Notices


Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


Gay Marriage

   
Gay Marriage

From a moderate blogger who I follow. I don't know or read her son but while I was aware of these events separately I didn't put them in their proper historical context until reading his post.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/11/tonight-is-greatest-night-in-history-of.html"Gay marriage is being legalized in at least two, probably three states, the first time ever in the US it's been legalized by a popular vote rather than by courts or the legislature. Wisconsin elected the first openly gay Senator ever. And, maybe most importantly, the first pro-gay president ever has been re-elected. Because of Obama's re-election, the entire Democratic party will be openly pro-gay marriage, forever and without equivocation. Obama has proven that you can be truly pro-gay and win, and this will have a permanent effect on the entire Democratic party. This is a major turning point for gay rights, and a great contrast to 2008, when we had Obama but also Prop 8."

I honestly have no idea why the republican party is so insistent on shooting itself in the foot over gay marriage. I truly don't see how it would fall under anything besides separation of church and state.

That being said however, if any two people can love each other and swear themselves to each other for eternity, why not three? Four? More? I think everyone should do their own thing in the privacy of their own homes, and government as a whole should treat every adult as individuals for tax purposes and whatever else. I realize that's an overly simplistic view of things and that there are plenty of complicating factors, but that's what I'd like to see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powderhorn View Post
I honestly have no idea why the republican party is so insistent on shooting itself in the foot over gay marriage. I truly don't see how it would fall under anything besides separation of church and state.
It's not just Republicans else it would have passed long ago in states they didn't have a majority. Many, many Dems were just as hesitant to pass it as 2012 being the first time it passed is evidence enough of. I'll not argue it's more popular in one party than the other but it's defeat in such states as California certainly can't be laid at the feet of Republicans exclusively. It wasn't until 2012 that Obama even publicly supported it. There are numerous electoral and demographic reasons for it, but I won't bother to get into them.

It's due to the changing attitude of the nation, not one political party. And I applaud people who put the measures on ballots and sought to win voters instead of filing lawsuits trying to win the issue in court. It's the best way to win the hearts and minds, IMHO.

Quote:
That being said however, if any two people can love each other and swear themselves to each other for eternity, why not three? Four? More? I think everyone should do their own thing in the privacy of their own homes, and government as a whole should treat every adult as individuals for tax purposes and whatever else. I realize that's an overly simplistic view of things and that there are plenty of complicating factors, but that's what I'd like to see.
I don't know what your personal situation is but my wife and I share everything when it comes to finances. No sense in paying an accountant to figure out who's return gets the child deduction, who's gets the tax on joint checking account interest, etc. Not to mention other benefits like not having to testify against each other (I don't foresee needing it but it doesn't mean it's not important), various medical rights related to each other, etc. It's much easier from a legal standpoint to just redefine marriage to suit a changing society than it is to invent a new framework for all those things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powderhorn View Post
That being said however, if any two people can love each other and swear themselves to each other for eternity, why not three? Four? More? I think everyone should do their own thing in the privacy of their own homes, and government as a whole should treat every adult as individuals for tax purposes and whatever else. I realize that's an overly simplistic view of things and that there are plenty of complicating factors, but that's what I'd like to see.
I agree, except that I don't want to see this happen until health care is fully socialized, so that employers aren't responsible for health insurance anymore. That way we won't need every member of a family with a job so that they can have insurance.

Other than that, it's an issue that I think the government has no real need to stick its nose into, and as long as the GOP continues to be socially conservative on this issue, they're going to suffer for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
I don't know what your personal situation is but my wife and I share everything when it comes to finances. No sense in paying an accountant to figure out who's return gets the child deduction, who's gets the tax on joint checking account interest, etc. Not to mention other benefits like not having to testify against each other (I don't foresee needing it but it doesn't mean it's not important), various medical rights related to each other, etc. It's much easier from a legal standpoint to just redefine marriage to suit a changing society than it is to invent a new framework for all those things.
That's exactly why I said I knew it was an overly simplistic view of things I voted for Johnson too, and I didn't expect that one to happen either!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powderhorn View Post
I honestly have no idea why the republican party is so insistent on shooting itself in the foot over gay marriage. I truly don't see how it would fall under anything besides separation of church and state.

That being said however, if any two people can love each other and swear themselves to each other for eternity, why not three? Four? More? I think everyone should do their own thing in the privacy of their own homes, and government as a whole should treat every adult as individuals for tax purposes and whatever else. I realize that's an overly simplistic view of things and that there are plenty of complicating factors, but that's what I'd like to see.
I think you should be allowed to be "married" to one person for legal reasons. Not really discrimination, because any more would be unfair non-polygemists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelkon View Post
I think you should be allowed to be "married" to one person for legal reasons. Not really discrimination, because any more would be unfair non-polygemists.
It wouldn't be "unfair" because everyone would have the ability to marry multiple people.

But, my views on sex and marriage differ from pretty much anyone else's, so I'm not the authority. For example, I think sexual identity is a joke. Anyone can love anyone. It's all about sex (the act), which I don't think should be limited to just a single individual (or select few, on the topic of polygamists).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkaelis View Post
It wouldn't be "unfair" because everyone would have the ability to marry multiple people.
What's to stop me from marrying everyone I know for tax benefits? Time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zelkon View Post
What's to stop me from marrying everyone I know for tax benefits? Time?
That's the correct argument for it. "Fairness" doesn't enter into it.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Myth-Weavers Status