"Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Marry?" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

seretogis · 06-18-2004, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Should Gay Couples Be Allowed to Marry?

"Marriage partners, not government, should define the terms and spiritual
orientation of their union in accordance with our nation's guarantee of
religious freedom."

Should gay marriage be permitted? Is such marriage a basic human right or an
abomination that should never be sanctioned?

Establishment politicians are divided, much as their constituents are. No
matter what laws they enact or fail to enact, the division will remain and
the fighting will continue. Are we doomed to be a house divided?

Establishment politicians can't solve this real world problem because they
aren't asking the tough question: "Should lovers jointly decide what their
marriage will be or should government dictate the terms of their most
intimate union?"

Today, of course, government decides if a couple is even permitted to marry
through a licensing process. In other times and places, marriage licenses
were denied to interracial or other politically incorrect couples, just as
it can be denied to gay couples today.

When government permission is granted, the marriage constitutes a legal,
binding contract, with terms that vary over time and with the location of
residence. Since these terms are not written down, but are simply a matter
of case law and creative legal tactics, a couple rarely finds out what they
are until faced with a divorce. Men discover that their claim to custody can
be prejudiced simply by their sex. Women find that that their worth as a
homemaker varies from state to state. Prenuptial agreements are honored by
some courts and heavily discounted by others. The couples find themselves
bound, not by what they themselves have agreed upon, but by what government
officials dictate.

Like every partnership, marriage should fit the individuals it unites,
rather than be a "one-size-fits all" proposition defined by those outside
the relationship. Each marriage should be what the partners want it to be-no
more, no less. Ideally, the terms of marriage should be defined ahead of
time with procedures to modify them as necessary.

Just as anyone can engage in a business relationship, any individuals should
be able to enter into a marriage. Government's role in a business
partnership is to simply enforce, not dictate, its terms. Government's role
in marriage should be the same.

When marriage is taken out of the legal realm, it is seen for what it has
always been: a matter of heart and soul. Just as the Catholic Church has
historically disdained divorce among its congregation, so too will some
religious groups refuse to bless gay unions. Both those who support and
those who condemn gay marriage will be free to practice their beliefs and
persuade others to their way of thinking. Each individual will be free to
choose. Isn't that what America's all about?

We know how to live and let live. Our nation was founded-and prospered-on
that principle. Religious tolerance, the real issue in gay marriage, allows
us to live peacefully even though our beliefs may radically differ.

Freedom is the one thing we cannot have unless we give it to others. The
blessings our nation enjoys today is built upon that expression of free
will. If you elect me as your president, marriage will no longer be a
political football, but a matter for hearts and souls.

I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough
questions-to give you answers that really work!

"Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!"
Badnarik for President
http://www.badnarik.org

I know the issue has been debated to death on this board, but I thought it would be interesting to some of you to see what the Libertarian Presidential candidate's official opinion was.

nanofever · 06-18-2004, 12:42 PM

Being a social Libertarian, I can't help but agree with article's views on marriage, however; I strongly diverge with that party on business issues.

Locobot · 06-18-2004, 06:15 PM

Yep, Libertarians support gay marriage, no surprise there.

OFKU0 · 06-18-2004, 08:47 PM

Well they are people too. Why not.

Religion seems to be the overriding factor in this issue which is unfortunate, since religion has become as irrelevent and extreme as to the supposed doctrines it preaches against.

Indifference and intolerance are words you will hear from the church for those who don't believe, yet change the context to gays and the hypocrisy is ripe for picking.

I think it's sad. It's even more sad that people actually believe such ignorance as willfully as sheep going to pasture to graze.

highthief · 06-19-2004, 04:29 AM

Gay marriage hurts absolutely no one. No one is hurt by two people of whatever gender marrying. It may piss some people off, it may make some people uncomfortable, but no animal, vegetable or mineral is hurt if a couple of same gender people want to exchange rings and sign a piece of paper.

And it makes those people very happy.

So why not? No one has yet formed an arguement against gay marriage that does not involve religion or "it makes me feel all icky".

Yakk · 06-19-2004, 08:38 AM

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a286

More seriously, many people are afriad of things that are different. And there are other people willing to use that for political gain.

Nothing new, unfortunetally.

gondath · 06-20-2004, 08:03 AM

Look at the other thread if you are seeking motives against gay marriage not related to religion.

06-18-2004, 12:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
nanofever Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe. Location: UCSB	Being a social Libertarian, I can't help but agree with article's views on marriage, however; I strongly diverge with that party on business issues. __________________ I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

06-18-2004, 08:47 PM	#4 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	Well they are people too. Why not. Religion seems to be the overriding factor in this issue which is unfortunate, since religion has become as irrelevent and extreme as to the supposed doctrines it preaches against. Indifference and intolerance are words you will hear from the church for those who don't believe, yet change the context to gays and the hypocrisy is ripe for picking. I think it's sad. It's even more sad that people actually believe such ignorance as willfully as sheep going to pasture to graze. __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

06-19-2004, 04:29 AM	#5 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Gay marriage hurts absolutely no one. No one is hurt by two people of whatever gender marrying. It may piss some people off, it may make some people uncomfortable, but no animal, vegetable or mineral is hurt if a couple of same gender people want to exchange rings and sign a piece of paper. And it makes those people very happy. So why not? No one has yet formed an arguement against gay marriage that does not involve religion or "it makes me feel all icky". __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

06-19-2004, 08:38 AM	#6 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a286 More seriously, many people are afriad of things that are different. And there are other people willing to use that for political gain. Nothing new, unfortunetally. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

06-18-2004, 06:15 PM	#3 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Yep, Libertarians support gay marriage, no surprise there.

06-20-2004, 08:03 AM	#7 (permalink)
gondath Insane Location: Alton, IL	Look at the other thread if you are seeking motives against gay marriage not related to religion.