[extropy-chat] Gay Marriage (WAS: No Joy in Mudville)

[Kevin Freels]

I keep seeing these statements going back and forth. I think something is
missing here. I would like to start this over.

Mike Lorrey and I have both proposed that rather than allowing gay marriage,
the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Some who
have responded have acted as if Mike and I are bigots, homophobes, etc. I
can;t speak for Mike, but I assure you I am not.

This idea makes sense. To understand, we need to define the function of
marriage as it is and how it applies to the idea of getting gov't out of
marriage.

Marriage, as I understand it, serves three purposes in our society.
1.) A contract allowing certain rights to property and access to certain
gov't benefits
2.) A religious ceremony and a faith based somethingorother
3.) A social contract that binds two people together with promises of
monogamy

As far as I am concerned, marriage should be an entirely religious ceremony.
It should have nothing to do with government. It should not be regulated by
the state. If a certain church wants to keep a certain type of people out of
their group, then so be it. Groups with like beliefs should be allowed to
congregate with like minded people. I don't think I would be accepted too
well with a bunch of bikers...and that is fine. I wouldn;t want to be with a
bunch of bikers who didn;t want me to be around!

Gays in church are the same way. People who are anti-gay should have just as
much a right to congregate as the KKK, atheists, pagans, or a bunch of
anti-Bush supporters. Boy Scouts should be for boys, girl scouts for girls.
Why would a girls want to be a boy scout anyways?

The solution is not to force a group to accept people who don;t fit the
group. The solution is to form more groups. I don;t see the members here
complaining that they don;t get a Catholic newsletter!

So if the issue is whether or not gays are allowed church marriages, that is
up to the church. And I am sure that there are Christian denominations that
recognize gay marriages. I know of such a church right here in Evansville,
IN.

But I don;t think that is a problem on this list. The people here seem to
think about matters in more of a logical sense rather than caring what the
church thinks. I am sure the church would condemn my decisions of
cryo-preservation, atheism,  cloning, etc just as much as they condemn gays.
Homosexuality is only one sin. I commit many! lol

So I can only assume the matter has to do with either contract law, or
benefits.

As a matter of contract, eliminating marriage puts everyone on an equal
footing. my girlfried and I can have a contract, and so can two roommates in
college that buy a frat house together.
All matters of contract, property, and those evil government benefits that
keep people as slaves to the state should stand on their own. They should
not have anything to do with race, religion. color, creed, sex, sexual
orientation, or what kind of ice cream a person likes.

I am not completely sure what Mike thinks here, but I would like his
opinion. I don;t even care for the civil union idea. It is just another name
for marriage. I want the state out of the relationship regulation business
altogether. People can make contracts with one another as they wish. We
would need a lot more attorneys, but they should get less expensive too. :-)

Finally, regarding benefits....We are talking about benefits that both Mike
and I think should not be there to begin with. It is silly to imply that
Mike is singling out gays when getting rid of marriage. That is paranoia. A
lot of people would lose government benefits by getting rid of marriage. But
the reduction in tax expenditures would be offset by a reduction in taxes.
Why people think it is OK for the government to take our money and give it
back to those who "earn" it by following certain behaviors is beyond me.

Kevin Freels





----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bryan Moss" <bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] No Joy in Mudville


> Brian Lee wrote:
>
> > I favor someone else on this list who suggested that the gov't get out
> > of the marriage business altogether and only allow civil unions. Then
> > any marriage is purely non-legal and ceremonial.
>
>
> I don't understand this position at all.  You'd be allowing gay
> marriage, but not calling any marriage marriage, but any organisation
> that wants to call a marriage marriage would be free to do so and would
> also be free to discriminate against homosexuals?
>
> Doesn't it just amount to a name change to appease bigots?
>
> BM
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat