T Nation

Gay Marriage Discussion


#1

Feel free to post any responses here. I don't want to keep derailing push's thread on the presidential elections.

This was my last post:

No?

I missed the part where an exception to the rule voids the rule itself. Perhaps you will explain...

This would best be put as a question to a supporter of traditional marriage - eg, would you prevent sterile couples from marrying? Answer: no, because for one thing they are upholding the tradition of marriage despite their inability to fully realise the biological praxis of marriage.

Can we? Do tell...

All subordinate(even love) to the primary function - procreation, child rearing and the formation of the building blocks of the civil society(families).

As I said it's a manifestation of a biological imperative and existed long before the church.

You mean the Episcopalians?

You don't know how wrong you are. As I commented earlier the state sanction of marriage came about as a Protestant attempt to take away the authority of the Catholic Church. King Henry VIII actually kicked it off when he took away the authority of the church to decree divorces; Martin Luther and John Calvin similarly transferred the Papal authority over marriage to the state. Little did they realise how this strategy would blow up in their faces in the second half of the 20th Century. :slight_smile:

Well, it certainly places it(marriage) into the hands of a new sovereign. Today, the people vote time and time again AGAINST gay marriage then a handful of masterminds on the Supreme Court overrule them. The wishes of the people can't stand in the way of progress aka nihilism.

Maybe those right-wing fundamentalist loons like Bill Clinton think that society has a profound stake in maintaining traditional marriage?

How have they disenfranchised them when they never had any such "right" to begin with?

My religion has no power or authority. Neither does anyone else's religion in the western world. By opposing gay marriage I am in a sense asserting the supremacy of the church over the state. I am opposing statism in opposing the deconstruction of marriage.


#2

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I just don’t want government defining what society sees as a blanket black/white statement.
[/quote]

If any cultural and social traditions and norms are going to be defined at all then some authority needs to define, regulate and transmit them. This was always the function of the church. However, the power and therefore authority of the church was stripped by, at first Kings; then non-conformists; then by the state itself. [/quote]

I guess my issue comes then with the need for an authority to define it. Why can’t “we the people” define it for ourselves? Particularly when we have a system of government that is supposed to protect the rights of the minority.

This is my major beef with Critical Theory. In the end, it will end up eating itself alive. I get the strategy, but it is rather short sighted means to an end, because long term, it doesn’t solve any problems, but rather becomes the target of it’s own fury.


#3

Gay marriage has, in my estimation, been great for Maine. This is purely anecdotal, but these are my observations.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that Maine is considered “attractive” to homosexuals, not just because of our laws (first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum) but also because of the “mind your own damn business” attitude that is prevalent here. I don’t recall any stories of random assaults or any of the truly horrible stuff you hear about elsewhere. Just as I can go about my atheist life with no slack-jawed yokels judging me for not believing their made-up stuff, they can go about theirs without some slack-jawed yokel judging them for their lifestyle choices.

So let’s go out on a limb and suggest that gay people are moving to Maine. An influx of fabulous, if you will.

GREAT!

Every, and I mean EVERY gay person with whom I am acquainted…

  1. Works (and pays taxes)
  2. Is generally successful (pays even more taxes)
  3. Is healthy (not a social burden spending tax dollars on public health benefits)
  4. Contributes positively to the community by virtue of the above points.

So, in other words, a bunch of healthy and successful people with no children to weigh them down see Maine as an attractive place to live.

GREAT! Keep 'em coming.

Pun intended.


#4

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Gay marriage has, in my estimation, been great for Maine. This is purely anecdotal, but these are my observations.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that Maine is considered “attractive” to homosexuals, not just because of our laws (first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum) but also because of the “mind your own damn business” attitude that is prevalent here. I don’t recall any stories of random assaults or any of the truly horrible stuff you hear about elsewhere. Just as I can go about my atheist life with no slack-jawed yokels judging me for not believing their made-up stuff, they can go about theirs without some slack-jawed yokel judging them for their lifestyle choices.

So let’s go out on a limb and suggest that gay people are moving to Maine. An influx of fabulous, if you will.

GREAT!

Every, and I mean EVERY gay person with whom I am acquainted…

  1. Works (and pays taxes)
  2. Is generally successful (pays even more taxes)
  3. Is healthy (not a social burden spending tax dollars on public health benefits)
  4. Contributes positively to the community by virtue of the above points.

So, in other words, a bunch of healthy and successful people with no children to weigh them down see Maine as an attractive place to live.

GREAT! Keep 'em coming.

Pun intended.[/quote]

But RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE American family RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE traditional values RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE my kids will catch it RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE this sets a bad example RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.


#5

[quote]ActivitiesGuy wrote:

But RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE American family RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE traditional values RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE my kids will catch it RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE this sets a bad example RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.
[/quote]

Come the fuck on with this…

I will argue until I’m blue in the face that government has no legal standing to not recognize a same sex marriage, but this post adds absolutely zero to any sort of discussion.


#6

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

I guess my issue comes then with the need for an authority to define it. Why can’t “we the people” define it for ourselves?
[/quote]

I assume by “the people” you mean the majority. Majoritarianism is something that I am instinctively against - traditional conservatives generally have a fear of “the mob” and the potential for it to be exploited by unscrupulous demagogues. But if you think such things would best be decided on such a basis I’m not going to argue against it. Keep in mind though, that when put to the vote state after state has voted AGAINST gay marriage including California. The judiciary has then stepped in and declared the will of the people unconstitutional and reversed their decision.

[quote]

This is my major beef with Critical Theory. In the end, it will end up eating itself alive. I get the strategy, but it is rather short sighted means to an end, because long term, it doesn’t solve any problems, but rather becomes the target of it’s own fury. [/quote]

That’s actually a good description of the flaws of the dialectic method. Critical theory is actually far more insidious as it is aimed at undermining certain ideas with the goal of subverting society in general. It’s a very complex subject. The gay rights movement is actually a product of, or rather a technique of critical theory. Whatever you think about the normalisation of homosexuality, the fact remains the Frankfurt School saw it as a means of undermining the family and diminishing the authority of the father. Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer et al spelled all this out. They based it on Engels’ critique of the family and patriarchal societies(The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State).

The truth is the Frankfurt School was not “liberal” in the sense that you might understand it. They really had no interest in gay rights or women’s rights or the rights of minorities. They merely used these things for their own ends. These guys were dour, cynical German revolutionaries. The Frankfurt School was actually seeded by Gyorgy Lukacs after the 1922 Communist International meeting - it was originally intended as a Leninist front group to subvert Germany from within. After the Nazis kicked them out they merely adapted it to undermine the west.

“The more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skilful and obligatory use of any, even the smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional.” - Lenin


#7

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Particularly when we have a system of government that is supposed to protect the rights of the minority.

[/quote]

LOL. This is only true when majority/minority is defined according to net worth.


#8

Curious, are supporters of gay marriage for or against family members marrying? Because if it’s a “rights” and a “choice” issue not a moral/religious one… There cannot be any judgement on whom you marry, correct?

Example: adult first cousins


#9

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Gay marriage has, in my estimation, been great for Maine. This is purely anecdotal, but these are my observations.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that Maine is considered “attractive” to homosexuals, not just because of our laws (first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum) but also because of the “mind your own damn business” attitude that is prevalent here. I don’t recall any stories of random assaults or any of the truly horrible stuff you hear about elsewhere. Just as I can go about my atheist life with no slack-jawed yokels judging me for not believing their made-up stuff, they can go about theirs without some slack-jawed yokel judging them for their lifestyle choices.

So let’s go out on a limb and suggest that gay people are moving to Maine. An influx of fabulous, if you will.

GREAT!

Every, and I mean EVERY gay person with whom I am acquainted…

  1. Works (and pays taxes)
  2. Is generally successful (pays even more taxes)
  3. Is healthy (not a social burden spending tax dollars on public health benefits)
  4. Contributes positively to the community by virtue of the above points.

So, in other words, a bunch of healthy and successful people with no children to weigh them down see Maine as an attractive place to live.

GREAT! Keep 'em coming.

Pun intended.[/quote]

Well that sure is progressive. Who needs children or families when you can have some wealthy queers from San Francisco move in? Besides, children don’t pay any taxes at all. They’re just parasites.


#10

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Particularly when we have a system of government that is supposed to protect the rights of the minority.

[/quote]

LOL. This is only true when majority/minority is defined according to net worth. [/quote]

Um, no. You can laugh all you want but you are completely wrong.

While not perfect, America has, and continues to push towards truly “equal under the law” in respect to government recognition and protection of rights.

I have no idea what strange twist you are trying to put on my statement, but if you choose not to elaborate, I’ll just assume you understand how silly that statement is and we’ve moved on.


#11

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Gay marriage has, in my estimation, been great for Maine. This is purely anecdotal, but these are my observations.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that Maine is considered “attractive” to homosexuals, not just because of our laws (first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum) but also because of the “mind your own damn business” attitude that is prevalent here. I don’t recall any stories of random assaults or any of the truly horrible stuff you hear about elsewhere. Just as I can go about my atheist life with no slack-jawed yokels judging me for not believing their made-up stuff, they can go about theirs without some slack-jawed yokel judging them for their lifestyle choices.

So let’s go out on a limb and suggest that gay people are moving to Maine. An influx of fabulous, if you will.

GREAT!

Every, and I mean EVERY gay person with whom I am acquainted…

  1. Works (and pays taxes)
  2. Is generally successful (pays even more taxes)
  3. Is healthy (not a social burden spending tax dollars on public health benefits)
  4. Contributes positively to the community by virtue of the above points.

So, in other words, a bunch of healthy and successful people with no children to weigh them down see Maine as an attractive place to live.

GREAT! Keep 'em coming.

Pun intended.[/quote]

Well that sure is progressive. Who needs children or families when you can have some wealthy queers from San Francisco move in? Besides, children don’t pay any taxes at all. They’re just parasites.[/quote]

Lol. No fuckin shit. Ever been to San Fran?? You can take about 1 million of our sexually degenerate individuals. I sure enjoy taking the kids to the park in Northern California and always have to do “room clearing” before letting the kids use a public restroom. Care to ask why???


#12

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
America has, and continues to push towards truly “equal under the law” in respect to government recognition and protection of rights.
[/quote]

How far along this road do you think we are?

How many people are currently in prison in the United States?


#13

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

I assume by “the people” you mean the majority. [/quote]

Not in all cases, but certainly in some.

We as a society see 1st degree (using the term so as to draw a particular line in the sand) of an adult as wrong and punishable. However do it to a pre-born infant and a good chuck (small majority right now) are fine with it.

I suppose my argument comes with the disclaimer that it’s going to be fluid, and sometimes immoral.

That is why it is important to have a functional state that understands its role of protecting the rights and opinions of the minority.

It’s part fo the “checks and balances” I guess. The state is tempered by majority opinion, but the mob is tempered by the state saying “no, they are people too.”

Best? ehhh, I don’t know…

Best I can come up with right now off the top of my head? Getting warmer, lol.

[quote] Keep in mind though, that when put to the vote state after state has voted AGAINST gay marriage including California. The judiciary has then stepped in and declared the will of the people unconstitutional and reversed their decision.

[/quote]

I thought this was pretty ballsy and (because I agree with it) a wonderful example of the power of a constitutional republic, and one more example to toss in the fact of the ignorant that call America a democracy.

That isn’t to say SCOTUS hasn’t gotten things wrong before.


#14

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
Curious, are supporters of gay marriage for or against family members marrying? Because if it’s a “rights” and a “choice” issue not a moral/religious one… There cannot be any judgement on whom you marry, correct?

Example: adult first cousins[/quote]

Well, first cousins married with the full blessing of both the church and state for many centuries, so this is a curious question to ask in the context of a discussion about non-traditional marriage.

Regardless of whether such unions are sanctioned by the state, family members will still, on occasion, fuck. No laws will stop this behavior which will, on occasion, produce children born under less than ideal genetic and environmental situations.

Would state sanctioning this help or hinder such behavior? I have no idea, but the social cost of fucking cousins is, all things considered, very low.

So yes, I wouldn’t have a problem with state sanctioned marriages between cousins. In a world where people literally shit on each other for sexual satisfaction and the friendly, mild-mannered woman from accounting could be a depraved pansexual fuck fiend behind closed doors, I find it rather difficult to worry very much about what other people are doing for their jollies.

Building on that ambivalence about other people’s sexual practices, I see little drawback to the state officially recognizing all types of life partnerships when people are already living that way.

Really, who the fuck cares? How is this important? I’m all for traditional families, but I don’t see how the recognition of other arrangements has any detrimental impact to a man and a woman who want to get married and have babies. They don’t even know that the guy who just moved in next door to them likes to get pissed on by women in latex suits, and they’ve got him bringing pasta salad to the dinner party.


#15

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
America has, and continues to push towards truly “equal under the law” in respect to government recognition and protection of rights.
[/quote]

How far along this road do you think we are? [/quote]

As far as we are.

Look America was founded on principles, some of whom took decades and a Civil War to see through. But the framework was in place since day one for those appropriate improvements to take place without revolution or destruction of the State. (Even though the Civil War was pretty damn close to those things.)

I think you might want to take a look at the conditions billions of people live in outside of America (and Europe). I’m still not following what point you’re trying to make, but that perspective might help.

[quote]How many people are currently in prison in the United States?
[/quote]

Unless you’re making the claim that they are all falsely imprisoned due to government corruption, it is irrelevant to this topic.

Equal under the law doesn’t mean free from consequence for your actions.


#16

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Gay marriage has, in my estimation, been great for Maine. This is purely anecdotal, but these are my observations.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that Maine is considered “attractive” to homosexuals, not just because of our laws (first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum) but also because of the “mind your own damn business” attitude that is prevalent here. I don’t recall any stories of random assaults or any of the truly horrible stuff you hear about elsewhere. Just as I can go about my atheist life with no slack-jawed yokels judging me for not believing their made-up stuff, they can go about theirs without some slack-jawed yokel judging them for their lifestyle choices.

So let’s go out on a limb and suggest that gay people are moving to Maine. An influx of fabulous, if you will.

GREAT!

Every, and I mean EVERY gay person with whom I am acquainted…

  1. Works (and pays taxes)
  2. Is generally successful (pays even more taxes)
  3. Is healthy (not a social burden spending tax dollars on public health benefits)
  4. Contributes positively to the community by virtue of the above points.

So, in other words, a bunch of healthy and successful people with no children to weigh them down see Maine as an attractive place to live.

GREAT! Keep 'em coming.

Pun intended.[/quote]

Well that sure is progressive. Who needs children or families when you can have some wealthy queers from San Francisco move in? Besides, children don’t pay any taxes at all. They’re just parasites.[/quote]

You are presenting a logical fallacy of a false dilemma. There is plenty of room in Maine for both gays and heterosexuals. Allowing gays to marry has not, to my knowledge, prevented a single heterosexual couple from starting a family.


#17

[quote] countingbeans wrote:

I thought this was pretty ballsy and (because I agree with it) a wonderful example of the power of a constitutional republic, and one more example to toss in the fact of the ignorant that call America a democracy.

[/quote]

It’s one thing to be in favour of gay marriage. It’s quite another to contend that refusing to recognise gay marriage “demeans” gay couples whose “moral and sexual choices the constitution protects.” If a state votes for gay marriage I can’t really argue against that but these sorts of rulings are absurd.


#18

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Unless you’re making the claim that they are all falsely imprisoned due to government corruption, it is irrelevant to this topic.

Equal under the law doesn’t mean free from consequence for your actions.
[/quote]

I assume he means the law isn’t equally applied, which in all fairness is probably true.


#19

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
It’s quite another to contend that refusing to recognise gay marriage “demeans” gay couples whose “moral and sexual choices the constitution protects.”
[/quote]

That language has no place in a ruling on the matter, and simply invites more government into the lives of people.

Sexual orientation is in fact moot on the subject, irrelevant if homosexual people would use same-sex marriage or not, as far as the state need be concerned.

The state’s criteria should be as follows:

  1. Are the parties adults?
  2. Do the parties consent to the contract?
  3. Does the contract violate the rights of any other person?

That is my major complaint with the whole ordeal. It became about who can be more compassionate for gay people, and nothing to do with, let’s make sure government isn’t overstepping its bounds.


#20

[quote]twojarslave wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Gay marriage has, in my estimation, been great for Maine. This is purely anecdotal, but these are my observations.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that Maine is considered “attractive” to homosexuals, not just because of our laws (first state to legalize gay marriage by referendum) but also because of the “mind your own damn business” attitude that is prevalent here. I don’t recall any stories of random assaults or any of the truly horrible stuff you hear about elsewhere. Just as I can go about my atheist life with no slack-jawed yokels judging me for not believing their made-up stuff, they can go about theirs without some slack-jawed yokel judging them for their lifestyle choices.

So let’s go out on a limb and suggest that gay people are moving to Maine. An influx of fabulous, if you will.

GREAT!

Every, and I mean EVERY gay person with whom I am acquainted…

  1. Works (and pays taxes)
  2. Is generally successful (pays even more taxes)
  3. Is healthy (not a social burden spending tax dollars on public health benefits)
  4. Contributes positively to the community by virtue of the above points.

So, in other words, a bunch of healthy and successful people with no children to weigh them down see Maine as an attractive place to live.

GREAT! Keep 'em coming.

Pun intended.[/quote]

Well that sure is progressive. Who needs children or families when you can have some wealthy queers from San Francisco move in? Besides, children don’t pay any taxes at all. They’re just parasites.[/quote]

You are presenting a logical fallacy of a false dilemma. There is plenty of room in Maine for both gays and heterosexuals. Allowing gays to marry has not, to my knowledge, prevented a single heterosexual couple from starting a family.
[/quote]

It’s a question of value. Traditional marriage is more valuable as it is geared towards reproduction and child rearing. It is the children and the family that creates and nurtures them that creates the value. You actually realise this - even if only subconsciously - because you are trying to add value to gay unions by saying how they have benefited your state. You are trying to raise the social value of gay unions to the level of traditional families - unsuccessfully I might add.