Thoughts on Gay Marriage

[Tieteobserver]

So far no one was able to present me with a satisfactory definition of marriage between two people of the same sex.

Therefore, I'm against gay "marriage" on logical grounds. If we admit the possibility of marriage between two people of the same sex, then we ought to accept that we can have a square circle. Or an intelligent Kardashian sister.

Thats partly the reason I'm against gay "marriage". But thats only part of the whole picture. More than that, I think that the government should simply NOT recognise marriages. In other words, civil marriage should not exist. Civil marriage should be ended. It should be an entirely private matter. In this regard, government should be restricted to recognising contracts concerning property ownership between spouses.

Privatising the whole thing makes it a lot easier. If gay and lesbians decide to get "married", they can do that, and we're free as to whether deem it a marriage.

Independently of this, however, pragmatically speaking, its an issue I'd be willing to compromise. Thats because the very institution of civil marriage de facto became nothing more than a contract regulating the property ownership between spouses. Its anything but marriage today. Its destroyed. So, if a politician had decent purposes for reducing dramatically the Federal Government, reinforcing the 2nd amendment and cutting off spending, I'd vote for him even if he was a supporter of gay "marriage".

[Tieteobserver]

That's one of the w@nkiest things I've ever read on the matter.

Please, share your very smart thoughts with us! I'm quite sure I'd be very delighted to read to them.

[Tieteobserver]

A message for all of those who subscribe to the "get the gummit out of marriage crowd" -

Marriage works because divorces are messy.

Marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, is not some sort of divine plan for intimate relationships, it was invented by tribal chieftans thousands of years ago because it makes it difficult for people to disassociate themselves from one another.  It encourages people to stick together, to take collective risks and to pool their resources. 

Importantly, marriage is, more or less, permanent.  Even today, with divorces running rampant, the end of a marriage does not signify the cessation of a relationship between two people, only the beginning of a new kind of legalistic limbo that seeks to mimic and maintain the benefits associated with marriage while trying to get rid of its costs. 

Marriage works when both parties are willing so.

And you only proved my point: there's no need for gummit to regulare or recognise marriage. This should be vested entirely upon society and the couple.

Its not hard to understand: if John and James want to "marry", they can get married and call it marriage. They can make the party, they can go to a church where the "marriage" would be celebrated, and its all done! They are married.

The gummit would only enforce property ownership agreements, which is the only function gummit should have.

[Tieteobserver]

A message for all of those who subscribe to the "get the gummit out of marriage crowd" -

Marriage works because divorces are messy.

Marriage, heterosexual or homosexual, is not some sort of divine plan for intimate relationships, it was invented by tribal chieftans thousands of years ago because it makes it difficult for people to disassociate themselves from one another.  It encourages people to stick together, to take collective risks and to pool their resources. 

Importantly, marriage is, more or less, permanent.  Even today, with divorces running rampant, the end of a marriage does not signify the cessation of a relationship between two people, only the beginning of a new kind of legalistic limbo that seeks to mimic and maintain the benefits associated with marriage while trying to get rid of its costs. 

Marriage works when both parties are willing so.

And you only proved my point: there's no need for gummit to regulare or recognise marriage. This should be vested entirely upon society and the couple.

Its not hard to understand: if John and James want to "marry", they can get married and call it marriage. They can make the party, they can go to a church where the "marriage" would be celebrated, and its all done! They are married.

The gummit would only enforce property ownership agreements, which is the only function gummit should have.

No, you missed my point.

The government has a vested interest in promoting marriage because its existance encourages a stable, growth-oriented society.  Without it we'd still be living in the stone ages. 

You're entirely right about the part in bold. But why does the government have to promote behaviours of any sort? That is up to individuals and the organised society at large to do, not the state. And why does it have to have a gummit finger on it? That is what I really can't understand.