Do you feel conflicted about gay marriage?

[zacb]

I feel conflicted about gay marriage. On one hand, I want everyone to enter into voluntary associations if they want to. But on the other hand, I feel like there is unintended consequences in the current iterations of the laws. If the government redefines marriage, could it also redefine discrimination laws? I guess I am a little puzzled with fellow libertarians. Don't they see the possibilities from these laws? Maybe I don't understand it correctly. But why can't they instead of "legalizing gay marriage", they just instead deregulate it. Do any of you have the same reservations? You are libertarian on the issue, yet socially conservative at the same time.

[Teal Lantern]

I feel conflicted about gay marriage. On one hand, I want everyone to enter into voluntary associations if they want to. But on the other hand, I feel like there is unintended consequences in the current iterations of the laws. If the government redefines marriage, could it also redefine discrimination laws? I guess I am a little puzzled with fellow libertarians. Don't they see the possibilities from these laws? Maybe I don't understand it correctly. But why can't they instead of "legalizing gay marriage", they just instead deregulate it. Do any of you have the same reservations? You are libertarian on the issue, yet socially conservative at the same time.

My main feeling is that they are going to get more than they bargained for.
As an aside, fem-fem relationships are the LEAST stable of pairings.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47689482/ns ... l_finance/

[zacb]

Interesting, in the media it is always portrayed as the opposite (the are the most stable )

[Teal Lantern]

Interesting, in the media it is always portrayed as the opposite (the are the most stable )

Lessons From a Gay Marriage
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles ... y-marriage

Are Lesbian Marriages Doomed for Failure?
http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/are ... or-failure

Turn off the TV; the media is full of $#!^.

[Ghost]

.

[Dragon]

I feel conflicted about gay marriage. On one hand, I want everyone to enter into voluntary associations if they want to. But on the other hand, I feel like there is unintended consequences in the current iterations of the laws. If the government redefines marriage, could it also redefine discrimination laws? I guess I am a little puzzled with fellow libertarians. Don't they see the possibilities from these laws? Maybe I don't understand it correctly. But why can't they instead of "legalizing gay marriage", they just instead deregulate it. Do any of you have the same reservations? You are libertarian on the issue, yet socially conservative at the same time.

I don't understand your reasoning. How can redefining marriage lead to redefining discrimination laws? If you're asking for social consequences of legalizing gay marriage, most of them are negligible--meaning it really can't get any worse. Marriage, whether towards gays or straights, is already a ruined social institution. So what if marriage is redefined? If the US Department of Health redefined fecal matter as primarily digested corn and spinach, it will still smell bad. Redefining marriage is like redefining crap. It doesn't matter. It's already broken and smells bad.

I agree on the deregulation part. Marriage should be a cultural institution, not a governmental one. Not that it matters here though.

I tend to view it as a way for avoiding the real issues. Focusing on gay marriage is a counterfeit problem. The conservatives are stupid when it comes to this. They are supposedly worried that gay marriage disrupts, degrades, or destroys heterosexual marriage, but that is a load of steaming horseshit.

Divorce and adultery destroy marriage. Gay people can do whatever they want and it won't matter one iota to heteros. And yet somehow, the media, mainstream "conservatives," etc. can't figure it out.

All the better for TPTB to mislead and distract the sheeple, after all.

I agree. Gay marriage is non-issue. It's on the same level of importance as whether I should wear jeans or khakis today (hint: I don't like to wear pants ). I don't support gay marriage, but at the same time I'm not against it either. This is what it being a non-issue is. I really don't care. To be fair, I don't expect gays to care for straight guys in a biased divorce court system. However, I don't blame them as it is understandable, since it doesn't concern them--in the same way gay marriage doesn't concern me.

[zacb]

What I am saying is that in a future scenario, you can not discriminate based upon sexual orientation, and a Christian organization or others would have to do something against their will. I believe the government should not discriminate, but there is a possibility in the future that employers might have to pay for hetro and non-hetro benefits, even if it is against their beliefs. Plus, there might be special "hate crime" laws to prevent discrimination. That is my only problem. I just think if the government tries to right a wrong, it will only make it worse (civil rights taking away state rights). I could be wrong, but I have a gut feeling about this. But I am all for deregulating marriage.

[Ginger]

[drealm]

they even blame lady gaga here for the rise of STDs, evil of the world, abortions, etc. People can be so much in denial. tsk tsk tsk...

I don't see a problem with that.

[Ginger]

[djfourmoney]

Gays already Hate Crime laws, I forgot what its called but it was a big deal when it passed during Obama's first year in office. Why would gays having protection under the law brother you???

Rise in STD's???? Rise in STD's is simple human logic "It won't happen to me"

This is why young girls get pregnant knowing full well having unprotected sex almost assures you getting pregnant.

I don't blame any popular culture construct for any of this. In the South they have a completely different mindset on social issues because for many its based around the Old Testament.

This is why they don't like Liberals because they believe we are Anti-Christ and allow all sorts of things the Bible questions on a regular basis or bans.

The South should be annexed and those with more reasonable mindsets would be allowed to leave.

[zacb]

Ok, then let me ask you this, would there be any postive reprecussions in you view (that may be negative in our view)? Would businesses be forced to give benefits to couples for instance, or would churxhes be forced against their will to perform civil ceremonies? I guess those are the questions in my mind. I am open for suggestion.

[S_Parc]

Fellas, gays do not have to get married, as a default condition for having been born gay. In other words, unlike us heterosexual Yankee men, gays have a complete subculture within the urban fold of America.

In my state of Massachusetts, the South End of Boston (cityside) and then, seaside Provincetown, at the end of the Cape Cod peninsula, are enclaves for gay men. And then, outside of their enclaves, they have these secret societies, based on the colleges' LGB alma mater outreach, esp circa college towns like Northampton MA. Thus, unlike many of us, these folks have a complete social life, after entering the workforce.

In reality, if you're not hopelessly ugly or 110% boring, you should have no trouble, as a gay guy, finding male friends, flings, or long term relationships. There's no trickery or deception here, to enforce a pattern of gay marriage. In fact, our openly gay Congressman, Barney Frank, only got married recently, after decades of going steady with someone. For heteros, that's almost never the case, as the guy would need to propose, come years number 3 or 4, or the gal would leave him for someone else. Hence, a lot of straight men get married, to avoid being single or lonely for life. So if anything, gays have it made. The fellas suffering are the straight ones.

Thus, don't worry about gay marriage, worry about the sorry state of heterosexuality in America.

[Ginger]

[S_Parc]

Thus, don't worry about gay marriage, worry about the sorry state of heterosexuality in America.

Same thing holds true here in PI.

Yes, but it's different in America. In America, there's a faux sense of heterosexual normalcy where mainstreamers put on a facade that they tolerate gays but then, turn around and say mean things behind their backs. But then conversely, gays already have a type of community so why would they care what folks say behind their backs, to begin with? In fact, the most pain that gays experience is the potential rejection by their parents, if the parents are old-school a/o born again. I know for fact that my dad would have disowned me, had I been gay. For him, being gay is being a communist.

Now, these hetero mainstreamers pat themselves on the back but have mediocre dating lives, seldom make friends outside of work or their school's alma mater & yet, can't perceive that being a heterosexual is nothing great in America. This is possibly a way of putting down others, as a way of propping oneself up. I think the solution here is for straight guys to drop the straight-jacket of American society and find one's own way, either by seeing esc@rts in Canada/Mexico or moving abroad.

Where gays, of course, have to be careful is in dealing with the violent homophobes who specifically target them for harassment a/o assault & battery. The only answer for that, unfortunately, is to leave those communities, where law enforcement on hate crimes is lax, for Boston, Toronto, NYC, San Fran, or LA. And then, once again, they're all set, if they're gay. Straight guys, on the other hand, will find themselves somewhat lonely in Boston, Toronto, NYC, San Fran, or LA.