"and it wasn't so much the literal bedroom as the right to have a realtionship and home the same as any heterosexual couple."

They can have a relationship and home without gay marriage, too.

@draug, I think you misunderstood gun's point. He was saying that fiscal conservatives should be social libertarians and NOT social conservatives, who are the ones trying to legislate bedroom behaviors.

I think the difference between the three can be summed up as:
Social conservatives - legislate morality (specifically morality of the bible)
Social liberals - legislate morality (specifically the morality of equal outcomes, rather than equal opportunity)
Social libertarians - don't legislate morality.

"They can have a relationship and home without gay marriage, too"

Really? So they can have the say in their mate's life or death decision when their mate is in a vegetative state? They can adopt a child as easily as a heterosexual couple? They can be a dependent on their mate's insurance?

Sorry, but in many states the answers to all those questions are unanimously "no". And in many more, they may have that say, but only through "civil unions" which I already pointed out is a "separate but equal" argument SCOTUS ruled unconsitutional back in the days of the Civil Rights movement.

@ Draugnar

philcore is right. I was merely pointing out the painful hypocrisy of those who are social and fiscal conservatives. But the left is not innocent either. Fiscal and social liberals are equally hypocritical. Say what you want about libertarians but at least we're ideologically pure and *not* hypocrites.

Also, as philcore pointed out, there is a difference between social liberalism and social libertarianism.

Social liberals: Gay people are an oppressed minority and we should understand and feel sorry for them and throw tax money at them and coddle them.

Social libertarians: What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is not the government's concern. Furthermore, if the democratically elected officials of a state decide to ban certain types of marriage or certain types of adoption, that is their prerogative. If another state decides to permit certain types of marriage or certain types of adoption, that is their prerogative. Whatever the case, the federal government should not interfere.

"if you're going to advocate fiscal conservatism at least have the decency to *not* be a hypocrite and be a social libertarian. "

See, this statement sounds like fiscal conservative + social libertarian = hypocrite.

The only argument against gay marriage that has any merit - *any* - at all is that the government is paying for their marriage. It does not have a lot of merit, and would be completely solved if, like you say, the government would get out of the business of couples in the United States. That includes state governments. Why any government interferes with marriage at all is beyond me. If you want to marry an elephant, marry your elephant, find someone to wed you, and the government will have nothing to do with it because they don't have to deal with benefits anyway.

The problem with marrying an elephant is that it's not clear quite how much consent the elephant has with respect to the marriage.

"Furthermore, if the democratically elected officials of a state decide to ban certain types of marriage or certain types of adoption, that is their prerogative. If another state decides to permit certain types of marriage or certain types of adoption, that is their prerogative. Whatever the case, the federal government should not interfere. "

This is problematic because A) the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, B) that equal protection cannot be "separate but equal" C) people freely move from state to state - if one state doesn't recognize a marraige from another state, then a simple transfer by a company can nullify a marriage and D) coorporations cross state lines so companies with offices in states where they are required to offer benefits to spouses regardless of sex and offices in states that *forbid* that recognition force the companies to jump through massive legal hoops. The right to marry must be a federal guaranteed right just as the right to vote is guaranteed.

And no, bo, marriage must be between two consenting adults of the age to enter into a legal contract. An elephant cannot enter into a legal contract any more than a 15 year old girl or a pickup truck.

If both parties are consenting, it should be legal. I don't know of a reason for a 15-year-old girl to consent.

The elephant is just hyperbolic rhetoric. I hope nobody actually considers marrying an elephant. That would be some rough sex anyway.

Because a 15 year old can't enter into a legal and binding contract. That's right, you can't sue a kid.

Bo said he didn't know why a 15 year old would consent, not that he thought a 15 year old could consent. The two are different ideas.

The implication is that a legal guardian would sign... I thought that went without saying...

Actualy, mendax, what he said was:

"If both parties are consenting, it should be legal."

I merely pointed out that a 15 year old can't legally consent.

You merely pointed out that you evidently think I don't have parents signing stuff for me that I completely disagree with every day.

Right, which means you aren't consenting to marriage. But in nearly every state, even if the parents sign, the minor still must appear before the court and give consent as well, so parents can sell their kids off into marriage slavery. Most states have absolute minimums as well, typically 14 and many require a special court order for anything under 16 which requires "special circumstances" (user age pregnancy for instance).

so parents *can't* sell...

So you are saying that the government needs to be involved in marriage so that we don't fall back into slavery...?

The government needs to be involved in anything where human rights come into play. So yes, just as there are employment laws, there needs to be marriage laws to prevent children being sold off as "brides" to dirty old rich fucks like Strauss-Kahn.

Okay, cool. Glad you are against sex slavery. If there's one good thing I can take away from wasting government resources on irrelevant things...

The governments roles: Protect or human and civil rights, defend out nation against enemies both foreign and domestic, see to it that state borders don't become economic borders, enforce the rights enshrined in the Constitution (including equal protection under the law). Outside of that, the government should stay out.

Let's see...

• Protect human/civil rights: Don't even pretend we care about those
• Defend our nation: Nobody has attacked this nation in 80+ years
• State borders: Andrew Jackson was the last one to do this
• Enforce Constitution (incl. equal protection): If those parentheses are included in your basis here, gay marriage was legal in 1785.

^obvious troll is obvious

The USA has an appalling human rights record. I wouldn't go so far as to say 80+ years, but 30+ years is undeniable, and ~70 years is certainly arguable.

I meant 70, mendax.. Pearl Harbor. Just a typo. 9/11 was not organized by any nation, not a ton we could have done about that (other than take bin Laden seriously when he threatened us in August 2001, but you know, can't change the past).

More people die in police custody than from terrorism in the USA. Just let that sink in a sec.

Not a troll at all, Draug. The only one of those four things we supposedly pride in that actually happen consistently is the third.

@bo - Please show me where I said this is what the government actually *does*, Us or otherwise. I said what its roles *are*. It clearly isn't fulfilling those roles. Also, I said the government, not the US government and, until I specifically mentioned the Constitution, every statement I made applies to any government who truly cares about the people it governs. And even the reference to the Constitution honestly applies to any government as any government who truly cares about its people has a similar document laying out their civil and human rights Finally, all references to civil and human rights apply specifically to the citizens of said government, not to foreigners. I know that will piss people off, but I don't really give a fuck about foreigners.

This entire conversation has been about the US government. Unless of course this thing about 18-year-old age of consent, an American law, or you know, the whole thing about the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, and other random references to laws unique to the United States - to what other country do these things apply?