4 ms·

The problem is that the state has granted privileges to married people. If the state treated everyone equally without regard to marital status, then gays and s

The problem is that the state has granted privileges to married people. If the state treated everyone equally without regard to marital status, then gays and straights could marry privately and it wouldn't become an issue. It's an issue because married gays want the same marriage privileges as straight couples. We need to separate marriage and state. Except for enforcing contracts that the married parties sign themselves, the state should not get involved and grant special privileges to those who are married, such as tax deductions. I'm for consensual gay marriage. I'm against state-approved or state-disapproved marriage, whether it bans consensual relationships or rewards or punishes marriage with privileges. Even consensual polygamy should be none of the state's business.

serge2k 13y ago
Shared health benefits? Child custody rights? etc...
cookiecaper 13y ago
I am against gay marriage and in favor of polygyny. I do not believe that we should get the state out of marriage. Marriage is nothing without effective legal protections and backing. Your position is the literal fulfillment of all those people who said that gay marriage would destroy real marriage. That is precisely what you are claiming should happen -- marriage should stop being a real thing, and if you feel like saying you're married, then go ahead and do it. I just wanted to point this out since many people say it's ridiculous that gay marriage would destroy straight marriage. You are explicitly endorsing said destruction.
- adamwong246 13y ago
  The notion that the state should lord over the private consenting adults is bizarre and unsettling. One would think that, as a proponent of polygyny, you would realize just how unfair your position is. Personally, I can't imagine anything scarier than the government controlling love, sex and reproduction. As a fellow citizen, I have no objections to your romantic choices or with whom you can form a legal contract. Why do you persist in objecting to mine? I support your rights because they are my rights as well. If your camp could reciprocate, maybe we can legalize polygamy, not just polygyny, so that we might all live in a maximum of happiness and freedom.
  - cookiecaper 13y ago
    Ah, the rub is that some people don't believe it maximizes happiness or freedom to legalize any kind of sexual activity as long as a vague notion of consent is present. Consent isn't the only thing that matters in law. I hope we never legalize polygamy in general, but I hope we do legalize polygyny. I see polygyny and same-sex marriage as polar opposites; polygyny represents maximal social good, and same-sex marriage represents maximal social chaos, almost to the point where one has to admit that society is already practical disintegrated. I see polyandry as less bad than gay marriage, but also majorly problematic. Gay rights supporters would rather nobody ever express this opinion because they think it is bad. They have just now kicked Brendan Eich out of his job because they believe that strongly no one should ever be allowed to believe things they don't believe. Why can't we have a truly free dialogue on these issues? Why can't people say what they believe? Is there any meaningful dialogue at all if half of the populace is terrorized out of expressing their true beliefs? I'm all for correcting incorrect things and I am beyond happy to acknowledge when I've been misled or when I need to change my mind. I am all for teaching other people to see things more correctly. I just don't think we need to do that by shame, humiliation, demagoguery, and persecution.
    - adamwong246 13y ago
      Is this not a meaningful dialogue? I'm afraid the answer is "No." What can be gained by engaging in conversation a person who believes that I am, at my very core, evil and destructive? But by all means, lecture me on "shame, humiliation, demagoguery, and persecution" that you have endured!
      - cookiecaper 13y ago
        I don't believe either gay rights supporters or persons who identify as gay are "evil and destructive" at their very cores. I think they are misguided and confused. I think they can still provide useful contributions despite their confusion on these central issues (which doesn't necessarily mean that their destructive behaviors should go unpunished), and I think that their destructive behaviors could be corrected if the right circumstances were effected. I guess the difference between myself and the gay rights camp is that I believe people are still worth something when they disagree with me, or even when they participate in behaviors I consider destructive.

serge2k 13y ago

Shared health benefits? Child custody rights? etc...

cookiecaper 13y ago

I am against gay marriage and in favor of polygyny. I do not believe that we should get the state out of marriage. Marriage is nothing without effective legal protections and backing. Your position is the literal fulfillment of all those people who said that gay marriage would destroy real marriage. That is precisely what you are claiming should happen -- marriage should stop being a real thing, and if you feel like saying you're married, then go ahead and do it. I just wanted to point this out since many people say it's ridiculous that gay marriage would destroy straight marriage. You are explicitly endorsing said destruction.

adamwong246 13y ago
The notion that the state should lord over the private consenting adults is bizarre and unsettling. One would think that, as a proponent of polygyny, you would realize just how unfair your position is. Personally, I can't imagine anything scarier than the government controlling love, sex and reproduction. As a fellow citizen, I have no objections to your romantic choices or with whom you can form a legal contract. Why do you persist in objecting to mine? I support your rights because they are my rights as well. If your camp could reciprocate, maybe we can legalize polygamy, not just polygyny, so that we might all live in a maximum of happiness and freedom.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  Ah, the rub is that some people don't believe it maximizes happiness or freedom to legalize any kind of sexual activity as long as a vague notion of consent is present. Consent isn't the only thing that matters in law. I hope we never legalize polygamy in general, but I hope we do legalize polygyny. I see polygyny and same-sex marriage as polar opposites; polygyny represents maximal social good, and same-sex marriage represents maximal social chaos, almost to the point where one has to admit that society is already practical disintegrated. I see polyandry as less bad than gay marriage, but also majorly problematic. Gay rights supporters would rather nobody ever express this opinion because they think it is bad. They have just now kicked Brendan Eich out of his job because they believe that strongly no one should ever be allowed to believe things they don't believe. Why can't we have a truly free dialogue on these issues? Why can't people say what they believe? Is there any meaningful dialogue at all if half of the populace is terrorized out of expressing their true beliefs? I'm all for correcting incorrect things and I am beyond happy to acknowledge when I've been misled or when I need to change my mind. I am all for teaching other people to see things more correctly. I just don't think we need to do that by shame, humiliation, demagoguery, and persecution.
  - adamwong246 13y ago
    Is this not a meaningful dialogue? I'm afraid the answer is "No." What can be gained by engaging in conversation a person who believes that I am, at my very core, evil and destructive? But by all means, lecture me on "shame, humiliation, demagoguery, and persecution" that you have endured!
    - cookiecaper 13y ago
      I don't believe either gay rights supporters or persons who identify as gay are "evil and destructive" at their very cores. I think they are misguided and confused. I think they can still provide useful contributions despite their confusion on these central issues (which doesn't necessarily mean that their destructive behaviors should go unpunished), and I think that their destructive behaviors could be corrected if the right circumstances were effected. I guess the difference between myself and the gay rights camp is that I believe people are still worth something when they disagree with me, or even when they participate in behaviors I consider destructive.