[extropy-chat] gay marriage

[Technotranscendence]

On Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:06 AM Brent Neal brentn at freeshell.org
wrote:
>> This could lead one to conclude that human
>> homosexual sex is not about love at all, but
>> violence or simulated violence for asserting
>> dominance, i.e. outside the protections of a
>> loving and equal marriage relationship.
>
> But only if we agree that the ethics of civil rights
> and liberties are part of the "natural order of
> things," which I think neither staunch libertarians
> nor staunch fundamentalists will argue.

Since marriage relationships do not seem to be equal in almost all
cultures, why assume that heterosexual marriage is a "loving and equal
marriage relationship"?

Let's say Mike is right in his speculation and homosexual relationships
are about dominance.  As long as individuals freely enter into them, why
bother with them?  Or would anyone here also prevent people from, say,
being into S&M or any activity where one person dominates another and
both parties consent to it?

Also, the correct libertarian approach to this, IMHO, is to get the
government out of the marriage business all together.  Each person or
group could then define what he/she/they mean by "marriage" and not
recognize to their hearts content different types of marriage.  This
would be no different than, say, different sects of Christianity or
pick-a-religion not recognizing each other as the True Faith.  Funny, we
don't need the government to come in and edit the Bible to make sure
Christian groups don't destroy the institution of Christ...

And, for the record, some libertarians do believe that for humans
liberty is natural.  They would argue that initiating force violates the
natural order.  This does not mean they believe humans must follow what
other animals do, but that humans just do whatever they do as long as
they don't initiate force.  I believe Hoppe and Rothbard might fit into
this category.  In fact, the former often uses "natural order" as a
synonym for a free market based social order.  (I'm not saying I agree
with this usage.  After all, anything that happens is, in the
metaphysical sense, part of nature or natural or part of the natural
order.  Perhaps the distinction is meant to describe things that are
healthy, stable, or not self-destructive...)

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/MyWorks.html