Gay Marriage

[Richard_Halley]

but the only times I have heard research about promiscuity and sexuality, it has suggested that the overall rates of monogymy are about the same, have you heard recent research to the contrary? do you have it available as a link?

Monogamy is only an issue when discussing the pre-existing condition clause. Once we have established that a good chunk of the relationships are not monogamous, all that matters is the liabilities involved in insuring someone.

[mareee]

I have a gay friend and he isn't religious at all and doesn't want to go thru this issue with his partner. they have been happy being together as they are for the last 8yrs. But the thought of gay couples being married raises many questions in me, for instance: Are they religious at all? isn't marriage a joining of a man and woman as stated in the bible? and I was always told that church and state should be separate. an amendment shouldn't be done at all. but then i would think that depends upon what religion you are in. the church they marry in should decide if such a thing should happen and I would think they would be denied. also, why call it marriage, isn't there something called a partnership that gives them some of the same benefits? if not, that is something the state could handle if they absolutely want to be joined with the priviledges a marriage gives. just a few thoughts

[Godless Capitalist]

mareee: Marriage is now a legal matter rather than a religious one. I had a completely nonreligious marriage, but its just as valid as a religious one.

My take on the original question is that marriage should be a matter of private contracts. Government's only role should be enforce the contracts, not to set a standard contract. There is in fact no need for a standard contract (even today there are not really standard contracts, since people have prenups to customize their contract.)

Criminals value thievery and murder by conscious choice; there is no criminal gene...

Lazy fools value idleness and sloth by choice; there is no laziness gene...

Fat people value overeating by choice; there is no obesity gene...

Gay people are born that way, there is no choice involved(!)

Which of these premises seems arbitrary?

Please describe exactly when and how you decided to be heterosexual.

[Godless Capitalist]

We've concluded that, by obviousness, sexual preference is not an uncontrollable genetic/biological phenomenon; it is the product of volition. 

I haven't concluded that, and even if its true its certainly not obvious. I'll ask you the same thing as Bearster: Please describe exactly when and how you decided to be heterosexual.

[y_feldblum]

I haven't concluded that, and even if its true its certainly not obvious. I'll ask you the same thing as Bearster:  Please describe exactly when and how you decided to be heterosexual.

When I said "by obviousness", I meant something akin to, "axiomatically, as a direct application of an axiom." It is an axiom of epistemology that the mind is volitional.

Coincidentally, that is exactly what Bearster was hinting at.

[Godless Capitalist]

In that case, you won't have any trouble answering my question: Please describe exactly when and how you decided to be heterosexual. I'll add why as well; why did you you decide to be heterosexual instead of homosexual?

[ex_banana-eater]

This is another case where both the left and the right are wrong while being in opposite directions, isn't it?

The left wants the government to be involved in more marriages, where the government has no purpose but to allow people to enter civil contracts. Both the conservatives and liberals are discriminating against single people by involving the government in this. Essentially, it seems like the conservative position that banning gay marriage would be the one for an Objectivist to support, since it dosn't ban civil unions, and the goal is to have less government involvement since the government should not be determining the definition of marriage. However, if one were not to support the left, it may undermine attempts to allow civil contracts to all people in the future.

[gadfly]

In my opinion the point is: are we going to afford gays the same rights as straight married couples? By "rights" I mean the rights of enforcement of what is basically a contract, a contract for two people to be recognized as a social entity apart from simply two individuals. It is a means of pooling resources and responsibilities, and a married couple is treated differently under the law, financially and otherwise.

It's simply a matter of equality under the law. Hell, let 3 gays and a straight person get married, for C's sake. What do I care? To do otherwise is simply mean-spirited, insulting, and probably unconstitutional (I keep thinking the Right will want to outlaw puppies and rainbows next...). Regardless of the technical details of how the contract is executed, I just can't see a good reason not to extend marriage to gays. And imagine the incredible legal expense to our country to maintain two parallel sets of laws (straight and gay marriages). What a stupid waste that would be.

Ultimately, I just can't shake the feeling that this is the civil rights movement all over again, with "separate but equal" rearing its ugly head.

[Paganzer]

I'm curious, are any Objectivists against gay marriage? Strangely, I'm not sure that I've ever seen any Objectivists write in favor of it, but as one myself I know that I am.

[ex_banana-eater]

If you support capitalism, then you do not support the government being involved in any marriage, gay, straight, or polygamous. The Democrat idea of incorporating gay marriage into government jurisdiction, and offering preferential treatment to those who are married is wrong (the latter is accepted by both parties).

Do I call a union between two men or two women a marriage? Yes. I think the essential part of a marriage is two people in romantic love solidifying it formally. Do I call them 'wife and wife' or 'husband and husband'? No, just "partners."

Edit: Spelling

Edited April 25, 2005 by ex_banana-eater

[Yes]

I could not have said this better myself.

Edited by TomL to remove unncessary quoting of entire previous post

[kilgoretrout]

As a pretext... I am not religious in anyway and was raised agnostic/atheist.. I was set to make my own decisions...

Here is a little something to chew on though:

DOESN'T STATE INVOLVEMENT DESTROY THE SANCTITY OF CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE... It allows the non-believers to marry; a right christians apparently only want for themselves... This is absurd in every possible way. I fail to understand the logic on this; religion has a way of doing that to life though.

Discuss.

Edited April 26, 2005 by kilgoretrout

[rameshkaimal]

The Nature of Government

Firstly, a government is, to paraphrase Ayn Rand, an agency that has the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area, for the moral purpose of protecting individual rights.

Secondly, since Man is conceptual by nature, an individual must, if he wants to live in reality, practice the moral principle of objectivity. This means that when it comes to using concepts, he must focus on what they mean objectively, and not what they mean subjectively, regardless of whether the subjectivism is personal or collective.

Thirdly, just as the moral principle of objectivity should be followed by individual men, it should also be followed by man-made institutions such as the government or a corporation, since these entities exist in the same reality as Man. In other words, just because the government has a legal monopoly over the use of physical force, reality is not going to "meekly comply", if and when the government "points" a gun at it!

So when it comes to the concepts that form the basis for the rules and regulations of a free society, unless and until the government (which means, its functionaries, including the lawmakers, without whom it cannot function at all) focuses on what those concepts objectively mean, and not what the people (or some group) want them to mean, there is no way it can practically protect individual rights as such.

This means that in a free society, when the government declares that a concept will, hereafter, mean what a given group of people want it to mean, and not what it objectively means, it is forcing those individuals who do practice the principle of objectivity in their lives by using concepts objectively, to blindly accept what the government has decreed (emphasis added) as the new meaning of a concept. So, then what happens to the rights of those individuals who are being asked, at the point of a gun, to give up the judgment of their own minds in this regard?

To conclude, in a free society, just as there should be proper separation of state and religion, there should not only be proper separation of state and economics but also proper separation of state and epistemology.

The Nature of Marriage

A marriage is, to paraphrase Dr. Leonard Peikoff, a public declaration by a man and a woman to society that they are morally committing themselves to a lifetime union, and should therefore be considered as a single social unit. Since they are also legally committing themselves to a lifetime union, the marriage is also properly considered as a legal unit. A legal entity as such, can only be brought into existence by the state, and hence, it is necessarily involved in sanctioning the marriage, thereby granting the status of husband and wife to the man and the woman respectively, who constitute such a unit.

So, if the gay community honestly want the government to recognize a contract between two consenting homosexuals for living together as a gay couple, they are free to come up with a totally new concept that is their moral-legal equivalent for the concept of a marriage, which, given its objective meaning, as mentioned above, can only involve, in reason and in reality, a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman respectively.

To conclude, if the government subverts the objective meaning of one concept today, it will do the same thing with some other concept tomorrow, and before you know it, it will end up subverting the objective meaning of every concept that forms the basis for the rules and regulations of a free society. Once the moral principle of objectivity itself, is abandoned by the government, how long will such a society remain free?

Ramesh Kaimal

[DavidOdden]

I'm curious, are any Objectivists against gay marriage? Strangely, I'm not sure that I've ever seen any Objectivists write in favor of it, but as one myself I know that I am.

I think most Objectivists are against state marriage of any kind. That's why it's hard to find support for gay marriage. The state does properly recognise voluntary agreements entered into by the parties themselves, and, if necessary, it will enforce the contracted conditions for partnership dissolution (asset disposition, for example). However many of you there may be, however your anatomy is configured, an agreement is an agreement, and it should be respected in a rational society. There isn't one single objective reason to extend the legal recognition of partnership to only the one man-one woman pairing.

[The Wrath]

I agree with this. The government should get out of "marriage" altogether, because that word carries with it religious connotations. Replace "gay marriage" with "civil union" for everyone, including heterosexuals, in which the two people entering contract are a single unit, as far as society is concerned. It can be a nonsexual union, such as two roommates who know they're gonna live together for a while and just want the benefits that come from being seen as a single unit. Let the churches handle marriage.

Edit: No need to quote entire post immediately above you. --Felipe

Edited May 1, 2005 by Felipe

[MichaelH]

Except that all gay couples are known to engage in it very often (ie, every time), whereas only some straight couples are and even then not nearly as often.

Uh...what? I'm gay and have been in a steady relationship for 17 years. From my personal experience, I can state: there ARE other things to do sexually.

Edited September 24, 2008 by MichaelH

[eriatarka]

y_feldblum made that post around the same time that you met your partner

[MichaelH]

Wow - three years since the previous post! I have no idea how I found this thread; I usually just look at new posts.

Oh well. That should take some of the sting off it.