Gay Marriage

I am glad that I managed to surprise you. I do try! And while I understand your incredulity at the thought of straight people giving up their marriages, that isn't a good reason to put up with it. To use the inevitable slavery parallel, slave owners were absolutely adamant about not giving up their slaves. But they were forced to anyways, because to hold slaves is WRONG. It is entirely discriminatory against black individuals to treat them as mere property. Granted the discrimination of legal marriage rights against singletons and promiscuous folk is of a much less dramatic stripe, and much less destructive; still it is unfair. Similarly, barring blacks from attending certain schools is a lot less horrible than declaring them to be property, but its still discrimination and still destructive. "Therefore, by the government not recognizing same-sex marriages, also leaves people with the impression that they do not approve of them because straight marriages are recognized. If straight marriages are recognized by the government, shouldn't gay ones be recognized also? If not, then no marriages whatsoever should be recognized because it is a restriction on the American people and one that the government shouldn't even have a preference in in the first place." I see your point; however let me try to sketch a parallel case for you to illustrate the flaw in your reasoning. In the south before the civil war, white people had the right to own black people as slaves. This was clearly discriminatory against blacks, and it was wrong. What if, to address this, rather than barring any individual from owning any other, they had instead changed the law so that black people could also own white people as slaves? Would that have remedied or multiplied the injustice? IOW: since it is wrong to discriminate against people not in a certain kind of relationship, is it not equally wrong to expand the parameters for such a relationship while still keeping the discriminatory limits in place? If gay marriages are granted recognition (and thereby reward), shouldn't there also be a "singleton" tax credit or a "multiple parter" tax credit? And doesn't it make more sense for the government to stay silent on the matter of relationships rather than to attempt to draft legislation for every type of relationship status they can come up with? Given the complexity of social interactions among individuals the necessary body of law would become absurdly complex. It makes much more sense to abolish the practice altogether. "I agree with your point that laws that cause restriction are definitely necessary, but do gay marriages cause people to be murdered, things to be stolen, or children to be sexually abused?" Absolutely not. As I said in my round, twice, I was merely pointing out that liberty is not inviolable. However, to expand, I don't think liberty is infringed in this case to a significant degree anyway. Gay couples are free to engage in any practices they please without being interfered with by the government, and if they experience any violence from others in response to their sometimes unpopular lifestyle, they have legal recourse against the perpetrators. I am not sure about this "freedom to get a tax credit from the government because I am in love". That seems like an unfounded and outdated relic rather than any form of actual liberty. "Marriage laws actually were enforced in the Prop 8 case for the reason of "proscribing generally accepted conduct" since arguers that supported the marriage laws stated that it would teach children that gay marriages are okay. This said that if California continued to allow gays to marry other gays, then people would believe that it is normal, which is a bad thing. " If everyone thinks that gay relationships are not ok already, then gay marriage is not "generally accepted conduct" at all. However, that does not make gay relationships wrong, and to fear people thinking of them as normal (which they are!) is wrongheaded and absurd. I think you would agree there. Even generally accepted conduct, however, can be discriminatory. Marriage laws are, inherently, unless they are expanded to cover every possible category of relationship equally. "Gay people do not wish to "redefine" marriage as some might argue, rather, they fight for the right to declare their relationships to be full of unconditional love and to celebrate their love with a ceremony and a party." They can do that now! No one, no law, is stopping them. "Marriage also is a foundation for the start of a family. Although, marriages lead to a family, that may be the purpose of the government in rewarding married couples with tax breaks." While I also think the government has no business rewarding people for popping out children, there is at least some logic to this. The rate of live births between 1910 and 2005 fell from 30.1 to 14 per 1000 individuals. [1] And while the average life expectancy back then was around only 50, in 2005 life expectancy hit a record high of around 78. [2][3] Taken together, these numbers indicate an aging population, which tend to put a strain on social services and cause other economic stresses.[4][5][6] Encouraging people to have more children by offering tax credits is one way for the government to offset a future crisis. Tax credits for children are not arbitrary and already exist.[7] But since marriage doesn't always lead to children, and marriage licenses aren't refused to infertile couples, that point is irrelevant. "I would agree with your statement on marriage being unconstitutional and not a government affair, but, as I stated before, I doubt straight couples would give up their tax breaks that the government provides for them. Regardless, I believe that either, way (in allowing gay couples to marry, or by eliminating government actions involving marriage) that an equality should be reached." The only way to reach equality is to abolish government involvement in marriage. All the other legal issues, such as children, hospital visiting rights, power of attorney, etc, can be dealt with by specific laws dealing with those specific issues. There is no reason that ANY person should not be able to appoint any other person as their legal proxy regardless of their relationship. Fighting for gay marriage is still fighting for the government to recognize some relationships and not others; while it is a step in decreasing the number of people discriminated against, it is still a fight to maintain discriminatory policies. 1. http://www.infoplease.com... 2. http://kclibrary.lonestar.edu... 3. http://www.cdc.gov... 4. http://longevity-science.org... 5. http://www.urban.org... 6. http://www.ifs.org.uk... 7. http://financialplan.about.com...