First I just want to make clear that, at the risk of splitting hairs, the issue isn't about gay marriage per se but rather same sex marriage.
Good point, although this might drag this thread furher off-topic than it already has. It's also not a particularly interesting topic to me, but hey, nothing better to do so let's play ball!
This is not just playing with semantics. As Arnold said when running for govenor, "I support gay marriage as long as it's between a man or a woman." This was to clarify the point that the gay agenda were demanding new special rights, rights that have never existed in all of human history. Everybody had the legal right to marry a member of the opposite sex. No one, gay or otherwise, had the right to marry a member of the same sex.
Marriage itself a
special privilege granted by the State and one which was, at the time, limited only to members of the opposite sex. Beyond that,
if a State wished to allow same-sex couples to wed other States
actively refused to accept that marriage as valid, in violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution.
Your argument is base on our society giving special privileges to married couples. We, as a society, believe that the traditional family unit is the best scenario in a relationship and because a father and a mother each have something unique, something inherent in their gender, as the best scenario in raising children. If you disagree with that then you should fight to end such special privledges.
I disagree that marriage is about procreation or the raising of children and if you believe that is the case, then you should not be opposed if women who've had had a hysterectomy, men who've had a vasectomy, and, in general, people who are sterile either naturally or have become sterile should not be able to marry. Right?
And what about married couples that don't have children, for whatever reason? Should they be allowed to remain married? For how long?
The argument you present to legalize same sex marriage can easily be applied to other scenarios as well.
Yes, let's look at your scenarios. I'm betting they'll get increasingly ridiculous.
Why not legalize marriage between a brother or a sister? Father of daughter? Why not have two, three, four wives or husband? There are some that want to marry their cat?
And there it is: man-and-cat marriage.
I'm happy to have a serious discussion but, unlike the Church at Corinth, I do not suffer fools gladly. I hadn't really pegged you as a fool and expected better from you, but if you really need the ELI5 explanation, here you go: a prerequisite to marriage is the ability to legally consent to get married and a cat is, by nature,
incapable of legally consenting since it lacks the requisite rational faculty associated with that kind of agency.
You say the government can't force you to accept any marriage and that is true but if you don't you will be breaking the law.
That's not true. No law exists that forces
me to
accept any marriage in my personal capacity. This shouldn't be confused with cases where the law might impose requirements on me in my professional capacity. For example, if I was a Doctor and my married patient was incapable of consenting to a procedure, I couldn't just ignore their spouse because I'm personally opposed to or refuse to recognize their marriage.
And yes, that does include your right to discriminate against someone for any reason you want.
Yes, individuals can, in their personal capacity, broadly discriminate against anyone and for any reason. But even that isn't absolute. For example, under the Fair Housing Act, an individual,
in their capacity as a landlord, can't refuse to rent to a woman on account of her gender, or a Muslim on account of his faith, or a twink on account of his
faggotism sexual orientation.
If you take an organization such as the Boy Scouts, justs as I think it would be inappropriate to have a man leading and going camping with Girl Scouts, I think it would be inappropriate to have a gay man leading and going camping with teen boys.
I don't buy the premise that human beings are animals that are unable to control their sexual impulses, which is what your comment is predicated on. With that said, I don't think that your position is necessarily imprudent either.
Tell me, do you believe that classes should be segregated by sex? Or that homosexuals should not be teachers?
The Boy Scouts is a private organization and should be free to choose and discriminate as to what members they want. Though you may not personally accept these terms you are now forced to follow it.
So, you would be OK if the Boy Scouts were to officially adopt a "No N*ggers, No Ch*nks, No B*aners" policy, right? After all, they are, to quote you, "
a private organization and should be free to choose and discriminate as to what members they want."
Anybody, can leave their property to anybody they want to.
Yes, but
married couples receive different tax treatment on estate transfers:
all property left to a surviving spouse is entirely exempt from federal estate tax, which can be important when the average estate tax rate exceeds 15% and can go higher than the highest income tax bracket we currently have.
And you can believe that sexual orientation is irrelevant to building someone a house or performing any service at all then why make it a law?
I draw a line between laws and regulations. I don't think there should be a law that says that makes it illegal for a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. But I have no problem with a regulation that requires licensed businesses to not discriminate based on private, consensual and non-illegal behavior.
If I don't want build a house for a gay person or because he screwed my wife when I was on a business trip or is a member of Antifa it should be my right. Licensing requirements should be based on your qualifications and training you have received to preform your job safely and competently and not your personal preferences as to whom you want to work for.
I agree that licensing requirements should be objective but I don't see an issue with the State imposing requirements on licensees. My dentist is required to take continuing education credits to keep her license. My lawyer, in addition to continuing education credits, is required to have a "positive moral character" to remain a member of my State Bar. There are dozens of other examples I could provide if you want.
But we've strayed a bit far, haven't we?
The question why about same-sex marriage and the suggestion that it's somehow a "new" right that hasn't existed before. That's not true. First of all, marriage isn't a right to begin with and, broadly, I believe that the State shouldn't be involved as little as possible and, to the extent that it is involved, the State should make that privilege available to all equally, barring reasonable restrictions, the same way that we have restrictions for who can get, say, a driver license.
My personal preference would be to have all marriages be civil marriages and have civil marriage available to all consenting adults. If you want to have a 'super-duper' religious marriage on top of that and can find a religious organization that approves of you and your partner, then have at it.
