Questions for Conservatives about Gay Marriage and Sock Drawers and assorted ZOTS

The Atlas Society - The Center for Objectivism ^ | July 1, 2011 | Edward Hudgins

[Ed Hudgins]

With New York the latest state to allow gay marriage and others likely to follow, this issue will continue to consume public attention. Most conservatives strongly oppose such unions.

I want to ask my conservative friends to take a quick logical trip: Help me—and you—understand your perspective.

Your Limits on Government

Let’s start with your views concerning government. Most of you believe that government should not jail consenting adults for engaging, in the privacy of their homes, in homosexual acts of which you, personally, disapprove. Most of you would not have the government bar such individuals from living together.

Most of you would not have government jail such individuals for announcing to family and friends, perhaps at a celebratory ceremony, that they are in an exclusive relationship; that they will share the joys of this world as life partners; that in their hearts, minds, and souls—no matter what the actual legal status of their relationship might be—they consider themselves to be married.

And most of you would not have government ban private contracts between individuals of the same gender for sharing property or granting one another power of attorney in cases of medical emergencies.

The “M” Word

So here’s my question: How would you conservatives even know if, on that contract between such individuals, laying somewhere in the bottom of their sock drawer, the letters M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E appear? How would the world existentially change as you go about your daily business, if suddenly those letters were written on that piece of paper? What earthly difference would it make?

Not that your feelings should be a standard for public policy, but would you feel better if, instead of the above letters, that contract were to bear the letters H-O-C-H-Z-E-I-T? For most of you these…

[achilles2000]

So, what are your premises? Perhaps you should read “Mozart Was a Red” to help you get over Rand.

[LauraJean]

All these questions are straw dogs.

[Grunthor]

There is a real simple way to end this controversy forever. Get government the heck out of marriage altogether. Completely. Totally. For good.

[Grunthor]

“There have always been gay libertarians because libertarians consistently believe in an anything goes society.”

[broken_arrow1]

“Gay Conservative”, like “Military Intelligence” is an oxymoron.

[Darteaus94025]

Why don’t you answer my questions?
1) Why do you believe the time is now to fundamentally alter the definition and practice of the institution of marriage?
2) What society ever applied your desired redefinition of marriage and survived independently for 100+ years?
3) Applying your logic of “consenting adults”:
a) Why can’t I marry my daughter or son?
b) Why can’t a prostitute and I conduct our affairs w/o my wife needing to know?
c) Why won’t polygamy be legal?

[Outlaw Woman]

It's wrong. Period. Can you say 'immoral, depraved, sick, vile and filthy'? Sure you can Just try it.

[LearsFool]

And “Unisex Marriage”.

[Ed Hudgins]

I agree! That’s why we should think of marriage as a contract between individuals. In Europe individuals must have a civil marriage, i.e. a legal contract, and then they can follow up with a religious marriage to sanctify the union as they see fit.

I would add, though, that there is a body of common law precedents that govern marriage. That is why there is a need to place gay relationships in that legal category of “marriage,” to make certain that there is an understanding concerning what laws govern the union.

[JohnnyM]

Ed,

Replace gay marriage with incestuous marriage. Do you still hold to the same beliefs? If not, why?

JM

[wagglebee]

Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

[wildbill]

Here’s my question.

How do we square the desire for constitutional government including the ‘full faith and credit clause” with some states enacting laws that redefine the marriage contract?

[Mamzelle]

re: c) Why won’t polygamy be legal?)))

Polyandry is an inevitable outcome of the demeaning and destruction of civil marriage. Ask the Randian why he discriminates against bisexuals. The only "complete" bisexual marriage would consist of at least four people, two men and two women...

Oh, and polygamy is legal in Ontario, Canada.

[Outlaw Woman]

Well Mr. Ed believes he is cleverly laying a ‘trap’ for us conservatives.

[Beagle8U]

I would put the sodomite bastards in jail, or a nut house.

I wouldn’t serve them in a business I owned. Wouldn’t hire one of the AIDS dripping freaks, and wouldn’t rent to them.

I’m a conservative, not a liberaltarian.

[Dr. Thorne]

I am not an Objectivist or a Libertarian. I am a Christian first and foremost. Conservatism is the political ideology that most closely aligns with real Biblical Christianity, not the nonsense made of Christianity by power-hungry priests and progressive dioceses.

I find the amoral nature of those other two ideologies to be repugnant. If they occasionally overlap with Conservatism, that's fine. But, I'll never accept them as valid since they do not seek first the Kingdom of God and many of their adherents refute God and His Will.

The fool has said in his heart,“There is no God.” - Psalm 14:1

[Patrick1]

My conservative position on this is that is government endorsement of behavior. Or if you believe people don't choose to be “gay” then it is government endorsement of a birth defect. Either way it is government sanctioning of an abnormality. It has to be an abnormality because it affects a very small percentage of the population. it is not a race, it is not a religion and it is not even a lifestyle. It is government endorsement and protection of a sex act.

My question would be why would libertarians be for this? You have government endorsing a specific sex act and providing government benefits to a specific group of people because of the way they behave. What would prevent government from sanctioning this type of behavior and banning or criminalizing of others, such as hetero sexual behavior?

Homosexual marriage has no societal benefit where as heterosexual marriage clearly does. Government should be concerned with protecting society from areas that drain resources but provide no benefit. Homosexual marriage would be such a case where government again fails to live up to their responsibilities. Instead, again choosing the path of least resistance.

[Outlaw Woman]

But the only way perversion can exist is if the government forces it on society.

[Celerity]

The big question is : why strive to an institution, when your membership is against the institution ? Gay people can live together, can sleep together, and pledge their lives to each other. Ring or no ring, church our no church. They want tax benefits. They want to make waves. They want to hurt people, and their agenda wants others not to leave then alone, but to join them at all costs.