Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Gay marriage

Gay marriage
October 08, 2012, 05:29:53 PM
I'm trying to sort through some of the problems with gay marriage in both political and practical terms.

One of the main problems I'm finding with this latest trendy social issue is the requirement for people of Abrahamic faiths to variously support sin indirectly through the system of taxation. This is similar to how a nation-state might view its indirect financing of terrorism: absolutely off limits.

A proponent might dismiss Abrahamic beliefs as generally irrational, seeing certain sin behaviours as merely a matter of taste rather than consequential, but then they are engaging in bigotry themselves.

Another proponent might suggest a tax break compromise, equivalent to that of a gay marriage household, for every person of an Abrahamic faith. Yet, this means people who do not wish to validate the homosexual family unit and who are not of such faith are excluded from the compromise.

So, the gay marriage proponents value the financial benefits of same sex households along with a new form of normative social validity that was once shunned. This is essentially an issue of equal fairness and protection regardless of the specified "harmless" behaviour or lifestyle.

In other words, proponents assert that a homosexual household is no more harmful to self or society (except for mere matters of taste - a freedom of expression right) than a heterosexual household. Thus, equal right for each is justly deserved.

Given our allegiance to liberal democratic foundational principles, gay marriage proponents cannot ultimately fail this battle. I believe opponents will need to put all of their efforts into reprogramming our founding principles themselves in order to win any prolonged battle of ideas in contemporary times.

The conservative problem is their engaging in traditionalist fighting on a battlefield designed for an exclusively liberal democratic war. This is part of what lends us the popular belief that today's liberal and conservative political parties are basically the same, having only some decorative differences for distinction.

Such an observation is not necessarily true. In reality, the outcome of any battle between parties is going to deliver a liberal democratic compatible result in every single case. Probing the gay marriage issue helps reveal this obscured problem.

Re: Gay marriage
October 08, 2012, 06:02:44 PM
I've tried arguing for traditional marriage entirely on the premise of functionality. What I learned is that  you will never be given the courtesy of a fair debate. Most people cannot fathom the idea of self sacrifice.

There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: Gay marriage
October 09, 2012, 12:59:40 AM
Most people cannot fathom the idea of self sacrifice.

Absolutely true. "Why should I sacrifice what I have? Why can't YOU?" or some other ridiculous accusation follows.

I've wondered - why do gays want to get married (in American terms)? The institution of marriage in America is a fucking joke; do they really think that they'll do better than straight people? I doubt it. The divorce rate is nearly (or at) 50% for straight couples in the USA. I don't think most gays are more adept at avoiding this pitfall as most straight people.

The problem is, there is no conservative precedent (as you pointed out scourge), so traditionalist viewpoints can't apply here. Even a moderately conservative viewpoint (ie - I don't care if gays get married because I'm not gay, it doesn't apply to me) doesn't work here, as many liberals (being the purveyors of ad hominem as they are) would shun this viewpoint and call one a homophobe.

As a side note - I'll provide an insider perspective here. Gay marriage has already become legal in several states. One of my relatives was recently married to a woman she has had a relationship with for around 4-5 years. If this was a man/woman relationship, this could be viewed as ideal; date a long time, live together, get to know each other, and then tie the knot when you have stable careers and a roof over your head (which they both do). As far as I know, they are not planning on having children. I attended this service, and while I was initially ambivalent (and still am, in a lot of ways), there really seemed to be a genuine love and respect between the both of them. Especially when they read each other their vows. I cannot say that I wish them anything less than the best.

I suppose my statements here may be little more than rambling, but I will conclude by saying that a homosexual household like what was outlined above would be stable, moreso than many heterosexual households. Perhaps it comes down to the person, not the sexual orientation? Yeah, we'll go with that.
No.

Having reviewed the thread, baby Jesus is most definitely weeping at this point.

Re: Gay marriage
October 09, 2012, 02:23:11 PM
There is a joke I heard that asks, " why are gay men always so happy?"

The punchline is that they "don't have to live with women"

 Anyway. During one conversation, I was asked about infertile couples.

"Would you deny a marriage license to couples who are infertile?"

For practical reasons, no. The human is a pretty miraculous creature, which isn't to mention the medical procedures available to assist. Though, for the sake of argument, yes, if it meant restoring the family-centric ideal behind marriage.

Predictably, I was given the "what if you were in their position?"

I reaffirmed my position and was treated as a liar, a bigot etc etc.

What I learned: The Odin/Prometheus are mocked scourged and spit upon in this society where they should be venerated.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: Gay marriage
October 09, 2012, 03:34:04 PM
Waagh, their power lies more in secret slander than in outright enmity. If you utter some different than standard opinion on something, they will behind your back misrepresent it and shedding it of all nuances, and suddenly you have a reputation of being a NAZI HOMOPHOBIC MISOGYNISTIC WITCH. That's how it works, and it ruin careers and love lives of many who do not align to their lowest common denominator of binary morals.

Re: Gay marriage
October 09, 2012, 04:07:09 PM
I know. That's why I gave up and no longer waste my time on it.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: Gay marriage
October 09, 2012, 06:45:09 PM
"Would you deny a marriage license to couples who are infertile?"

For practical reasons, no. The human is a pretty miraculous creature, which isn't to mention the medical procedures available to assist. Though, for the sake of argument, yes, if it meant restoring the family-centric ideal behind marriage.

I agree with your sentiment, but what about an infertile couple that wanted to adopt children?
No.

Having reviewed the thread, baby Jesus is most definitely weeping at this point.

Re: Gay marriage
October 10, 2012, 05:26:49 PM

I agree with your sentiment, but what about an infertile couple that wanted to adopt children?

A necessary union.
There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us There's too many of us

Re: Gay marriage
October 14, 2012, 05:41:13 AM
The last thing American conservatives should want is a more energetically pursued campaign of international progressivism.

However, even though American foreign policy is objectively leftist, American conservatives blindly draw psychological solace from the power of the American government and military. Whether because of reactionary nostalgia or Stockholm Syndrome, Conservatism Inc.’s operatives are faithful servants of Obama’s foreign policy agenda, differing only in the tactics of how they would pursue the same goals.

http://www.vdare.com/articles/there-s-no-american-foreign-policy-because-there-s-no-america