behaviors, and therefore deserve the same consideration under the law, do they not?

How can you punish an alcoholic for his behavior that is hard-wired in to his brain? And yet the homosexual has his deviant behavior condoned and celbrated?

DEVIANT: adjective 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation : deviant social behavior. noun 2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly (It's a word, not a moral judgement)

abge - if there is nothing of interest to discuss, then shut up and go away. Since the society you live in is massively split on the topic, you apparently are incredibly mis-informed as to the interest and philosophical depth of the argument playing out around you...or your are just an arrogant fool. Your choice.

That's a preposterous argument. Although both are due to genetics, one is an illness and one is not. They should be treated differently.

Society is split, to be sure, but not for the deep philosophical reasons you're spinning.