The Glade 4.0

How about the government finds a way to let people do what they want rather than changing the definitions of ideas that aren't theirs to change.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I’d just like to point out, that people of the opposite sex get married for all sorts of reasons these days, that includes monetary gain and tax cuts. So why not let people of the same sex do the same?

Family marrying each other is a little different (incest laws comes to mind), but for everyone else, I’d say knock yourself out (age sensitive though).

Personally I’d think gay parents would make better parents than most couples as they actively seek parent hood, where as half (quick statistic note: “Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York estimates that up to 49 percent of the pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned”) of the people who have kids didn’t even intend it in the first place. (mostly teen pregnancies).

You want people who would never abort their child? Give them to the gay parents.

And therein lies the problem. Is a government marriage certificate permission and/or endorsement of sex? To what purpose? Reproduction? Incest laws are created to prevent inbreeding. If gay couples can't breed anyway, then allowing gay marriage means that the government is no longer regulating breeding through marriage. So why not family members? Keep the laws that say they can't breed, but marriage isn't about breeding anymore....

Laws against incest are anachronistic blue laws that should be repealled in countries where reproductive control is assured. Cultural taboos will still be in place to prevent it for centuries, yet, but government has no business telling consenting adults what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

That's irrelevant. We're talking about marriage. She clearly has a problem with incest, and so I framed the question in that manner. Still, society as a whole benefits from regulation of unhealthy practices. People need to be told not to do harmful things. I hate to admit it, but it's a sad truth. It does work.

Actually, they don't. That's a problem that eventually resolves itself.

_________________

Homosexuals don't need the government to redefine marriage in order to adopt or acquire a sperm donor. States or individuals and organizations that have children in need are able to place them with homosexuals as they see fit.

Same as a man doesn't need a piece of paper from the government to stand up in front of all his friends and say I love this other man and want to spend the rest of my life with him.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

No but they do need it for inheritance, funeral, medical and other associations which can be done simply for heterosexual couples but not homosexual ones, this is not equitable consideration before the law.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Do they?

I can't leave my money to whoever I want if I provide the documentation before hand?

If a company wants to provide domestic partner benefits they are welcome to do so. I thought we wanted the government out of our healthcare elmo.

I can give out a HIPPA code in advance and total strangers can come to the hospital and know what's going on with me.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

This is true, but that's not best for society as a whole. It's an unpleasant fact, but it does work sometimes. Smoking rates are a good example.

The problem I have with incest is more genetic. The closer the genetics are, the higher the probability of producing unhealthy children.

I said it’s a little different as there are other laws associated the approval of, and not different as in I oppose it. I personally wouldn’t do it for the above reasons, but I believe in personal responsibility and not government nannying.

So you either regulate everything equally or take away the regulations altogether. Anything else is simply discrimination.

(in case I wasn't clear, my position is I don't care who marries who, as long as they are sound of mind, not under duress and of legal age. The jury's still out on different species, and can't say i've thought about it much.)



Unfortunately you can not simply acquire sperm donations or adoption if you’re not married. Adoptions within Australia are difficult at best, which results in more adoptions from overseas than within. I’m pretty sure the US would also have regulations in place as to the type of person allowed to adopt. Age, income, marital status, health and state of mind are some of the first things that come to mind. Sperm donations while easier, is a lot more expensive and only viable for lesbians.

Sure, one at a time, however the single document that combines all those and more legal rights is denied them. Equality under the law demands the same level of access. You can not like it all you want but the law is above you.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

No they have the same access to marriage with the same restrictions as anyone else. It's only when you redefine what that means to suit your needs is an inequality made. i don't think the government should have the power to do that. If you think that married couples shouldn't have more benefits than unmarried ones that a valid argument, but don't the government doesn't need to redefine something that it shouldn't have the authority to do. I though you were for limited government.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I think you are mistaken. Regulation of unhealthy practices is demanded when mandates for resource expenditure on the consequences of those practices are in force. Neither of those are required, nor do they work, although I realize you probably have a different definition of "work".

_________________

The government is prohibited from discriminating based on sex. Marriage discriminates based on sex of the partner.

The government has two choices - establish marriage for all or remove marriage from the purview of what they do. It seems neither would be acceptable to you.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I assume this line is meant to be taken as, "Sure, they have the same rights as anyone else in the sense that we're all allowed to marry the opposite sex and reap benefits"? Which would be using the definition of marriage as a union between opposite sexes but...

Is Merriam-Webster not a good dictionary source anymore? Because they seem to be covering all the bases:

Emphasis mine.

Prohibiting gay marriage is discrimination. If you can legally marry Jane but your friend Sue can't marry Jane, then obviously Sue is being discriminated against. Look up the word discrimination if you are having difficulties comprehending this. Regardless of whether you agree with the discrimination, you should at least acknowledge it.

Incest has a small chance of causing genetic diseases. However, the government should not be in the business of regulating genetics. I am afflicted with a mental illness actually that could be genetically based, should it be illegal for me to marry someone? Also, what about black couples? Should it be illegal to have a son that would statistically commit 7x more crimes than the average white person?

Lex, you do have...a way with words. I'm not sure it's necessarily a good way, but it's definitely a way.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

So your argument is that society as a whole is better off without the reductions in smoking (that have resulted from the restrictions), provided society stops caring for those who get sick from smoking?

If so, I have to say, that's a pretty terrible argument IMO.

When did Coro move to Westboro?

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

i agree that the government has no business telling anyone what they can or cannot do with their bodies, but I take issue with your statement about cultural taboos. It used to be taboo to be an unwed mother, now it's sancitified to the point of being preferable to being married (taking into factors of social assistance). That didn't take that long to turn around, maybe 3 generations?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

I'd very much like to see justified responses to Lex's questions.

I wonder when that definition was added in curiously. I believe in a God ordained definition of marriage. Even if you don't believe in a divinely inspired Genesis, it certainly predates Webster by a couple of Milennia. What people do in their bedrooms is their business, but when a government continuously tries to take the place of God I have a right to my opinion about that. It's my opinion you can take it or leave it.

Elmo, personally i'd like to see a flat tax and have the government get out of the marriage business in general. The Federal government isn't supposed to be involved in it at all constitutionally. States can do as they like. The voters of my state made a decision about this and should be allowed to abide by it. Isn't this what Federalism and Constitutional Conservatism is supposed to be about?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Great. Now, why should your opinion or belief have anything to do with the governing laws of our country, which is admittedly supposed to keep the two separate? I expect the answer to this will be, "government shouldn't have a hand in marriage at all, because it is a holy union" but it's already too late for that. Government already has its hand in our unions, and that isn't likely to change.