IF gay unions are state-recognized...

[A18]

Republicans....the world's only bedroom-police political party.  

What does state recognition of gay unions have to do with the bedroom? In any way, shape, matter, or form?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Republicans....the world's only bedroom-police political party.  

Hah, if only it were so - these types abound in many parts of the world.

Well, they're the only one I know....so.....whatever, you get my point.  

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Republicans....the world's only bedroom-police political party.  

What does state recognition of gay unions have to do with the bedroom? In any way, shape, matter, or form?

They intrude in peoples' personal lives.  They shouldn't, its wrong.  Marriage is personal, it's no business of the gov't.  

[A18]

Uh, we're talking about state recognition of something. This isn't intrusion into people's lives of any kind.

No one is forced to get state recognition of anything.

[English]

Yes, although I don't agree with polygamy I don't think it's any business of the state.

That said, I don't think the state should carry out marriage ceremonies when a relationship is polygamous. There's a difference between turning a blind eye and actually condoning it.

[David S]

I think both are prefecly fine, and also none of my business.

I don't think they are perfectly fine, but I agree that its none of my business.

Interesting!  But I guess the last part of your statement is what's really important from a libertarian point of view.

Yes. The fact that I don't approve of something doesn't mean that I should have the right to prevent someone else from doing it, when it does me no harm. But gays need to understand that other people have a right to disapprove. They should not expect that the rest of society will welcome them with open arms.

[Felix]

Anyone who believes that a union between a man and another man is ok but a union between multiple people is not has something wrong with thier thought process.

Neither are marriage. I don't care if gay unions are allowed, but they can't be called marriage because the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

[English]

I think both are prefecly fine, and also none of my business.

I don't think they are perfectly fine, but I agree that its none of my business.

Interesting!  But I guess the last part of your statement is what's really important from a libertarian point of view.

Yes. The fact that I don't approve of something doesn't mean that I should have the right to prevent someone else from doing it, when it does me no harm. But gays need to understand that other people have a right to disapprove. They should not expect that the rest of society will welcome them with open arms.

David, I don't think they do want to be welcomed with open arms. They just want the same rights as everyone else. I don't see an issue personally.
As for polygamy, I don't see it as the same thing, although I think both should be legal.

[A18]

Yes, although I don't agree with polygamy I don't think it's any business of the state.

That said, I don't think the state should carry out marriage ceremonies when a relationship is polygamous. There's a difference between turning a blind eye and actually condoning it.

So then, you would say the same about gay unions, right?

[Brambila]

I agree with a lot of the posters who say that they believe marriage should be defined by the state. I agree. It's none of the state's business.

[English]

Anyone who believes that a union between a man and another man is ok but a union between multiple people is not has something wrong with thier thought process.

Neither are marriage. I don't care if gay unions are allowed, but they can't be called marriage because the term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

Felix, polygamy is not the same in my opinion, for the simple reason marriage is supposed to be about love and being committed to one other person. Since I believe it is possible for same-sex couples to love eachother just as much as different sex couples do I believe gay marriage should be legal. Personally I think it's impossible to love multiple people to the same extent, therefore I don't think the state should carry out polygamous marriage ceremonies.
However if a church wishes to do this, I think that's their affair and the state should not intervene.

[A18]

Well, homosexuality is not the same in my opinion, for the simple reason marriage is supposed to be about love between one man and one woman.

[David S]

I think both are prefecly fine, and also none of my business.

I don't think they are perfectly fine, but I agree that its none of my business.

Interesting!  But I guess the last part of your statement is what's really important from a libertarian point of view.

Yes. The fact that I don't approve of something doesn't mean that I should have the right to prevent someone else from doing it, when it does me no harm. But gays need to understand that other people have a right to disapprove. They should not expect that the rest of society will welcome them with open arms.

David, I don't think they do want to be welcomed with open arms. They just want the same rights as everyone else. I don't see an issue personally.
As for polygamy, I don't see it as the same thing, although I think both should be legal.

English
I think we are basically in agreement, in that the law should not prohibit gay marriage. My point was that gays seem to me to be seeking approval by the rest of society. Perhaps thats just my perception. In any event the rest of society may regard gay marriage as a perversion, and its their right to feel that way.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Marriage doesn't have a single transcendental meaning; it means whatever society wants it to mean.  In the past, it could only be the union of two people of the same race or the same social caste.  Now, it doesn't mean that any more.  You can't just say that gay marriage is wrong because that's not what marriage is....that's only not what marriage is if we haven't changed the definition yet, so the reasoning is circular.

In decided what marriage should be, we need to look at the public policy consequences of our decision, not our own self-understand of what we think marriage is.  

- I am in favor of gay marriage because I think it promotes equality, and encourages homosexuals to engage in a healthier lifestyle of commitment and monogamy.

- I am opposed to polygamy because I think it prmotes inequality and the subjugation of women.  

Is this reasoning really that hard to understand?

[A18]

You obviously don't care about the "equal rights" of three women who want to get married.

Dog does not mean cow, and we aren't changing the definition. Now, if we changed dog to mean cow, it would mean cow. Except no court or law could ever hope to change it; we know our language.

The question is whether or not we want to turn our government into a joke by which homosexuals seek acceptance by twisting our institutions into what they want, forcing their will on and over common law.

[nclib]

I voted 'no'.

In a gay marriage, all (both) people are married to each other.

In the vast majority of polygamous relationships, one man is married to multiple women--all individuals are not married to each other.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

In some states, it is legal for two people who are 14 years old to get married.
In other states, it is not.

In some state, it is legal for first cousins to get married.
In other states, it is not.

In some states (alright, only one), it is legal for two men to get married.
In other states, it is not.

Why does only the last of the three divergences call into question some sort of transcendental definition of marriage?

Marriage as a state institution is whatever the state says it should be.  Marriage as a religious institution is whatever the specific religion says it should be.  There is no one definition that the word "marriage" has been magically imbued with.

I don't believe polygamy violates any sort of transcendental definition of marriage, either.  But I believe it is an institution which is unhealthy to society, and thus should be prohibited.  I believe gay marriage is ultimately healthy for society, and should be encouraged.  If you want to argue these policy judgements, that's fine.  But don't claim that my argument is internally illogical.

[John Dibble]

I voted 'no'.

In a gay marriage, all (both) people are married to each other.

In the vast majority of polygamous relationships, one man is married to multiple women--all individuals are not married to each other.

That's why I say any state-recognized polygamous/group marriage should involve the consent of all parties involved. So, if  a guy has one wife, and wants another, his first wife has to approve of it first, and the new wife has to approve of the old one. That would probably keep such relationships minimal.

[English]

Well, homosexuality is not the same in my opinion, for the simple reason marriage is supposed to be about love between one man and one woman.

Only in the eyes of the church. I'm not bothered what church's do, that's up to them. Civil marriages are NOT religious ceremonies, they're recognised only by the state. Therefore why should it matter who get's married, or indeed to how many people?

[English]

I voted 'no'.

In a gay marriage, all (both) people are married to each other.

In the vast majority of polygamous relationships, one man is married to multiple women--all individuals are not married to each other.

I don't think polygamous marriages are as valid as monogamous ones, and I don't think states should condone it by carrying out such ceremonies. That said, I wouldn't ban the practice. If people want to have 10 wives, why not? It's no business of the government how many wives or husbands someone has. I'd also repeal the stupid laws regarding bigamy. Yes, it's terrible for the people involved, but I don't think the state should punish the offender. It's bizzare!

[DA]

I agree with opebo. Any contract of partnership between people should be allowed (where the churches allow this and decide to call it "marriage" or not is another issue I think). Although, honestly, I don't immediately make the connection between gay marriage rights and polygamous marriage rights. Either way, people's contracts and their personal lives are not my buisness unless they want them to be.