My friend Cliffy (he was the best man at my wedding, gay) was against gay marriage. He had a justification, I don't remember what it was now, this is 10 years ago. Just railing against some kind of gay unified group opinion. Real people, real minds, real opinions.
My friend Cliffy (he was the best man at my wedding, gay) was against gay marriage. He had a justification, I don't remember what it was now, this is 10 years ago. Just railing against some kind of gay unified group opinion. Real people, real minds, real opinions.
A certain outspoken conservative gay provocateur once made an interesting point: Being gay used to be *exciting* because it was considered transgressive. Legalizing gay marriage and normalizing the gay lifestyle has made it rather boring.
I know many gays who just want a normal life, with a single partner. That gay provocateur didn't pretend to speak for all gays, so I saw nothing wrong with him expressing his personal distaste for gay marriage. But my gay (and now married) friends detest the whole free-for-all, anti-monogamy section of the gay community.
Interestingly, this provocateur is also staunchly pro-life.
Hah! I just looked up Milo to see what he's been up to, and he's still at the provocation. He's now denouncing his gayness and making a go at conversion therapy. His husband (yes, the anti-gay-marriage guy is married) is demoted to a "housemate." Seems a bit desperate. I know he claims to be very Catholic, but this reeks of a hoax or attention ploy.
A lot of people have forgotten that some of the earliest support for a legal status for homosexual couples came from conservatives in the 1980s with the objective of encouraging monogamy among gays during the early AIDS crisis, and that it was roundly condemned until liberals figured out that proposing to include non-straights in existing marriage law got under conservative's skin. Then it became a liberal sacrament to make that happen.
I never heard them. I do remember the Defense of Marriage Act and all the predictions of Mary wanting to marry her lamb as a direct result of slipping down that slope
Like anyone needs the state to justify the relationships people choose with each other. Sure, the perks are nice and I'll take them, but I'll decide all the same without 'em too.
So... sibling marriage? 34 year olds and 13 year olds? Sometimes the "state" or the "people" may have a compelling reason to say "whoa, there, big fella."
<<The only thing I have a compelling reason to see the state do is eat shit.>>
<3 +1000
It's funny that there's a lot of discussion right now on the ability of the state to regulate violence and comparatively little on the ability of the state to regulate human sexuality.
It's entirely possible I'm looking in the wrong places.
Sibling (or incestuous in general) marriage is an interesting case, because I'm yet to hear a solid argument that supports gay marriage without also supporting incestuous marriage (usually children related arguments are raised, but of course people can have children without being married, and people can get married without having children).
It meets all of the requirements of consenting adults, and so in the end people generally fall back to some kind of "ewww" argument from disgust. And it's true, most of us tend to feel some sense of disgust at the idea. But is that really good enough? You can find plenty of people who feel disgust at the idea of gay marriage (or gay relationships in general), but we don't consider that a valid reason to make it illegal.
┬лbecause I'm yet to hear a solid argument that supports gay marriage without also supporting incestuous marriage [...] It meets all of the requirements of consenting adults┬╗
Same for group marriage and multiple marriages. Also civil unions were available, and frankly they were good enough.
But the main difference was a bigger political demand for same-sex marriage, but not much of one for other types of marriage, and I think that is largely because many homosexual couples (of either sex) want to cosplay "hubby" and "wifey" as if they were not homosexual, that is they are fundamentally socially conservative, big wedding included (and many heterosexuals also marry to cosplay "hubby" and "wifey" and want a big wedding too).
┬лIt meets all of the requirements of consenting adult┬╗
As to that, there is an addition consideration: there are two views of things like "marriage", that they are market transactions, or social institutions.
In the view that they are market transactions (e.g. like abortion and gender reassignment) what matter are absolute property rights and freedom of contract, typical concepts of the "whig"/radical right, and since they are private market transactions the state simply has no business interfering other than enforcing them. The impact of private market transactions on "society" does not matter, "fiat libertas, ruat caelum".
In the social institution view marriage is not a market transactions, but a relationship not just between the spouses but with society, therefore the state can and does regulate it, so that some marriages are recognized by the state and others are not. It is transparent that in past erase in villages fertility was an extremely important value for society, especially older women, and the state would only institutionalize and support relationships that at least in principle would be fruitful.
Now the campaign for homosexual marriage is particularly politically strong because it is based amazingly on both views: that homosexual relationships are market transactions under absolute property rights and freedom of contract, but also must be institutionalized, that is supported by society and state, instead of being purely private.
This means that homosexual marriage has both the utility to "whig"/radical right wingers of normalizing the ideology of absolute property rights and freedom of contract (the ultimate prize of this campaign is the restoration of debt indenture), and can be sold to "tory"/tradcon right wingers as a conservative absorption of homosexual relationships as traditional binary marriages. Bigger complications do not quite have the same popularity or double appeal.
Oh, was this actually meant to be a serious argument on your part, and not just a joke?
That's cool, but then actually make an argument. All you've done is make an assertion, which could be true or false. Now you have to explain why you believe it's true.
My friend Cliffy (he was the best man at my wedding, gay) was against gay marriage. He had a justification, I don't remember what it was now, this is 10 years ago. Just railing against some kind of gay unified group opinion. Real people, real minds, real opinions.
A certain outspoken conservative gay provocateur once made an interesting point: Being gay used to be *exciting* because it was considered transgressive. Legalizing gay marriage and normalizing the gay lifestyle has made it rather boring.
I know many gays who just want a normal life, with a single partner. That gay provocateur didn't pretend to speak for all gays, so I saw nothing wrong with him expressing his personal distaste for gay marriage. But my gay (and now married) friends detest the whole free-for-all, anti-monogamy section of the gay community.
Interestingly, this provocateur is also staunchly pro-life.
Hah! I just looked up Milo to see what he's been up to, and he's still at the provocation. He's now denouncing his gayness and making a go at conversion therapy. His husband (yes, the anti-gay-marriage guy is married) is demoted to a "housemate." Seems a bit desperate. I know he claims to be very Catholic, but this reeks of a hoax or attention ploy.
Milo is channeling The Cat in the Hat. He cracks me up, I like him.
I reread Peter Pan a few years ago. I said to an old lefty, a red diaper baby, Peter Pan is a psychopath. He said, Tinkerbell is worse. Which is true.
I thought definitely a prank
Kevin Williamson said kind of the same thing last year in NR.
Sounds like Milo.
Perhaps marriage itself is not the best of ideas.
A lot of people have forgotten that some of the earliest support for a legal status for homosexual couples came from conservatives in the 1980s with the objective of encouraging monogamy among gays during the early AIDS crisis, and that it was roundly condemned until liberals figured out that proposing to include non-straights in existing marriage law got under conservative's skin. Then it became a liberal sacrament to make that happen.
I never heard them. I do remember the Defense of Marriage Act and all the predictions of Mary wanting to marry her lamb as a direct result of slipping down that slope
Like anyone needs the state to justify the relationships people choose with each other. Sure, the perks are nice and I'll take them, but I'll decide all the same without 'em too.
So... sibling marriage? 34 year olds and 13 year olds? Sometimes the "state" or the "people" may have a compelling reason to say "whoa, there, big fella."
The only thing I have a compelling reason to see the state do is eat shit.
Considering your specific situation, the community around those people better sort that shit out, otherwise it's on us to take care of it.
Or does that scare you? Rather have some jackboot do your violence?
<<The only thing I have a compelling reason to see the state do is eat shit.>>
<3 +1000
It's funny that there's a lot of discussion right now on the ability of the state to regulate violence and comparatively little on the ability of the state to regulate human sexuality.
It's entirely possible I'm looking in the wrong places.
I suspect once you've got the violence part on lockdown the sexuality part is a lot easier?
Hilariously though the state fails at handling either sphere of human activity satisfactorily.
Sibling (or incestuous in general) marriage is an interesting case, because I'm yet to hear a solid argument that supports gay marriage without also supporting incestuous marriage (usually children related arguments are raised, but of course people can have children without being married, and people can get married without having children).
It meets all of the requirements of consenting adults, and so in the end people generally fall back to some kind of "ewww" argument from disgust. And it's true, most of us tend to feel some sense of disgust at the idea. But is that really good enough? You can find plenty of people who feel disgust at the idea of gay marriage (or gay relationships in general), but we don't consider that a valid reason to make it illegal.
┬лbecause I'm yet to hear a solid argument that supports gay marriage without also supporting incestuous marriage [...] It meets all of the requirements of consenting adults┬╗
Same for group marriage and multiple marriages. Also civil unions were available, and frankly they were good enough.
But the main difference was a bigger political demand for same-sex marriage, but not much of one for other types of marriage, and I think that is largely because many homosexual couples (of either sex) want to cosplay "hubby" and "wifey" as if they were not homosexual, that is they are fundamentally socially conservative, big wedding included (and many heterosexuals also marry to cosplay "hubby" and "wifey" and want a big wedding too).
┬лIt meets all of the requirements of consenting adult┬╗
As to that, there is an addition consideration: there are two views of things like "marriage", that they are market transactions, or social institutions.
In the view that they are market transactions (e.g. like abortion and gender reassignment) what matter are absolute property rights and freedom of contract, typical concepts of the "whig"/radical right, and since they are private market transactions the state simply has no business interfering other than enforcing them. The impact of private market transactions on "society" does not matter, "fiat libertas, ruat caelum".
In the social institution view marriage is not a market transactions, but a relationship not just between the spouses but with society, therefore the state can and does regulate it, so that some marriages are recognized by the state and others are not. It is transparent that in past erase in villages fertility was an extremely important value for society, especially older women, and the state would only institutionalize and support relationships that at least in principle would be fruitful.
Now the campaign for homosexual marriage is particularly politically strong because it is based amazingly on both views: that homosexual relationships are market transactions under absolute property rights and freedom of contract, but also must be institutionalized, that is supported by society and state, instead of being purely private.
This means that homosexual marriage has both the utility to "whig"/radical right wingers of normalizing the ideology of absolute property rights and freedom of contract (the ultimate prize of this campaign is the restoration of debt indenture), and can be sold to "tory"/tradcon right wingers as a conservative absorption of homosexual relationships as traditional binary marriages. Bigger complications do not quite have the same popularity or double appeal.
Here's a solid argument:
Nothing good comes from fucking your sister.
You're welcome.
No, you're thinking of YOUR sister, and we all agree.
hurr hurr
What's the matter? Annoyed it's really that simple?
Oh, was this actually meant to be a serious argument on your part, and not just a joke?
That's cool, but then actually make an argument. All you've done is make an assertion, which could be true or false. Now you have to explain why you believe it's true.
I recall reading genderqueer takes that were against тАЬmarriage equality.тАЭ I think Matthilda B Sycamore was against same-sex marriage, for example.
You mean youтАЩre both homos and held differing opinions.
Mind blown man. ThatтАЩs totally pertinent to 2nd rate male athletes dominating womenтАЩs sports.
No, straight on my part. He had been best friends with my wife all the way through school. Surprisingly rocking gay community in icy parts of MN.
Sorry if that didn't meet your standards of applicability, but I'm sure somewhere there is a gay dude who thinks trans males in sports are just ducky.
Owen wuts his face. Any that are slurping at the political trough and paid to spout the party line.