tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post8993837246555275067..comments2024-03-27T20:09:11.399-06:00Comments on Unabashedly American: A Refutation of the Case for Gay "Marriage"Darrell Michaelshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-6933141240931872712013-04-15T11:51:24.912-06:002013-04-15T11:51:24.912-06:00General Urko, part of my argument was indeed relig...General Urko, part of my argument was indeed religious. A large part was based on natural law and thousands of years of anthropological history and societal constructions that have proven to work best over the millennia for the propagation of our species and the advancement of our societies.<br /><br />As for your comments regarding the government laws on this issue, the Libertarian side of me would be inclined to agree with you. I would be fine if the government were to now disavow itself of any perq’s or disincentives in the law for married people if they were to rescind such laws and remove themselves from the debate entirely. The fact of the matter is that there is no way that is going to happen now.<br /><br />I can understand in the past why the government wanted to promote marriage. One of the typical products of marriage is new future tax payers. Further, kids raised in a home with their married parents are less likely going to become troublesome with law enforcement and more likely to do adequately well in school. In other words, they are far less likely to become a burden on society and governmental safety net programs. <br /><br />Since marriage is largely seen as irrelevant by many folks, especially by the younger generations these days, the point is basically moot. How many weddings have you been to of younger couples where they had been living together before hand and/or already had kids by the time the ceremony came around. Marriage isn’t taken as the commitment and religious sacrament that it was originally intended to be any more, and as such, since marriage has no major importance societally as it once did, why shouldn’t the definition be expanded to include any adults, animals, objects that are consenting in their agreement to tie the knot?<br /><br />Furthermore, why should we be discriminatory against pedophiles marrying their consenting child spouses? It used to be that all of the psychological societies would stipulate that homosexuality was disordered. Now it is normative and just another lifestyle choice. I guarantee you that polygamy will be the next battle and then eventually pedophilia. There are already arguments being made in support of that around the fringes today. How long until that fringe group becomes as mainstream as the LGBT lobby.<br /><br />Again, I am not for sodomy laws or preventing any adult from any private behavior. Further, I think inheritance , insurance, and many of the other legalities should be open and available to everyone to manage such things as they see fit, regardless of whether they are married or not.<br /><br />Society is already careening out of control. Same sex marriages is just one more symptom of that decline, in my opinion. Like I said in my post though, it really doesn’t matter what I and those of like mind with me want when it comes to defending the sacrament of marriage. The government is involved in the process and the LGBT lobby will eventually win the day soon when they can legally “marry” their same sex partner. <br /><br />I will ask you, as a bright and relatively objective person, what do you think the ramifications for society will be a generation or two after this comes to pass? Do you really think things will be better because of this or worse?<br />Darrell Michaelshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05474956372325309461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-408858764761620479.post-25828882846505376612013-04-14T15:54:11.942-06:002013-04-14T15:54:11.942-06:00The problem with this argument is that it is relig...The problem with this argument is that it is religious in nature. This is an issue of how the government is going to treat the citizens of the country. It is also what happens when you involve government in any issue. If laws would not favor married people over unmarried people then we don't have any kind of argument of being married is a good thing or not. At least you can say that on a policy level. The same can be said with Heterosexual Marriage and Homosexual Marriage between consenting adults. The government shouldn't be treating people different for tax purposes, insurance purposes, child rearing purposes, inheritance purposes, and a plethora of other purposes that adults in relationships make decisions on one another.<br /><br />What should the government do in the case of relationships between people? They obviously can get involved if we are talking about children marrying children or adults. Or sex between children and adults. However, that is about it. People should enter into consenting adult relationships without government encouragement or with government non-encouragement. Religious people loved it when government was involved in marriage and it benefitted them, but as usual government takes things where it wants after it gets involved. This is the moral of the story is not that homosexuality is immoral. Government should be in the business of protecting liberties not in the business of deciding whose liberties are more important than others. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com