Gay marriage thoughts

[LuckyTheDog]

A stream-of-consciousness post:

There is a strong argument to be made that a free society should be predisposed toward assuming personal behavior is legal unless there is a reason to make it illegal, that is, if some kind of harm would be done to society or to other individuals.

To my mind, banning gay marriage does not pass that test.

And clearly, there is no slippery slope here. Making gay marriage legal would not "require" us to make incestuous marriage legal. After all, that taboo is based on the potential genetic damage to the community should such a thing become commonplace. Same could be said for polygamy (too few men breeding with too many women).

Those GOPers who say "heck why not let me marry a sheep then," are just idiotic. Forget that comparing homosexuality to bestiality is bigoted and hateful. There also is the practical matter that animals cannot give their consent to such an arrangement.

[bertha katzenengel]

1. Welcome to DU

from a gay DUer :hi:

[LuckyTheDog]

4. Thanks

For the record: I am straight and married. And I don't see how my marriage would be "redefined" or threatened one bit if marriage was expanded to include same-sex couples.

[bertha katzenengel]

9. Neither do I.

We've been saying this for years. You probably have, too.

Or did you arrive at this epiphany slowly? Either way, welcome.

[LuckyTheDog]

14. Actually...

For a long time, I agreed with the John Kerry position: call it domestic partnership. But eventually it occurred to me that it made more sense (and was more intellectually honest) to favor expanding marriage to include same-sex couples.

[ClassWarrior]

2. First of all, don't call it "gay marriage."

What we're talking about here is "marriage rights." It's the right to marry whomever you love, without the government interfering. Regardless of "romantic orientation."

NGU.

[marmar]

3. That whole conservative argument...

about "what's next, the legalization of incestuous marriage" or "marriage to children" equates homosexuality with things considered deviant, regardless of sexual orientation. The whole premise of the argument is hateful.

[ClassWarrior]

8. Turn it around on them: If the government can tell gay people...

...who they can or can't marry, then who's next? Catholics? Polish people? Blue collar workers?

By the way, don't frame it as "sexual orientation." We want to make this about love - call it "romantic orientation."

NGU.

[RBHam]

5. Homophobia is a Republican Family Value.

Gay? Can't handle the closet? Too bad. Kill yourself.

[Dark]

6. I just ask republicans why they feel that they can deny rights to one

group of people JUST because they don't want to have to TALK about giving rights to other people.

[sui generis]

7. basically it's about human decency

You aren't going to make more people get married to members of the opposite sex by banning same sex marriage.

And heterosexuals are certainly never going to "choose" to be gay just because they can now get married.

Finally, marriage is not about "sacredness" in the eyes of the government. It is about managing property, estates, assets, and mutual fiscal responsibility when two people with assets and income commit to support each other.

For one American to say that any other American should "not be allowed", or should be "banned" from doing that is just vile and unAmerican, as well as being immoral. It is immoral because the absence of those protections means that an entire class of people are being discriminated against for having blue eyes or red hair or being gay; an entire class of people and their families are not allowed the happiness and the security of a recognized legal commitment, and that is profoundly immoral.

[Technowitch]

10. Welcome to DU, Lucky -- and thanks

As a bisexual woman in a same-sex marriage, it's really wonderful to read the words of someone who 'gets it'.

[Lexingtonian]

11. yep

That's the bottom line argument in gay marriage lawsuits. "No legitimate state interests" is the standard phrasing.

The anti folks have had to strain very hard to come up with non-ridiculous excuses for why the state (government, in American English) has interests involved. The usual one they try is that gay couples can't raise children properly, but the facts don't actually support that one (or any other).

The practical problems with incestuous marriage and polygamy are not strictly genetic. They turn out to be the continuum of underaged sex-lack of adult consent-rape, marriage not consented to, bigamy, and then inability to support/raise the children, which result in all the phenomena of marriages that are failures- infidelity, spousal desertion, spousal abuse, child abuse/neglect. In certain environments, usually where there are very few people or very few socially available people, incestuous relationships and polygamy can work out. In relatively open societies, e.g. mainstream American ones, they are extremely prone to failure.

As for the "oh no, bestiality is next" crowd, these are people who have no grasp of the distinction between anarchy (no rules) and freedom (just enough rules that people can live the good lives they wish to).

[AlCzervik]

12. The gop doesn't want gays to marry because they don't want to

shrink the tax base, the marriage penalty is gone now. IMO thats what it's really about.

[Chovexani]

13. Welcome to DU

And thanks for your perspective. Common sense is always appreciated. :hi:

[CornField]

15. Those against marriage = confusing religious rites with civil rights

Outside of the narrow realm of religion, there is no case to be made against the union of two people who are in love.