Gay marriage, what do you think?

[mistermack]

I couldn't find a thread, so I thought I'd start one.

I'm personally for it, just on the grounds of "why not", but I am also open to be persuaded otherwise.

Just a couple of points though. It seems to me that the equality argument for, is false.
Everybody should have equal rights, but gays have the same rights as straights at the moment.
A gay man has the right to marry a woman, and a gay woman has the right to marry a man.
That's exactly the same rights as straights have. The only difference is that many don't want that.

So I say, there IS equality at the moment. But it's not what gay people want. That doesn't make the situation unequal. Just undesireable and unhelpful for gay people.

So the real inequality is that gays can't marry who they want to marry, straight people can.

But when you change the law, the situation is still unequal, but in the opposite direction. Gay people have a choice of two sexes to marry, straights only one. Because loads of gays currently CHOOSE to marry the opposite sex. A hell of a lot are bisexual, I know that because I know bisexual people who don't even consider themselves gay.

There is no prospect of anyone being declared legally gay. So you can't have a law that gays can only marry gays. So the only law that's on the cards is for same-sex marriage to be allowed, in the same way as opposite-sex marriage.
That is giving gays and bisexuals far more choice than straights. Is that equality?
Not if you measure it by the opportunity to marry the gender you are attracted to. Which is the current "inequality" argument for ALLOWING same-sex marriage.

So inequality is a false argument. There is inequality either way.

The real winners, when same-sex marriage is allowed, are the bisexuals.

Like I said at the start, I'm still for it. But only from a liberty and "who does it harm?" point of view.
I think the equality argument is bogus.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We had a lovely time at our wedding.

[Audley Strange]

I couldn't find a thread, so I thought I'd start one.

I'm personally for it, just on the grounds of "why not", but I am also open to be persuaded otherwise.

Just a couple of points though. It seems to me that the equality argument for, is false.
Everybody should have equal rights, but gays have the same rights as straights at the moment.
A gay man has the right to marry a woman, and a gay woman has the right to marry a man.
That's exactly the same rights as straights have. The only difference is that many don't want that.

So I say, there IS equality at the moment. But it's not what gay people want. That doesn't make the situation unequal. Just undesireable and unhelpful for gay people.

So the real inequality is that gays can't marry who they want to marry, straight people can.

But when you change the law, the situation is still unequal, but in the opposite direction. Gay people have a choice of two sexes to marry, straights only one. Because loads of gays currently CHOOSE to marry the opposite sex. A hell of a lot are bisexual, I know that because I know bisexual people who don't even consider themselves gay.

There is no prospect of anyone being declared legally gay. So you can't have a law that gays can only marry gays. So the only law that's on the cards is for same-sex marriage to be allowed, in the same way as opposite-sex marriage.
That is giving gays and bisexuals far more choice than straights. Is that equality?
Not if you measure it by the opportunity to marry the gender you are attracted to. Which is the current "inequality" argument for ALLOWING same-sex marriage.

So inequality is a false argument. There is inequality either way.

The real winners, when same-sex marriage is allowed, are the bisexuals.

Like I said at the start, I'm still for it. But only from a liberty and "who does it harm?" point of view.
I think the equality argument is bogus.

A Gay man has no right to marry a gay man or a straight man, a gay woman has no right to marry a gay woman or a straight women, a straight man has no right to marry a straight man or a gay man and a straight woman has no right to marry a staight woman or a gay women.

To say "you can't have this because we only recognise the right for those who like one on one fucking with the member of the opposite sex" is inequal. Thus under the eyes of the law, this is discriminatory.

But the whole concept is anyway.

[Thinking Aloud]

But when you change the law, the situation is still unequal, but in the opposite direction. Gay people have a choice of two sexes to marry, straights only one.

Nonsense. Under marriage equality, straights have exactly the same "choice" of sexes to marry as gays. Just because your average straight person chooses not to exercise that right doesn't make it unequal.

[Svartalf]

Equal rights under the law, regardless of gender.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm in favor of it. Why should the gays have it easier?

[Clinton Huxley]

It's every British chaps right to marry a chap even if a chap doesn't really want to! That's in the Magna Carta.

[Coito ergo sum]

Equal rights under the law, regardless of gender.

If I could legislate away the use of the word "gender" in this manner, I would.

[Thinking Aloud]

And whomsoever you choose, you're equally stuck with their moaning.

[Coito ergo sum]

And whomsoever you choose, you're equally stuck with their moaning.

And, oh, no no no... no just "breaking up" and moving out to separate pads. There needs to be months or even years of legal fees and hearings over who owes what to whom, and who gets custody of the blender and the better automobile, spousal support, division of retirement funds -- oh, yes. They've had it easy for FAR TOO LONG.

[mistermack]

But when you change the law, the situation is still unequal, but in the opposite direction. Gay people have a choice of two sexes to marry, straights only one.

Nonsense. Under marriage equality, straights have exactly the same "choice" of sexes to marry as gays. Just because your average straight person chooses not to exercise that right doesn't make it unequal.

Yes, but that's also true of the current situation, which is the point I made.
Just because your average GAY person chooses not to exercise that right, doesn't make it unequal.

You see what I'm saying?

[mistermack]

A Gay man has no right to marry a gay man or a straight man, a gay woman has no right to marry a gay woman or a straight women, a straight man has no right to marry a straight man or a gay man and a straight woman has no right to marry a staight woman or a gay women.

Well, that's equal treatment under the law right there, that's my point.

The inequality isn't the right to marry this or that sex, it's the right to marry who you WANT to marry.
Straights have that now, not because of special laws that only apply to them, but because they only want the opposite sex. So making same-sex marriage legal, makes everybody equal, from that point of view.

On the other hand, if the principle is that you should be able to marry anyone you WANT to marry, then how do you argue against polygamy? If a bisexual man has a wife, and wants to marry a man as well, what's wrong with that? So long as they all consent.
But would all three be married to each other, or would just two be married to the single one?

Can a man marry his brother, under same-sex rules? On the grounds that otherwise, he's denied the right to marry who he WANTS to marry? It might be financially adviseable, under certain inheritance situations. Once you adopt the principle that people should be allowed to marry, just because they want to, it gets messy. Unless you say that this equality is only available to some.

In real life, I guess it will work itself out, issue by issue, in a messy sort of way.

[SteveB]

No problem with it.

[Coito ergo sum]

A Gay man has no right to marry a gay man or a straight man, a gay woman has no right to marry a gay woman or a straight women, a straight man has no right to marry a straight man or a gay man and a straight woman has no right to marry a staight woman or a gay women.

Well, that's equal treatment under the law right there, that's my point.

The inequality isn't the right to marry this or that sex, it's the right to marry who you WANT to marry.
Straights have that now, not because of special laws that only apply to them, but because they only want the opposite sex. So making same-sex marriage legal, makes everybody equal, from that point of view.

Except, it may be that some hetero men or women would like to marry same sex folks just for companionship and child care, but do their fucking elsewhere. That would actually make the most sense, socially, actually...

On the other hand, if the principle is that you should be able to marry anyone you WANT to marry, then how do you argue against polygamy? If a bisexual has a wife, and wants to marry a man as well, what's wrong with that? So long as they all consent.

Not everyone makes that distinction, and many people are in favor of polygamous marriage.

I'm against it from a public policy standpoint, and not a moral standpoint. It is too unmanageable and detrimental to children, IMO. It seems fair and equal to allow everyone to marry one person at a time.

Can a man marry his brother, under same-sex rules? On the grounds that otherwise, he's denied the right to marry who he WANTS to marry? It might be financially adviseable, under certain inheritance situations. Once you adopt the principle that people should be allowed to marry, just because they want to, it gets messy. Unless you say that this equality is only available to some.

In real life, I guess it will work itself out, issue by issue, in a messy sort of way.

There probably isn't much of a lobbying group for brother-brother marriages. So, pretty much the ick factor of incest plus the fact that they don't carry much political weight results in them not getting to marry who they want to marry.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's every British chaps right to marry a chap even if a chap doesn't really want to! That's in the Manga Carta.