@semck

Morality isn't a government's job. The way we're doing it now is the more restrictive way of doing it. Yes, changing it requires alteration of the status quo, but "let's do it because it's how we've been doing it" is the second-worst defense for a political position (#1 being anything referencing Hitler).

It's your right to not want gays to be married, as long as you don't commit any acts of violence, theft, fraud, or similar crimes on gay people (or anyone, for that matter). You can have whatever crappy opinions you want, that's a-okay. I live in a free country, and I hope you live in one free enough to have shit opinions, too. But you can't enforce those opinions on other people.

Really, what is marriage? Of course there are religious connotations, but "this is how [prefered religion] does things" is the #3 worst defense for a political position. The government should rule to ensure liberty, not enforce morality.

There is no practical reason to limit marriage, or, in this case, keep it limited. I'd personally rather people refrain from polygamy, honestly I think it's a poor system and have doubt it could ever work, but should it be illegal? To me, no, it shouldn't. As long as there's consent, you should be allowed to marry. The religious right ask "where does it end?" With consent. You shouldn't marry animals, or children, because they can't consent.

Even if you hate gay people, and think it's immoral, it shouldn't be illegal. It does no one real harm, does it? No. To homage Jefferson, it neither brakes my leg nor picks my pocket.

Actually, I'm fine with people having the religious ceremony of marriage with animals, because animals don't have rights and stuff. The can't be married legally, since they're not people. Children can't consent, but for animals, the concept is meaningless. Dressing up your animal doesn't count as animal cruelty to me.

@phil - Yeah, I guess I agree, but it shouldn't be legally recognized in the same way as marriages with people.

And I'd still be against having sex with animals on the grounds that without consent it's rape (or the equivalent of rape for animals, I'm not an expert on legal terminology).

I don't know some of those little dogs wearing sweaters.... Seems cruel to me.

Leinad, I'd call bestiality cruelty to animals, yeah.

KingCyrus, go ahead, try to legislate that as cruelty to animals, I'll even help you.

No phil, animals are more like children in their cognitive capacities. They can't consent, but they do deserve rights. (Not human rights, but still rights) i base my opinions on what qualities an animal has, and the common qualities they share with children suggest to me they are in the same category. (Says the vegetarian, who also believes we shouldn't eat animals...)

@ora,

"No, the right to found a family didn't mean that infertile couples had any right to children fo the past two hundred years. Likewise it doesn't require the state to do anything; if a gay couple wants to have children there are pretty simple means - most extra-marital sex. "

Once again, then, I don't follow. Even without any government recognition of gay marriage, they have the right to have children by extramarital sex. So that fundamental right is not at issue in this question. Which fundamental right is?

Incidentally, I'm still interested in the answer to this question that I asked you:

"So? How does that mean that a particular evolution of the word *in this culture* is a human right? You point out that in some cultures, polygamy has been the norm. Does that mean it is a human right, in this culture, for it to be recognized as marriage?"

@Leinad,

Please distinguish between the right to particular actions, and the right to have the government give benefits and protection to those actions. On the former, we're probably in agreement. If people want to live together in a big house with lots of people and all sleep together a la polygamy, is that illegal? No, it is not.

The question, though, arises -- should the state actively encourage this behavior by granting it formal recognition and attendant civil rights? If it chooses to, then at that point it should have some reasoning to the effect that the arrangement is a positive social good that it wants to encourage. There, I'd need to hear some arguments.

@semck

On your first paragraph, I'd tend to agree. But I'd make a different conclusion than you, I'd say to take government out of marriage altogether. But it's already in it, and I doubt it'll leave, so why not make it legal for different actions? I still don't see an objective reason why same-sex marriage is less valuable than, uh, not-same-sex marriage. And no, neither religion nor status quo or good arguments.

- "The question, though, arises -- should the state actively encourage this behavior?"

Whoa there, two important points: point 1: legalizing doesn't mean encouraging. I'm all for the legalization of marijuana (and basically all victimless crimes), but that doesn't mean I want to give everyone free weed, or have the eagle in the Great Seal of the US be smoking a blunt.

Point 2: why is it such a bad behaviour? You're putting gay marriage at the same level as one would put gambling, alcoholism, or watching reality TV. Law needs to be based on objective standards and logic, which the prime directive being to protect the liberty of the citizens. If you're writing something off because you don't like it, or because it's banned in your religion, that's not democracy, or using logic, or protecting liberty, that's either an autocracy or theocracy, depending on which rationale you have.

- "by granting it formal recognition and attendant civil rights?"

This is the same recognition me or you would have if we wed someone of the same sex. What if someone deemed that marriage of any sort was "immoral," and banned you and I from having it? What if someone deemed that your religion, or ideology was "immoral," and banned it? This is the same rights we already have, and boy, I'm befuddled to see so many people let their personal beliefs get in the way and be in favour of restricting one person's rights because of something objectively trivial.

- "If it chooses to, then at that point it should have some reasoning to the effect that the arrangement is a positive social good that it wants to encourage."

Neither playing Diplomacy nor discussing things on a site made for playing Diplomacy have any objective "positive social good." Should the government ban it?

- "There, I'd need to hear some arguments."

It neither breaks your leg nor picks your pocket. Q.E.D.

Leinad,

I don't have a lot of time to respond to most of your points, but I'd like to correct one misconception. You write,

"Whoa there, two important points: point 1: legalizing doesn't mean encouraging. I'm all for the legalization of marijuana (and basically all victimless crimes), but that doesn't mean I want to give everyone free weed, or have the eagle in the Great Seal of the US be smoking a blunt."

This reflects an extremely common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. When we talk about legalizing gay marriage, we're talking about a different kind of thing than, say, legalizing weed. Using marijuana is a criminal activity. Legalizing it means removing criminal prohibitions.

On the other hand, "gay marriage" is not a criminal behavior. It's not a *legally recognized* behavior at all, though nothing is stopping a gay couple from calling themselves married if they want to (it's certainly not against the law).

What "legalizing" gay marriage means, then, is not the decriminilization of anything, but the *government licensing* of something (and the consequent granting of special legal privilege to it). This is an altogether different kind of thing from legalizing weed, and generic libertarian arguments such as you're adducing don't apply. The correct question is not, "What is wrong with this behavior that we want to prohibit it" -- nothing is prohibited -- but "What is good about this behavior that we want to promote it?"

You may be right that the government should promote no kind of relationships. Historically, the reasons it has promoted heterosexual marriage have largely to do with the production and rearing of children, and those arguments don't apply, or don't obviously apply, here. So the question is, what is the reason for the government to positively promote it?

(And yes, traditional marriage has been available to the old or the sterile as well. That's not because its purpose was not child rearing. That's because it was easiest to make the institution over-inclusive, for a host of reasons. But we're getting back into, "I don't have time to pursue this fully right now.")

Anyway, good talking, and I hope we talk more.

@smeck Thats a good question:
Incidentally, I'm still interested in the answer to this question that I asked you:

"So? How does that mean that a particular evolution of the word *in this culture* is a human right? You point out that in some cultures, polygamy has been the norm. Does that mean it is a human right, in this culture, for it to be recognized as marriage?"

Sorry i missed it. (I also haven't had a chance to look at your links because i'm on my phone)

If you accept that traditions can change, then first your arguement that 'traditional marriage' is important goes out the window. But following one particular path to new traditions is something i should defend.

In this case my defences are multiple. The evidential - scientific studies show that children raised by same-sex couples fair aswell as those raised by opposite-sex couples. There is a bigger coorelation with poverty and megative outcomes for children, thus combating poverty is unquestionably more important than combating same-sex rights.

Logically, same-sex couples are unlikely to have accidental pregnancies, and thus far more likely to have decided they want children - i suspect this also improves outcomes for children, but i don't have particularily good evidence to support this hypothesis.

Another side is the kind of society we wan to live in. The right to pursue happiness; If we value this right we should extend it to all. We should recognise other's have different needs to find happiness, we should support this wherever it doesn't infringe on the happiness of others (yes, that libertarian ideal again, though i'm not against taxation, so that label probably doesn't apply)

A final thread for equality - regardless of specific rights - if we believe all people deserve to be treated equally, then this becomes a no brainer.

Lastly the right to life of LGBT+ teens and the high rate of attempted suicide suggests that our society disciminates today, and anything we can do to improve their lives is worthwhile. My LGBT+ friends tell me how much of a difference this will make to every teen in Ireland, how a statement like this will benefit their mental health. And that alone would be enough for me. This one symbolic and legislative victory will not end discrimination, but it is a great victory none-the-less.

I would presume that any responce you have comes from a place of christianity. And i would claim christianity supports same-sex couples under a number of grounds. More than the eating of oysters or mixing of fabrics, also abominations, christianity says to love thy neighbour - it doesn't say love thu neighbour if they happen to live the same kind of life you do, there is no exemptions to this rule. If your neighbour is L G B or T, if your neighbour is ace or poly, gender queer or intersex; it is your duty as a christian to find your way toward loving them - and not the person you think they should be, the person they really are, the person god made them.

But if you interpret christianity differently, or use it to justify your bigotry, i would then remind you that this is one of the reasons we seperate church and state. That this seperation is one of the desirable features of our modern system - inspired by discrimination of religious people by official state religions; that goal of ending discrimination, as noble today as it was two hundred+ years ago, works now to end discrimination against others.

Wow, that was much longer than i expected.

You have a point about legislating. If the choice were to abolish marriage (or state recognition and benefits of it) i would probably have made that - though because of the status quo that was not a choice. I will settle for fewer and fewer of my peers getting married at all.

The choice was to make my society more equal, so i did. I don't feel like a hypocrite for making the best choice available to me.

It's a false premise that "the right to found a family" is the basis for marriage.

Marriage has 3 major functions:
1) Property rights within an agreed upon shared bond, in perpetuity (after one person dies);
2) Right for treatment of an individual or their affairs when said individual is incapacitated and cannot make decisions for themselves (medical and legal power of attorney);
3) Right to make decisions for any minor children resulting from the bond.

The children part is *LAST* because most marriages start out with no offspring from either partner. Those typically come later.

The first two matter to everyone. That's why marriage shouldn't be restricted based on the third.

In Ireland the constitution has been interpreted as defining a family as: a married couple with/without children.

So this is in fact exactly what the legal position is regarding that right.

Seems like this flaw with the Irish constitution was finally and legally remedied. Good jaerb Ireland!

@semck

Yes, it's different, but I think it's a similar thing. The government giving benefits for one thing, yet not giving those benefits for another thing is quite similar to the government doing nothing for one thing yet nothing for another thing.

I mean, different-sex-marriages get benefits, yet I don't think they're "encouraged." Lots of people say overpopulation is a big issue and we should have less kids, and while I disagree with that, if the main purpose for treating straight marriages as superior to gay marriage is having children, people could easily take your logic and question why we "encourage" that!

It all comes down to why you think that gay marriage should be legally recognized as lesser than straight marriage. It's not about your beliefs, or what you prefer, it's about the country. Overall, more and more people are agreeing with me, Ora, and Jeff that same-sex marriage should be treated the same. It's inevitable that all first world societies will recognize it as equal. Clearly you're coming to a different conclusion than most are, and why?

Religion and status quo are terrible reasons. Reproduction isn't a good reason either, because most get married with reasons other than child-rearing in mind, and lots of children are born out of wedlock, so objectively if that's your criteria, we might need a referendum on different-sex-marriage as well.

But perhaps we can just agree to disagree, as much as I'd rather agree to agree. As long as you aren't mistreating gay people, your opinions cause no harm. As I said, it'll be legal in all first-world nations eventually, so it's not that important to convince everyone. And I must say that you're not being a jerk about it, nor are you explicitly using religious beliefs as the bases of your reasoning. And you're not insulting me, so good on you for that!

I think i want to expand on my 'love thy neighbour' point; lvoing your neighbour isn't easy, nobody ever said it was.

It is much easier to hate them, to other them, to complain that they have things easy, and scapegoat them fo their differences. Whether it is Israelis and Palestinians, Hutu and Tutsi, Iraqi Sunni and Iraqi Shite, Irish Protestant and Irish Catholic. It has been shown very easy, countless times, that hating your neighbour can be turned into violence. That not understanding, developing empathy for, and being considerate to, your neighbour can be exploited for evil.

I beleive that 'love thy neighbour' calls on all Christians to do more. To support difference and diversity in your own community, to understand it, to empathize with it, and to celebrate it. Without those things it is not love. And no, i am not saying this is easy.

Poor man: https://m.soundcloud.com/opinionline96/meteorite-to-strike-world-over-referendum-yes-vote

"Government should be outside my contract protecting it, not inside it, deciding what is says."

OK, I'm stealing that. Just thought you should know. Succinct and on point.

The US constitution has been amended 27 times. 25 of them expanded the rights of the people. 1 of them (which took 202 years to ratify from the date of first submission) kept Congress from voting themselves a pay raise. the 18th amendment prohibited the manufacturing or sale of Alcohol, and was repealed by the 21st. So it's a good document, that has stood the test of time, even if I don't agree with some of it.

Our state constitutions, on the other hand, are terrible amalgams of expansions and limitations of the rights of the people, often placed there based on the political whims of the time. My state, Ohio, amended our Constitution in 2008 to limit marriage to between a man and a woman, based on popular vote and a campaign by outside interests to swing opinion. I hope that it will soon be invalidated, but I really think that any amendment that reduces the rights of citizens should be illegal in the first place. The Constitution should outline our RIGHTS - laws can be pass that can place limits on those rights, and those laws can then be judged by the judicial branch.

25 expanded our rights? I beg to differ sir, the 16th was meant to enslave us all. The original document was the greatest governmental system ever conceived (imperfect but still the best by far). Your view of the Feds is very rosy, unfortunately the reality is that starting with Wilson (IMHO) freedoms have been steadily restricted. The amendments that expand our rights are largely ignored by our public "servants", who are now the aristocracy. I have issues with other amendments (17th corrupted the Senate). The Constitution is supposed to be the shackles placed on the government, they've managed to turn it around on us in many cases.

@Lord Bolton - you're right. I stand corrected, but the ones that didn't expand on rights changed how the government did things. While people hate the IRS and the income tax, the 16th amendment didn't restrict an individuals rights - it expanded the rights of the Federal government vis-a-vis the States. So you may hate it, but it's not a individual right restriction.

So they didn't all expand our rights, but only the 18th actually reduced individual's rights.

That's why I'm so dead-set against the "flag-burning" amendments. I don't really need to be able to burn an American flag. But amendments shouldn't be restricting the right of free speech - laws can be passed, and if they pass constitutional muster, then they're OK (example: yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is NOT protected speech.)