Um… yes - all the legal stuff regarding property and rights etc, which is why you need the state to be involved.
From my understanding of law legal rights especially surrounding property can be garaunteed under cohabiation as well as marriage.
[QUOTE=Bricker
So from an argument perspective, I’d say the case is made when you show that people want it and it doesn’t harm anyone. It’s for the side arguing against it to then show reasons to keep it illegal.[/QUOTE]
Not quite. I can also argue against it by showing that the majority of people don’t want it, and that it harms, or at least costs money to, people who don’t want it.
The first question of legislation is, what’s in it for me? As a straight person what do I get out of legalizing gay marriage? If the answer is that there’s nothing in it for me then I am pefectly justified in opposing it. If I am indifferent to gays’ happiness, and I am because I think people control their own happiness, I have no obligation to support legislation that benefits one group and not my group.
The comparisons between discrimination against blacks and gays do not sway me. Laws which prevented blacks from marrying whites harmed me because they would have made it illegal for me, a white man, to marry Halle Berry. (Well, that and Halle’s eyesight would prevent her from marrying me but that’s another matter.) I directly benefited from eliminating those laws. Further, for a gay to compare not being able to marry to slavery (which involved beatings, rape, no right to own property, no right to vote, forced breakup of families, etc.) is to stretch the analogy well past the breaking point, like comparing having a zit to being impaled through the heart.
Further, gay marriage hits me in the pocketbook. If gays are allowed to marry then my costs as a taxpayer for pay for the costs of divorce court will go up, because if gays can marry then they can divorce too and so the number of divorces will go up as will the cost of administering the court. If gays can marry then they will have access to numerous tax benefits which are not free money but will cost the public treasury something, which means that I will be paying for it out of my taxes.
As a self employed person I also support a Canadian style health care system, the political support for which from gays drops as they gain access to health care through their partners’ work benefits. Again, since I am not helped by having gays gain access to health care that way, I am justified in opposing it.
The changing family argument doesn’t sway me either. A marriage between a man and a woman deserves to be supported if for no other reason then it provides the most efficient way of repopulating the country, which is vital to the country’s very survival. Gay marriage doesn’t contribute a whit to that.
Sorry, but gay marriage does nothing for me and costs me money. I’m against it.
Not nearly as simply, or even once-for-always, I’m sure.
So basically, your saying “I’m utterly selfish, and therefore oppose gay marriage” ? You do realize your attitude can and is used to support any number of evils, don’t you ?
Sociopathy is not good public policy.
He is probobly living by the objectivist philosophy and why not?
Im against marriage being an issue of government in general for the same reason that he is against gay marriage.
I thought personal insults were not allowed in this forum. I am neither selfish nor a sociopath and I demand an apology.
So, zamboniracer, simple human decency doesn’t figure in at all to your world view?
Good to know.
Why ? You just posted a long statement about how you care nothing about other’s rights or welfare; that all that matters to you is how you personally profit. That seems like sociopathy/selfishness to me.
Besides, I posed my statement as a question to invite you to defend your position. How is a lack of concern for others not selfish ? Isn’t that the definition of selfishness ?
furthermore who determined that Selfishness is a bad thing. All humans are selfish it just take an honest one to admit his own selfishness.
Human society in general over the past 2000+ years?
You’re right, of course. Though I think the point is telling, nonetheless, since generally the person advancing the argument it’s contraindicative for has the conceptions that “anal sex is sinful and/or gross” and “anal intercourse is endemic to male gay sex.” In that respect, it’s a valid point, because it performs the necessary dissociation.
However, with reference to your parallel, no true gay man would eat sugar on his porridge. 
No, they aren’t. People help others all the time with no threat or profit involved; people raise children despite the effort and expense; people don’t automatically betray or kill one another if they can get away with it. Self interest is a component of a healthy personality, but only a component; not all there is.
Perhaps the alleged Originator of the “family values” so beloved of most opponents of gay marriage? I can provide you about 100 cites in support of that, if you like.
Bricker and Hamlet: Asked purely for clarification, since it was discussed a year ago and I’ll admit to being too lazy to try to search it out: Can you quickly resummarize for me (and others who might be interested) why the “rational basis” test is the proper one to apply to this question, as opposed to intermediate or strict scrutiny? I’m not prepared at present to argue against it, but I don’t recall the grounds on which it was alleged to be the right level of scrutiny, and would appreciate that my ignorance be fought.
Interestingly, today’s Dear Abby column relates to this issue. The column is available online, but I’m afraid that if I try to link to it, the link will be out of date by tomorrow. I’ll post an excerpt:
They do it because it makes them feel better
human behavior is motivated by selfishness. I dont kill said person because of what will happen to me if I do kill him.
I help people because I feel better about myself if I do.
I’m not terribly fond of the whole “civil partnership” thing, myself. Marriage is pretty much a universal human thing for recognising relationships, and the whole creating a secondary status strikes me as having the essential message of, “Your relationship isn’t good enough to be considered real.”
As a means of getting protections of some sort for people who need them, I’m willing to consider it a start. But that’s as far as I go; it’s a less-bad thing, not a good thing.
Abby must be part of the liberal media conspiracy to force the militant gay agenda onto the public.
The whole rational basis discussion happens in this thread, beginning around post #42.
I am re-reading for the second time and it’s still not sinking in.
Let’s see. Marriage is a formal/explicit declaration of a commitment containing mutual obligations and responsibilities, an establishment of a familial relationship, and the means by which a relationship is typically recognised as legit by a community and earns that community’s support.
Cohabitation … isn’t.
No gods necessary. (Which is just fine by me, since my gods aren’t interested in mucking about with marriages in the first place. Not Their business.)