South Africa's high court approves gay marriage

[9th Engineer]

I'm not advocating marriage as just a utilitarian tool, and I certainly abhor arranged marriages, but I just don't think that writing new laws so that love can conqure all is ever going to have its intended effect. The idea of fairness in the eats at me too. If I said that two gays who love each other should be able to marry no matter what hurdles we have to deal with in the process of working that into law, then I'd be a complete hypocrite if I didn't say the same for people like polygamists and other groups that would have that same right. No matter what the consequences of the original action, those that come from further actions neccessitated by the first fall under the same catagory. I'd have to choose between being a hypocrite and making decisions that I honestly think would do more harm than good.

I do realize that I'm extremely cynical about alot of things, the reality of law and the nature of human relationships among them unfortunately. It stems from the fact that I was very idealistic early on and got hit hard by reality through highschool and my first years in college so far. At heart I'd love for everything to be as fair and balanced as possible, that's why I'm mostly a classic libertarian. I'd fight tooth and nail to keep someone from raising my taxes %X, but I harbor a fantasy about being a philanthropist and inspiring teens when I probably could have used some inspiration myself. Is it any wonder I come across as a complete misanthrope?

[Ibby]

How can you call yourself a libertairan if you advocate the government being able to decide who you can and can't marry based on ANYTHING, whether it be sex, race, height, or eye colour?

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And if you can't defend yourself, people don't take you seriously. (While if you do, even those that disagree will respect you.)

That's the essence of a message board. I don't see how one could get much out of it otherwise.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

...

Therefore we are left with the access to government pensions, tax breaks, and insurance policies.

In the end, when I balence the pros vs the cons of this decision that's what I'm taking into account. You are elevating simple desire to godlike proportions, liberal application of Occam's Razor is neccessary here.

So, that's the logic trail. Laws should be built on precident, science, and logic, not emotions. Now that I've said my peace I have nothing more to add.

Good post. You've defined the terms and established your position, while trying to trim the fat. But... At the end of it all, this is what I see your point being left with: when you balance "the pros and cons" of the position you factor "government pensions, tax breaks, and insurance policies" versus a big fat nothing. You attempt to evaporate the opposition viewpoint (if I may presume to lump) in a puff of peripherally related science jargon. In effect, to you: there is no opposition viewpoint. That's not a debate, that's just rhetorical masturbation.

If we follow, to it's logical conclusion, your proposal that no human emotions be considered in the crafting of our laws, then the world would be a very different place. That simply isn't realistic, and it doesn't stand to reason that a society of organisms with biological mechanisms that produce emotions would govern themselves in a sort of theoretical vacuum where thses emotions don't exist. That very idea simply represents a different kind of idealism. Pragmatism has to follow it's own rules, or it risks becoming a parody of itself.

[9th Engineer]

Because unfortunately we don't live in a libertarian society, you can't make decisions based on the way you want things to be rather than taking into account the way things are and working with the system. I really don't support the perks that come along with marriage now, the best solution in my mind would be to have the government stop all involvement and let people do as they please in their own lives. If bad things came from marrying 12 other people then no one would have to clean up the mess, and if people find a way to make themselves happy then kudos to any who can figure it out. I just don't trust people not to f*&# it up for alot of other people.

EDIT... I wish you could see what other people have posted since you started writing your new post

[Aliantha]

If you really want to know what I think I'll tell you, but not unless you specifically want to know. lol

In my mind, and I hope in the mind of lots of other people as well, the idea of marriage is to provide a haven for two people who love each other to come together and have their union accepted by their society. For some people that involves having the union blessed by their church. If you say that those two people have to be of different sex's then you're excluding a whole group of people whose ability to contribute as a married couple should for all intents and purposes, be just as productive as anyone elses.

Why do people get married these days? It's certainly not so they can get laid. You don't need to be married to get laid (in western society) these days.

It just doesn't make any sense to try and stop people from marrying if it's what is the right thing for them. Most people who want to marry want to do so for emotional reasons. Not for any benefits they might recieve for doing so.

What's wrong with believing that love is the wrong reason to want to do something?

[Flint]

To expand on Ali's post: gays are popularly demonized as being sexually deviant, yet not letting them get married doesn't exactly help them to settle down and live monogamously, does it? The idea of restricting their rights often seems to be based on the hope that they will simply go away.

This is the social context of this debate. You can't have the debate and ignore this stuff.

[Aliantha]

Hmmmm...marriage doesn't necessarily guarantee monogamy though.

[Flint]

Nothing in life is guaranteed, but marriage is based on the idea of a monogamous relationship.

Saying "we don't want you AIDS-spreading deviants to settle down and get married" just doesn't make alot of sense to me.

If one were really worried about their "destructive influence" it seems that encouraging more "normal" behavior might be a good idea.

[Aliantha]

ahuh...is that really what they're saying? lol Doesn't sound too PC to me.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Doesn't sound too PC to me.

That's "okay" though, if you believe gay-ness is a "choice" (which is necessitated, to support certain other positions...)

[Aliantha]

lol...gay-ness. Funny word that one.

[9th Engineer]

as is gay-dar and most other derivatives for some reason

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

If your argument is that gay marriage and the associated rights which will be available to gay married people will be a financial burden on you, imagine how all the gay people who have not had access to these services and rights and yet have still had to pay a portion of their taxes to provide for others who have excercised their right to marry might feel.

It works both ways.
(pardon the pun)

Perfect.

I'd like to add...legalizing marriage for gays and lesbians would be a boon to the economy in many ways. How? Just start out by looking at the massive expenses that go into a wedding.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I can live with any interpretation of my viewpoint, but I don't think the comparison to the KKK or neo-nazi's holds any water at all. Both of those groups advocate violence against their target groups, I haven't done anything of the sort. I choose not to overlay homosexuality with nonscientific information, but to look at it as what it most likely is, a genetic permutation in some part of the genes controlling phermone or other chemical receptors.

Summarized as you had posted previously in the longer post. It is your opinion and you have every right to it. But where in any of that do gay marriages, even slightly, adversely affect you?

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Does this affect me, absolutely. I can make the choice of whether I agree with the changes or not, but don't delude yourself that anything people do has no effect on others.

9th - you have not even attempted to prove how this adversely affects you in any way - in the slightest. However you have taken such aversion to other's right to marriage that you have converted a non-issue into a major (and silly) issue.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

However, gay marriage is not the most pressing issue in this catagory.

If you (and those like you) just ignored the issue, then the issue would be solved without hate, all persons rights would be honored, and other pressing issues could then be addressed.

Gay marriage affect you neither any way nor ever. This demonstrated by post and after post where you have yet to demonstrate how this affects you. Complete avoidance of why it affects you demonstrates that gay marriage is totally irrelevant to your life. The only reason it affects you is because you are emotionally opposed to gay marriage - for no logical reasons - and for reasons you do not attempt to explain.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

lol...gay-ness. Funny word that one.

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

as is gay-dar and most other derivatives for some reason

I know gay people who call things "gay" as in: IE7 is "gay" - the same as it "sucks" or is "lame" . . .